Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old weaselly language

There's a lot of weaselly language here regarding collaboration with the occupying forces, and then the post-war astonishment and whatnot. --Shallot 10:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shallot, you are from Croatia, aren't you?, thus I don't think your opinion is objective! --195.178.32.50

Well, if you'd a priori dismiss arguments of a poster just because of their background, that's not objectivity, either, is it?

And anyway, this particular bit of text is obsolete because of many changes in the article made since July 2004. --Joy [shallot] 23:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you be more precise? I tried not to judge whether he was a traitor or not. That's why it is only stated that he was sentenced for high treason. The rest, I guess, might be disputable and is left for someone more competent to correct (if there is a need to correct anything). Halibutt 11:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

It should be stated straightforwardly whether he should have been on a trial or not, and not imply that the partisans just somehow "accused" him and that CDG was pissed off... --Shallot 18:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMO whether he should have been on trial or not is not of our business. The fact is that he lost support of the western Allies and that Tito won while Mihailovic lost and was put on trial and sentenced. Whether he was guilty or not - we should not judge. We just report. Halibutt 09:19, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's rather hypocritical to insist on this logic and at the same time remove the report of the likely reason why he was on trial, the massacres of Bosnian Muslims (at Foča etc) by his forces. --Shallot 12:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First organized resistance

Oh and the reference to the first organized resistance looks fishy to me. I don't know about the whole of occupied Yugoslavia, but in Croatia, the Partisans organized at the same time (a few days earlier even) as the Chetniks, cf. Ustase#History so the latter wouldn't deserve such particular praise. I vaguely recall old history books saying the Partisans organized even earlier in Bosnia, but I'm not sure. --Shallot 12:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found a few sources on the net saying the Partisans rebelled in Bosnia on July 27[1], and that Draza Mihailovic first signed himself as the leader of the Chetniks on June 14[2]. I suppose the sentence could be right, but it's rather inconsequential given the context. --Shallot 12:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I only reinstalled a slightly modified remark by some anon (check the history for details).

As to his trial - he might've been accused of 10000 sins. The important thing here is that he was found guilty of high treason, not of war crimes (which, IMO, he might've commited a lot). Halibutt 16:58, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

But I doubt that the crimes had nothing to do with it. If they charged him of treason, that must have meant that he did something against the country. Given that they can't have been talking about the royal Yugoslavia (because DM was its general after all and I doubt he ever did anything contrary to the monarchy...?), the country had to have been defined by the new government, supported by those people his troops killed. --Shallot 20:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably, but that is but an assumption. Halibutt 17:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

"I die as a sinner. I was nothing more than the judge of death", said at the end of his life the judge of his trial. It is no secret at all that every anti-communist with enough influence was charged of treason and executed in the late 40es and 50's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.94.104.140 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

The above is very true one of the first orders of buisness for Tito was to execute over 10,000 people who were an opposition to him within his first month or so. I havn't read it in a while but that was in Michael Lee's book "The Rape of Serbia."

NPOV notice

I'm putting a NPOV notice on this article. Right now it reads like a hagiography. Thanks to the tattoo and the picture of him in Ban Jelacic Square, there is renewed interest in Mihailovic and what he was/what he did. This article doesn't even come close to painting a complete picture, and uses highly inflammatory and contentious language.

Dear anon, could you please be a tad more specific? What sentences are wrong, what info is missing, what statements are incorrect? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my previous comment. Anyway, statements such as "his murderer, Marshal Tito" and "colossal blunder" don't belong in a neutral encyclopaedia entry. That would be the "inflammatory and contentious language" I was talking about. Furthermore, some of the "facts" presented within are highly questionable, others, of meager importance, are highlighted, and still others, which don't paint such a flattering picture of the Djeneral, are omitted entirely. Hence, NPOV. --tracer_bullet 18:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have made some changes to the article. However the more I was doing it, the more I realized that much of this stuff belongs in an article about the Chetniks, and not necessarily about Mihailovic. In any case I think I've rebalanced the POV somewhat, by removing some speculation as well as irrelevant commentary, as well as adding a section on collaboration with the NDH. I think now I need someone to help me decide if some of the stuff should be moved to the Chetnik article, as well as if it's worth adding a section about posthumous..er.."activities", the popular impression of Draza in Serbia, etc...--tracer_bullet 15:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT DRAZA WAS AWARDED WITH CROIX DE GUERE by CHARLES DE GAULLES, no COLABORATOR OF NAZIS WAS EVER AWARDED WITH THIS, as WELL as LEGION OF MERIT which you do mention....TITO's trial of Mihailovic is irrelevant-TITO WAS CROATIAN DICTATOR and COMMUNIST, therefore anti-ROYALIST (MIHAJLOVIC WAS ANTI_NAZI ROYALIST). And it is about the time for Croatians to accept history as it is and stop blaiming everybody for their dark and muddy past......

Ok thanks for that anonymous vandalization of the page, but you'll have to go about it differently. Trying to spell things correctly is a good start. Mihailovic is a highly controversial historical figure, and the goal here is to present a balanced picture, not write a hagiography. His trial is not irrelevant, because someone reading this might want to know how he died. They might also want to know that he was tried and convicted of war crimes in addition to the arguably more vague charge of treason. And while might have been an anti-Nazi Royalist, he certainly was not above collaborating with the Nazis or NDH when it suited his goals. He was not above intimidating and murdering civilian, in particular non-Serb, population. The Allies did not arbitrarily switch their support to the Partisans - they did so after MI-6 informed them of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis, and massacres committed by Chetnik troups in eastern Bosnia.--tracer_bullet 15:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

mistakes

I just don't have the energy to refute all this Communist propaganda. I'm sure you know the victors wrtie the history books. Just one thing. The Allies stopped supporting Mihailovic as he did not attack the Nazis much. Not because he was a Nazi collaborator(which he may or may not have been), but because the Nazis had a rule that for every dead German soldier, 100 civilians would be shot and for every wounded German soldier, 50 civilians would be shot. Naturally, this was an effective deterrent. However, the Partizans didn't care, as the reprisals which THEY THEMSELVES CAUSED, drove hordes of angry volunteers into their arms.

Another point of view... First of all, anyone who believes the trial against Mihailovich was fair are probably the same people that think Stalin had fair trials. Tito was a ruthless communist that killed over 200,000 people in Slovenia, mostly Croats, because it was payback for what they did to the Partisans during the war. So it is fair to say that the trial againt Mihailovich was nothing but LIES. Tito was known to liqidate all those he did not like. He also had to destroy the Chetnik's name in order to prevent any sort of legend. He did not want people to love the Chetniks. He did not want any kind of following. He had to do all he could to tarnish their image. So the whole story about the Chetniks involvment with the Nazis is a joke. In fact, Mihailovich had one of his own Chetniks killed because he had decided to befriend the Nazis and offer them a peace deal. For that, Draza had him executed for being a traitor. Why would he execute his own men that collaborated with the Nazis if he himself was a collaborator? Also why would the Congress award him a medal of merit? Why would the French award him with their highest award? Why would so many leaders consider him to be a hero? The Chetnik and Mihailovich were some of the first to stand up to the Nazis. The only reason there are some questions is because the Communists tarnished his image and destroyed all records that made him look like a hero. Today he is considered a hero by many in Serbia. His picture hangs in many Serbian churches throughout the world.

npov

• There is nothing "alleged" about his collaboration with the Nazis. He did collaborate. Idea that all documentation to prove it was "fabricated" is speculation that came out of various nationalist anti-communist movements following the break up of Yugoslavia.
• I reentered removed links. --Dejan Čabrilo 07:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not all, but some documentation was fabricated. – that was discussed in American Congress during the trail, even before he was executed. I think that Ninam’s wording is much better:

"After the war he was tried for alleged collaboration with the various invaders by the rival Communist Partizans, shot and buried in an unmarked grave."

Mihailović never had a chance for fair trail. Trial against Mihailović was not fair, the court was not independent, etc. He was convicted and executed by same communist dictatorship that executed thousands of POWS (subject of current investigation in Slovenia) or sent thousand of their “comrades” to Goli Otok (Yugoslav version of GULAG by all means). Charles de Gaulles and Hari Truman didn’t buy this - Mihailović was awarded both Croix de Guere and Legion of Merit. Too much for quisling, Nazi-collaborator and mass-murder.

I suggest you gather all the relevant literature, and not from far-right sources, and try to improve an article with good NPOV facts. Don't just go about changing things to better suit your ideology. Also, if would be very helpful if you created an account on Wikipedia - we could communicate easier. --Dejan Čabrilo 10:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

War Crimes?

A Bosnian friend of mine wrote the following about this fellow: "...He exterminated muslims on the border line btw Serbia and Bosnia. He established Chetniks' movement as such, which exists nowadays." Are any of these allegations correct? Does anyone know where one can find unbiased sources that would answer my question? ~~Bagboobard 14:01, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased. For instance, Croats & Bosniaks equate Chetniks and Mihailović simply with terror and atrocities. Squabble over "anti-fascism" is of minor importance (who cares whether the ones who are to slit your throat politically side with Xs or Ys ?). Chetniks wanted to create ethnically pure Greater Serbia and they slaughetered tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. A bit shy indicator is a diluted article http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_04.shtml Comprehensive stats can be found at http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm Mir Harven 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tens of thousands seems terrifyingly high. Isn't it overrestimated? And yes; but further clarifications about that fact would move the article a little closer to the terror of the Ustašas, and if we look at the two factions; we must differ the Ustashas as the "bad guys" and the Chetniks as the "good guys" (even next to the atrocities). HolyRomanEmperor 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this is trying to paint an extremely negative picture of the djeneral who started the first partizan movement in Europe. Somebody above mentioned that Croatians(who, by the way, were under control of Ustasa neo-Nazi government) started an organized revolt before Dragoljub Mihailovic. This is simply WRONG. The Partizan movement did start, however not in Croatia but in Slovenia at least a month after Ravnogorski Pokret (Ravna Gora Movement) was organized by Mihailovic. Even then, the size and impact of those local movements were nothing compared to the djenerals'. Second, there is no evidence anywhere that Mihailovic's de facto goal was to establish ethnically clean Serb territories. This is a blatant lie and an offense on the character of a highly intelligent, educated and capable officer of then powerful Yugoslavian army who fought and came out a victor in WWI(Serb army back then). What is a known is that Ravnogorski Pokret was found to counter foreign occupation and to protect Serb population. Third, language use is very exact in this article, meaning it is used very precisely toward the ultimate goal of shaming djeneral's name. Collaboration with Italians and Germans, de facto objectives, extremely opportunistic and several other phrases in their respective context are proof of my point. Some points are overly stressed, while some other points are avoided or are completely omitted. For example, nowhere does it say that his Chetnik movement was extremely effective in sabotaging German troop movement and logistics in the area. Off course, later Tito's Partizans had a role as well, but Chetniks' effectiveness cannot be denied. Also, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that about 10%, or parhaps even more of Draza's men were from other ethnic groups, including Croatians, Bosniaks and Slovenians.

Next, the whole situation surrounding Chetnik collaboration with axis is hazy, as there is really no hard proof or evidence to confirm that Mihailovic himself and the units directly under his control actually collaborated with fascists and(or) nazis. I am not saying that it is not possible that some detachments sided with Italians to fight Tito's Partizans in what is now a civil war, but not the entire army under Mihailovic's control. From the strategic point of view, there was no need to side with the Germans or Italians because by 1944 most of the present day Serbian territories in then Yugoslavia are free of axis oppression. Rather, most of the evidence for Cica's persecution comes from communists which seized power after WWII. Naturally, the charges and evidence were very skewed to fit the needs of Tito's government and Tito himself who wanted to 'legally' terminate his foe. Now i know that i am jumping back to the point i made earlier about phrase and word usage, but the author of the text notes in the beginning paragraph that Truman awarded Cica 'Legion of Merit' as an act of defiance toward communism. That's just garbage for the lack of a better word. If it would have been done as an act of defiance then it would have been mentioned publicly. But it has not. Rather, the medal was awarded for the bravery of Draza and his men and for the fact that Chetniks sheltered and saved over 500 downed American airmen. Now you tell me who you are going to believe: leaders of the western/free world such as de Gaulle, Truman, Eisenhower and others or the communist dictator Tito (whose identity is also very mysterious) whose methods are well remembered by my ancestors. The bottom line is that the truth is very hard to get to because it has been expertly covered up by Tito's communists.

Also, the pictures posted here are extremely, extremely suggestive and biased. It leaves an impression that these men were butchers which was their calling. Its outright rude, manipulative and subjective. What is being portrayed in these images is far from the legacy Draza's Chetinks (the operative word here is Draza's) left behind. They were first and foremost freedom fighters, fighting for their beliefs and to protect their nation. Perhaps the author is trying to in some way equate Chetniks to the murdering, ruthless and utterly sick Croatian Ustasa regime. For those who know what i am talking about, it is a very shocking, disgusting and at the same time a feeble attempt. Chetniks committed murders, perhaps even crimes, but this was WWII we are talking about. They were surrounded by fascists and fascist supporters on all sided who mercilessly went about cleansing their land from Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and other labeled peoples. The infamous camp Jasenovac is enough, where some sources say that around 700,000 Serbs were systematically exterminated. With Croatians and Bosniaks being the direct enemy of Serbs and committing horrible atrocities against them, it is only natural to assume that the victims of Chetniks would be members of these two ethnic groups, who are by this author conveniently labeled as only civilian victims.

The bottom lines is that this article is perhaps one of the worst and most unobjective artices i have ever read. It would not surprise me at all if this article was written by a staunch Croatian or Bosniak(non-Serb) ultra-chauvinist. I do not know how the process works, but i want some action taken. This article should either be removed or extensively modified by someone who is more objective.

Something very interesting I have noticed is that most people on here don't seem to understand that the "Chetnicks" in Bosnia and Crotia had very little if anything in common with the Chetnicks in Serbia. They only accepted the name Chetnick but were not directly under the comand of Draza Miahilovic, they were mostly just local police forces that were created to protect the local Serbs and yes sometimes go on the offensive. The thing I'm trying to say is just because Chetnicks killed in Bosnia and Croatia does not mean it was under the command of Gen. Miahilovic, those were indipendent forces working under their own will.

Page Rearrangement

In the last couple of days, I slightly rearranged the page by adding the 'Legion of Merit' section, correcting some typos, and by adding Pollard's portrait of Mihailovich as the main picture of the page - it resembles Draja in the War more than his photo from the 30's that stood before. The page needs further modifications and additions, too. Marechiel

Vandalism of this page

Is there any way to prevent it? It became quite annoying - do we need this "cyber-war" of reverting the original page to propaganda BC, and back? ~Marechiel

War crimes!

Semso Tucakovic's estimate of 100,000 people is laughable, were it not for the fact that it's included, with seriousness, in this article. Published at the end of the Bosnian civil war, this is perhaps revisionism and political propaganda at its worst. I understand that Bosniaks may need to NAZIfy Serbs, since after all, they allied with the NAZIs unlike the Serbs, but this is really too much... Wikipedia's quality standards must be very low indeed. - DTC

First of all it is a LIE that bosniaks allied with the nazis, there were far more bosniaks in partizans than in the handjar division. Bosnian islamic leaders issued a document that was forbidding any bosnian muslim to colaborate with the nazi regime. Serbs were also fighting with the nazis, remember Prinz Eugen division? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.205.154 (talk) 08:58, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think the question mark should be omitted with this title. Mihajlovic openly collaborated both with Germans and Italians during the WW2, and his followers did numerous atrocities on non-Serbian Yugoslav people. This last war with all the genocide methods used in Srebrenica, Vukovar etc. is just a continuation of the same Serbian expansionist politics and Mihailovic's methods. For Wikipedia's sake, fascist propaganda articles like this should not find their place here.

1. Mihailovic didn't openly collaborate with both Germans and Italians, otherwise he wouldn't be recognized and decorated as anti-fascist by the Allies. 2. If by his followers you simply mean every group/person that used the Chetnik name, then that's irrelevant; Chetnik literally means partisan or guerrilla fighter (guerrillero) and many groups and fractions not submitted to Mihailovic used the name, for instance Kosta Pecanac, who did collaborate with Fascists, and was tried and executed by Mihailovic's Court because of that. 3. Vukovar, Srebrenica, blah, blah, blah... Have you people nothing else to add? Mihailovic has been dead since 1946., and during the 1990's war political parties that support Mihailovic were, what was then called, 'Democratic Opposition to Milosevic's regime', while both contemporary Yugoslavia and Republic Srpska continued the Communist policy of treating Chetniks as traitors, so there's not any possibility left for the 'continuation of Mihailovic's politics' you mention. (Plus, General Mladic, directly responsible for Srebrenica massacre, was a staunch anti-Chetnik, which makes your your arguments even more absurd). 4. And last but not least, the number of Serbian victims Mihailovic was accused for, far exceeded the number of non-Serbian ones you mention.

In other words, the question mark (?) is definitelly more than appropriate. Marechiel 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reference to him collaborating with the Germans? Everyone knows that he collaborates with the Italians, and this is mostly considered a good thing (by some), however I've seen only blatant notes of him collaborating with Nazy Germany... but where/when? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I want cast iron sources for such claims as User:Bosniaco has added, not some scans which could be anything.--Methodius 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Instruction" and Alleged Crimes (Sources)

Zbornik NOR-a is at the very least not neutral, as the Communists were in conflict with the subject of the article. Realistically, it is communist propaganda. Maybe we should rewrite the democracy article to fit the Communist understanding that "democracy is the dictatorship of the proleteriat"? If you can't find neutral sources, don't add rubbish to the article.--Methodius 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that historiography is a tricky thing and that sources should be treated with care. I also agree that this topic has been widely abused and that one needs to be extra cautions. However, Zbornik NOR-a simply contains reproductions of documents held elsewhere (State archive, Archive of Belgrade, Military Archives). It was not designed for general public anyway. It is not a collection of opinions, although the choice of documents undoubtedly may serve a particular purpose. That (in)famous Instruction is consistant with other opinions expressed by Mihailovic and it is important to clarify whether it is authentic or not. This is not "rubish" as you would have it.--88.110.127.197 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zbornik NOR-a is Communist propaganda (seen in the non neutral name itself: NOR=narodno oslobodilacki rat=national liberation war, a Communist propaganda phrase in Communist Yugoslavia). If what you're adding can be sourced elsewhere, great! If not, then it's almost certainly bullshit.--Methodius 11:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bullshit" is not the word you can use here without harming your own credibility.--As286 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you have no credibility since you rely on a propaganda source published by a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of people, so you're not saying anything.--Methodius 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted it, which reeks of you trying to push your own point of view. May I remind you that we should be trying to find a consensus version we can both agree on?--Methodius 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try to sort this out. I have seen the document which is quoted. What I am interested in is seeing is the original, in whatever archive it is held. I have no objection to disputing the authenticity of that Zbornik for which I have no words of appreciation myself. But from what I have read most (although not all, e.g. No. 4 and partially No. 7 is suspicious) of the points are consistent with Draža's other statements. My grandfather was in the army with him way before WWII and this is what he and most of them publicly talked about. Maybe we need a section on his political views? Then we can put other better documented statements there and prevent this propaganda war.

Also, the crime in Vranić is a historical fact, you can only talk about who ordered it and whether he knew about it. I think we do need a section on these crimes too, whether they are real and alleged and who ordered and committed them. If the trial is ever reopened these will surely be revisited?--As286 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well can we remove your additions for now? There wouldn't have been any talk of Bosniaks back then, so the English text of the "Instruction" is not faithful to Zbornik NOR-a for a start, which is all we have to go on. And that itself is hardly unbiased, as Mihailovic was in conflict with the Communists, who executed him (and authored Zbornik NOR-a). So if all we have is their word, that's worth nothing reliability-wise. Also, the "alleged crimes" section is very dubious, because the Chetniks were highly decentralised - so much so, that it is perhaps more realistic to talk about several separate groups which cooperated. The events in that section are tenuously connected to Mihailovic at best, and so do not belong in this article on that basis too. Indeed, the linked source aknowledges this:[3]

Kraljevina Jugoslavija - ni vojni deo u zemlji ni politicki u inostranstvu - nikad ni prema kome. Zlocini izvrseni pod njenom kapom, a bilo ih je, spadaju u domen pojedinacne odgovornosti, nikako drzavne, ideoloske ili etnicke politike.

i.e. they did not come from the top (Mihailovic)--Methodius 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These were his troops under his (partial or total, at least initially) command. Vranic is not isolated. There was Drugovac village near Smederevo immediately after that, where Sveta Trifkovic (Avalski Coprs) and Zivan Lazovic (Smederevski Corps) were commanders. People are still alive who remember this. They had their family members killed even though there were only a couple of communist supporters in the whole village at best. Mihailovic would have been convicted for that alone, simply for being commander in charge. And this was 1941, not the chaotic 1944.

There is also the issue of collaboration with the Germans. When the British asked Mihailovic to blow up the Belgrade - Thesaloniki railway line, he refused, even though he blew up another similar bridge to Greece just a few months earlier. Finally the British simply revoked their mission, believing Mihailovic to be collaborating with the Germans. This is quoted in their own books. Lees (Lees, M, The Rape of Serbia, San Diego 1990, p. 256-258, 262) is by no means sympathetic to Tito!--As286 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, Chetniks committed terrible war crimes. And loads of them (remember the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in eastern Bosnia). But these do not, nor any other have anything to do with Draza Mihailovic himself. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you might be mistaken here. The Nürnberg and Tokyo trials were of officers who were responsible for issuing orders. None of them committed anything themselves. Adolf In this case, the question is a) have these really been committed and b) under what and whose orders were Chetniks when they engaged in these atrocities. I think there is little doubt as to a). There are a few cases when Partisans and Chetniks attributed to the other side the crimes they committed themselves to gain sympathy of the local population but these were relatively few. b) the allegation here is that the troops acted under Miahilović's command, not only that he knew of them. This is the command responsibility.--As286 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. There were 2 units of Chetniks that committed crimes. One was a unit that served the Serbian collaborators in Nedic's Serbia, outside the Yugoslav Fatherland Army. The other is a Montenegrin Chetnik Unit, that joined the Ustashas - it was also outside the Fatherland Yugoslav Army.

2. There was a trial in the United States where (in 1945) the allies wanted to study the whole matter of Draza's trial and execution by the Partisans (as per being ideology-based) - in the end he was (posthumously) released from all charges, his execution condemned by all the Allies of WWII (especially USA, UK and France) and he was awarded a medal of honor by the US President. --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise an important point here. There were even more than two, but it is essential to understand the relationshi between these and their relationship to Draza. This merits a separate section.

There would have been no "trial" and certainly not in 1945, as Draza was only executed in 1946. What you are probably referring to is the examination of the commission in charge of decorating. Draza was decorated for rescuing US airmen, not for his fight against the Germans.--As286 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the section below to here until the original is seen.--As286 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Political aims

The aims of the Četnik movement in Yugoslavia were explained in an order/instruction issued by Draža Mihajlović to his commanders Lašić and Đurišić in December 20, 1941 (Document 370 from 20 December 1941, "Zbornik NOR-a", Vol. 3, book 4, Document 185 and Vol. XIV, Document 34, pages 93-100) These were to be:

1. Struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the king Peter II;

2. Create Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Backa;

3. Struggle for incorporation into our social structure of those unliberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorica, Istria, and Kaernten), as well as Bulgaria and Northern Albania with Shkodra;

4. Cleansing from the state territory all national minorities and anti-state elements;

5. Create direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing Bosniaks population from Sandžak, and Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;

6. Punish all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in the tragic days;

7. The areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements are to be settled by Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

There may be no collaboration with Communists, as they are fighting against the dynasty and in favor of socialist revolution. Albanians, Bosniaks, and Ustashe are to be treated in accordance with their merit for the horrendous crimes against our population, i.e. they are to be passed to the "People's Court". The Croats living on the territory under Italian occupation are to be treated based on their disposition at the given moment.

The neutrality of this article is disputed!

This article has to be deleted.It describes a war criminal as a hero. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and contains unverified claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.108 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

This man is lucky to be awarded any medals because he is a criminal. One of the worst, But maby he had no brain. He is a noooooooooooooooooooooob --Marbus2 5 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an internet forum. If you don't have anything to say about this article, please go argue about this on a history forum.--Hadžija 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what you have done is vandalism. Please stop...--Hadžija 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Djurisic Izvjestaj .jpg

Image:Djurisic Izvjestaj .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

24.176.214.141 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) if you read the TIME magazine article (pic on the draza page) it explicitly states that Hitler had a million dollar bounty on Draza's head! Seems pretty weird for a collaborator don't you think?

Legion of Merit not only for the United States airmen who were rescued

I quote the explanation in 1948. by Harry S. Truman why he posthumously awarded Mihailović(read carefully the last sentence):

"General Dragoljub Mihailovich distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander-in-Chief of the Yugoslavian Army Forces and later as Minister of War by organizing and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia, from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to friendly control. General Mihailovich and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies, and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the Allied cause, and were instrumental in obtaining a final Allied victory." BoDu, 23 Jul 2007

Mihailovic: The First resister in Yugoslavia

For an accurate article on Draza Mihailovic, the basic facts must at least be correct. And, from what I have seen on this talk page, there is a lot of invective and inflammatory remarks but a shortage of facts.

'1. FACT: 'Mihailovic and the Chetniks were the first to resist the Nazi occupation of parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. When the Royal Government capitulated in mid-April 1941, as an officer in the Army he (and other Serbian officers) immediately went into hiding rather than be taken as a POW. While active fighting may not have begun immediately, it is clear that immediatelty upon the surrender he did not submit to the occupation. I say "parts" of Yugoslavia because the Germans largely did not occupy Croatia like they did Serbia.

2. FACT: Contrast Mihaliovic's actions to those of: Tito, the Yugoslav Communist Party, and Croatian elements of the Royal Armed Forces. From mid-April to early June 1941, these 2 groups were very similar in that they absolutely did not resist the German occupation at all. For the first group - Communists - the reason is incontravertibly simple: at that time, Tito and the Communists took all their orders from Stalin and Stalin and Hitler were allies until June 6, 1941, thus the Communists mounted no resistance and there is every reason to believe that they would not have unless and until Germany invaded the Soviet Union. This is similar to the position of the French Communist Party from September 1939 until June 1941. Once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the communists (who may not have really liked the nazis but obeyed Stalin's directive to be friendly), everything changed.

3. FACT: For Croatian (and Slovenian) members of the Royal Army, they largely did not fight the Germans at all. Most Croatian units mutinied immediately and threw down their arms. Besides the overwhelmingt force of the invading armies of Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, this was one reason that the country capitulated so quickly. FACT: Most Croatians welcomed the german invaders and, the fact is, that the Independent state of Croatia was set up immediately after the invasion and with the support of the Catholic clergy and much of the population.

4. FACT: To state that Mihailovic was convicted of treason and to maintain that "well, that IS a fact" as Halibutt and leave it at that, as if he had a fair trial with the standards expected in countries where the rule of law is respected, is to misrepresent a fact. The fact is that thousands of people in numerous communist countries have been "convicted" of treason - some of them even communists themselves like Zinoviev and the other Bolsheviks. But you would be hard pressed to find any disinterested lawyer who would defend those trials as having been fair.

5. FACT: To state that the Allies withdrew support from Mihailovic and to maintain that "well, that IS a fact" as Halibutt and leave it at that, as if that decision was made in a vacuum with no information regarding the reasons for the change, is also to misrepresent a fact. Churchill's decision to switch support had several major reasons but 2 of the most important are that the Soviet Union demanded the change and that Churchill's representative who made the recommendation, Fitzroy McLean was very friendly with Tito and the Partisans but not with the Chetniks. In fact, he was awarded a Partizan medal after the war and had a house on Korcula in Croatia. Finally, Churchill and the Brits in general never had much use for the Serbs and Mihailovic and most Chetniks were Serbs. (To tell you the truth, Churchill and Roosevelt had little use for most pro-Western-Allied Slav resisters like the Free Polish as they sold them all down the river at Yalta and later). This is amply shown by the 1944 bombing of German-occupied Belgrade (twice) while Zagreb, and Sarajevo remained bomb-free despite their collaborationist status in the ISC.

Alexandanu 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Alexandanu

Dear Alexandanu, no wonder you wasted hours trying to come up with reasons to prove Chetnik innocence. I am not going to waste my time with you, but will publish a longer article at Srebrenica Genocide Blog (1.5 million visitors per month) tommorow to expose truth about Serbia's Fascism in the 2nd World War. Good luck to you. You won't win with you lies and you shall find answers to your fascist propaganda in my upcoming article tommorow. Bosniak (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

This wikipedia article has been created to whitewash Draza Mihailovic's nazi past and genocide that he committed agains Bosniaks - Muslims of Bosnia. In this article, authors and references are carefully used to support preconceived conclusions. Why haven't you uploaded photo of Draza Mihailovich and Adolf Hitler meeting and handhake? Bosniak (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Genocide of Bosniaks and Muslims was not committed by forces under general Draza Mihajlovic's control. General Mihajlovic is wartime hero, awarded by both Croix de Guere and Legion of Merit. He was executed in fabricated trial, manly because of his anti-communist and pro-royalist views.

• Why haven't you uploaded photo of Draza Mihailovich and Adolf Hitler meeting and handhake?

Because such photo doesn't exist. If you have such a photo, feel free to add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.171.152 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

HE KNEW OF GENOCIDE

So you are defending Draza Mihailovic? He knew that his forces were committing genocide of Bosniak Muslims, but he did nothing to stop it! He is a war criminal, but in Serbian society war criminals are celebrated as heroes (e.g. Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, etc) 142.179.67.238 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sub-standard article

I'd just like to express my disdain with this article: I see jumbled sentences, misspelled words, POV words, etc. Bad article, and it doesn't help that the people editing it are partisans, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.244.246 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:: The article is substandard because it is dominated by "WikiProject Serbia" - it's their point of view. Bosniak (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to mention that I am not a historian. I'm an engineer. I am Serb, but I don't live in Serbia currently. These articles (and many others) I am reading as I never had enough time to research this topic before (engineering schools), but it is relevant to me as my father's side of the family is from Ravna Gora, and many of my family members were Chetniks. I still remember the stories about great-granduncles who spent their last years up in the mountains (Maljen) hiding because of Communist prosecutions. And I am (from time to time) researching this as I want to know more if possible.

In that sense, this article is not ideal, yet it is not that badly written and it seems to mention negative and positive aspects. I, personally, find it believable that more not very well correlated groups used the same name: Chetniks. And it seems not to be impossible that some of them had different goals and approach. Stories of my friends from Montenegro seem to support this point of view. Their families are extremely anti-Chetnik. However most of the people in the village my father comes from and surrounding areas are very grateful for what they did for the people there.

Many of the things I have mentioned seem to have been discussed on this discussion page, but some seem to insist that this article is just bad. My question to previous two comments is: why haven't you commented on the arguments presented (which are similar to the tale I was told from time to time). Also, I saw some "threatening" by the same user in the sense: "I'll write a bad thing about Serbs tomorrow in my very visited blog!" which doesn't seem to help in any way. Why does it have to be a black and white picture? It seriously offends me when I hear Bosnians referring to "Chetnici" in a bad connotation. It also offends me when Serbs go to support the unproven stereotype of brutal killers by chanting some weird hating of Croats and calling themselves "Chetnici" because of it.

I have seen/met one too many Serb hater and vast majority of them stayed speechless when I asked them: why? What did Serbs do to you? And if a Serb did something wrong to you why would you hate all of us? I have friends in all exYu nationalities. Actually, my family, traced back around 300+ years is purely Serbian, as far as we know. I spent my youth in Belgrade and I have only few "Serbian" friend. My three best friends are: Slovenian, Vlah and Montenigrian. All born and raised in Serbia without any trouble. And many examples of Croats and Bosnian Muslims living in Serbia during the worst of times (for Serbs) in 90s as they were before. Do you know of any mass migration of non-Serbs from Serbia during the war? I have lived there and I have not seen it. None of my Croats and Muslims disappeared or complained.

Thus, after all this writing, please do not hate and oppose for the sake of it. I am very willing to know what was going on. And as I said: though not perfect this article does point out many things, good and not so good. I first want to see all those who shamed Serbian and did wrong "in the name of Serbia" to explain themselves and pay the price. No Serb should be ashamed of his past. That much I know, and if anything is casting a shadow on achievements of Serbian culture I am all for resolving it. But I rarely see any sense in these mutual accusations, and right now I had to express that to try getting at least some answer as no one before managed to tell me what they actually wanted to show. Many were not even there (in Serbia) ever or didn't even know more about "Chetniks" than "they were the bad guys", but would still spread that incomplete and superficial "knowledge".

Did I raise enough questions? :) Also, could someone explain (maybe in some different article) the genesis of word "Chetnici"? Is it from "Cheta" (formation)? all the best r18.62.30.9 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody hates you, but the article is substandard piece of Serbian propaganda. Haven't you resesarched what Chetniks did to Bosniaks? They slaughtered over 100,000 of us. They also collaborated with Nazis (read Marko Attila Hoare's work). AccountInquiry (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on proving my point, guys. Of course the reason that the article is sub-standard is because it's part of the Serbian wikipedia, not because the people who are editing it are nationalist fucktards who use the internet as an avenue to spread their nationalist propaganda from, with no real intention of improving wikipedia. God, some people.83.92.244.246 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

User:Bosniak|Bosniak recently added a POV tag to the article citing pov issues. The editor above also cites pov issues. If we are to keep the pov tag, it would be good if the specific pov issues are listed so that they can be discussed and adressed. Be specific!Osli73 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli, are you still denying genocide in Srebrenica? Well, if not, then I congratulate you. However, POV tag is there to stay. :: The article is substandard because it is dominated by "WikiProject Serbia" - it's their point of view. Bosniak (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, to begin with you should refrain from your personal attacks ("fascist" and "genocide denier"). That is absolutely not appropriate. Second, POV tags must be motivated by specific allegations, not general complains such as "it is dominated by Wikiproject Serbia". That is not sufficient for a pov tag.Osli73 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli, you have no authoirity to decide what's sufficient and what not for POV tag. The article is horrible, it is one sided Chetnik propaganda writted by Serbians. AccountInquiry (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrible one-sided anti-Chetnik propaganda

Sources were carefully selected to rehabilitate Chetnik collaboration with Nazis and to excuse Chetnik genocide over 100,000 Bosniak Muslims. WikiProject Serbia is attempting to rehabilitate Nazi Fascist Chetniks. AccountInquiry (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. This article had to be destroyed. It is an absoloutely disgusting example of pure anti-serbian pro nazi propaganda to try and attempt to make the Cetniks look as though they had anything to do at all with the Nazi accept fight them. Bosniaks and Croatians along with Albanians were the ONLY nazi fascist collaborators of the balkans for all of history and they are trying to take moral superiority from the Serbs by spreading their propaganda on the media, and the internet. The Cetniks were WII anti-fascists anti-nazis and supporters of the legitimate government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Recent changes

"A large number of western historians and publicists are still writing very maliciously and untruthfully about the Chetniks of D. Milhailovic, concealing the very existence of the relevant archive materials which are available precisely and exclusively in western archives."

I'm not an expert on Yugoslavia in WWII, but lines like this raise a ginormous red flag. Wikipedia is based around verifiability, not truth. If you admit that "western historians" think that Mihailovic and the royalists fought the Nazis rather than collaborated, then that means that's exactly what Wikipedia should report, even if it's false. If you disagree, then you need to change the historical consensus on the topic. Anyway, I find this all fairly hard to believe. Everyone can agree that the Americans were clearly fighting the Germans in WWII, and from the testimony of captured airmen from Operation Halyard, the Mihailovic's forces supported downed American airmen. That doesn't make any sense if they were working with the Nazis.

Now, it's entirely possible and in fact probable that royalist forces may have also settled old grudges and fought against Bosnians who weren't working with the Nazis, but that doesn't mean that they weren't an anti-Nazi outfit themselves, just that there was a lot of in-fighting in the Balkans then (and through quite a lot of history). SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?

To the person who wrote that Tito collaborated with the Nazi's. You did not understand what Djilas was saying in his book. How could Tito collaborate with the Nazi's during that time in 1943, when he was in battle against in southern Bosnia. The reason the Partisans met with the Nazi's was sign a "Live and Let Live" deal with the Germans. Where Tito and the high comand of the Partisans would lay down their weapons, and the members of the army would live. Hitler returned word to Tito saying "I never talk with rebels, I shoot rebels." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.231.252 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Josip Broz collaborated with the nazis?! Care to give any evidence of that, or did you just pull that one out of your serb-ass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.205.154 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Mihailovich NEVER did collaborate with the Germans, period. While it may be true that some of his lieutenants did, namely Djurisch, who was later repudiated by Mihailovich and murdered by the Ustasha in 1945, Mihailovich himself never did.

The similarly named Pop Djuic, who commanded Chetnik forces in Knin and later in Slovenia, DID collaborate with the Italians - namely to save Serbian lives.Djuic later saved scores of American and British Airmen and was allowed refuge in the USA at the end of the war.

BUT - Guess who did directly collaborate with the Nazis? - Good Old Ustasha-Commie Josip Broz himself. The facts? Read Milovan Djilas "Wartime" - Djilas wasn't exactly a Chetnik, was he, yet he documented meetings approved directly by Tito between top Partisan commanders and the German High Command. The most important of these meetings took place in March 1943, just when the Allies, based on the falsified Intelligence provided by the Communist Klugmann were about to abandon Mihailovich in favor of Tito.

Who actually kept those 32 German divisions bound for North Africa and Russia pinned down in Yugoslavia? The evidence suggests, from Martin and Lees on, that Mihailovich's Chetniks did, at least from the Summer of 1941 up to the spring of 1943. This was a force provided with machine guns that didn't work, ammo that did not fit revolvers, no mortars, no anti-tank weapons, summer uniforms dropped in the Winter - all courtesy of the Communist bastard and Soviet Spy Klugmann. By contrast, when arms deliveries to the Partisans began in earnest in the spring of 1943, they received mortars, tanks, machine guns, and later aircraft. NONE of these were provided to Mihailovich. None.

The source - hey, if you don't want to read the books by David Martin or Michael Lees, then here's one for you - Basil Davidson's own memoirs - "Special Operations Europe". Davidson, a Crypto-Communist, was Klugmann's deputy in SOE Cairo, and himself was an unabashed supporter of the Communists. Indeed, it was Davidson who supervised, with Klugmann, the initial dispatch of Croat Communists, former International Brigadiers, to Tito in the spring of 1942, after they were trained by the British. This, at a time when Mihailovich was still supposedly the principal ally of the British and Americans.

Klugmann deliberately changed Intelligence reports. He also sent false information to the BBC, claiming the Partisans were responsible for acts of sabotage against the Nazis when it was actually the Chetniks who completed the operations. Case in point - the notorious lie about the destruction of the Bor Mines - done by Chetniks and witnessed by the British Major Archie Jack, yet broadcasted as a Partisan operation. When Jack protested, he was silenced and later transferred out of Yugoslavia.

Another case in point, Chetnik operations against the Germans in Serbia in the fall of 1944 - all of the villages and towns up to Belgrade were ACTUALLY liberated by the Chetniks. American OSS officers witnessed these operations - and also witnessed how the Partisans would mortar and shell the Chetniks as they stormed these towns - doing NOTHING to the Nazis. Eventually Mihailovich had to abandoned the towns, as Tito's main patrons - the Red Army arrived.

Much more facts to refute the Communists and Croat apologists. But better yet, read a balanced history - or even read the Partisans own accounts - they were up to their eyeballs with the Nazis and with Pavelic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.65.91 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

During negotiations between Djilas and Germans in March 1943 it was agreed that in the case of invasion of Allies communists and Germans will cease to fight each other. That Milovan Djilas conceded openly in one TV show in Serbia during 1990s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanelo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Again.....care to give any SOURCES or did you just pull that out of your serb ass? With sources i mean actual pages, scans....come on, you would make your other genocidal heroes proud such as Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Vojislav Seselj etc etc. There are numerous photographs of chetnik scum with nazis and Ustasjas. Chetniks were allied with Anaker division in Bosnia and even acted as guides for the SS division during the battle of neretva.

But what you are writing is your typical serb neo-chetnik BS, frustration and nothing more son! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.114.102 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources needed for controversial/strong statements

The article makes a number of controversial/strong statements which really should be sourced properly. Some examples:

• The statement that "...he decided against a mass uprising because of catastrophic Serb losses in World War I..." really should have a reference
• The statement that "Croat historian Vladimir Zerjavic claims that roughly 40,000 lost their lives to forces affiliated with the Chetniks" needs a proper source (given the nature of the accusation). The current source is a Croatian website and not an academic paper. Vladimir Žerjavić is not a historian but a retired UN employee. His views are controversial and he claimed by many to be politically motivated. We should find another source (preferably academic paper) for this claim, or remove it (or at least the figure).
• The statement "It is unclear however how much say Mihailović himself had in these incidents. The Chetnik movement was highly decentralized, and in that way was more like a collective of many small regional guerrillas which shared the same name, rather than a unified army under complete control of Mihailović and his staff." should also be sourced, as it relates to the controversial issue of DM's.
• Nikola Kalabić's statement indeed needs to be sourced.
• The entire Controversies over "Instructions" section needs to be sourced. As it stands now, it is complete WP:OR.

Osli73 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree about Zerjavic; I don't really think it should be in the article either, but I stuck a single sentence there as a compromise for the long rant section that was being repeatedly added in citing Zerjavic.

As for the first statement, my main interest in the article is a book called "The Forgotten 500," whose main topic is Operation Halyard and backs up that and a few other sentences in the article. The Yugoslav stuff is important background material, but I'd be nervous about hanging too much of the article on that source. Still, I'll try and put some more in over the next few days. SnowFire (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other, reliable, source for the type of information now provided by Vladimir Žerjavić? In that case I think we should use that instead.Osli73 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Razbojnik i zlocinac

Ne da mi se pisati na engleskom posto vidim da su svi ovdje hrvati i srbi pa je glupo govoriti nekim trecim jezikom. Ne mogu podnijeti te cetnicke gluposti o tome tko se borio za oslobodenje, a tko je bio kolaborator. Prvo: mislim da je jako velika uvreda, svima onima koji su se borili u NOR-u, da su Mihajlovic i Tito na istoj listi saveznicke vojske na ovoj stranici. Cetnici, nedicevci, ustase i svi ostali izdajnici i kolaboratori su se zajedno s njemcima borili protiv partizana.Suradnju ustasa i cetnika potvrduje dosta ocuvanih spisa i izvjestaja iz NDH. U partizanskoj vojsci nisu bili samo komunisti nego i svi oni koji su se borili za oslobodenje (do 1943.? nosili su nacionalne trobojnice svi oni koji se nisu deklarirali kao komunisti). Drugo: mojim sunarodnjacima hrvatima zelim reci da je cinjenica da je prvi organizirani ustanak bio 22. lipnja kos Siska, ali je isto tako i cinjenica da su vecina ustanika bili hrvatski srbi. Bar do 1943. kada je Italija kapitulirala i dalmatinci masovno presli u partizane. Od pokreta otpora u srbiji nije bilo ni p (dobro bila je sacica partizana ali nista vece od bataljuna) do '44. i '45. kada je glavnina snaga NOV-a presla iz Bosne u Srbiju. Zelim jos samo poruciti svim cetnicima, ustasama i ostaloj nacistickoj bandi da bi bilo najbolje kada bi ucinili svijetu uslugu i slijedili svog Hitlera. Strojar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.85.75 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nije glupo ovdje pisati engleskim (premda ti je možda teže), jer pretpostavljam da ovaj Talk page neće posjećivati samo oni koji razumiju "naše" jezike. Ne moraju ti ovdje ništa dodavati, već samo da se upute u komplikovanost odlučivanja o nekim činjenicama. A možda ako neko od nas i posustane i oni ovdje možda nešto budu dodali. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article is in English and the discussion should be only English. Other languages contributions shoulb be deleted.--deguef (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Several connections. One, the Partisans maintained a level of open talk to the Nazi Germans, although not keeping as direct as the Chetniks had with the Italian Fascists. However, an important thing must be noted - Partisans' connections were based on ideological & personal interests, while that of the Chetniks relied in national interests of the people. On high command Draza never collaborated with the Germans, he was acquitted by the Partisan court - which could not have been the most supreme neutral & objective one in his royalist case - of all charges regarding war crimes against humanity and collaboration.

Two, the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland was composed of countless parchments and wasn't in centralized command like the Partisans, therefore there were Chetniks in normal service of the Serbian collaborators (and thus tolerated by the Axis), there were Chetniks fighting against the Partisans, Soviets, and even other Chetniks and Allies in General in service of Fascist Montenegro or together with the Ustashas, and there were the mainstream ones under Draza Mihailovic, which belonged to neither of these two groupations.

Three, the uprising was raised in Srb, and not Sisak.

Four, in 1941 in Montenegro and Serbia was the very first anti-Fascist uprising, and of massive scale that most of the countries were liberated, intense concentration of forces and shifting men from inland reserves and the fronts is the only thing which made the Axis regain secure control over the two regions, collaboration in Montenegro failed so they established dictatorship, and in Serbia it occurred the other way around - they were forced to give high privileges to seek collaborators to pacify the freedom fighters. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pax, no nonsense please. The Partisans diverted hundreds of thousands of Axis troops from the eastern front and were engaged in massive battles also involving hundreds of thousands of troops. The Germans diverted vast resources and numerous divisions to the sole purpose of annihilating and massacring the Partisans and Josip Broz Tito personally. You're implying they were a collaborating faction?
Tens of thousands of Chetniks troops fought in coordinated offensives alongside Axis divisions, assisted them against the Red Army and the Partisans (while they were Allies both of them), received vast amounts of supplies in order to do so, and ended up retreating alongside Axis troops in 1945 (for example, in Bleiburg). The ridiculous trend of equating the two of them is nonsensical at best. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

revert 080423

Hi, I've made a number of changes to the article. Here are my motives. Please comment them in turn if anyone has any issues with them:

1. Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland: is the formal name of the army which he commanded. Chetnic is the colloquial term.
2. Nationalist chetnik: three problems with this: this is a POV adjective clearly injected for present political purposes. It suffices to say that he was a leader of a resistance movement.
3. Chetnik Crimes Against Bosniaks and Croats: there is absolutely no reliable soruce for this section. The only source given is the Croatian Information Centre, a Croatian government propaganda institute from the time of Tudjman and the Croatian Heritage Foundation, a Croatian emigre interest group. That is not a reliable and notable source for such claims.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Article called say Yugoslav Allies in WW II

The section on relations with Britain & America belongs in the main article Yugoslav Front of World War II or a new expanded page to take over that section of it, called say Yugoslav Allies in WW II. There is no mention of the main influences Fitzroy MacLean and Ultra (not Randolph Churchill. Randolph Churchill was with Evelyn Waugh. Waugh put in a report about Tito’s persecution of the clergy, which was buried by Anthony Eden). Hugo999 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The trial

Draza Mihailovic was acquitted by the Partisan court of war crimes against humanity and on most accounts. Of the 47 points of the Prosecutors, he was convicted only for 8 - responsibility for mistreatment of Partisans and crimes against members of the Yugoslav Partisans, and for high treason (meaning loser in civil war). We should also note that the court was, naturally, ideologically biased against him, and not in any way in favor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the History Channel documentary about WW2 in Yugoslavia differs from these Serb nationalist articles on wikipedia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMbaPVvwHAY

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Just out of the top of my head: here is a direct citation of the OKW reports quoting General Edmund Glaise Von Horstenau:

“ The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them is a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger.[4] ”

(Belgrade, June of 1944) Remember, this guy had no reason to lie or fabricate facts in his reports to the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht: that is a criminal offense that could have cost him his career (or life). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As part of his opportunist policies in support of the creation of Greater Serbia, Mihailović issued the following Instructions (Serbian: Instrukcije) to his commanders on December 20, 1941: “ The mission of our units is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the King Peter II;

2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Bačka;

3. The struggle for the incorporation into our social structure of those non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorica, Istria, and Kaernten), as well as Bulgaria and Northern Albania with Shkodra;

4. The cleansing of all national minorities and anti-state elements from state territory;

5. The creation of direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Bosniak population from Sandžak, and the Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;

6. The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;

7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

ANYONE WITH A 2ND GRADE LEVEL OF EDUCATION WOULD KNOW THAT THIS IS TRANSLATION FROM THE SERBIAN TEXT ON THE SIDE IS A JOKE.. USTASHE IS TRANSLATED AS CROATS AND MUSLIM TRADES AS BOSNIANKS FROM SANDZAK... THIS ENTIRE TEXT IS A JOKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.140.90 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you think so... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaborationist Resistance

I simply love the idiom "collaborationist resistance movement" from the article's opening sentence. Whoever coined that is a comedic genius! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.96 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer at the changes in the article... ugh. Is it so hard to acknowledge that while you are well within your rights to dislike the man (the allegations of slaughtering non-Serbs for no crime are quite likely true), but that doesn't mean that everything about him must clearly be evil? His own telegrams obviously "allegedly" say things, but is there any reason to doubt that that's what the telegram said (even if it might possibly have been incorrect?). He didn't execute Pećanac for no reason or just randomly, he executed him because Pećanac was colloborating with the Germans. What's the point in churlishly removing the explanation? Do you want to seriously imply (against sourced material) that he killed him for fun or something?

It's possible to be both a murderous zealot (especially in the context of a war where there was murderous zealots on all sides) and fight the Nazis. Yeesh. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do not "hate" or "dislike" Draža Mihailović. What I "dislike" are weasel words that have been used in the article. Personally, I can't believe you reverted all my hard work on removing them. Let me name a few examples: When Mihailović just plain escapes as a fugitive, he is "refusing to surrender and retreating". The Partisans are constantly being referred to as "the Communists" which is plainly incorrect (they were a complex movement led by the Communist Party, i.e. a communist-led movement), in any case it is far more correct and NPOV to simply use "Partisans". Furthermore, the collaboration of the Chetnik movement with the Axis powers is beyond discussion. The historic evidence is simply overwhelming. These are the words of General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau in a report to the OKW which he wrote in Belgrade in June, 1944:

“ The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger. ”

According to a contemporary account, the Mihailović even had a liaison officer with the Germans. Of course, this is just an example. It is also a fact that the Chetniks under direct command of Mihailović attacked the Partisans in close coopertion with the Axis after the latter have been recognized (even by the King and the government-in-exile) and designated as the armed forces of the Allied state of Yugoslavia. Attacking Allied forces in cooperation with the Axis forces is the very definition of collaboration.

The rehabilitation of Chetniks can easily be compared to the rehabilitation of the Ustaše, or the Croatian Home Guard (something that actually happened in Croatia). The testimony of a few airmen that owed the Chetniks their lives and only saw a fraction of the movement's activities can and should be disregarded (or represented marginally), even if there were an actual source confirming it. The extremely unlikely theory that certain unnamed "communists in MI6" actually managed to falsify intelligence reports on the Partisans will require some serious corroboration, since those "communists" apparently included Randolph Churchill and Fitzroy Maclean, which are being described more-or-less as "poor idiots". As things stand it should not be included.

Finally, the fact that the Chetnik movement (during WW2) evolved slowly to become purely collaborationist in its de facto ideology does not matter, as we are concerned with the final state of a movement when characterizing it, i.e. with what exactly Mihailović's Chetniks were at the end of the war. Was their "final stage" in complete contrast with their original ideology as a resistance movement? Yes, a fact that is notable, but irrelevant and ommitable in the short version of their characterization.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

'Axis collaborationist'

How come this kind of qualification is in the intro? Collaborationist Axis militia fighting against Allied forces in Yugoslavia. After the war, he was tried and convicted of high treason by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad. What kind of commie-garbage is that? How can a man decorated with the highest military decorations by both the USA and France for 'contribution to Allies' victory', a man with monuments raised in the USA and a man with a memorial day of his own be named such? A man who ran an illegal resistance movement against the Nazis, who was proclaimed as the head of the Army by the King and a man whose head was priced 100,000 Reichmarks by Hitler's regime be named such? For Christ's sake, he was the only person in all South-Eastern Europe to get Legion of Merit - Chief Commander decoration and the only reason he was tried and executed was the animosity between Yugoslav royalists and Yugoslav communists lead by Tito. Both he and his movement are today rehabilitated in contemporary Serbia, while the only country in the world who ever accused him of being a Nazi-collaborator was ex-Yugoslavia, and the only subjects who today strongly oppose his rehabilitation are Croatian and Muslim nation who are the only ones who sided with Hitler in WWII and whose Independent State of Croatia was the fiercest fist of the Nazis in the Balkans. Many of both Chetniks (Mihailovich's anti-fascists) and Ustashas (Croatian and Muslim fascists) were offered amnesty by the Communists after the WWII, and now, ironically, the descendants of those fascists are the loudest to accuse Mihailovich of being, not Nazi-collaborator, but 'Nazi-collaborationist, an expression used in Serbo-Croatian speech and an equivalent of the English term 'collaborator'. This article really needs some cleaning. Leader of the first organized antifascist resistance movement in Europe who stayed loyal to his King and the Allies until the very end is presented as 'fascist', and executions of Ustashas as 'crimes against Croatian civilians'. Preposterous. 93.86.32.248 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For the millionth time: it is beyond dispute that Chetniks under the command of Draža Mihailović engaged in (1) collaboration and coordination with Axis occupation forces, and (2) engaged in combat against the Yugoslav Partisans AFTER these were recognized by the Allied powers and the King's government as the official military forces of the allied state of Yugoslavia. His decorations do not really prove anything and are completely meaningless. There are many sources to that effect and you can find them in this and other articles.

You are obviously POV and pro-Chetnik (Serb-nationalist) in your views. Please note that Wikipedia advocates the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost as obvious as you are an Ustasha (Croatian nationalist). </sarcasm> What kind of talk is that? First, a chetnik is a guerrilla fighter... ironically, a Slavic term for 'partisan', used to describe armed men, army, guerrilla fighters, soldiers and forces of law, and the very term refers to many armed groups in different times in Serbia and Yugoslavia, so the accusation of being 'pro-Chetnik' is meaningless. Second, if you refer to general Mihailovich's Chetniks, they are Yugoslav royalists and not Serbian nationalists. It is not 'beyond dispute' and I am sorry to see that due to efforts of generations of those Tito's Pioneers a communist narrow-minded point of view won over the true NPOV. I guess the only reason for that is that 50 years after the WWII general public of the USA, UK and France is relatively ignorant and uninterested about WWII persons from this part of Europe, while in countries of ex-Yugoslavia is this still a hot subject because of recent wars when Chetnik iconography was revived in totally different conditions. The fact that both he and his troops weren't and aren't considered 'Axis collaborationist' (sic!) in the USA, UK and France and that both he and his troops were rehabilitated after the fallout of the last remnant of ex-Yugoslav Communist regime Slobodan Milosevich in his homeland in 2000 speak for themselves. This article stays as it is... I see pictures of his war decorations by Truman and De Gaulle are removed, as well as pictures of his monuments in Serbia and the USA, alongside with his pictures with American and British Mission, and some garbage about 'Instrukcije' and alleged 'ethnic cleansing' are put... That means that autocratic propaganda prevailed once more. But this will not last and cannot last. All supposed 'evidence' and false patterns of accusation against Chetniks can be used on Communists, who also 'collaborated' with the Nazis in the same manner, and who also fought Chetniks while they, and not the Commies, were recognized by the Allies. I only hope that my comments won't be removed. 93.86.32.248 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No my friend, I'm the guy that reverts Ustaše freaks all over Wikipedia. Keeping Chetnik-sympathizers in check is just my hobby. Further, I know just about everything there is to know about the Chetniks, the Partisans, and the Ustaše, and I do not need history lessons. There is no new revelation you can present that will suddenly make me "see the light" and agree with your POV. I am also quite uninterested in your theories as to why Mihailović isn't lauded as the "hero of WWII Yugoslavia", I myself can only assume that the west does not want to turn out idiotic after awarding Josip Broz Tito with circa one million decorations (including knighthood and the Legion of Honor).

Now then, the exact nature of the Chetnik ideology is not the subject of discussion here. While you are completely incorrect in claiming that they were not Serbian nationalists, this is not the point of the issue. What we are discussing here is their collaboration with the Axis powers. To that effect I have only one question: If Mihailović did not collaborate with the Germans, why did General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau lie to the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht when he reported that Major Ritterkreuztrager is his liaison officer to Mihailović? Maybe he was a Comintern spy? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Absoloute Falsity of this Article

Dragoljub "Draza" Mihajlovic, was first and foremost, a defender of the Serbian people, The Kingdom of Yugoslavia and King Peter II. In all of these citations and pieces of text, which you so called "contributors" write, you speak of War Crimes, you speak of collaboration, well, it can be very obviously stated that the WWII Cetniks fought, at the same time a war against Nazi occupation, and against an illegal communist uprising under the illegal hand of Josip "Tito" Broz. There have been, no, and I repeat, NO, proven pieces of evidence to implicate any form of collaboration with the enemy (Nazis), in any way shape or form, anywhere. The actual article on both Draza Mihajlovic and WWII Cetniks has no, legitimate relevant, links to any pieces of hard evidence and this article is obviously completely biased as people from Croatian and Bosnia are allowed to come here and exert any personal opinion they want when they have well known Nazi backgrounds (Ustase), and have very obvious pathological hatred towards Serbians and Serbia and anything Serbian in general. All articles written on Wikipedia about Cetniks and their commanders and their history are tainted. At NO POINT, in Serbian History, have Serbs ever supported or been ruled by, a fascist or nazi government, willfully endorsed by themselves or previous legitimate governments. The timeline goes, SERBS MIGRATE FROM RUSSIA ON THE BALKAN - KOSOVO - ROMAN EMPIRE - FREEDOM AND ESTAB LISHMENT OF SERBIAN STATE - SERBIAN EMPIRE EXTENDS TO OCCUPY GREECE - TURKISH INVAISION AND BATTLE OF KOSOVO MILITARY DRAW - PARTIAL MIGRATION NORTH ALL OVER MODERN DAY YUGOSLAVIA (Serbia, Vojvodina, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro)- SECOND TURKISH INVAISION - OCCUPATION AND ANNEXATION INTO OTTOMAN EMPIRE - REBELLION (failure) - SECOND REBELLION VICTORY, KINGDOM OF SERBIA - FIRST WORLD WAR - KINGDOM OF SERBS, CROATS and SLOVENES - WW2 - SERBS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO FORCES, ROYALISTS(CETNIKS), COMMUNISTS(PARTIZANS), COMMUNIST VICTORY AFTER WESTERN BETRAYAL - SOCIALIST FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - FALL OF SOVIET UNION, BREAK UP OF YUGOSLAVIA - SERBIA and MONETENGERO - SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO BECOME INDEPENDENT FROM EACHOTHER

For that entire time line, there is, in no way shape or form, any kind of Fascist or NAZI, for that matter, rule, endorsed in any way shape or form by a legitimate government of an entity of Serbs. The argument that can be made is that at times, the Cetniks saw the Communist insurgency a greater threat to the survival and freedom and prosperity of the Serbian people, and he, General Dragoljub "Draza" Mihajlovic, decided that these communists would definitely overthrow the legitimate fair, free government under the rule of King Peter II and concentrated his forces on the communists. At this point, the British decided to betray General Draza Mihajlovic and cut off support to him, in which he had effectively a very slim chance of success and against two enemies, whilst Tito's Partizan insurgency was receiving aid from both the Soviet Union and later the Western Allies. The west immediately after 1917 proclaimed communism the moral enemy of all the world. So in Mihajlovic following their politcs and upholding them and their ideals the entire way, was effectively stabbed in the back by them, because a powerful, strong, equal Yugoslavia was not in their interests, and as they knew that in time, communism would be defeated, Tito would make sure that the Serbs had as little as they possibly could. As we can see, the United States and NATO have got a very decisive hold on the Balkans, with Yugoslavia being torn up into 7 republics (3 illegally) and 4 under NATO influence, theirs plans turned out to their success and benefit. Either way, their motives for betraying their friend and ally are disputed and unimportant for this article. The idea is, that Mihajlovic supported the West and the West supported him, until 1943, when he, following THEIR ideologies attempted to protect his nation and his people and defend his King's land from communism, the decided, larger threat, was betrayed and continued until the bitter end to fight for his people, his nation and his king, against the illegal communist insurgency. He never, ever, ever, ever, ever (and I could go on for days), aided, ignored or allied himself with any Axis force and the titles and texts of this article are absolute falsity and could be met with legal action in terms of Slander and Libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanHistoryExpert (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the above discussion(s). Be advised that removal of sourced content is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot libel or slander somebody that is dead. You can, however, get banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats, as has often happened. See WP:NLT. Regarding the matter at hand, I'd say you are somewhat underinformed, "BalkanHistoryExpert", in your claim that "he never, ever, ever, ever, ever (and I could go on for days), aided, ignored or allied himself with any Axis force". For example, in 1943, Mihailović ordered Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans, adding that Mihailović himself was unable to openly do so "because of public opinion". See Cohen, Philip J., Riesman, David; Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History Texas, pp. 45-6; A&M University Press, 1996. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Really. Who is that book written by. An American in Texas. Dragoljub Mihajlovic asked Momcilo Dujic to collaborate with the Germans. Could this POSSIBLY BE LIBEL PROPAGANDA written by the Americans in a bid to falsify moral superiority for their illegal and unprecedented betrayal of the Chetniks simply because they didn't like their agenda. The only true source which could prove Chetnik - Nazi collaboration is written military documents stating the their are to be dealings with the occupiers DIRECTLY from Dragoljub Mihajlovic himself. I am hereby forced to revert all changes which you made to my final post. Sources false, no sourced content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanHistoryExpert (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've already patiently expalained, no, this could not be libel or anything of the kind as all concerned are dead. *Sigh*. Regarding the rest of the remarks you have made, the only reasonable conclusion one is able to draw is that you are here not for the benefit of this encyclopedia but on some kind of POV crusade. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Pardon my wording. I wont say Libel, because they are dead. My mistake. Lies, Propaganda they are even worse. I am not on any POV crusade. I am on a crusade of truth, and I am here for the benefit of the encyclopedia. You obviously haven't read all of what I am have written here on TALK. Thats now... 23 Hours and 24 Minutes for you to find military evidence of collaboration or I will be forced to revert changes again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanHistoryExpert (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Another note, you source was, an American book, written by Americans from Texas in... 1996 in the times of American super propaganda in the Bosnian war to attempt to gain moral superiority over the Serbs. Now here we go. A time when American's really needed to shape the world's opinion on Serbs based on lies, simply because they needed to hide their betrayal of their friends and allies the Chetniks of WWII, in the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, to allow for another attack on Serbs in their illegal attacks on Serbia not allowed by the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanHistoryExpert (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, Mr.Expert, I am not concerned with your personal ideas of Truth^TM or "propaganda". All I am concerned with are sources. If you want to make controversial and contested edits you need them in abundance. They also must be published, reliable, scholarly etc... for information on what constitutes an acceptable source, see Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Until you have some, all your edits based on your own personal opinions and nationalist ideas will be promptly reverted, while removing sourced info and edit-warring may well earn you a report (see WP:3RR). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Drazas instructions - correct translation

Incorrect: The punishment of all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days.

Correct: The punishment of all Ustasas and Muslims who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days.

Incorrect: The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Serbs and Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

Correct: The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

This is also instruction number 8.

Instruction number 7 says: The punishment of all those who are guilty for our April disaster. (By April disaster author means April war with Nazi Germany).

According to Serbian text provided in article I changed wrongly translated instructions. Anyone who speaks Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian can confirm my corrections. Since there is no source for the instructions and for the scanned document I can only assume that these instructions are original and confirm that, with my changes, current translation of instructions fully correspond to Serbian text in the given scan exept the use of term Bosniaks since the original text mention only Muslims. --Marko M (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections, on behalf of all the editors of this article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Instrukcije were almost certainly forged by Djurisic and this view is now has support in serious scholarship. Not only is there no original of the document but Djurisic was known to have forged Mihailovic's signature on a former order of appointment when he, returned from Serbia to Montenegro in December 1941, believing Mihailovic to be dead in action.--As286 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is unfair on Mihailovic. His personal collaboration with Germans, as determinated choice, has not been proved so far. It was mainly Tito's propaganda supported by factious British pro-partisan sources.--deguef (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing issues

I have removed the section on ethnic cleansing, not because I believe that it did not happen nor because I deny any of the crimes listed in the section but because they have not been connected with Mihailovic at all nor have they been documented. There were in 1941 several major centers of uprising and many figures were involved in it, of which Mihailovic is only one. If these crimes are to be listed here as attributed to him or units under his command, then this needs to be properly documented and referenced.

The authenticity of the Instructions, in addition, has been seriously questioned. There is no original of the document and very good reasons to belive that it is fake.--As286 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we need to get a few things straight.

(1) The man was a traitor (Axis collaborator) without a shadow of a doubt. Forces under his overall command executed a large number of well documented attacks against Allied forces, namely the NOVJ (Partisans). I'm referring to incidents that took place at the time when the NOVJ was the universally recognized Allied Yugoslav force. The penalty for high treason was death.

(2) Some authors have indeed speculated as to the existence of the "Instrukcije", but this is speculation: there is in fact no evidence to suggest that the court "invented forgeries". In no case is this article about to introduce revisionist ideas: it is at least just as likely that Mihailović destroyed evidence during his hiding. Indeed, even if that were not the case, it would be extremely hard to actually obtain the "original" document, and if it actually existed it is perfectly logical that a copy from one of his subordinates would turn up, rather than the actual original.

All in all, a note may be included with reference to the doubts concerning the "Instrukcije", but to claim that they were (almost) certainly "forgeries" is biased POV: it won't fly.

(3) Furthermore, the Chetnik movement was a coherent force. Draža Mihailović was its undisputed supreme commander, appointed by the King himself (at least before He withdrew that support). They were a Serbian nationalist force fighting for a Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia, and slaughtering countless civilians in large ethnic cleansing campaigns. If you're suggesting that the crimes undoubtedly committed by the Chetniks were done "against Mihailović's orders". You're the one who's going to have to present sources.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re1) I agree that they executed attacks against NOVJ and that these would have been, under the new regime, a high treason. But if Allies also saw him as a traitor, why was he decorated by the Americans and the French AFTER the war??? On what the Allies thought about him see [5]

Re2) The provenance of the document is extremely obscure, to say the least. That it is "evidently" a forgery can be be surmised from the fact that Mihailovic was signed as "djeneralstabni general" which he did not become until 1942! Instrukcije are dated 20. December 1941.

Karchmar, Lucien, Draža Mihailović and the Rise of the Četnik Movement, 1941-1942, Garland Publishing, New York, 1987 [1973].(Pages 395-398)

Perhinek did not depart Ravna Gora immediately, and a few days later, with the outbreak of the civil war in Serbia, he was cut off from Montenegro by a belt of hostile Partisan territory. He finally got away at the beginning of December, avoiding the advancing Germans, and on December 18 reached Mount Golija near the borders of the Sandjak.

Meanwhile, Djurišić became impatient at the lack of news from Serbia. The situation in Montenegro had deteriorated, and contact with Mihailović was now far more urgent: his official status, daily proclaimed on the London radio, made him the natural leader of all nationalists, enabling him to issue the directives which would unite them and tell them what to do. In early December, Djurišić gathered a large escort and made his way to the Sandjak, reaching Golija on December 20.

Around this journey, the Montenegrins later built a legend which today has become enshrined in Četnik hagiography, and, for different reasons, in Partisan historiography. On his return, Djurišić claimed to have visited Mihailović at his headquarters. This version later acquired virtually the strength of dogma: Djurišić receiving from Mihailović’s own hands anointment as the Četnik prophet of Montenegro. But in reality Djurišić never reached Mihailović. The country north of Golija was saturated with German troops, Ravna Gora had been overrun by the enemy, and it was uncertain whether Mihailović was still alive. However, Djurišić was now intercepted by Perhinek, who handed over the brief authorizations, and also the news of the real situation in Serbia; the insurrection defeated, the Četniks scattered, and Mihailović a fugitive in the hills, and possibly dead. It was not quite the cheering tidings which Djurišić had hoped to bring back to the Vasojevići.

The reconstruction of Djurišić’s next move is partially conjectural, but all indications point to its validity. It would appear that Djurišić, a resourceful and enterprising man, now sat down and wrote himself a lengthy directive, the famous, or infamous, Order #370, to which he boldly signed Mihailović’s name. This forgery, whose putative authorship is generally accepted by Četnik authors just as firmly as Djurišić’s story of having received it from Mihailović’s own hand, was later to become one of the prime pieces of Partisan propaganda against Mihailović. But in the meantime, Djurišić, who seems to have already decided that he was the man to smash the Communists and save Montenegro, had a detailed and well-defined political platform on which to unite the nationalists. The document, besides repeating the appointments of Djurišić and Lašić to the posts foreseen by the original authorizations, proclaimed loyalty to the dynasty, a struggle against the Partisans, and war to the hilt against the Moslems, who were to be eliminated altogether from Jugoslavia; other than that, its expressed ideas came basically from Great Serbian ideology. To complete the job, Djurišić wrote two more authorizations: one to allow Lašić and himself to order the mobilization of all officers and other ex-Jugoslav military personnel under pain of death for failure to obey, and the other to permit the requisition of supplies under receipt. Endnotes (Pages 427-430)

Re 3) Once again, I agree. They were indeed slaughtering. But coherent force they were not. If they were, you would not have had people like Kosta Pecanac. All that is required here is that specific crimes are connected to specific Chetnik leaders. People like Pecanac were never under Draza. Indeed, the former was executed by the latter. So, list those crimes that can be connected with Draza and man under his command.--As286 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to the top of this page. You'll see a notice asking you to "discuss substantial changes here before making them". Its not there for no reason, I hope you'll follow its advice.

(1) His decorations are irrelevant. His actions as commander of an undeniably collaborationist militia (by 1944) are relevant. The Americans and the French do not constitute the Allies on their own. Certainly the most significant Allied power, the Soviet Union (cca. 500 divisions), considered him a collaborator beyond a doubt. In short, I won't discuss this further: it is indisputable.

(2) Your source is contradicted by all the ones you removed. Therefore, you have no basis to force through a removal of all that information, you're not being neutral. To start questioning WW2 war crimes trials is not something I'll be agreeing to without a lot more sources, and more reliable ones than Karchmar. As I've said, you're ok to add a neutrally-toned paragraph describing the possible falsities of the "Instrukcije", but neither you, nor Karchmar, have any evidence to prove the document was a "forgery". That's pure speculation.

(3) Ah, Kosta... I know I should have mentioned him above. Unfortunately, the actions of his small grouping are well documented, and I was talking about the Chetniks, not the Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac. Draža executed him and by doing so asserted his control of all the Chetniks. Up to the end of the war, there were very few "independent" Chetnik groups, and these are no longer known as Chetniks. If you want to prove that all these mass killings, performed by many if not all his units, were against Draža's wishes and orders, you'll need an unbiased professional source. Of course, there are none...

Conspiracy theories do not replace mainstream views on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not want an edit war and will stop reverting. I can also add that I agree, in substance, with most of what you are saying. I, too, believe that Mihailovic's movement did a lot less to fight the occupier than NOVJ. I too think that Cetnik crimes are numerous and wide-spread. And I too believe that Mihailovic could probably be connected with a number of them. This however, will not remove three serious issues we are discussing here:

- The French, Americans and British all regarded Mihailovic as an ally all the way up until the end of the war. Their support was in 43' given to partisans not because Mihailovic all of a sudden became a more reliable German collaborator than he was until then but because he was not as effective a fighter as Tito was. In other words, he did very little or nothing to fight the Germans. Even though, all the allies protested at and after the trial and execution. The Soviets would naturally not see Mihailovic as an ally as he was a nationalist but even Radio Free Yugoslavia hailed Mihailovic in 1941 and all the way up until early 1942 (for which Tito was furious, more details on this in Jasper Ridley's bio on Tito,). That radio, stationed in Ufa, was directly sponsored and controlled by Stalin's men.

- Instrukcije simply do not exist in the original, their language is very obscure and does not match any of the other known documents of similar nature, they are either misdated or forged (otherwise the signature would not have been "djeneralstabni djeneral"). Djurisic was a VERY dubious character and his evidence on all kinds of issues has been put in doubt many times. All of this does not mean that I am trying to prove that Mihailovic was not a nationalist nor that he would not have ordered execution of partisans. Only that he was not behind that particular document.

- Mihailovic was never tried for "crimes against humanity", only for "crimes against NOR". That much is evident even from the indictment: [6] The crimes listed on the page all did happen, and were all committed by Cetniks but no evidence had ever been presented that Mihailovic ordered them. If you read the indictment carefully, you will see that almost all items (from about number 42 in the section labelled "War crimes" below) relate to crimes against partisans and their supporters. Where they do not (i.e. where random villagers are killed), it is always one of Mihailovic's officers or soldiers who does it without a specific order coming from him being presented. So, I am not saying he would not have done nor that it was not in his policy (these issues are better left to historians) but simply: the evidence on this page is poorly presented.

In short, the section is very important, relates to controversial issues but remains practically undocumented.--As286 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) What they "regarded him" is irrelevant, I keep telling you. There can be no doubt as to the man's collaboration with the Axis against the Partisans. Today we even have quotes from German intelligence reports to the OKW implicating him directly. He may have been doing what he honestly perceived as the best course for Yugoslavia, as he (correctly) saw the Partisans as the greatest threat to Yugoslav monarchist unitarianism. Unfortunately for him, the Partisans he was trying desperately to destroy were Allied troops, and the guys he'd been getting the supplies from were the fascists. Hitler also acted in a way he honestly believed was best for Germany...

(2) I understand what you're saying, and I can see there could be some truth to that. However, I cannot imagine it replacing the section: that's pure WW2 historical revisionism. As far as I'm concerned, you may add your stuff to the article as long as its neutrally worded. What I'm saying is that it does NOT justify the removal of the text you deleted, and the sources that supported it.

(3) You're failing to understand my point: he was the Chetnik supreme commander, and such acts were quite widespread. You need to "prove" that he didn't order them, not I that he did. You need to prove that the Chetnik units under his command did not act upon his orders (especially in such large-scale occurrences).

Furthermore, he was clearly accused of crimes against humanity, the murder of civilians and ethnic cleansing, the exact wording 60 years ago is of little relevance. Also, I refuse to accept Serb-nationalist websites as "reliable sources" in any capacity.

Nice try. The section is fully up to Wiki standards, along with sources and even images of the subject matter. Add your stuff, but don't wantonly destroy valid sourced info because of speculation on the part of one borderline-unreliable author. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Whether he was collaborator or not is not a matter of a verdict issued by a communist court but of historical research. The fact that his war opponents labelled him as collaborator does not make him one. The current edition of Britannica calls him "Yugoslav resistance leader" and talks of "rumours" of collaboration only in Italian-controlled parts of Montenegro. Oxford dictionary of political biography (1998) also calls him "Yugoslav general and non-Communist (Cetnik) resistance leader". McDowell and other americans were visiting him in eastern Bosnia in 1944, way after they started supporting Tito. In short, issues like this are never black and white and you know that, even though you attempting to present them as such.

2) I only ask you to answer, to the best of your knowledge, one questions here: what is your explanation for the fact that Draza calls himself "djeneralstabni djeneral" in Instrukcije, dated 20. December 1941. He was at that time only a "pukovnik". Was he drunk or drugged when he did that? Because after 20.12.1941 and all the way he continues to sign himself as "pukovnik" and does not get promoted into "djeneralstabni djeneral" until 1942.

3) In one point you are right: until the verdict is overturned (if it ever is), the burden of proof is on those who claim that he did not do it. But that is not what I am trying to do at all. Quite the contrary. I am saying that he is probably responsible for a number of things in Bosnia but that the evidence presented in 1946 would never have stood up in court today. For instance, the notorious Cetnik massacre in village Vranic south of Belgrade, where more than 60 civilans were brutally massacred was perpetrated by Spasoje Drenjanin "Zeka" of Avala corps. He was formally under Draza but in fact was a "lose cannon". And for crimes in Bosnia there is actually much harder evidence that would support your claim better (e.g. Dedijer and Miletic, Genocide against the Muslims 1941- 1945. - Anthology of Documents and Testimonies, Sarajevo 1989) had you only bothered to look into it.

As for "borderline-unreliable" author (you mean Pavlowich, I suppoose), he is published by "Columbia University Press".

Finally, the website merely reproduces, in English, the indictment. What is biased about that? The indictment is simply as it is, only translated into English (and in pdf format). I don't get your problem there.--As286 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--As286 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) It has been "historically proven" that the man was collaborating with the Germans. OKW reports are just an example of conclusive proof for Mihailović's guilt. He actually had a German liaison officer on his staff, Major Ritterkreuztraeger (as reported by General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau to his superiors in the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW). After the SOE gave up on supplying him, the Germans were the only ones that could give his depleted forces munitions and other supplies. By "doing business" with the occupying troops alone, he did actually become a traitor (guilty of high treason), and would have been shot anyway with not a single mark on the "evil communist legal system".

(2) Perhaps the Instrukcije were reprinted at a later date, with the commander's rank observed in the print. In either case, that minor issue does not disprove or prove anything. You're thinking like a conspiracy theorist: "one thing doesn't add up therefore the whole thing is a fraud, and my theory of 'forged evidence' MUST be correct."

My problem is that such a website is not a reliable source for any info, whatsoever. Anyway, the charge did include civilian massacres, and was supported by the Instrukcije. These are "crimes against humanity" and "ethnic cleansing" in modern terminology. Just because the charges did not include these exact words, does not mean he was not convicted of this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Why, of course, it has been proven. He was collaborating at least as much as partisans who had a mission (Velebit, Kardelj, Ribar in 1942 and again 1943) sent to Germans in Zagreb. This was not a secret, even while Tito was alive. By your standards, they would be traitors as well, as they were "doing business with the occupying troops". In eastern Bosnia, Ustase and Partisans fought together against Cetnik leader Zvonimir Dangic. And so on and so on... So if they both collaborated with the occupiers then they both must be collaborators.

2) "Perhaps" they were reprinted? You mean somebody showed up later and simply added the words above Mihailovic's signature. And, it is not just one thing that does not add up. The date does not add up either. On the 20th, Mihailovic was hiding somewhere in some mouse-hole and Instrukcije would assume that he met with Djurisic before that date. We now know from Rudolf Perhinek and some others that this meeting actually never took place. In other words, Djurisic's invented the meeting.

Finally, as for his crimes, real and invented, and what the allies thought of them (at least the American ones) you can see in Martin, David. Patriot or Traitor: The Case of General Mihailović: Proceedings and Report of the Commission of Inquiry of the Committee for a Fair Trial for Draja Mihailović. Hoover Archival Documentaries. Hoover Institution Publication, volume 191. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1978.--As286 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An unpleasant discourse between two good editors, that can easily be resolved by editing the article entirely in line with what the sources say. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) The Partisan mission? Another conspiracy theory and unproven speculation. Indeed, historical events themselves prove conclusively that the Partisans were not collaborating with the Germans. Historical events such as 7 large-scale offensives involving hundreds of thousands of Axis troops, the kind of which were never carried out against the Chetniks, and have very few if any parallels in all occupied Europe as far as their scale is concerned. The Partisans were led by the Communist Party, by that fact alone, it is highly unlikely that fascist powers would supply and cooperate with them. In either case, this has no bearing on the matter whatsoever: we are talking about the Chetniks and Draža Mihailović.

(2) What? Mihailović was dead in 1943? He could not have issued the directive more than just once during the entire war?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Speculation? Tito himself talked about it to Dedijer and others!!! How blind do you want to decide to be? Vladimir Velebit, a high communist official who was IN THE MISSION, wrote about it in his biography and in interviews (Velebit, V, "Tajne i zamke drugog svjetskog rata" Prometej, Zagreb 2002, ¨Vlado Vurušić, Razgovor s Vladimirom Velebitom. Čovjek kojem je Tito povjeravao tajne, Globus.br. 386, Zagreb, 1. svibnja 1998., 100.) So did Djilas in his. In history this is even referred to as "The March Negotiations".Do you honestly believe that putting things in bold or italics is going to make your argument stronger? Tito's first offer to Germans, brought by captured officer Hans Ott, was that he (Tito) be left alone to fight Cetniks in exchange for peace south of the Sava river and no attacks on the Belgrade-Zagreb railway line. This has high bearing on the matter as you claim that Mihailovic was a collaborator. I claim that he was only as much a collaborator as Tito was. I have not been shouting abuse here but offered relevant sources that can be checked and talked about so please treat them as such.

2) Why don't you read what is said instead of speculating endlessly. The paper is allegedly given to Djurisic specifically. If it had been issued again it would have had a new date, as was the practice of Mihailovic HQ. You can see how this was done even in documents available in Zbornik NOR-a. Please get yourself updated on facts.--As286 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Despite appearances, I'm not the one to idealize the Partisans. At the very worst, these "missions" were an obvious failure and do not constitute "collaboration" on their own. Even if the Partisans wanted to collaborate, they were unable to do so. Wanting to commit a crime does not mean you are guilty of it. I wanted to kill my histology professor, but that alone does not make me a murderer. :)

(2) As I've said before, you're thinking like a conspiracy theorist: "if the date is wrong then the court MUST have forged evidence.", if one thing does not quite add up, and there is no plainly obvious explanation for the slight indiscrepancy, then that's the proof of a conspiracy. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

Add your text (in neutral wording) but don't delete entire sourced sections. I can't agree that your, quite valid, doubts justify the deletion of all that text. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In my case it was the biology professor. I agree about the changes.--As286 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, it's not that complicated. Just make the article an expanded bibliography. Every sentence should be supported by an inline citation, ideally from a book. I personally would delete from controversial articles every sentence that does not have a direct cite to a decent author. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclussion: According to Serbs, all evidence that points against them is either a) forgery, b) conspiracy, or c) lies. Well, it's time for you to take some responsibility for history and stop denying genocide that Serbs committed against Bosniaks in the World War II. Bosniak (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaborations with Nazis

Despite Serbian claims to the contrary, Germans were not alone in killing the Jews of Serbia. The long concealed Historical Archives in Belgrade reveal that Banjica, a concentration camp located in Belgrade, was primarily staffed by Serbs. From Banjica there survive death lists written entirely in Serbian in the Cyrillic alphabet. At least 23,697 victims passed through the Serbian section of this camp. Many were Jews, including at least 798 children, of whom at least 120 were shot by Serbian guards. The use of mobile gassing vans by Nazis in Serbia for the extermination of Jewish women and children has been well documented. "Holocaust History Misappropriated" by Philip J. Cohen, MIDSTREAM: A Monthly Jewish Review November 1992. Volume XXXVIII No.8 http://void.nothingness.org/archives/situationist/display/8932/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescued Pilots, Here is Why

While it is true that during the War, both the Partisans and pro-German Serbian-Nazi Chetniks aided Allied pilots in escaping, they did so because they were paid in gold for each one. However, only NAZI collaborator and fascist Draza Mihailovic received Medal, due to intensive Serbian lobbying and propaganda in the U.S. British historian Marko Attila Hoare: [http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=297 Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator ]; Henry Jackson Soceity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

God, articles like this sometimes make me thing that Eastern Europeans should not be allowed to write anything about any controversial subject in their history. This whole article appears to have been written a) by pro-Chetnik Serbian nationalists; and b) by anti-Chetnik Croatian and Bosniak nationalists. Virtually every sentence in the article and certainly on the talk page appears to have been written by raving nationalists who are using this article as some sort of proxy-continuation of the wartime struggle between the Chetniks and the Partisans. How hard would it be to look at what the major works on the subject in English say and to then report the controversy? Awful. john k (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Balkans. While what you say is a pretty accurate and concise summary of the state of affairs here, not all of us round here should be tarred with the same brush. Hopefully ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, your comments are sensible. I just get frustrated at these kind of articles, where I read them and then have absolutely no idea what the state of knowledge really is. john k (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I mostly gave up trying to "help" the article after most of my changes were reverted. I've meant to research this issue more thoroughly myself, but to put it bluntly, this is case where pretty much anything written by someone with a stake in it should be thrown out. I don't even mean to say this from an old British imperialism perspective (though most work on it probably is Anglo- and American); I'd trust a Vietnamese historian writing about the topic far more than a Serbian or a Bosnian here. Ban anything unsourced, and ban anything sourced to a work that has a chip in this fight. That's probably the only way to get a sane article, maybe with a "Historiography" section at the end that can include the disputed parts. SnowFire (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think getting rid of anything unsourced or poorly sourced is a good beginning.--As286 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

John K, the Freeman book (which is about the only source cited on this page) is in English, I actually read it a few weeks back which is how I came to hear of Mihailovic. Who ever quoted it did a great job of leaving out anything that disparages Tito, which the book does repeatedly. I am tempted to add stuff like that as well as to read other sources from reputable historians. But then I see that these heroes have been fighting over this page for five years and I'm extremely disinclined.Let'sGoO's (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the DIREKTOR-signal in the sky, what's all the commotion about? Agreed, this article is indeed a mess... I couldn't find the energy to start weeding through all the nonsense like I did on several similar articles.

The heart of this problem is the current situation in Serbia, where the Chetniks, long denounced for their (simply undeniable) collaboration with the Axis, are being "rehabilitated". Much like the Croatian Home Guard in Croatia. Draža Mihailović was the Chetnik "Vojvoda" ("warleader"). The Modern-day president of the "semi-anti-Western" Serbian Radical Party (which is a very significant force in Serbian politics), Vojislav Šešelj also calls himself "Vojvoda". Some people from Serbia are essentially trying transfer the general attitude towards the Chetniks that exists in their country to Wikipedia's articles. Unfortunately, that attitude is simply not in sync with the historic facts, which are highly unfavorable towards the Chetniks (they turned out to be more-or-less militarily incompetent and opportunist)

Let'sGoO's, I don't understand your cmnt? This article is on Draža... This is not the place to list all the "bad things" on Josip Broz Tito in an effort to create some kind of "democratic equilibrium" between the two. One is the Allied leader of Yugoslavia, the other is a Serbian nationalist, a traitor, and a collaborator. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DIREKTOR, the article is a mess. Part of the reason for that is quotes such as this from you:

The heart of this problem is the current situation in Serbia, where the Chetniks, long denounced for their (simply undeniable) collaboration with the Axis, are being "rehabilitated."

But of course it's deniable. Like I said before, I've meant to read more on this myself, but of the sources I've read, the claim that Mihalovic collaborated is emphatically denied. Sources that are not Serbian pap pieces, mind. Are they wrong? Maybe. But this is, at worst, a hotly contested issue and not something that should be blithely stated as fact. (And the reason that their reputation has been rehabilitated is because Tito is long dead and obviously anything that would make the Chetniks good would have been censored before.)

There are two claims here that are absolute gigantic "citation needed with RELIABLE SOURCES" magnets. These are the claim that Mihalovic (Mihailovic specifically, not the Chetniks in general) collaborated with the Axis, and the claim that he engaged in/condoned slaughters of the Bosnians / Croats/ non-Serbs (again, Mihailovic, not just "some Chetniks.").

The stuff you mentioned about modern day Serbian racism? True but I fail to see any relevance here. (To be clear, since you seem to think it's relevant, I certainly do not excuse the Serbian government's genocidal evil in the 90s, mind.) Were the Chetniks effective against the Axis? Hard to say, but being ineffective is a rather different claim than collaboration. And nobody denies that the Royalists fought a vicious civil war with both the Ustase and the Communists, and part of war involves killing people. The real question is if genocide against civilians occurred. As best I know, this is still massively disputed. Unfortunately, since Tito ran a dictatorship, this casts a lot of doubt on the sources and historians best equipped to investigate this at the time, so sorting out the truth from the propaganda is hard and not something Wikipedia editors are equipped to do. Solid secondary sources analyzing the historical record are required, and to put it bluntly I don't believe many of the sources you cite. SnowFire (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, the Freeman book says the Partisans began aggressively attacking the Chetniks in Nov '41. At which point Mihailovic was not a collaborator or traitor but was receiving aid from the British. This is something that I think could be placed in the Relations With The Partisans section. I also think that in the Relations With The British And Americans section it should be worth noting that some Chetnik actions against the Germans were misattributed to the Partisans by Soviet moles like Klugmann who worked in British intelligence. This was done to help sway British aid efforts solely to the Partisans. I'm not here to bash Tito or praise Mihailovic, or refight this war, or try to pass off revisionist lies as history. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I just think these are two things worth adding to paint a fuller picture of a clearly complicated situation.Let'sGoO's (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know in retrospect, I don't think it's that bad, it's just been edited so many times that it's like two printers trays collided and you're left with this choppy jumble. I'll try to clean up the flow of things and add little bits of context here and there in that effort. I do not intend to delete anything or drastically change the underlying truths here.Let'sGoO's (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's Go: I was the one who added the references to the Freeman book before. DIREKTOR and others have since edited it into mush. This has a bunch of stuff not written by me, but the last version I kinda looked over (which admittedly was light on later details, and kind of messes up the timeline on the Tehran conference is this diff. SnowFire (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like the way this discussion is going, SnowFire. I did not "edit the article into mush", nor did I use weasel words. This article was in a far worse state before I got here than it is now. It was nothing more than a place for IPs to express their adoration for the Chetniks. This article is/was consistently under attack by IPs glorifying the guy, it was a lot of work weeding out the (unreferenced) nonsense. If left alone, the article will return into the state it was in when I found it simply by "attrition".
Now I'm fully aware nobody wants to get involved into Balkans politics, but you're on the Draža Mihailović article. This guy is an icon of Serbian ultra-nationalism... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1944?!

What's this nonsense about 1944?! The Tehran conference (1943) is when the Partisans were recognized as an Allied force, and is also a year in which the Chetniks continued to fight against them. At that time they were an Axis force (for attacking Allied troops in cooperation with Axis forces and with their supplies). The Vis Agreement is an internal agreement that assures the recognition of the government-in-exile. Its simply where the Partisans were recognized as the Allied Yugoslav forces. They were allied from the Tehran Conference, which makes the Chetniks "fit the description" of Axis forces (collaborators) from 1943. Nice try though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your nonsense about 1943? You write with such rude arrogance. What makes you think that you are right? Clearly you are not. The Chetniks were loyal and recognized by the Yugoslav Government, so they are an Ally. They continued to get weaponry from the allies, so they were on the side of the allies. On top of all that they did continue to attack the axis, so they were an ally. Need any more clarification? The Treaty of Vis is when the Yugoslav government recognized the Partisans and since then, and only then, is it fair to say that the Chetniks were no longer part of the allies. (LAz17 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)).

Its not arrogance, its extreme annoyance and frustration, most likely brought on by having to repeat myself 50 times to you.

The Yugoslav government has nothing to do with "who's Allied and who's Axis". Collaboration (Chetniks) and recognition by the Allied powers (Partisans) does.

• IN 1943: 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently, repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the situation in Yugoslavia as it stood in 1944

Here is first-hand evidence, as reported by Time Magazine, from American soldiers present in the region (not some propaganda spewing historian after the fact) that the Chetniks were fighting the Nazis as late as 1944:

Lieut. Robert L. Eagan, Chicago: "I witnessed on several occasions combat between the Chetniks and the Germans, while the Chetniks would be attacked by Tito's Partisans from the rear."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,776851,00.html

Does this mean Tito was a Nazi collaborator?

The fact is that the events in Yugoslavia during the war were very complicated, and with respect to the Nazis (and their declared Ustashe, Bosnian, and Albanian allies, and Nedic quisling government), the Partisans, and the Chetniks was a three-way war in which while at times one party might have done something that benefited a third-party in an attempt to weaken those whom they felt to be the greatest threat, this can hardly be called collaboration.

I am not a Serb, but fair is fair. For the time being, I am removing all references to collaboration, save one that the controversy exists. I would suggest that the ethnic cleansing issue also be addressed by an interested party, but I don't have any evidence at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.147.62 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess actually contemporary eyewitness accounts dont' count as sources.

--140.182.147.62 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. There is, for example, this guy that claims he saw an order by Tito stating "Kill!!" (a ridiculous military order) during the Bleiburg massacres, yet we have a telegram by Tito specifically warning his commanders to keep their troops in control. There are people who claim they saw aliens last week, unrecognized eyewitness testimony is the crappiest form of "evidence". What you need is published works by historians citing this guy as a primary source, and drawing a conclusion that the Partisans were collaborators or whatever you wish the quote to prove. You can't just cite some guy, draw a conclusion, create some kind of logic of your own and claim this points to Draža Mihailović "not being a collaborator". We're here to present facts and conclusions of respected published historians (preferably not from around here). Such a source could not be disputed, this isn't even a source.

Concerning your ridiculously udiscussed, unilateral, and immensely controversial move of removing any mention of the man's collaboration, well... lets just say you'll need a talkpage consensus and quite a bit more sources before you can do something like that. The man was convicted of high treason by Yugoslav judicial authorities, and while some may dispute the conviction, I'm not about to start some revisionist discussion on the validity of post-WWII tribunals here with you. He is a convicted collaborator, and stating otherwise without any basis is unacceptable revisionism. "Fair is fair"? Well, who made you the judge of what's fair and what's supposedly "unfair"? Its seems obvious you are oblivious to the implications of your high-and-mighty "ruling" on this issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I may add that you show little understanding for the diplomatic and political situation in 1944. In 1944 (and even in 1943), the Partisans (or the National Liberation Army) were the recognized Allied military force of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (UN charter, formed on agreement between the AVNOJ, and the government-in-exile and the King). This state was represented on the ground in Yugoslavia by the Partisans as the Allied military force. The Chetniks of Draža Mihailović had no legal status whatsoever, and were constantly in conflict with these local Allied forces, and were receiving large amounts of supplies (ammunition, food, rakija, etc.) from the Axis forces in order to do so (this is all sourced). Mihailović was certainly, and at the very least, aware of this collaboration taking place for more than three years, and is therefore guilty by command responsibility. This is even if we grant that he personally did not collaborate (i.e. agree), which is highly unlikely since we know now from the OKW reports that Mihailović had a German liaison officer on his staff, Major Ritterkreuztrager. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I think the question is who made YOU the supreme judge of fairness? This article is one of the worst perversions of truth on the entire site.

I did NOT remove all mention of Mihailovic's being a collaborator, I said it is controversial. The fact is that you are lying about an easily provable point, so how can you be trusted with important issues? I'll stop with the personal attacks and let people make up their minds.

To say that Time Magazine isn't a real source, but some guy working for the Croatian government is, is beyond ludicrous.

Furthermore, taking the legal meaning of "Allies" here is not very useful, as the actors in Yugloslavia (at least the Serbs) had interests in mind that didn't coincide with the those of the USSR (or the UK for that matter),the "Allies"--- and certainly not the Germans. 140.182.147.62 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I ought to be ashamed of myself? LoL xD, why so? At least I'm not here on a poorly concealed agenda. Nobody made me the "judge of fairness", the "judges of fairness" have long reached their verdict. I believe the sentence was death by firing squad for high treason against the Yugoslav state. Buddy, "fairness", especially your idea of fairness, is not something Wikipedia cares about very much - its sources. Professional, published sources by historians. That statement from some guy that Time magazine quoted is not very compelling proof that Draža Mihailović was not a collaborator. In fact, it has nothing to do with Draža does it?

• Re: "I did NOT remove all mention of Mihailović's being a collaborator, I said it is controversial."

How about your statement above, in your first post? "For the time being, I am removing all references to collaboration, save one that the controversy exists." Easily provable point? It certainly is. And the matter is no more "controversial" than the holocaust or evolution. Moving on...

• Re: "Furthermore, taking the legal meaning of "Allies" here is not very useful, as the actors in Yugloslavia (at least the Serbs) had interests in mind that didn't coincide with the those of the USSR (or the UK for that matter),the "Allies"--- and certainly not the Germans."

Oh LoL, FAIL. I think I shall have to disagree with you. I don't think its "unhelpful" to make clear the legal status of people and factions when talking about collaboration charges, particularly the "legal meaning of 'Allies'".

Your talk about "Serbian interests" is so ridiculous I honestly don't know how to respond. :) There's just so much wrong with your above statement I don't know where to begin. For starters, your own laughable ideas about the WWII "interests" of Serbs do not concern me in the least. How in the world do you know what the Serbian interests were, and how in the world did you imagine that they conflicted with the interests of the USSR or the UK or whatever?! Keep your ideas on Serbian interests to yourself, plz. (You should also know that far, FAR more Serbs joined the Partisans than the Chetniks.)

Actually he has a point. Referenced works by historians are SECONDARY sources, but there are also PRIMARY sources which are equally as valid. A TIME magazine article from 1944 from a fighter in the area who says the Chetniks were fighting Germans is completely revelant and can be cited as a source. Furthermore its much more easily verifiable than history books often which are not found online but are frequently used as citations.

Next you can hardly use the trial against Draza Mihailovic as sufficient proof that he was guilty of collaboration. EVERY SERIOUS SCHOLAR on post world war II Yugoslavia admits that Tito purged the entire country of enemies in the years following WWII in order to stay in power. If you want sources I can provide them but any impartial observer will acknowledge this fact without having to have sources provided to him.

Yugo91aesop (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick typo fix please?

{{editprotected}} While on a WP:TYPO drive I came across the article, which of course is fully protected so I can't edit it. If any admin would like to correct two typos in the first picture's caption ("event was labeled"), I would appreciate it.

Thanks, WordyGirl90 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; an admin friend of mine made the correction :) WordyGirl90 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done ;-) Killiondude (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect pls

The dispute that caused this article to be full-protected is over, User:Rex Dominator was a sock of User:Mike Babic. Chetniks was unprotected, but this article was forgotten. The full-protection is unnecessary, though a semi-protection may be necessary if the IP of User:Rex Dominator decides to drop by (as he is doing right now in the Chetniks article). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What a mess !

Ok, I think we're having huge issues with Mihailovic. If I look at the current French article, it's "Mihailovic was a pure-hearted hero, he didn't do huge offensives because he cared about the civilians, and he got backstabbed by the Allies who favored this son-of-a-bitch Tito". If I look at this article, it's "Mihailovic was a son-of-a-bitch who collaborated with the Germans and committed ethnic cleansing". I.e., "let's rehabilitate the great Serbian hero" vs "Socialist Yugoslavia's official history is always right". Now, I don't think articles should look like shrines or smear campaigns. Mihailovic and the Chetnik's history is certainly complex and difficult to assess, but wikipedia isn't helping at all at the moment. Do we have recent, trustworthy sources ? Are those ethnic cleansing orders real (and still recognized as such) or are they forgeries ? How about the efforts for Mihailovic's rehabilitation which have been going on for over twenty years (and have been somewhat succesful) ? I'm not trying to do some POV-pushing of my own (I don't have a definitive opinion on the matter), I'm just perplexed. I really think some work should be done, and using other sources than Yugoslav official history (which is biased) or amateur websites based on the above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on on the French Wikipedia (wish I knew enough French to contribute :), and I honestly don't care about "Socialist Yugoslavia's official history", but after a long time digging-up sources on WWII Yugoslavia there can simply be no doubt he was a collaborator (i.e. that his execution was "justified", if such things ever are).

I guess its just amazing how obscure history can get warped by wartime nationalist propaganda. Among other primary sources, we've now got:

• quotes from German generals and Field Marshals explaining how useful he was
• actual Axis/Chetniks treaties signed by Mihailović's direct representatives
• we've got Mihailović commanding troops of Nedić's Serbia

Is more necessary? Anyway, I recommend you read the Axis collaboration section of the Chetniks article for more info. Every bit is completely sourced with university publications. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them. And they did so, more and more...

— Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, 1945

Thanks, I'll have a look at this. The trickiest thing is apparently to assess the responsibilities of Mihailovic himself, and sources seem to be really conflicting on this. The book Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945 states that while the Chetniks and the Axis's goals coincided during the Fourth offensive, there never was a direct military cooperation and that the Germans opposed the Italians' idea to tolerate the Chetniks and fight primarily the Partisans. Apparently, in that moment, Tito was more concerned about fighting the Chetniks than the Germans (does that make him a collaborator ?) The issue seems to be a very complex one, so I'll just keep reading for now. :) However, the French articles (and not only the one on Mihailovic) really require cleanup. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mihailović, of course, always kept himself at a distance from the collaboration. As von Weichs stated, he wanted to be able to join the Allies when they land in the Balkans. The main cause of all this confusion is that he never "officially" endorsed collaboration himself, but always operated through "chief representatives" in granting consent to the collaboration.

Chetnik collaboration (and the Yugoslav Front in general) can be divided into two main periods 1941-43, and 1943-45. During the 1941-43 period, the Chetniks collaborated with the Italians en masse, and (amazingly) also with the Ustaše (which is indirect German collaboration). The Germans were indeed, during this time, opposed to Chetnik assistance to the occupation, and insisted that the Chetniks be disarmed. The Italians, however, could not afford to lose them in maintaining the occupation. Regarding Draža Mihailović's personal involvement, the Italian-Chetnik collaboration agreement on January 11 1942, which approved Chetnik inclusion in Italian MVAC formations, was signed by Draža Mihailović's "chief delegate" in Bosnia Major Boško Todorović. There can be little doubt that Mihailović really did approve of the massive Chetnik-Italian collaboration.

The 1943-45 period begins slightly before the Italian capitulation took place (around where that outcome appeared likely to the Germans). During 1943, the German policy slowly shifted towards the Chetniks, but after the capitulation they pretty much had no choice but to use them (with the Allies right across the Adriatic and the Red Army chewing-up their formations). So during this period we see a shift in German policy toward the Chetniks. The Ustaše also unofficially changed their position: where earlier they themselves signed agreements with the Chetniks, they were now opposed to the Germans using them large-scale. Their protests to the Germans use of the Serbian troops are often recorded. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In Hitler's new disorder: the Second World War in Yugoslavia (Columbia University Press), Steven Pavlowitch states that Mihailovic himself was not involved in the fact that some of his subordinates asked for a truce with the Germans; he also calls Fitzroy McLean's report "widely inaccurate" and based solely on Partisan sources. This is quite confusing : I think this article should highlight the controversial aspects a little more. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, if you quoted him correctly Steven Pavlowitch does not seem to be on the completely "on-the-level" (with all due respect of course). "Some of his subordinates asked for a truce with the Germans"? We're talking about widespread Chetnik-German collaboration on all levels after 1943, not "some" subordinates with a "truce". That does not seem to be a neutral "summary" of the situation, given the amount of evidence depicting collaboration as very common. Considering we've got primary sources supporting his collaboration, I can't agree that his opinion alone constitutes a "controversy". (I've heard the silly complaints about Fitzroy MacLean's supposed "communist bias" :P, but I didn't even mention him.)

We're also going the wrong way on this: we're forgetting command responsibility. General Mihailović was the commanding officer of his troops. If he was aware of his subordinates' treasonous activities and did not (try to) stop them - he's guilty of treason himself. It is, of course, silly even to suggest he did not notice nearly all his troops were assisting the Axis occupation of their own country (they "could not afford to lose the Chetniks"). We've no record of any reprimand against collaborationism aside from the execution of Kosta Pećanac, who was also his main rival for command of the Chetniks (being senior to Mihailović). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think command responsibility is a very good argument. If said general's troops commit crimes without his consent, they should be individually punished, not him. Asides for that, was Pecanac even his subordinate ? I read elsewhere that his "Chetnik" group was not even related to Mihailovic's. (I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying this is quite messy. Anyway, I must read further) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all ignoring the rest of the argument, of course, but I don't see how command responsibility is "not a very good argument". You're right, Pećanac wasn't subordinate to him - but he's the only Chetnik guy I can think of that Mihailović punished "for collaboration", even allegedly. Though some have speculated that, since Mihailović later commanded troops of Nedić's Serbia as well, Pećanac was more likely killed because he was a rival for the leadership of the Chetnik movement (being a senior Chetnik and famous WWI soldier). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to be deleted or rewritten

Introducing paragraph is scandalous piece of communist propaganda that must be deleted if article were to be elementary factually correct. To begin with, it is in direct contradiction to other information one can find in the article. For example, how Mihailovic can in the same time be collaborator of Nazis and to receive highest military medal from American president for contribution to victory over Hitler, not the least for his saving of almost 600 allied pilots during 1944, most extensive rescue operation in American history? And how a Nazi collaborateor managed to obtained the same type od medal from French president De Gaul as well? Were Truman and De Gaulle idiots, or fascist apologists, or maybe just ill-informed? If Mihailovic had begun his cooperation with Germans at the end of 1941, as article asserts (typical lie of communist propaganda, because Mihailovic at that time actually realized real nature of communists and started to fight back to them) and to save 600 American and English pilots in 1944? That does not make much sense. Further, Mihailovic was Minister of Defence of Yugoslav government in exile (which president was Slobodan Jovanovic, leading Serbian liberal philosopher of 20the century), that resided in London? How on the earth one can believe that Britons would tolerate German Quisling government on their own soil? Were they so stupid? Further, you should mention that Slobodan Jovanovic was also tried together with Mihailovic (not only "other quislings" as you insinuate) in absentia by the same communist kangaroo court in 1946 and sentenced to 15 years in prison and loss of all civil rights. Communists actually intentionally put on trial jointly anticommunist antifascists such as Mihailovic and Jovanovic with Nedic's and Ljotic's people to suggest that everybody who was against communists was in the same time Nazi collaborator. One of those "Nazi collaborators" on this process in 1946 was Zivan Knezevic, general secretary of London government during the war, and the man who is mostly credited as master mind of March 27th 1941, puch against the pact of Yugoslav government with Hitler in March 1941 which toppled proGerman government and instituted Pro-British military government. It is even believed by some today (without much evidence though) that he and his brother Radoje (personal teacher of young King Peter) were British agents. Those guys were also "tried" and sentenced as Nazi collaborators in the same kangaroo court. Does that gives you some second thoughts?

I can rewrite introduction, based only on facts. Remove lie of collaboration with Nazis, and explain tha Mihailovic was sentenced by communist kangaroo court as opponent of communists.--Ivanelo (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Around a dozen published university sources directly contradict you. You're lucky you aren't reported for vandalism and blocked, as you surely shall be if you vandalize the article's lead section a few more times. byby :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Need new section

Suggest there should be a 'Relations With the Germans and Italians' section along with those the 'Relations With the Partisans' and 'Relations With the British and Americans'. DIREKTOR, you are the subject matter expert on this aspect of Mihailovic, suggest you add some of the sourced material you have placed on this talk page into the new section.Let'sGoO's (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, and what's up with this movie someone added in?Let'sGoO's (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)