Occupying forces were always able to rely on the Belgrade police. Special Police forces dealt with their assignments with great enthusiasm and success, unlike any other police in any city in all of occupied Europe.
So if we're using World War II to justify our actions in the 1990's, we've got our bases covered, don't we.
Hoplite - your arguments have lone since been exposed as utter fabrications.
How the heck can they be "Jew" free? On the first flat/floor of my friends apartment, there is a Serbian-Jewish Friendship Committee office that has been there for well, well over twenty years.
Serbia was the first to rise up against the Germans in all of Europe. They were the quickest to form anti-Axis forces and were the most effective til Tito usurped the intel in London to have support switched from the Serbs to his communist heathens.
Did someone screw up the script and play the wrong story?
Or, is this just a plain, non-revised piece of 'old' history?
Everyone in Eastern Europe seemed to support the neo fascists (anti-Semites) except the Serbs. Even the Semites themselves!
Go figure!
---------------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Semitic Roots of Eastern European Nationalism
By Margaret Quigley, 5/6/90
Press coverage of the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe in late 1989 and early 1990 has failed to provide adequate context concerning theanti-Semitic and fascist currents in Eastern European nationalism.
As the New York Times has noted (10/8/89), the term "nationalist" has a"more extremist connotation here [in Eastern Europe] than in the West." Butmost reporting on Eastern Europe's nationalist movements, including that ofthe Times, has been rife with euphemistic references to "Christian values" and "Christian nationalism" without an explanation of the historic anti-Semitism that echoes in such rhetoric.
News coverage of Eastern Europe has generally overlooked the region's historical alliance with Nazism. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria all joined the Axis powers; Nazi puppet states such as Slovakia and Croatia were also allied with Germany. But in much newspaper coverage, Eastern European history does not include World War II. For example, one timeline of Czechoslovakian history leapt from March 15, 1939 to May 16, 1945 (New YorkTimes, 11/22/89); another chart began in 1946 (L.A. Times, 11/25/89). A NewYork Times article (3/26/90) describing the history of the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe jumped directly from the 1930s to the post-World War II era, skipping over the murderously anti-Semitic clerical fascist movements, which were often led by Catholic priests.
The New York Times reported (3/26/90) that a new Ukrainian student grouprevered Stepan Bandera -- described by the Times as "a militant nationalist" who fought "Polish and Soviet rulers in the 1930s and 1940s." The article failed to mention that Bandera fought as an ally of Hitler's Germany, leading the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera, which roamed the Ukraine during World War II killing Jews and others.
Media coverage of anti- Semitism in Hungary, which has the only significant Jewish population remaining in Eastern Europe outside the Soviet Union, provides an interesting case study. The now-ruling Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF) was routinely described as a conservative, center-right or evencentrist party. The Los Angeles Times (4/11/90) even referred to MDF 's" politics of national pride." Articles that described the party's appeal to"Christian nationalism," "Christian democracy" and "Christian values" often failed to report the recurring charges of anti-Semitism.
The Washington Post, which in general provides scant coverage of Eastern Europe, did not mention the anti-Semitism allegations against MDF until late January, although the reports had first surfaced in the mainstream press in November. The Post (3/21/90) later described Istvan Csurka, an MDF party founder, as an "outspoken nationalist writer," ignoring the controversy over his anti-Semitic claims that a "dwarf minority" was dominating Hungary .
Several investigative articles went further in scrutinizing the involvement of the U.S. and Canadian right with Eastern European nationalists. In theToronto Star (4/14/90), Howard Goldenthal and Russ Bellant reported thatDusan Toth, an advisor to Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Havel , was the Secretary-General of the Toronto-based Slovak World Congress; a number of officers of the Congress are former officials of the Nazi-allied Slovak regime. An April 2, 1990 Nation article by Holly Sklar and Chip Berlet (of Political Research Associates) exposed the role of convicted Nazi collaborator Laslo Pasztor in recommending Hungarian nationalist groups for funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy .
There seems to be an unwillingness at some media to synthesize even the information that appears in the major papers. The Washington Post(2/18/90), for example, described three Russian newsletters as being connected to Pamyat , the anti-Semitic, pro-Stalin nationalist organization. But when individuals connected with these same three publications toured the U.S. under Washington's sponsorship, the visitors were blandly described by the New York Times (4/18/90) as "rightists."
Perhaps the most disturbing facet of media coverage is the recurrent explanations of the origins of anti-Jewish feeling that use rhetoric that seems to reflect rather than report anti-Semitism. For example, a New YorkTimes article reasoned (4/10/90), "Since many prominent Hungarian Communistleaders were Jewish, particularly in the early years after the war,anti-Semitism has become linked with anti-Communism."
The equation of Jews with Bolsheviks and traitors has been and is the anti-Semite's stock in trade. Journalists should avoid the appearance of accepting these rationales.