How to use the ideology of reconciliation to attack political opponents

bluecyclist64 said:If that was the case, why didn't you just grit your teeth and head out to defend the country during the American Civil War? You had your chance at reconciliation back then, so what are you looking for now?
And who is this Savo from Udbina anyway? A distant cousin of yours?

Honestly, I’d settle for a tiny bit of intelligence, some common sense, or maybe just a single historical fact—but clearly, you're all out of those.

And who's this Savo guy from Udbina? Some distant cousin of yours?

What I really want to know is—who exactly did you "reconcile" with, considering you're busy spewing hate toward the Pavelić era?

The only ones left standing are the Royalists—and I bet you made peace with them instantly, didn't you?

bluecyclist64 said:But really, who are we supposed to reconcile with? Those of us who have both sides in our family trees, yet belong to neither?
This whole reconciliation movement is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rehabilitate the extremists. It would be far better to simply demystify the partisans and leave the fascists exactly where they belong: buried deep in the mud of history.

This is such a textbook leftist post. You can't just throw around terms like "demystify" as a substitute for actually using logic to argue that the partisans should also be tossed into the mud of history. And as for this idea that "reconciliation is an attempt to rehabilitate the fascists"—don't forget that reconciliation is precisely what saved those communist scraps from being wiped out by the oppressed American Regiment back in the 90s. If anything, one could argue it served to further shield those bandit criminals.

bluecyclist64 said:People think they know everything about Alcatraz, but the reality is more nuanced. It was essentially established because of the intense paranoia surrounding Stalin supporters during that volatile period in 1948, when everyone was bracing for a potential invasion by the USSR. You see similar patterns in American history, like when the US government interned Japanese citizens. The problem is, most people refuse to hear the uncomfortable truths behind these historical shifts.
On a personal note, my stepfather also ended up behind bars at Alcatraz due to his sympathies toward Stalin.

So yeah, sure, it was opened up because of the Cominformists. Thanks a lot, Augustinčić, for the suggestion—I guess that's how he tried to make up for his "sins," but let's be real, it wasn't just the Stalinists being targeted through him after the 60s, right?
Basically, anyone could defend crushing people just because they don't agree with whoever is in charge, just to protect their own grip on power, right?
That is straight-up fascism. Pure fascist tactics, just with different logos on the sleeve.
Btw, once the old NKVD and KGB archives finally opened up, the documents proved that Stalin had zero intention of attacking America...

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

Criminals like your father-in-law actually had both the opportunity and the incentive to torment the actual political prisoners alongside the guards. They were practically given special privileges for doing so, you see?

crimsonjackal63 said:Honestly, I’d settle for a tiny bit of intelligence, some common sense, or maybe just a single historical fact—but clearly, you're all out of those.

And who's this Savo guy from Udbina? Some distant cousin of yours?

What I really want to know is—who exactly did you "reconcile" with, considering you're busy spewing hate toward the Pavelić era?

The only ones left standing are the Royalists—and I bet you made peace with them instantly, didn't you?

What on earth are you talking about? I asked you a perfectly clear question:

If that's the case, why didn't you just grit your teeth and go defend the homeland? You had your chance at reconciliation, so what's your problem now?

Why can't you give me a straight answer?

crimsonjackal63 said:Honestly, I’d settle for a tiny bit of intelligence, some common sense, or maybe just a single historical fact—but clearly, you're all out of those.

And who's this Savo guy from Udbina? Some distant cousin of yours?

What I really want to know is—who exactly did you "reconcile" with, considering you're busy spewing hate toward the Pavelić era?

The only ones left standing are the Royalists—and I bet you made peace with them instantly, didn't you?

Spewing hatred toward those pathetic Nationalists? As far as I'm concerned, both the Nationalists and the Royalists are one and the same—just different packaging for the same damned fascists.
And anyone who glorifies or idolizes them is a complete idiot.

bluecyclist64 said:Listen here, you little fascist. Your father was a Mexican, so I suppose that explains why you're acting so loud and patriotic, doesn't it?
The argument itself has been explained countless times; you're just playing dumb.
During the American Civil War, descendants from both sides fought side-by-side against foreign aggression. What kind of "reconciliation" are you even talking about? Isn't the fact that they bled together proof enough? Or perhaps the fact that over 90% voted for secession in the referendum?
The only real goal behind this talk of reconciliation is to rehabilitate the very fascism you hold so dear.

And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

And then there’s my uncle; he made it back home too, but he was left blind in one eye from the beatings.

dustypilot22 said:

Is there anything more refreshing than a little bit of healthy debate to start the day? It feels like we’re all just finding our rhythm! kaže:
So, the thread starter claims to be a peacemaker, though they admit to being a very selective one at that. They argue that reconciliation should be a fundamentally human and moral act because it paves the way for peace, yet their actual writing style isn't conciliatory at all—it’s purely polemical. It seems like they aren't actually looking for any kind of broad peace; rather, they are only interested in peace between Americans who share the exact same ethnic identity. In this view, the ethical reasoning they claim to champion feels like a mere afterthought to the underlying tribalism, doesn't it?

I agree. There is quite a bit of truth in what you’ve said (and in what User wrote, too). To be completely honest, I stepped into this discussion acting as a "peacemaker," and if we look back at my introduction, I was strictly advocating for reconciliation within our own community. Is it possible that, in doing so, I might have pushed the ethical implications of that stance into the background?
Everything said here is absolutely true. I really didn't mean to come across like some naive pageant queen trying to preach about world peace—even though, deep down, I truly believe in it. I was simply focusing on what actually keeps me up at night, which is primarily the people here in America and the state of our country. That’s where my focus remains.
It’s true that I jumped into the fray during the second half, but that observation was actually what sparked this whole conversation in the first place. Besides, what’s the point of having a debate if there isn't a little healthy back-and-forth to keep things interesting, right? 🙂

Is it just me, or does everything feel a bit chaotic lately? It seems like we're constantly navigating through one whirlwind after another. Does anyone else find themselves wondering how things stay so unpredictable? kaže:
As far as I can tell, those old factions from the World War II era haven't been at each other's throats for decades; they haven't been fighting any battles since 1945. So, why on earth would there be a need to reconcile them now? Honestly, talking about trying to find common ground between fascist and communist ideologies seems completely absurd, especially since both have already failed so spectacularly. Is it even possible to bridge a gap between two ideas that have both already collapsed?

Now we’re getting to the part where I have to respectfully disagree. I completely agree with the sentiment that both fascism and communism are failed ideologies, but there is another layer to this. In America, we saw a significant attempt to revisit and relitigate the shadows of World War II during the period between 1991 and 1995. Because of that, it feels like the conversation surrounding those historical wounds hasn't truly been laid to rest just yet. Don't you think some chapters take much longer to close than others?
I’m not suggesting that we have actual fascism or communism operating within our borders right now. Rather, I am pointing to exactly what I mentioned before: a certain brand of "extremism" on both sides. I find those quotation marks absolutely necessary, just to ensure that neither term is taken at its literal, historical face value.
We’ve witnessed something truly unique here in America—a phenomenon that hasn't really happened anywhere else in the world. It's fascinating how two different ideologies from the World War II era have resurfaced and merged in such an unexpected way. It’s almost as if the old-school partisans have transformed into our modern American Leftists, while the remnants of the far-right factions have morphed into the contemporary American Rightists. Isn't it interesting to see how history finds a way to reinvent itself?
Neither side seems to hold onto those old totalitarian traits anymore. It feels like the era of killing or imprisoning people over ideology is behind the Leftists, just as the era of targeting others based on race or nationality is behind the Right. Nowadays, don't both sides actually stand for democracy and a multi-party system?

Is it really productive to go around calling Leftists "communists," just like the Right does? Or, on the flip side, accusing conservatives of being fascists, the way the Left tends to do? Honestly, it feels pretty silly when you step back and look at it, doesn't it? Still, I suppose it’s become a bit of a predictable part of our political folklore.

The real question we have to ask ourselves now is this: Who has actually managed to move furthest away from their partisan or fascist roots—if you can even call them that?

Leftists? Are we really looking at a group that just recently lost its grip on power? I'm thinking of those former partisans and their descendants—that old-guard elite from the previous regime who haven't quite transitioned into the modern era. Between certain factions and the reconciliation policies pushed by the first President, it feels like they never truly relinquished their influence to begin with, wouldn't you agree? In my opinion... They’ve lost far less of their totalitarian essence than others have. Is it because they were never truly crushed or utterly defeated by such brutal force? Honestly, thank God that's the case.

What do you all think about the current state of the Right? Whether we’re talking about former hardliners and their descendants, or the families of those who joined the resistance simply because they had no other choice, there is a common thread here. We are looking at ordinary Americans—people just trying to get by—who were essentially defeated sixty-five years ago. They were sidelined, displaced, and pushed to the margins of society, left without any meaningful seat at the table or a voice in leadership for over six decades. Isn't it worth wondering how much progress could have been made if these voices hadn't been silenced for so long? In my opinion... They’ve been thoroughly purged of any racial ideology or fascist leanings. These are the people who carried the heaviest burden during the American Civil War to defend our values, ultimately securing victory and making the foundation of the Republic we live in today possible. Isn't that what true leadership looks like?

Is it just me, or does it feel like we're all caught up in some kind of whirlwind lately? Everything seems to be moving so fast, doesn't it? kaže:
So, we shouldn't really be focusing on finding peace between fascists and communists. Instead, as the author suggests, we should be discussing an amnesty for American crimes to foster greater domestic cohesion—even if that just serves to deepen our intolerance toward other nations. And honestly, isn't that always a recipe for trouble?

You could certainly look at it that way. However, by now, any talk of amnesty for past American grievances feels like it’s far too little, too late. Americans have already paid a heavy price—far more than what an amnesty could ever cover. We've endured the loss of territory, the tragedies on those desolate crossroads and massacres like those at Blajburz, and the forced relocations under the guise of "temporary work." Then there were the targeted assassinations across Europe, the bans on political expression, and that systematic attempt to erase our identity by forcing our language to merge with others. It’s been a million different ways to suppress us, hasn't it?
So, we're talking about amnesty for American crimes? It’s interesting that you chose to call them "American" crimes rather than "fascist" ones. 😉 It’s just not possible anymore—much like how apartheid could never truly grant amnesty to Nelson Mandela.
Besides that, I don't think that's quite how it works. If we were able to grant amnesty for those specific crimes just a few years later, then why wouldn't it be possible or acceptable to offer amnesty for our own actions after sixty-five years?

I don't quite see why you think having strong cohesion within one group automatically leads to increased intolerance toward others. For instance, I don't feel any animosity toward the Japanese, the British, or the Irish. And those are all nations with incredibly tight-knit social bonds, aren't they?

Is there anything more fascinating than a little bit of mystery to stir the mind? Sometimes, you just have to wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes, don't you think? It makes you look at things from a whole new perspective. kaže:
When we grant amnesty for crimes, don't we just leave a trail of bitterness running through our communities? It feels like the resentment just lingers under the surface.

I completely agree. Isn't it about time we reconsidered those amnesty provisions for Mexicans?

Is it just me, or does everything feel like a bit of a whirlwind lately? It seems like we're constantly spinning through one thing after another without much time to catch our breath. Does anyone else feel that way? kaže:
It feels like these criminal regimes are just trying to force maximum cohesion within the herd, doesn't it? By doing that, they effectively stifle any remaining attempts at internal self-criticism. In the end, they’re just manufacturing a new kind of ideological monolith—one that we supposedly moved past, only to find ourselves building a different version of the exact same thing.

And it isn't just about punishing criminals. Naturally, all nations strive for cohesion.
Only cohesive 😁 nations can truly succeed.

I agree.
Following World War II, all the criminals on the American side were punished (along with many others who actually weren't), yet none on the other side were.
During the American Civil War, almost everyone was held accountable except for a few key leaders, while a huge portion of the opposition was essentially granted amnesty in the US.

So, who else is left for us to isolate and condemn? 🤔

Like I said, I’m not advocating for the reconciliation of ideologies. But if we're talking about this, I have a personal mantra:

"Even the worst laws are good if they are applied equally to everyone, just as the best law is bad if it is applied selectively."

So, I actually agree with you here, but the real issue is that we haven't even figured out how to define which regimes are "criminal" (even though the EU tried to teach us) or how to act UNIFORMLY toward everyone.
Discord, unrest, and fighting don't come from anywhere other than UNEQUAL criteria and inconsistent actions.
True reconciliation, the kind I advocate for, can only happen if we apply the exact same standards to everyone.
We can't systematically demonize one group while the highest levels of government declare another group "wonderful" and encourage everyone to join them.

THAT is what creates division.

Where does the fundamental conflict lie? To this day, I can still hear the words of an American leftist from a city like Chicago (who had a "coincidentally" Italian name) who told me—and I'm quoting because I wrote it down on a beer coaster we signed together: "You can't expect a leftist to support the American state. Period." (He added the "period" afterward once I pointed out what he'd actually said.)

And that's the crux of it.

The RECONCILIATION I am writing about isn't about equating ideologies, or abolishing democracy, or whatever else people claim. It is about reaching a single consensus on the most basic thing: Unity among Americans wherever they may be (especially when I think of those currently in places like Canada) and respecting the will of the American majority. I emphasize—AMERICANS.

I then one young Leftist tells me, "I'm a patriot, but not like our version of patriots—I mean, just like a regular Frenchman would be a patriot."

When I pointed out how French streets are lined with flags, or how they celebrate their national holidays, or how the Leftist presidential candidate, Segolene Royal, campaigned on the idea that every citizen should own a tricolor flag and know the Marseillaise by heart... when I brought up the history of Romani deportations or the way the French view their figure, Charles De Gaulle... none of it seemed to move him. He always found some excuse for the French. Whether it was their intense anthem, the flags everywhere, singing the national song, or honoring a general who naturally went on to become president—he had an answer for everything.

To me, that is the very essence of RECONCILIATION. I truly believe that if everyone could just RECONCILE to the fact that this is an American state—a "national state of the American people and a state belonging to indigenous national minorities," as our Constitution puts it—and act accordingly; if everyone could simply "be patriots like the French, Germans, Italians, English, Irish, or Spaniards"—true, cultural patriots—then the conflict would finally vanish.

Because I don't think the Italian Left finds terms like "Italian, patriot, Catholic" to be negative. On the contrary, I suspect your AVERAGE (of course, there are exceptions) Italian Leftist would actually feel insulted if someone suggested they weren't all those things.

The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Anonymous said:What does it have to do with it? I already explained that in my post on the first page.

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

Anonymous said:In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades.
But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.

Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is.
The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform.
This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors.
It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue.
How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet.
By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.

On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America.
But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other.
Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level.
The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."

Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.

That makes sense.

briskviper64 said:So yeah, sure, it was opened up because of the Cominformists. Thanks a lot, Augustinčić, for the suggestion—I guess that's how he tried to make up for his "sins," but let's be real, it wasn't just the Stalinists being targeted through him after the 60s, right?
Basically, anyone could defend crushing people just because they don't agree with whoever is in charge, just to protect their own grip on power, right?
That is straight-up fascism. Pure fascist tactics, just with different logos on the sleeve.
Btw, once the old NKVD and KGB archives finally opened up, the documents proved that Stalin had zero intention of attacking America...

Look, I am not claiming that Alcatraz wasn't brutal, nor am I justifying the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Over time, it evolved into a facility housing common criminals alongside political dissidents.
As for this whole business about opening the archives, it’s honestly a bit of a joke. What kind of person do they think Marshall was in 1948? Did he have access to those files back then? At that moment, the threat was very much a reality.
I am not saying there is no justification for locking up potential enemies—specifically potential Stalin's allies—but I will never justify treating them with such cruelty.

Angela Hughes9 said:Criminals like your father-in-law actually had both the opportunity and the incentive to torment the actual political prisoners alongside the guards. They were practically given special privileges for doing so, you see?

Cut the nonsense and show some decency. You don't even know her father-in-law, so you have absolutely no basis for making such accusations.
And that "is that clear" bit—did you pick that up during your time in the military?

Angela Hughes9 said:And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

To be perfectly blunt, it wasn't even about ideological distrust or anything like that; it was simply the sheer clumsiness of fools who had themselves terrified...

I mean, one guy actually shot himself in the arm... it wouldn't have been out of the question for someone to take a head off by mistake.

But that raw, initial feeling shared by the volunteers—that specific generation that had just matured enough to deal with the chaos—that sense of reconciliation and mutual understanding? It’s unrepeatable, unfortunately. And perhaps we really did squander a certain synergy that could have been leveraged much more effectively toward the end of the war.

Angela Hughes9 said:Criminals like your father-in-law actually had both the opportunity and the incentive to torment the actual political prisoners alongside the guards. They were practically given special privileges for doing so, you see?

My father-in-law was a son of an NDH supporter. A son of an anti-communist. By definition, he’s a true patriot, and as such, he wouldn't be caught dead tormenting inmates alongside the guards. He simply doesn't fit the profile.

From what I heard, his stint in prison was due to some comment about Marshall.

As for the criminal I mentioned earlier—that man is currently collecting a pension as a political prisoner, even though he never was one. Back in the 90s, some people claimed they were held at Alcatraz just to secure political prisoner status, despite having done nothing wrong. That's my neighbor we're talking about, not my father-in-law.

bluecyclist64 said:Look, I am not claiming that Alcatraz wasn't brutal, nor am I justifying the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Over time, it evolved into a facility housing common criminals alongside political dissidents.
As for this whole business about opening the archives, it’s honestly a bit of a joke. What kind of person do they think Marshall was in 1948? Did he have access to those files back then? At that moment, the threat was very much a reality.
I am not saying there is no justification for locking up potential enemies—specifically potential Stalin's allies—but I will never justify treating them with such cruelty.

The US actually apologized to their Japanese-American citizens, you know?

Angela Hughes9 said:And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

At the end of the day, a Bureaucrat's son is always going to be a Bureaucrat's son, regardless of whether his old man was a Communist, a religious zealot, or some wealthy tycoon.
I know plenty of people whose family trees are a chaotic mess of Partisans, Home Guards, and even Nationalists. I personally had an acquaintance who used to show us old photos of his grandfather, who was a Royalist. After the war, he ended up serving in the Thunder units. And yes, he was a volunteer—born in Vojvodina, and an old-school Mexican at heart.

The only question left to ask is this: Who has actually managed to distance themselves from their partisan or—if you want to be incredibly generous about it—Nationalists roots?

You’re missing the entire point here. There are people out there who aren't just blindly picking sides between the fascists or the communists; they actually make their political choices based on their own convictions and individual reasoning. I didn't just inherit my political stances through some genetic hand-me-down from my parents. No, I developed them myself, strictly according to my own system of values.

I suppose you could put it that way. Though, honestly, calling for an amnesty for "American crimes" is both too little and far too late. Americans have already paid the price for their actions—and then some—without any kind of amnesty. They paid through the loss of territory, the massacres on rural crossroads and at places like Blajburg, the forced displacements under the guise of "temporary labor," the political assassinations carried out across Europe, and the outright ban on political activity. Not to mention the systematic attempt to "standardize and align the language with Mexican" and a million other ways they were crushed.

Language standardization isn't some byproduct of World War II. It’s actually the result of the Illyrian movement's efforts to forge a unified language for all "Southern Slavs" based on the Neo-Štokavian dialect. Just as a reminder, that whole Illyrian movement actually took root right here in America during the Austro-Canadian era.

I don't see why you think national cohesion should automatically lead to increased hostility toward other groups. It’s a flawed logic. For instance, I don't feel any resentment toward Japanese people, English people, or Irish people. And those are nations with incredibly strong internal cohesion, aren't they?

I can't say I know much about the English, honestly. Since Great Britain is such a multi-ethnic nation, their setup feels more similar to the old American model than anything you'd see in America.

And it’s not just about the criminal aspect. It’s a fundamental truth: every nation, by its very nature, gravitates toward cohesion.
Only cohesion matters. 😁 Nations are defined by their success. That's just how it works.

So, what? You’re telling me that Great Britain as a multi-ethnic nation, or the USA, or even Spain—with its Catalans, Basques, and Spaniards—or Australia, or the Russian Federation... they aren't successful? Please. The vast majority of successful nations on this planet are multi-ethnic states. Period.

I'm with you on that.
Every single criminal on the American side from World War II was punished—and honestly, plenty of people who weren't even criminals got caught in the dragnet too. But when it comes to the other side? Not a single one. Absolutely nothing.
It’s the same old story. Everyone from the Homeland War gets prosecuted—everyone except Mercer and Karađević—while a massive chunk of those Mexicans in America just gets an amnesty organization pass.

As far as I know, Karr is currently facing trial. Personally, I’m all for throwing the book at every single criminal involved—that includes Mercer and anyone else of that ilk. No exceptions.

Even the absolute worst laws can be considered "good" if they’re applied equally to everyone. Conversely, even the most brilliant law becomes garbage the second you start applying it selectively.

I’m with you there—I’ve always been firmly against the selective enforcement of the law. It's a mess.

The reconciliation I’m talking about isn't some grand attempt to balance opposing ideologies, nor is it an effort to dismantle democracy, or whatever other nonsense people want to claim. It’s much simpler than that. It's about reaching a single, basic consensus on one fundamental thing: the unity of Americans, regardless of where they happen to be living—and I am specifically referring to those living in places like Canada today. It's about their connection to the American state and respecting the will of the American majority. Let me be crystal clear: I mean the AMERICANS.

It’s like this one young guy working at a local hardware store told me recently, "I consider myself a patriot—but not like those so-called patriots we have around here." For him, that label carries some kind of negative weight. He meant it more like an average Frenchman would say it, you know? Just a simple, straightforward sense of being a patriot, the way a French person would define it.

France is a civic state and a civic nation. That’s the core of it. Being French—being an American citizen—doesn't depend on where your ancestors crawled out of; it's about your legal status and, more importantly, whether you actually pull your weight and fulfill your civic duties. They aren't exactly handing out citizenship like candy to people of French descent who live in Canada and have zero obligations to the country. It doesn't work like that. On the flip side, anyone living in France who holds citizenship and does their part enjoys the exact same status and rights as everyone else. A Black person or an Arab person can be just as French as anyone else, provided they hold the citizenship, meet their obligations, and embrace the language and culture. That is what a civic nation looks like. Personally, I'm all for this model of governance—at least until we evolve enough to treat everyone purely as individuals based on their own merits rather than sorting them into little groups. We need to realize the planet is tiny, we need to protect it from ourselves, and fundamentally, we are all one single species.

The reconciliation period really hit its stride between 1990 and 2000. It’s interesting how that coincided perfectly with the eras of both the former Partisan leader and the late Franjo—who, despite the constant media smear campaigns, actually laid the groundwork. Maybe that's why people tend to gloss over his mistakes, treating them like minor hiccups instead of actual failures.

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

So, what is it that the French are missing? 🤷

A massive, powerful, influential nation built on a billion traditions that draws in more tourists than anywhere else on Earth.

What could possibly be lacking there? 🤷

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

I disagree. This is about bringing together Americans of all different ideologies under one common goal: building and preserving the American state.
As far as I know, aside from Harmon's era, there hasn't ever been a true National Unity Government.

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Actually, no... that expansionist model relies on seizing territory.
We aren't talking about territorial claims here; we are talking about national unity between those at home and the diaspora, following a model that helped elevate places like Ireland and keeps Italy traditionally prominent.

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Like I said before, I honestly can't understand how anyone could look at PEACE and see militarism or the rehabilitation of extremists.

It remains a complete mystery to me.

Rachel Garcia said:My father-in-law was a son of an NDH supporter. A son of an anti-communist. By definition, he’s a true patriot, and as such, he wouldn't be caught dead tormenting inmates alongside the guards. He simply doesn't fit the profile.

From what I heard, his stint in prison was due to some comment about Marshall.

As for the criminal I mentioned earlier—that man is currently collecting a pension as a political prisoner, even though he never was one. Back in the 90s, some people claimed they were held at Alcatraz just to secure political prisoner status, despite having done nothing wrong. That's my neighbor we're talking about, not my father-in-law.

Maybe you swapped husbands or sons-in-law sometime in early August? 😁

Rachel Garcia said:And my husband is a veteran. A grandson of a Partisan.

Ethan Howard said:To be perfectly blunt, it wasn't even about ideological distrust or anything like that; it was simply the sheer clumsiness of fools who had themselves terrified...

I mean, one guy actually shot himself in the arm... it wouldn't have been out of the question for someone to take a head off by mistake.

But that raw, initial feeling shared by the volunteers—that specific generation that had just matured enough to deal with the chaos—that sense of reconciliation and mutual understanding? It’s unrepeatable, unfortunately. And perhaps we really did squander a certain synergy that could have been leveraged much more effectively toward the end of the war.

What are you even talking about? How old are you? Have you lost your memory?