.................
-
- Popularno:
- Датонов чланак из NYT
- Ovo je Merima (24) koja je pokušala da...
- Jeste li za ili protiv "srpskog sveta"?
- Slatkiš vašeg detinjstva
- Stop separatizmu u Vojvodini! Vučević:...
- Predsednik: Vlada, ako hoće, može da...
- Srbija se menja,lepa Mongolka...
- Ima li vlast strategiju širu od...
- Da li je Ćacilend blokaderski...
- Štimac iz svog života precrtao...
Драгољуб Дража Михаиловић
- Začetnik teme aleks1
- Datum pokretanja
Koča
Elita
- Poruka
- 15.249
George Orwell on Draza Mihailovich
Media Disinformation and Self-Censorship
When George Orwell published his political satire Animal Farm in 1945, he wrote a preface to the book that was deleted and censored from the rest of the text. In the preface, Orwell criticized the media censorship and suppression that were endemic in Western countries during World War II.
The censored, deleted, and suppressed proposed 1945 preface to Animal farm was first published in The Times Literary Supplement on September 15, 1972 as an essay entitled “The Freedom of the Press”. In the preface, Orwell analyzed and deconstructed government and media censorship in Britain during World War II. Orwell focused on the case of Draza Mihailovich, the Serbian resistance leader in Yugoslavia who was first supported and aided by the Allies, the U.S., Soviet Union, and Britain, but later denounced and rejected in favor of the Communist leader Josip Broz Tito. Why was there a shift and reversal of support for Mihailovich? What role did the Western media play in censoring, distorting, and falsifying the facts in the case?
George Orwell analyzed the Draza Mihailovich case in 1945.
In the deleted preface, Orwell discussed and criticized the British government’s censorship of his book Animal Farm in the wider context of Western media censorship. Orwell analyzed self-imposed media self-censorship and how events and facts were censored and distorted in British society, where the government and media suppressed uncomfortable or unpopular truths. In the dystopian satire 1984 (1949), Orwell would term this “duckspeak”, which in Newspeak meant literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking.
In 1984, duckspeak is defined:
“’There is a word in Newspeak,’ said Syme, ‘I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to talk like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.’
Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized, Winston thought again.
...
Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when The Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.”
George Orwell, whose birth name was Eric Arthur Blair, was a socialist himself throughout his life and career. During the Spanish Civil War, Orwell joined POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) in Spain and in 1938 joined the British Labour Party. He was wounded and labeled a “Trotskyite” when the Spanish Communist Party forces attacked the POUM and anarchist elements in the movement. In the 1920s, Orwell had been an anarchist. This is a fact usually censored and deleted in any biographical profile of Orwell. Orwell criticized Soviet Communistic socialism because he was a socialist himself. It took one to know one. The fact that Orwell was a socialist was de-emphasized because the British government and the U.S. government used and manipulated his writings against the Soviet Union and against communism and socialism during the Cold War.
Orwell became a primary source in the ideological conflict between the Western countries such as Britain and the U.S. and the Eastern countries represented by the Soviet Union and China. So his writings were invariably exploited and prostituted as propaganda in the ideological conflict of the Cold War. Propaganda and ideology are black and white. There is no room for any shades of gray. This is why his criticisms and examination of Western media censorship and suppression were themselves suppressed and omitted. The preface to Animal farm itself was suppressed and censored and deleted from the book. Orwell warned that media suppression in the West represented a “slide towards Fascist ways of thought”.
George Orwell had first-hand experience and knowledge on how Western persuasion and manipulation techniques worked. Orwell worked as a propagandist himself during World War II to make ends meet financially. Again, it took one to know one. From 1941 to 1943, Orwell worked on propaganda broadcasts for the BBC Overseas Service as Talks Producer that targeted India, which was a British colony at the time. He joined the Overseas Service on August 18, 1941. The BBC broadcasts were carefully controlled, manipulated, and censored by the British Ministry of Information (MOI). British propaganda was more subtle and sophisticated than German or Soviet propaganda.
George Orwell worked for the BBC in World War II.
The model for the “Ministry of Truth” in the novel 1984 was the British Ministry of Information, not the Soviet Party organ Pravda as most erroneously believe. Orwell used his experiences working for the Ministry of Information to create satire. Orwell witnessed personally how history was falsified and rewritten which he explained in 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Orwell perceived how governments and the media manipulated language to serve their own ends: “Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Finally, Orwell saw how language was used by the governments and the media in Western countries to control and to manipulate thought and thinking: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Ultimately, the goal of the Ministry of Information is to ensure the creation of unanimity and to preclude dissent by establishing “a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face.” The print media, television, radio, records, movies, books, magazines, cable and satellite networks, allow a government to control thought and public opinion and to ensure unanimity that was not possible before the advent of this new technology. Orwell noted in the dystopia 1984 that “private life came to an end” because the government and the media can now easily control and manipulate public opinion and thought. The pressures and weight of political correctness and societal conformity can be insurmountable. The government ultimately decides what is politically correct and acceptable. Uniformity and conformity are invariably the objectives.
British propagandists had learned valuable lessons from the propaganda of World War I. British propaganda in World War I had been over-the-top, outlandish, and based on outright lies and deceptions. British propagandists had discredited the media and had insulted the intelligence of the British population. The images of Belgian babies on German bayonets and German soldiers as baby killers and rapists which British propaganda had manufactured in World War I had been exposed as hoaxes and fabrications. The British media had lost credibility in the fallout of the post-war revelations. A change was needed to restore confidence and credibility in the British media.
The response was a more subtle and psychologically sophisticated model of persuasion, a persuasion model that was factually-based. British propaganda was based on sticking to facts, that is, in manipulating facts and in telling half-truths, not censoring the news outright, but selecting what news to present, and in pre-censorship, controlling the news at the point of generation, “invisible censorship”. This technique was the most effective.
The key to British and U.S. propaganda and censorship is self-censorship. In April, 1940, the Press and Censorship Bureau were incorporated directly into the MOI which allowed the British government to control the news, news dissemination and generation. The key, however, is not direct control and suppression or censorship. British, U.S., and Western propaganda were effective due largely to self-censorship.
In the deleted proposed preface to Animal Farm, re-titled “The Freedom of the Press”, George Orwell analyzed the role of censorship in Britain during World War II. Animal Farm was written in the form of an allegory or as “a fairy story”. But there was no doubt at all that is was based on and directed against the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
In the deleted preface, Orwell analyzed British self-censorship. In particular, Orwell examined the case of Draza Mihailovich:
The first edition of 1984 (1949).
Media Disinformation and Self-Censorship
When George Orwell published his political satire Animal Farm in 1945, he wrote a preface to the book that was deleted and censored from the rest of the text. In the preface, Orwell criticized the media censorship and suppression that were endemic in Western countries during World War II.
The censored, deleted, and suppressed proposed 1945 preface to Animal farm was first published in The Times Literary Supplement on September 15, 1972 as an essay entitled “The Freedom of the Press”. In the preface, Orwell analyzed and deconstructed government and media censorship in Britain during World War II. Orwell focused on the case of Draza Mihailovich, the Serbian resistance leader in Yugoslavia who was first supported and aided by the Allies, the U.S., Soviet Union, and Britain, but later denounced and rejected in favor of the Communist leader Josip Broz Tito. Why was there a shift and reversal of support for Mihailovich? What role did the Western media play in censoring, distorting, and falsifying the facts in the case?
George Orwell analyzed the Draza Mihailovich case in 1945.
In the deleted preface, Orwell discussed and criticized the British government’s censorship of his book Animal Farm in the wider context of Western media censorship. Orwell analyzed self-imposed media self-censorship and how events and facts were censored and distorted in British society, where the government and media suppressed uncomfortable or unpopular truths. In the dystopian satire 1984 (1949), Orwell would term this “duckspeak”, which in Newspeak meant literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking.
In 1984, duckspeak is defined:
“’There is a word in Newspeak,’ said Syme, ‘I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to talk like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.’
Unquestionably Syme will be vaporized, Winston thought again.
...
Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when The Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.”
George Orwell, whose birth name was Eric Arthur Blair, was a socialist himself throughout his life and career. During the Spanish Civil War, Orwell joined POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) in Spain and in 1938 joined the British Labour Party. He was wounded and labeled a “Trotskyite” when the Spanish Communist Party forces attacked the POUM and anarchist elements in the movement. In the 1920s, Orwell had been an anarchist. This is a fact usually censored and deleted in any biographical profile of Orwell. Orwell criticized Soviet Communistic socialism because he was a socialist himself. It took one to know one. The fact that Orwell was a socialist was de-emphasized because the British government and the U.S. government used and manipulated his writings against the Soviet Union and against communism and socialism during the Cold War.
Orwell became a primary source in the ideological conflict between the Western countries such as Britain and the U.S. and the Eastern countries represented by the Soviet Union and China. So his writings were invariably exploited and prostituted as propaganda in the ideological conflict of the Cold War. Propaganda and ideology are black and white. There is no room for any shades of gray. This is why his criticisms and examination of Western media censorship and suppression were themselves suppressed and omitted. The preface to Animal farm itself was suppressed and censored and deleted from the book. Orwell warned that media suppression in the West represented a “slide towards Fascist ways of thought”.
George Orwell had first-hand experience and knowledge on how Western persuasion and manipulation techniques worked. Orwell worked as a propagandist himself during World War II to make ends meet financially. Again, it took one to know one. From 1941 to 1943, Orwell worked on propaganda broadcasts for the BBC Overseas Service as Talks Producer that targeted India, which was a British colony at the time. He joined the Overseas Service on August 18, 1941. The BBC broadcasts were carefully controlled, manipulated, and censored by the British Ministry of Information (MOI). British propaganda was more subtle and sophisticated than German or Soviet propaganda.
George Orwell worked for the BBC in World War II.
The model for the “Ministry of Truth” in the novel 1984 was the British Ministry of Information, not the Soviet Party organ Pravda as most erroneously believe. Orwell used his experiences working for the Ministry of Information to create satire. Orwell witnessed personally how history was falsified and rewritten which he explained in 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Orwell perceived how governments and the media manipulated language to serve their own ends: “Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Finally, Orwell saw how language was used by the governments and the media in Western countries to control and to manipulate thought and thinking: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Ultimately, the goal of the Ministry of Information is to ensure the creation of unanimity and to preclude dissent by establishing “a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face.” The print media, television, radio, records, movies, books, magazines, cable and satellite networks, allow a government to control thought and public opinion and to ensure unanimity that was not possible before the advent of this new technology. Orwell noted in the dystopia 1984 that “private life came to an end” because the government and the media can now easily control and manipulate public opinion and thought. The pressures and weight of political correctness and societal conformity can be insurmountable. The government ultimately decides what is politically correct and acceptable. Uniformity and conformity are invariably the objectives.
British propagandists had learned valuable lessons from the propaganda of World War I. British propaganda in World War I had been over-the-top, outlandish, and based on outright lies and deceptions. British propagandists had discredited the media and had insulted the intelligence of the British population. The images of Belgian babies on German bayonets and German soldiers as baby killers and rapists which British propaganda had manufactured in World War I had been exposed as hoaxes and fabrications. The British media had lost credibility in the fallout of the post-war revelations. A change was needed to restore confidence and credibility in the British media.
The response was a more subtle and psychologically sophisticated model of persuasion, a persuasion model that was factually-based. British propaganda was based on sticking to facts, that is, in manipulating facts and in telling half-truths, not censoring the news outright, but selecting what news to present, and in pre-censorship, controlling the news at the point of generation, “invisible censorship”. This technique was the most effective.
The key to British and U.S. propaganda and censorship is self-censorship. In April, 1940, the Press and Censorship Bureau were incorporated directly into the MOI which allowed the British government to control the news, news dissemination and generation. The key, however, is not direct control and suppression or censorship. British, U.S., and Western propaganda were effective due largely to self-censorship.
In the deleted proposed preface to Animal Farm, re-titled “The Freedom of the Press”, George Orwell analyzed the role of censorship in Britain during World War II. Animal Farm was written in the form of an allegory or as “a fairy story”. But there was no doubt at all that is was based on and directed against the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
In the deleted preface, Orwell analyzed British self-censorship. In particular, Orwell examined the case of Draza Mihailovich:
The first edition of 1984 (1949).
Poslednja izmena:
Koča
Elita
- Poruka
- 15.249
“In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protege in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich’s supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were simply kept out of print. In July of 1943 the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press ‘splashed’ the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich: and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued.”
Orwell also noted instances of censorship during the civil war in Spain from 1936 to 1939 where he fought on the Republican side against Francisco Franco’s Nationalists. Although a socialist, Orwell was embittered by his experiences in Spain because of the repressive nature of the Communist forces there, supported by Joseph Stalin, which sought to suppress all dissent. He described censorship during the civil war in Spain:
“Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libelled in the English leftwing press, and any statement in their defence even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the USSR considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — 1 believe the review copies had been sent out — when the USSR entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not a word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.”
James Klugmann, a hardcore Communist and suspected pro-Soviet British mole, falsified information on Draza Mihailovich.
Orwell analyzed how censorship in the Western countries differed from that in the totalitarian states. In the totalitarian states, censorship was outright and open. In the Western countries, however, censorship was more subtle and covert in nature. Censorship existed in both states, but in the Western state censorship was perceived as benign and innocuous and self-imposed. In Western countries, censorship thus becomes self-censorship.
Orwell analyzed British self-censorship:
“We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian 'co-ordination' that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia.
Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.
It is important to distinguish between the kind of censorship that the English literary intelligentsia voluntarily impose upon themselves, and the censorship that can sometimes be enforced by pressure groups. Notoriously, certain topics cannot be discussed because of 'vested interests'.
The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular - however foolish, even - entitled to a hearing?”
Orwell cited Voltaire’s argument that free speech consisted of or entailed the right to utter unpopular or unacceptable statements: “Voltaire: 'I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it'.”
Orwell argued against media censorship and suppression: “If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way.”
For Orwell, freedom of speech means ultimately the right to say what is unpopular and what is unaccepted or unacceptable: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
In 1984, the meaning of freedom is explained as being free to say what is obvious and self-evident: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
In the January 12, 1945 As I Please series in the Tribune, George Orwell discussed censorship and media manipulation and deception in the case of Draza Mihailovich:
“I invite attention to an article entitled ‘The Truth about Mihailovich?’ (the author of it also writes for Tribune, by the way) in the current World Review. It deals with the campaign in the British press and the B.B.C. to brand Mihailovich as a German agent.
Jugoslav politics are very complicated and I make no pretence of being an expert on them. For all I know it was entirely right on the part of Britain as well as the U.S.S.R. to drop Mihailovich and support Tito. But what interests me is the readiness, once this decision had been taken, of reputable British newspapers to connive at what amounted to forgery in order to discredit the man whom they had been backing a few months earlier. There is no doubt that this happened. The author of the article gives details of one out of a number of instances in which material facts were suppressed in the most impudent way. Presented with very strong evidence to show that Mihailovich was not a German agent, the majority of our newspapers simply refused to print it, while repeating the charges of treachery just as before.”
Orwell referred to the article “The Truth About Mihailovich?” which appeared in the World Review by Captain Maurice Vitou, who had been an escaped British POW who had joined Draza Mihailovich’s resistance forces, the Yugoslav Home Army, in 1941. Vitou offered his personal and eyewitness accounts of the resistance movements in Yugoslavia during the war.
Orwell also noted instances of censorship during the civil war in Spain from 1936 to 1939 where he fought on the Republican side against Francisco Franco’s Nationalists. Although a socialist, Orwell was embittered by his experiences in Spain because of the repressive nature of the Communist forces there, supported by Joseph Stalin, which sought to suppress all dissent. He described censorship during the civil war in Spain:
“Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libelled in the English leftwing press, and any statement in their defence even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the USSR considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — 1 believe the review copies had been sent out — when the USSR entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not a word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.”
James Klugmann, a hardcore Communist and suspected pro-Soviet British mole, falsified information on Draza Mihailovich.
Orwell analyzed how censorship in the Western countries differed from that in the totalitarian states. In the totalitarian states, censorship was outright and open. In the Western countries, however, censorship was more subtle and covert in nature. Censorship existed in both states, but in the Western state censorship was perceived as benign and innocuous and self-imposed. In Western countries, censorship thus becomes self-censorship.
Orwell analyzed British self-censorship:
“We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian 'co-ordination' that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines - being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia.
Obviously it is not desirable that a government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the MOI or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.
It is important to distinguish between the kind of censorship that the English literary intelligentsia voluntarily impose upon themselves, and the censorship that can sometimes be enforced by pressure groups. Notoriously, certain topics cannot be discussed because of 'vested interests'.
The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular - however foolish, even - entitled to a hearing?”
Orwell cited Voltaire’s argument that free speech consisted of or entailed the right to utter unpopular or unacceptable statements: “Voltaire: 'I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it'.”
Orwell argued against media censorship and suppression: “If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way.”
For Orwell, freedom of speech means ultimately the right to say what is unpopular and what is unaccepted or unacceptable: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
In 1984, the meaning of freedom is explained as being free to say what is obvious and self-evident: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
In the January 12, 1945 As I Please series in the Tribune, George Orwell discussed censorship and media manipulation and deception in the case of Draza Mihailovich:
“I invite attention to an article entitled ‘The Truth about Mihailovich?’ (the author of it also writes for Tribune, by the way) in the current World Review. It deals with the campaign in the British press and the B.B.C. to brand Mihailovich as a German agent.
Jugoslav politics are very complicated and I make no pretence of being an expert on them. For all I know it was entirely right on the part of Britain as well as the U.S.S.R. to drop Mihailovich and support Tito. But what interests me is the readiness, once this decision had been taken, of reputable British newspapers to connive at what amounted to forgery in order to discredit the man whom they had been backing a few months earlier. There is no doubt that this happened. The author of the article gives details of one out of a number of instances in which material facts were suppressed in the most impudent way. Presented with very strong evidence to show that Mihailovich was not a German agent, the majority of our newspapers simply refused to print it, while repeating the charges of treachery just as before.”
Orwell referred to the article “The Truth About Mihailovich?” which appeared in the World Review by Captain Maurice Vitou, who had been an escaped British POW who had joined Draza Mihailovich’s resistance forces, the Yugoslav Home Army, in 1941. Vitou offered his personal and eyewitness accounts of the resistance movements in Yugoslavia during the war.
Koča
Elita
- Poruka
- 15.249
On July 21, 1943, the German occupation forces published a reward of 100,000 German gold marks for the capture of Draza Mihailovich and Josip Broz Tito in Novo Vreme and other newspapers in Yugoslavia.
The BBC, however, in making its international news broadcasts declared that the 100,000 reward was offered for Tito only, omitting the fact that the reward was for both Mihailovich and Tito. As David Martin noted in The Web of Disinformation, in the context of Yugoslavia, this amounted to deception: “This was one of those half-truths that are equivalent to total falsehoods.” The BBC had based its information from that provided by the SOE Cairo, the Special Operations Executive, the wartime British intelligence agency, whose Yugoslav Section was based in Cairo, Egypt. The error was pointed out to the BBC but no corrections were made. The lie and falsification was allowed to stand.
In October, 1943, Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces destroyed five bridges on the Uzice-Visegrad-Sarajevo railway line, four in the Mokra Gora region of Serbia and one in Visegrad in eastern Bosnia. On October 4, 1943, Mihailovich’s resistance forces had captured the Bosnian town of Visegrad which had been occupied by a German and Ustasha garrison, made up of local Bosnian Muslim collaborators with the Nazis who had committed massacres of Bosnian Serb civilians at the outset of the German occupation of Yugoslavia. Mihailovich’s forces were reported to have killed several hundred German troops and Ustasha/Bosnian Muslim collaborators in seizing the town. Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces then blew up a Visegrad bridge that was 150 meters long, a steel span railroad bridge over a gorge. The explosive charges were set by Major Archie Jack, a member of the British mission that was part of Mihailovich’s forces. Brigadier Charles Armstrong, the chief of the British mission to Mihailovich, and U.S. Colonel Albert “Dutch” Seitz, the chief of the U.S. mission to Mihailovich, personally witnessed and participated in this important guerrilla action by Mihailovich’s resistance forces. Colonel William Bailey had also witnessed operations of Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces. David Martin described the destruction of the Visegrad bridge: “This was probably the biggest single bridge-busting operation carried out by Balkan guerrillas during the war.” Armstrong sent a detailed report to SOE Cairo describing the operation and sent a request to the BBC to announce the success of the action.
Draza Mihailovich with rescued U.S. airmen, 1944.
The BBC, however, announced in its news broadcasts that Tito and the Communist Partisans had blown up the bridges. The BBC announced: “The Partisans have destroyed the five bridges of the railway Uzice-Visegrad.” The BBC never corrected this error and deception. There was never any retraction.
Armstrong sent a letter of protest on November 18. 1943, to SOE Cairo:
“If you want to get the best out of Mihailovic you must give him fairer press and broadcasts. Bailey was with Mihailovic forces when [they] took Priboj and Prijepolje and Berane. I saw capture Visegrad, destruction bridges, and know Ostojic took Rogatica. Mihailovich never credited with any [of] these, although reported to you.”
U.S. Army Colonel Robert H. McDowell was sent to Mihailovich’s forces from August to November, 1944 and prepared an report to OSS which vindicated Mihailovich and disproved the Communist Partisan allegations against him.
Finally, when Mihailovich’s forces under Major Zaharije Ostojic seized Rogatica in mid-October, 1943, which was garrisoned by Ustasha troops, which in the context meant largely Bosnian Muslim Nazi collaborators, killing over 200, the BBC erroneously attributed the capture of Rogatica to the Communist Partisans under Tito.
The disinformation campaign was organized by James Klugmann, a Communist and suspected Soviet mole in the Yugoslav Section of SOE Cairo. Klugmann, described as the “Fifth Man”, was a part of the Cambridge spy network that included Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt. Klugmann was a hardcore Communist and Stalinist who had joined the Communist party in 1933 while still at Cambridge and was suspected of being a Soviet spy or mole. He was an open and militant Communist who wrote the History of the Communist Party of Great Britain, From Trotsky to Tito, and The Peaceful Co-existence of Capitalism and Socialism, after World War II. Klugmann was at the center of a web of disinformation that included members of the Special Operations Executive, SOE Cairo, the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Political Warfare Executive (PWE). What resulted was the distortion, manipulation, and falsification of the facts in the Mihailovich case that allowed the emergence of a Communist dictatorship in Yugoslavia led by Josip Broz Tito.
Self-censorship and media suppression and manipulation are endemic threats in a democratic society. The censorship and suppression of the facts in the Draza Mihailovich case allowed a Communist dictatorship to be established in the former Yugoslavia. George Orwell showed that for democracy to be viable and legitimate, self-censorship and media suppression must be understood and examined.
The BBC, however, in making its international news broadcasts declared that the 100,000 reward was offered for Tito only, omitting the fact that the reward was for both Mihailovich and Tito. As David Martin noted in The Web of Disinformation, in the context of Yugoslavia, this amounted to deception: “This was one of those half-truths that are equivalent to total falsehoods.” The BBC had based its information from that provided by the SOE Cairo, the Special Operations Executive, the wartime British intelligence agency, whose Yugoslav Section was based in Cairo, Egypt. The error was pointed out to the BBC but no corrections were made. The lie and falsification was allowed to stand.
In October, 1943, Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces destroyed five bridges on the Uzice-Visegrad-Sarajevo railway line, four in the Mokra Gora region of Serbia and one in Visegrad in eastern Bosnia. On October 4, 1943, Mihailovich’s resistance forces had captured the Bosnian town of Visegrad which had been occupied by a German and Ustasha garrison, made up of local Bosnian Muslim collaborators with the Nazis who had committed massacres of Bosnian Serb civilians at the outset of the German occupation of Yugoslavia. Mihailovich’s forces were reported to have killed several hundred German troops and Ustasha/Bosnian Muslim collaborators in seizing the town. Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces then blew up a Visegrad bridge that was 150 meters long, a steel span railroad bridge over a gorge. The explosive charges were set by Major Archie Jack, a member of the British mission that was part of Mihailovich’s forces. Brigadier Charles Armstrong, the chief of the British mission to Mihailovich, and U.S. Colonel Albert “Dutch” Seitz, the chief of the U.S. mission to Mihailovich, personally witnessed and participated in this important guerrilla action by Mihailovich’s resistance forces. Colonel William Bailey had also witnessed operations of Mihailovich’s guerrilla forces. David Martin described the destruction of the Visegrad bridge: “This was probably the biggest single bridge-busting operation carried out by Balkan guerrillas during the war.” Armstrong sent a detailed report to SOE Cairo describing the operation and sent a request to the BBC to announce the success of the action.
Draza Mihailovich with rescued U.S. airmen, 1944.
The BBC, however, announced in its news broadcasts that Tito and the Communist Partisans had blown up the bridges. The BBC announced: “The Partisans have destroyed the five bridges of the railway Uzice-Visegrad.” The BBC never corrected this error and deception. There was never any retraction.
Armstrong sent a letter of protest on November 18. 1943, to SOE Cairo:
“If you want to get the best out of Mihailovic you must give him fairer press and broadcasts. Bailey was with Mihailovic forces when [they] took Priboj and Prijepolje and Berane. I saw capture Visegrad, destruction bridges, and know Ostojic took Rogatica. Mihailovich never credited with any [of] these, although reported to you.”
U.S. Army Colonel Robert H. McDowell was sent to Mihailovich’s forces from August to November, 1944 and prepared an report to OSS which vindicated Mihailovich and disproved the Communist Partisan allegations against him.
Finally, when Mihailovich’s forces under Major Zaharije Ostojic seized Rogatica in mid-October, 1943, which was garrisoned by Ustasha troops, which in the context meant largely Bosnian Muslim Nazi collaborators, killing over 200, the BBC erroneously attributed the capture of Rogatica to the Communist Partisans under Tito.
The disinformation campaign was organized by James Klugmann, a Communist and suspected Soviet mole in the Yugoslav Section of SOE Cairo. Klugmann, described as the “Fifth Man”, was a part of the Cambridge spy network that included Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt. Klugmann was a hardcore Communist and Stalinist who had joined the Communist party in 1933 while still at Cambridge and was suspected of being a Soviet spy or mole. He was an open and militant Communist who wrote the History of the Communist Party of Great Britain, From Trotsky to Tito, and The Peaceful Co-existence of Capitalism and Socialism, after World War II. Klugmann was at the center of a web of disinformation that included members of the Special Operations Executive, SOE Cairo, the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and the Political Warfare Executive (PWE). What resulted was the distortion, manipulation, and falsification of the facts in the Mihailovich case that allowed the emergence of a Communist dictatorship in Yugoslavia led by Josip Broz Tito.
Self-censorship and media suppression and manipulation are endemic threats in a democratic society. The censorship and suppression of the facts in the Draza Mihailovich case allowed a Communist dictatorship to be established in the former Yugoslavia. George Orwell showed that for democracy to be viable and legitimate, self-censorship and media suppression must be understood and examined.
da,to mozda kod cetnickih gorskih stabova donose strateske odluke na temelju podataka jednog majora.....
............................
Luctor
Primećen član
- Poruka
- 853
Мислим да овде влада извесна збрка...
1.Термин "Четници" је отприлике у рангу термина "Козаци",где се мисли на јединице и организације војног и полувојног типа,а не на јединствен војни или политички покрет.Четничке организације и јединице у Србији су постојале још од краја 19 века.
Пре 2 светског рата постајала је организација Четника,коју је предводио Коста Пећанац,каснији савезник Немаца,кога је Михајловић због тога ликвидирао.
Дража Михајловић није био члан Четничких организација,нити је његова организација,за разлику од Пећанчеве носила званично назив "Четници".
Народ је називао Четницима све нерегуларне Српске и Југословенске војнике,као и паравојску (монархисте) који нису били комунисти,што укључује како Михајловићеве људе,тако и Пећанчеве,Ђуришићеве па чак и Љотићевце.
Такође збрку појачавају скоро идентичне униформе Дражиних,Пећанчевих,Недићевих и Љотићевих људи,што олакшава манипулацију фотографијама,да би се Михајловићу приписале и те јединице,које са њим нису имале везе.Сличан случај имамо у Француској између Петенових (фашистичких) и Де Голових (антифашистичких) јединица,које су обе носиле исте Француске униформе.
Такође су неки Четнички команданти,који су номинално прихватали Дражу се одметнули,и водили операције на своју руку.
Било је и такође Четника,који су формирали своје јединице потпуно независно од Михајловића,нити су уопште слушали његова наређења.
"Четник" је шири појам од Југословенске Војске у Отаџбини.
Имамо случај бившег Совјетског генерала Власова,који је после заробљавања прешао на страну Немаца,и формирао војску од Совјетских заробљеника.
Да ли то што је прешао на страну Немаца може да се користи као аргумент против Стаљина,да би се "доказивало" да су Совјети били сарадници Немаца током рата?
У Совјетском савезу "партизан" је означавао герилца,како Совјетског тако и локал националног који се борио и против Совјета и Немаца заједно.
Неки партизани у Совјетском савезу,попут Украјинских су чак шуровали са Немцима.
Да ли из тога следи да су партизани у Совјетском Савезу шуровали са Немцима?
Такође је одређен број Руских Козака ратовао на страни Немаца,носећи скоро идентичну Козачку одежду,као и Козаци на страни Совјета.
Да ли можемо због Фашистичких Козака етикетирати све Козаке као фашистичке сараднике,укључујући и оне антифашистичке?
Про-Немачки Козаци:
Совјетски Козаци:
Козачке једице иначе јако подсећају на Четнике по изгледу.
Про-Немачки Козаци:
Ово су,са друге стране припадници Грчког покрета отпора:
Наполеон Зервас "Грчки Дража Михајловић",вођа Грчког монархистичког покрета отпора,који је изашао као победник из грађанског рата:
Њега су Грчки комунистички партизани,такође оптуживали да сарађује са Немцима,слично Југословенском сценарију.
Тако да "Четнички" изглед није једиственост домаћих Четника.
Све ове сличности,отварају могућност идеолошке манипулације.
Такође треба знати да је Грчка такође имала два покрета отпора,монархистички и комунистички,само што је у Грчкој победио монархистички,јер је Британија у овом случају одлучила да подржи овај први,из својих стратешких интереса.
Истих интереса,ради којих је одбацила Михајловића.
2.Тврдња да је Михајловић колаборирао са Немцима је потпуно смешна,јер то оповргавају како Немачке потернице против њега током скоро целог периода окупације,као и савезничке мисије код Михајловића које су биле присутне до у позну 1944 год,кад Партизани преузимају власт.
Истина је да су Дражини људи набављали знатну количину оружја од Недићевих људи,али исто тако су и Партизани набављали знатну количину наоружања од НДХ Домобрана,укључујући и авионе.
Занимљива је паралела у чињеници да су Немци дали НДХ да поседује авионе и тенкове,док Недићевој Србији нису.
Чак шта више дан партизанског ваздухопловства се обележава када је Руди Чајевец,пилот НДХ прелетео на страну Партизана.
Знатан број народних хероја Партизанског покрета,јесу бивши војници НДХ који су прешли на страну партизана.
Михајловићу су судили људи који су имали јак мотив да га облате и денунцирају јер им је био једини озбиљан идеолошки ривал.Треба приметити знатну мању помпу и хистерију око Недића и Љотићеваца,за које се зна да су отворено сарађивали са Немцима.
Сличну денунцијацију су трпели и Пољски национални партизани,који су били антикомунисти.
Знатан број докумената које неки износе против Драже су проблематични,јер су из Комунистичких извора и врло лако се могу фалсификовати.
А познато је колико су Комунисти били непристрасни према идеолошким противницима.
3.Да је Михајловић стварно био "Великосрбин" и шовиниста,његова организација се не би звала Југословенска Војска у Отаџбини.
Исто тако не би било Четника Словенаца и Хрвата у њој,као што није било Словеначких нити Српских Усташа.
То је облик пропаганде који је служио да отуђи симпатије Југословена монархиста који нису били Срби од идеје монархије.
Да би се направио документ који компромитује Дражу,довољно је парче папира,писаћа машина и фалсификовани потпис...што је наравно изузетно тешко.
"Великосрпску" идеологију Михајловића,оповргава Светосавски конгрес крајем 1943 год,који поздравља "Југословенски народ".Нигде се Срби посебно не издвајају.
Организатор тог конгреса је био Звонимир Вучковић,етнички Хрват и Четнички војвода.
4.У Пољској је после пропасти комунизма рехабилитована Пољска домовинска војска,која је била антифашистичка и антикомунистичка јер у Пољској је било јако мало домаћих комуниста који су имали некакв личан мотив да и даље бране званичну партијску причу.
А.Са друге стране ми у Србији имамо идеолошку збрку,где се знатан број екстремно националистички оријентисаних људи самопрогласио Четницима,и као такви су учествовали у ратовима током 90-их.Шешељ и његова организација себе исто називају "Четницима" иако немају никакве везе са Михајловићем, и још су притом против идеје монархије.
За либерални део Српског народа је рехабилитација Михајловића постала исто као и давања за право тим ултранационалистима.
Такође имамо старе комунисте и њихове потомке,који су захваљујући партији били јако угледни грађани,смештени у конфисковане станове у елитним деловима Београда.Сама помисао,да су можда ти људи обмањивали ради идеолошких разлога,руши њихов морални ауторитет како у туђим тако и својим очима,тако да је јак мотив да се рехабилитација Драже не догоди.
А потпуно је јасно да је Тито и његов покрет имао изузетно јак идеолошки мотив за уништењем Михајловића и ЈВуО како физички тако и морално.
Б.Такође имамо случај Хрвата и Муслимана који добијају нервни напад од спомене речи "Четник",што ствара условну рефлекс спамовања и исмејавања кад год се покрене тема о Четницима.
За Хрвате "Четник" јесте синоним за Српског националисту и шовинисту,упркос чињеници да су несрби учествовали у ЈВуО,укључујући припаднике њиховог народа.Томе доприноси како стара пропаганда,тако и рат из 90-их.
Такође,због тих ратова термин "Четник" је и на западу,захваљујући Хрватима и Муслиманима постао синоним за Српске националисте,што сад и на западу ствара отпор према том имену.
За неке екстремније Хрвате "Четник" је синоним за "Србин".
Такође је јака мотивација Хрвата да код Срба нађу пандан својим Усташама,ради моралног растерећења,што води интензивном активизму Хрватских форумаша против Михајловића (пример Кисели).
Иако код Срба тај пандан заиста постоји,али код Љотићеваца, они због пропаганде су опседнути Михајловићевим Четницима,вероватно зато што Љотићевци нису имали масовнију подршку Срба,за разлику од подршке Хрвата Усташама и Домобранима.
Иако има доста постова на интернету који величају Љотића и ЗБОР,али Хрватски чланови се овде баве денунцијацијом Михајловића.
Имамо Хрватске активисте попут Киселог,који гаји опсесију према Четницима и чија реч по сваку цену мора бити задња на оваквим расправама.Са таквим активистима нема се сврхе расправљати,управо због саме активистичке природе њихових мотива.
5.И на крају, Партизани као и ЈВуО су били антифашистички и ослободилачки покрети.
Недићевци,Љотићевци,Пећанчеви Четници као и неке самосталне или одметнуте четничке јединице јесу били сарадници окупатора.
Poslednja izmena:
nije smesna. poternica za njim je povucena 1942 godine. za celo vreme rata , bez obzira sto se znalo da je na ravnoj gori (izuzev malog izleta do crne gore, kada je mislio da ce eliminisati partizane) , nemci nisu smatrali za potrebno da ga eliminisu. broza jesu, i to vrlo agresivno , specijalno u drvaru.. partizani nisu preuzeli vlast, nije im nitko doneo vlast na tanjiru. oni su se borili za vlast. mihailovic je cekao da saveznici odvale posao, pa da on preuzme vlast. to je razlika. saveznicka vojan misija (amerikanci+englezi) su evakuisani sa aerodroma pranjani 1944 godine, 120 ljudi. nikakvih pohvala za efikasnost mihailovica u borbi protiv nemaca nema sa strane te misije. misija pukovnika macdowella je puna hvale, ali , to je bila politicka misija, koja je imala sastanke sa neubacherom, u smislu "bezuslovne predaje nemaca" , o kojoju ima puno podataka, i koju ni jedna strana nije prihvatila ( a nije ni mogla...)
mihailovic je bio prisiljen na kolaboraciju iz jednostavnog razloga sto nije otimao oruzje, a ono mu je trebalo ,iskljucivo za borbu protiv partizana (nemce i talijane, on nije dirao)
1.hrvati, slovenci , muslimani koji su se opredelili za JVuO , su bili , ili oficiri kraljevske vojske, ili su izmedju ustasa, talijana i nemaca, smatrali da je t privremeno najbolja solucija, dok se stvari ne rasciste. major novak , je nestao iz slovenije i proveo zadnju godinu rata u italiji
2. naziv JVuO je bila treca izmena naziva organizacije DM. njegovo jugoslovenstvo nije bas bilo duboko , i bilo je u okviru srpske hegemonije, koja je bila apsolutna u godinama pred drugi svetski rat. "homogena srbija" recito govori o tome, a i ptovlaci se kroz naredbe i politicki program mihailovica
zasto bi to bilo falsifikovano? samo zato sto dobro zvuci u tvom sladunjavom tekstu, tipa ...da...ali...
sve ono sto ne ide u prilog mihailovica ili one srbije, je falsifikovano..jer ipak draza je takva velicina, postenjacina i dobricina, ljubitelj francuske poezije, da mu nema ravna ...
cetnici su napravili neki pokolj muslimanskog stanovnistva u foci za vreme drugog svetskog rata, i isto tako su se proslavili u srebrenici. pretpostavljam da je to neka istorijska zabuna, cisti falsifikat...
i na kraju JVuO je bila oruzana banda, koja je to ostala do kraja rata. partizani su bili oruzana banda koja je zahvaljujuci disciplini i nad nacionalnom programu , prerasla u oruzanu vojnu silu, zvana armija
1941 godine, mihailovic je imao sve , ali na zalost, u gerilskom ratovanju je vazno sta narod misli. mihailovic je izgubio svoju bazu, cak i u srbiji
1941 godine, mihailovic je imao sve , ali na zalost, u gerilskom ratovanju je vazno sta narod misli. mihailovic je izgubio svoju bazu, cak i u srbiji
- Poruka
- 50.831
Kiseli citat "Istorijska fakta nedvosmisleno dokazuju: četnički zločin je sistematski"
Koliko je ukupno ubijeno civila i ratnih zarobljenika od strane četnika na teritoriji nekadašnje Jugoslavije od 41 - 45 ?
Koliko je ukupno ubijeno civila i ratnih zarobljenika od strane četnika na teritoriji nekadašnje Jugoslavije od 41 - 45 ?
Kiseli dobro si ti obrazložio svoje stajalište.
Šteta samo što neki niti ne pročitaju pa ospu paljbu bez ikakvih argumenata.
Sporimo se oko toga zašto je zločin bio sistematski.A bio je.
Četnici su i po Srbiji vršljali i ubijali civilno stanovnoštvo.To što se služe presurovim metodama u progonu komunista ovdje malo kome smeta.To što su ubijali sve nesrpsko po prostorima bivše Juge ne smeta nikome.
To je najbolje zaboraviti jer to ne odgovara zagovornicima četnika.
Šteta samo što neki niti ne pročitaju pa ospu paljbu bez ikakvih argumenata.
Sporimo se oko toga zašto je zločin bio sistematski.A bio je.
Četnici su i po Srbiji vršljali i ubijali civilno stanovnoštvo.To što se služe presurovim metodama u progonu komunista ovdje malo kome smeta.To što su ubijali sve nesrpsko po prostorima bivše Juge ne smeta nikome.
To je najbolje zaboraviti jer to ne odgovara zagovornicima četnika.
Luctor
Primećen član
- Poruka
- 853
Много се причало о Српском припадницима ЈВуО,па хајде мало да видимо нешто о Словеначким "Великосрпским шовинистима" :
Као што видимо,заклетву су давали Краљу Петру II,Словеначком народу и Краљевини Југославији.Никакви Срби се не спомињу.
Како Словенци третирају преживеле чланове ЈВуО:
:
Као што видимо,заклетву су давали Краљу Петру II,Словеначком народу и Краљевини Југославији.Никакви Срби се не спомињу.
Како Словенци третирају преживеле чланове ЈВуО:
...........
citirano iz :
Jasmin Mahmutović
Mentor: doc. dr. Damijan Guštin
ČETNIŠTVO NA SLOVENSKEM 1941-1945
KOT VOJAŠKA FORMACIJA
Diplomsko delo
UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI
FAKULTETA ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE
cetnici i narodna vojska, (slovenski domobrani) te plava garda, nisu jedno te isto.ako hoces da govoris o tome otvori posebni topik, jer to nema veze sa mihailovicem. posle kapitulacije italije, cetnici koji su bili pripadnici "antikomunisticke dobrovaljacke milicije (MVAC), onaj deo slovenije pod talijanima, su presli na slovenski deo, pa je nastala saradnja izmedju tih cetnika, slovenackih autohtonih, kojih je bilo manje od 500 i pretopili su se u druge formacije , ili presli na nemacku ili partiznasku stranu.
ovaj "cetnicki vojvoda" je bio star 16 godina , 1941 godine, pa kao takav nije bio u nikakvoj vojnoj formaciji. njegova tvrdnja je da je zavrsio oficirsku skolu , koju su drzali pripadnici OSS-a ( sve sa 16 godina) i daje dobio cin kapetana licno od mihailovica , 1944 godine, znaci kada je bio 19....mora da je bio prava lafcina u borbi, kada je tako brzo promovisan, ili ga spopala starost, pa malo fantazira, vidi sam sebe sa sabljom u ruci , na sirokom polju.......
Ljubljana,
Poslednja izmena:
- Poruka
- 50.831
Kiseli citat "Istorijska fakta nedvosmisleno dokazuju: četnički zločin je sistematski"
Koliko je ukupno ubijeno civila i ratnih zarobljenika od strane četnika na teritoriji nekadašnje Jugoslavije od 41 - 45 ?
Koliko je ukupno ubijeno civila i ratnih zarobljenika od strane četnika na teritoriji nekadašnje Jugoslavije od 41 - 45 ?
ratni zarobljenici zavise od toga , da li imas gde da ih stavis, hranis, lecis, i pazis na njih ( da li mozes odvojiti snage za to). ocito da u periodu 1941-44 cetnici nisu imali takvih uveta, ali ni potrebe,da drze ratne zarobljenike.izuzev zarobljenih partizana, koje su predavali nemcima, i tu i tamo saveznickih pilota (neke spasili, neke predali... , neke pobili zbog kozne jakne, kao stari dobri Pazarac...), zarobljenika nije bilo.
ako govorimo o broju pobijenih, zna se za 19 764 po imenu i prezimenu, koji su bili predoceni i dokumentovani, za vreme sudjenja mihailovicu 1946. medjutim, 1944 cetnici su presli na stranu partizana, i proglasena je opsta amnestija, pa nije bilo razloga za dublje cackanje, tako da ce cetnicke zrtve biti pripisane partizanima (specijalno one u srbiji), u novom istrazivanju direktora instituta za noviju istoriju
medjutim, u bosni se nesto kuva po tom pitanju...bosanci imaju merak na cetnike, pa govore o nekih 120 hiljada zrtava na teritoriji bosne, sve cetnicki rucni rad....
ako govorimo o broju pobijenih, zna se za 19 764 po imenu i prezimenu, koji su bili predoceni i dokumentovani, za vreme sudjenja mihailovicu 1946. medjutim, 1944 cetnici su presli na stranu partizana, i proglasena je opsta amnestija, pa nije bilo razloga za dublje cackanje, tako da ce cetnicke zrtve biti pripisane partizanima (specijalno one u srbiji), u novom istrazivanju direktora instituta za noviju istoriju
medjutim, u bosni se nesto kuva po tom pitanju...bosanci imaju merak na cetnike, pa govore o nekih 120 hiljada zrtava na teritoriji bosne, sve cetnicki rucni rad....
- Poruka
- 6.496
ratni zarobljenici zavise od toga , da li imas gde da ih stavis, hranis, lecis, i pazis na njih ( da li mozes odvojiti snage za to). ocito da u periodu 1941-44 cetnici nisu imali takvih uveta, ali ni potrebe,da drze ratne zarobljenike.izuzev zarobljenih partizana, koje su predavali nemcima, i tu i tamo saveznickih pilota (neke spasili, neke predali... , neke pobili zbog kozne jakne, kao stari dobri Pazarac...), zarobljenika nije bilo.
ako govorimo o broju pobijenih, zna se za 19 764 po imenu i prezimenu, koji su bili predoceni i dokumentovani, za vreme sudjenja mihailovicu 1946. medjutim, 1944 cetnici su presli na stranu partizana, i proglasena je opsta amnestija, pa nije bilo razloga za dublje cackanje, tako da ce cetnicke zrtve biti pripisane partizanima (specijalno one u srbiji), u novom istrazivanju direktora instituta za noviju istoriju
medjutim, u bosni se nesto kuva po tom pitanju...bosanci imaju merak na cetnike, pa govore o nekih 120 hiljada zrtava na teritoriji bosne, sve cetnicki rucni rad....
Jos jedan istoirijski dokaz od baletana kiselog "GOVORI SE" o 120.000 hiljada zrtva, sto nisi rekao 12.000.000. to bi bilo vise u tvom baronskom stilu
dobro je sto si veseo...brojka te veseli, ili onako, osecas se "high" ?
- Poruka
- 50.831
ratni zarobljenici zavise od toga , da li imas gde da ih stavis, hranis, lecis, i pazis na njih ( da li mozes odvojiti snage za to). ocito da u periodu 1941-44 cetnici nisu imali takvih uveta, ali ni potrebe,da drze ratne zarobljenike.izuzev zarobljenih partizana, koje su predavali nemcima, i tu i tamo saveznickih pilota (neke spasili, neke predali... , neke pobili zbog kozne jakne, kao stari dobri Pazarac...), zarobljenika nije bilo.
ako govorimo o broju pobijenih, zna se za 19 764 po imenu i prezimenu, koji su bili predoceni i dokumentovani, za vreme sudjenja mihailovicu 1946. medjutim, 1944 cetnici su presli na stranu partizana, i proglasena je opsta amnestija, pa nije bilo razloga za dublje cackanje, tako da ce cetnicke zrtve biti pripisane partizanima (specijalno one u srbiji), u novom istrazivanju direktora instituta za noviju istoriju
medjutim, u bosni se nesto kuva po tom pitanju...bosanci imaju merak na cetnike, pa govore o nekih 120 hiljada zrtava na teritoriji bosne, sve cetnicki rucni rad....
Ratne zločine je moguće činiti samo protiv civila i ratnih zarobljenika.Nema treće grupe žrtava.
Sredinom osamdesetih,pre dolaska Miloševića na vlast,u jednoj emisiji TV Beograd,poznatog novinara Dragana Babića (kasnije pristalica Ante Markovića) govorilo se o četnicima.Jedan od gostiju je saopštio podatak da je ukupno od četnika svih vrsta stradalo a tu se uračunati i zarobljenici koji su predati okupatoru nešto više od 9000 lica.Znači komunistička država je utvrdila da su četnici ubili i predali okupatoru za više od četiri godine rata oko 9000 lica.O kakvom sistemu se može govoriti kad su ti zločini u pitanju ? .
Suđenja političkim protivnicima u nacističkim i komunističkim državama nisu nešto na šta bi se trebalo pozivati.Mogli su oni da sastave spiskove i stotina hiljada koje je navodno likvidirao D.M. jer je dokazivanje suprotnog bilo nemoguće u okolnostima koje su vladale u komuno-diktaturi.
Citat "medjutim, u bosni se nesto kuva po tom pitanju...bosanci imaju merak na cetnike, pa govore o nekih 120 hiljada zrtava na teritoriji bosne, sve cetnicki rucni rad "
Oni govore o desetinama hiljada ubijenih u Foči,Čajniču,Rudom ,Goraždu i Višegradu.Upoređujući popise stanovništva pre i posle WWII u tim mestima ,lako se da zaključiti da se radi o "mitomaniji".Nigde nije došlo do promene u versko-nacionalnoj strukturi stanovništva tih opština u srpsku korist.Zločina je bilo ali se radi o stotinama a ne hiljadama ,pogotovo ne desetinama hiljada ubijenih.
Poslednja izmena:
ratni zlocin ima svoju definiciju:
....i nije limitirano tvojom definicijom. postoji ono sto je dokumentovano. price na televiziji i po razlicitim casopisima, i nacionalne simpatije ili antipatije su nevazne. za cetnike se zna i dokazano je preko 19 hiljada zrtava.
postoje i drugi izvori, nemacki, talijanski i americki . NARA (national archive US ) ima zaplenjene dokumente mihailovica
http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-yugoslavia.html
ili ovde
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-records/rg-226-oss/rg-226-boxes-440-442.html
- Poruka
- 50.831
Ko je dokazao taj broj od 19 000 ,daj neki objektivan izvor,ove linkove što si dao nemaju veze sa tim brojem.
"the trial of dragoljub draza mihailovic,STENOGRAPHIC RECORD AND DOCUMENT
'THE TRIAL OF DRAGOLJUB-DRA2A mihailovic", 1946....
verovatno ima u nekom antikvarijatu, ili na webu...
'THE TRIAL OF DRAGOLJUB-DRA2A mihailovic", 1946....
verovatno ima u nekom antikvarijatu, ili na webu...
- Poruka
- 50.831
Idi bre kiseli,što odmah ne kažeš da si miki maus istoričar.Za tebe i slične napravićemo novi pdf - istorija za decu.
Idi bre kiseli,što odmah ne kažeš da si miki maus istoričar.Za tebe i slične napravićemo novi pdf - istorija za decu.
sigurno. citirat cemo sve iz ravnogorske citanke......