nosara wrote:madner wrote:Pera Trta wrote:Treba imati u vidu da su Domobranstvo i Ustaška vojnica objedinjene u decembru 1944. u Hrvatske oružane snage. Tako su formirane jedinice koje su imale pripadnike i jednih i drugih formacija, pod zajedničkom komandom, ali su i dalje zadržali svaki svoje uniforme i oznake. Ukupan broj ovih snaga nikada nije utvrđen, niti će moći biti, zbog nedostatka ratne dokumentacije. Prihvaćene procjene se kreću u širokom rasponu od 90 000, pa do 146 000 ljudi.
Što se broja ubijenih tiče nakon predaje hrvatske vojske, prema Vladimiru Žerjaviću (čije su analize gubitaka stanovništva prihvaćene od ozbiljne nauke, a osuđene od nacionalista na obje strane i od zadrtih komunista) taj broj se kreće oko 60 000. Dakle, mnogo manje od 200 000-500 000 kako tvrde hrvatski nacionalisti, ali i puno više od 0, kako su nas učili u komunizmu.
Naravno, sve su ovo približne brojke, prave nikada neće biti utvrđene.
Domobranske jedinice su ranije rasformirane i dodane regularnoj vojski ili ustasama. Postojala je regularna armija i ustaske jedinice koje su i dalje ostale.
U samom proboju do austrijske granice Hrvatske snage su pretrpjele strahovite gubitke, jesu li te brojke ukljucene u ovih 60000?
Ko je izbrojao tih 60000...? Koja komisija, kada, na osnovu kojih ulaznih podataka...
U Srebrenici, koju "ceda brba" poredi sa ovim navodnim dogadjajem, zna se svako ime i prezime...
Da ne govorim o tome da su u Srebrenici ubijani iskljucivo nevini civili... Ali, bas briga "cedu brbu"... Njemu je bitno ocrnit Tita i NOP...
Ima i to
Criticism of the massacre claims
About the numbers of the civilian refugees handed to Tito's partisans (ethnicity not specified), British historian Christopher Booker says [40]
... Tolstoy reconstructed what happened when, on May 31, the commandant of the military camp at Viktirig, 'Lieutenant Ames', reported that he had received orders for 2,700 of the civilian refugees in Major Barre's camp to be taken to Rosenbach and Bleiburg the following day, to be handed over to Tito's partisans.
A comprehensive root cause analysis of the inflated numbers is given by the British historian D. B. MacDonald [41]
By contrast with Jasenovac, however, most impartial historians converged on much lower number of dead, suggesting that Bleiburg was by no means as significant as the largest death-camp in Yugoslavia. ... Jasper Ridley attempts a more precise figure, although there is no way of knowing for sure. ... Of these, he noted that the Allies agreed to surrender 23,000 to the Partisans between 24 and 29 May - a mixture of Slovenians, Serbians, and Croatians. Reports from the time according to Ridley[42], indicate that not all the 23,000 were killed
MacDonald's final conclusion is:
Inflating the numbers of dead at Bleiburg had several layers of significance. Firstly, it gave the Croats their own massacre at the hands of Serbs and/or Communists, which allowed them to counter the Serbs' Jasenovac genocide with one of their own. Secondly, it allowed Croats to distance themselves from the Serbs and the Communist regime that had carried out the massacres. They could portray Croatia as an unwilling participant in the SFRY, more a prisoner than a constituent nation. Thirdly, by suffering such a massacre, the Croats underwent their own 'way of Cross', as it was frequently dubbed in Croatian writings.
Further, Christopher Booker published a lengthy analysis of the Bleiburg controversy in A Looking Glass Tragedy. The Controversy Over The Repatriations From Austria In 1945 [43]. The leading idea of this book is elaborated in the book overview [1]:
Many "massacres" described in lurid detail never took place. As Booker describes how the story of the repatriations came to be presented in such a distorted fashion, his book turns into a study of people's willingness to cling on to a "make believe" version of history, even when all the facts have proved it wrong.
His research is fully summarized in the Chapter 12. 2. Bleiburg: The Massacre That Never Was (page 188). The main points of his research are:
a) there are only nine documents in the British Army archives related to the Bleiburg, Austria, May 1945. No traces of any massacre ever committed in Bleiburg or its surroundings;
b) Tolstoy's 'impartial' evidence for this massacre having taken place came from three 'eyewitnesses' whom he quoted at length from interviews conducted when he was writing his book [44] 40 years later[45];
c) all 'evidence' came from narrative stories of those who claimed to be the witnesses.
In referencing the documents of that time, Tolstoy [46] quoted a General Alexander telegram, sent to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, where Alexander mentioned only "25,000 German and Croat units".
British historian Laurence Rees, however, provides a different view. His view is that historians should treat every source they use sceptically. That applies to written sources just as much as eye-witnesses.[47]
Nigel Nicolson, a British officer with 3 Battalion, Welsh Guards, who took part in the infamous forced repatriations from Austria in the summer of 1945, said to me that he had deliberately falsified the historical record at the time, writing that the Yugoslavian deportees had been offered ‘light refreshments’ by their Tito Communist guards. He’d done this because he had been ordered not to tell the truth in his military report – that the deportees were being appallingly treated – and so had written something that he thought was so ludicrous – how could the deportees be given ‘light refreshments? – that future historians would know he was being ironic. But, before Mr Nicolson admitted what he’d done, some historians had taken his written report at face value and used it to try and ‘prove’ that the surviving deportees who now spoke of how badly they had been treated were lying. If Nigel Nicolson hadn’t told the truth years later than that inaccurate report would still be in the written archives and the suffering of the deportees still disputed. So my advice is to be as careful of the accuracy of written archives as you are careful of the accuracy of people.[48]
. A komunisti su, kako vidimo iz priloženog, u startu pokazali gdje pripada svaTko Tko nije s nama.