This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  World War II task force

Here is the draft. Admitedly it is long in comparison to other sections of the Chetniks' article, but that is only because those other sections have not been afforded such attention and given as much context. If we are going to trim some sections I'd advise to relocate them if possible - for example a good chunk of the draft deals with the Chetniks' general ideology and could be moved to the "Formation and Ideology" section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G'day PRODUCER. i think we will need to get a few more sources in there (Roberts and Milazzo & a few others) and I consider there is a need to restructure to some extent within the section. i also think that given the emphasis this draft gives to the 20 Dec 41 Instruction, we will need to briefly explain why Karchmar questions its origin (around DM's movements, travel times etc, the content and style and some of its implications regarding the way it was written.) However, I am happy that it it reflects most sources (I would, however like to have some time to check them in my own copies). Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for input from Nuujinn and DIREKTOR... -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is well sourced and very thorough, but leans too heavily on Tomasevich and Hoare (the latter concerns me as, although he is clearly a reliable source, his bias is to be blunt, excessive) and, given that it is so long and detailed, puts too much weight on the cleansing actions. That may well be "...because those other sections have not been afforded such attention and given as much context," but that begs the question as to why that is the case. Perhaps we should turn our attention in concert to those other sections and work them out to a similar extent? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, Nuujinn, if you oppose any of the facts laid out by Tomasevich - please challenge them properly. You cannot seriously be suggesting we exclude the source on the basis of your perception of his style of expression? And frankly, even if we were to agree that Tomasevich is "blunt" (which we do not), I disagree that it is a flaw with an author of scholarly literature.

Generally speaking, you seem to be far too sensitive to authors actually callinHg something what it is. Your efforts here have always been directed towards making the text as mild as possible, and since the Chetniks are always the topic - the Chetniks are the beneficiaries of your sensitivity and timid approach. These are brutal "Balkans-style" massacres, prosecution, and pogroms. Its what they were. All sides committed them, and this article is supposed to cover those committed by the Chetniks.

As usual, what you want (us) to do in essence, is search all the publications for the mildest, softest terminology, and argue that we should use that for the sake of "balance". If anything, with your version Tomasevich (the best source we have) is under-represented in the text of this section. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn is actually very correct in his observations. You direktor accuse Nuujinn of wanting to use the mildest terminology (I would say "balanced", but anyway) but on the other side most of what you did was basically collecting the heaviest terminology, and doing you best to include them all in the article. Producer has made an effort to write the section, but we indeed have the problem of the article being then too much focused on the "ethnic cleansing and terror", something that has not receved similar weight and proportional ammount in any of the scholar works considered as reliable sources. I already mentioned this issue of unbalance in the past, because lets not forget that we have already an exagerated almost half of the article screaming "collaboration"... FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exaggerated. The Chetniks collaborated, and it's an important part of their story. Why they collaborated isn't properly covered. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In due time Nuujinn. If we tackle too many sections at once it will be overwhelming and we will get ourselves nowhere. How could the paragraphs from Tomasevich and Hoare "put too much weight on the cleansing actions" when the that's the primary purpose of the section? Again, keep in mind almost half of this section talks about the Chetniks' ideology. That's where too much weight is. It could be briefer and relocated to the "Formation and ideology" section. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, and perhaps I should have been clearer, the reason I took on rewriting the section was that it was long enough before to unbalance the rest of the article, thus placing undue weight on the cleansing actions. This draft would do the same thing. DIREKTOR, I did not even imply that I disagreed with facts laid out by Tomasevich--to do so would be OR. I did not say that he is blunt--you misread my statement, I was being blunt, and not about Tomasevich, but rather Hoare, who, while a professional historian, appears to have a very strong bias, which is why I tend to avoid using him. And I'm very aware that all sides committed atrocities, and I am of the opinion that we simply cannot deal with the systematic atrocities committed during this historical period in the individual articles about the various groups. I would much rather have an article specifically on these events, so that each is presented in context. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not "cripple" this section so that it lines up with the quality of other poor sections. That is an incredibly terrible strategy.

We have already given enough context to address your concern.

Your opinion that Hoare (Oxford University Press) "appears to have a very strong bias" is not a valid reason to remove him. We determine the inclusion of sources by their reliability and by what peer reviews have to say, not by our own opinions. Besides everything in Hoare's paragraph is strictly substantiated fact and none of it is his opinion. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree that the section in the article as it stands is currently crippled--it was arrived at after long discussion, and with input of multiple editors. And I did not suggest removing Hoare, I simply stated why I choose to avoid him--my goal has been to use sources that lack such an obvious bias, since we have plenty that do not have such obvious bias. Note that I have said he would be considered a reliable source. I feel that if we are to use this as a basis for a rewrite of the section in question, we will have to include additional reliable sources. And I hope you will show similar enthusiasm in expanding the other sections. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the discussion and it's nothing to boast about. Whether you're "avoiding" Hoare or "removing" him you are doing the same. I'm not going to argue semantics. Again everything in his paragraph is strictly substantiated fact and none of it represents his opinion so just drop it. As for additional reliable sources, by all means they should be included, my draft included what I had at my disposal. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a related article Yugoslav Partisans PRODUCER has made this edit adding unsourced ethnic cleansing to Chetniks and replacing all Serbian-related content by Croatian one. More nationalistically based edit is impossible. FkpCascais (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to this article on this talk page please?Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to get the ball rolling on this again. Peacemaker, in response to your suggestion of adding more sources, I fail to see Roberts make any mention of massacres committed by the Chetniks. As for Milazzo, I do not have his book in my possession so if you could add from his book that would be helpful. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts p 68 for starters, which would support some of the draft regarding Djujic and Jevdjevic's actions. I'll see what is relevant from Milazzo and if I have anything else from Roberts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has deleted sources from the References section. Tomasevich Volume I is actually missing, and someone has deleted links in the Ramet reference. Never mind, fixed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant bibliography section was removed. I forgot to add Tomasevich's first volume and I figured I'd remove the google books links since the majority didn't have them. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the point in having Operation Halyard in a separate section. It is covered in sufficient detail and in the right place chronologicaly for this article in a later section. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to emphasize as much as possible the one notable anti-Axis operation conducted by the Chetniks, even if its military significance is non-existent... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too fussed about the motivation, it's just duplication. I propose deleting it and ensuring the Halyard info in the later section reflects the basic details and DM's award resulting from it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring up a relatively minor issue. The lead currently lists the desire to destroy the Partisans as the single and exclusive motivation behind Chetnik collaboration. This is unsourced, and I think this is not quite accurate. The benefits of collaborating as opposed to actively resisting are many and obvious, above all there is the benefit of not getting attacked and annihilated (such as was very nearly the fate of the Partisans during Fall Schwartz). But the Chetniks also operated as auxiliary forces: that is to say, they of course received food, ammunition, weapons and supplies in general. So apart from the ability to fight the Partisans (a goal which the Chetniks in my opinion did not pursue with particular vigor), through treason Chetnik formations obviously gained both security and supplies, and I think it is not accurate to simply list the "in order to fight the Partisans" as the motivation. To be clear, I believe that issue is too complex for the lede. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

later in the war, there is also the issue of collaboration for survival. But the level of nuance needed to explain their long-term anti-Axis philosophy and ultimate intention to resist (basically passively until the time came), then how the Chetniks became hopelessly compromised by their gradual reliance on collaboration to obtain arms and avoid destruction at the hands of the Germans, and their refusal to actively resist them in a similar way to the Partisans, is a complex issue. Milazzo and Roberts do a good job in explaining this, but it is a question of making it brief enough to fit a WP article. This is why I think we should be trying to cover the whole issue of Resistance and Collaboration in one section called just that. Axis Collaboration just doesn't cut it. It is far more complex than that, and needs a proper explanation of its development from an intention to resist to fullscale collaboration in the hope of survival. It could be done chronologically (perhaps using each year as a subsection) with key aspects dealt with geographically as necessary. I'm very interested in progressing a more nuanced approach to this, as I don't think the current section really scratches the surface of what was really going on. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beleave another option is to separate the WWII by time periods. Years perhaps. I remember that when a problem of lenght happend in the section Ante_Pavelić#Usta.C5.A1e_regime one of the proposed solution was to divide it in time periods. FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially that's what I'm saying. Resistance and Collaboration are intertwined and central to this article. Much of what occurred with the Chetniks can be placed in that context. However, the ideological issues and their results are also significant and need to be dealt with separately. The proposed 'Resistance and Collaboration' section would be divided up into 5 subsections, one for each year 41-45, showing what happened in each year. I think a chronological approach makes sense. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary, FkpCascais. The claim made in the text that combating the Partisans was the only motivation for collaboration is not sourced. Apart from that, I removed no information. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, you also moved content from the lede which is of significant importance. The lack of homogeneity in the Chetnik movement is central to how things developed. I referenced that phrase from Milazzo, and it should remain in the lede. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I know it is significant, I know it is sourced, and I did not (re)move it from the lede [1]. I'm not lying Peacemaker :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies, you moved it in the lede. Not sure why it fits there rather than where is was. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker, I see a few problems there. I ultimately understand and agree that a chronological coverage is indeed superior and more appropriate. However(!), as you might have noticed, in this article there is undoubtedly continuous pressure to downplay collaboration. What I am afraid of is that integrating the collaboration section may result in the opportunity being taken to cannibalize the information therein, with large chunks ultimately getting deleted. On the other hand, I also understand that a huge chronological "World War II" section, incorporating all Chetnik WWII activities, cannot realistically go into such detail on collaboration as a section specifically tasked with covering it.

So in essence, if this is going to be done, I would like all active participants to agree beforehand not to try and use such a large-scale article restructuring to either 1) over-emphasize the marginal (Milazzo) resistance activities, 2) or decrease the emphasis on Chetnik collaboration from about the level it currently has. Otherwise, I foresee troubles in the proposed course of action. While such an agreement would be non-specific, it would provide a form of guarantee that efforts would be focused on actually improving the coverage of Chetnik activities (by introducing a chornological format), rather than pursuing this or that goal from the collaboration/ethnic cleansing dispute.

Writing a chronological "WWII" section was indeed my ultimate intention when I started editing this article ages ago, but I gave up on it when the pressure really came down and I sensed that to touch virtually anything of the current make-up of the article is a recipe for infinite edit-wars and talkpage conflict (any mention of collaboration in the lede was vehemently opposed, e.g.). Of course then the mediation froze the article etc.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It's just that can't see this going anywhere (other than some improvements around the edges, reinforcing reliable sources and improving citation of what is there, and I consider that it is not a great article at the moment. I would have thought we could have a sensible length section lede paragraph which covered the issue in broad brush and then break it down by years followed by a concluding paragraph wrapping it all together. It's pretty ambitious for this article though... Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be done, I would start with putting together collaboration paragraphs (one, two or more) for each of the war years. If those can be agreed upon the majroity of the conflict is essentially settled. It can potentially go rather quick if we stick closely to the sources and use the text and quotes from the Collaboration section. So, before we start, I propose two steps: a) the general agreement I mentioned above; and b) a general inquiry to make certain none of the information from the current Collaboration section is challenged. With the latter measure an editor can write text without wondering whether someone will attack at least some of the collaboration info he presents. The problem is also that, based on past experience, regardless of the sources, FkpCascais is highly unlikely to actually explicitly agree that Chetniks committed collaboration and/or ethnic cleansing, and might at best grudgingly cease protesting against it.

The other issue, the possibility of over-emphasizing resistance, is a lot more slippery. I can't imagine FkpCascais won't want, for example, to have more text on resistance than on collaboration, or he might want to have the paragraphs covering resistance always above that on collaboration, etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, lets ask beforehand: is any port of the current collaboration section (based by and large on Chapter 7 of Tomasevich's Volume I), challenged? And by "challenged" I mean challenged on any policy-relevant basis. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no objections whatsoever? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if by 'by and large' you mean also including the observations of Milazzo, Roberts and Tomasevich Vol 2 (that show nuanced differences from Tomasevich Vol 1), then no. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you take into consideration that I object to the structure of the collaboration sections as it stands now, since focussing on acts of collaboration out of context makes the section inherently POV, and feel that it is too heavily based on the one Tomasevich work. To put the collaboration in context, we also have to include pressures on the Chetniks, including the actions against taken against them, and what else they were doing at the same time, and by that point, we're pretty much writing chronologically. But I have no objection to pursuing a year by year version that treats both Resistance and Collaboration, per Peacemaker's suggestion. Also, I can't speak for others, but I'm basically on holiday for a week yet, so my time is currently pretty limited. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to me, one of the things that really is missing here is that DM had an idea of what resistance was that just didn't fit the situation in Yugoslavia. He wanted to remain in a passive resistance mode until the (Western) Allies came to Yugoslavia, and this was diametrically opposed to what the Partisans wanted to do (ie resist immediately and gain maximum control over the situation as soon as possible on their own terms, with all that entailed for the unprotected civilian populace). To survive in that environment, the Chetniks had to at least make non-aggression arrangements with the Axis to survive and fight the Partisans, but once the Partisans survived the German's best efforts in Fall Weiss, the Chetniks were stuffed, damned by their collaboration and abandoned by the Allies. This is essentially Milazzo's point. That needs to be covered (in addition to the reaction against the Ustasha genocide). Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I never opposed any of that, indeed I think I said so myself at one point. I.e. they did collaborate with the enemy, but the conflict here is more about that fact bothering others than impressing me. Where the Chetniks lose their old-world charm, for me at least, is the ethnic cleansing, Greater-Serbianism, and the idea of an even more Serb-dominated Yugoslav state (as compare to the pre-war Kingdom). Who knows what would have happened to Croats, Slovenes, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians, i.e. the "traitor minorities", had the Chetniks gained military predominance in the immediate aftermath of WWII. They were hardly anyone's idea of the "western democracy" resistance.

So yes, that aspect is definitely necessary. Nuujinn, I want to make myself clear on this. 1. I agree that a chronological organization would be superior to the current one. 2. But such an article restructuring should not serve you and FkpCascais as a pretext to remove sourced information from the article without consensus. If a particular piece of information is to be deleted, agreement must be reached beforehand. 3. I do not agree that a section that fairly, proportionately, and without bias represents reliable sources can possibly be "POV", regardless of its topic. Your position in that respect imo gives the impression that you would like to use article structure to de-emphasize and downplay what the sources have to say on that topic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, this would go faster if you would stick to the content and leave off making statements about the intentions, motivations, and desires of other editors. And you don't make the rules here, the community does, so you can make any statements you wish, but it is not up to you to decided what must and what must not happen. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-consensus removal of sourced information from the article will be reverted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have started going through all the inline citations and comparing them against the material in the article. I have already found several that do not appear to be supported by the citations, and I wonder if those editors that are interested in the inclusion of this material might like to clarify with page numbers or explain how the reference supports the material. To make this section read sensibly, perhaps each issue could be placed behind a single colon, and the discussion of that point could proceed from there. That way we will be able to see what has been said about each issue.

• "Progressive". The first issue is with Milazzo p. 182. The reference appears to relate to the word 'progressive', yet that word does not appear on p. 182, and neither does any synonym. The issue with the Tomasevich ref for the same word is that no page number has been provided. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Avoiding accommodations with the enemy". This issue is with Milazzo p. 21. This page makes reference to the 'break with Ravna Gora' of three detachments that shortly thereafter went over to the Partisans. If we want to demonstrate that there is sufficient weight to the statement that 'some Chetniks did not make accommodations with the enemy', this is not the example to use, as it only relates to a very short period (to Sep 1941) when things were pretty confused and DM didn't even have a handle on who was with him and who wasn't. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. These are all Nuujinn's quotes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Collaboration agreements" and "using the enemy". These relate to Tomasevich (1975) p. 169. That page relates to Moljevic/Greater Serbia, and there is no reference to either collaboration or 'using the enemy' on that page. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added one of mine. I'm not home right now (and wont be for some time) so I can't re-check, but I am reasonably sure I did not misquote Tomasevich there. Could you please elaborate further on your third point? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here's the first lift from the lede, '...into collaboration agreements: first with the Nedić forces in Serbia, then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, with some of the Ustaše forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.' This is cited as Tomasevich (1975) p. 169. p. 169 is in Chapter 6 - Chetnik Objectives and Organisation. The page in question refers to Moljevic's 'Homogeneous Serbia' in its entirety.

and here's the second lift from the lede cited to the same page, '...the Chetnik movement itself referred to this policy of collaboration as "using the enemy".' The p. 169 ref is at the end of the "using the enemy" phrase. There is a third use of p. 169 later in the Terror Tactics and Cleansing Actions section which is correctly cited as it relates to Moljevic. See http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yoCaAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=tomasevich+chetniks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H-0CT9rKDcmuiQf_s4yhAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=moljevic&f=false Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the exact page number, but as I recall that stuff is actually from the very beginning of Chapter 7 (which should be around p.200). There Tomasevich writes a few pages where he discusses collaboration in general terms and I know I used that part as the basis for my edits (since that is the lede). Could I trouble you to review the first page or two of that chapter? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I think I know what's the problem: the actual page number is probably "196" rather than "169" :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Dyslexia. Have the same problem myself. I'll fix them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This citation query is now fixed and closed. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm*.. knew it. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Second paragraph - Loss of support and final war years. This is a Tomasevich citation but the relevant page doesn't relate to the content of the second para of the section. I've tagged it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Milazzo quote on "progressive" actually comes from the preface of The Chetnik Movement & the Yugoslav Resistance. Milazzo states:

"The overriding question is how a movement whose leadership was in no sense pro-Axis found itself progressively drawn into a hopelessly compromising set of relationships with the occupation authorities and the native Quisling regimes. What was it about the situation in occupied Yugoslavia and the Serb officers’ response to that state of affairs which prevented them from carrying out serious anti-Axis activity or engaging in effective collaboration?"

no issue with this one now it points to the right part of the book. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Milazzo p.182 supports the term "marginal resistance activities"

"The preceding chapters have traced the development of an armed movement which was anti-Axis in its long-range goals and engaged in a marginal sort of resistance activity but which also carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order"

no issue with this one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As you point out however, the quote from p.21 seems to be misrepresented as supportive of "avoided accommodations with the enemy" in a general sense.

As things stand now, the proposition that "some Chetnik detachments avoided accommodations with the enemy" is entirely unsourced. Especially in such a general context where such a sentence suggests that some specific Chetnik units consistently throughout the war never engaged in collaboration. This is actually contrary to a number of sources that have been quoted here (among others Tomasevich, Ramet, and Milazzo just above) who simply state that the Chetnik movement (in general terms, without further clarifications) engaged in collaboration. There is no reason that I can see to use any other format, such as "most Chetnik units collaborated". And, in light of said sources, the proposition that some Chetnik units continually avoided collaboration throughout the war needs support - which it is currently lacking.

whilst I don't see a significant problem here, what it does is now imply that all Chetnik units collaborated. I don't think we even know this. Not sure how we express this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the phrase "most Chetnik units collaborated", which somehow seems to have found false references, is but a clever variation on the old "good Chetniks-bad Chetniks" propaganda line often found in post-Yugoslav Serbian texbooks, which has been frequently pushed on this and other articles. The suggestion is that "some" Chetniks were the "good Chetniks" who never collaborated, while some were the "evil Chetniks" who did collaborate (the latter are often presented as a minority, or even confused and equated with the tiny and relatively insignificant Pećanac Chetniks). I would really like to finally see a reliable source that states "some" Chetnik units never collaborated - and which ones.

agreed, this is a problem. There were a lot of Chetnik detachments, and I have never read about one that didn't. Let's face it, it was a long war, and without arms and ammo, they would have been doing much resisting. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple additional points:

• The accurate statement that "the Chetniks were not an entirely homogeneous movement" is placed in front of (what is essentially) the "some Chetniks never collaborated" claim. This is good information, and relevant for the lede, but placed in front of the latter claim is part of a misleading paragraph structure that supports it. I suggest it be slightly moved.

I actually think this one needs more work. Milazzo's observations about the real pervasive lack of cohesion in the movement as a whole, and DM's lack of control over many of his nominal subordinates needs much better coverage both in the lede and in the article in general. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, while the Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army were the first movement to be formally declared, it has not been made clear whether they were the first to actually engage in resistance activities against the occupation. This seems to be a rather relevant point. The Partisan Žikica Jovanović Španac is traditionally accredited with firing the first shot of the war on 7 July 1941, and the Užice Uprising is popularly considered to be the first significant insurgency. It is entirely possible that this perception of the general public is founded on communist propaganda and ignores preceding resistance activities by the Chetniks. However, if that is not the case, a note should be made of the fact that the Chetniks, while founded before the Partisans, did not initiate resistance activities - since the current text seems to suggest they did.

I know Tomasevich deals with this, and concludes that they might have been formed first but did not actually resist first. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Director (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "some Chetnik detachments avoided accommodations with the enemy". This claim is simply unsourced in the context of the entire course of the conflict. I agree that the implication is made that all Chetnik units collaborated at one time or another to some degree or another. However: that is the implication of the terms used in the sources. In our lede we made a distinction and state that "some Chetnik units collaborated" and others "avoided collaboration". The sources, on the contrary, simply speak of the collaboration of the Chetnik movement in general terms. The point I am making is that we must adhere to sources, that is to say, unless the sources make distinctions among the Chetnik movement we certainly should not do so. E.g.

• Milazo: "...a movement which (...) carried out almost throughout the war a tactical or selective collaboration with the occupation order."
• Ramet refers to the "the Chetniks" having "...a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces."
• Tomasevich: "'Use of the Enemy' - as the Chetniks liked to call their form of collaboration - seemed the only answer, and this was the course the Chetniks decided to pursue. Thus, over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetniks reached agreements on collaboration... [with this Axis faction and that etc.]"

etc.

None of them refer to "some Chetnik units" when stating that the Chetnik movement engaged in collaboration. All I am saying is that when the sources discuss collaboration they make no distinctions and refer to "the Chetniks" or "the Chetnik movement" in general terms. Therefore 1) if there is an implication that no portion of the Chetniks were an exception from the "policy of collaboration" - it comes from the sources themselves; and 2) with the sources such as they are, the burden of evidence lies on one attempting to show that some portions of the Chetniks did not collaborate. This may have been the case for all we know, few can really claim they are familiar with the history of every single Chetnik detachment, but we cannot make such claims, or imply anything of the sort, without sources. Perhaps Nuujinn will provide a real source to that effect, he has long maintained that only parts of the movement collaborated.

To address the other points. I agree that the lack of cohesion is a subject that needs to be elaborated-upon further. As far as I can remember, Draza Mihailovic was described as having strong control primarily over the Chetnik units in Serbia proper and Montenegro, that is to say, the Chetnik units in southern Serbia and Montenegro (northern Serbia and Vojvodina are not suited for guerrilla warfare and after 1941 saw little action). The Chetnik units in the western Serb-populated areas, such as the Krajina and northern Bosnia, were more-often-than-not cut off from DM and he could exert less direct command there (though he did dispatch "personal representatives").

And finally, could I ask you to insert said Tomasevich's observations in the article? -- Director (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I must reluctantly agree, although Milazzo does say 'almost' throughout the war, which I assume relates to July to November 1941. I also believe 'Chetnik units' is improperly precise based on the general dealing with collaboration in the sources, and the sentence should be reworded to consistently relate to the movement. There is also the need to deal more fully with Milazzo's observations about the lack of homogeneity of the movement, but that and the additions from Tomasevich will have to wait until I get back home and have a further look at them. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am concerned I consider the proposition that "some Chetnik units never collaborated" entirely possible (I did not seriously oppose it), but also one that, in light of the terms used by the sources, requires direct support. If such support is found, it would be very interesting to find out which units these were. While it is a complex issue, the heterogeneity of the Chetnik movement is beyond any serious dispute. That alone, however, does not by any means indicate that those portions that were relatively autonomous did not collaborate. Indeed, in my personal view, it seems all the more likely that local commands left to their own devices would be all the more inclined to achieve an understanding with the local occupation.
    (I shall reword the paragraph to refer to the movement consistently per your request.)-- Director (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker et al. I think you should be aware of the fact that User:LAz17, banned for block evasion and sockpuppetry, is currently lobbying on the Serbian Wikipedia with his new thread "War on our people" (Rat na nas narod) and, of course, in a typical nationalist tactic, he's attacking any level-headed Serbian user that opposes his point of view as being "anti-Serbian". I and others are described there as "Greater-Croatiansists" and other offensive nonsense. Please be aware that it is entirely possible we will (again) be seeing the participation of users with preconceived notions about how things are done on this article, and its quality in general. -- Director (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how debate on Serbian Wikipedia (on Serbian) is relevant to English Wikipedia? Second, due to fact that you are prime example of Croatian activist and propagandist, this is fine example of psychological projection. I even doubt that you are one person, but a team of activists. Besides that, why are my references about Croat, Slovene and Muslim Chetniks deleted, although I provided all relevant peer reviews and links? On other hand, tabloid newspapers from former Yugoslavia (in Serbo-Croatian)remained as relevant references. Why Tomasevic represents 2/3 of references in this article, that should be unbiased? Why are words of Croat economist(Tomasevic) or Western dentist(Cohen) more relavant, then works of western historians and intelligence officers about this controversial topic? How come that you, as Croat, have monopoly over articles about former Yugoslavia in English language? Even if you are impartial (which you are clearly not), you are in conflict of interests here. Main contributors should be persons not personally involved with this issue, without agenda, and without personal connection to former Yugoslavia. As we can also see, from debate with Italian members, about massacres of Italians, that you are clearly ethnically motivated, and prime example of deterioration of English Wikipedia, into ethnic agitprop. I'm not so surprised by your intellectually dishonest and monopolistic behavior, since you just behave accordingly, but with fact that you have obvious protection from some individuals 'above'. You (and most ex-Yugoslav) members should be eliminated from 'contributions' in English Wikipedia articles, since you are unable to be neutral.--Ganderoleg (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]