Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Translation

Based on the name discussion in January the following is what the agreed lede should look like. I took the time to find missing translations from Slovene and Macedonian and if nobody objects I plan to add it in this form:

  • The Yugoslav Front, ([Jugoslavenski front] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) or [Jugoslavensko bojište] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), Југословенски фронт; Macedonian: Југословенски фронт; Slovene: Jugoslovanska fronta), also known as the National Liberation War (Serbo-Croatian: Narodnooslobodilački rat, Народноослободилачки рат; Macedonian: Народноослободителна борба; Slovene: Narodnoosvobodilna borba), was fought in occupied Yugoslavia during World War II (1941–1945) between the Yugoslav resistance forces, primarily the Partisans, and the Axis Powers.

Timbouctou (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Timbou, Fainites wanted us to complete it. However, are you sure the NLW should be included like that? I mean, more than "also know as" I really think is what I stood at the discussion, the name of the Partisan actions within the war. FkpCascais (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I should think "also known as" is pretty accurate as that was what it was called in Tito's Yugoslavia for decades.Fainites barleyscribs 12:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I just touth perhaps being even more precise just to avoid further misunderstandings in future("named NLW during SFR Yugoslavia", or "or named NLW by Partisans", or "Partisans begin with the auto-proclaimed NLW", just examples, we could find better wording obviously...) ... FkpCascais (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm with Fainites on this one. This is just an opening sentence of a rather lengthy article. No need to get into those details in the very first sentence. It used to be widely called that way and a small number of people still call it that. That's all the reader needs to know at this point. Timbouctou (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, ok... :) I think it´s ready to go into the article. FkpCascais (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Timbouctou (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

significant mistake

There is this rule that one should take into consideration that people have good intention. However, with this topic I am certain that a particular user is pushing his agenda. The issue I bring up is strictly about a date.

The issue at hand is that there seem to be these claims that the Chetniks lost allied support in 1943. That is very wrong. In fact, 1943 is the year when the allies decided that the Partizans will be the supported army. That said, the Chetniks continued to be supported, though they did not get the bulk of the military aid and supplies.

So, I bring up this issue because it should be corrected. The Chetniks lost support in 1944, not 1943.

Here are numerous citations. The date should be changed.

  • Their role is still discussed in Western historiography, es- pecially because the Serb Chetniks retained contacts with the Allies and saved the lives of hundreds of Allied pilots by allowing them to bail out of their planes over Mihajlovic-controlled territory.

[1]

  • By 1943 allied support was swung behind Tito; and by 1944, the partisans were the only recognized Allied-backed force fighting in Yugoslavia.

[2]

  • Allies withdrew support in 1944.

[3]

  • In February 1944 the British order their liaison officers to withdraw from the Chetniks

[4]

  • Allied support to the Chetniks vanished in 1944.

[5]

  • In 1944, Allied support was officially withdrawn from Mihajlovic's cause

[6]

  • Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Micropedia, Vol 3, Page 182 Entry: CHETNIK

(Quote:) Cetnik, member of the Serbian nationalist guerrilla force that formed during WW II to resist Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought Tito's Communist guerrillas, the Partisans. The chetniks were first organized in Bosnia. Other bands developed in Montenegro, Herzegovina and Dalmatia, but the most important was the one based in Serbia, LED BY DRAZA MIHAILOVIC. He directed his forces to avoid large-scale fighting with the Axis occupation and wait for an Allied invasion that would liberate Yugoslavia and restore the monarchy... By 1944 the Allies, which have provided Mihailovic with the military aid... withdrew their support. At the end of war, Chetniks were... forced from their headquarters at Ravna Gora. Mihailovic and his few remaining followers were captured by Tito's Partisans (March 1946) and brought to Belgrade, where they were tried and executed. (end quote)


My intentions are not to debate or to discuss this. The facts are clear, that the date is wrong, and here are numerous sources that show this. However, traditional communist rhetoric in yugoslavia has been that the partizans have been the only force supporting the allies. I fear that this is why we see a continual revision of chetnik dates - sometimes it's 1942, sometimes 1943, then 1944, and it goes back and forth. What is needed here is a comprehensive mediation, in order for there to be no longer issues such as these. I hope that someone can start it. As for me - my only goal with this post is to point that the date in question should be 1944, which is a significant difference from 1943. I have provided plenty of information which clearly shows this. My post in no way discusses ethnic issues or mapping issues - for which I have a topic ban - I am too lazy to appeal it, and thus do not edit much anymore. But, this is of no harm, to simply bring to light a mistake in the article. People, please go for mediation, because this rollercoaster ride of changing material on the page has gone on for too long. I know, it's easier for me to say hey mediate this, and then take a back seat and go off and do my own business not related to this. But, it is necessary. With this post I plead that the controversy regarding this issue gets resolved - and it's only possible to do so via mediation, as the talk page is clearly extremely limited. (LAz17 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).

You´re right. Walter Roberts, and even Tomasevic! confirm it. In early 1944 Mihailovic and Soviets were in talks, and as strange as may seem, Soviets via radio made insistent requsts to Partisans to join Mihailovic! Basically all Allies allways treated Mihailovic as allied. And, the only ones to consider them enemies were the Partisans... All this needs to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost at the Tehran Conference in 1943:
"At the Tehran Conference in November 1943 the decision was taken to cease all aid to Mihailovich and instead to fully support Tito." [7]
"the Allied forces no longer supported him [Mihailovic] after the Conference in Teheran (December 1943)." [8]
"at the Tehran Conference the formal recognition of the Partisans as an Allied force and the withdrawal of Allied military missions and aid from the Chetniks." [9]
"For in late November and early December 1943 in Tehran, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to decide, among other things, that military and political support for Mihailović was to come to an immediate end and that all supply deliveries to the Chetniks would stop." [10] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
[11] talks how they switched "aid" and right afterwords talks how improtant Chetniks were in rescuing pilots troughout 1944.
You second source, same as Laz17, doesn´t mention anything, did you checked the page of your link producer? FkpCascais (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Fkp you admitted this yourself in an earlier discussion. [12] :) Allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost at the Tehran Conference in 1943. What do the pilots have to do with this? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Because in meantime I have been gathering more info, and despite having the Allies switched "aid" (and that is the real word for it), they never stoped working with Chetniks. And beside the Brittish and American, even the Soviets! which came to be a surprise for me. PS: your third link links me to Chetnik attacks to German forces... was that your intention? FkpCascais (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I just gave you quotes of sources that state that allied support for the Chetniks was officially lost in 1943 at the Tehran Conference. Why are you ignoring that? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I was refering to the top of the page, now I see where it is. Sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Producer, I have given you a number of source that say 1944. They are good sources. So clearly we have a situation where you in an arrogant manner do not even want to seem to bother to look at them whatsoever?
One thing is for a decision to be made for support to go away. The only thing that happened in 1943 is a switch of support. It did not vanish overnight as you try to imply. Come on now, think logically and look at the supporting evidence. I gave a number of good links that specifically state 1944. You can either respond to those saying why they are wrong - that would be better than simply using selective sources to try to disprove something that is factual. What's wrong with the list of sources? (LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)).
Once again it is labeled that the Chetniks were nazis since 1942. What can be done about this? I suggest mediation - perhaps we should first wait for the draza mihajlovic mediation to finish? (LAz17 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).
Perhaps once the Mihailovic mediation is finished (and the mediator is suggesting it should quite soon) then the editors involved will be able to help tackle the Chetniks article and this one too. Fainites barleyscribs 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I'm not willing to wait forever, but I am lazy and so heck, hopefully they finish by the end of summer. (LAz17 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).
From reading the mediation pages I believe they are proposing to post a draft article quite soon and then continue working on it outside mediation as normal. There is however nothing to stop editors attempting to improve these articles in the meantime.Fainites barleyscribs 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll give some time for someone else to look into this. I provided the sources, so I was hoping that my work would be done. :/ If nothing happens in a while I'll probably take a stab at it. (LAz17 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).


Volksdeutscher is not a word

I think the non-word Volksdeutscher should be chnaged to. Danube Swabians. First, this is not an English word. Second the German word is Volksdeutsche, without the "r". It is currently only disambiguated as Ethnic Germans, but this phrase disregards the common practice of the inhabitans as calling themselves "Schwove", not "Deitsche". Even the Germans called them "Donauschwaben". Plese make this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to change it yourself, I´m not sure where it is... FkpCascais (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
We have a rather detailed article on Volksdeutsche which you can consult on the meaning and origin of the term. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that this was and still is the term used for them by other groups in ex-Yugoslavia (they are universally called "volksdeutchers" in Croatia and I assume "folksdojčers" in Serbia). Thirdly, as evidenced by the Volksdeutsche article, this was apparently the term used by these Germans themselves at the time. I'm aware that it may carry some ideological connotations but if this is the term which is used by most scholarly sources (and I assume it is) then there's no reason to change it, regardless of the fact that it may have fell out of use in Germany after WWII. Timbouctou (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Volksdeutscher is a good German word,and since there is a strong contribution of Danube Swabians to Croatian culture, I am not surprised that it is still in use in Croatia. However, this is English Wikipedia, and if there is a good English word, it should be used, not a German word of unknown meaning. In any case, no German would use the word 'Volksdeutscher" or "'Volksdeutschers" to describe Danube Swabians as a group. "'Volksdeutscher" might conceivably be used to describe one Danube Swabian. 'Volksdeutschers" would never be uttered by a German. Furthermore, the Nazis popularized the term Volksdeutsche, and exploited such peoples for their own purposes. As a result, the term is not much used today. Imersion (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New changes by User:FkpCascais

[copied-over from User talk:Fainites]Hello Fainites, I haven´t been much around lately cause I had some off-wiki matters and I was also a bit of nostalgic about my football stuff. However, I was bold at Yugoslav Front article and after checking all sources I gathered by now I think it is easily conclusible that some things seemed just out of place. I didn´t wanted to go into details because that would obviously mean going into text and adding all what sources say, most of what would mean some major changes in what the current text looks like now, and I simply wanted to postpone it for some other time in future... However some facts are very clear and easily and logically fixable: the fact that Chetniks can´t ever possibly be added to the Axis column, and that simply can´t happend because they were never Axis. The entire words game cleaverly invented by some of the "officially" and "de facto" is just an excuse for not having anything official to use. Also, if there is the addition of the mentioning of collaboration for them, then obviously that the mentioning of resistance is fair for having an POV view on the matter (the previous version uses the already known strategy of saying, in other words, how they were initially resistance however soon they became Axis. Well, wrong, they actually never became part of Axis, and also they never stoped being Allies). But actually, I am not doing anything more than leaving the Chetniks as third party side, even thus possibly failing because they were obviously Allies until 12/1943 ("officially" and "de facto"). We can discuss nuances, but removing everything without explanation seems precipitated and wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[copied-over from User talk:Fainites] The Chetniks are listed in that column because that is the side they fought on (for the perid described). I'm assuming your claim that "they were never Axis" is based on the fact that the Chetnik Movement, as a movement, did not actually enter into the Tripartite Pact? However that is not necessary, their placement in the infobox is done in accordance with their role in the conflict, not their on-paper statements. Also, even if we were to follow your definition (and we should by no means do so), there are numerous accounts of formal signed Chetnik-German, Chetnik-Italian, and Chetnik-NDH agreements.
While fighting for the Axis (under Axis command and with Axis supplies) the Chetnik leadership consistently claimed their alliegance was to the Allies. However, once again, their placement in the conflict infobox should be done in accordance with their actual role in the conflict, not whatever side they claimed to be on. "De facto" is not a word game. Their false allegiance was indeed the primary reason why Churchill and the Allies stopped supporting them. The fact that Prime Minister Winston Churchill was forced, forced mind you, to shift support to a communist movement, is another testament to the extent of the pro-Axis Chetnik activities.
Please list your sources, with page numbers, so that your statements may be verifiable (WP:V). Based on past experience I must express my doubts as to whether you've actually researched the matter. However, if you finally did do some research, I look forward to a proper debate on the issue and feel I can more than adequately oppose your edits with sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The infobox was decided upon after much discussion and provision of sources only a few months ago - as FkpCascais is very well aware having been part of those discussions. If you think the infobox requires adjustment FkpCascais, please make your case here with sources for all your changes. Unilateral changes are merely disruptive in these circumstances.Fainites barleyscribs 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are two issues: the infobox sides presentation and the short explanation regarding Chetniks. To start with, I really think it would be usefull for all of us to simplify the infobox. The only reason why the infobox was divided into time periods was for the reason some users could see their wish satisfied to somehow include Chetniks in the Axis side (to be NPOV, we should separate then periods for all resistance activities, as well, what a mess would that be?). All sources agree that this was a three sides situation, and it should be presented as such. The fact that ocasionaly two sides agreed to set their differences aside for a while and concentrate in the third one is usual in three-side situations, and doesn´t provide sufficient reason for us to enter into POV and focus on one side disregarding the others. The fact that both (Chetniks and Axis) were Partisan enemies does not provide enough reason to name the two as same. Beside, as already conclused, the collaboration between Chetniks and Axis forces was entirely based in one only purpouse, fighting Partisans, and including that fact is crutial. Conveniently this fact is "forgoten" leaving the wrong impression of ones "loving" eachother, something that never happend as excellently described in p.274 (Chetnik official words towards Germans: "You are our enemy"). Also, and here we enter into the next part of what I wish to discuss, is that Chetniks, very opositely how some other editors claim and wish to present, never give up their resistance struggle. They fought Germans troughout the war (independently if attacked, or initiated attacks) and they continued porsuing a resistance squedule even after the loss of official support. Fighting against Axis forces took place even in days before the end of the war, as rescued pilots could testify, so what we have is basically: Oportunistic and ocasional collaboration in between continuos resistance efforts. What is disputed in my words and edits? FkpCascais (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Also Fainites, the discussion ended with the infobox direktor pretended (with all oposing view being disregarded, from resistance periods, to flags, names, etc.) and with direktor making fun and trolling the last user in the last comment, so that seems an "undecided decition"... FkpCascais (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether it needs changing or not. Just that - as it took hours of discussion last time to achieve the current version, you are not going to be able to change it by unilateral fiat. This will simply result in edit wars and so on. It will need careful attention to sources, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I am pleased to see you using a good secondary source like Roberts though rather than just arguing as just arguing never gets us anywhere. I suggest you post your proposals here briefly with relevent sources.Fainites barleyscribs 21:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If we're really going to re-start this issue, I'll have to repeat once more that there is no "Axis column" or an "Allied column" in the revised, consensus infobox. Chetnik placement is done, as in all infoboxes, solely based on their role in the conflict, i.e. their de facto actions, not what their war propaganda may have been trumpeting at one time or another - which is what you are quoting above. As explained earlier, the sources clearly explain and list numerous Chetnik-Italian and Chetnik-NDH agreements in early 1942, joint Chetnik-Axis operations in Dalmatia and Lika started by mid-1942. Mihailović's rather famous "waiting policy" (politika čekanja) was implemented by the end of 1941 and strongly advocated complete inaction against the occupation, in anticipation of a, in the words of Prof. Pavlowitch, "Allied deus ex machina".
In resoponse to your quoting wartime Chetnik propaganda proclamations as a source(??!), I must point out that there is a mountain of evidence that the Chetnik leadership was ever willing to join with the Axis in pursuit of a common goal. For the earliest example one need look no further than late 1941. At the very start of the conflict, while still in negotiations with Tito, Mihailović "dispatched Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović to meet with the Wehrmacht authorities in Belgrade, offering to place himself at their disposal for fighting communism" (as reported by German military intelligence, the Abwehr, 28 October 1941, the conservative Wehrmacht itself was willing to accept, but Hitler overruled them.)
In fact, this offer and all its circumstances have been well documented by the Wehrmacht, are described in sources, and should be included in the article. I however, am essentially forced to refrain from any such edits for fear of being once again labeled a "communist propaganda-pusher". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Lets not get into controversial details. After all - the Partisans also approached the germans for much the same purpose - both unsuccessfully as it happened. The info-box can't deal with all these complexities - only a broad brush summary.Fainites barleyscribs 22:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It can easily be noted, even upon a superficial study of the details, that the two cannot really be compared.

"..the record of German-Partisan relations from 1941 to 1945 taken as a whole proves that the Partisans could never have reached with the Germans an arrangement going much beyond the exchange of priosners. It ought therefore to be evident that the attempt of March 11 1943 (if not the one of November 17 1942), to reach some agreement, was made under extreme circumstances when the Partisan main focres, their leadership, and some 4,000 sick and wounded, were facing almost certain and complete destruction, and that it cannot be put in the same category as the systematic and enduring Chetnik collaboration described in this study, although that collaboration was not based on ideological affinity and was not without reservations either."

This summation comes at the end of a very detailed and objective study of Partisan-Axis contacts, presented below for your consideration.

The "systematic and enduring collaboration" of the Chetnik movement cannot be easily brushed-over, being a major factor in the battles of this conflict. See below some excerpts on their involvement in Fall Weiss, one of the three major battles of the war in Yugoslavia.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the early days. The germans also refused to supply arms and ammunition to the Chetniks - just as they refused to supply it to the Partisans so they could fight the Chetniks (Zagreb negotiations). Also - at the time when they fell out with the Partisans and attacked their headquarters at Uzice, the Chetniks were the official Yugoslav Army and the Partisans had declared a communist rebublic in part of Yugoslavia - and they were expecting an Allied invasion. Also - the USSR had until recently (June 1941) been in an alliance with the nazis for well over a year, dividing up chunks of Europe between them. I'm not suggesting that the Partisans were collaborators, simply that its not as simple as "collaborated=bad=Axis troops".Fainites barleyscribs 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
With regard to Chetnik-German relations specifically, we have two distinct periods: the pre-Italian surrender, and post-Italian surrender (there are entire chapters on the subject in several sources).
  • Before the Italian surrender the Germans consistently refused repeated Chetnik proposals of cooperation, which started with the one I described above of 28 September 1941. The sources point out several times, however, that during this period the Chetniks were receiving supplies from the quisling NDH government, and thus "indirectly from the Germans". The latter poihnt is stressed numerous times: large amounts of German supplies were (either with German knowledge or no) being channeled to the Chetniks through the NDH military. This is in addition to the highly organized and sistematic cooperation with the Italian occupation authorities in their zones.
  • After the Italian surrender the Germans were not in a position to refuse Chetnik aid, and essentially inherited the military infrastructure of the Italian zone, which included tens of thousands of Chetnik troops (three full Corps, if I'm not mistaken). With the cooperation established, Chetnik-German relations were warmed-up and a proper, direct relationship formed.
  • Re Zagreb talks. All information available to scholars regarding the incident is presented in the above excerpt. 1) There is no indication that the Partisans requested supplies or military cooperation with the Axis. The known points negotiated were: prisoner exchange, an armistice, and POW status for prisoners. 2) This is a single incident, "not to be compared" in any context with numerous (successful!) Chetnik-Axis meetings and agreements. 3) It was under "extreme circumstances when the Partisan main forces, their leadership, and some 4,000 sick and wounded, were facing almost certain and complete destruction" in the final phases of the combined Axis offensive (Operation White), in which some 15,000 Chetniks fought alongside German, Italian, and NDH forces.
    It is natural to try and find some sort of "balance" or at least to equate the two sides in some way, but in this case it is simply illogical.
P.S. Re the "Užice Republic". As you say, up until the Tehran Conference (November 1943) the Partisans were essentially communist rebels. But it must be pointed out that the Chetnik attack on Užice was done after they (the Yugoslav military at the time) had joined the Partisan rebellion in the area and taken up positions alongside the Partisans. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone make a resume of direktors, not sure what to call it, please. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You're asking people to make a resume for you, and you're "not sure what to call" my post?
Please note Fkp is herewith starting to post in a hostile tone, and making snide comments completely detached from the subject of discussion. This sort of behavior is essentially how these objective discussions are degraded. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not being suggested that the Partisans collaborated in the way the Chetniks did. In relation to the early days - you have argued that the approach to the germans for arms to use against the Partisans in autumn 1941 is evidence of early collaborationist/pro-Axis activity. I was merely pointing out that the Partisans tried the same thing - for the purpose of fighting the Chetniks. Both were refused. You have pointed out before that an unsuccessful approach does not count as collaboration - as far as the Partisans are concerned. Presumably the same applies to the Chetniks? The accomodations subsequently reached with the Italians - their nature, effect and degree of central control is well set out in Pawlovitch.Fainites barleyscribs 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well.. I mentioned the incident in response to FkpCascais quoting Chetnik wartime propaganda ("You are our enemy", see above), as evidence of the willingness of the Chetniks' leadership to cooperate with the Germans. The Chetniks at that time were under no immediate strain or threat, but merely approached the Germans in hopes of destroying the Partisans; and also did, in fact, offer military collaboration as opposed to (what we know of) the Zagreb talks. I believe I'd made my point there.
Does approaching the Germans with offers of military collaboration ("place themselves at their disposal"), something the Partisans never did to our knowledge, constitute collaboration in itself? I myself think so, as sources did list the incident as an instance of Chetnik collaboration (among others of course). To my knowledge that is also the position of the contemporary laws of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (an act of treason). However, while I do intend to mention the incident in the text, one does not really need it to show Chetnik collaboration, there are far more explicit examples of that. So I'm rather indifferent as to whether that offer in itself is accepted as an act of collaboration with the enemy, Fkp, of course, claims that it is not..
What it does indisputably show, however, is the willingness of the Chetnik leadership to "place themselves at the disposal" of the Germans, and that's why I quoted it. As for whether simply negotiating with the enemy, such as for prisoner exchanges or an armistice, constitutes treason, I would say no - and I believe the law is with me there. Its one thing to discuss an armistice with the enemy (when he's about to wipe you out), and another to "place yourself at his disposal". I don't see how the two could be rounded-down as the same thing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Info-box proposals

The current infobox very accurately describes the wartime allegiances. It does NOT list the Chetniks as Axis members, or even as an Axis faction for that matter. The sides of the conflict have been accurately displayed in accordance with Chetnik agreements with the Axis, and their 1942 shift towards solely combatting the Partisans.

A three-sided infobox proposed by User:FkpCascais implies that the Chetniks and the Axis were in conflict for the latter half of the war. On the contrary: it can be easily shown that, not only did the Chetnik leadership pursue a well-publicized policy of inaction towards the Axis (the "Waiting Policy"), but that the Chetniks themselves functioned as Axis auxilliary troops in their strugle against the Partisans (who by late 1943 were the Yugoslav military). The Chetnik leadership, willing to achieve an understanding with the Axis, condoned and even ordered, not only the inaction, but also the Chetnik cooperation with the occupation. All this has been sourced thoroughly, and if need be, the excerpts can be copy-pasted here once more. To quote isolated acts of anti-Axis Chetnik diversion would be highly misleading, as small-sacle these incidents, in direct contradiction with publicized Chetnik policy, cannot be compared to military deployments of tens of thousands of Chetniks under Axis command and fighting alongside the Axis in the battles and operations of this conflict. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

...and remove, or merge, this unecessary new post that basically doubles the conversation. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Now, regarding the "waiting policy" it was followed by other resistance movements as well, so? Beside, we have fighting going on between Chetniks and Axis forces in all years of then war, just as rushed exemples:
  • 1941: Roberts, p.26
  • 1942: Roberts, p.37-44 with Soviets (!) praising Partisans to join the official resistance, the Mihailovic Chetniks!
  • 1943: Christoff p.99 "in late summer and early autumn of 1943, one of the most agressive periods of activity on the part of the Chetniks against the Axis force." ... "The Chetniks were involved in a half-dozen major attacks on those forces, and each time the enemy death tole was around 200 to 300. At Mučanj, to the south of Uzice, on July 31the Chetniks engageed a Bulgarian force, inflicting several casualties. On August 29 they derailed two troop trains and killed 200, while at Prijepolje on Spetember 11 they attacked a German garrison 1,000 strong, killing another 200. The next day at Priboj, a town that lay at the strategic crossoads between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, they forced the surrender of an Italian garrison of 1,800 man".
1944: Galbreith [13] p.268, clears out how Chetniks lost British support, but not American. Operation Halyard goes way into 1944, until December, to be more precise.
1945: Knowing that Allies were much closer to victory, Chetniks intensifiyed (continued) their resistance activities. They even collaborated with Soviets in several combats, but I still haven´t transponded that into my sources page.
So not as much passivity as it wants us direktor to have the impression of. This I did just now in a rush cause I´m travelling right now. I forgot what I wanted more to say, but this by now.
@Fainites, could you please indicate me what should I precisely do (or source). You know what I pretend (my edit). I think that is clear about the 3 side situation and I´m not sure how to further demonstrate that the infobox deserves to be simplified :) . About the sentence, well, it´s strange how some simply deny and ignore all resistance efforts and concentrate in some meatings that btw even show the complexity of the situation, and completely fails to demonstrate anything but dislike between Chetniks and Germans. Let´s also not forget that troughout the war Mihailovic executed Pecanac for treason (the Pecanac Chetniks, collaborators)... Here are those pages I talk, and there is more that explains all this. I´ll be back soon. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, and direktor, the column that has Nazi Germany on top is the one showing the Axis side (saying Axis, or not in top), just in case you didn´t knew that, or if you want to further make word games... FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Another hostile comment by FkpCascais. Please note the user is this time suggesting I am so ignorant of this issue I am unaware of which side Nazi Germany belonged to.
No, Fkp, there are no "Axis" or "Allied" columns in this infobox, unlike in most WWII infoboxes. The columns merely describe the conflicting sides. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I am happy direktor that you finally ackolledged some policies usefull for discussions, however, your posts are somehow inconsistent. You say I am "hostile", however, it was basically you that insulted all our intelligence by saying, in other words, "no, the movements listed in same column that Nazi Germany, Mussolini Italy and Pavelic Croatia, are not Axis." Oh no? Secondly, you allways complain about the lenght of the posts when something is explained to you in detail, but now you suddenly flood the discussion even opening further threads (?). And third, what are this "Red attack" notes? Should I do it as well? Can I use red, or should I choose another color? PS: I wan´t answer to you any further until Fainites returns. I read all that you (direktor) wrote, and I don´t see anyhow how anything of what you wrote changes the fact that the infobox should be simplified into 3 party side, and that the short resume about Chetniks should fairly present the situation. PS2: You complicated (purpously?) this thread so much that I don´t know where to answer, so I just hope Fainites finds this... FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Invasion of Poland
Part of World War II
Date1 September – 6 October 1939
Location
Poland
Result Decisive German/Slovak and Soviet victory. Beginning of World War II
Territorial
changes		 Polish territory divided between Germany, the USSR, Lithuania and Slovakia
Belligerents

 Germany
Slovakia Slovakia

Soviet Union Soviet Union		 Poland Poland
That is your own personal perception, and it is wrong. Perceived, imaginary "affronts" are no excuse for your continued and constant incivility, though they seem to be their root cause.
Virtually all WWII infoboxes have an "Axis" and an "Allied"-labeled column. If a column does not have an "Axis:" label - it is NOT Axis. For example, here is the infobox from the Invasion of Poland article. It merely depicts the fact that Germany and the Soviet Union were both fighting Poland, but not each-other to a significant degree, and they are disticntly seperated - indicating that they were not allies.
I maintain my posts are not particularly long. This is a complex issue.
The red notes are there to highlight unprovoked hostile comments, in order to demonstrate how these discussions are degraded. Conpletely wrong, perceived insults on your part seem to trigger such behavior. You seem to have believed, for example, that I insulted your intelligence at some point, and then answered with an actual insult. You then posted you believe I have "purposely complicated" this discussion: I did not post this seperate thread, Fainites did, and I do not see anything wrong with a new section specifically on the infobox. Though to you it is all a part of my "evil plan". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)



As I said before, sporadic Chetnik diversion DID occur. It occured almost exclusively in southern Serbia and involved a total of twelve small-scale raids and diversions. This I am fully aware of and stated myself numerous times. I did not doubt that that is what you would post. And as I said above, cherry-picking these events and presenting them here out of context and all gathered together is highly misleading as to the role of the Chetnik movement as a whole. The entire excercise is futile: were I to write all the incidents in which Chetnik troops fought side-by-side with the Axis in the same way as you did - I would be up all night. In the one instance I presented above (Fall Weiss) the number of Chetnik troops fighting within the Axis command structure far exceeds all the above raids put together (cca. 16,000). And that is just one battle.

Some few other resistance movements adopted waiting policies, true, but that was mostly due to the complete military impossibility of any open action or rebellion (such as in northen France or the Netherlands). The Chetniks controlled huge chunks of Yugoslav territory. I do not see what that has to do with anything, though, the Chetniks were generally inactive towards the Axis as per their own policy. This is not just a policy. Chetnik general inactivity against the Axis is exceedingly well documented, and was in fact the main reason for the withdrawal of Allied support, once the SOE got wind of it.

As opposed to cherry-picking and bunching together the Chetnik raids in a misleading fashion, here are sources describing Chetnik activities overall, and the contemporary intelligence reports on Chetnik activity in general.

  • Pavlowitch describes the Chetniks' policy as "forever waiting for the right moment" (Pavlowitch p.276)
  • Johnson, p.164

"He [Mihailović] decided against further action, in favour of a policy of 'waiting in preparation' for an Allied counterinvasion of Yugoslavia.."

  • Tomasevich, Volume II, p.446

"British Special Operations Executive (SOE) missions into Yugoslavia [of April and May 1943]...initiated a complete about-face in British policy toward the competing forces in Yugoslavia. The British were able to confirm that the Chetniks and and the Slovene anti-Partisan forces were not fighting the occupation forces, but were collaborating with them against the Partisans."

  • Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S. Vucinich, Contemporary Yugoslavia, p.92

"..those among the Serbs and Montenegrins who inclined towards "waiting for the opportune moment" tended to go with the Chetniks"

Re the sources. Your sources are all books focusing on Operation Halyard, for some strange reason. You're extracting generalized out-of-context statements from (mostly non-scholarly) books dealing with an insignificant detail of the war.

  • Marcia Kurapovna is a Balkans correspondent who wrote what appears to a rather biased book. What happened to Pavlowitch? Tomasevich? Ramet? Dickson? Is there a reason to look to less prominent non-profesionals?
    Has her book "Shadows on the Mountain" received any peer reviews? I.e. is it a sholarly peer review publication? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Galbreith and Lindsay do not say that the Chetniks had American support. The Americans did not supply the Chetniks in any significant way, and publicly shifted all support to teh Partisans. The source merely explained that the Americans were interested in covertly cooperating with the Chetniks to get their pilots out.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

All sides (Germany, Italy, NDH, Chetniks, Partisans...) during WW2 in Yugoslav Front commited war crimes. Yet in the article there were only two images of this, and both by Ustaše. I removed one of them, and replaced it with some other image. I left the one in the Infobox - Ustaše guard stands among the bodies of prisoners killed in the Jasenovac concentration camp.--Kebeta (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the two photos of Chetniks are both "posing with Germans" (one including Ustashe, as well). FkpCascais (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Chetnik collaboration is an immensely important aspect of this war. That does not mean you should not add other photos of Chetniks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, regarding "...Chetnik collaboration is an immensely important aspect of this war..", in section 'Casualties' under point one there is this sentence "...1. Military operations between the Germans, Italians and their Ustaše collaborators on one hand against the Yugoslav partisans and Chetniks.[57]" which imply that Yugoslav partisans and Chetniks fought together against Germans, Italians and their Ustaše collaborators? --Kebeta (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
They fought together for a period of some 50 days between roughly 10 September 1941 and 1 November 1941 (all during the Užice uprising). The Chetniks approached the Germans with offers of cooperation on 28 October 1941. Believing that the Germans would accept their offer (which they did not that time), on November 1 the Chetniks attacked the Partisans, the latter famously proclaimed them "traitors", and there was no more cooperation between the two movements. There were numerous defections by units and commanders, to be sure, in both directions, but no Partisan-Chetnik cooperation.
If the text does not explain the above the claim is clearly misleading. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, but I don't know if OK or not.--Kebeta (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed one of the two similar images of Chetniks found in the article. As per Kebeta reasoning about Ustashe, which I actually agree, we don´t need to saturate the article with similar images. Any revert of it will be considered as a move of very bad faith, since the situation of doubling negative aspects is clear. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I added an image of 'Occupation and partition of Yugoslavia', so that people who don't know much of Yugoslav Front can see what territory we are talking about here. If there is some better image of whole Yugoslav Front, feel free to replace this one. --Kebeta (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I noteced. The map was a very good idea. FkpCascais (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. But there is also no reason to remove the Chetnik photo. If you can provide a better photo of the Chetniks, we can shuffle the image you do not like to perhaps a less prominent position in the article. There is however, no justification for the removal of an image you personally dislike. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You (direktor) really think is fair to have two photos of Chetniks and both posing with Germans? Stop asking good-faith and then acting like this... FkpCascais (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Photos cannot really be "fair" or "unfair". They simply depict what they depict, and what this one depicts is an important aspect of the war. Again: you have no consensus for the removal of the image. Your edit summary is misleading: a picture of three generals has nothing to do with a picture of some Chetnik troops. You are removing it for personal, POV reasons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Chetniks, constantly followed by people adding negative labeling

This edit of mine is done with the intention to delabel the movement. I fail to see how some editors find them a collaborating force while in fact their leader was head-hunted by Germans until the end of the war and had been engaged in resistance activities and rescuing allied missions. The way they are described is identical (or even worste) than real collaborating forces, and a difference there must be established. Ocasional agreements with the purpose of fighting a third party does not mean "Axis force". Ustashe were Axis force, Mussolini Italy was Axis force, Pecanac Chetniks were Axis force, Mihailovic Chetniks were NOT Axis force. FkpCascais (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

De iure the Chetniks were regarded as "rebels" by the German authorities, but de facto their role was that of a collaborating force. This "hunted man"
  • ordered his subordinates to "cooperate with the German forces" (20 November 1944), adding that he himself "cannot go along because of public opinion",
  • offered to "place himself at the disposal" of the German occupation (28 September 1941)
  • dispatched personal representatives to authorize the main collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and Fascist Italy (Major Boško Todorović, 11 January 1942),
  • personally commanded some 12,000 to 15,000 Chetnik troops in a joint military operation with German, Italian, and Croatian quisling forces (January – April 1943),
  • and conferred personally with his supposed "hunters" on five different occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945
...and this is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg". Stating facts is not "negative labeling". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
But ignoring the other facts it is. That, what you say, is not "the tip of the iceberg", please stop your constant propagandistic tone on this subject, you already gathered ALL evidence existing around there and even that "collection" failed to demonstrate anything more than ocasional unofficial collaboration (exact words). I could constantly as well remind everyone how almost 50 years of Tito´s version of events diminished all Chetnik resistance efforts, and that the fighting against Germans and rescuing Allkied pilots is "just a tip of the iceberg of all Allied activities". By the way, Mihailovic has official awards from US and France, confirming their resistance importance (and the awards do refer to his movement), and all we have about sources for collaboration are ocasions where unwillingly both agreed to put their differencesd aside and concentrate on fighting Partisans (yes, unwilingly from both sides). That is very very different from the manner some editors here edit the subject. I´ll say this clearly, I am not glorifiying the movement, but some editors are clearly demonising it. FkpCascais (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That is "the tip of the iceberg". I did not mention the collaboration arrangements with the Nedić regime, the collaboration with the NDH in Bosnia, joint Chetnik-Italian operations in Dalmatia, collaboration in Montenegro, Operation Rosselsprung, Chetniks attacking Allied forces, handing-over Allied pilots to the Germans etc etc.
I never ignore facts. With regard to fighting the Axis Draža Mihailović had a "strict waiting policy" of non-confrontation. The exceptions to Mihailović's rule are few, weak, far-between and generally insignificant. I posted above overall assessments of the Chetnik role in this conflict, assessments that do not ignore any facts, there area LOT more to post, such as by Ramet herself: "the Chetnik movement collaborated extensively and systematically", going on to elaborate for some 20 pages on their pro-Axis activities.
All you do is repeatedly mention Operation Halyard, and I simply do not understand why?? Operation Halyard, essentially a very very tiny conflict, is completely and utterly insignificant with reagrd to assessing Chetnik activities in this war.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


  • I am sorry FkpCascais, but I will have to undo that per WP:LEAD. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. In the current lead the Chetniks are described as a resistance forces opposite to Axis forces. This is not so (maybe in 1941, but not after) and the lead should represent the whole picture and represent neutral point of view. --Kebeta (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You wrote it you self ...Pecanac Chetniks were Axis force...and they were Chetniks after all? --Kebeta (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, Pecanac Chetniks are "rebel" Chetniks (by " rebel" I mean, Chetniks working outside the main Chetniks movement), and Pecanac himself was executed by high trason by Mihailovic, for having collaborated with Axis. By Chetniks, we agreed to consider the main movement (Mihailovic Yug.Army in Homeland), we discussed this. Kebeta, we disagree on dates, as well, and we disagree even in collaboration description. I am sorry to say, but you all fail to provide any source claiming any official association with Axis, beside some time-limited agreements with sole purpose of fighting Partisans. Also, I came to fing out that Mihailovic Chetniks had the resistance agenda from day one until the very last day of the war, and between periods of passive resistance (also with reasons, cause Germans killed in proportion 1-100, so it was suicidal not to do so), I was saying, betwen passive resistance they actually fought Germans, weather attacking, ot attacked, from 1941 to 1945 including every year. So, basically, they were a resistance movement with ocasional cease-fire agreements with Germans with goal of crushing the 3th side (Partisans), but they were never part of Axis powers, Mihailovic was head-hunted troughout the war by German Wermacht, and even the lost of support in December 1943 was not a declaration of war on behalve of Allies, on contrary, was just giving preference to the Partisans as resistance movement. We have this link between them and Allies officialised (including post-war awards), and with Axis all we have are time-limited agreements (where actually both admit basically to hate eachother). So, how can a short description be fair by saying "a later collaborative force"? My problem is that such a simplicist description does make an unfamiliar reader think that they overwelmingly collaborated and gave up resistance, which is not the case at all. FkpCascais (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Copy-paste from my talk page - I totally agree with you here (Listen Kebeta, I am not deniying that Chetniks collaborated, but it was far from being a consistent collaboration, and it was more like an unpleasent but necessary agreement...). All sides here looked at thear interests, for example, the Italians supported Chetniks against Ustaše in Dalmatia, and Ustaše and Chetniks fought together against Partisans around Knin area in Dalmatia...and so on. The point is, no matter what thear reason were, Chetniks were collaborators. Now, I don't say we have to put them under Axis label, but we can't put them only under monarchic (especially after king rejected them as his army) or resistance movement either. That is exactly what I am trying to say to you - one side of the medal is POV and both sides of the medal is NPOV. Thus, per "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and "the lead should represent the whole picture and represent neutral point of view", This edit can not be tolerated, as it has nothing to do with negative labeling of Chetniks, but with representing the NPOV. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you miss the entire other side of the facts, so it is NOT correct labeling. It still gives the WRONG impression they did nothing more than collborating later, and that is NOT troue. If you still have a sentence giving wrong impresion of facts, you are still POV. Simple. My version is undisputed and correct. Yours not. FkpCascais (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Fkp, Chetnik collaboration was indeed an "unpleasant but necessary arrangement" for them, but you are wrong when you say it was "not consistent". It was. There were exceptions, but these are rather small.
  • Geographically, the exception is southern Serbia, where some, sporadic and minor anti-Axis acts have been recorded. These are acts of diversion, and some twelve minor raids.
  • Temporally, the exception is the period roughly until the start of 1942: during this period (1941-42), the Chetniks offered to achieve an agreement with the Germans, but failed - so no actual collaboration took place. However, as 1942 started, the Chetniks arrived at an understanding with the Italians, the NDH, and Nedić's Government of National Salvation.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
@direktor, we went a million times trough this, and the mediation reached a co nsensus that the collboration was "OCASIONAL". Is that why you rejected mediation, because you simply can´t accept facts? FkpCascais (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
@Kebeta, I also find curious how you so decidedly removed pictures portraying Ustashe in negative light, with (fair) excuse of being unusefull to have repeated pictures, but you sudently decide to ignore the same situation for Chetniks and leave me being edit-warred over this by direktor? You are certainly aware of this, but you simply decide to ignore that same right to Chetniks... Not much of NPOV... FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I din't realize one image will make such a mess.--Kebeta (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
@Kebeta. Really? :) Its a photo of Chetniks posing for a group hug with German troops.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't see "Allies" as a good guys and "Axis" as a bad guys. For me they were just two opposite armies in WW2, thus I have no problem with images of "Chetniks and Germans" or with "Ustaše and Germans" together.--Kebeta (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Believe it or not, neither do I. This is not to say that I do not condemn the atrocities commited by the Nazis and the Ustaše, but I also recognize that the Soviets and the Western Allies commited their share of atrocities. The point I'm making, however, is that its not suprising such a revealing image would be opposed by users from the Balkans.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
@FkpCascaisYou are simply inventing claims: the mediation "reached a consensus" on absolutely nothing at all. And frankly I could not possibly care less about the mediation, its a farce and a circus (lasting more than 16 months!). The collaboration was simply not "occasional" in any way. According to actual sources, Chetnik collaboration was "extensive and systematic" (Ramet p.148). Present your sources refuting this - else I see no reason not to include it into the article right here and now (and demonstrate, along the way, that you are the one "having problems accepting facts").
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You posted all your sources (including Ramet) and all agreed the correct description was that. Only you refuse to accept it. Otherwise go back and deal with it at the proper place, not edit waring on articles. The mediation IS the only place such claim can be accepted, or not, and it is still going on, whatever you think of it. You actually DID gave up because you saw your POV was not being accepted. If you abandon a "match" because you feel you´re loosing, that doesn´t mean the result will not be enforced. FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not care about your ancient, years-long mediation. It appears to be little more than a tool for you to prolongue this issue. Inserting source. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, what?

I just edited this page and changed the labeling of the puppet Croatian state from the "Independent State of Croatia" to "Croatia." I was reverted, because apparently I should take "potentially controversial edits" to this talk page. I don't see any controversy in that edit whatsoever. Now, I'm going to undo the revert, and if anyone has any good reason for Croatia to retain its long name in the infobox, I'd be happy to know. Thank you. CuboneKing (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To clear things up, it would still link to this page and not this page. CuboneKing (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If there's no opposition, I'll just go ahead and change it myself soon. Bump. CuboneKing (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and change it. This can't be controversial. *sigh* CuboneKing (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to go to the talk page first

To whomever reversed my removal of the "Chetnik Collaborators" line:

1.Obviously, the reference at the beginning should be discussed and disputed on the linked Chetnik entry, not here

2. The reference that was made is the minority opinion and is counter to what the Encyclopedia says.

3. If you would still like to include the controversial opinion, you should talk about at that linked entry, not at the beginning of an important article of the Yugoslav Front.

User:SarhJaneJoan — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahJaneJoan (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Then you should have discussed it there first before purging it from here. The Chetniks article has been subject to a long-term mediation involving a number of editors who have spent literally months trying to reach some kind of consensus about the relevance of individual sources and the overall article content. Until that mediation is over (I'm not involved myself so I have no idea how that is going - but I hear it might be over soon) controversial changes are to be avoided. Alas, you did not attempt to discuss your edits neither here nor there before making them.
2. I have no idea. Experts over at Chetniks might be the judge of that. For the record, in your removal you wiped out paragraphs backed up by three sources - Sabrina Ramet's The Three Yugoslavias, Jozo Tomasevich's War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, Shaw's Trial by Slander: A background to the Independent State of Croatia and you removed Cohen and Riesman's Serbia's Secret War from the bibliography list. Are you saying all four books represent a "minority view"? Have you got a referenced quote from their fellow historians who dispute their writings?
3. See #1. It is you who removed referenced parts of the article so the burden of proof is on you to prove that it needs to be removed. If you would like to discuss this you can do it here or you can do it at the linked entry - but do it before proceeding to edit the article. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
However, User:SarhJaneJoan has its reasons for complaining about the lack of neutrality found in the sentences that removed. Those parts of the text are clearly one sided and the way they seem to be written with a purpose of acusing Chetniks, instead of informing in a neutral way. The text should be changed in this cases, just as in all other related articles which were heavily edited in an anti-Chetnik way. The mediation has concluded, but I supose we all took a break, however, all other related articles should be changed in a way to reflect a neutral point of view instead of this unnencyclopedic acusational tone. FkpCascais (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The reasoning given by SarhJaneJoan was WP:GEVAL, claiming that parts of the article supported by Tomasevich, Ramet and Shaw represent a minority view. And the post-mediation article on Chetniks itself lists Tomasevich, Ramet and Shaw in its bibliography. SarhJaneJoan also seems to have a problem with the claim that some Chetniks were killed at Bleiburg. Which is, again, stated in the post-mediation Chetniks article. Timbouctou (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the simplicist way they were transcribed into the article is certainly a minority view, not even described that way by Tomasevich... I mean, if you go and read it, some parts are ridiculously against WP:POINT... Anyway, the "mediated" article is Draža Mihailović, the Chetniks article has not been "mediated" much yet... FkpCascais (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
*Direktor rises from the dead to say..* They're both included in the mediation's scope. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I am OK by now with the text although the sentence in the lead is tendentious by deliberately informing the reader directing him how the Chetniks are "collaborators"... That should be fixed. However, I find more urgent in removing the unnecessary doubling of Chetniks in the infobox. The Chetniks have their column, and if they are repeated in one side, so should they in the another one, and seems more correct to have one time Chetniks in a separate column that repeated in all of them. FkpCascais (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead is quoted almost verbatim from two top-quality scholarly sources, using virtually the same exact wording. "Tendentious?" Far from being removed, I will also include it in the Chetniks article itself. All in all, I suggest you modify your views in accordance with the sources, as opposed to demanding we ignore sources because they're not in accordance with your views.
Actually, the "Chetnik's own column" is the Axis column, where they probably ought to be moved to altogether (separated with a line that indicates a lack of formal association), though the consensus version in the article (agreed-upon after long discussion) works as well as a more detailed depiction. You keep pushing for this over and over and over again, presumably until you have your way. "Step-by-step" seems to be the order of the day. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

1942????????

Why is it tolerated that this false information of Chetniks being nazi's since 1942??? That is what the infobox says. Where does one get this? I have added sources in the past that prove this to be wrong. We know very well that even in 1943 that the allies preferred to aid chetniks over the partizans. And what's more the chetniks continued getting aid until 1944. So where is this nazi stuff from? Does someone have a personal grudge against them, or what? (LAz17 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)).

Elite unit of the NDH in Mar 45

I am very interested in the reference to an elite unit of the NDH on the Srem front in Mar 45. Not having my copy where I am, does the source say what unit this was? It would be good to have that level of detail. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Pavlowitch (2008) doesn't specifically mention any particular NDH unit. It would seem however, that at the time the NDH 1st Corps had the best equipped and most up-to-strength units, as well as having the best morale, to qualify for the term "elite". The NDH 1st Corps comprised the Poglavnik Bodyguard Division, 1st Assault Divsion, 5th Assault Division and the Mobile Brigade. The 1st Corps had the best commanders (Generals Metikos, Moskov and Boban), contained most of the NDH's armoured and motorized units and had its best artillery units. All four units (and their commanders) survived intact and in fact spearheaded the fighting withdrawal of the NDH Army to Austria in the week after Zagreb was evacuated on 8 May 1945.Oz Cro (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Complete lack of context in this article and related articles

There is a lack of context in this article and related articles, particularly the Yugoslav Partisan and Chetnik articles, regarding the development of the Partisan and Chetnik movements in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were critical to the development of both movements. The rebellion was a mixture of the two ideas until mid-1942, and this is not really mentioned in either article or this one. The two organisations and philosophies clashed repeatedly and with differing results in different parts of Bosnia in 1941-1942, and the current articles appear to avoid or at least skirt around this issue. This needs to be redressed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If (in the infobox) there is Leon Rupnik listed on one side, Boris Kidrič should be listed on the other, too

I added both the flag and the name, too. DancingPhilosopher my talk 15:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War

According to RSN discussion Philip Cohen's 'Serbia's Secret War is not reliable source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

according to one editor, (User:Fifelfoo). That is not consensus. RSN states "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". There was no consensus of several editors, and it certainly isn't official policy. Your tagging of this whole article on the basis of Cohen, whose reliability you personally dispute, is just disruptive and blatant POV warring. Continuation of this approach beyond the currently affected article (Djurisic) where you don't have a consensus, will be reported as disruption. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway it would be nice if Cohen is removed. I'm sure that acceptable sources (that will generally say the same thing) can be found. -- Bojan  Talk  10:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death. I will dispute the removal of Cohen until an alternative source saying the same thing is produced. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia/Archive_4&oldid=1079335428"