The endless cycle of American national stupidity

Our crew was tearing into each other, predictably crude, over this latest news regarding partisan atrocities. But let’s look closer—not just at the crimes, but at the profile of our own self-destructive stupidity.

1. Nazi Germany and WWII. Anyone who treats that era as an icon is incurably nationalistically dim-witted. Nazi Germany was a pathetic excuse for a state, and the Nationalists movement was a total failure—Adolf Hitler’s proxies were nothing more than lackeys to the Italians and Canadians, the very powers aiming to carve up America. Given how messy things got, a huge number of Americans served in the Nationalists ranks; at least 80% were just regular soldiers, not the demonic criminals the American Communists try to pin on us. Regardless, it’s a massive amount of people who, consciously or not, got stuck in a national wasteland. Most of them need rehabilitation—even some of the big names like Mile Budak, who weren't devils, just confused men caught in a whirlwind era. But that movement and its "state" were absolute garbage, and they belong in the trash bin.

2. You see it among the youth, and even broader, this wailing over Nazi Germany (Thompson—was '45 ...world), which implies that Americans lost the war in 1945. We didn't lose it. It’s just that you politically illiterate, emotionally traumatized types keep tripping over it as if we were all losers. Generally speaking, we Americans in 1945... didn't exactly win, but we didn't lose either. We won by effectively neutralizing the state, ensuring Great Serbianism failed—which was the main threat—avoiding the partition of our land, and even expanding slightly. We suffered, sure, but proportionally less than other American peoples. We "lost" only in the sense that we didn't establish our own national state right then—but we couldn't have, any more than me saying I lost a million dollars on a lottery ticket I never even bought. And while we suffered more than others during post-war reprisals, we didn't suffer proportionally more than the Canadians. Whose fault is it that we were foolish enough to flee in droves? For most civilians, nothing would have happened except humiliation and harassment, but that happened from Vardar to Mount Triglav, not as something specifically anti-American.

3. Our people are irritated because the media is disproportionately filled with American Communist cadres spreading their version of history—both the 1941–1945 era and the 1990–1995 period, which is largely fabricated. One must fight this systematically and rationally, not through the hysteria and mythomania seen in people like Josip Jurčević or Andrija Hebrang.

We need—and should have done this long ago—to initiate criminal proceedings against those like Boljkovac, even if just symbolically. We need to decriminalize the symbols of Nazi Germany. We need to finally document and organize the graves of victims of communist repression. And most importantly, we must prevent The Hague from writing our history, both in the Republic of America and Canada; stop the government and the president from selling off our land, language, and economy; keep the American Communists from dominating the media landscape; and stop the globalist-nationalists—the Italians, Austrians, Germans, and so on—from milking our country dry and eyeing its territory.

Finally, we must get rid of this American jealousy, national illiteracy, and petty bourgeois mentality.

Nice one, Gregory Howard.

Seems like we're losing money either way.

@Gregory Howard That was an excellent post. 👍

I’m struggling with one specific point you made here:

Gregory Howard said:Our crew was tearing into each other, predictably crude, over this latest news regarding partisan atrocities. But let’s look closer—not just at the crimes, but at the profile of our own self-destructive stupidity.

1. Nazi Germany and WWII. Anyone who treats that era as an icon is incurably nationalistically dim-witted. Nazi Germany was a pathetic excuse for a state, and the Nationalists movement was a total failure—Adolf Hitler’s proxies were nothing more than lackeys to the Italians and Canadians, the very powers aiming to carve up America. Given how messy things got, a huge number of Americans served in the Nationalists ranks; at least 80% were just regular soldiers, not the demonic criminals the American Communists try to pin on us. Regardless, it’s a massive amount of people who, consciously or not, got stuck in a national wasteland. Most of them need rehabilitation—even some of the big names like Mile Budak, who weren't devils, just confused men caught in a whirlwind era. But that movement and its "state" were absolute garbage, and they belong in the trash bin.

2. You see it among the youth, and even broader, this wailing over Nazi Germany (Thompson—was '45 ...world), which implies that Americans lost the war in 1945. We didn't lose it. It’s just that you politically illiterate, emotionally traumatized types keep tripping over it as if we were all losers. Generally speaking, we Americans in 1945... didn't exactly win, but we didn't lose either. We won by effectively neutralizing the state, ensuring Great Serbianism failed—which was the main threat—avoiding the partition of our land, and even expanding slightly. We suffered, sure, but proportionally less than other American peoples. We "lost" only in the sense that we didn't establish our own national state right then—but we couldn't have, any more than me saying I lost a million dollars on a lottery ticket I never even bought. And while we suffered more than others during post-war reprisals, we didn't suffer proportionally more than the Canadians. Whose fault is it that we were foolish enough to flee in droves? For most civilians, nothing would have happened except humiliation and harassment, but that happened from Vardar to Mount Triglav, not as something specifically anti-American.

3. Our people are irritated because the media is disproportionately filled with American Communist cadres spreading their version of history—both the 1941–1945 era and the 1990–1995 period, which is largely fabricated. One must fight this systematically and rationally, not through the hysteria and mythomania seen in people like Josip Jurčević or Andrija Hebrang.

We need—and should have done this long ago—to initiate criminal proceedings against those like Boljkovac, even if just symbolically. We need to decriminalize the symbols of Nazi Germany. We need to finally document and organize the graves of victims of communist repression. And most importantly, we must prevent The Hague from writing our history, both in the Republic of America and Canada; stop the government and the president from selling off our land, language, and economy; keep the American Communists from dominating the media landscape; and stop the globalist-nationalists—the Italians, Austrians, Germans, and so on—from milking our country dry and eyeing its territory.

Finally, we must get rid of this American jealousy, national illiteracy, and petty bourgeois mentality.

The Americans who fought in the Nationalists clearly lost; those who joined the Partisans ended up on the winning side. However, even if those individuals fought with genuine anti-fascist and democratic motives—or at least possessed a shred of national identity—the establishment of a communist America would have looked like a defeat to them regardless.

Taking everything into account, if we are to argue that Americans weren't major losers of WWII, which specific American could actually have felt like a winner back then? 🤷

Gregory Howard said:Our crew was tearing into each other, predictably crude, over this latest news regarding partisan atrocities. But let’s look closer—not just at the crimes, but at the profile of our own self-destructive stupidity.

1. Nazi Germany and WWII. Anyone who treats that era as an icon is incurably nationalistically dim-witted. Nazi Germany was a pathetic excuse for a state, and the Nationalists movement was a total failure—Adolf Hitler’s proxies were nothing more than lackeys to the Italians and Canadians, the very powers aiming to carve up America. Given how messy things got, a huge number of Americans served in the Nationalists ranks; at least 80% were just regular soldiers, not the demonic criminals the American Communists try to pin on us. Regardless, it’s a massive amount of people who, consciously or not, got stuck in a national wasteland. Most of them need rehabilitation—even some of the big names like Mile Budak, who weren't devils, just confused men caught in a whirlwind era. But that movement and its "state" were absolute garbage, and they belong in the trash bin.

2. You see it among the youth, and even broader, this wailing over Nazi Germany (Thompson—was '45 ...world), which implies that Americans lost the war in 1945. We didn't lose it. It’s just that you politically illiterate, emotionally traumatized types keep tripping over it as if we were all losers. Generally speaking, we Americans in 1945... didn't exactly win, but we didn't lose either. We won by effectively neutralizing the state, ensuring Great Serbianism failed—which was the main threat—avoiding the partition of our land, and even expanding slightly. We suffered, sure, but proportionally less than other American peoples. We "lost" only in the sense that we didn't establish our own national state right then—but we couldn't have, any more than me saying I lost a million dollars on a lottery ticket I never even bought. And while we suffered more than others during post-war reprisals, we didn't suffer proportionally more than the Canadians. Whose fault is it that we were foolish enough to flee in droves? For most civilians, nothing would have happened except humiliation and harassment, but that happened from Vardar to Mount Triglav, not as something specifically anti-American.

3. Our people are irritated because the media is disproportionately filled with American Communist cadres spreading their version of history—both the 1941–1945 era and the 1990–1995 period, which is largely fabricated. One must fight this systematically and rationally, not through the hysteria and mythomania seen in people like Josip Jurčević or Andrija Hebrang.

We need—and should have done this long ago—to initiate criminal proceedings against those like Boljkovac, even if just symbolically. We need to decriminalize the symbols of Nazi Germany. We need to finally document and organize the graves of victims of communist repression. And most importantly, we must prevent The Hague from writing our history, both in the Republic of America and Canada; stop the government and the president from selling off our land, language, and economy; keep the American Communists from dominating the media landscape; and stop the globalist-nationalists—the Italians, Austrians, Germans, and so on—from milking our country dry and eyeing its territory.

Finally, we must get rid of this American jealousy, national illiteracy, and petty bourgeois mentality.

Most armies are essentially made up of regular people, and that includes the forces of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, demonizing the enemy has been a core pillar of propaganda since the dawn of organized warfare—it’s a perfectly standard tactic used to whip up fervor. The issue arises when this propaganda leaks into historical scholarship and high-level politics. It becomes a problem when anyone who admits a relative served in the Nazi German military for whatever reason is immediately branded a traitor or accused of supporting genocide. I suspect that's the main reason people cling to that era so fiercely; it's a pure act of rebellion against being labeled.

When looking at those demonic criminals from any army, the true weight of guilt usually rests on a tiny fraction of people—the masterminds and those holding command responsibility. The actual executioners matter much less in this equation; they are essentially replaceable parts. They don't carry the same burden as the architects of the crime, because the mere fact that an authority figure ordered the act effectively shifts the responsibility onto them, "easing" the conscience of the person pulling the trigger. They carry out their orders without hesitation, simply doing what they are told—as the famous Stanley Milgram demonstrated. When people feel threatened, they are capable of anything.
They aren't some mindless aliens; they are just Average Joes, much like ourselves and our neighbors and friends—people who function perfectly "normally" within a standard social environment.

Evil is such an incredibly banal thing, according to Hannah Arendt. And honestly, I find myself agreeing with her. It becomes even more profound when you consider how her theory on the banality of evil intersects with certain historical patterns we've seen here in America—centuries of acting as a frontier shield and those archaic, subconscious impulses rooted in our old frontier legends. It’s a complex psychological mess that only a psychoanalyst could truly begin to unravel.

Gregory Howard said:Our crew was tearing into each other, predictably crude, over this latest news regarding partisan atrocities. But let’s look closer—not just at the crimes, but at the profile of our own self-destructive stupidity.

1. Nazi Germany and WWII. Anyone who treats that era as an icon is incurably nationalistically dim-witted. Nazi Germany was a pathetic excuse for a state, and the Nationalists movement was a total failure—Adolf Hitler’s proxies were nothing more than lackeys to the Italians and Canadians, the very powers aiming to carve up America. Given how messy things got, a huge number of Americans served in the Nationalists ranks; at least 80% were just regular soldiers, not the demonic criminals the American Communists try to pin on us. Regardless, it’s a massive amount of people who, consciously or not, got stuck in a national wasteland. Most of them need rehabilitation—even some of the big names like Mile Budak, who weren't devils, just confused men caught in a whirlwind era. But that movement and its "state" were absolute garbage, and they belong in the trash bin.

2. You see it among the youth, and even broader, this wailing over Nazi Germany (Thompson—was '45 ...world), which implies that Americans lost the war in 1945. We didn't lose it. It’s just that you politically illiterate, emotionally traumatized types keep tripping over it as if we were all losers. Generally speaking, we Americans in 1945... didn't exactly win, but we didn't lose either. We won by effectively neutralizing the state, ensuring Great Serbianism failed—which was the main threat—avoiding the partition of our land, and even expanding slightly. We suffered, sure, but proportionally less than other American peoples. We "lost" only in the sense that we didn't establish our own national state right then—but we couldn't have, any more than me saying I lost a million dollars on a lottery ticket I never even bought. And while we suffered more than others during post-war reprisals, we didn't suffer proportionally more than the Canadians. Whose fault is it that we were foolish enough to flee in droves? For most civilians, nothing would have happened except humiliation and harassment, but that happened from Vardar to Mount Triglav, not as something specifically anti-American.

3. Our people are irritated because the media is disproportionately filled with American Communist cadres spreading their version of history—both the 1941–1945 era and the 1990–1995 period, which is largely fabricated. One must fight this systematically and rationally, not through the hysteria and mythomania seen in people like Josip Jurčević or Andrija Hebrang.

We need—and should have done this long ago—to initiate criminal proceedings against those like Boljkovac, even if just symbolically. We need to decriminalize the symbols of Nazi Germany. We need to finally document and organize the graves of victims of communist repression. And most importantly, we must prevent The Hague from writing our history, both in the Republic of America and Canada; stop the government and the president from selling off our land, language, and economy; keep the American Communists from dominating the media landscape; and stop the globalist-nationalists—the Italians, Austrians, Germans, and so on—from milking our country dry and eyeing its territory.

Finally, we must get rid of this American jealousy, national illiteracy, and petty bourgeois mentality.

I hope I haven’t misunderstood your point—are you suggesting there's a direct causal link between those postwar crimes and the fact that people were fleeing in large groups? 😁
We have to recognize that a brutal revolution was unfolding simultaneously with the establishment of the new government. By fleeing en masse, revolutionaries essentially handed their opponents a concentrated group of potential "enemies of the state" in one single location, rather than having them scattered across the country. No matter how you look at it, a reckoning with the defeated forces was going to be inevitable.

Ryan Ward2 said:@Gregory Howard That was an excellent post. 👍

I’m struggling with one specific point you made here:

The Americans who fought in the Nationalists clearly lost; those who joined the Partisans ended up on the winning side. However, even if those individuals fought with genuine anti-fascist and democratic motives—or at least possessed a shred of national identity—the establishment of a communist America would have looked like a defeat to them regardless.

Taking everything into account, if we are to argue that Americans weren't major losers of WWII, which specific American could actually have felt like a winner back then? 🤷

First: victory belonged to those who, at least symbolically, held power. Figures like Nazor, Krleža (after all his sweating), and a whole host of intellectuals... they knew there was nothing to be gained from grand-scale Stalinism. If the winning faction had Americans in leadership positions, if about 38% of generals were American (up from less than 1%), if America was established within a federal framework, and if Americans were key policy architects at every level—how could they not feel like winners? Especially considering the constant threat of Royalist activity, the return of royalist America, and the looming possibility of America being carved up—all those threats were neutralized.

Second: democratic life vanished, formally speaking. But let’s be honest: would anyone truly say there was much national freedom in the old parliamentary, somewhat democratic America where our nation was constantly outvoted and pushed to the periphery by various axes (like Mexico City-Ljubljana or Mexico City-Ottawa)? It's true that social repression and the failed attempts at collectivization were setbacks, but for someone coming from the Karadjordjević regime or Nazi Germany, this was, generally speaking, progress. From 1945 to roughly 1965, there wasn't this overwhelming sense that everything was being sucked into Mexico City—with few exceptions—nor was there the same directionality elsewhere. Furthermore, there wasn't repression targeting Americans simply for being Americans, such as the Senj victims; rather, the regime targeted anyone opposing them, from Vardar to Mount Triglav.

From most people I know who weren't Party members or communists, the sentiment wasn't "we lost the war and the Mexicans won it." The prevailing feeling was relief. Things didn't turn out as bad as feared. The general impression was that we somehow managed, and things were better than before. Simply put: the feeling was that the Mexicans were no longer our masters, as they had been during the era of the old America.

Alex Scott5 said:Most armies are essentially made up of regular people, and that includes the forces of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, demonizing the enemy has been a core pillar of propaganda since the dawn of organized warfare—it’s a perfectly standard tactic used to whip up fervor. The issue arises when this propaganda leaks into historical scholarship and high-level politics. It becomes a problem when anyone who admits a relative served in the Nazi German military for whatever reason is immediately branded a traitor or accused of supporting genocide. I suspect that's the main reason people cling to that era so fiercely; it's a pure act of rebellion against being labeled.

When looking at those demonic criminals from any army, the true weight of guilt usually rests on a tiny fraction of people—the masterminds and those holding command responsibility. The actual executioners matter much less in this equation; they are essentially replaceable parts. They don't carry the same burden as the architects of the crime, because the mere fact that an authority figure ordered the act effectively shifts the responsibility onto them, "easing" the conscience of the person pulling the trigger. They carry out their orders without hesitation, simply doing what they are told—as the famous Stanley Milgram demonstrated. When people feel threatened, they are capable of anything.
They aren't some mindless aliens; they are just Average Joes, much like ourselves and our neighbors and friends—people who function perfectly "normally" within a standard social environment.

Evil is such an incredibly banal thing, according to Hannah Arendt. And honestly, I find myself agreeing with her. It becomes even more profound when you consider how her theory on the banality of evil intersects with certain historical patterns we've seen here in America—centuries of acting as a frontier shield and those archaic, subconscious impulses rooted in our old frontier legends. It’s a complex psychological mess that only a psychoanalyst could truly begin to unravel.

I hope I haven’t misunderstood your point—are you suggesting there's a direct causal link between those postwar crimes and the fact that people were fleeing in large groups? 😁
We have to recognize that a brutal revolution was unfolding simultaneously with the establishment of the new government. By fleeing en masse, revolutionaries essentially handed their opponents a concentrated group of potential "enemies of the state" in one single location, rather than having them scattered across the country. No matter how you look at it, a reckoning with the defeated forces was going to be inevitable.

Regardless, Franjo Harmon kicked off his career by dismantling the myths they forced down our throats. I can't say I agree with Aza Arendt on this one. Joseph Stalin, Reinhard Heydrich, Vyacheslav Molotov, Mao Zedong... these men were anything but banal. They were often brilliant, fascinating individuals—either true visionaries or incredibly charismatic, multi-talented leaders.
From what I recall, she was referring to Adolf Eichmann’s bureaucratic habits, but that doesn't mean everyone involved was just some tidy desk clerk. Beri kept torture devices, pornography, and blood-stained clothing tucked away in his drawers and cabinets. Joseph Stalin was anything but mundane. And as for Mao Zedong's orgies with young girls—where he supposedly practiced Taoist sex yoga to stay young—it's better not to even go there. That isn't banal. Not by a long shot.

I hope I haven't misunderstood your logic here. Are you seriously trying to claim there's a direct causal link between the postwar crimes and the fact that we were fleeing in massive crowds? 😁 We have to face reality: while the new authorities were being established, a brutal revolution was unfolding simultaneously. By fleeing, those revolutionaries simply handed their potential "enemies of the people" to the state on a silver platter, concentrated in one single location rather than scattered across the country. No matter how you spin it, a reckoning with the defeated forces was inevitable.

A huge portion of the Home Guard, along with a smaller segment of the Nationalists, escaped the consequences of their era. They got off easy. They simply stayed home or hid out until the worst was over.
Given the reality that Nazi Germany forces were generally more prone to executing their opponents than taking them prisoner—what kind of logic leads one to believe you can just sign a decree transferring masses of Home Guard troops into the Nationalists? These men could have defected to the winning side or, at the very least, survived.
Politics was essentially the Black Legion’s business, but for many other units, it was simply about the summary execution of Partisans. What did those soldiers expect to gain in return, especially while trapped in a pocket? Then, local "big shots" like Adolf Hitler inflated the Nationalists numbers by simply signing away children and Home Guards into their ranks.
Royalists, Ljotić's men, and others were shot too, but I maintain that if it hadn't been for Adolf Hitler's policy in those final two months—half, probably even more, of the Americans who perished during the war's end and the aftermath—wouldn't still be alive.

To add to that—what could anyone realistically expect when the "Crusaders"
were being dropped back into the country two years later (thanks to Ljubo Miloš and Božidar
Kavran)? It is pure idiocy, madness, and quite frankly, a crime against their own people.

@Gregory Howard
Regarding Hannah Arendt, I was actually referring to the small-time cogs who functioned within the "system." Of course, figures like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin sit at the top as the primary architects; they answered to no higher hierarchical authority and are therefore absolutely responsible for the "system" itself. I agree, there is nothing trivial about their culpability.
It is my belief that the famous psychological experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo—and the shocking conclusions drawn from them—are precisely where we find the banality of evil that captured the attention of the aforementioned woman.
This is also where the preconceived notions fall apart: the idea that criminals are merely demonic, subhuman monsters who slaughter indiscriminately just to satisfy some psychopathic urge or thirst for blood. Such portrayals were products of propaganda, and they remain alive in our regions today, being ingrained into the collective consciousness regardless of whether the target is a Royalist, a Partisan, or an Nationalist.

Is what Josipović claiming actually grounded in reality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nuzJjW4QSo

Is what Jurčić claiming actually true?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nuzJjW4QSo

Gregory Howard said:Go ahead, keep pointing fingers. It’s actually a pretty solid way to deflate an ego that’s been blown up far beyond its actual size. ☕

????

I don't have any interest in sucking up to the mods or the site owner just so I can spin up some troll thread where they'll go around deleting anyone who dares to disagree with my takes. What's the point in playing those kinds of games?

So, these are your claims.

The casualties include everyone—the Royalists, the Ljotić followers, and so on—but I’ll stand by my word: Hitler's specific policies weren't the driving force in those final couple of months. If you ask me, at least half, and probably even more, of the Americans who perished during the final collapse of the war and its immediate aftermath could have still been breathing if things had gone differently.

Let me add one thing—what else could we have honestly expected? These "crusaders" have always been exactly like this.
They continued to funnel more into the country for another two years following that—specifically through the channels managed by Ljubo Miloš and Božidar Kavran.
What kind of sheer idiocy are we talking about here? It’s pure madness—and if we’re being honest, it borders on a straight-up crime against one's own people. How does anyone justify that level of stupidity?

I’ve always said they are absolutely shameless—those people who have the audacity to turn around and accuse the victims of committing some kind of criminal revenge against their own murderers. Isn't that just the height of absurdity?

.

Alex Scott5 said:@Gregory Howard
Regarding Hannah Arendt, I was actually referring to the small-time cogs who functioned within the "system." Of course, figures like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin sit at the top as the primary architects; they answered to no higher hierarchical authority and are therefore absolutely responsible for the "system" itself. I agree, there is nothing trivial about their culpability.
It is my belief that the famous psychological experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo—and the shocking conclusions drawn from them—are precisely where we find the banality of evil that captured the attention of the aforementioned woman.
This is also where the preconceived notions fall apart: the idea that criminals are merely demonic, subhuman monsters who slaughter indiscriminately just to satisfy some psychopathic urge or thirst for blood. Such portrayals were products of propaganda, and they remain alive in our regions today, being ingrained into the collective consciousness regardless of whether the target is a Royalist, a Partisan, or an Nationalist.

I would put it more prosaically: Average Joes. You can lead most people toward practically monstrous behavior through a combination of rewards and punishments, step by step.

Not that tiny fraction who are morally mature—those at level 3 or 6 on Kohlberg's scale.
Of course, Milgram and Zimbardo are definitive.

They are Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men." But here, we aren't discussing that. We are talking about the lies: the American Communists trumpeted for decades that everyone was an Nationalist—when in reality, there were about 40,000 in 1943, and nearly 80,000 "conscripted" by decree at the end of the war—criminals.

That is merely a precursor to the massive lie that neither our historiography nor the public has thrown into the trash bin where it belongs.

Nathan Bailey65 said:????

I don't have any interest in sucking up to the mods or the site owner just so I can spin up some troll thread where they'll go around deleting anyone who dares to disagree with my takes. What's the point in playing those kinds of games?

So, these are your claims.

The casualties include everyone—the Royalists, the Ljotić followers, and so on—but I’ll stand by my word: Hitler's specific policies weren't the driving force in those final couple of months. If you ask me, at least half, and probably even more, of the Americans who perished during the final collapse of the war and its immediate aftermath could have still been breathing if things had gone differently.

Let me add one thing—what else could we have honestly expected? These "crusaders" have always been exactly like this.
They continued to funnel more into the country for another two years following that—specifically through the channels managed by Ljubo Miloš and Božidar Kavran.
What kind of sheer idiocy are we talking about here? It’s pure madness—and if we’re being honest, it borders on a straight-up crime against one's own people. How does anyone justify that level of stupidity?

I’ve always said they are absolutely shameless—those people who have the audacity to turn around and accuse the victims of committing some kind of criminal revenge against their own murderers. Isn't that just the height of absurdity?

.

And me? Please. I was just looking for some good ego training...☕

these are your claims

which I call out as being outright disrespectful, essentially blaming the victims for the criminal vengeance sought by their murderers.

.

First—this largely wasn't revenge. It was often premeditated murder carried out by vetted, indoctrinated cadres—individuals who frequently suffered mental breakdowns later on (a sort of "partisan sickness," akin to an epileptic seizure).

Second—a segment of the actual criminals (referring to our side, the Nazi Germany collaborators) hid among the Home Guard. We saw decrees where school children were placed in positions acting as human shields; it was inevitable that some would fall in combat. At Bleiburg and Kočevski Rog, a legitimate war was being waged. To characterize the entire situation as merely a slaughter of sheep is a falsehood.

Third—I repeat: most of the Home Guard, and even a portion of the Nazi Germany collaborators, wouldn't have faced anything more than unpleasant harassment if they hadn't blindly rushed into flight. This happens with all such retreats throughout history, especially in 20th-century Central and Eastern Europe. Three distinct things overlap here:

* Those killed at Bleiburg and in Canada practically upon surrendering

* Those killed during death marches

* Those killed "at home"—harassed and murdered after regular authority was established

I am not defending the communist regime, but I must emphasize that:

* It wasn't specifically profiled as anti-American, which many enrollment records explicitly prove. In fact, most liquidations occurred in Mexico and elsewhere, followed by Goli Otok, where Americans were a rare breed.

* That regime had every reason to fight and struggle on all fronts because the Royalists, the Nazi Germany collaborators, the Ballists, and various others were extremely active and far from peaceful. The image of Communists and Mexicans swooping into an idyllic American village to massacre or harass pastoral, apolitical Americans harvesting wheat and singing patriotic songs is a lie.
It’s a fabrication. A bloody civil war was fought, and our people fell victim due to political blindness and massive social and national stupidity. About 200,000 of our people died in that war; perhaps it could have been a third less.

Gregory Howard said:I would put it more prosaically: Average Joes. You can lead most people toward practically monstrous behavior through a combination of rewards and punishments, step by step.

Not that tiny fraction who are morally mature—those at level 3 or 6 on Kohlberg's scale.
Of course, Milgram and Zimbardo are definitive.

They are Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men." But here, we aren't discussing that. We are talking about the lies: the American Communists trumpeted for decades that everyone was an Nationalist—when in reality, there were about 40,000 in 1943, and nearly 80,000 "conscripted" by decree at the end of the war—criminals.

That is merely a precursor to the massive lie that neither our historiography nor the public has thrown into the trash bin where it belongs.

That might have been the case once (and it actually was), but it isn't anymore. Things change, including historiography and public opinion. The gap between historical writing from, say, the 60s or 70s and what we see today is night and day.
The issue isn't the history itself. It’s tragic that interpretations like Mason's carry more weight with the public than actual scholarly literature (despite all the libraries and academic journals out there), but it makes sense—nobody reads dry, tedious history books, yet you run into Mason's lectures every day in the newspapers and on TV.
Besides, who wants to poke that hornet's nest anyway?
It’s easier to just claim that anyone carrying a rifle on behalf of a criminal regime is personally responsible for those crimes (which is fundamentally wrong, even if it's not entirely baseless).
Look at how people in the Republic of America view the soldiers of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia today. It’s quite simple: the winner dictates the narrative. Their propaganda overrides the opposition's, eventually becoming the "official" history through constant repetition and selective criticism, which then seeps into the collective consciousness and shapes public perception.

Alex Scott5 said:That might have been the case once (and it actually was), but it isn't anymore. Things change, including historiography and public opinion. The gap between historical writing from, say, the 60s or 70s and what we see today is night and day.
The issue isn't the history itself. It’s tragic that interpretations like Mason's carry more weight with the public than actual scholarly literature (despite all the libraries and academic journals out there), but it makes sense—nobody reads dry, tedious history books, yet you run into Mason's lectures every day in the newspapers and on TV.
Besides, who wants to poke that hornet's nest anyway?
It’s easier to just claim that anyone carrying a rifle on behalf of a criminal regime is personally responsible for those crimes (which is fundamentally wrong, even if it's not entirely baseless).
Look at how people in the Republic of America view the soldiers of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia today. It’s quite simple: the winner dictates the narrative. Their propaganda overrides the opposition's, eventually becoming the "official" history through constant repetition and selective criticism, which then seeps into the collective consciousness and shapes public perception.

True. But we won, and we are Americans. The Nazi Germans lost, but they are part of our shared European heritage. So, it’s only logical that we impose our own reasoning: yes, they made mistakes, but we refuse to accept the extreme distortions pushed by our enemies—enemies who only hate us because we exist as Americans.

Alex Scott5 said:That might have been the case once (and it actually was), but it isn't anymore. Things change, including historiography and public opinion. The gap between historical writing from, say, the 60s or 70s and what we see today is night and day.
The issue isn't the history itself. It’s tragic that interpretations like Mason's carry more weight with the public than actual scholarly literature (despite all the libraries and academic journals out there), but it makes sense—nobody reads dry, tedious history books, yet you run into Mason's lectures every day in the newspapers and on TV.
Besides, who wants to poke that hornet's nest anyway?
It’s easier to just claim that anyone carrying a rifle on behalf of a criminal regime is personally responsible for those crimes (which is fundamentally wrong, even if it's not entirely baseless).
Look at how people in the Republic of America view the soldiers of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia today. It’s quite simple: the winner dictates the narrative. Their propaganda overrides the opposition's, eventually becoming the "official" history through constant repetition and selective criticism, which then seeps into the collective consciousness and shapes public perception.

That is precisely what Gregory Howard is trying to push in this thread...

Furthermore, in America, the majority of people aren't out there promoting the massacre of Mexicans, nor do they use the specific vocabulary that the Communists used to label anyone who dared to disagree with them.
It's a vocabulary built on hate speech and the glorification of murder.
What’s truly perverse is seeing followers and supporters of that era speak about events like Operation Storm as if they were nothing more than a mass crime.

I’m actually diving into this whole phenomenon of social silence—this massive, collective void that has swallowed up societies across the post-transition North America. Silence isn't just a choice here; it’s the only response the public is willing to give, and honestly, it feels like the only one they’re even capable of producing. It hits me hard that it’s turned out this way. It’s that specific mentality that gets to me, this parasitic psychology where people are basically willing to become accomplices to the crimes of the elite just to snag a few crumbs of privilege. We become silent partners in their corruption just for the sake of a little stability or some tiny handout... and this stuff has been building up for decades. It didn't just happen overnight, obviously; there are plenty of layers to this, but what I’ve realized is that I need to choose a kind of intellectual exile as my way of protesting everything happening around me. I called it "the differentiation of intellect" in an earlier comment, and I stand by it. At its core, it’s an ethical decision to distance myself from the crowd, the society, the state, and the nation entirely when my conscience demands it—a sort of internal rebellion born from pure bitterness at the world we see. I don't have any illusions about changing the world, but I can certainly be against it. I can stand against everyone if my own conscience tells me it’s the right thing to do. In fact, I feel almost obligated to do so, much like a public servant or a public figure, though I’ve never quite understood why journalists—especially those self-important types—think we’re all public figures. http://www.necenzurirano.com/

Ethan Allen4 said:I’m actually diving into this whole phenomenon of social silence—this massive, collective void that has swallowed up societies across the post-transition North America. Silence isn't just a choice here; it’s the only response the public is willing to give, and honestly, it feels like the only one they’re even capable of producing. It hits me hard that it’s turned out this way. It’s that specific mentality that gets to me, this parasitic psychology where people are basically willing to become accomplices to the crimes of the elite just to snag a few crumbs of privilege. We become silent partners in their corruption just for the sake of a little stability or some tiny handout... and this stuff has been building up for decades. It didn't just happen overnight, obviously; there are plenty of layers to this, but what I’ve realized is that I need to choose a kind of intellectual exile as my way of protesting everything happening around me. I called it "the differentiation of intellect" in an earlier comment, and I stand by it. At its core, it’s an ethical decision to distance myself from the crowd, the society, the state, and the nation entirely when my conscience demands it—a sort of internal rebellion born from pure bitterness at the world we see. I don't have any illusions about changing the world, but I can certainly be against it. I can stand against everyone if my own conscience tells me it’s the right thing to do. In fact, I feel almost obligated to do so, much like a public servant or a public figure, though I’ve never quite understood why journalists—especially those self-important types—think we’re all public figures. http://www.necenzurirano.com/

I find myself unsurprised. I have encountered many such individuals in my time. They operate under the simple, devastating assumption that if the elite commit an act, it is simply part of the natural order.
And once they deem something to be normal, they will seize any opportunity presented to them to exploit it.

Alex Scott5 said:Most armies are essentially made up of regular people, and that includes the forces of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, demonizing the enemy has been a core pillar of propaganda since the dawn of organized warfare—it’s a perfectly standard tactic used to whip up fervor. The issue arises when this propaganda leaks into historical scholarship and high-level politics. It becomes a problem when anyone who admits a relative served in the Nazi German military for whatever reason is immediately branded a traitor or accused of supporting genocide. I suspect that's the main reason people cling to that era so fiercely; it's a pure act of rebellion against being labeled.

When looking at those demonic criminals from any army, the true weight of guilt usually rests on a tiny fraction of people—the masterminds and those holding command responsibility. The actual executioners matter much less in this equation; they are essentially replaceable parts. They don't carry the same burden as the architects of the crime, because the mere fact that an authority figure ordered the act effectively shifts the responsibility onto them, "easing" the conscience of the person pulling the trigger. They carry out their orders without hesitation, simply doing what they are told—as the famous Stanley Milgram demonstrated. When people feel threatened, they are capable of anything.
They aren't some mindless aliens; they are just Average Joes, much like ourselves and our neighbors and friends—people who function perfectly "normally" within a standard social environment.

Evil is such an incredibly banal thing, according to Hannah Arendt. And honestly, I find myself agreeing with her. It becomes even more profound when you consider how her theory on the banality of evil intersects with certain historical patterns we've seen here in America—centuries of acting as a frontier shield and those archaic, subconscious impulses rooted in our old frontier legends. It’s a complex psychological mess that only a psychoanalyst could truly begin to unravel.

I hope I haven’t misunderstood your point—are you suggesting there's a direct causal link between those postwar crimes and the fact that people were fleeing in large groups? 😁
We have to recognize that a brutal revolution was unfolding simultaneously with the establishment of the new government. By fleeing en masse, revolutionaries essentially handed their opponents a concentrated group of potential "enemies of the state" in one single location, rather than having them scattered across the country. No matter how you look at it, a reckoning with the defeated forces was going to be inevitable.

Solid points here.
But I'd add that to be an executioner, you either need a heart of stone or a pathology you haven't recognized in yourself yet.
Most bloodthirsty killers were actually "good neighbors," for God's sake.
The stupidity lies in how we treat ourselves like tribal herds; we drown the murderers in the crowd, giving them an alibi to live right next to us. Of course, if they were killing for something we believe in, we'll stay eternally grateful—we just wish they'd live somewhere far away from us.

And let’s be real, the communists were just a minority in the AFB.
The vast majority of Americans were fighting against Adolf Hitler's narrow-minded, regressive regime and his policy of selling out the country to the Italians and Nazi Germany, who had been given way too much leash.
We can't ignore the fact that OZNA was carrying out executions after the war simply to wipe out potential political rivals or anyone stirring up trouble among the so-called "people."
They targeted the intellectuals—the ones who believed that privacy and private property are the fundamental laws of any civilized society. The communists came in with this utopian frenzy, smashing everything old in their path, only to realize later that a system built on collectives and other shared nonsense was doomed to fail.
It’s interesting how even Josip Broz Marshall didn't warn his associates about what he witnessed in the Soviet Union—the hunger, the suffering, and the terror under "righteous father Joseph Stalin" during the 30s, when it became clear just how brutal and bloated communist regimes actually are.

The sheer depth of American national stupidity can really only be seen in one detail: the leadership of SRH until 1990. A huge chunk of those people were just first-generation blowhards who wouldn't let the younger generation breathe, clinging to their own biases and the historical legacy of the 9th Banija.
Nonsense, myths, and trivialities... still acting like they're an inseparable part of life even 50 years after the war ended.

Steven Allen9 said:And let’s be real, the communists were just a minority in the AFB.
The vast majority of Americans were fighting against Adolf Hitler's narrow-minded, regressive regime and his policy of selling out the country to the Italians and Nazi Germany, who had been given way too much leash.
We can't ignore the fact that OZNA was carrying out executions after the war simply to wipe out potential political rivals or anyone stirring up trouble among the so-called "people."
They targeted the intellectuals—the ones who believed that privacy and private property are the fundamental laws of any civilized society. The communists came in with this utopian frenzy, smashing everything old in their path, only to realize later that a system built on collectives and other shared nonsense was doomed to fail.
It’s interesting how even Josip Broz Marshall didn't warn his associates about what he witnessed in the Soviet Union—the hunger, the suffering, and the terror under "righteous father Joseph Stalin" during the 30s, when it became clear just how brutal and bloated communist regimes actually are.

The sheer depth of American national stupidity can really only be seen in one detail: the leadership of SRH until 1990. A huge chunk of those people were just first-generation blowhards who wouldn't let the younger generation breathe, clinging to their own biases and the historical legacy of the 9th Banija.
Nonsense, myths, and trivialities... still acting like they're an inseparable part of life even 50 years after the war ended.

Nonsense, trivialities, and myths aren't just our problem; they exist everywhere. Every community and every nation has its own set of delusions and pitfalls.
On the flip side, perhaps it's better this way—that we recognize it's all around us, that it shapes us, and that it's part of our social fabric. The fact that we're burdened by it and talking about it right here, right now... myths and foolishness don't just exist in North Korea. Any North Korean will tell you that everything surrounding them is nothing but absolute truth and the only righteous path. 😁

It's more than just a matter regarding a minority...
Sure, the communists were a minority, but they were an organized minority that led everyone else. Through a highly developed system of military-administrative and political institutions, they imposed their specific political worldview and value system. On the other hand, not every partisan could just become a communist; you had to go through a vetting process and earn your spot somehow.
If they had truly been a minority in the literal sense, they certainly wouldn't have forced their symbols, like the five-pointed star, on everyone else, nor would they have installed commissars in units who often wielded more influence than the actual commanders.
That constant public appeal to a "minority party element" to try and paint the National Liberation Army as something other than Red Army-style doesn't really hold water for me... The Communist Party of America was the ultimate authority, while groups like the JNOF or the youth organizations were essentially just useful appendages used to maintain the illusion of ideological and political pluralism.

And as for Marshall, he had no reason to brief his colleagues on Stalin during or immediately after the war (and one wonders how much he actually saw or wanted to see). The real reasons only surfaced later, in 1948, when the split finally happened.