attempt to cleanse the Ustaše past or at least to minimize its destructive impact. Israeli claims that Croatians are “denying or diminishing the fate of Serbians and Jews under the Ustasha [sic] rule, checked against overwhelming evidence . . . [shows an] intention to escape censure and condemnation, . . . and if Croatian deniers had lived in France [which has a law against Holocaust denial] ... they could easily be indicted and convicted” (pp. 176–177). In fact, Croatia has such a law, too (most likely it was a prerequisite for joining the European Union). Israeli claims to know how many Jews and Serbs were killed during the war. However, many contradictory estimates of the number of those who perished in the death camps of Croatia have been put forward. Historians who have seriously examined the question of Jewish and Serbian deaths—for example, Gerald Reitlinger in The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe, 1939–1945 (New York: Beechhurst Press, 1953), p. 358, and Antun Miletić in “Establishing the Number of Persons Killed in Jasenovac,” in Barry M. Lituchy, ed., Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: Analyses and Survivor Testimonies (New York: Jasenovac Research Institute, p. 1—demonstrate that even today historians cannot agree on the number of victims who perished during the war. In the case of Yugoslavia, for example, Reitlinger explains that the problem begins with the lack of precise numbers of Jews who were present when the independent Yugoslav Kingdom was founded in 1918 and is compounded by unreliable data on the number of Jews who lost their lives in or survived the Second World War. In summary, Israeli spends too much of an already short book dealing with subjects that are not germane to the alleged subject of his book and for which he offers inadequate documentation. His book favorably compares Serbs to Croats in misleading ways. Any reader who picks up the book in the expectation of gaining insight into the lives of inmates in the two Croatian camps and their daily struggles to survive in the face of hunger, sleep deprivation, beatings, and various diseases will be greatly disappointed. Even though Croatia today is not totally free of Ustaše sympathizers, Israeli’s attempt to place a “mark of Cain” on the new generation of Croats is an act of poor judgment and morality.

中文翻译：

---

失败者：现代海军陆战队的形成。作者：Aaron B. O'Connell，马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社，2012 年。279 页。29.95 美元。

尝试清理过去的 Ustaše，或至少将其破坏性影响降至最低。以色列声称克罗地亚人“否认或减少乌斯塔沙 [原文如此] 统治下的塞尔维亚人和犹太人的命运，并根据压倒性的证据进行检查。. . [表现出]逃避谴责和谴责的意图，。. . 如果克罗地亚否认者曾住在法国 [法国有一项反对否认大屠杀的法律]……他们很容易被起诉和定罪”（第 176-177 页）。事实上，克罗地亚也有这样的法律（很可能是加入欧盟的先决条件）。以色列声称知道在战争期间有多少犹太人和塞尔维亚人被杀。然而，对于在克罗地亚死亡集中营中丧生的人数，人们提出了许多相互矛盾的估计。认真研究过犹太人和塞尔维亚人死亡问题的历史学家——例如，Gerald Reitlinger 在《最终解决方案：灭绝欧洲犹太人的尝试，1939-1945 年》（纽约：Beechhurst Press，1953 年），p。358 和 Antun Miletić 在“确定 Jasenovac 遇难人数”中，Barry M. Lituchy 编辑，Jasenovac 和南斯拉夫的大屠杀：分析和幸存者证词（纽约：Jasenovac 研究所，第 1 页—证明）即使在今天，历史学家也无法就战争期间丧生的受害者人数达成一致。例如，在南斯拉夫的情况下，赖特林格解释说，问题始于缺乏独立的南斯拉夫王国成立时在场的犹太人的确切人数在 1918 年，而且在第二次世界大战中丧生或幸存的犹太人人数的不可靠数据使情况更加复杂。总而言之，以色列在一本已经很短的书中花费了太多时间来处理与他书中所谓的主题没有密切关系的主题，并且他提供的文件不足。他的书以误导性的方式将塞尔维亚人与克罗地亚人进行了比较。任何拿起本书的读者，如果希望深入了解克罗地亚两个集中营中囚犯的生活，以及他们在饥饿、睡眠不足、殴打和各种疾病面前的日常生存斗争，都会大失所望。尽管今天的克罗地亚并非完全没有 Ustaše 的同情者，但以色列试图在新一代克罗地亚人身上放置“该隐的印记”是一种判断力和道德差的行为。他的书以误导性的方式将塞尔维亚人与克罗地亚人进行了比较。任何读者如果拿起这本书，希望能深入了解克罗地亚两个集中营中囚犯的生活，以及他们在饥饿、睡眠不足、殴打和各种疾病面前的日常生存斗争，都会大失所望。尽管今天的克罗地亚并非完全没有 Ustaše 的同情者，但以色列试图在新一代克罗地亚人身上放置“该隐的印记”是一种判断力和道德低下的行为。他的书以误导性的方式将塞尔维亚人与克罗地亚人进行了比较。任何拿起本书的读者，如果希望深入了解克罗地亚两个集中营中囚犯的生活，以及他们在饥饿、睡眠不足、殴打和各种疾病面前的日常生存斗争，都会大失所望。尽管今天的克罗地亚并非完全没有 Ustaše 的同情者，但以色列试图在新一代克罗地亚人身上放置“该隐的印记”是一种判断力和道德差的行为。