Interesting stuff

I have to say, I’m honestly stumped—I don't know whether to laugh or just stare in disbelief at this "argument" from our esteemed moderation team. So, they’re claiming that Rankovica's statement about liquidating 560,000 enemies of the state and 3 million people passing through the camps is false because—get ready for this one—that statement doesn't appear on the front page of Politics from that specific month, day, and year.

I guess the mods think newspapers consist exclusively of the front page, and since they apparently only have one single page, their logic is (perfectly sound, right?—given that a newspaper only has one page) that the statement is obviously fake simply because it isn't on the cover, which is the only page the paper possesses.

What can I even say.... *facepalm*

Brilliant. Your Honor, case closed.

The fact that the article could be on the second, third, fifth, eighth, eleventh, or thirty-seventh page of that paper—or maybe it's not in that specific issue at all, or maybe it's in a different issue entirely—clearly never crossed those brilliant minds.

I can only offer one more round of applause for that level of reasoning. *clap*

Look, I don't have an issue with calling a statement false if someone provides a solid, actually coherent, normal argument to back it up. But to claim the "argument" is that the quote isn't on the front page (and therefore, by extension, isn't in the whole paper)? I can't help but laugh. Even kids in preschool have better logic than that—I'm pretty sure even a toddler understands that a newspaper usually has more than one page, so just because something isn't on the cover doesn't mean it's not buried somewhere else inside.

Just take a look at this thread regarding a ban appeal:

The newly promoted Supermoderator Cuka concluded that:

The article isn't there, so we're done with this discussion.

Because I assume he flipped through every single page of that issue, so it's crystal clear to him that the article isn't anywhere in the entire paper.

If the article truly isn't anywhere in the entire publication, I will stand here publicly—no problem at all—and admit my mistake to everyone. I'll even go out of my way to apologize to Charles Fox10.

But if someone tries to tell me an article doesn't exist based solely on the front page... man, give me a break. You can't sell us that garbage; we aren't children.

Do you have anything substantial to write regarding this info? Ideally with a link that could debunk the claims being made by everyone on the forums and in the media—those insisting the article never appeared in those papers. After all, repeating a lie a hundred times doesn't make it the istina, regardless of what Wikipedia says.

It’s Wikipedia—of course they’re the ones bringing up the front page of that 1951 Politics issue. They clearly assumed those covers had vanished into thin air, but naturally, there isn't a single image or link to be found on Wikipedia...🤦

Charles Fox10 said:Do you actually have anything decent to write regarding this info—maybe with an actual link—that would debunk what everyone on the forums and in the news is saying? People are claiming that article doesn't even exist in those papers, and look, a lie repeated a hundred times doesn't suddenly become the truth just because some Wikipedia page says so.

Look, I’m not the one making the claims here—you are! I’m just sitting here laughing at this whole "front page" argument you're using to cover the entire issue.

I honestly don't know if that article is in those newspapers or not. Since I don't have proof for either side—none at all, really—I'm not going to go out on a limb and state something as a fact when I haven't got the confirmation to back it up.

But you? You’re acting all certain, dead set on the idea that the article isn't in those papers, and your big "gotcha" is pointing at the front page. I guess you're assuming that if it's not staring you in the face on the cover, then it must not exist anywhere else in the entire publication? Seriously?

Let me say this again: I’ve got no problem accepting the reality if that article truly isn't in those papers, but I absolutely refuse to accept that using the front page as "ultimate proof" for every single page in the paper is valid logic.

Go ahead, try to call out everyone who insists the article is in there, but for heaven's sake, bring a real argument to the table instead of this front-page nonsense. This kind of reasoning wouldn't hold up for five seconds in any US courtroom.

The argument that "if it's not on the front page, it's not in the paper" is just ridiculous. I mean, surely you realize newspapers have more than one page?

So, here’s my question—simple as it is: Did you actually hold those newspapers in your hands and flip through every single page from the cover to the back? Only then could you definitively claim that the article isn't in those papers.

Because if you haven't flipped through them, you can't make such a bold claim. All you're doing is guessing. And we all know what Americans say about guesswork...

Joseph Stewart38 said:Look, I’m not the one making assertions here—you are. I am simply laughing at this "front page" argument that supposedly covers every single page of a newspaper.

I have no way of knowing whether that specific article actually exists in those papers or not. Since I lack any concrete evidence to support either possibility, I refuse to make an explicit claim about something I cannot verify.

However, you are the one resolutely insisting that the article isn't in those papers, using the front page as your primary defense. I assume your logic is that if it isn't on the cover, it can't possibly be anywhere else in the entire publication.

Let me repeat myself: I have no issue accepting the fact that the article might not be in those papers, but I cannot accept the notion that a "front page" argument serves as ultimate proof for the contents of every other page in the volume.

If you intend to penalize everyone who claims the article is in there, then at least provide a valid argument instead of relying on the front page. In any American courtroom, such a line of reasoning would be laughed out of the room immediately.

The premise that "if it isn't on the front page, it doesn't exist in the paper" is frankly absurd. Surely you realize that newspapers consist of more than just a single cover.

So, I have one question for you: Did you actually hold those newspapers in your hands and flip through them from the cover to the very last page? Only then could explicitly claim that the article is missing from those publications.

Because if you haven't leafed through them, you can't make an explicit claim. You are merely speculating. And we all know what Americans say about speculation...

Is it really too much to ask for someone in this crowd of conservatives to take a photo or scan this "famous" article so the rest of us can actually see it? The burden of proof lies with you—and right now, there is NO proof.

Some people claim they've seen visions of the Virgin Mary or angels, but it's funny how those people always seem to be incredibly shy, much like this controversial article itself, since no one has managed to snap a photo of it yet.

No—that article DOES NOT EXIST.

Wait, is anyone here actually naive enough to believe Ranković would just go on record and tell the press, "Hey everyone, we killed half a million people and only locked up three"? 😁

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are all just playing dumb to troll me. I would feel like I was insulting you if I suggested you actually believed that.

Dammit, one of my family members returned from Bleiburg and another from Gol Otok, yet I didn't even hear about those places until around '88. People say that by the late 90s, most of those who were at Gol Otok still refused to speak about it because the fear of talking was so deeply ingrained in them.

cosmicgull52 said:Wait, is anyone here actually naive enough to think Ranković would just go on TV and say, "Hey guys, we slaughtered half a million people and only locked up three"? 😁

Why on earth would an organization that held absolute power—an organization that was the literal nightmare of every single "regime opponent"—ever hesitate or feel scared to drop a number like that? Honestly, it would have been a brilliant move! They could have used it to strike terror into the hearts of anyone even thinking about speaking up or pushing back against the administration. It’s not impossible at all—in fact, if I were in Ranković's shoes, I’d be doing everything in my power to make sure that number got out there so everyone heard it loud and clear.

But look, again, we're just speculating here. Whether that statement actually happened or not, we don't know for sure. But you can't just claim it never happened simply because it wasn't splashed across the front page of some newspaper. You need actual, solid arguments—not this "it wasn't on the front page, so it didn't happen" nonsense. That kind of logic is for toddlers.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Look, again—this is pure speculation. Whether that statement was actually made or not, we can't know for sure, but you can't just claim it didn't happen simply because it wasn't splashed across the front page of some newspaper. If you had a legitimate argument, fine—but the logic of "it wasn't on the cover, therefore it doesn't exist" is something only a toddler would buy.

If we’re going to be strictly logical about this—and I mean truly consistent—then there is only one certain conclusion: the Wikipedia entry regarding Rankovic's statement is a total forgery, since it relies specifically on the front page, and that statement isn't on the cover of Politics.

The whole thing falls under the umbrella of malicious falsification. It’s identical to the attempt to forge that other headline—the one from Vjesnik used in sedlar's "documentary" about Jasenovac, which was thoroughly debunked here.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Why would an organization that held absolute power—an organization that struck terror into anyone daring to oppose the regime—ever hesitate or fear to reveal such data? In fact, it would be strategic. They could use it to instill pure dread in anyone thinking of speaking up or acting against the establishment. It’s not just possible; if I were in Rankovic's position, I would make sure that information was blasted everywhere for everyone to hear.

Fine, you no longer have the benefit of the doubt. 😁

The way you describe this sounds like villains out of Batman or some cartoon. The last time we saw behavior like that, it was under Nazi-aligned regimes. Think about what it would do to a nation's legitimacy and its people's morale if they admitted half a million people were killed when there were only, say, 50,000 death sentences issued. 😵

cosmicgull52 said:Alright, you’ve officially lost the benefit of the doubt with me. 😁

The way you’re describing this—it sounds like something straight out of a Batman villain plot or some cartoonish evil regime, like those Nazi-adjacent Allied setups from back in the day. Just think about it for a second—what would that actually do to a country's legitimacy? Or even just the internal morale of the people? To claim half a million people were wiped out when the actual death sentences handed down were, I don't know, maybe only 50,000? It makes no sense. 😵

whow, man, I don't have any benefit of the doubt left for you either. So what am I supposed to do now?

Yeah, sure, during those early years of the Yugoslavia era, that Stalinist system was obsessed with state legitimacy and how everyone perceived the whole "eliminating political opponents" thing. In fact, getting rid of political enemies and fighting anyone seen as an opponent of the regime—basically instilling fear into the bones of anyone even thinking about a little sabotage—was practically a core principle of that entire setup.

But look, we're all just speculating here. Everything is speculation! It's just as much guesswork to say those statements were made as it is to say they weren't—especially if the argument is "it didn't happen because it wasn't on the front page of the newspaper." Give me a break.

At the end of the day, personally? I honestly think that hypothetical statement by Rankovic isn't even that far from the istina. Now, I'm not claiming he definitely said it or anything, but my gut tells me the very nature of that regime makes those kinds of numbers entirely plausible.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Medjutim, you're just spinning theories here. It’s all pure speculation—just like the debate over whether those statements were actually made or not. People love to assume something never happened simply because it didn't make the front page of the New York Times. That's not how facts work.

All things considered, I personally believe that Rankovic’s hypothetical statement isn't actually all that far from the truth. Now, I'm not claiming he ever explicitly said it—I'm not an idiot—but my take is that the very nature of that regime made those kinds of figures entirely plausible.

Have you seen "the truth" according to sedlar—do you actually believe that the Vjesnik cover really read "Many corpses from the Jasenovac camp Sava brought to Washington, D.C."?

Tyler Richardson72 said:Have you actually looked at "istina" by sedlar? Do you honestly believe that the Vjesnik cover really did say "many bodies from the Jasenovac camp Sava were brought to Washington, D.C."?

Look, using an argument to dodge the actual topic and pivot to something else is the exact same logic as saying "if one part isn't valid (like a front page), then the whole thing doesn't matter (the entire newspaper)." It’s the same flawed reasoning!

Regarding your question—man, what does one even have to do with the other? Seriously. It's totally possible that Rankovic made that public claim while the Vjesnik cover was a total forgery. On the flip side, his claim could be a fake, just like the cover could be 100% legit. Or maybe both are true, or both are fakes. I mean, come on—one thing has zero bearing on the other. They aren't connected at all!

Joseph Stewart38 said:An argument that pivots away from the actual topic to some other subject is just as flawed as saying "if one part isn't valid (the front page), then the whole thing (the entire newspaper) isn't valid either)."

Given your question, I can tell you this—what does one have to do with the other? In other words, Rankovic could have made that public claim even if the Vjesnik headline was a total fake. Likewise, his statement could be a fraud while the Vjesnik headline remains perfectly legitimate. It’s also possible both are true, or both are fakes. Bottom line: they aren't connected, and there is zero correlation here.

They *are* connected because the Wikipedia entry is a blatant forgery—it claims (right under that supposed Rankovic quote) that the text appeared on the front page of Politics, which has been proven false. And the 1945 Vjesnik headline is also a forgery, which was undeniably proven in an article by Lupiga (I posted the link a few posts ago, so go read it)...

Forgery is the link...☕

Tyler Richardson72 said:Look, it’s all connected—it’s a total scam! That whole Wikipedia entry is a complete forgery because they claim this stuff was printed on the front page of Politics, which we already know is a flat-out lie. And don't even get me started on that "historical" cover of Vjesnik from '45; it’s been proven to be nothing more than a Photoshopped mess. There’s actually an article by Lupiga that lays it all out—I dropped the link in a couple of posts earlier, so do me a favor and actually go read it instead of just nodding along!

Forgery is the common thread here... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to see this? It’s all connected! Whether it’s some shady business involving a Wikipedia forgery or those blatant lies being spun through politics—it’s always the same pattern. You look at the way certain people try to twist the truth, and it just makes my blood boil. It’s like they think we’re all just mindless drones who won't notice when the facts are being manipulated right in front of our eyes. Honestly, it's exhausting trying to keep up with the constant stream of nonsense.☕

Look, I mean, sure, maybe Wikipedia is pulling from some non-existent headline, but you can't just claim a statement doesn't exist simply because it isn't printed on some specific front page! That's just bad logic—seriously. You could argue there’s no hard evidence that the quote was ever actually uttered, fine, I get that—but saying it *wasn't* said just because it's missing from a particular cover? Come on. Besides, it’s not like Wikipedia is the only corner of the internet where this claim exists. It's not the end-all, be-all of information, you know?

It’s pretty simple...

If you're claiming something was published, whether it’s on a front page or buried deep in a newspaper, just provide a direct link to the actual article.
Otherwise, it's all just smoke and mirrors...

Sam Alvarez4 said:It’s pretty straightforward.

If you’re going to claim something was published somewhere and use that as your "proof," then just give me the actual link to the text.
Otherwise, you're just talking in circles.

See, there's the catch right there. Look, not everything said back in the 1950s—or whenever—is just sitting there waiting to be found on the internet. It's not that easy! You're basically stuck relying on official transcripts or maybe some old congressional records, assuming the sessions were even recorded in the first place.

Joseph Stewart38 said:Fine, it is possible that Wikipedia is citing a headline that doesn't exist, but you can't claim a statement was never made just because it isn't on some specific front page. You can say there's no proof the statement was ever uttered—but you cannot say it wasn't said simply because it’s missing from one particular edition. Besides, Wikipedia isn't the only place on Earth where a claim like that could surface.

Oh, so now it's possible...

The fact that this thing shows up in hundreds of places across the web, in all sorts of formats, including Facebook and whatnot, is nothing more than people citing "reliable source Wikipedia"—even though I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Ranković's statement first started circulating back in 2008, right before someone went out of their way to hunt down a legitimate Politics headline.

Lupiga, on the other hand, completely tore apart Sedlar's Vjesnik forgery, and Sedlar actually faces criminal charges for that and the entire film.

Joseph Stewart38 said:There’s one little issue here. Not everything said back in the 1950s is just sitting there on the internet today. You really have to rely on official transcripts or recorded session logs if they exist...

But then how on earth is there a front page available showing where this was supposedly published?!

Tyler Richardson72 said:Oh, so now it’s suddenly possible...

All this stuff popping up all over the internet in a million different formats—on Facebook and everywhere else—is basically just people pointing to "reliable sources like Wikipedia," even though if I remember correctly, I saw somewhere that Ranković's statement first started circulating way back in 2008, right before someone actually bothered to dig up the real cover of that issue of Politics.

On the flip side, Lupiga did a great job debunking Sedlar's forgery of Vjesnik, and apparently, Sedlar is facing criminal charges for it.

Look, I never said it wasn't possible, and I'm definitely not claiming that Ranković's statement is the absolute truth. What bugs me—what really gets under my skin—is when people make these ultimate, sweeping claims that something doesn't exist just because they can't find it on some magazine cover.

As for the whole Sedlar situation, I don't know enough about it to weigh in, and honestly, I don't want to get distracted from what we were actually talking about here.

Sam Alvarez4 said:But if that's true, then how come the cover is out there showing it was supposedly published?

Look, just because you can find the cover online doesn't mean every single page is floating around the web—it really doesn't. It’s probably sitting in some dusty physical archive somewhere in Washington, D.C., and that’s about it.