Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#16

Post by JPeterHugh » 02 Feb 2019, 01:21

The Stepinac case described above is not representative and does not apply to general course of events but minor and isolated events or persons, in some cases non-affiliated to Stepinac. In the link below there is a brief summary of Catholic Church activities under Stepinac related to Holocaust and general political position up to 1943:

https://docdro.id/G7ZUz9L

The document contains source materials and several facsimiles of original letters and transcriptions with clarifications.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#17

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Feb 2019, 10:16

Hi Sloveneliberal,

Neither was a victim of Communism. They were a victim of their own activity or inactivity during the war, before the Communists came to power.

Mihailovic definitely did eventually collaborate with the Germans against fellow Yugoslavs who were resisting them. This is a sin of commission. Stepinac, while saving a couple of thousand Jews around the capital, failed to mount an effective opposition to the very Catholic Croatian regime's massacre of tens of thousands of others and numerous Serbs, sometimes with the direct encouragement of Catholic priests technically subordinate to him. This was a sin of omission.

Both were likely to have had questions to answer, almost regardless of what regime came to power in Yugolavia after the war. It was their misfortune that it was the implacable Communists who did so.

Cheers,

Sid.


SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#18

Post by SloveneLiberal » 02 Feb 2019, 10:23

Sid G. i have to agree. :)

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#19

Post by JPeterHugh » 02 Feb 2019, 14:07

More reasonable would be to place Stepinac and RCC in contrast to Serbian Orthodox Church and its leadership, then compare who advocated and supported what in which issue as these are related structures (religion). Don't see what Mihailović has with Stepinac.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#20

Post by SloveneLiberal » 02 Feb 2019, 14:52

JPeterHugh at the begging i explained how i see the conection between Mihajlovic and Stepinac.

But we can say something about Searbian Orthodox church as well. Their leaders were seen by Germans as very anti-nazi. So they aressted patriarch Gavrilo and sent him in concentration camp . It is obvious that they saw SOC as much bigger problem than Catholic church in Croatia which praised the establishement of NDH. Also Nedic and Ljotic were protesting against SOC during the war because they did not want to give them any serious support and were seen as antiGerman.

Priests of SOC were acording to Tomasevic also against communism and great majority of them supported Mihajlovic and king Peter II or Yugoslav governament in exile. Some were also partisan supporters.

https://sr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srpska_ ... tskom_ratu


Because communism was soon seen as the greatest danger ustasha and chetnics in NDH were from spring 1942 making agreements of cooperation against partisans as told more in detail before. Both cetnics and ustasha at the same time having quite some support from RCC and SOC.

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#21

Post by JPeterHugh » 06 Feb 2019, 13:26

According to NOS vol IV, pp.694-5, Abwehr was using Dangić Chetnik group, EG used Kosta Pećanac Chetnik group as its execution organ next to puppet government organs while DM group was considered the largest. DM states in a document from November 11, 1941 that he had to launch sporadic attacks on Nazis, that were abolished already in Fall 1941, because of the Communists as this was "necessary evil so that masses would not turn to the Communist side."[1] In the same he asks Nazi officers for understanding due to military perspective and offers cooperation, initially turned down but soon established through Abwehr. Without going to chronological and other details, DM group was founded upon Moljević memorandum distributed since June 30th, 1941 containing a map of the territory planned to be taken.[2] Moljević's ideological platform stated that "deportation and transfer of population" on territories of Serbian interest should be done in order to establish "homogenous Serbia". He further clarifies this in a letter to Dragiša Vasić in December as "cleansing of non-Serbian elements" while Vasić explicates the creation of "homogenous Serbian state" as "cleansing of foreign elements" explaining that "in the previous war [WWI] one could exterminate a good part of its unwanted population and no one would even turn its head" so if they would "be smart, the question of [ethnic] cleansing, that is, [forced] deportation and transfer of population will not be a difficult problem."[3] Both Moljević and Vasić were appointed by Draža Mihailović in August 1941 to form the Central National Committee of his movement that will maintain mentioned political platform. Vasić in his letter to Moljević indicates that they are formalizing older ideas and opinions already circulating among Serbian officers prior to the occupation, corresponding to very early date of its release indicating that large parts of the memorandum were already preconcieved which led to its easy acceptance. This political program has been affirmed in a release in September 1941[4] and instructions from December 1941 that clarify that beside emphasized ethnic cleansing of Croats and Bosniaks, "cleansing of non-Serb elements" includes "national minorities and non-national elements"[5] which refers to Jews and Communists.[6] Same is also present in the Conclusions of conferrence of Chetnik intellectual youth of Montenegro, Boka and Sandžak regarding postwar arrangement of Yugoslavia from December 1942 where national minorities are explicitly denied.[7] Definitions of tasks and purpose of Chetnik Dinaric Division led by Momcilo Djujić explicitly state that they are politically based on creation of Serbian state unit which will be populated "exclusively with Orthodox population" while the division will be subordinated to Draža Mihailović and his organization.[8] Areas from which minorities would be deported or "cleansed" would be repopulated by Montenegrins or Serbian refugees[9] while in other cases targeted population would be also subjugated to "forcible conversion to orthodoxy" and extermination.[10] That is, political program was re-establishment of Yugoslavian monarchy with ethnically cleansed Serbian claimed territories or Greater Serbia with minimal percentage of Croats and Slovenes as predicted by the territorial delineation. The program was sent to the king in London which goes outside of the scope as it involves opposition from Croatian government in London and their position. The same program was offered to Neubacher and Nazi politicians, as well as western representatives. It found its end in territory in Slovenia under Odilo Globočnik known as "coastal region" in OSS report or OZAK in German administration, treated in NOS vol IV pp.939-950 (conclusions from p.947),[11] however the most detailed treatment from the military perspective can be found on an internet forum (the author however didn't use explicit referrences and google translate is horrible but most of this is understandable to one that has knowledge of the source material; general description of OZAK government and Yugoslavia program is in the last paragraph of #63).[12] SOC like RCC has to be looked from several aspects in order to be evaluated towards this or that issue (relation to Holocaust etc.).

[1] J. Marjanovic, M. Stanisic: The collaboration of Draza Mihailovic’s Chetniks with the enemy forces of occupation, Arhivski pregled, Belgrade, 1976, 17-22.
[2] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 1., Project of S. Moljević regarding the postwar arrangment of Yugoslavia.
[3] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 85, Letter of Dragiša Vasić from May 1942 to Draža Mihailović regarding postwar arrangment of Yugoslavia.
[4] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 6
[5] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 34
[6] Hoare, M.A.: Genocide and Resistance in Hitler’s Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, 156-162. Excerpt: http://www.znaci.net/00001/177.pdf
[7] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 200
[8] Zbornik NOB, Book 2, Dalmatia 41'-45', No. 550
[9] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 34
[10] Dizdar, Z.; Sobolevski, M.: Suppressed Chetnik Crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1941-1945, Croatian Institute of History, Zagreb 1999 (Letter of the Commandand of the Ozren Chetnik Corps from 13 February 1943 to the Commandand of the Zenica Chetnik Detachment)
[11] NOS IV http://www.znaci.net/00003/521.htm and NOS VIII source book: http://www.znaci.net/00003/522.htm
[12] https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 26page%3D4

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#22

Post by SloveneLiberal » 06 Feb 2019, 20:39

JPeterHugh i agree of course with the fact that the movement of Mihajlovic had strong support from proponents of the idea of Great Serbia. Yet because we are talking also about rehabilitation here in the judgement from 2015 it is written that some documents mentioned above were in fact forged. For example instructions from 20. December 1941 to Pavle Djurišić. Mihajlović could not wrote them court argued because he was at that time hiding from German offensive against him and his forces. He was from 6. December - 7 January 1942 without contact with his commanders. Mihajlovic also did not know that he was made general by Yugoslav royal governament in London and he started to sign documents as general only one month later. It should also be taken in to the account that defenders of Mihajlovic will point out that not political program of Great Serbia but of Yugoslav governament in London was valid for Mihajlovic because he was made minister of it in January 1942.

https://pescanik.net/wp-content/uploads ... lovica.pdf

However i poined out also the actions of Djurišić from 1943 in response to the decision of the Serbian court:


Court found some documents to be forged or not original documents signed by Mihajlović. For example his letter to archbishop Stepinac from April 1945 which is talking about the joint fight against partisans. Also directives from Mihajlović to Pavle Djurišić leader of chetnics in Montenergo from December 1941 was found to be not an original order by Mihajlović. Mihajlović gave to his commanders some white papers with his signature on them and from time to time they missused this. The defense team presented this fact on the trial in 1946 but their arguments were dissmised. Order from December 1941 is talking that chetnics should fight for Great Serbia cleansed of national minorities. Yet it is also true that in 1943 Pavle Djuričić was comitting great war crimes in Bosnia and Sandzak against muslim population ( considered like collectively responsible for horrible ustasha crimes against Serbs ) and regulary reporting to Mihajlović about this. He did not act.

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#23

Post by JPeterHugh » 08 Feb 2019, 10:51

The document states that DM and Đurišić are to maintain communication through radio with notification that "until the radio-link is enabled, the communication is maintained by the couriers with the code given to the aforementioned (Đurišić)" and that he has already been given instructions regarding his tasks.[1] To my knowledge Đurišić signature on the document transcription is not disproven nor questioned. Principles are similar to those from September and Moljević-Vasić politics. If document authorship is questioned it is not invalidated as a document but the authorship is delegated to someone who understood his tasks in the way as presented, usually understood to be Đurišić or other commander. Đurišić was reported to be in contact with DM in October and November 1941 when he was appointed by DM as a commander for Montenegro and Sandžak. Since questioning of authorship doesn't affect the nature and scope of the document, the court has accepted Bojan Dimitrijević interpretation trying to invalidate the entire document as a forgery in itself, which is debatable as it may not provide enough reasons to dismiss the document as such. Even if it is a forgery allegedly written for discrediting DM, which is unlikely according to most historians, there are dozens of other documents that state very similar content as already mentioned. One similar case is with document attributed to the Archbishop Stepinac but that document doesn't contain even the basic document authentication markings and is disjointed from reality and instructions of that time as well as in writing style. Krišto considers the document to belong to Draganović group while it was in general believed to belong to one of excommunicated priests that couldn't get approval from the bishopry.[2] That is, there are no attempts to invalidate the document itself as a source as in this case with DM (should be noted that next to DM in 2015, Dragiša Vasić was rehabilitated in 2009, Kalabić in 2017 and currently under revision, Nedić rehabilitation rejected 2018, Koštunica Government equated the Chetnik movement with anti-fascists in 2004 and revised by Constitutional court in 2012, etc., also bishop Velimirović in 2003 and canonized, by Montenegro court Milorad Vukojičić and Slobodan Šiljak in 2005, Joanikije Lipovac in 1999 etc.; I'm not familiar with anything equivalent in Croatia except Stepinac recently in 2016).

[1] Zbornik XIV, Book 1, Documents of Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović, No. 34
[2] https://translate.google.com/translate? ... na-1297299

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#24

Post by SloveneLiberal » 08 Feb 2019, 14:00

Forgery as i understand in this case was not meant as forgery to discredit Draža Mihajlović by his enemies but rather forgery by his commander Pavle Djurišić who like exceeded his authority. However as i said i am sceptical about this decision of the court in Serbia in 2015 because from the judgement one can see the court was looking a lot for procedural mistakes but in fact not really considering war crimes.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#25

Post by SloveneLiberal » 08 Feb 2019, 15:05

Concerning the question of Yugoslav governament in London the governament of general Simovic kept the Serbo-Croat agreement Cvetkovic-Macek from 1939. Royal governament in London had also Croatian ministers. I am not sure but i think even Jovanovic who replaced Simovic in January 1942 and imediately named Mihajlovic as his war minister was advocating for federal Yugoslavia after the war.

Some army, aviation and navy units also went in exile and were then stationed in Africa mostly preparing for the invasion of Yugoslavia but also participated in some small numbers in allied campaings in Africa. Later they were fused with partisan forces under Tito after the Tito-Šubašič agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cvetkovi% ... _Agreement


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_ ... 87_cabinet

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#26

Post by JPeterHugh » 08 Feb 2019, 17:55

Possibly that I may have misread as I haven't read Cyrillic for some time but I don't see Đurišić being mentioned in that paragraph and it seems that the judgment affirms only questionable interpretation that invalidates authenticity of the document as a forgery which, I suppose, means that the court ruled it out as valid for the process, thus affirming the court decision.

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#27

Post by JPeterHugh » 24 Feb 2019, 16:32

JPeterHugh wrote:
02 Feb 2019, 01:21

https://docdro.id/G7ZUz9L
Answer to a Q. regarding June 1941 vs. 1943

Translated from Goldstein, I: Solidarity and assistance to Jews in Croatia, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Vol. 34-35-36, No. 1, 2004, pp.205-228 https://hrcak.srce.hr/49184
p. 208
Seeing that many individuals and groups of Croats advocated the rescue of a certain number of Jews and their families, on May 15 RAVSIGUR sent a memo to the Bar Association that 'prohibits lawyers from intervening in political matters, especially for Jews. All those who will not hold this up will be called to responsibility and suffer serious consequences'. But this seems did not have any particular effect, so in June 27 press release Pavelić personally forbade to anyone 'in regard to the Extraordinary Law regulation and Command of June 26 ... in their personal matters that have the significance of intervention, to address the Ustasha HQ for he will not be heard in any case." In these days the newspapers were crammed with such news: at the beginning of July the Ustasha paper under the heading 'Enough with interventions!' (Dosta s intervencijama!) notifies that 'The Ustasha HQ in regard to Chiefs's regulation warns all Ustasha officials that any personal-related intervention is punishable by death. Ustashas are obliged to prevent such things by force and once and for all to close the door to those who do nothing else, despite the laws and regulations, than go around the offices and 'intervene' ' etc.
All written interventions that were saved and stored in the Croatian National Archives (HDA) were researched by dr. Esther Gitman and published under title "When Courage Prevailed: The Rescue and Survival of Jews in the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945" in 2011 from which appears that around 420 petitions where found that were signed by thousands of people, both group and individual, which seems that among other forms of intercessions resulted in what Goldstein wrote in the paper from 2004. Regarding the question of segregation markings in June, pp.209-210:
p.209
At the end of May Jews were called to take the yellow armband in the relevant police authorities. On a poster in Zagreb, it was noted that "every Aryan is obliged every male or female Jew, who does not respond to this call, ... to report to the police." The ending notes are usual: 'Whoever does not respond to a call and does not tie a mark on a convenient place will undergo most severe penalisation'... The president of the Jewish Community of Zagreb in 1945 Glücksthal claims that this mark 'should turn [Jews] to ridicule and scorn, but it has to be acknowledged that, despite all the animosity from a part of citizens, this attempt by the Ustasha remained rather unsuccessful.' The Gestapo report written in May 1942 also claims that 'this measure has caused an effect contrary to the expected: there are countless cases that the Jews wearing a mark in the street or a tram have been approached by completely unknown people from different social classes (citizens, peasants, even German officers and soldiers) and expressed their sympathy. Moreover, to many Jews, especially old women and children, the non-Jews were removing the mark'. Wearing a mark was a stigma that many people hardly withstood. In asking him to be relieved of wearing a Jewish mark, Leopold Müller claimed it is a 'stamp of shame'. Many Croats also understood this: Petar Grgec, a Catholic writer and publicist, a professor at the Archdiocese classical gymnasium, by taking off his hat regarded in the winter of 1941/42 unknown people carrying a Jewish mark on the street. On a question of his daughter whether he knows these people, he answered that she could not understand 'how much that man is suffering and how humiliated he is. When I pass by them and these shameful plates I feel deep respect towards their suffering and those brave people.' When mass arrests started on June 21, 1941, the police authorities in charge were swarmed with petitions for release etc.
The same was understood by the Archbishop in a letter from May 22, that wasn't addressed here, where it is also called "the stamp of shame" as its purpose was to humiliate the one who wears it. Disobedience to segregation regulation was found also present in the area of Lekenik which lasted until July after RAVSIGUR in Zagreb was notified by their local authority. As quoted by Grgić, "Jews continue to freely 'walk among the people, attend religious feasts, drink and entertain as before, and not only that but their relatives from Zagreb are visiting them and the same do not carry [Jewish] markings when they walk around the village, but when they arrive at the train station then they put them on, the markings. It thus seems that the place Lekenik is a Jewish refuge.'"[1] Relevant material confirming aforementioned reports is consular report Gueyraud to Darlan, Zagreb, June 11, 1941, Europe 94, ADAE, box 384, 2 that states (also given in Appendix):
J’ai eu l’honneur de signaler par ma lettre du 30 Mai No. 85 le sentiment de réprobation qu’avaient notamment dans les milieux de l’Eglise, certaines des mesures édictées par le gouvernement du Poglavnik contre les Israëlites. Sans doute faut-il voir dans ces circonstances la cause d’une atténuation intervenue dans ces dispositions...En outre les Juifs le dont le conjoint est aryen, ne sont plus obligés au port de cette insigne, s’ils ont embrassé avant le 10 Avril 1941 la religion catholique, évangélique ou musulmane.
The consular report acknowledges rejection of anti-Jewish laws by population but attributes the most significant opposition to the RCC who is considered responsible for exceptions inserted in the law. Similarly with German source of the same dating by Dopffel similar to the French one but addressing the Archbishop directly. Both reports seem to be in accord with the statement of priest Vilim Cecelja, stating "when the order came that Jews have to wear special markings in NDH, the Archbishop sent me to Pavelić to tell him that he will preach against these markings next Sunday, so he should withdraw the order and release the owner of Jutarnji list, dr. Žiga Šol, and return him his printing office (tiskara). It was in June 11, 1941. The Chief told me that we are not our own masters yet and that Germans are standing behind us. He asked me to tell the Archbishop Stepinac not to preach against the regulation of markings for Jews. The Archbishop has regardless of [him], to protect the Jews, stood in their defense and preached".[2] The Archbishop's position was expressed in a letter from May 22 stating that "the regulation that the Jewish mark must be worn ought to be generally suppressed". Consular reports show that this was seen as a political pressure against instruction of the Foreign Office indicating, as Goldstein himself stated, that Ustasha regulations were (initially) not taken seriously while the RCC was pressuring against anti-semitic regulations. Other sources related to knowledge of public protest by RCC were already mentioned in note [11] of the reply. Aforementioned sources are mostly absent from Goldstein's treatment of the Archbishop although he himself acknowledges that he is likely reason for regulation exclusions not discussing it further. In his treatment of the letter from May 22 the phrase "general" (or "in entirety") is excluded from aforementioned quote, although it is a word quantifier affecting the meaning of the sentence. Such quote is used in affirmation of the thesis of selectiveness for converts as a result of previous interpretation of a word "necessary" in preceding document which has also been subjected to criticism.[3] This is hardly permissible in any treatment or documentation analysis. There are no Einsatzkommande or Gestapo documentation considered or mentioned although it is very relevant to the question as he was a person under surveillance both before and and during the occupation of the country. The thesis doesn't address pre-occupation efforts in relation to Jewish refugees nor its position under occupation although it is directly related to the Archbishop. Exclusion of antecedent and violation of Occam's razor in interpretation ends in absurd propositions disjointed from event development and material.[4] Some conclusions are opposite to Gueyraud to Lavalo, November 6, 1942.[5] Some Goldstein's remarks are contrary to other mentioned in [27].

[1] Grgić, S: Being a Jew on a Croatian countryside: A sketch for the portrait of Julius Mann, Lekenik’s merchant and patron (1870-1943?), Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Vol.45 No.1, Dec 2013, pp.87-88 https://hrcak.srce.hr/116751
[2] Batelja, J.: Bl. Alojzije Stepinac, Documents I, Book 2, Postulatura bl.A.S., Zagreb, 2010, p. 147; Documents II, Book 3, pp. 451-452.
[3] The letter from April 23 is directly referenced in the first paragraph of the letter of May 22, which is not mentioned in the treatment although the author quoted from the same, where its circumstances are explained contrary to his thesis. More in Krišto, J.: the Catholic Church and the Jews in the Independent State of Croatia, Review of Croatian History 3/2007, no.1, 13-47, p.19 https://www.scribd.com/document/3266425 ... H-1-2007-1
[4] Comp. Vujeva, T.: Kollaboration oder begrenzte Loyalität? Die historiographische Diskussion um Erzbischof Alojzije Stepinac von Zagreb und den katholischen Klerus im Unabhängigen Staat Kroatien (1941-1945), Universität Wien, April 2009, dissertation pp.252-263, similarly Krišto, Ramet, Gitman and others. Count O'Brien of Thommond that left the Archbishop and the Relief Committe on March 24, 1941 sees the Archbishop entirely different than thesis tries to establish as only one example.
[5] Gueyraud to Lavalo, November 6, 1942, Europe 99, ADAE, Nr. 384.2, states the public denunciation of the Regime throughout 1942, similarly to Einsatzkommande reports, October 25 sermon is referred on page 3 of reply, relevant enough to be in a consular report and qualified as anti-regime attitude:
L’Église cependant vient d’affirmer une fois de plus, à Zagreb même, sa condamnation des excès du régime et de ses principes. Saisissant l’occasion de la fête du Christ-Roi, Mgr. Stepinac, Archevêque de Zagreb, à du haut de la Chaire de sa cathédrale, flétri, dans un sermon dont Votre Excellence trouvera ci-joint quelques extraits, la doctrine nationalesocialiste en matière de race et rappelé avec courage que ‘tels devant qui tremblent aujourd’hui des millions d’hommes, demain il sera oublié jusqu’à leurs noms.Cette expression solennelle de la réprobation que lui inspire le régime, s’ajoute aux protestations et représentations que le jeune et intrépide Archevêque de Zagreb, au risque de représailles contre sa personne, multiplie auprès des pouvoirs publics. Récemment encore l’exécution de 26 prêtres dont 24 Slovènes fugitifs des persécutions nazies et 2 Croates, amenait Mgr. Stepinac à faire entendre au Poglavnik sa protestation.

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019, 01:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#28

Post by JPeterHugh » 27 Apr 2019, 00:11

JPeterHugh wrote:
08 Feb 2019, 10:51
... Bojan Dimitrijević interpretation...(should be noted that next to DM in 2015, Dragiša Vasić was rehabilitated in 2009, Kalabić in 2017 and currently under revision, Nedić rehabilitation rejected 2018, Koštunica Government equated the Chetnik movement with anti-fascists in 2004 and revised by Constitutional court in 2012, etc., also bishop Velimirović in 2003 and canonized, by Montenegro court Milorad Vukojičić and Slobodan Šiljak in 2005, Joanikije Lipovac in 1999 etc.; I'm not familiar with anything equivalent in Croatia except Stepinac recently in 2016).
Seems the same historian participated in the case of rehabilitation of Milan Nedić rejected in appeal few days ago, initiated 2008. He is apparently a consultant in Kalabić rehabilitation and advocates that Nedić apparatus was not involved in the Holocaust (seems it includes Ljotić). Serbian High Court already rehabilitated a captain of Serbische Staatsgarde Mihajlo Zotović in 2009, a Minister in Nedić Government Momčilo Janković in 2011 and few others. There seems to be quite long list of rehabilitated Chetnik commanders like Spasoje Drenyanin in 2015 etc. (aside from this, Dimitrijević wrote a book denying Ratko Mladić responsibility for Srebrenica genocide). Draža Mihajlović museum is allegedly going to be opened in Belgrade.

SloveneLiberal
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 23 Jul 2018, 13:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#29

Post by SloveneLiberal » 16 Apr 2020, 00:31

I think this will help to properly understand how Stepinac was working in the interests of NDH as he himself claimed. Until spring 1943 Stepinac was sure axis powers will lose the war and ustasha regime will fail. He was much worried about future, fearing both partisans under communist leadership and chetniks. In August 1943 Stepinac met with catholic priest Krunoslav Draganović before he went on his mission to Vatican. Mission was not only humanitarian to help around 10.000 Croats imprisoned in Italy, but also to work for the preservation of NDH. Draganović wrote in late 1943 a memorandum for the British ambassador at Vatican in which he argued western allies should keep independent Croatia or at least establish a catholic confederation of east and middle European nations. Draganović was working in the same line like also Vatican did. For example cardinal Pizzard in June 1943 told to NDH ambassador at Vatican Lobkowicz that Serbs and Croats should not live together any more and that before mentioned catholic confederation should be established. They tried to convince USA and British governments that after capitulation of Italy they should start peace negotiations with Germany and not to insist on the demand for unconditional surrender.

Draganović and franciscan friar Radoslav Glavaš who was working for ustasha government were also likely authors of a memorandum from May 1943 written for Vatican which claimed NDH should be preserved othervise catholic faith would be destroyed by chetniks or by communists. Memorandum was written in Stepinac's name because he shared of course the same views. Prosecutor in Stepinac trial after the war was claiming Stepinac is the real author which is likely not correct. But State secretariat of Vatican confirmed already in 1946 that such letter really existed. Draganović showed the memorandum to British ambassador at Vatican to support their demands.

Nacionalizem in nasilje, written by Pino Adriano and Giorgio Cingolani, published in 2019, Mengeš, pages 296-300.

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krunoslav_Draganovi%C4%87

file:///C:/Users/podatkiuporabnika/prenosi/RCH_2018_konacno_011_Kristo.pdf

Marek_Piotrowski
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Nov 2022, 12:12
Location: Gdynia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

#30

Post by Marek_Piotrowski » 30 Nov 2022, 12:17

Sorry for my bad english...
I think the 1944 Naval Intelligence Division report written by Oxford and Cambridge experts is authoritative:
“(…) the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, following the example of Monsignor Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb, vigorously protested against the persecution of Serbs and Jews, as well as against government attempts to force conversions to Catholicism”

The post-war smear campaign against Cardinal Aloizije Stepinac can only be compared with the campaign against Pius XII. But let's tell the story in order:
1.
It is worth starting with the fact that the Rev. Already before the war, from 1936, Aloizije Stepinac supported Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria. In 1938, he founded the "Action for the Relief of Refugees". When the Nazis entered Zagreb in 1941, he ordered the destruction of the files of tens of thousands of Jews who turned to the Action for support - thus preventing the documents from being used for racist persecution.
He authorized the issuing of baptismal certificates, even fictitious ones, to Jews and Serbs in order to save them from extermination. In a confidential letter to the clergy, he wrote: “The role of Christians is primarily to save people in this time of madness and savagery. Those who wish to remain in the Church will stay, while others, guided by their own convictions, will return to their faith after the threat has passed" (by the way, at the same time, the authorities of the Orthodox Church forbade accepting conversions of Jews).

2.
The archbishop was aware of the threats posed by the world at that time. From his notes, made before the winds of World War II reached Croatia, there seems to be a sense that whatever happens, the coming years will be difficult: “If Germany wins, there will be cruel terror and the annihilation of small nations. If England wins, the Freemasons and the Jews will remain in power, and therefore indecency and corruption will reign in our countries. If the USSR wins, then the devil will take over the world and hell.” (Diary, November 5, 1940)

3.
When on April 6, 1941, the Axis powers entered the Croatian lands, they were greeted there with great hope - the Croats saw the development of events as an opportunity for liberation and a return to independence. Hence the initial positive assessment of Ante Pavelic and his Ustashe by the church authorities (including Archbishop Stepinac). In general, the creation of an independent Croatian state was supported. The archbishop's letter is known, in which he wrote with hope:
“And who can take it against us that we shepherds will also join the national joy and exaltation, turning to the Divine Majesty with deep emotion and heartfelt gratitude? (...) For it is easy to recognize the hand of God in His work." (Circular of April 28, 1941)

4.
Unfortunately, it soon turned out that the new governments bring terror and destruction. Then other tones appear in the sermons of the Croatian primate; writes to Ante Pavelic a letter defending mixed marriages (the regime believed that if one of the spouses is Jewish, the marriage is invalid). The archbishop wrote:
“As a representative of the Catholic Church, I have the most sacred duty to raise my voice against state interference in matters of legal marriages that are indissoluble, regardless of racial affiliation. State authority has no right to annul these marriages."
In July, the archbishop addressed another letter to the leader of the regime:
“As an archbishop and representative of the Catholic Church, I feel entitled to draw attention to several events that affect me painfully. I'm sure few will have the courage to point them out, so it's my duty to do so. I hear from various quarters about examples of inhumane and cruel treatment of non-Aryans.” (Letter of protest, July 1941).

5.
Despite the archbishop's efforts, the Ustashe regime passes its version of the Nuremberg Laws. Archbishop Stepinac gives an emotional sermon in the cathedral in opposition to this fact.

6.
Despite the lack of a positive response, the archbishop does not give up his efforts. He protests against the "conversion" of the Orthodox by force (Reservations against such "conversion" were also expressed by the papal nuncio Borgongini Duca) and other manifestations of terror:
"Every man, no matter what race or nation he belongs to ... bears the seal of God the Creator and has his inalienable rights, which no human power can arbitrarily take away or limit" (Sermon of March 14, 2010). 1943).

In another sermon he says:
“All people, regardless of skin color, are children of God. All people, without any discrimination, be they Gypsies, Blacks, Civilized, Europeans, Jews or proud Aryans, have an equal right to say: Our Father, who art in Heaven... The Catholic Church... condemns all injustices committed in the name of class, race or nationalism. theory. Gypsies and Jews cannot be liquidated in the name of theories that claim to belong to an inferior race." (Sermon October 24, 1942)

And one more snippet:
“We have always emphasized the principles of eternal life with God in public life – whether it is Croats, Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Orthodox or anyone else. The Catholic Church recognizes the rights of people created by God, and respect for them comes from those with a noble heart rather than from those with mighty fists."

He also condemned the demolition of the Zagreb synagogue, uttering words that were unheard of for that time and place:
"The house of God of any faith is a holy place..."
and prophesies that the perpetrators will be punished by God.

The authorities do not remain idle – the Ustashe prohibit publishing the archbishop's sermons. Pavelic even tries to get the pope to recall Stepiniac (unsuccessfully). It is worth noting that the Vatican has never recognized the Ustashe regime
Glaise von Herstenau, the Nazi general in Zagreb, declares: "If any bishop in Germany spoke like this, he would not have escaped from the pulpit alive!"
A similar opinion is expressed by the attache of the German embassy, ​​writing in 1943:
"Stepinac is a great friend of the Jews"
The archbishop also tried to intervene with Pavelic about the famous concentration camp in Croatia. He writes: "The Jasenovac camp is an embarrassing stain on the honor of an independent Croatia."

7.
Archbishop Stepinac does not limit himself to words - he is personally involved in the defense of specific people (Orthodox and Jews), which is possible thanks to his position. Here are some examples:
• It pardons a large number of Croats sentenced to death in political trials
• Saves 500,000 Serbs and Jews from mixed marriages.
• Instructs Croatian Caritas to provide shelter to over a thousand Serbian orphans.
• Saves the lives of Orthodox priests, a rabbi and a group of Slovene clergy
• Hides 60 residents of a Jewish old people's home in the church premises (They stayed there until 1947, when the archbishop was already in a communist prison)
• Organizes the possibility for Jews to go to "safe" countries, ie to Turkey and Spain
• Witnesses also talk about the money and food they received for those imprisoned in the famous Jasenovac concentration camp (the Archbishop described the existence of this camp as a "shame" and "shame for the entire Croatian nation".)
The archbishop also agreed to baptize Orthodox Christians in order to protect them from the terror of the Ustashe - he also noted that after the end of the danger, the return of such converts to Orthodoxy should not be opposed (this will later be interpreted by communist propaganda as participation in "forced conversion"). .

8.
How much trust the Jews had in the Archbishop is evidenced by the fact that the Chief Rabbi of Zagreb, Dr. Miroslav Shalom Freiberger, entrusted him with the library collections for safekeeping (they were returned to the Jewish community in Zagreb after the war). The rabbi's personal secretary, Amiel Shomrony, will say after the war that the cardinal did everything possible for the Jews and that he saw him as a "truly blessed" person.

9.
On October 26, 1943, the Germans murder the archbishop's brother, Mijo Stepinac.

10.
In 1946 - probably in retaliation for the pastoral letter of the Croatian episcopate condemning the persecution of the Church by the communists and for refusing to talk about the creation of a "national church" (independent of the Vatican) - Archbishop Stepinac was accused by the communist authorities of collaborating with the Nazis and (after a show trial ) sentenced to 16 years of forced labor. The accusation was largely based on data from circles close to Croatia's communist gensek Broz Tito (who murdered 100,000 people immediately after taking power!). The regime did not allow the testimonies of Jews who wanted to give explanations in favor of the bishop, and the written statements were simply destroyed.
The archbishop's lawyer had only a week to prepare his defense; the number of defense witnesses was also limited to 20 (the prosecution could call any number of them). Despite such restrictions, the president of the tribunal refused to hear the 14 defense witnesses, giving no reasons.
The Guardian commented on the verdict: "... It is certain that the reasons for the lawsuit against Archbishop Stepinac were political, not moral, all the more so since the bishop was given a chance to leave the country rather than go to trial..."

In the only letter Archbishop Stepinac wrote during his trial: “Some documents have been forged, such as photographs showing me with my hand raised in a fascist salute at the farewell ceremony of the Croatian legion before its departure to the Black Sea basin. I wasn't present at the ceremony at all, so it's impossible for me to raise my hands there in a fascist gesture."


11.
Commenting on the archbishop's actions during the war, two days after his arrest by Tito's communist regime, the president of the American Jewish community in New York, Louis Breier, protests by declaring:

"This great man is being tried as a Nazi collaborator. We protest against such slander. He was always a sincere friend of the Jews and did not hide it even in times of cruel persecution under the rule of Hitler and his supporters. After Pius XII, Cardinal Stepinac was the greatest defender of Jews persecuted in Europe.

The National Conference of Christians and Jews in Boston unanimously adopted a resolution stating that "(...) he was a great friend of the Jews... This man, today the victim of a sham trial, spoke out openly and fearlessly against the terrible Nuremberg Laws, and his opposition to the Nazi regime he was never aloof."
British MP Richard Stokes points out in the House of Commons that Archbishop Stepinac has been a staunch ally of Britain since 1941. Winston Churchill also expresses his opinion that the archbishop's accusations are illegal.

In 1995, Yad Vashem rejects the application to recognize the cardinal as "Righteous among the nations of the world". In response, the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, Dr. Amiel Shomrony, states:
“The claim that Archbishop Stepinac supported the Nazis is absolutely false, on the contrary, he publicly denounced Nazi racial theories as anti-religious even before Croatia became 'independent' in 1941.
(…) I am now one of the very few survivors of the Jewish community in Zagreb during World War II (…) And I am certainly a more credible witness than people who base their judgment on opinions and hearsay 'facts'.

12.
On February 14, 1992, Stepinac was symbolically rehabilitated by the parliament of independent Croatia.
13. Six years later, the Primate of Croatia was beatified by Pope John Paul II. Croatian Jews supported the beatification of the archbishop, issuing a statement in which they appreciated the archbishop's achievements because "under the rule of the Ustashe, he dared to save Jews."


Archbishop Stepinac fell victim to the same campaign as Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary, Stefan Wyszyński and bp. Czesław Kaczmarek in Poland, Josef Beran in Czechoslovakia and Slipyj in Ukraine.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”