Talk:Chetniks/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Chetniks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Concerning Operation Halyard

The following is a quote from Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history By Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman (Texas A&M University Press, 1996) page 48 [1]. It will be used as a source for a text that will be included in the "Operation Halyard" subsection of the article. The work is has been published by the Texas A&M University. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots including 343 Americans from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 [note: this is Operation Halyard] has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. Indeed, with the Allied Support shifted from Mihailović to Tito, Mihailović's Chetniks were courting renewed Allied support and made great efforts to demonstrate their willingness to assist the Allies. However, none of these sources mentiones that the Chetniks rescued German aviators as well as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944, and still, on other occasions, Mihailović's men hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Germans. [primary sources listed by author(s)]
Despite claims that the Chetniks were devoted to a common cause with the Allies, the Chetniks were neither genuinely anti-Axis nor pro-Axis in orientation, but primarily opportunists for Greater Serbia, for which cause they solicited both Axis and Allied support.

wow, what a source from the peak-time of anti-serb propaganda in the us... now this source is stored where it belongs: goerge bush library ! btw: croats should take care of ustashe, and serb should take care of tchetniks... THATS how it works... otherwise your just another croat trying to blame the other side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.103.46 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I really can't understand how can someone speak like this without evidence.This page was probably written by Croat or Muslim nationalist.First of all ,there is no proof that Draza Mihajlovic was found guilty because of high treason and war crimes.He was sentenced to death because he fought against partisans(which was found as treason), but of course is not,and he didn't commit war crimes either.Those crimes were commited by Milan Nedic and Kosta Pecanac,and all people know that both of those weren't under command of Draza Mihajlovic.Even if you find proof that he got sentenced to death because of high treason and war crimes , you will not find proof that he commited those things , because he didnt.Stop spreading anti-serb propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodragristic (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of četnik

I have corrected the etymology of the word četnik as it was incorrect. The source of the etymology is http://hjp.srce.hr/index.php?show=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.16.68 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

what happened you couldn't handle the truth so you erased it like croats muslims and albanians erase their history. Croatia was built on serbian childrens blood and you have the nerve to write what you write, i and countless others from the evangelical church here in america will continue to write wikipedia to get you to shut down your disgusting twist of the truth. No matter how you croats, albanians or muslims try the world knows the truth about how Serbs won WWI, how Serbs won WWII with Chetniks, and how the 90's wars was started by the croats, muslims, slovenians. These are historical facts, you have interpretations not facts. You have no eyewitness accounts, that is why you like every croat uses false accusation assualts against the truth. You throw accusations to divert against the truth. But we will be relentless in writing wikipedia to take you down and also to take the truth to world, we are preparing we have the money, can you hear the truth coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorusa (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Axis vs Allies

File:Meeting between German, Chetniks and Ustaša commander.jpg

German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustaše officer and Chetnik Commander Rade Radić in central Bosnia

File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg

Chetniks posing with soldiers of the German occupation forces during World War II in an unidentified Serbian village in occupied Yugoslavia

Chetniks collaborated with Germans (Nazi), Italians (Fascist) and NDH (Ustaše) in order to defeat Yugoslav Partisans. Yes or No? Kebeta (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some additional editors could help here. Please bring references to the table. Thanks. JodyB_talk 11:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article, Jody, you will find some half a dozen sources that I've been forced to stack contrary to WP:MOS so that the text they support does not get removed or altered more often than it does now. The Chetniks are something like icons of Serbian nationalism. They not only collaborated, but were, in the words of several high-ranking German officers, the most useful collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia. You can find a lot more details and all the sources in the Axis collaboration section of this article, which was written simply by listing the facts from the sources, almost verbatim in fact.

Now, there are people in the Balkans (or from the Balkans) who just cannot accept this no matter how many times you bring up sources (such as Standford university scholarly publications referenced with actual signed documents of collaboration) - hence the constant removal of the sourced text. I don't know what more to say, I seem unable to keep sourced information in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kebeta, but neither your question, neither this images demonstrate that Chetniks are to be considered more "collaborators" than "resistance". You are putting the things in a too simplistic manner. It is like considering "Bosnian Muslims" a "Serbian allies" because they fought "Croats" in Herzegovina in the 1990s. So by your logic, Izetbegovic was a Milosevic best friend? Please, try to be objective. A three side situation is not necesarilly 2 side situation. And the Partisans were not the ONLY resistence group in Yugoslavia, as wrongly is wished to be demonstrated. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, Ustaše were also "resistance". They wanted independence from Yugoslavia, and Germany just help them, ??? Kebeta (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, nobody is interested in your personal estimates of "resistenceness" and "collaborativeness". Mihailović's Chetniks collaborated with the Axis en masse. Mihailović avoided fighting the Axis, ordering his troops to avoid resisting the occupation. The sources are in the article. Learn to deal with these facts, because I promise you: sourced information is not easily removed on enWiki. Certainly not because a couple of nationalists decide to start inventing a dozen ways to justify their "defense of the fatherland". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But Kebeta, you could consider Ustaše an independentist movement, of course, but how would that make them "resistance"? You mean, because Kingdom of Yugoslavia capitullated? If Ustaše had chousen to allied with the Allies, instead of Germany, well they would be probably considered "resistance". But, is that what you mean?

@direktor, stop being annoying and speak for yourself. "Nobody is interested in this or that...", who? You? And who are you? Nobody? (this went great, see the irony here?) FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the eternal mystery of the English language. I'm getting tired of explaining simple expressions. *Sigh*, when I say "nobody", I mean that the your ideas of "resistenceness" and "collaborativeness" are completely, utterly, indisputably irrelevant for any changes in the article. These thoughts and opinions you insist on sharing with unsuspecting Wikipedians are not likely to help you remove sourced text in any way.

Please stop using enWikipedia as a forum for general discussion. Talk about actual changes in the article, and use sources to back them up. You will notice that it is prohibited to enter into vague discussion on various subjects, and that Wikipedia talkpages are supposed to be used for constructive discussion: WP:NOTFORUM --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, you stated on Talk:Draža Mihailović that "...fighting Allied forces will make him (Tito) Axis in person, worste than collaborator...".

In late 1943, the Partisans became the recognized Allied military of Yugoslavia (fact). The Chetniks under the direct command of Draža Mihailović continued to launch attacks against Allied forces (coordinated with German efforts). See Raid on Drvar, for just one most notable example, when the Chetniks aided German efforts to kidnap the Prime Minister of the Allied state of Yugoslavia.

Draža Mihailović fought Allied forces, worse still: he fought Allied forces to help Axis forces. The question is: is Draža Mihailović also "Axis in person, worste than collaborator..."??

Well, why don´t you sign the mediation request and let someone neutral decided that? What are you affraid from having mediation? That they will see how you constantly manipulate and decontextualise sources? Please, sign that, so you can have some backing for your claims. FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just please clarify your position to me by answering the above question? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't think you'd answer. Its not just the sources that contradict you, you contradict yourself (this would be the fourth time so far, I think). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This article as evidence in court

This article was admitted in evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Gotovina trial. --Harac (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why was my edit reverted?

My additions were properly sourced and come from a university press.
I removed "sources" that were simply links to pictures.
Mihailović was found guilty of both treason and war crimes. How is stating this POV? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yad Vashem: Chetniks collaborated with Nazis

I am new to this wikipedia debate and my apologies to administrators if this project page is reserved only for them. I wanted to say that Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205916.pdf . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans."Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Nazi Collaboration and Crimes Against Muslims and Serbs

Hopefully this helps: General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnikcollaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Bratnko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Chetnik massacres

Why was removed the section with the massacres commited by the chetniks? I hope a reply soon. --190.172.232.231 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

OK, not that I want to take part in the dispute between FkpCascais and Direktor, but I think the article should be more balanced. I plan to write a new version of it in the following weeks - God willing and time permitting. I do think that the Chetniks deserve censure and not praise for many of their deeds, but the article should be more neutral and factual, not look like a ham-fisted hatchet job presenting them only as collaborators (which is completely misleading to say the least). I'll start a draft for a new version ASAP.

Also, I think the article should be split in two for clarity's sake, with one version concerning specifically the Mihailovic movement, and one (called something like "Chetniks (historical)") addressing all the other various movements which called themselves "Chetniks". Cheers. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is nothing but Communist propaganda, I cant believe this is allowed to remain online considering all the lies and misinformation. Wikipedia needs to remove this crap immediately to retain even the slightest of integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.163.55 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Exemples of POV

This edit is just another exemple of how some users simply can´t stand to have fair information from all perspectives inserted on the article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Says the one who removed a university reference in order to better sensationalize the operation and restore it later only after being confronted. [3][4] If you bothered to fully review my edit you would have seen that I was also reverting a hell of a lot of blanking done by an ip. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading facts and confusion

This article was written in great confusion, and there are lot mistakes about Chetniks. 1.Chetniks were not an uniform movement, similar to Cossacks, so Dragoljub Mihajlovic could not been leader of Chetniks in WW2, inn same manner that there was no leader of all Cossacks in WW2.

2.There were several indipendent (and mutually hostile) Chetnik movements during WW2.

3.All these Chetnik forces had similar uniforms and insignia.

4.5.Some independent Chetnik formations had a loose alliance with Mihajlovic, and later abandoned him.

5.Forces of general Mihajlovic were not collaborators of Germans, but chetniks of Kosta Pecanac and several other indipendent Chetnik militias.

6.Dragoljub Mihajlovic executed Pecenac because of the collaboration.

7.Serbian pro-German puppet government of Nedic also had their own Chetnik units.

8.While Great Britain and Soviet Union abandoned Mihajlovic, United States continued to send military envoys to Mihajlovic up until middle of 1944 (colonel MacDowell).

9.Mihajlovic's Chetniks were Yugoslav royal movement, which included Slovenes (Blue guard), Muslims and Croats (Mihajlovic's right hand was Zvonimir Vuckovic-an ethnic Croat).

10.Mihajlovic was officer in royal Yugoslav army, and he was not member of pre-WW2 Chetnik movement, nor a member of Chetnik units of Yugoslav royal army (which also had Chetnik units).

11.Mihajlovic movement fought for restoration of Yugoslav monarchy, and was not Serbian nationalist movement (existence of Slovenian, Croat and Muslim Chetniks denies this).

12.Flag of "Chetnik movent" posted in article is confusing, since "Jolly Roger" flag was flag of pre-WW2 Chetnik movent ,units of Kosta Pecanac and others created from original Chetnik organization. Flag used by Mihajlovic's Chetniks was Yugoslav royal flag.

13.All non-communist forces in Serbia regardless of pro-allied and pro-axis politics wore former royal Yugoslav uniforms (which in turn originate in Serbian uniform), and had similar markings (Mihajlovic's forces wore Yugoslav, instead solely Yugoslav ones). This confusion helped greatly communist to attribute all these units to Mihajlovic, and to accuse him of collaboration.

14.Mihajlovic was not founder of WW2 Chetniks. Most of Chetnik units in WW2 were organized by local commanders separately from Mihajlovic, who was officer of regular army.

15."Chetnik" in Serbian means something like "brigadier", and meaning of term was identical to "guerilla". Chetnik warfare was term in royal Yugopslavia with guerilla warfare.

16.Pictures of Chetniks with Germans or Ustasa are no evidence of either collaboration, nor that these units belonged to Mihajlovic.

17.Mihajlovic was no collaborator, and both Germans and Nedic regime continued to issue pamflets against him up until 1944.

18.Few Chetnik commanders betrayed Mihajlovic, and joined axis,which was attributed as "evidence" of Mihajlovic collaboration with axis.

19.Many photographs after WW2, that show "collaboration" of Chetniks with Germans, were proven communist forgeries in order to destroy Mihajlovic credibility so that Tito may remain sole leader of resistance in Yugoslavia. Similar accusations were made by Greek communists against monarchist resistance movement in Greece.

20.Unfortunately, most Croats identify WW2 Chetniks with Serbs, and serbian nationalism, so their activists on Wikipedia try to do best to degrade them and to simplify to truth as much as possible.

21.There is confusion about Mihajlovic's Chetniks and other (like Pecanac's), and forces of Nedic and Ljotic, which some people try to atribute all to Mihajlovic.

22.Documents and orders attributed to Mihajlovic after WW2 are most likely forgeries of Communist regime, in order to totally destroy credibility.

23.Crimes committed by Chetnik units should be carefully examined, since Chetniks were not one movement but umbrella term for various groups. Reprisals made by Mihajlovic forces, together with Tito's belongs to "allied war crimes".

P.S There should be made also an article about Slovene Chetniks, since, after all last Chetnik veteran officer is Uros Susteric, Slovene and Catholic. Article must also make distinction between various Chetnik groups. For Mihajlovic's Chetniks Yugoslav royal flag should be put as their flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I called your edits "whitewash", but I must say I actually just don't know quite enough on the subject as I'm not even from the Balkans and never specialized in the subject. One comment, though: you can't just remove sourced stuff. (I know I removed your stuff, yes. But you did it first with several whole sections, so I just reverted everything.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked out your additions were unsourced anyway. Read WP:RS. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also what you wrote on the talk page actually sounds reasonable, but Wikipedia articles must (should) use reliable sources for its content, with no original research of any kind, so you've got to prepare bibliography to cite if you want to counter the current claims. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I'm not going to engage in this discussion in any way, since I actually wrote no content but only cleaned-up the article and corrected a few minor errors and I know rather little in detail about this escept the 1990s stuff which is unrelated. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this "vandalize"?

Exactly? According to your superb insight? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

~~Reverting recent whitewash, or maybe~~ my previous cleanup last week or so? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Added text about Slovene and Croat Chetniks

I have added articles regarding Croat and Slovene Chetnik units and commanders, which I will expand further. Constant mention of WW2 Chetniks as purely "Serbian" movement is greatly misleading, and I think is result of confusing modern Serbian nationalist "Chetnik" organizations, with WW2 Chetnik organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate date of end of Chetnik movement

Why there is date May 8, 1945. as the marking of the end of Chetnik operations, when Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, while Chetniks controlled various regions of Serbia, eastern Bosnia and west Montenegro up until 1947? Last Chetnik commander (Vladimir Šipčić) was killed in 1957, so how it is possible that the end of WW2 marks the end of Chetnik activity? Person who put this information clearly lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you must attribute everything to published sources. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did put informations, with links to published sources, but unfortunately someone is deleting them.Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Read my comments in "Misleading facts and confusion", you will have to discuss it with other editors (not me), and you've got to have sources to back your thesis and and trump theirs. It will probablyu take several days, so come back repeatedly until you'll find some common ground. Now, I'm out of this. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for information. However article already mentioned that Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, so this contradicts with claim that (Mihajlovic)Chetnik movement ceased with activities in May 8, 1945.[[User:Ganderoleg|Ganderoleg] —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Vague statements

There are several vague and non-precise claims about Chetniks. There are several pictures of Chetniks with Germans and documents of Chetnik cooperation with Axis. The question is-what Chetniks? Mihajlovic's, Pecanac's, those created by fascist Italy in Dalmatia or Nedic's regime in Serbia? There were several separate Chetnik organizations under different commanders, with different goals. Why someone try to claim all Chetniks and their deeds to Mihajlovic? "Chetnik" as term is not about single and unified ideological movement like Ustashas, Partisans, but is similar in meaning and existence to term "Cossack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Few illogical claims in article

There are several problematic claims mentioned in article, that defy common sense and reason...

Article admits that Mihajlovic (and his movement)fought against Germans during 1941-1942 (when Germany was at peak of power), but then he joined Germans in 1943-1944 when it was clear that Germany is loosing the war, and when German allies like Italy, Finland, Bulgaria and other started to flee from it. Does this make any sense? Why would he fought Germany when it was strongest, and then join it when Germany was weakest?

Then there are claims of Chetniks (without any specification who's Chetniks) in alliance with Croat Ustashe,and at the same time making ethnic cleaning of Croats with whom they are allied to. Does this make any sense?

They claimed "Greater Serbia", but at the same time were in alliance with Ustashas who were against Greater Serbia, and for Greater Croatia (ethnically cleansed from Serbs). Does this make any sense?

If they were allies of Ustashas, why the last big battle of Chetniks was not against Partisans, but against Ustashas in 1945 in Lijevce field (Lijevce polje)? There is even Wikipedia article about it.Ustashas killed Pavle Djurisic, Chetnik commander (their and German alleged "ally"). Does this make any sense?

If Mihajlovic was German collaborator, why was he hiding in the countryside all the time of war, when he could live in city mansion, protected by Germans, like Kosta Pecanac, known pro-axis Chetnik commander?

Why would Mihajlovic saved US airmen up until the end of war, and at the same time collaborate with loosing Germans?

Why is fact that some of Nedic's puppet Serbia regime units joined Mihajlovic's movement evidence of "collaboration", when almost half of Tito's partisan commanders and heroes were former members of fascist puppet Croatia's armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is because they were cowards who were changing their side all time. --190.172.251.99 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This claim is totally illogical, since cowards join the winning side, not loosing one. Lets not forget that Italy was major Axis partner, and they joined the allies as soon as it became clear that Axis would loose the war. Remember Finland, Bulgaria and Romania as well. On other, as article claims, Chetniks fought against Germans when Germany was at peak of power, and then suddenly joined Axis when it was clear that Germany would loose the war. Claim that they were cowards, combined with the claims in article further proves illogicality of that claims. It is also interesting to see that Chetniks lost allied (mostly British) support in 1943, after Churchill-Stalin agreement over the sphere of influences, in which Yugoslavia was given to communist camp. Quite the opposite happened in Greece (which also had two resistance groups), where monarchist resistance prevailed(with help of Britain), however they were accused by communists to be "fascist" as well. Also bear in mind that allies sent military envoys to Mihajlovic, until 1944. Michael Lees, British liaison officer to Mihajlovic (1943-1944),during the time when Mihajlovic allegedly "cooperated with Axis", stated clearly in his book "The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power 1943-1944" http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Serbia-British-Titos-1943-1944/dp/0151959102 that Mihajlovic was in no way Axis collaborator(on contrary), and that he was victim of political game of western allies and Stalin. Same fate that Polish nationalist resistance movement suffered. It also interesting to see that most "evidences" of Mihajlovic collaboration came from Yugoslav communist sources, which included proven faked photographs (real originals exist) and documents (bad forgeries, written in Croatian, not Serbian dialect), and western sources that mostly quote these same communist sources. Also the fact that some Chetnik commanders that were not under command of Mihajlovic collaborated with Axis, helped communists to attribute their deeds to Mihajlovic, since after all he was "Chetnik" too.

Also the claim that Chetniks didn't fought the Axis is nonsense, since there are several dozen German declarations from 1941,1942,1943 and 1944 about executions of "Mihajlovics fighters" because of attacks on German military. Germans carefully made distinctions between Mihajlovic's men who fought them and other Chetnik groups who were their allies. Germans executed both Communists and Mihajlovic's Chetniks without any problem. Tito's partisans didn't controlled any larger city in Yugoslavia up until 1944, when red army entered Yugolavia. What were major operations of French, Polish, Dutch or Belgian resistance before 1944? There were none. But no one accuse them of "collaboration" because of that. Several Chetnik commanders died in fighting against Germans, like Veselin Misita, Aleksandar Misic, Ivan Fregl (Slovene). Pavle Djurisic, leader of Montenegrin Chetnik, and alleged "Axis collaborator, that got Iron Cross" was killed by Croat Ustashas (his alleged "allies") in 1945, in last big Chetnik battle, which was against Axis. --Ganderoleg (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Michael Lees book was published in 1990. What is it's status now? Is it accepted as a reliable source? I understand there is a mediation going on at the moment, Ganderoleg, about Mihailovic and collaboration in which sources have been extensively discussed. You may wish to read it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source to whom? Michael Lees was British military envoy to Mihajlovic in those crucial years of 1943-1944. As such, he is clearly more reliable witness, then some historians who quote post WW2 Yugoslav sources. Are sources from Tito's court reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased claims in article

Under the picture of the 1941 German wanted poster for Mihajlovic, there is claim: "Draža Mihailović was to start collaborating with the Axis occupation, placing his Chetniks fully in their command." Then how is possible that Germans issued proclamations of executions of Mihajlovic's Chetniks later in war? Examples- German proclamation from 29.10.1943, on both German and Serbian ( http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7026/46voo9.jpg ),where there is clearly stated "DM Chetniks", and and their execution. Then there is another German proclamation from 15.11.1943 about execution of Mihajlovic's sympathizers (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2006/s201012817536.jpg). And there is German proclamation against Mihajlovic and "his resistance to legal goverment of Nedic" from 25.1.1943 (http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/768/s2010128172334.jpg). Proclamation of German execution of Mihajlovic's Chetniks from november 1942: (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7338/s2010126141339.jpg). This is German proclamation from 21. november 1943, accusing both Mihajlovic and communists for uprising: (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9198/38636471.jpg). German proclamation of execution of "Draza Mihajlovic's followers" from 25. may. 1943: (http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1000/52vk.jpg). All those who are able to read German, may understand what is written. German pamphlets clearly make distinctions between Mihajlovic Chetniks and the other Chetnik groups.

Then there is this Croat pamphlet against both Partisans and Chetniks: (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2361/zjymq0.jpg), which states: "Serbian Chetniks and Partisans are unanimous against Indipendent State of Croatia and in theor brutality against her population. Does this sound like collaboration? --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic and biased sources, ideologically motivated

Amongst references, there are several highly problematic authors who either don't have any credibility as historians, or have clear ethnic and ideological bias on subject. Examples: Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history. Texas A&M University Press. As we can see from his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz1PW_wnHYMC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false , author Philip Cohen is an medical doctor, not a historian. Not only that, but most of his references are from Yugoslav communist sources.

We have: Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. p. 147.. Sabrina Ramet is not a historian, but left-wing professor of political science. Here is info: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Sabrina.Ramet/card/ . Her opinion about Chetnik issue (which is historical) is absolute irrelevant in this context. She was quoted, as valid reference for "Chetnik collaboration".

Then we have: Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. 1. Stanford University Press. Jozo Tomasevic was both a Tito's sympathizer, and ethnic Croat. In his book we can clearly see his ethnic motivation against Chetniks, where he mention on page 471. how Chetnik defeat marks the end of Serbian domination in Yugoslavia, destruction of Serbian ruling groups and end "end of power of Serbian Orthodox Church as bulwark of Serbian ruling groups". Now, he as (nationally aware)Croat clearly shows his motivation for denying the credibility of Mihajlovic. This ethnic problem will be discussed later on.

We also have: "Dr. Marko Hoare, "The Chetniks and the Jews", Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada". Marko Attila Hoare is son of Croat historian (and communist) Branka Magas, who wrote books on Croatian history, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Croatia-Through-History-Branka-Magas/dp/0863567754 . He was also an activist on behalf on Bosnian government during Bosnia war. He is clearly strongly biased, both ideologically and ethnically.

Then we have: "Zdravko Dizdar, Chetnik Genocidal Crimes against Croatians and Muslims during World War II (1941-1945)", which according to link is another modern Croat author from Zagreb: http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/013e-dizdar.htm

And we have another Croat author: Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107.

So if we eliminate all biased and main sources posted here, that may say something against Chetniks of Mihajlovic, we have left with only one valid reference which is this: Martin, David (1946). Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich. New York: Prentice Hall.

As for the rest we have either works of amateur historians, highly problematic documents and photographs given by Tito's (Mihajlovic's rival) regime, or works by Croats as primary sources of "Chetnik collaboration" and "Ethnic cleansing". Now would someone consider books made by Serbian authors about Croat Ustase or about Albanians as unbiased, specially if these authors simply quote another Serbian authors? Croat encyclopedia, 2009. mention "Chetnik" term as synonymous with "greater Serbian nationalist", and this is perception of Chetniks in most of Croat population. Now imagine Croat and a communist author and his motivations? And with the fact that Croats were at war with "Chetniks" not so long ago, we can imagine motivations of Croats in realms of both literature and wikipedia to degrade what they perceive as "enemy". The main joke is that in here all these links were posted by Croat, who aggressively edit every post about Chetniks and Chetnik commanders in one sided manner. So we have Croat, posting Croatian authors about Chetniks, whom most Croatians consider as identical with "Greater Serbian nationalists". Clearly such people are unable to be impartial to this issue. Their references are highly questionable, their motives are questionable, and spamming problematic or biased references does not make the case against Mihajlovic. We have primary sources from Tito's government, which was major rival and ideological opponent to Mihajlovic, and we have later authors who simply quote them. Then other members quote these later authors as evidence of "impartiality". Therefore we have case of circular reasoning in here.--Ganderoleg (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting to see that in Tomasevic's book "Chetniks": http://books.google.com/books?id=yoCaAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tomasevich,+Jozo&source=bl&ots=9eimVZ50OD&sig=ain_8c2tEo2o1jzX98I4Zg0czQ4&hl=en&ei=6c1OTcGMCMeSOtif_NMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false , Croat Tomasevic stated (page 471.) claim of importance that Tito was ethnic Croat, and historical importance of Yugoslavia been dominated by Croat, not Serb. For him, and other Croats, this is clearly a moment of national triumph, and replacing Serbian elites with Croat ones. Clearly Croats have clear ethnic motivation to downplay Mihajlovic's movement, since it was "too Serbian" for their taste. Most claims of collaboration of Mihajlovic with axis came from Croat sources, or from Tito's government, which was largely dominated by Croats (Tito himself, Bakaric, Nazor, Ivan Ribar). Most of these Croat communists fought against Yugoslav monarchy, before the war, and had clear ideological/ethnic motives to fight both Yugoslav monarchy (of Serbian origin) and movement that fought for restoration of that monarchy (Chetniks of Mihajlovic). Bias can be clearly seen in Tomasevic's book in constant referring to Chetniks as "Serbian Chetniks", ignoring existence of Slovene, Croat and Muslim Chetnik units, which again show Croat nationalist interpretation of events.

- Also it should be noted, that in Tomasevic's book (mentioned above), regarding evidences for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" with axis, Tomasevic confessed that allied envoys to Mihajlovic held Mihajlovic in highest regards, and that US colonel McDowell stayed in Mihajlovic's HQ up until November 1. 1944, after Red Army and Tito's forces captured Belgrade and most of Serbia. Now a Axis "quisling" that had US colonel in his staff, and allied envoys throughout the war? All "evidences" quoted about Mihajlovic's collaboration with Axis, mostly came from sources from political trial of Mihajlovic in 1946, and Yugoslav communist authors. German sources never mentioned Mihajlovic's men as their allies, but "Chetniks" in general. Most active pro-German Serbian fighting force against partisans in Serbia were Serbian Volunteer Corps, who had similar uniforms with Mihajlovic's Chetniks, and were colloquially known as "Ljotic's Chetniks" or more famously "Ljoticevci". "Chetnik" was term used amongst Serbs in WW2 of all armed militias who were not partisans. Partisans were military term introduced by communist party in Yugoslavia, inspired by Spanish civil war. If they didn't accept that specific term, Partisans would most likely been called "Tito's Chetniks". Majority reports of Mihajlovic "collaboration" came after the war, and political trial.

- And there is interesting fact, that lots of Tito's Partisan commanders were former members of Axis Croatia's military forces, who joined Partisans later in war. Examples:

- Rudi Čajavec, founder of partisan air force, former member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 21 1942. Partisan air force was mainly created from axis Croat airplanes.

- Franjo Kluz, another partisan airman, and partisan war hero was also member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 1942 (like Cajevec).

- Velimir Škorpik, was founder of partisan navy and officer in axis Croatia navy. He joined partisans in December 1942.

- Most interesting case is Marko Mesić, who was commander of axis Croatian legion in Stalingrad, and after being captured by Soviets in 1943. he changed sides, and later he became Yugoslav partisan officer! Here is picture of Marko Mesic on eastern front (as Axis officer): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg . He died in Zagreb, in 1982 as retired Yugoslav officer and antifascist. "Croatian legion" was renamed "First Yugoslav volunteer brigade",and later participated in operations in Yugoslavia.

- Then there was Husein Miljković, Bosnian Muslim and member of communist party before the war. He formed his own pro-Axis Muslim militia, and later he became member of Ustasa's. Later in war he joined Partisans, and died in battle as partisan commander later in war (1944) fighting Chetniks. His biography (in Polish): http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husein_Miljkovi%C4%87 , and in Croatian: http://domovina.110mb.com/zivotopisi/miljkovic-huska.htm . Here is picture of Miljkovic in partisan uniform, shaking hands with Croat Ustasa, in Western Bosnia: http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/223/huskamiljkovic11116lz.jpg

Croat Partisan in Slavonia, 1943, wearing Croat axis uniform, with all axis markings: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/956/vrazjapartizanor1wy2.jpg , comparing with uniform of Marko Mesic (leader of Croat volunteers at Stalingrad): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg , Croat axis soldier: http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3241/238ae.jpg

Partisan with SS soldiers, Sutjeska battle 1943: http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8414/untitled28jj4qq.jpg , Partisans with German soldier, Serbia 1941: http://i35.tinypic.com/34ep5ic.jpg, Partisans with German officer: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7397/1943bo.jpg , Partisans with German officier: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9439/36dbe69d.jpg Last, but not least-British and German officers: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7200/jackchurchillcommandonr.jpg

Lets bear in mind that similar photographs were used as "evidence" of Chetnik collaboration with Axis on this wikipedia article. Using similar propaganda logic and distortion, we can conclude that partisans and British were "Axis collaborators". This is just small example how meaning of photographs can be manipulated.

As we can see, some people have clear motivation to hide their dirty laundry by aggressive accusations of others, by using biased sources and using circular reasoning.--Ganderoleg (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that photos can be misleading by themselves. They should only be used to illustrate established facts, not as primary evidence. Whilst you no doubt have a point about a number of nationalist sources, I don't agree you can dismiss authors like Ramet on the gounds you give, simply on your assessment of her as a political scientist, not a historian. Also - in relation to Tito and the Partisans, Ramet states that after the war "the communists liquidated opponents.......staged show trials of unco-operative prelates....dethroned heads of quisling regimes...defamed non-communist politicians......pushed out kings.....suffocated the free press and crushed political pluralism and parlimentary life. In this respect, Yugoslavia's communists followed the pattern". She then goes on to give the details. This is hardly a ringing left-wing endorsement of Tito and the Partisans. You'll have to do better than that to bowl out mainstream sources. I also don't see the relevance of people changing from one band of fighters to another. Many young people would probably be swept up in a patriotic desire to fight the invaders and probably join what was at hand. A lot of Chetniks joined the partisans later in the war.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no images are being used as "sources" in this article. In fact I'm having trouble imagining how one would do that. It appears the user is fixating on the images for no other reason other than they caught his/her eye.

Sources like Ramet have been attacked, are being attacked, and will likely continue to be attacked in the future with no objective grounds whatsoever (unless you count HUGE essays of personal feelings and opinions such as the above). However, aside from being an exceedingly annoying aspect of these articles, its not something to particularly concern oneself with. If you try to answer every such attempt you will only wear-out your keyboard some more and become as bitter as I with regard to this nonsense (speaking from personal experience). In a month another account will be created or an IP or a user like Fkp will write-up a HUGE essay on how they really, really, really do not personally like any and all sources that blow their preconceptions out of the water. I can't imagine anyone will accept renowned professionals be disregarded on the basis of user whim even if all the users and IPs came together and wrote a 600-page book on the subject...

For the record, the sources brought forth by the user are unpublished primary sources. The section constituted nothing more than very blatant WP:OR, and as if that weren't enough, its OR 1) by a highly biased user, 2) from a highly unreliable primary source, 3) with no page references to boot (the fact that its user OR alone justifies its exclusion) Nonsense... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources used for the disputed edits on non-serbian chetniks;

Pavle Borštnik, Pozabljena zgodba slovenske nacionalne ilegale, Ljubljana, 1998
Katja Zupanič, Četništvo na Štajerskem, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000
Marijan F. Kranjc in Slobodan Kljakić, Plava garda – poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
Slobodan Kljakić i Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovenački četnici, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006
Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002
Zbornik dokumenata Vojnoistorijskog institute: tom XIV, Dokumenti četničkog pokreta Draže Mihailovića, Beograd
Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

Now apart from one, which appears to be a primary source, none of these are in English. Whilst a non-English source can of course be a source, it is difficult to check such sources on en-wiki. Are these the ones which are unpublished primary sources DIREKTOR? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

-On what basis and evidence do you claim that my sources are unpublished sources? As a matter of fact, as soon I posted my article about Non- Serbian Chetniks, I expected your reaction. --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide translations of the titles and show where they are published? Googlwe translate brings up;

Paul Borštnik, Pozabljeno zgodba Slovenian national illegality, Ljubljana, 1998
Katja Toth, chetnicism in Styria, graduate account, Maribor, 2000
Mario F. Kranjc in Free Kljakic, Blue Guard - poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
Free Kljakić and Marian F. Kranjc, Slovenian Chetniks, Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 2006
Method M. Milaca, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor: a Slovenian student in World War II ˝, New York: P. Lang, 2002
Military History Institute Collection of documents: the fourteenth, Documents Chetnik Movement Mihailovic, Belgrade
Dinko Šuljak, I asked Radic Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
Dinko Šuljak, I asked Radic Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation (Google Translate can't help you there's both Serbo-Croatian and Slovene)

Pavle Borštnik, The Forgotten Story of the Slovenian National Resistance, Ljubljana, 1998
Katja Zupanič, Chetniks in Styria, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000
Marijan F. Kranjc, Slobodan Kljakić, The Blue Guards – main confidential report, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
Slobodan Kljakić, Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovene Chetniks, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006
Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor: a Slovene student in World War II, P. Lang, New York 2002
Military History Institute document collection, volume XIV, Documents on the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović
Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

As I said, first of all there are no page references in most of them - no way to check them even if someone here spoke Slovene. Second of all these are local Balkans publications of dubious quality (that alone has been grounds in the past for questioning the NPOV of refs). Third of all, it seems these are mostly unprofessional publications by laymen (but hardly peer-review like Cohen). And then there's the unpublished primary source. For one reason or another this bunch of books is mostly rubbish.

That said, there were indeed Slovene and Croatian Chetniks, I'm not disputing that I want to make that clear. Very few, very rare though. Tomasevich has done extensive research on their actual numbers and activities and I'll get back to you on that. I think we can find the actual information in the "BIG Book of the Chetniks" - The Chetniks by Prof. Tomasevich. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The entirety of the Chetnik resistance in Slovenia is explained in gruelling detail in the The Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Tomasevic again.Those books are "rubbish" to you, since they are not from Tomasevic and other Croat sources. This is becoming ridiculous. Tomasevic had made just a small reference of Slovenian Chetniks, which is not enough.Tomasevic, as author is clearly biased and motivated by ethnic and ideological reasons. The fact that biased Croat author published book about Chetniks, does not make him the final word in this issue.While Slovenian sources posted by me mentioned names of units, commanders and number of fighters. Most importantly there are no page references to links provided by you. Claims that my authors are "irellevant" is simply an decoy , to avoid the fact that most of authors mentioned by you are either pure amateurs, or Croat activists, like yourself. --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

-As for Sabrina Remet, I have every reason to doubt her credibility, since she graduated philosophy, and got P.h.D in Political science. Claims by her,that you mentioned, belong to realm of history, not political science. As such, she is no expert on WW2 Yugoslavian history, nor a participant in WW2, so I doubt her credibility on historic facts in WW2 Yugoslavia. As for calling her "left wing",I didn't mean that she is communist, but "left winged" in modern sense. Which we can see from this work of hers: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87232 . She wrote mostly in subject of politics in former Yugoslavia: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87122 . She also wrote on liberal and feminist issues, which raises doubts about her bias on conservative and monarchist movement, like Chetniks of Mihajlovic. To further prove my claim, this is her article about emancipation of women, and feminism in former Yugoslavia: http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01801-1.html , where she praises former communist Yugoslav government for being progressive. She is clearly ideologically biased and motivated for being selective. As for her statement about communits liquidated people, she "discovered" well known fact, that even partisan veterans admitted, nothing new or original in that claim.

- As for Croat Axis units, that joined Partisans later in war I think that's important. Most of them joined Partisans, after Germany started to loose war, which doubts their motives. This is Croat reaction towards Germans in 1941-German documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0P2YLYKSnM . Most Croats that were in Croat Axis forces had amti-Serbian sentiments, (unlike those who joined Chetniks) and joined communists mostly for pragmatic reasons (to avoid being on loosing side). Since lots of Partisan commanders were former Axis officers, that casts doubt even more on their bias towards Chetniks that represented old monarchy, which both Ustasa's and Communists hated. This also cast doubt on ideological bias of communists, in comparing the case of Chetnik commander Jezdimir Dangić, who was captured by Germans in 1942, during his fight with Ustasa's in Eastern Bosnia. He spent most of the war in prison camp in Poland, when in 1944 he was liberated by Polish resistance fighters, and he joined them. After that Soviets captured him and extradited him to Tito's government. He was executed for collaboration. This is simple, because he had some contacts with Nedic's government during the war. On other hand we have case of Croat Axis commander at Stalingrad Marko Mesić, who was captured by Soviets as Axis officer. After the imprisonment, he and his soldiers joined Soviets (how convenient) and later became part of Partisan army. Axis commander Mesic died as retired and decorated communist Yugoslav officer, and antifascist. Dangic, fighter against Ustasa (Mesic's fellow soldiers) and fighter of Polish resistance was executed for "treason" (i.e not joining communists). This show biased and Machiavellian nature of Tito's regime.

- And as for Chetniks joined partisans, I have already posted names (with links) of Partisan high ranking officers that were members of Axis Croat troops. On other hand, there are almost none partisan officers who were Chetnik members. Entire First Yugoslav Volunteer Brigade, was made of former Axis Croat legionaires. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_Reinforced_Infantry_Regiment . --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes now you're getting it: your "sources" are rubbish, Ramet and Tomasevich are top quality. I'm glad that got through to you. As for you trying to get rid of Ramet and Tomasevich, it looks like I have to be blunt: forget about it here and now and save yourself some writing effort. I for one am not even reading your nationalist rants against these scholars. If you think anything you can write here will cause us to abandon peer-review scholarly publications by world-renowned professionals you have no idea where you are, or how this place really works. This is the last time I'm commenting on this. Feel free to write an entire essay if ou like. You will find that removal of those sources (i.e. their supported text) will be reverted immediately and without fail.

You are not providing page numbers, but I'll wait on that. However you can rest assured that 1) all the text supported by un-scholarly publications will be removed, and 2) that the text supported by primary sources will be removed as well. When I get the time I will properly rework the section of foreign Chetniks after I familiarize myself with the obscure matter from real sources.

Now read this carefully, the only acceptable sources are:

1) scholarly (written by scholars) and/or peer-review publications
2) published (preferably outside of the local Balkans ex-warzone!)

That way you won't be so "surprised" over and over and over again when people tell you your sources stink. Also try to use English language sources and use page references so that your claims can be checked. And please please please, stop cluttering the page with irrelevant links to YouTube propaganda vids, photos, forums, blogs or random googled nonsense. Save yourself the trouble man, you cannot prove a single solitary thing that way. Read WP:V so you can understand why I'm not even looking at the links. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- I have stated all that I have in the case of Tomasevic and Ramet (and provided evidences for other unbiased people to see). They are "top quality" for you for obvious reasons.

- Are you main moderator in here? You behave if this article is your private property and monopoly.

- I not only demand removal of your references but you as well as contributor to this article. You are only person in here unable for any rational discussion. Normal Croats, with non-propagandist agenda are free to join the contribution.

- While I have indeed provided page numbers in references on Croat Chetniks, your references were provided without any page numbers. References about Tomasevic, Hoare, Cohen and others are without any page numbers. As matter of fact most references don't have any page numbers. Please don't ask from me something, that yourself are unable to provide.

- Your understanding of "scholars" is deeply problematic. Quoting biased political scientist for historic references, quoting medical doctor about historical events, quoting opinions of Croat nationalist clearly show your qualifications in this debate. Your entire argument on this issue is generally based on one man alone - Tomasevic. Quoting Tomasevic on Chetnik issue, is like quoting opinions of Soviet NKVD officers about Polish Armija Krajowa.

- "People" don't tell my that "my resources stink" - you do. You do this to hide fact that all your references and quoted authors are either biased to the bone, or are made by useless authors (like Cohen M.D or Remet).

- I'm clearly not an nationalist, but you are. If I am nationalist (Serbian for example), I would certainly denied Yugoslav and multinational nature of Mihajlovic's Chetnik movement, nor I would admit existence of pro-Axis Chetniks that certainly existed. I have done quite the opposite. You are the one that constantly use term "Serbian Chetniks", not me. Both Serbian and Croat nationalists consider Chetniks as Serbian only thing, which shows us who you are. Majority of both Chetnik and Partisan soldiers were Serbs. Why don't you use term "Serbian Partisans"? Croats (in general) are unable to be impartial on Chetnik issue in same manner as Serbs are unable to be impartial on Ustasa issue.By your arrogant and monopolist behavior on this article, you clearly show immature attitude. I have stated several reasons against your references (with external links), but you haven't give any coherent argument on your behalf, only claim "Tomasevic and Ramet are top quality", and attacked my own references who are not main issue in this topic, but yours.

- Last, but not least... There was demand for me to translate my references. Then what should we do with these references?: 53. # ^ Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. , 64. # ^ RADIO TELEVIZIJA CRNE GORE... Nacionalni javni servis Crne Gore, 68. Predsjednik Mesiæ O Odgodi Posjeta Scg-U , 74. Bora Čorba kod Hrge: Ponosan sam četnik - Dnevnik.hr, 71. # ^ Rehabilitovan Dragiša Vasić, Blic ... etc, etc? --Ganderoleg (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the enter ISBN links to my references, here are they:

Pavle Borštnik, Pozabljena zgodba slovenske nacionalne ilegale, Ljubljana, 1998 COBISS 77215744
Katja Zupanič, Četništvo na Štajerskem, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000 COBISS 10086664
Marijan F. Kranjc in Slobodan Kljakić, Plava garda – poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006 COBISS 57204737
Slobodan Kljakić i Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovenački četnici, Filip Višnjić, Beograd, 2006 COBISS 134158092
Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204
Metod M. Milač, Kdo solze naše posuši : doživetja slovenskega dijaka med drugo svetovno vojno, Prevalje, Kulturno društvo Mohorjan, Celje, Mohorjeva družba, 2003 COBISS 125214208

Unfortunately, article is closed for the time. I will enter them later.

--Ganderoleg (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ganderoleg - you are not in a position to demand the removal of other contributors. These matters are decided in accordance with wikipedia policies. I will also say for the last time that matters must be discussed here with common courtesy and without personal attacks on other editors, otherwise action will be taken to prevent abuse, by anybody. You can all argue strongly without resorting to personal abuse. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 2 and the last one are not books. No. 2 is an undergraduate thesis. This is not suitable. As for the rest - can you provide us with the basis on which you say any of these sources are notable please. Such as reviews, the publisher and the status of the authors. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No.6 is a primary source, No.7/No.8 ("I looked for Radić's Croatia") is not a scholarly work, the same goes for No.5 ("A Slovene Student in World War II"), others could be unprofessional as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you actually disputing here direktor? You don´t like people to see how Chetniks were also well accepted by some other nationalities troughout Yugoslavia, and even participated in their ranks? FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, concern for sources and verifiability without an agenda confuses and disturbs the venerable User:Fkp :). I know Slovenes and Croats joined the Chetniks, since they attracted pro-Karađorđević royalists from throughout the country in the early year(s) of the conflict. Its not disputed - but I still prefer that we curtail nonsense sources and WP:OR. As I said, I'll expand the section myself when I get the real information from Tomasevich and his immense host of verifiable primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Ganderoleg - what you really need is a decent secondary source that has looked at all the primary material. It's not surprising that the Slovenes should be part of the original Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. You people could be arguing about nothing. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, while the general fact that Croats and Slovenes joined the Chetniks is undisputed, the details in the section are based on primary sources and unreliable publications (for all the above listed reasons). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- It is quite strange that this topic started as questioning of several references provided, mentioned in the beginning of article. I have supported my claims with external links, and further supported my claims about authors, like Remet. I have also shown, supported by links, that most of authors provided in references are highly problematic.n I didn't get any serious arguments against my claims, but in return got remarks about my references on Slovenian and Croat Chetniks, which should be discussed in different topic. So it would be nice that we discuss first these problematic authors. 3/4 of references for alleged Mihajlovic's "collaboration" came from these sources. Most of them are modern sources, inspired by recent wars in Yugoslavia and have political agenda, written by persons without any expertise about topic they discuss.

- I shall remove reference, which is undergraduate thesis. As for the rest, publishers are clearly stated, both by me, and by links.

- Direktor, first you demanded page links for references, something that you didn't done yourself in lots of cases. Now, you claim that in work, in which I provided page numbers (Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6.)is not scholarly work. Provide some evidence for your claim (like I did). Dinko Suljak was member of partisans and veteran of WW2.

- As for the book "Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204", it can be found in here: http://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Imprisonment-Forced-Labor-European/dp/0820457817 . Metod M. Milač was veteran of WW2, and concentration camp survivor. As witness of these events, he is clearly more reliable source, then modern medical doctors, political scientists and political activists.--Ganderoleg (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Omg... Again: links are not sources. See WP:V.
You shall remove 1) non-scholarly publications such as those nonsense memoirs, 2) the undergraduate thesis, 3) the primary source (WP:OR). And post the page numbers for the other sources which shall be checked-out to verify that they are scholarly.
I never demanded "page links" for references (at this point it is becoming obvious you are either not reading my posts or are having trouble understanding them.) I merely requested you post the page numbers, and I still do. Dinko Šuljak - not a scholar.
Metod Milač - not a scholar. Do you understand what a scholarly publication is?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your criticisms of Ramet are not valid for removing her work as a notable, scholarly, mainstream, well reviewed source. To suggest that she is biased and unreliable because she has written on the issue of the emancipation of women in the area is frankly absurd - even aside from the fact that it is a collection of writings on the subject for which she is the editor. I repeat - you need to find a notable, reliable secondary source. A collection of primary sources from which you synthesise a section will not do. The circumstances in which a primary source is usable are limited. This is why I am asking you to demonstrate the notability and/or scholarly credentials of any of your sources. Further, if, for example, you state that Milac Metod is such a source (and it looks like a very interesting book) - you only attribute this ;After victory of Tito's partisans, most Slovene Chetnik soldiers and commanders fled to Italy. Since most Slovene Chetnik commanders worked for SOE,during the war, they continued to work for British and US intelligence after the war part to him. This quite a claim and I would expect this to be found in scholarly works. Can you give a page number please? Are you talking about chetniks as part of Mihailovic's chetniks or are you talking about domobranci?Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- Direktor, First of all, you shall remove references by Cohen (medical doctor), Hoare (political activist), Remet (expertise in wrong field, political activist), Tomasevic and Dizdar (nationalist and ideological bias), and Omricanin (no IMDB, pro-fascist and ultra-nationalist Croat author, evidence for that:http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Omrcanin,%20Ivo).Pro-fascist ultra-nationalist Omricanin was also quoted as reference (without page numbers) for numbers of civilians killed by Chetniks. He is also an historic revisionist: http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral53.html (English article) under "Black Chronicle of Croatian History: Methods Used to Rehabilitate Ustashe and Stigmatize Antifascists". You haven't provided any argumentative response on your behalf. After that you may demand something from me.

- Link to Amazon was provided for those who are interested in reading the book, not as source.This is your interpretation.

- Since half of references don't have page numbers in article, it is ridiculous to demand that from me.

- Metod Milac was witness of events which article discuss. As such he is much more reliable than modern historians, which most of them are clearly motivated by reasons that goes beyond historic research. He is reliable witness about Croat Chetniks.

- What is "scholarly" does not depend on personal opinion.

- Most references and accusations of "collaboration" of Mihajlovic with Axis came from former Yugoslav sources (mainly Croatian authors), and modern western authors who quote these same sources, and this same pattern we have in here. All accusations for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" must be changed into "alleged" or "accusation for collaboration". For my questioning of validity these references see beginning of this topic. 2/3 of article about Chetniks is about "collaboration", and 3/4 of references for this "collaboration" are from Croatian sources. This was all illustrated by photos of mostly anonymous Chetniks with Axis forces, and without knowing real context context of photos (which was cunningly implicated by article). --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- Fainites, Remet is indeed an scholar, but in wrong field of expertise (political science, irrelevant for validity of historic claims and data). I claimed that she is biased not because she wrote on emancipation of women, but because her praise of former Yugoslav regime and pro-Liberal activism. Besides Remet, I have mentioned other references as well, what about them?

- You have wrongly attributed Milac as reference to Slovene Chetniks, since Milac is reference to Croat Chetniks.

- For most of data about Chetnik massacres and numbers of killed persons, Ivo Omricanin has been quoted. Such claims are "quite a claim", but they were presented without any page numbers,as valid source. If such things was accepted as valid, why there is demand for me for page numbers? Similar (almost identical data and references) about Slovene Chetniks exist in Slovene and Croatian Wikipedia article about them. Since they were accepted, they are according Wikipedia policy. --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No Ramet is not in the wrong field and irrelevant. Milac is only cited in the section under Slovene chetniks at ref. no. 36. I believe you added this section yourself. Regarding Omricanin - you may or may not be right, but two wrongs don't make a right. Refusing to produce page numbers for newly added, contentious material because some past editor has not given a page number for some other claim is just silly. If these matters are properly referenced in other wikipedia articles as you say, perhaps you could find those those references and see if they are suitable? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not know what the word "scholarly" means, and incredibly think that its an arbitrary category. :)

"Scholarly" = "concerned with or relating to formal study or research" (Merriam-Webster).

Published professional works like those of Ramet - are scholarly. Cohen is scholarly - and peer-review. Tomasevich is GOD incarnate on the subject of the Chetniks (a published world-renowned expert, completely neutral, with universally positive peer reviews). Others are also published professional scholarly works.

Now get this: nobody cares about your links or about your opinions on these scholars and peer-review authors. If its a scholarly publication, its staying. If its not a scholarly publication - its getting kicked out. The two books which are in fact nonsense memoirs of some random WWII guy - are not scholarly. The bare primary source is also not a secondary publication. These sources, along with the graduate thesis, are getting kicked out.

Most importantly: if you want to contest a scholarly publication's reliability, you do NOT post nonsense links. You do not write stories about how you think they're "bad" - you find negative peer reviews ("Peer review" = "a process by which a scholarly work, such as a paper or a research proposal, is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted"). That means you must find their professional peers who have reviewed their work and stated that they are "biased" or "evil" or "lizard-people". Not you writing here on this talkpage, not some idiot in a tabloid, but academic peers! (other experts) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- Fainites yes, you are right, Milac is indeed quoted in reference on Slovene Chetniks, my mistake, I was thinking about Suljak when I wrote that. Sorry, my mistake.

- On what basis you claim that Ramet is is not in the wrong field and irrelevant? She is expert in political science, not history, while she was referenced to back contraversial historic data.

- On Omricanin, I have given several external links to my claims. He is problematic reference (pro-fascist historical revisionist and ultra-nationalist), quoted without any page number. This is clearly accepted by moderation. His claims make larger part of article.

- The fact that some references about highly problematic and important claims (ethnic cleansing) were based upon opinion of strongly biased author, and without any page numbers. The fact that this is accepted by moderators, makes precedent for all future edits. There can not be double standards in posting references.

- However, I will provide page numbers for my references, later on. In think that will resolve this problem. --212.124.173.238 Ganderoleg) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Scholarly" does not mean "historical", it means "concerned with or relating to formal study or research". Her work is a formal scientific publication. We do not restrict sources on the basis of "fields", so that only historians can be used in history articles.

Page numbers are not as important as the sources themselves. You needn't bother posting the page numbers for the two silly memoirs (which are not scholarly), or the thesis, or the primary source ("Mihailović documents").

On Omirčanin: he is a historian ONLY negative reviews by his academic peers constitute relevant criticism (this works for any other scholarly publication as well). Not you or your tabloid newspaper links or whatever. Nothing you yourself can say here is relevant ("he's nationalist!", "he's biased!", "I don't like him!")

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- Direktor, Ramet is political scientist, quoted as authority on historic data, Cohen is medical doctor. They are scholars and experts in wrong fields of expertise. It's like quoting dentist as authority in the field of nuclear physics.

- Claiming that Tomasevic is "'GOD incarnate on the subject of the Chetniks (a published world-renowned expert, completely neutral, with universally positive peer reviews)". This only proves that you are unable to give any reasonable argument versus my claims. As for his "neutrality" I have quoted Tomasevic himself (with page number), and as we see he is clearly ethnically motivated and have ideological bias. You're quoting him simply because he is Croat author translated to English. Besides that half of Tomasevic's references are without any page numbers.

- My links are toward external sources which include online versions of quoted books, official biographies and bibliography of contested authors.

- Links for modern Chetniks in articles are mostly newspaper articles from Serbian tabloids, and are useless to persons who don't speak Serbian.Ganderoleg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.173.238 (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

-Direktor, for historic claims, historical expertise is needed, specially if they accuse somebody for "collaboration". Medical doctor and political scientist are not related, nor important in the field of historic science. You basically don't have any historians who are not Croats as sources and references for very serious accusations.

- First you demanded page numbers for my references (which can be seen in your above statements), and now, after I decided to provide them,I "don't have to bother" posting them and "they are not important". What do exactly do you want?

- Omricanin, is contested in Croatia as revisionist and pro-fascist historian. Together with his bibliography (provided by links) we can see his ultra-nationalist and greater-Croatian activism. Therefore, I didn't invented nothing about him. He is quoted as main reference to Chetnik war crimes, which is quite serious.

- On other hands claims like "Tomasevic is GOD" and so on, just proves my point. Ganderoleg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.173.238 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- Now here are page numbers, since I didn't knew that's so important, since most of references don't have any page numbers. In original languages, IMDB, page numbers:

Pavle Borštnik, Pozabljena zgodba slovenske nacionalne ilegale, Ljubljana, 1998 COBISS 77215744, p. 98.

Marijan F. Kranjc in Slobodan Kljakić, Plava garda – poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006 COBISS 57204737, p.105.

Slobodan Kljakić i Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovenački četnici, Filip Višnjić, Beograd, 2006 COBISS 134158092, p. 168.

Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204, p.186-187.

Zbornik dokumenata Vojnoistorijskog institute: tom XIV, Dokumenti četničkog pokreta Draže Mihailovića, Beograd

Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6. , p. 163-167.

Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, p. 150, ISBN 84-599-9079-6. , p. 150.

I must note that besides Milac's book about information of Slovene Chetnik officers, agents of SOE, later CIA, more information is given by Slobodan Kljakić's i Marijan F. Kranjc's, Slovenački četnici, p.240. This shall be added as another reference to text.

I shall remove Katja Zupancic's work as irrelevant.

English language:

Pavle Borštnik, The Forgotten Story of the Slovenian National Resistance, Ljubljana, 1998, COBISS 77215744, p. 98.

Marijan F. Kranjc, Slobodan Kljakić, The Blue Guards – main confidential report, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006, COBISS 57204737, p.105.

Slobodan Kljakić, Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovene Chetniks, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006, COBISS 134158092, p. 168.

Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204, p.186-187.

Military History Institute Collection of documents: tome XIV, Documents about Chetnik Movement of Draža Mihailovic, Belgrade

Dinko Šuljak, I have searched for Radic's Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6. ,p. 163-167

Dinko Šuljak, I have searched for Radic's Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6. ,p. 150 Ganderoleg

Are we talking about the Blue Guards here? Which of the above do you claim are a) scholarly and b) secondary sources please. c) Are you able to produce any reviews by other relevant academics on them? Is there nothing on the subject in East European Politics & Societies? (A peer reviewed journal). Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, first can you tell me (before I answer you) what are reviews by other relevant academics, and peer reviewed journal for references: 53. # ^ Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. and 54. Ana Došen (1994) (in Croatian). Krnjeuša u srcu i sjećanju. Rijeka: Matica hrvatska, Rijeka branch. ISBN 953-6035-01-4. ?

These references were accepted as sources for serious accusations for massacres and ethnic cleansing. You haven't answered on Cohen (M.D), and his relevant academic and scholarly credentials on this topic? Why are references for modern Chetniks tabloid newspapers articles from Serbia (in Serbian)? What are their scholarly values?

Since my short article on Slovene and Croat Chetniks is mostly info about commanders and units, while those mentioned above are references about ethnic cleansing, collaboration and war crimes, which is quite serious accusation, and were accepted as references in here, first we must resolve this issue. --Ganderoleg (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

For the millionth time... a) Cohen and Riesman's work is a scholarly peer-review university publication (I am obviously assuming you've learned what all that means in the meantime), b) Cohen is just a co-author, the aother author is (world-renowned) sociologist David Riesman.

Again: the fact that a scholar is not a historian does NOT exclude him as a source in Wikipedia history articles. Have you got that? It suffices that his work is a scholarly publication.

Could you please educate yourself elsewhere before starting nonsense threads, instead of rudely demanding that others explain to you what "academic peers" are or what "academic peer review" means. Adding to the absurdity is the fact that I've already posted Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of the above. User:Gandoreleg, you are 1) uninformed and uneducated in the basics of scientific discourse, 2) uninformed as to Wikipedia policy, 3) you are having trouble understanding English, 4) you are ignoring whole posts (probably because of that). What are you doing here? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, Riesman (lawyer, amateur sociologist) just wrote foreword for Cohen's book, while Cohen (dentist)is an author: http://www.amazon.com/Serbias-Secret-War-Propaganda-History/dp/0890967601/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1_2. This only shows that you didn't even bothered to check the book, which you commented.

Jozo Tomasevich was an economist, by the way: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/War-and-Revolution-in-Yugoslavia-1941-1945/Jozo-Tomasevich/e/9780804736152.

Since you constantly mention "Wikipedia policy", "peer reviews", "scholarly works", can you please tell me why are references to modern Chetniks tabloid newspapers from Serbia and others? What is scholarly, "peer reviewed" about references: 53. # ^ Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. and 54. Ana Došen (1994) (in Croatian). Krnjeuša u srcu i sjećanju. Rijeka: Matica hrvatska, Rijeka branch. ISBN 953-6035-01-4. which were used as references for Chetnik war crimes in WW2, and as sources for victims number? Since I'm "uninformed"(and you are), I'm sure you will have no problem to prove credibility of these references. --Ganderoleg (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ganderoleg - I did not write this article or add any of the sources and am unlikely to do so. Under no circumstances is the argument that "there are other inaapropriate, un-page-numbered sources in the article so yours must be OK too" going to be acceptable. I am quite happy to assist editors in working their way through all the sources, removing those that are not acceptable. However, currently we are discussing the new sources you have added or propose to add. Either support your proposed references or they will be removed. We can then look at other references to see if they are supported. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, this topic was opened about sources that I'm questioning, not about my article about Non-Serbian Chetniks. There is another topic in here about that, but this is not the one. You avoided most of my remarks, and continue to demand high standards for my references, which are ignored in cases of already accepted references in article.

Since there is constant mention and demands about "scholarly","peer reviewed", "reliability" on my behalf, I expect identical standards for already established references. Especially, if these references accuse someone for "ethnic cleansing" and "collaboration". These accusations make about 2/3 of article.

If you demand for me standards, that are ignored (and ignored by you) in cases of references that i mentioned, then we have double standards on editing of main article, and cognitive monopoly of one particular editor in here.

While accusations of collaboration and war crimes makes 2/3 of article, and 3/4 of references are by Croat authors, who have all reasons to be partial on this issue, we have British and US authors that contest all these claims: The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder, David Martin ( http://www.amazon.com/Web-Disinformation-Churchills-Yugoslav-Blunder/dp/0151807043), Tito, Mihailovic, and the Allies, Walter R. Roberts(http://www.amazon.com/Tito-Mihailovic-Allies-Walter-Roberts/dp/0822307731) and off course already mentioned Michael Leese, witness of events, and British liaison officer to Mihajlovic in 1943-1944 (http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Serbia-British-Titos-1943-1944/dp/0151959102). Those authors are not Serbs nor Croats, and have no motivation to be partial on the issue. Specially Michael Leese who was British officer and member of allied army rejected all claims of collaboration of Mihajlovic with Axis. If Mihajlovic was really an collaborator Leese would not had any reason or motive to defend him.

What also contradicts with claims of Mihajlovic's "collaboration" is monument to Mihajlovic in USA in Libertyville, IL, built with help of Serbian and US veterans of WW2.

Here is plaque in both English and Serbian: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=8702709&PIpi=904088 , here is entire monument: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=8702709 . This monument to Mihajlovic was built before the one in Serbia (since Serbia was under communist rule). Why would US veterans and Serbian immigrants built monument to "Axis collaborator" and person "under full Axis command" on US soil?

Most surviving Chetnik commanders lived openly in US and Great Britain, after the war. They also had Chetnik organizations that worked openly in US, Canada, Australia and other allied countries.They were never extradited to Yugolavia, and were never charged by US or Britain for "Axis collaboration". Jewish organizations also didn't persecuted them. This also contradicts claims about "collaboration". --Ganderoleg (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, since I'm new in here, can you please teach me what exactly do you mean by "scholarly" and "peer reviewed" on the example of references: 53.Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. and 54. Ana Došen (1994) (in Croatian). Krnjeuša u srcu i sjećanju. Rijeka: Matica hrvatska, Rijeka branch. ISBN 953-6035-01-4. Since you haven't erased them, this mean you know they are legitimate and "scholarly" sources, which are used for basis of very serious claims. Are you able to produce any reviews by other relevant academics on them? Or editor that put them there? Surely, you would have no problem in this demonstration.

Last, but not least are you able to produce any reviews by other relevant academics on these references: 65. # ^ Provokacija iz Trebinja: osnovan "Srpski četnički pokret Republike Srpske", Slobodna Dalmacija(Croat newspapers), 68. # ^ Predsjednik Mesiæ O Odgodi Posjeta Scg-U, (Croat newspapers), 74. # ^ Bora Čorba kod Hrge: Ponosan sam četnik - Dnevnik.hr (Croatian news agency), 64. # ^ RADIO TELEVIZIJA CRNE GORE... Nacionalni javni servis Crne Gore (RTV Montenegro!!!!!) What kind of reliable academic sources are these? Thanks in advance. --Ganderoleg (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in bargaining, filibustering or mind games. I protected this page because there was an edit war over your additions on non-serbian chetniks. I am trying to assist editors to resolve that matter, otherwise the material will simply be removed and we will be back to an edit war and further page protection. Please deal with the sources you are proposing in the material you added. I am perfectly willing to moderate whilst editors go through all the sources one at a time - including various newspaper articles and the like which I have already noted. I have also been hunting for academic reviews of Omrcanin's books - without success so far - and looking to see what other sources say about chetnik massacres. However - as stated above - this is not "my" article and have never edited it other than to protect it from edit-warring. I am not going to be put off dealing with edit warring by silly claims that I have tacitly approved all existing sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fainites, I'm not "bargaining" with you, I'm asking you to show me what kind of concrete evidence would you consider as satisfying (on concrete example)? Just repeating "peer reviews" and "academic" is not helping. You must show me what exactly do you want from me. I'm not claiming that you are editor of mentioned references, but the fact that these references remained, including newspaper and tabloid articles (in Serbian/Croatian) raise the question on credibility of your demands. Question is not just Omrcanin, but Dosen and others as well.

You asked me first to provide translation for my references (although half of references in main article are untranslated), which were later provided. Then you asked page numbers, which I provided (although half of references in main article don't have any page numbers), I have also provided you ISBN of references, even Amazon links, and now you're demanding more. This raises questions, since newspapers articles, and interviews (in Croatian) in main article seemed to be more relevant references, then books by actual witnesses and scholars (which contradicts with your demands and standards).

You cannot simply dismiss such claims as something that "you are not interested", since we are not playing games. Since you demanded something from me and threaten with deletion of my article, using Wikipedia policy as excuse, I have raised legitimate question why other references that clearly violate mentioned "Wikipedia policy", remained as basis for serious accusations? If such references are not deleted (and their claims), while I have been threatened for far less thing, this demonstrate that in practical sense "Wikipedia policy" does not exist - and that this policy is practically the will and power of particular privileged editors and their personal opinions.

As I see most of edit war in here is not about my small article on Non-Serbian Chetniks, that simply mentions units and participants in Chetnik units.

I have opened special section on my article about Non-Serbian Chetniks, where your objections can be discussed. This section is about problematic references that I have mentioned. Introducing my article and references to this section is misleading, and distorts original intention of section.

--Ganderoleg (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My dear Ganderoleg, I am fully aware that all of the articles on these related subjects are problematic and suffer from constant warring between apparently incompatable viewpoints. There is no magic wand. I am not dismissing any claims. Neither did I say - as you wrongly quote - that I am not interested in the claims. I am asking you to deal with the material you added which triggered an edit war which triggered my protection of the page. You have already been referred to the relevant policies regarding suitable sources and I do not believe you do not understand them. As stated, I had already started looking into some of the other references you complained about. There seem to me to be two main issues. One is whether notable and scholarly books on historical matters can be - as you suggest - dismissed based on claims about ideological or ethnic unsoundness. The other is the status of various newspapers, papers and primary sources. However - I work full time and I have no personal interest in this matter at all and certainly no interest in efforts made to shovel me into one camp or the other nor demands to make precipitate decisions.

On your sources - I am asking if you have any evidence of the reception and use by the scholarly and academic community of any of the secondary sources. (Given the time since these events took place, there are many secondary sources and no reason to use primary sources). For example, lists of positive reviews on Ramets analysis have been posted elsewhere. I appreciate with older books it becomes progressively more difficult. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wired! When Croat writes a Serbian topics, motive must be sick and result is full of lies and manipulations. And moderator….what is moderator doing? He is just holding a candle. Part Recent history is pure propaganda, references are spacious selection of articles from yelow press, state propaganda and “selected” internet links. No scholar approach. Shame! And moderator… what is moderator doing? He is just holding a candle in a arranged show-window wich is locked that no one can change mounted image. Krek2011 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I do have concerns over this sort of thing.One thing at a time. Please understand - I am not an officially appointed moderator. I am an admin. This is not an area where I have contributed content. Most of my content is in psychology articles. I have arrived quite recently at various balkan pages because of seeing problems arise at ANI. I have protected this page to stop an edit war. There is no "right version" when protecting a page. It is only protected for a short period of time, during which time I have attempted, without success, to get editors to reach consensus on the additions they were edit-warring about. I am also aware that admins and sensible editors get sick to death of nationalist battles in these kinds of areas. I am endeavouring - in a small way - to try and help editors reach consensus over areas of contention. I cannot solve all the problems all of the time. When I say I have no personal interest I mean - I was not in the war. I am English (which means I am the usual mongrel which passes for English). I have no friends or relatives with connections in any way with any of the areas under discussion. Nobody in my family has ever been near the Balkans, during or after the war. It is not a topic of discussion in the pubs where I live. I do not think anybody is always right or always wrong, including me. I have no personal sympathy with either extreme right or extreme left ideologies. I don't think there is any basic genetic or racial difference between human beings that is of any importance. I think Churchill was probably right when he said "democracy is the worst system of government there is - apart from all the others", but that doesn't mean I think he was right on everything. Does this help you understand where I am coming from? Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To get back to business - the Borštnik, the Kranjc and the Kljakić are the ones that look as if they could be secondary sources. What am asking is - is there any material that could help us see how these books were received by the academic and scholarly world. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fainites, I'm sure that you have no personal interest in this matter, but you, unfortunately, asked from me things that are unspecified (I'm not sure what exactly do you want from me) and demands which seems to be contradictory with accepted references on main article.

You provided link with Bosnian newspapers, with relatively new events, about claim of some "Chetniks urinate on Bosnian flag". What is academic, scholarly and peer reviewed relevance about that? What this nonsense have to do with WW2 Chetnik units, who have nothing to do with recent events. We are discussing WW2.This is demonstration that you are violating your own standards which you demand on me. Modern Bosnian Serbs are mostly descended from former Partisan members, not Chetniks. The fact that you mentioned recent events in Bosnia, and mix them in discussion about WW2 relevant data, is demonstration that you have some sort bias (although not personal), and that this bias toward WW2 is motivated by recent wars in Yugoslavia. Otherwise you wouldn't mention this newspaper article, totally irrelevant to events and data from WW2. This explains to me your demands that are becoming more and more absurd and unspecified.

Almost identical data and references to Slovene Chetniks exist on Slovene Wikipedia (I can provide you link, if you want), and they are accepted as such. Claims that my data and references (which are almost identical with Slovene and Croat Wikipedia) somehow violates Wikipedia policy is absurd, to be honest. There is also reference to Slovene Chetniks in Tomasevich's (Croat economist) book "Chetniks" p.222, and his book "War and revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945" p. 110.

As for Croat Chetniks, main reference are documents (now declassified) from military-historical institute in Belgrade, tome XIV. I'm not sure how this is not relevant reference? Dinko Suljak is secondary reference, and he was former Partisan, and witness to events in Dalmatia. As such, he is source of some details about Croat participation in Chetnik movement, specially for info about particular commanders (strictly detailed info).

What exact materials and evidences do you ask for me? Your demands are too general, and unspecific. Show me an example, or quote editor that provide them, so that I know what kind of information to deliver for you.

You said that positive reviews to Sabrina (a.k.a Pedro) Ramet's article have been posted elsewhere. Can you provide this to me (as example), so that I can have understanding what sort of evidences you want from me? Are these positive reviews "peer reviews"? Peer reviews are given by expert scholars in particular field of expertise. Ramet's claims are about historic events in Yugoslavia, so editor must provide reviews of relevant historians. Other references, like Hoare (of Croat descent) belong to field of political activism, since Hoare is political activist on behalf of Bosnian government (part of his C.V) and therefore biased and motivated to be biased. --Ganderoleg (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Ganderoleg but I do not believe that you are as confused or ignorant as you pretend. I have already made it plain that other sources in the article are not validated or accepted by me and therefore pointing to them is irrelevant to the issue of attempting to ascertain the validity of the new sources you are wanting add. Further, your line of reasoning above when I gave an example of an existing source to which I linked as an example of a concerning source is frankly so bizarre it is difficult to follow. There is a limit to how long other editors are going to be prepared to put up with this filibustering.

Here is an example of a list of reviews of Tomasovich provided by DIREKTOR on a different article. These are not peer reviews as in peer reviewed journal entries but are examples of reception. It may of course be possible to find reviews saying the opposite. Citation in comparable scholarly work is also important;

"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University

"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
-Choice Magazine

"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books

"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
-American Historical Review

"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers

"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
-Slavic Review

Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fainites, I didn't say that you have validated existing references, but that they are clearly accepted from other moderators. They violate standards, that you claim that are Wikipedia standards.

You constantly refuse to give me specifics about your demands and you're refusing to provide me examples of quotes from other editors that prove scholarly nature and peer reviews of their references. On the same time you constantly repeat your vague demands that I'm not able to comprehend.

Again, what sort of evidences do you require from me? Links? If so what kind of links? Scans? Scanned documents? Amazon links? Links to online books? Reviews in what languages? Show me example of already existing evidence for some references in here, so that I know what I should send to you.

You systematically avoid to answer my questions and objections, and instead repeat same thing over and over again.

You constantly say that some references in main are "peer reviewed" and "scholarly", but refuse to present evidences for those claims. This raises questions if these references are really "scholarly" and "peer reviewed", since repeating that "they are peer reviewed" is clearly not an evidence of any kind.

What you think about my cognitive abilities is irrelevant for this discussion. They are not sufficient ground for rejecting my claimns, since they are your opinion. My opinion on you is also irrelevant, since I'm asking logical and sensible questions and objections about editing policy and references. --Ganderoleg (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This book - Slobodan Kljakić, Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovene Chetniks, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006 - was only published in 2006. That is quite recent. Can you find any reviews on it in quality press and/or journals in any language which would help give us some idea of how it was recieved? Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Fainites, but this is what I have been expected. Your reviews were given without any outside links to them, and therefore there is no way that we can check their validity. Is this how Wikipedia operates?

While all quotations are about Tomasevich, I never questioned Tomasevich peer reviews, but his personal motives and professional expertise (economist) on the issue of WW2. --Ganderoleg (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As for book that you demanded here are (in Serbian) presentation of book:http://www.novinar.de/2007/03/23/slovenacki-cetnici-slobodana-kljakica-i-marjana-kranjca.html ,with comments of Serbian historians. Book was met with positive reviews in Slovenia. Dr. Mile Bjelajac, from the institute of modern history stated that book demonstrated that "goal of Ravnogorski (Mihajlovic Chetnik) movement was not greater-Serbian chauvinism, but has Yugoslav idea as its starting point". --Ganderoleg (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were not expecting anything as apparently you have no idea what everyone is talking about. I posted this as an example. Of course individual reviews can be hunted down and checked. Regarding your second response - thank you. I shall have a look at the material you have provided. Have you tried "Slovene Studies" ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, here are reviews for Milac's book: http://www.slovenestudies.com/misc/book_reviews/Milac.pdf --Ganderoleg (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, here is New York Times review on Michael Lees book "THE RAPE OF SERBIA The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power, 1943-1944" : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DE1E30F933A25751C0A967958260 . This book, with it's information should be added in the list of books that contest claims of alleged Mihajlovic's collaboration.

And here is Foreign affairs review of David M. Martin's book: Patriot or Traitor: Case of General Milhailovich, Hoover Institution Press,U.S. (December 1978), http://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Traitor-Milhailovich-Commission-Proceedings/dp/081796911X , which contests Tomasevic's book. Here is review: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32223/john-c-campbell/patriot-or-traitor-the-case-of-general-mihailovich --Ganderoleg (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, here is another western author that contest claims that Mihajlovic was an collaborator: Walter R. Roberts, Tito, Mihailovic, and the Allies, Duke University Press Books (September 1, 1987) , http://www.amazon.com/Tito-Mihailovic-Allies-Walter-Roberts/dp/0822307731. Peer reviews: http://books.google.com/books?id=43CbLU8FgFsC&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=Tito,+Mihailovic,+and+the+Allies+review&source=bl&ots=hQra3FoW4E&sig=eCz66-uV6nS7buXkzsvi2uypVSQ&hl=en&ei=oPNSTZGFKc3rsgbuoqTpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Tito%2C%20Mihailovic%2C%20and%20the%20Allies%20review&f=false

Here is another book by David Martin which also rejects claims of Mihajlovic's "collaboration": The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt P; 1st edition (September 1990). Review from Institute for Historical Review:http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p348_Clive.html . Review by Foreign affairs: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/46497/lucy-despard/the-web-of-disinformation-churchills-yugoslav-blunder

These books and info should be added, about denying claims of Mihajlovic's alleged "collaboration", specially due to fact that these are western scholars and authors, and are of non-Yugoslav origin, therefore less biased. Clearly, claims about Mihajlovic's "collaboration" (mostly by Tomasevic) have been contested by several western scholars, and their works. This should be noted in main article.

--Ganderoleg (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! Now we can look at them. I haven't found anything on Kljakic though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. For what it's worth - on the Slovenian point, the Kljavic review doesn't give any confidence that this is a sufficiently notable source. The Milac book is clearly a primary source. In general, the Martin and the Lees books are probably notable and give an alternative account about which there is ongoing controversy. (There is also mention of the fact that not all SOE papers are yet released. I always find that sort of thing infuriating!). It is apparent that Ramet and Tomasovic and the like represent what is the current mainstream position, but that there is a significant controversy that in my opinion should be mentioned in the article as a controversy. I wouldn't trust an IHR review though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)