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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 02 Feb 2019 00:21

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: 6676
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Feb 2019 09:16

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: 227
Joined: 23 Jul 2018 12:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by SloveneLiberal » 02 Feb 2019 09:23

Sid G. i have to agree. :)

JPeterHugh
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2019 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 02 Feb 2019 13:07

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: 227
Joined: 23 Jul 2018 12:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by SloveneLiberal » 02 Feb 2019 13:52

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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 06 Feb 2019 12:26

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: 227
Joined: 23 Jul 2018 12:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by SloveneLiberal » 06 Feb 2019 19:39

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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 08 Feb 2019 09:51

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: 227
Joined: 23 Jul 2018 12:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by SloveneLiberal » 08 Feb 2019 13:00

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: 227
Joined: 23 Jul 2018 12:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by SloveneLiberal » 08 Feb 2019 14:05

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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 08 Feb 2019 16:55

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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 24 Feb 2019 15:32

JPeterHugh wrote:
02 Feb 2019 00:21

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 00:09
Location: EU

Re: Rehabilitation of Draža Mihajlović and archbishop Alojzije Stepinac

Post by JPeterHugh » 26 Apr 2019 23:11

JPeterHugh wrote:
08 Feb 2019 09:51
... 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.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”