WW2 British guilt - Bleiburg massacre

[David Thompson]

vszulc -- You wrote:

If they didn't like it surrendering to the partisans, well, maybe they shouldn't have started a murderous campaign that killed 300.000 Serbs, Jews and Romas, and which left even German soldiers horrified at the atrocities.

At least Titos partisans treated them better, than they themselves had treated Serbs. Ustasa members under 18 weren't executed, no such mercy could be found among the Ustasas when they were in power.

The philosopy of "an eye for an eye," applied as a principle of collective justice, only results in collective blindness. In civilized societies, the concepts of guilt, justice and retribution are directed at the culpable person, not at his neighbors, fellow citizens, or soldiers wearing the same uniform as the criminal.

[Rob - wssob2]

The philosopy of "an eye for an eye," applied as a principle of collective justice, only results in collective blindness. In civilized societies, the concepts of guilt, justice and retribution are directed at the culpable person, not at his neighbors, fellow citizens, or soldiers wearing the same uniform as the criminal.

Absolutely.

I don't see a strong argument for "British guilt" here - but I am curious as to how much the Partisan senior command knew about the atrocities at Blieburg and other places. Did Tito order the massacres, were they a spontaneous response or a deliberate, calculated plan of revenge carried out by senior Partisan commanders but without higher authorization?

[Dalma4]

Did Tito order the massacres, were they a spontaneous response or a deliberate, calculated plan of revenge carried out by senior Partisan commanders but without higher authorization?

It is still unknown because communists had 50 years time to destroy all documents conected with Bleiburg massacres.

The fact is massacres were well organised. Prisoners were transported by trains on Kočevski Rog pits. People who lived near Macelj forest were dislodged and they were never allowed to live in their houses again.

Spontaneous response or a deliberate? Ofcourse no. Numbers of victims are too big for just "spontaneous revenge".

Macelj forest 14 000
Tezno forest 18 000
Kočevski rog pits 20 000

[Dalma4]

Simo Dubajić wrote in his book: I took over british delivery of some 30 000 prisoners. Tito wrote me "dont kill any prisoners they all go on court in Ljubljana". After few days two agents from Belgrade ordered me to kill all those prisoners. "That decision could came only from Tito, he obviously changed his mind". I killed them all on Kočevski Rog.

He also wrote: Pits on Kočevski Rog were too shallow and too small to recive the bodies of all people who deserved it.

[vszulc]

It seems that all the handwringing and laments about "collective justice" from our Croatian friends only apply when Ustase were at the sharp end of the sword.
It would be nice to see the same kind of outrage and anger directed towards the hundreds of thousands of victims, that the Ustase murdered in cold blood.
It really reminds of the outrage some posters exhibit, when they discuss the alleged torture of Rudolf Hoess, completely forgetting about the hundreds of thousands of murders he was guilty of.

Obviously it would have been preferable if the Ustase and Domobron members had faced a court of law following the war, but let's be realistic. Just like SS or SD members fleeing the concentration camps and the Eastern front, they were very well aware of the extent of their crimes, and knew what was coming.

Unfortunately, some innocent people probably also lost their lives in Bleiburg.
But considering the extent of the Croatian and the Ustase crimes against humanity during WWII, the Bleiburg incident was, if not a footnote in history, then certainly of less importance than Jasenovac, for example.
Seeing how Croatian nationalists today use Bleiburg, to somehow create a myth of Croatian persecution has to be the high watermark of hypocrisy. They seem to forget that with no Jasenovac, there would have been no Bleiburg.

[David Thompson]

vszulc -- You wrote:

It seems that all the handwringing and laments about "collective justice" from our Croatian friends only apply when Ustase were at the sharp end of the sword.

It is well unstood that "collective justice" is not justice at all. I don't appreciate your insinuation that persons who appreciate a long-time tradition of enlightened European thought dating back to the classical period are hypocritical "Croatian friends." Furthermore, it leaves the impression (hopefully mistaken) that your own reasoning processes here are something of a throw-back to a darker and more barbarous age. If you do it again, I will assume that your posts are merely nationalistic "flame-bait" and I will delete those posts pursuant to forum and section rules.

H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

[Dalma4]

Vszulc, this is not topic about Jasenovac, discuss of Jasenovac on Jasenovac topic. Ofcourse I am sory because Jasenovac happened.

Bleiburg massacre wasn`t revenge for Jasenovac, Bleiburg massacre was act of destroying Tito`s political opponents. The prove: Why partisans killed slovenian domobrans too? Did they make any genocide?

Vszulc, you sound like a serbian nationalist.

[David Thompson]

Drop the personal remarks, gentlemen. That way our intelligent readers may learn something about the subject.

[vszulc]

The problem is, that you can't take something like the Bleiburg incident out of the larger context, of which Jasenevac and the genocide of the Ustasa are an important part. They're tied together.

Tito himself admitted, that if it wasn't for the brutality of the Ustasa, the partisan movement wouldn't have been as succesful.

No genocidal campaign, no Jasenovac, no Bleiburg incident.

And it's very unfortunate, that Croatian nationalists want "an apologgy", as in the video linked to, or try to hold up Bleiburg as some sort of rallying point, or an example of great injustice, instead of using it to discuss and examine the complete story of Croatia during WWII and the genocidal campaign of the Ustasa regime.

Why partisans killed slovenian domobrans too? Did they make any genocide?

They were percieved to be closely alligned to the Ustasa, and just like in many other cases during 1945, little effort was made to distinguish between the real criminals and others who were merely alligned with them. It's nothing unique, and doesn't by itself prove that Bleiburg was some sort of attempt from Tito to eliminate political opposition.

[Dalma4]

Slovenian domobrans had nothing with ustashas, they never fought together. Montenegrian nationalists, unloyal communists, serbian chetniks... They were all massacred. Were they guilty for Jasenovac too?

Why western allies didn`t kill all SS members? Was SS bether than ustashas?

[vszulc]

Montenegrian nationalists, unloyal communists, serbian chetniks... They were all massacred.

I wouldn't be at all surprised about Chetniks being killed in some instances, considering their collaboration with the enemy, but do you have some documentation or sources concerning this, or are we just supposed to assume that you're right, and that this was the case?

Why western allies didn`t kill all SS members? Was SS bether than ustashas?

At least the SS didn't make a special wrist-knife, to speed up the process of slashing prisoners throats.
But this is beside the point, since I assume your question was rhetorical.

Actually there were numerous instances, where surrendered SS or Waffen SS men got killed in cold blood, by American, British and Soviet soldiers alike. Panzer-troops were also sometimes shoot down, because their uniform resembled the SS uniform.
As I said, it was nothing unusual in the confusion following the war, that less guilty or innocent people payed the ultimate price for being confused or associated with a cruel and brutal enemy.
And it's certainly no proof of a calculated plan by Tito to eliminate political opposition as you have claimed.

[TISO]

Bleiburg massacre wasn`t revenge for Jasenovac, Bleiburg massacre was act of destroying Tito`s political opponents. The prove: Why partisans killed slovenian domobrans too? Did they make any genocide?

Vszulc, you sound like a serbian nationalist.

Conditions in Slovenia were complety different than those in NDH territory. In Slovenia our communist elite was persuing pure revolutionary goals under guise of liberation movement which is clearly seen if you read Edvard Kardelj memoars. In NDH it was alsmost purely thanks to Ustasha atrocities that partisans became viable force and as such partisan forces had completly different charakter. For difference from partisans in Slovenia partisans in Bosnia & Croatia had no problem taking into their ranks deserters from NDH, chetniks and SS formations (ours killed them out of hand).

BTW nice disqualiffication at the end. Are you one of those "if you can't counter the message shoot the messenger" kind of guys? ( David: I will drop name calling if others do)

And yes after the war it was more or less a matter for disposing of anyone who was percived as a probable obstacle to new rulers. A lot of innocents lost their lives not just those who tried to escape after being duped by Poglavnik, Rupnik, Nedič.... but also a lot of those who helped partisan for entire war but were percived as "class enemy", those who were sent to YU by Brits as radio operatators for partisans, TIGR fighters/members...

Why western allies didn`t kill all SS members?

You are obviously relatively new to this forum. If you bother to search a bit you will find a number threads about out of hand shootings and massacres of SS and waffen SS members by western allies.

Was SS bether than ustashas?

IMHO yes.

[Dalma4]

but do you have some documentation or sources concerning this, or are we just supposed to assume that you're right, and that this was the case?

Documents, what documents? Those are well known facts. Thousands of slovenian domobrans were executed. One well known event about killing of unloyal communists is called "left deflections". Also, some rich industrialists and landowners were killed just because they were considered as "people´s enemies".

At least the SS didn't make a special wrist-knife, to speed up the process of slashing prisoners throats.

No, but SS had gas chambers and I think gas is more effective than a knife.

And it's certainly no proof of a calculated plan by Tito to eliminate political opposition as you have claimed.

Everybody who was Tito`s enemy was killed after the war, not only ustashas.

So, I say again, Bleiburg massacre would happen even if ustashas didnt make a genocide.

[vszulc]

Documents, what documents? Those are well known facts.

If these are well known facts, as opposed to mere propaganda and revisionism, I'm sure there is plenty of documentation regarding this. Care to point us in the right direction?

Considering that Tito had announced a general amnesty for enemy fighters that surrendered or switched sides to the partisans, and that the Croatian Domobron had seen massive desertion in 1944, the partisans had little reason to believe, that whoever fled with German forces to Austria, were anything but the hardcore of Ante Pavelics regime and their helpers.

[vszulc]

Nobody is denying "partisan crimes". I for one just pointed out that they weren't out of the ordinary, that they pale in comparison to Ustases crimes, and should be seen in that context.

The original topic was "British guilt" which, as we already have pointed out, is nil.

I take it you're not going to point to any documentation that could prove that what happened in Bleiburg was a calculated political move on Titos part. I assume this is because none exists.

I am a bit disappointed that you seem to think that "my humanity is questionable", though I'm not really surprised after already being called "a serb nationalist" (?!?)