History Forum - Zoran Ostric - Bad choice for moderator, vol. VI

A few thoughts on the moderation criteria here.

Regarding the thread about the killing of civilians and soldiers who surrendered back in 1945, moderator Ostric has allowed users to post things like this:

They were within their rights; at that time, executing hostages wasn't considered a crime, at least according to international law.

To this day, no one has verified that any massacres actually occurred, aside from certain emigrant literature and Tolstoy's pamphlet (which was sued for libel and lost in court).

Not only does he permit messages like that, but Ostric seemingly agrees that killing disarmed prisoners is perfectly legal—suggesting there are no "massacres" if the victims were killed by bullets rather than knives.
Meanwhile, on the thread regarding Auschwitz, posts like the following are being nuked for "Holocaust denial":

A perfect example of what defines Soviet historiography—or more accurately, communist historiography—is the book by Milisa prisoner of Auschwitz, which was banned by the public prosecutor, and similarly Riffer’s account, a survivor of Auschwitz whose book was censored by Gamulin because it "might create an impression of comfort, even though it is all true."

This message isn't controversial at all; it's simply quoting Riffer's book. When asked directly what exactly was problematic about the previous message, Ostric responds:

No, I won't explain.

Here is yet another grievance regarding the moderation standards here. moderator Ostric opened a thread about Auschwitz by posting a link to Igor Vukic’s appearance on AT&T:

Then he went ahead and deleted my post, which contained nothing but a link to that controversial broadcast—hardly a commentary, just a supplementary addition to his own post. He also scrubbed this exact question from the "Dear Moderators" thread. To top it off, he deleted my message where I simply pointed out that we have inherited a fundamental principle since the days of Roman law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiatur_et_altera_pars
He eventually offered a rather half-baked explanation:

I also deleted the post containing the link to Igor Vukic’s appearance on CBS. He is an ideologically and politically motivated historical revisionist who flagrantly violates the principles of objective historical analysis; essentially, he is just a troll and a spammer.

However, it seems that the exact same link isn't considered problematic when it comes from a user who shares his specific ideological leanings! That link remains untouched and is still visible for everyone to see.

And of course, I got handed a red card because apparently I’m "playing dumb" when I ask which specific sources he's referring to in his post:

what actual historians have written.

So, I'll ask again: who exactly are these "actual historians"?

Nathan Richardson2 said:Ostric let a group of users post stuff like this:

Regarding that claim:

They were right—back then, shooting hostages wasn't a crime under international law.

Not only did I allow it, I actually wrote it myself, because apparently, it’s the truth (even caught me off guard when I heard it a few years back!). That was just how the law stood at the time. A few of us even broke it down in detail. (If anyone cares, check my posts here: for the full debate, and regarding the status of the forces that refused to surrender around May 7th-8th, 1945..)

As for the quote:

No one has ever verified that any massacres happened, except for certain emigrant literature and Tolstoy's pamphlet (which got sued for libel and lost)

If I recall, Kiseli1 wrote that. I gave him a warning and asked for clarification (he's a veteran user, used to be a moderator, I know his style well). He explained he was just nitpicking the word massacre, not denying that prisoners were being killed. You can use the word "massacre," but in my opinion, it's overkill for this context.

So Ostric actually agrees that killing disarmed prisoners is legal

Yeah, based on the cases we looked at—unless someone brings up new arguments—it wasn't prohibited by international conventions back in 1945. You could argue whether certain laws in the USSR were broken, but I've never seen a real expert weigh in on that. Honestly, it was technically legal—or rather, not forbidden—even when occupying forces were wiping out captured partisans, civilians helping them, and hostages. Law is twisted like that. Before all this, there wasn't much law to begin with.

Parallel to the Jasenovac thread, posts like this get banned for "Holocaust denial":

Yep. That's banned on the History board, and pretty sure it's banned on Politics too. Already covered this. Indirect denial, playing dumb—none of that flies here. Not from Igor Vukic or his crew of pseudo-historians either.

lonetrucker4 said:It wasn't just that I allowed it; I actually wrote the rules myself, because apparently, that’s how things stood (and frankly, it surprised me when I first heard it a few years back). That was simply the law at the time. A few of us went into great detail explaining this. (For those interested, here is one of my posts: for the general discussion, and regarding the status of forces that refused orders to surrender around May 7th-8th, 1945).

lonetrucker4 said:Yes, based on the cases we reviewed, it was legal—meaning, unless someone brings new arguments to the table, it wasn't prohibited by international conventions (though one could argue whether certain laws in effect within the USSR at the time were violated; I've never seen anyone competent address that). Truly, it appeared to be legal, or at least not forbidden, even when occupying forces were killing all captured partisans, civilians assisting them, and hostages. That's just how the law worked back then. It was murky. Before that, there was no law at all.

Is there any moral or federal law you haven't broken with these words? How can you possibly claim someone is engaging in "Holocaust denial" after saying this? If the organized killing of tens of thousands of people—civilians and unarmed prisoners alike—is considered permissible, then you are essentially denying the very concept of war crimes during WWII. This is, without exaggeration, the most extreme thing I have ever read regarding World War II!

Especially since you aren't providing any actual arguments for your claims.

lonetrucker4 said:Yes. That’s prohibited on the History board, and as far as I know, on the Politics board too. It’s already been explained to you.

"Holocaust denial" is banned—though how one defines a victim remains an open question if you believe killing civilians and prisoners of war is perfectly acceptable. My question is this: how does the cited message "deny victims" when there isn't even a mention of victims in the first place? It simply states the fact that two books written by survivors of Auschwitz were censored. How, then, do you justify issuing a red card for "denying victims"? And don't claim you've already explained yourself, because you wrote nothing more than:

lonetrucker4 said:No, I won't explain.

So, we are talking about moderation criteria here. You hand out red cards for "denying victims" in posts where victims aren't even mentioned, yet you "deny victims" (by the tens of thousands!) in countless other messages by claiming it is legal to kill prisoners, captives, and civilians. I have asked you this several times. Why do you refuse to answer? In what way are the "victims denied" in the quote above?

Regarding the whole "playing dumb" routine.
Look, I’m not in the business of reading minds, nor do I have any interest in putting words in anyone else's mouth. If you're going to throw around terms like "real historians"—leaving aside your questionable criteria for deciding who actually qualifies—then there's a simple, logical next step: name them. List the people and their books. This isn't an insult, and it certainly isn't me calling anyone stupid. It's just basic procedure. Once you actually provide a list, then we can sit down and debate why exactly you consider them to be "real historians."

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is actually playing the "naive" card here—though I’m loath to go as far as calling anyone "stupid."

Regarding Igor Vukic. You’re the one who brought him up in the first place, sparking this whole debate about his appearance on NBC. And then, without so much as a word of explanation, you just wipe my post and leave nothing but a link to the show. How exactly am I supposed to discuss his television performance if you won't even let me view the subject of the discussion? And what kind of "criteria" are we working with here when you delete my message using this excuse:

lonetrucker4 said:I deleted the post containing the link to Igor Vukic's appearance on CBS. He is an ideologically and politically motivated historical revisionist who flagrantly violates the principles of objective historical analysis; he is a troll and a spammer.

Yet, you conveniently allow another user with similar ideological leanings to post the link to the broadcast. There isn't a shred of consistency in these criteria.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Is there some kind of moral code or federal law I'm breaking with these words?

So you're some kind of coder or whatever. I guess you're struggling with different discursive frameworks, which is exactly what I was hitting on earlier. Honestly, sorry—getting that through your head takes actual brainpower, kinda like learning how to code. You gotta learn the difference between what’s "legal" and what’s actually "legitimate," or how law and morality don't always shake hands. It's like comparing historical legal codes to how things work today. For starters, try actually reading what people write. I've said it a dozen times already.

How can you even look someone in the eye and talk about "Holocaust denial" after all this?

Look, I can do this. They're two totally different things. If you don't get that, or just don't want to, that's on you.

1. Are you actually going to explain how "Holocaust denial" is being achieved by pointing out the censorship found in the works of Riffer and Milisa?

Nathan Richardson2 said:1. Are you actually going to explain how mentioning the censorship found in Riffer's and Milisa's books counts as "Holocaust denial"?

Kiseli1, playing the part of the "seasoned forum veteran," didn't get banned or slapped with penalty points by Ostric—in fact, Ostric didn't even react until I nudged him—because he later clarified he wasn't denying mass liquidations, just focusing on the specific term "massacre." That’s fair enough.

But then there's me. As an "experienced user," I automatically got hit with a ban plus 100 points for "Holocaust denial," even though it was clearly explained that I wasn't denying the victims. I was talking about censorship in the USSR, using a very real example from communist reality.

That's just how things have been running here lately... people are just playing dumb.

No one has ever claimed that killing captive civilians was legal back then. Why engage in such trolling?

cosmicgull52 said:No one ever claimed that killing non-combatant civilians was legal back then. Why the trolling?

It would be helpful if you actually read the thread you're replying to. Especially when it’s barely ten messages deep.

lonetrucker4 said:Apparently, it was perfectly legal—or at least not prohibited—when occupying forces were executing captured resistance fighters, civilians assisting them, and hostages. That’s just how the law works, I guess. Before all that, there simply wasn't any law at all.

Prisoners, civilians, and hostages!
Bonus: the blatantly false claim that "there was no law before."

The Geneva Conventions consist of four agreements signed in Geneva, Switzerland, which serve as the foundation for international humanitarian law. These conventions primarily deal with the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war.

You can find the rest here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

driftingorca37 said:Kiseli1 didn't get banned or slapped with penalty points by moderator Ostric—in fact, Ostric didn't even react until I reminded him—because he later clarified that he wasn't engaging in Holocaust denial, but was simply focusing on the specific term "massacre." That's fine.

Personally, I find that unacceptable. Kiseli1 is playing the naive card to a level that borders on mockery. Meanwhile, his ideological "twin brother" isn't just looking the other way; he's actively fueling the narrative. Both of them were arguing that killing prisoners was legal, basing their claims on the technicality that during the Nuremberg trials, the prosecutor didn't include a specific group of executed prisoners in one particular indictment. In that light, claiming that the slaughter of tens of thousands of people isn't a massacre is incredibly naive—especially since they argue everyone was shot (which is also inaccurate).

driftingorca37 said:On my end, as an "experienced forum member," I was automatically hit with a ban plus 100 points for "Holocaust denial," despite it being clearly explained that I wasn't denying victims, but rather discussing censorship within the USSR by citing a real example from communist reality.

That is precisely the lack of criteria here. On one hand, Ostric permits and even encourages claims that killing "prisoners, civilians, and hostages" is legal, yet on the other, he hands out "honorary" cards for non-existent "denial of victims." Even the warning message he left unedited, complete with the card, doesn't actually mention the victims of Auschwitz.

He hasn't addressed the false accusation of "denying victims," nor has he defined what constitutes a victim in the context of his own claim that killing prisoners, civilians, and hostages was permitted. Who, exactly, does that description not apply to?

Claiming it is legal to kill unarmed people (especially without any judicial rulings) can hardly be considered lawful. We can discuss the morality of it some other time.

lonetrucker4 said:I suspect you're struggling with differing discursive frameworks, a point I’ve already touched upon in this debate. My apologies—grasping that requires a certain level of intellectual effort.

Look, this kind of condescension warrants a warning and a one-day ban.

lonetrucker4 said:On the news sites that Nathan Richardson2 and his whole crowd idolize, nothing is ever explained with half the depth I provide. They just parrot their talking points to trigger basic emotions, which then flare up into rage through the collective process of a follower group. That’s what they call "hate speech"—much like the "Hate Speech" in Orwellian "1984"—driven by ideological stubbornness and political obsession.

It would be lovely if you didn't try to lecture me on who my role models are. And yes, I am indeed the perfect specimen of "ideological stubbornness and political obsession." 🙂

I'm not a fan of emojis, but frankly, I can't think of a better way to react.

Nathan Richardson2 said:It would be helpful if you actually read the thread you’re commenting on. Especially when there are only about ten messages in it.

Prisoners, civilians, and hostages!
Bonus: the false claim that "there were no rights before."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

You completely glossed over the part about civilians helping them. Since a woman from my own family was shot by the German army in 1944 under those exact circumstances, I am well aware of the distinction.

Regarding hostages, even British and American military regulations at the time allowed for taking hostages and punishing them as retaliation for guerrilla actions; the Americans explicitly permitted executions. The Germans convicted at Nuremberg weren't sentenced for the act itself, but for its excessive application.

It really isn't hard to do some research.

Nathan Richardson2 said:Civilians.

cosmicgull52 said:Civilians. Which ones are actually helping them?Well, you somehow managed to skip right over that part.

You also managed to skip right over the word "civilians." Let’s be clear: we are talking about civilians, not soldiers. There is absolutely no context in which killing unarmed civilians is permitted. To suggest otherwise isn't just wrong—it's political extremism, par excellence.

The Geneva Conventions represent one of those rare pillars of international law that actually attempts to impose a shred of decency on the chaos of warfare. If you dig into the history of these treaties, you realize they aren't just bureaucratic paperwork; they are the thin line between organized military conflict and total, unchecked savagery. The core objective has always been about protecting those who aren't actively pulling a trigger—wounded soldiers, medical personnel, and, most importantly, civilians caught in the crossfire. Specifically, the Fourth Geneva Convention was established to set clear rules regarding the protection of civilian populations during wartime. It’s a concept that sounds simple on paper but becomes incredibly complicated when faced with the reality of modern combat. When we talk about the legal frameworks governing how prisoners of war must be treated, we are looking at the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. These aren't suggestions; they are mandates designed to prevent the kind of atrocities that lead to the complete breakdown of human rights. Without these standards, we drift toward an Orwellian nightmare where the distinction between a combatant and an innocent bystander disappears entirely. History shows us that when these conventions are ignored, the consequences are devastating. We've seen what happens when there is a blatant disregard for the rules of engagement, leading to war crimes that eventually end up on trial in places like Nuremberg. It is a grim reminder that without enforceable international law, humanity loses its compass.

The First Geneva Convention.
On August 22, 1864, the commission officially adopted the convention. This specific agreement—aimed at improving the condition of wounded and sick soldiers in armed forces during wartime—provides protection for injured personnel and the medical staff caring for them, as well as the facilities and equipment used for their recovery. It also establishes the formal use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.

The Second Geneva Convention.
The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea—it essentially broadens the scope of protection for sailors lost at sea and establishes the specific protocols for how aid can be rendered to them.

The Third Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War exists to protect members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. It outlines specific protocols for how they must be treated while establishing the clear rights and obligations of the capturing power.

The Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Fourth Geneva Convention establishes the fundamental rules regarding the protection of civilians during wartime. It specifically dictates how non-combatants must be treated within occupied territories, outlines the rights of those being held in captivity, and sets the standard for conduct during any general occupation.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple: we are dealing with a subpar moderator who doesn't possess even a shred of the necessary criteria. This individual essentially engages in Holocaust denial by dismissing the victims—whether they were prisoners or civilians "assisting" hostages—claiming their deaths were somehow legal. It’s absurd, considering the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids such actions.
On the other hand, if you aren't ideologically "pure" enough for them, they start handing out penalties for "Holocaust denial." All because a user made a simple point: that two books written by survivors of Auschwitz were censored under a non-democratic communist regime.

It’s not even about Ostric's ideological leanings—the guy's clearly deep in the far-left camp—it's the way he uses moderator tools to force his views on everyone else. That alone makes him a terrible choice for the role. You can debate someone's opinions all day, but you can't argue with a ban hammer.

cosmicgull52 said:Regarding hostages, even British and American military protocols at the time permitted taking hostages and executing them as retaliation for guerrilla tactics; the Americans were explicitly known for this, including summary executions. The Germans convicted at Nuremberg weren't sentenced for the act itself, but rather for the excessive way they carried it out.

It isn't exactly difficult to look up the facts.

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

Something else is clearly going on here. lonetrucker4 is on a mission. He isn't interested in moderation; he's focused on ideological activism and is likely just a pawn in some much larger game. Who's footing his bill? I haven't a clue.

- Because if you repeat a claim like that a million times, the first thing Americans will associate with Auschwitz is 'Mexicans are lying'—said NGO activist Zoran Ostric.

An activist doesn't belong in a moderator seat. The lack of objectivity is baked right into the definition of activism itself. There's really nothing more to say about it. This guy is just harassing the users.
👎

driftingorca16, thanks for the link, missed that one!

That’s just a report from some panel discussion where I was sitting way back in the crowd and chimed in during the Q&A. The reporter—an old contact from my newsroom days—labeled me an "NGO activist," but that’s ancient history. I haven't been that for ages.

The way you jump to conclusions, plus that whole "who cares?" attitude, doesn't surprise me one bit. I heard that exact same line thirty years ago back in the USSR.

As a moderator, I'm just out here trying to hunt down the actual truth.

Look, Starac Vjest, this malicious stalling just isn't doing anyone any favors anymore. Seriously, quit starting the exact same threads over and over again before you end up getting banned; you’ve already been warned about this behavior. And let's be clear—we aren't going to go swapping out the moderator just because you're unhappy with how things are being run.