In a recent article published on Telegram, historian Dragan Markovina presents a view on Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac that has drawn sharp criticism from Professor Ivica Šarac. Šarac highlights that while historians often disagree on interpretations of historical events, they generally align on established facts. He claims Markovina's piece is riddled with trivial thoughts, misunderstandings of facts, and absurd statements, pointing out that such assessments should not come lightly from a self-identified historian. Šarac argues that these discrepancies reflect a broader issue of how history is interpreted and debated in contemporary discourse.

Šarac critiques Markovina's evaluation of Stepinac’s actions during the time of the Ustaša regime, emphasizing that the cardinal's historical contributions should be recognized and examined within their context. His piece insists that discussing historical figures requires a careful consideration of evidence and facts, rather than baseless claims or sweeping generalizations. According to Šarac, these discussions impact not just academic circles but also public understanding of crucial historical narratives.

Ultimately, Professor Šarac's response sheds light on the necessity of maintaining rigorous standards in historical writing and critique, especially when dealing with sensitive historical subjects like Cardinal Stepinac. His defense of established historical facts underscores the importance of factual accuracy in narratives that shape collective memory and identity.