Suchergebnisse

U tekstu se razmatra revizionistička struja u suvremenoj hrvatskoj historiografiji, a posredno i u politici, koja se bavi Nezavisnom Državom Hrvatskom (1941-1945). Revizionistički narativ čine tri glavne postavke: (a) NDH je bila normalna onodobna protupobunjenička država koja nije koristila državni teror kako bi uništila vjerske i etničke zajednice koje su u ustaškoj ideologiji i politici bile određene kao prirodni ili organski neprijatelji te tvorevine, nego je primjenjivala ograničena legitimna sredstva borbe da bi se zaštitila od političkih pobunjenika; (b) u NDH nisu izvršeni masovni zločini, a kamoli genocid, ni nad Srbima, ni nad Židovima, ni nad Romima; štoviše, glavne žrtve bili su Hrvati te zločine NDH treba desrbizirati i dejudeizirati; (c) logor Jasenovac bio je samo radni i sabirni logor, a ne koncentracijski logor smrti, u koji je NDH privodila političke protivnike kako bi se zaštitila od njihova razornog djelovanja, a ne kako bi ih ubijala; pravi smrtonosni logor u Jasenovcu osnovala je tek jugoslavenska komunistička vlast poslije svršetka Drugoga svjetskog rata. Pokušavajući dekonstruirati "jasenovački mit", revizionisti zapravo nastoje dekonstruirati "mit o genocidu" u NDH, a time potpuno ili djelomice rehabilitirati NDH. ; This article analyses the revisionist currents in Croatian contemporary historiography – and implicitly also in politics – which in its focus has interpretation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH, 1941-1945). Three main elements of the revisionist narative are: a) NDH was just a normal state concerned with rebellion in its own territory, rather than the state which used state terror to exterminate religious and ethnic communities marked as its "natural and organic enemies". In other words, it only applied limited and legitimate instruments to protect itself from its political opponents. b) There were no massive crimes, and especially no genocide, neither against the Serbs, nor Jewish or Roma population. On the contrary, the main victims in 1941-1945 had been Croats, and thus the crimes of NDH should be de-Serbianized and de-Jewisized. c) Jasenovac was only a labour camp and prison, not a concentration death camp. The NDH used it for gathering and arresting its political opponents in order to prevent them from pursuing their destructive actions against the state. The real death camp in Jasenovac was formed only in 1945 by post-NDH communist authorities. By deconstructing what they call the "Jasenovac myth", the revisionists are in fact trying to deconstruct "the myth of genocide by NDH", and thus to rehabilitate the NDH either completely or partially.

The article distinguishes two ways in which Heidegger can be a subject of research. In one type of research, he is a historical figure of political events, & as such a subject of history as a science. Such research has to satisfy the scientific criteria of historiographical method regardless of how critically it treats its subject. In the second type, the subject are Heidegger's work & the philosophical motives of his political involvement at the start of the Nazi regime in 1933/34. An analysis has in both cases come up with some sloppy scientific procedures & shown that frequently the a priori assumptions get the upper hand, & tend to lean in favour of proving his guilt. A brief introductory overview of the debate is followed by a concise historical outline of the stages in this controversy, & then by an excursus about the essence of the scientific method, & finally by a critical review of the works of some historians which serves the author to demonstrate how it is possible for research to get off the right track when not respecting the criteria & the standards of the scientific method. The second part focuses on the question of the interpretation of the relationship between philosophy & political activism. The thesis (with critical references to some recent ideas by Fried, Kisiel, Thoma) is that the philosophical motives of Heidegger's "leap" into politics should primarily be sought in the methodological dimensions of his work, primarily in those linked to the problems of grounding, & not so much in certain notional concordances of his categories with the Nazi terminology & concepts. 54 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author gives a brief account of the (active or passive) complicity of the overwhelming majority of Serbian intellectuals in the Serbs war on Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina & the war crimes & crimes against humanity, including genocide, they have committed in its course. The author then argues that in view of this complicity, intellectuals outside Serbia should not be doing "business as usual" with their Serbian colleagues. He advances an argument for a comprehensive, but selective, boycott of Serbian intellectuals as the morally appropriate response of intellectuals the world over. Adapted from the source document.

"These are the memories of Levon Yotnakhparian as he joins the Ottoman military and finds himself in the middle of a genocide against his people. This is his story of escape through the desert and subsequent return on a quest to save thousands of other stranded and orphaned Armenians."

A 2013 speech by the Prosecutor General of Armenia Aghvan Hovsepyan "The task of Armenian lawyers is also the disclosure of organizers, instigators and accomplices of Armenian genocide" with national and international responses to it in the mass media

The Kosovo crisis once again brought the powerful, unscrupulous, & destructive Milosevic media apparatus into the spotlight. This is nothing new or surprising for all those who have been covering his political ascent from the beginning, but this time he used his heaviest artillery, never mincing words nor flinching from using all possible means to achieve his ends: to justify the genocidal policy & rally Serbs once again around the well-known platform of national unity & the Greater Serbia rhetoric. On one side, he had a well-oiled media machine that mercilessly rolled over everything in its way, not respecting any basic journalistic principles, not to mention ethics. On the other side were the most powerful media in the world -- aggressive, assertive, & equipped with state-of-the-art technology, but with one major flaw: these are mass media, not propaganda machinery. Two completely different structures clashed head-on. Thus, the media in war turned into the war of the media, a totally unfair war between a small but powerful propaganda machine & the large but democratic media. 8 References. Adapted from the source document.