Talk:Marko Natlačen

Use of unreliable, POV sources

At least 2 of the sources cited by Doremo appear to be extremely POV. France Grum published 2 books, the first “The Viktring tragedy: in memory of immortal heroes, betrayed in Vitring from 27-31. May 1945 and murdered for the great ideas of freedom”. So he is claiming that the SS-commanded Slovene Home Guard, who with other collaborators helped Nazi and Fascist forces murder some 76,000 Slovenes, or 90% of total war-time victims, plus rounded up the few remaining Jews in Ljubljana and sent them to Nazi extermination camps, were “immortal heroes” fighting under SS-Nazi command for “freedom.” His second book appears to celebrate the Chetnik “freedom-fighters” of Grcarice and Turjak, i.e. who fought under the command of genocidal Draza Mihajlovic, plus under Fascist command, when these “freedom-fighters”, together with their Fascist allies, sent 8-12% of the population of Ljubljana Province to concentration camps, including many women and children, where thousands died.

The other cited source, Bevc, appears to be a memoire, and Bevc is cited in the article on Ivan Prezelj, a Chetnik commander, also fighting under the genocidal Draza Mihailovic and Italian fascists. Bevc appears have known Prezelj, and appears to have beeen a participant in these events on the Nazi-fascist collaborationist side. His book mentions “Liberals”, which in Slovenia meant a Liberal Party, that welcomed the dictatorship of King Alexander, and in WWII sent its private army to fight under fascist and Nazi command. So both Grum and Bevc appear to be highly partisan POV sources, in total opposition to mainstream historiography which does not celebrate Slovene Nazi-fascist collaborators as “heroes” and “freedom-fighters”. The 3rd source cited by Doremo is some Dutch historian named Jan Bank, who's written mainly on history of the Netherlands, plus the one cited book on general WWII events in Europe, so regarding expretise on Slovenia and former Yugoslavia specificallt, Tomasevich infinitely trumps him as an authority, and so does Kranjc

Use of unreliable, POV sources

At least 2 of the sources cited by Doremo appear to be extremely POV. France Grum published 2 books, the first “The Viktring tragedy: in memory of immortal heroes, betrayed in Vitring from 27-31. May 1945 and murdered for the great ideas of freedom”. So he is claiming that the SS-commanded Slovene Home Guard, which swore allegiance to Hitler, and who with other collaborators helped Nazi and Fascist forces murder some 76,000 Slovenes, or 90% of total war-time victims, plus rounded up the few remaining Jews in Ljubljana and sent them to Nazi extermination camps, were “immortal heroes” fighting under SS-Nazi command for “freedom.” His second book appears to celebrate the Chetnik “freedom-fighters” of Grcarice and Turjak, who fought under the command of genocidal Draza Mihajlovic, plus under Fascist command, when these “freedom-fighters”, together with their Fascist allies, sent 8-12% of the population of Ljubljana Province to Fascist concentration camps, including many women and children, where thousands died.

The other cited source, Bevc, is a memoire, and Bevc is cited in the article on Ivan Prezelj, a Chetnik commander, also fighting under the genocidal Draza Mihailovic and Italian fascists. Bevc appears to have known Prezelj, and appears to have been a participant in these events on the Nazi-fascist collaborationist side. His book mentions “Liberals”, which in Slovenia meant a Liberal Party, that welcomed the dictatorship of King Alexander, and in WWII sent its private army to fight under fascist and Nazi command. So both Grum and Bevc appear to be highly partisan POV sources, in total opposition to mainstream historiography which does not celebrate Slovene Nazi-fascist collaborators as “heroes” and “freedom-fighters”.

The 3rd source cited by Doremo is some Dutch historian named Jan Bank, who's written mainly on history of the Netherlands, plus the one cited book on general WWII events in Europe, so regarding expertise on Slovenia and former Yugoslavia specifically, Tomasevich infinitely trumps him as an authority, and so does Kranjc. Kranjc calls it an assassination. Dictionaries define assassination as the killing of a political figure for political reasons, and clearly Natlacen was the leading political figure in Slovenia, and also the political leader of collaboration with the Fascist occupation, thus his killing 100% fits the definition of assassination Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the term to "killing" (a term you've also used above) as a neutral hypernym (of murder, assassination, execution). "Execution" is inappropriate because it refers to carrying out a legal sentence by an administrative authority by any dictionary definition, which this killing clearly was not. The killer disguised himself as a priest and pretended to deliver a letter to Natlačen's home, killed him, and then fled. Doremo (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

By far the most appropriate term is assassination, which is defined as the killing of a political figure for political reasons. Let's hear your argument how Natlacen was not a political figure, and was not killed for political reasons, in fact for collaborationist war reasons? Per Nova Slovenska Zaveza, the present day incarnation of his Nazi-fascist-collaborationist Slovenska Zaveza, Natlacen had just prior to that played a critical role in getting his political party's private army, the Slovene Legion, to join the collaborationist forces, to jointly fight the Partisans under Fascist command, when per Tomasevich, 80.000 well-armed Italian troops and their collaborationist allies killed nearly half of all Partisans (who numbered only some 3,000 at the time). The collaborationists' Italian allies also shot thousands of Slovene civilian hostages, sent tens-of-thousands of Slovene civilians, including women and children, to fascist concentration camps, where thousands died. Those are the forces Natlacen had his private political army join, to participate in same. So his assassination was clearly also a war act, when he was a leading participant in the war on the side of fascist occupation and mass violence against Slovenes. In fact per Tomasevich, Kranjc and others, collaborationists like Natlacen participated on the side of ethnocide against Slovenes, since wiping out Slovenes entirely as people was the ultimate goal of both their Nazi and fascist allies

WP needs to use reliable sources like Tomasevich an Kranjc for terminology, certainly not the terminology of the collaboration-apologists you cited, who call SS-Nazi-commanded quislings "freedom-fighters"Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Do note that assassination is described as "the act of murdering ..." Doremo (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)\

btw, that same Slovene Legion that Natlacen sent to fight against Partisans on the Fascist occupation side, later fought under SS-command, swearing allegiance not only to Hitler, but swearing to fight against the Western Allies. As Kranjc and Tomasevich note, by guarding critical Balkan transportation routes and fighting the Allied-recognized Partisans, they greatly aided the Nazi war effort against the Allies. Thus, in addition to greatly helping the Nazi and fascists murder 90% of Slovene wartime victims, with among the highest WWII death rates in Europe, Slovene collaborators directly cost Allied lives - American and British boys no doubt died because of them. And indeed a very good case can be made that Natlacen's actions cost Allied lives. Slovene collaborators also turned over downed Allied pilots to the Nazis, as compared to the 800 Allied pilots that just the Slovene Partisans rescued. It is no wonder that the British and American military personnel declared Natlacen’s collaborationists to be enemies of the Allies, and therefore also not that surprising how Slovene collaborationist forces were treated by the Allies in Austria after the war

Yet even today there are those who refuse to recognize that the SS-commanded Slovene quisling forces were collaborationists, like the intro sentences which make it appear like it is debatable whether Natlacen was a collaborationist or not. Had some French political leader gone to the outskirts of Paris to greet arriving Nazi troops, like Natlacen went to the outskirts of Ljubljana to hand the arriving Fascist army the keys to the city, such a French politician would’ve certainly been among the first to be shot for treason in the postwar executions. Same, had French politicians written letters of thanks to Hitler for annexing Paris and a big chunk of France to Germany, like Natlacen wrote a letter of thanks to Mussolini for annexing to Italy Ljubljana and a big chunk of Slovenia. Natlacen served the Fascists on their “consultative body”, took a Slovene delegation to Rome to meet with Mussolini where he again pledged loyalty. All this in any European occupied land would be considered collaboration and treason. Plus, he did all this collaboration before a single Partisan resistance shot was fired, thus negating the collaborationist’s Big Lie, that they started collaborating merely in response to Partisan violence and revolution, when in fact the collaborationist eagerly embraced Fascist dictatorship and occupation as soon as they marched into Slovenia. That same Big Lie is totally negated by the fact that researchers like Dezelak-Baric state that nearly 100% of the 800 Slovenes murdered in 1941 were murdered by the collaborationists' Nazi and fascists allies, so it is their allies that did the vast majority of the murdering from the very start, and as stated Nazi-fascist-collaborationist forces jointly murdered 90% of all Slovene victims during the entire war

So contrary to the intro sentences and collaborationist-apologia that claim there was no collaboration, by the judgements of reliable sources like Tomasevich and Kranjc, plus the criteria that would’ve applied in France or anywhere in occupied Europe, Natlacen was indeed a collaborationist, and an utterly, servilely disgusting one at that, as in this photograph where he's bowing to Mussolini so deeply that he is almost licking his boots - this at a time when that same Mussolini and his Fascists were massively repressing Slovenes in Primorska, forcefully Italianizing them and trying to wipe them out as a people. No wonder Natlacen's own Primorska villagers unanimously opposed a monument to such a collaborator Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the word used to describe how Natlačen was killed? Doremo (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It has to do with citing sources in the article who claim SS-commanded quislings are "freedom fighters", claiming that it "is disputed" whether Natlacen collaborated, when 100% he clearly did, and similar collaborationist-apologetic alternative "realities", while at the same time erasing what reliable sources, like the historians Tomasevich and Kranjc have written about Natlacen's killing Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No; the discussion was about how he died: murder, drowning, old age, car accident, etc. A fact independent of any ideological spin. Doremo (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

And reliable source Kranjc, who wrote the most comprehensive book on Slovene collaboration, says he was assassinated. The dictionary also clearly says he was assassinated, unlike the totally unreliable, POV sources you cited. You still haven't explained how Natlacen is not a political figure, and how is his killing wasn't political - i.e. the dictionary definition of assassination Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to accept that he was killed, and the article says that he was killed, and you used the term killing above, I don't see the point of this discussion. As already pointed out, assassination is a type of murder. Doremo (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The point of WP is to use reliable sources - per reliable source Kranjc he was assassinated, per the dictionary he was assassinated. It is not about inventing your own compromise words Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that my edit was to change the inaccurate term execution by restoring the accurate term murder. To assassinate is "to murder (a usually prominent person) violently" (Merriam-Webster). It's not clear why you objected to murder but would apparently now like to specify a form of murder. I have never objected to the word assassinated. Doremo (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You again seem to miss the whole point of WP. It is to cite reliable sources - Tomasevich is a reliable source, and what you personally think does not matter at all, since WP is citing reliable sources, not spreading your personal views. Start a blog if you want to promote your personal opinions. I'm fine with either executed or assassinated since both come from reliable sources, but think assassinated fits better Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)