He makes several basic errors in his criticism of the Croatian policies in the past and present. The first error is that he mixes up two criteria, ethical and political. He is using ethical criteria to assess political practice. His political criteria are biased. He talks about a crime against humanity as a universal criterion, but is not prepared to universally apply that criterion. Such bias prevents an objective assessment. It is impossible to talk about a crime against humanity and only condemn fascist crimes and ignore all others. That then implies a discussion of politics rather than ethics.
Perhaps the most important error is that Finkelkraut's knowledge of Croatian internal political scene is indirect and based on biased information. Besides, he has no knowledge of the Croatian history.
For Ustashe and the NDH he reserves the gravest accusations and places them on the top of the world chart of crimes against humanity: "Ustashe were the most criminal regime... it is necessary to reject them as a whole... there was nothing good about Ustashe... Ustashe were fascists... Pavelic was a fascist in 1935, he was always a fascist... for Ustashe there was no difference between fascism and independence... the goal of a national state was absolute... in 1941 Croatia sacrificed everything for independence, she sacrificed her honor and morality... Croatia should not have accepted independence from Germany... Ustashe directly participated in the extermination of Jews."
One should know the facts and compare them in order to make a correct judgment. To talk about the creation of Ustashe as a beginning of fascism in Croatia is senseless. There is no fascist Ustashe ideology, because there has never been the fundamental requirement for fascism - a state.
Ustashe were created as a reaction to Serb terror, to fascism implemented by Serbs through fascist organizations of Chetniks [Serb royalist guerillas in WWII], Orjuna, Srnao [pro-Serb and pro-Yugoslav Croat organizations] and similar and were a direct consequence of the massacre in the national Parliament and declaration of the dictatorship of the king that was supported by democratic countries England and France.
Actually, Ustashe are a reaction to fascism and were initially the first anti-fascist movement in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, at the time when the communists in Germany still fought together with fascists against Social Democrats. Ustashe were a national revolutionary organization similar to Young Europe from the past century, as a belated echo of romanticism. They are similar to all other national revolutionary movements such as the Irish IRA, ETA in Spain and others. They are most similar to the Jewish Irgun Zwai Leumi. Both of them used terror and assassinations. Ustashe assassinated Aleksandar, the dictator king, while the latter killed Bernadotte, the U.N.'s envoy. The only difference is that the latter were much more active and fought a democratically elected authorities while the former fought against a dictatorship.
Ustashe requested and accepted assistance of fascist states as no one else was willing to help them. Colonial democracies, England and France, assisted the Serb dictatorship.
If Croatia "should not have accepted independence from Germany" and if that was a crime against humanity, then the crime of those states that were independent and became German allies is immeasurably greater. These include Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland. The crime of those states that were defeated and collaborated with the occupiers, such as Norway, France and Serbia is even greater. Croatia, Finland and Slovakia were the only countries assisted by Germany, the other countries assisted Germany themselves. That especially applies to France. If Croatia "should not have accepted independence from Germany", then England should not have defended its independence in alliance with the USSR. In both cases the result was a crime against humanity - NDH paid by persecution of Jews and England by selling out eastern Europe. Should not the same criterion apply to both small and big countries, or is the "sacrifice of morality and honor" for small countries the same as political pragmatism for big countries? Do philosophers, in addition to politicians, also accept double standards in politics?
Ustashe paid dearly for their alliance and state.
If we examined the history of all states, especially the powerful ones, we would easily realize that all of them were built on crimes against humanity.
Even after WWII the torrent of crimes against humanity continued to flow. The English turned over to Yugoslavia and the USSR Croatian and Russian anti-communist soldiers who had surrendered to them. All of them, hundreds of thousands of them, were slaughtered. Behind the iron curtain the crime against humanity was legalized. In Cambodia the Red Khmer killed 600,000 people and Phnom Pen, the city of three million inhabitants, was emptied of its residents. Even the peaceful Czechs expelled three and a half million Germans from their homes. Is that not a crime against humanity?
But even on the other side of the iron curtain there were crimes against humanity. In Algiers the French displaced about 700,00 and killed about a million victims. The creation of the state of Israel cost the expulsion of 900,000 and murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians. These are only some randomly selected examples.
After all of that, to talk about the "loss of honor and morality of NDH in 1941" sounds sarcastic. Did only Croatia in Europe had conscience and morality so that she could loose them? Are Ustashe really the worst?
If Pavelic brought Jews to Jasenovac, in order to get the NDH, Patain took Jews to Auschwitz in order to get Vichy. Churchill in Yalta betrayed the whole eastern Europe and took her to Gulag in order to save an empire. Who of them is a worse criminal if the criterion is crimes against humanity?
Finkelkraut's view of crimes against humanity and his criteria are really problematic and unclear. He says: "...between fascism and Ustashe ideology, I choose fascism. I'd rather be an Italian fascist than a Croatian Ustashe." The Italian fascist besides terror in their own country also attacked and subjugated other countries, Ethiopia, Albania, Greece, and Croatia. They bombed cities, burnt villages, murdered, took to camps and terrorized the population everywhere. In Ethiopia they used poison gas. In Yugoslavia they killed 430,000 persons. Ustashe did not burn a single village in Italy, nor killed a single Italian. Besides, Italian fascists are to a large extent responsible for the civil war in Croatia and its victims.
What criterion does Finkelkraut use for his judgments? What determines the gravity of crimes, number of victims or their nationality?
The policy of NDH with respect to Serbs cannot in any case be compared to the policy with respect to Jews, nor can it be claimed that Ustashe "wanted to resolve the Serb problem by extermination" or that they carried out "a partial and true genocide of Serbs". Finkelkraut totally uncritically repeats Communist empty phrases about Ustashe fascists and genocide against Serbs. He should be at least be equally critical and recall that at the same time those very same communists talked about western democracies as rotten, fake, plutocratic, imperialist, fascist and capitalist-fascist. Does he believe that as well? All facts regarding the policy of NDH deny that stupid claim.(...) From the very founding of NDH enmities against Croats started. These enmities were a continuation of those that started immediately after the establishment of the Banovina. First victims were Croats and first burnt villages were Croat villages. The rebellion of Serbs in east Hercegovina, Dalmatia, Kordun and Lika, "the uprising of the peoples of Croatia", was not a result of violence against Serbs but of Italian urging of Serbs to reject Croatian authorities.
Initially, the persecution of Serbs somewhat consisted of revenge attacks by individuals, while as a rule most of them were reprisals in response to provocations and sabotage. It is stupid to label that as a crime characteristic of Ustashe. All sides carried out reprisals in this war. First and worst reprisals were carried out by the Chetniks and Communists, first mass executions were carried out by Chetniks in east Hercegovina and the biggest massacre ever was carried out by the Chetniks and Communists together in Kulen Vakuf. Mass reprisals were carried out during this war by all sides and were legalized as a type of total warfare. Bombardments of cities that had no military significance resulted in numerous innocent civilian victims. Even later, after the establishment of the UN, reprisals against civilian population continued in local wars. In Vietnam napalm was used to destroy villages, Israel today in her war against terrorists in reprisal demolishes their homes, and bombs their villages.
Finkelkraut denies Croatia the right to on her own decide about Jasenovac because: "a crime against humanity is not an internal political problem; it is a problem of the whole humanity... Jews were among the victims in Jasenovac and they have the right to state their opinion... those people frequently did not know about big manipulations used by Yugoslavia to explain the historical truth and they should be explained the need to establish the truth about Jasenovac, which today exists in Croatia."
One can fully agree with such a view, with one limitation. It is the duty of the humanity or those speaking on its behalf to tell the truth. Absurd figures were stated about the number of victims in the Jasenovac camp. Those figures were suspicious for every sensible person and it was the duty of that public to critically or at least with some doubt accept those claims. However, that public, which was very knowledgeable regarding the lying nature of the Communist propaganda, accepted that absurd slander at face value for fifty years and even today in its protests relies on those false assertions. It is the duty of Jews in New York to critically evaluate their opinion and to not allow to be manipulated for daily political needs. One only need recall the reaction in New York to one authentic document about Jasenovac. Besides, if the Jews from New York have the right to their opinion, despite manipulation, then Croats also have the right to their opinion. After all, they also are a part of humanity, aren't they?
Finkelkraut is totally right when he says that historians should "dig up the truth", "above all figures", and that it is necessary to found a commission, perhaps at the international level, that would establish the truth, facts, and above all numbers. It is actually impermissible that during the last five years the official Croatian science hasn't started a systematic and critical investigation of not only the crimes from WWII, especially Jasenovac, the biggest Communist slander, but also of the whole communist history which turned history in the servant of the party and whose only purpose was propaganda rather than the truth. That is an inexcusable sin of the science and politics of the new state, because the trend in the communist history was to defame Croatia and its consequences are felt painfully even today. And one of those consequences are some of Finkelkraut's claims.
Only after establishing the truth, says Finkelkraut, it would be possible "to somehow reshape that camp with the goal of adapting it to the real truth... only then it would be appropriate to perhaps set up another monument nearby." Why "perhaps"?
"... if they are merged... three separate monuments... and immediately the counting starts, there were that many Croat victims of fascism, that many Croat victims of communism, that many in Bleiburg... therefore we go to Jasenovac to commemorate Croat victims... It must not happen that absurdly inflated number makes other numbers seem insignificant. That is very dangerous."
If there is a monument to the victims of fascism, it seems only appropriate to erect a monument to the victims of communism, and why should they not be placed next to each other? Let the "dug up" truths and numbers be written up on them, so that people can compare and count. Finally the time has come to do that freely and to know the truth. For half a century absurd numbers have made the suffering of the Croat victims of communism seem insignificant. It is the fact that in May 1945, at peacetime, more Croats were killed than in Jasenovac throughout all four years of war, but humanity did not protest against that. However, today they are afraid and do not want to face the truth that will demonstrate how absurd all those claims from the past were. After fifty years of commemoration of lies, finally the time has come to commemorate the truth.
Jasenovac is a proper place for that, because it is a location tragic in several ways.
It was a place where Jews were incarcerated and killed only because they were Jews, without any other guilt. However, it is not true that "Serbs were victims of mass extermination" there. Jasenovac was a prison for the enemies of NDH. It would be interesting to determine the ratio of imprisoned Serbs and Croats.
Jasenovac was a killing filed for the captured Croat soldiers after the war.
In addition to all that Jasenovac has another significance. It represents a monument of a totalitarian communist propaganda and lies of communist science and "scientists". This huge stone flower represents the most faithful symbol of lies and all the fake figures should be cut into its petals together with the names of their creators, as well as "scientists" who knew or should have known the truth and kept silent.
Jasenovac should be the place where not only the truth but also the lie about Jasenovac will be told. Only then will the full truth be presented and Jasenovac will become a place worthy of commemoration.
Finkelkraut's totally irrational aversion towards Croats from Hercegovina is the only explanation for his contradictory and illogical assessments and opinions: "... I think that we can accuse Muslims of wanting all power in centralized Bosnia, perhaps some of them wanted to treat Croats as a minority... But I do not believe that they really wanted war. They fought only in response to Croat attacks, while Croats wanted to split Bosnia into three parts... Muslims opposed that idea and that led to a war."
After logically dissecting these thoughts we end up with the following statements: Muslims want centralized Bosnia under their control in which Croats would be treated as a minority; Croats want to divide Bosnia to three parts; Muslims wage a war to prevent division of Bosnia. The issue of guilt is actually an issue of criteria. Since for Finkelkraut united and centralized Bosnia is a moral and political criterion, Croats from Hercegovina are the guilty party.
However, united and centralized Bosnia is definitely not a political axiom. Bosnia-Hercegovina is an artificial creation. It is a result of cruel conquest, an invasion by a foreign element. Islam managed to create and maintain here on the border, on the periphery of the East and West a united political region with three different peoples, cultures and religions. That is the biggest unity of differences in Europe, if not in the world, and could survive for centuries only thanks to merciless force. The multicultural character of Bosnia is a meaningless phrase, usually peddled by those who never lived in Bosnia and frequently mistake folklore for culture. Multiculturalism requires freedom, and Bosnia was never free. There was always a ruling culture, Ottoman, Serb, Communist, and cultural ghettos of subjugated groups. The only age of multiculturalism in Bosnia-Hercegovina was during the rule of Austria-Hungary. The unity of Bosnia-Hercegovina has always been maintained by foreign occupiers. Unity was always the result of hidden desire for domination. However, whenever that force failed, centrifugal forces always came to the surface. When the attempt of the Yugoslav People's Army to preserve united Bosnia within Yugoslavia failed, Serbs wanted to join Serbia and Croats Croatia, and the idea of united Bosnia-Hercegovina was taken over by the Muslims as the majority nation in Bosnia-Hercegovina. After the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, Bosnia became a small Yugoslavia and Muslims with their fight for unity took over the role of Serbs in the former Yugoslavia. A division of Bosnia-Hercegovina into three parts is a result of historical experience, a process that appeared with the absence of external force, a natural, although belated process, of national enlightenment and unification, because Bosnia-Hercegovina is one of the last national knots of Europe that will sooner of later have to be untied to the end.
Lectures of European politicians about the need for coexistence and condemnation of nationalism on behalf of some European ideology and condemnations of nationalism as a product of primitivism are simply empty and hypocritical phrases. What about coexistence in Ulster, the Basque country, Corsica, Padania, what about the coexistence of Arabs and Jews? How strong is the super-national European consciousness and humane consciousness of European politicians if an ordinary epidemic of mad-cow disease can shake it up?
Croats have extremely good reasons for separation from Muslims, as they have a bad experience of common life not only with Serbs but also with Muslims in the past. During NDH the authorities accepted Muslims as "the flower of the nation" and they were privileged. They welcomed those authorities and delegations were even sent from Sandzak demanding annexation by NDH, which led to first disputes with the Italians. A mosque was opened in Zagreb at the most beautiful square. Muslims were simply overjoyed and all over Bosnia they created the so-called "wild Ustashe" units that took revenge against Serbs. In some regions those revenge attacks were on such scale that regular Ustashe units had to intervene to protect Serb villages. Another indication of the good reception of the new order among Muslims is the fact that in Bosnia Muslims formed a SS "Handzar" division. Consequently, it is grotesque and indicative when today descendents of "wild Ustashe" and members of the SS "Handzar" division refer to Croats in Hercegovina as Ustashe.
Under Communism, Muslims became a recognized nation and shared power in Bosnia-Hercegovina with Serbs, while Croats were denied all rights.
During this war hypocrisy and double-faced nature of Muslim leaders reached its pinnacle. When the Yugoslav People's Army in Bosnia-Hercegovina started destroying Croat villages and Croats resisted, the Muslim authorities, also elected by the Croats, stated that that "was not their war", refused to provide assistance and left Croat villages to the mercy of Serb tanks. Furthermore, in some villages Muslims even welcomed YPA tanks. That was an open treason.
And finally they attacked Croats. Not because they opposed the division in three parts, but because they wanted centralized Bosnia in which they would hold all the power and because they wanted to compensate losses inflicted by the Serbs by expelling Croat population. Muslims in Bosnia lead the same policy as Serbs did in the former Yugoslavia.
Perhaps the best indicator of the relations between Muslims and Croats is the fact that while Muslims expelled Croats from their villages, Croats received and sheltered Muslims expelled by the Serbs. And all the time during the attack of Muslims on Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina Muslim refugees enjoyed hospitality in Croatia. That is probably a unique phenomenon in the history of warfare, that the attacked nation gives shelter and protection to refugees of the attacking nation. "You risk downfall with Hercegovina; I am not referring to the people, but to the political and military mafia. And I speak all of this because of my sympathies for Croatia."
In this war Croats from Hercegovina were the first victims of the aggression in Bosnia-Hercegovina and were the first ones to oppose the YPA. Unarmed, with trucks and bulldozers, they prevented the Serb tanks from taking the strategic positions for the occupation. Alone, abandoned by the authorities, without any assistance, they offered resistance and prevented a quick success by the YPA. Their resistance not only stopped the attack, but also revealed the brutality of the occupier's intentions, raised the spirit and provided time for the organization of resistance. If it weren't for the resistance by the Croats from Hercegovina, Muslims would have surrendered without resistance. Did they not welcome YPA tanks? Without Croats from Hercegovina, Bosnia would have yet again "quietly fallen". But the Croats from Hercegovina did not only save Bosnia, they also saved Croatia. With their struggle, Croats from Hercegovina prevented the YPA from entering Dalmatia, which was at that time attacked by the Yugoslav Navy from the sea. Hercegovina was a rampart of the whole southern Croatia. If Hercegovina did not defend itself, Bosnia would have fallen, together with Dalmatia. Hercegovina had the key role in the defense of Croatia.
Therefore, to feel sympathy for Croatia but not for Hercegovina is contradictory. Besides, is Hercegovina also not a part of Croatia?
"You must control Hercegovina to make sure she does not control you. The biggest risk for contemporary Croatia, political and moral, is to become a hostage of Hercegovina."
Several paragraphs earlier he criticizes Croatian policy with respect to Hercegovina, "what could have forced the Croatian leadership to remove Kljuic and bring forward Mate Boban?" Considering that Boban was also later replaced by the "Croatian leadership", it becomes clear who controls whom.
The choice of words is an especially surprising feature of this interview. Refined and tolerant Finkelkraut talks about political situation in Hercegovina using very harsh words - mafia, political mafia, military mafia, mafia dons, extremists etc. He does not believe in anything he is told in Hercegovina, all of them are liars, and reserves the following opinion for the political situation there: "That is horrible. That is a gangrene." Boban is a "criminal", "raging individual whose goal is to merge Hercegovina and Croatia."
The vocabulary used by Finkelkraut is easily recognized as the vocabulary of certain political circles and several high circulation publications. That vocabulary reveals sources of his information, at the same time sources of his misinformation. Finkelkraut is a man who cannot be fooled for a long time and one can believe that he, just the way he rejected all the prejudice about Croatia, will sooner or later, when he gets to know the past and present of Hercegovina from direct sources, will create a true picture of her. It is impossible to love Croatia without loving Hercegovina.