Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive10

Working on draft article

Now, I want to shift our focus and start the next phase of this mediation. It has been somewhat rocky up until now, because we have been trying to agree on concepts. Several people have gotten testy when others disagreed with them. I suggest we leave that now. Here's my suggestion: Take the re-drafted article paragraph by paragraph. Go through it, examine the sources, adjust the wording and build consensus. If we can't get consensus on something we can leave it for awhile. The important thing at this point is to start making progress. Would participants be willing to give that a go? Sunray (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes FkpCascais (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. BoDu (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• No problem, that's what it's made for. However, I suggest that each change is discussed first, either here or on its talk page. (edit wars on a draft would be absurd) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Well Sunray, as always I'll be perfectly frank. Let me make a wild prediction: 1) we'll start working on the paragraphs, 2) we won't agree on the wording on the main issue(s), and 3) and we'll continue talking about the main issue(s), (I'll be) quoting sources, etc... Please don't take this the wrong way ("that DIR's stirring trouble again!"), but I just don't this this will work. I won't be negative though, lets give it a try. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well it may not be easy, but if we can agree on most of it, we will be further ahead. If there are still sticking points, we can take a closer look at the sources. Sunray (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Begin working collaboratively

While not all participants have commented, there have been no dissenting voices. In the interest of moving forward, and barring any strong objections, I would like to begin. I've put the last section of JJG's draft below, along with the citations. Would participants be willing to suggest changes? That could either be done in the "Comments" section below, or participants could make actual changes in a colored font. Once we have consensus on this section, we could move to the next section above, in the article. Please, from here on out, let's keep it civil. Sunray (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Legacy (JJG's version)

File:Drazam.jpg

1981 portrait of Mihailović.

Mihailović's role in history has been variously assessed. Jozo Tomasevich considers that one of the main causes of his defeat was his failure to grow in a professional, political or ideological sense as his responsabilities grew, making him unable to face both the exceptional circumstances of the war and the complex situation of the Chetniks. Stevan K.Pavlowitch also points out his failure to grow and evolve during the conflict, unlike Tito, and describes him as a man "generally out of his depth". Walter R. Roberts points out that Mihailović was defeated by his "basically static" policy of gambling all in the faith of an Allied victory, which caused the Chetniks' original aim to defeat the Axis to wither away, as they drifted into a policy of accomodation with the invaders in the face of the communist menace.

Due to the efforts of Major Richard L. Felman and his friends, President Harry S. Truman, on the recommendation of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, posthumously awarded Mihailović the Legion of Merit for the rescue of American airmen by the Chetniks. For the first time in history, this high award and the story of the rescue was classified secret by the State Department so as not to offend the Yugoslav government.

"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." (March 29, 1948, Harry S. Truman)

Almost sixty years after his death, on 29 March, 2005, Draža Mihailović's daughter, Gordana, was presented with the posthumous decoration by president George W. Bush. The decision was controversial in Croatia : Zoran Pusic, head of the Civil Committee for Human Rights, protested against the decision and claimed that Mihailović was "directly responsible" for the war crimes committed by the Chetniks.

Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French Forces during World War II and later president of France, considered Mihailović a "pure hero" and blamed Tito for "murdering" him. Despite France having friendly relations with SFR Yugoslavia, including during his presidency, de Gaulle himself consistently refused to visit the country or to meet Tito in person.

In Tito's Yugoslavia, Mihailović was considered a traitor and a collaborator by official history. With the end of Federal Yugoslavia and the renewal of nationalisms, several serbian nationalist groups have been aknowledging Mihailović's legacy by calling themselves "Chetniks". During the Yugoslav wars, Serb paramilitaries often self-identified and were referred to as such. Vojislav Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party formed the White Eagles, which were identified as Chetniks. Vuk Drašković's Serbian Renewal Movement was closely associated with the Serbian Guard, which was also associated with Chetniks and monarchism. Reunions of Chetnik survivors and nostalgics and of Mihailović admirers have been held in Serbia. Mihailović's name and legacy remain controversial in Ex-Yugoslavia and are generally associated with Serbian nationalism.

In the late 2000s, efforts were made to locate Mihailović's grave.

Legacy (Edited version)

File:Drazam.jpg

1981 portrait of Mihailović.

Mihailović's role in history has been variously assessed. Jozo Tomasevich (1975), considers that one of the main causes of his defeat was his failure to grow in a professional, political or ideological sense as his responsibilities grew, making him unable to face both the exceptional circumstances of the war and the complex situation of the Chetniks. In a military sense, the author criticizes Mihailović for losing the Allies' support through his associations with the Axis, as well as his doctrine of "passive resistance", which was perceived as idleness. Stevan K. Pavlowitch (2007), also points out his failure to grow and evolve during the conflict, unlike Tito, and describes him as a man "generally out of his depth". Walter R. Roberts, (1987) statespoints out that Mihailović was defeated by his "basically static" policy of gambling all in the faith of an Allied victory, which caused the Chetniks' original aim to defeat the Axis to wither away, as they drifted into a policy of accomodation with the invaders in the face of the Partisans.

In the general public and politics, Political views of Mihailovic run the cover a wide range from traitor and collaborator to resistance leader and hero. In Tito's Yugoslavia, Mihailović was considered a traitor and a collaborator byaccording to official history. Charles de Gaulle considered Mihailović a "pure hero", while Winston Churchill believed reports showed that Mihailovic had engaged "...in active collaboration with the Germans". In the United States, due to the efforts of Major Richard L. Felman and his friends, President Harry S. Truman, on the recommendation of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, posthumously awarded Mihailović the Legion of Merit for the rescue of American airmen by the Chetniks. For the first time in history, this The high award and the story of the rescue was classified secret by the State Department so as not to offend the Yugoslav government.

"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." (March 29, 1948, Harry S. Truman)

Almost sixty years after his death, on 29 March 2005, Draža Mihailović's daughter, Gordana, was presented with the posthumous decoration by president George W. Bush. The decision was controversial: in Croatia Zoran Pusić, head of the Civil Committee for Human Rights, protested against the decision and stated that Mihailović was directly responsible for the war crimes committed by the Chetniks.

With the breakup of Yugoslavia and the renewal of ethnic nationalism, the Titoists' account historical perception of Mihailović's collaboration and traitor has been challenged by parts of the public in Serbia. In the 1980s, political and economic problems within Yugoslavia undermined faith in the communist regime, and historians began a re-evaluation of communist historiography, including a rehabilitation of Mihailovic and the Chetniks. In the 1990s Several Serbian nationalist groups have been acknowledging Mihailović's legacy by began calling themselves "Chetniks". During the Yugoslav Wars, Serb paramilitaries often self-identified and were referred to as such. Vojislav Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party formed the White Eagles, a paramilitary group considered responsible for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, which was identified as Chetniks. Vuk Drašković's Serbian Renewal Movement was closely associated with the Serbian Guard, which was also associated with Chetniks and monarchism.. Reunions of Chetnik survivors and nostalgics and of Mihailović admirers have been held in Serbia Mihailović's name and legacy remain controversial in ex-Yugoslavia and are generally associated with Serbian nationalism.and ethnic cleansing. By the late 20th and early 21st century, Serbian history textbooks and academic works characterized Milhailovic and the Chetniks as "fighters for a just cause", and Chetnik massacres of civilians and commission of war crimes were ignored or barely mentioned. In 2004 Mihailovic was officially rehabilitated in Serbia by an act of the Serbian Parliament.

The revised image of Mihailovic as a hero is not shared in the other post-Yugoslav nations which have undergone their own historical revisions. In Croatia and Bosnia analogies are drawn between war crimes committed during World War II and those of the Yugoslav wars, and Mihailovic is "seen as a war criminal responsible for ethnic cleansing and genocidal massacres." The differences were illustrated in 2004, when a Serbian basketball player, Milan Gurovic, who has a tattoo of Mihailovic on his left arm, was banned by the Croatian Ministry of the Interior Zlatko Mehun from traveling to Croatia for refusing to cover the tatoo, as its display was deemed equivalent to "provoking hatred or violence because of racial background, national identity or religious affiliation." Serbian press and politicians reacted to the ban with surprise and indignation, while in Croatia the decision was seen as "wise and a means of protecting the player himself against his own stupidity."

In the late 2000s, efforts were made to locate Mihailović's grave. In 2009, a Serb group based in Chicago offered a reward of $100,000.00 for help finding Mihailovic's grave. A commission formed by the Serbian government began an investigation, and in 2010 suggested Mihailovic may have been interred at Ada Ciganlija.

Comments

• de Gaulle. (Personal comment removed), de Gaulle's personal thoughts and opinions on Mihailović do not seem really noteworthy on enWiki. The paragraph paints a deceptive image of anti-Tito/anti-Yugoslav sentiment in the French leadership - which is in fact exactly opposite from actual history. It is also a little strange, do we list all the thoughts of the various heads of state on Mihailović during the 65 years after the war? The paragraph can be either 1) elaborated upon, displaying the full facts, or 2) removed entirely. I'm for 2.
• SFR Yugoslavia had no "official history", no more than any modern democratic state. The Yugoslav state checked and approved of the curriculum for public schools. Is this "official history"? JJG paints a picture of "everybody outside red Yugoslavia considered Mihailović a hero, in Yugoslavia he was slandered by the communist propaganda, but now that's all over with Yugoslavs can freely admit he was a hero". 1) In ex-Yugoslavia, only Serbia has partially "rehabilitated" him, and this view is not shared by all Serbian factions either. 2) I think we have established conclusively that the scientific community outside (as well as inside) Yugoslavia did NOT and does NOT consider this person a hero of any sort. Quite the contrary. Why does the text paint such a misleading image? Folks, I'm not a communist, I'm not even left-wing, but this guy DID colalborate with the Axis. Did the Yugoslav media exploit this, and perhaps milked it too much? Yes, but that does not change his actions.
• "communist menace"? This is an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by the term "scientific community"? There are many varieties of social scientists. Most would not deign to comment on a soft concept like "hero." Sunray (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to participants:This is not a critics free-for-all here. If you believe that something needs changing would you be able to write out the actual change you are proposing? Otherwise it will be more of what we have already had. We need a collaborative effort here. Sunray (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but Direktor is actually disregarding De Gaulle? Why is not important? What about the fact that he was most highly condecorated by USA and France as a resistance hero? That doesn´t count either? And also the users should avoid making speculation on how some nationalities rehabilitated him, or not, or media, does anybody watched Yugoslav media here? I don´t think so. Highly unencyclopedic and innacurate. FkpCascais (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to hold comments on any statement that is not a proposed change? Sunray (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course, I apologise. I was trying, in other words, to protest against the idea given in the comment of the previos participant to exclude de Gaulle. I find it perfectly usefull, since it comes in relation with the French award, and completely related with the subject. FkpCascais (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just a question Sunray, could it be possible to the users that want, to make changes in a separate text, so we can compare it with the original that will be kept on the top? FkpCascais (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle is a very important person. His personal thoughts on Tito (presented in a misleading manner) are not. Don't mix up the two. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Direktor, the paragraph in question is mostly about Tito, not Mihailovic, and the fact that René Coty presented multiple awards to Tito doesn't really work in this article. In general, I do not think the opinions of leaders of other countries helps the article much--De Gaulle is just as problematic as Churchill, in that essentially he's a primary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, we should concentrate more on Mihailovic, and less on Tito in that paragraph. FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we really need any of that paragraph? And if you want to keep the De Gaulle's opinion, will you accept Churchill's right beside it? Personally, I don't think either adds anything significant to the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have a rough consensus to eliminate the de Gaulle opinion and remove the comments about Tito. Perhaps I will start this off, by making these changes in a new version. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We could hear JJG idea that he had behind it. Anyway, I don´t object removing it for time being (we can easily restore it, or parts of it, if needed). FkpCascais (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also made a suggested change in the way citations are referred to when we are attributing different historians (see first paragraph). Sunray (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also struck the last phrase (and ethnic cleansing) from the second to last paragraph. That is a modern expression and I haven't seen sources for World War II times that indicate it was used in the same way. M. talks about an "ethnically clean" Serbia, but I doubt that it has the same connotations. I may be wrong about this but are there any sources on it? Sunray (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully agree on the changes you have done. I beleave the "ethnic cleansing" came from the interpretation of the "Instrukcije", that we talked about. But Sunray, the ethnic cleansing is not found on JJG original draft, how it ended up here? FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits were made before I added the second version and reiterated my request to participants to show their changes. I've restored the JJG's June 11 draft (at top). Sunray (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle (whatever one thinks about him) was an important resistance leader and an important post-war head of state, so his opinion is pretty relevant. Hence, I strongly oppose the removal of this section and I am not doing this as any kind of flag-waving Frenchman. It would be nice to have Churchill's post-war opinion as well. As for the term "communist menace", it is accurate : the communists (i.e. the Communist Party of Yugoslavia) where definitely considered as a menace by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and during the war the Communist-led Partisans were definitely menacing the Chetniks, who in turn were menacing them. Hence, "communist menace". There are many other statements in similar articles who might be regarded as POV ("Quislings", "Puppet state", etc., although I find them accurate on many occasions) but strangely enough, they do not seem to disturb Direktor in the slightest. Moreover, the term "communist menace" is directly taken from Roberts, although quotation marks seem superfluous in that case. This is exactly what the author says, and this is exactly how Mihailovic and the Chetniks perceived it, so the term "communist menace" should be kept. Because, you know, "this is an encyclopedy", and historical concepts and contexts have to be mentioned.

As for the ethnic cleansing, I do not support a section about this in the Mihailovic article, although such acts by the Chetniks definitely have to be mentioned (and I did so in my draft).

As for Direktor's interpretation that : "JJG paints a picture of "everybody outside red Yugoslavia considered Mihailović a hero...", it simply does not make sense. Would I have mentioned the controversy that the Legion of Merit has caused in Croatia ? I call him a "controversial" character, which he is. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to proclaim certain heads of state "important" or "less important". I have nothing but the most profound respect both for General de Gaulle (who did a masterful job protecting France's interests in her darkest hour) and for the French Republic herself. I realize its a completely unrelated note, but I'll still say that France is in my view an amazing, enlightened country towering over most others in the level of economic and political awareness of its citizens. As a future doctor I also cannot help but admire the amazing healthcare in the country, No.1 in the world according to the WHO, I think. I just wish that with English, Italian, and German I had had time for more than basic French so that I may read Candide in its original language. But I digress.

In spite of all this, a person's opinions on Draža Mihailović are not relevant, in my view, for inclusion - simply because they're personal opinions. Such things are not facts, they are factually meaningless and can only be used to influence reader opinion in a POV manner. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My sense of the discussion is that personal opinions are not relevant in this context. That part of the section was removed. Sunray (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

De Gaulle's opinion on Mihailovic were not just those of "a person", but of a person who happened to have some significance both during world war II and in the post-1945 world. Hence, his opinion is relevant to the matter. It would be nice to balance it with the opinion of other WWII leaders (Churchill or Eisenhower for example). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Legion of Merit

I've made some changes. I struck the "for the first time in history" since it turns out the Legion of Merit was only created a few years before, and I think it's enough to report the fact of the matter rather than used a phrase creating undue emphasis. I also stuck "high" since it's not neutral. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it's a high award is beyond dispute so it does not need to be stressed IMHO. And the fact that it was kept secret is also significant enough by itself. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources related to ethnic cleansing

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

For what its worth, my take is that Mihailovic did advocate an ethnically pure greater Serbia, in fact, I think he got in trouble for his views prior to the war, but I'll have to track down the source. It seems opinion is divided about the instructions letter, but there may be better sources out there. I do not think the actions of the chetniks overall reach the kind of uniform and pervasive mass murder of populations we generally associate with the phrase ethnic cleansing, and it seems that what acts did reach the level of mass murder were sporadic and often in response to the ustashe--but that may have been do to limited opportunity as much as anything. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think we need to check out current views--"Mihailović's name and legacy remain controversial in ex-Yugoslavia and are generally associated with Serbian nationalism and ethnic cleansing." may be an accurate statement in the sense that groups formed in the last couple of decades who view themselves as inheritors of the Chetnik traditional may themselves be associated with ethnic cleansing. Have to do some research on that angle, but it may be best to pare that bit down a bit as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• The first is concentrated on the events from 1990s, and what says about Chetniks looks quite biased.
• The second source, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, talks about some unknown Cetnik military commader that alledgedly defended the "cleansing of Muslims and Catholics" and then remind us of the "Instrukcije" words about the issue "cleansing of the State territory of all national minorities and non-national elements" (later changed to ANTI-state elements) that alledgedly Mihailovic aimed in 1941 (???).
• The third, K.Mulaj, doesn´t made me a link to citations.
• The fourth source, Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945 by Walter R. Roberts, sorry, but I couldn´t find anything about ethnic cleansing ("they were collaborating with Italians, British became aware", was that to source here?).
• your fifth source, Ethnic violence and the societal security dilemma by Paul Roe, even says the oposite, how, citing, ""...although it is unclear as to whether Mihailovic himself ever advocated 'ethnic cleansing', as did some other figures within the Chetnik movement", and speaks how by some 700.000 Serbs were killed by Croats in Jasenovac camp...
• your sixth source, The lessons of Yugoslavia Por Metta Spencer, says how Croatians did ethnic cleansing (what was your point here?),
• finally, your seventh source, The Yugoslav drama by Mihailo Crnobrnja, (by name a Yugoslav) speaks again how Croatians were far more organised in ethnic cleansing, but does say that, citing, Cetniks were "prepared to resort to ethnic, nationalist terror to advance exclusively Serbian interests".
• I don´t find here one valid source for "ethnic cleansing" perpatrated by Chetniks, and far less linking him with D.Mihailovic. This looks like a google search of all with those two expressions. Sorry Nuujinn, but I see nothing related to the theme in the sources you provided (perhaps the third, but didn´t opened any page to me...(?). FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're making an invalid assumption that I'm interested in pushing a particular point of view. Sunray asked for sources related to ethnic cleansing and Mihailovic, that's what I've found in the last few weeks. As for the Robert's reference, it's significant that Mihailovic considers Muslims and Croates his enemies, as it demonstrates that he views his struggle as an ethnic one. It is unfortunate that many people to this day view the world through ethnicity. The fifth source says M's role was unclear, and the sixth and seventh source says that the chetniks did commit acts of ethnic cleansing, but the Ustashe did more. The fact that the chetniks did not commit as many atrocities does not exonerate them. Do you have any sources to bring to the discussion? --Nuujinn (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I´m not making an assumption, you said you supported leaving the statement including "ethnic cleansing". Regarding the issue, for instance, when we talk here on the German military forces, at least 90% of the times we say "Germans", right? He calls Croatian forces as "Croats" and to Muslim forces, as "Muslims" (same as Chetniks are very often named "Serbs" by others). Many of this cases could/should be taken into account as resistance acts, because he was fighting real collaborators. To make such a hard acusation of ethnic cleansing, we need much more than this. They were not saints, and they were bittered with all the minorities that welcomed ocupation forces, but that is very propagandistic and exagerated, and I don´t have any sources to contribute on this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

'I´m not making an assumption, you said you supported leaving the statement including "ethnic cleansing".' Really? Where did I say that? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"may be an accurate statement" (the one including "ethnic cleansing"). Please Nuujinn, don´t do this, "Where did I said what I said?". I saw that was going to be a problem even at the begining, when I protested against your continuos attitude of "alledged neutrality". You defended it, you now say you didn´t or, well, I´m not sure what you say... Please, assume your positions and lets not loose time on this no more. Sunray, I´m just answering the question he made to me asking to avoid this in future.

FkpCascais, what I said was '"Mihailović's name and legacy remain controversial in ex-Yugoslavia and are generally associated with Serbian nationalism and ethnic cleansing." may be an accurate statement in the sense that groups formed in the last couple of decades who view themselves as inheritors of the Chetnik traditional may themselves be associated with ethnic cleansing.' That has nothing to do with whether Mihailovic did or did not engage in ethnic cleansing--I'm just pointing out that Serbian nationalists use Mihailovic as a rallying point, and I believe there was ethnic cleansing in the balkans in the few decades. If we are going to talk about those groups, we'll need to look into that (but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.) --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on Nuujinn, we all know that leaving the sentence that way very possibly can create missintepretations and links him (not the groups from the 1990s, as you say it was pretended) to the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, if "leaving the sentence that way very possibly can create missintepretations" talk to JJG DIREKTOR about it, it's his sentence, not mine. --Nuujinn (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is direktors introduction to the draft (the inclusion of "ethnic cleansing"), not JJG. See here [8], not found in JJG draft. FkpCascais (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, my bad--so talk to Direktor about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nuujinn, for providing those sources. They do cover various aspects of the issue. The second source, the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights provides a definition and history of ethnic cleansing. It shows that the term entered common usage in 1992 when the UN Commission on Human Rights held a special session on the former Yugoslavia. While some of the sources do talk about "ethnic cleansing" during World War II, they tend to be vague. Sources 6 (Spencer) and 7 (Crnobrnja) both state that the extent of "ethnic cleansing" performed by the Ustashe far outstripped the murders and ethnic cleansing of the Chetniks. Source 5 (Roe) states that it is unclear that Mihailovic ever advocated ethnic cleansing. It says that "Serbs and Croats conducted a 'holy war', trying to exterminate each other." Most of the sources are examining ethnic cleansing in the context of the former Yugoslavia. It seems to me that that these sources tend to confirm that we should not refer to "ethnic cleansing" in the context of the Chetniks. Sunray (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the term is too loaded. We should track down some of these as well from the current version, I'll see what I can come up with, just to be thorough:

• July 1941, Herzegovina (Bileca, Stolac) - approximately 1,150 civilians killed;
• December 1941/January 1942, eastern Bosnia (Foča, Goražde) - approximately 2,050 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Bukovica) - approximately 1,000 civilians killed;
• August 1942, eastern Bosnia (Ustikolina, Jahorina) - approximately 2,500 civilians killed;
• October 1942, central Bosnia (Prozor) - approximately 1,250 civilians killed;
• January 1943, Sandžak (Bijelo Polje) - approximately 1,500 civilians killed;
• February 1943, eastern Bosnia and Sandžak (Foča, Čajniče, Pljevlja) - approximately +9,200 civilians killed. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

From where did this came (sources), and how is related to Mihailovic? FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly. There's no question that the genocidal Croatian Ustaše regime, which was established by the Axis and enjoyed the full open support of the occupation, slaughtered far more Serbs than vice versa. That fact, however, has nothing to do with the Chetniks, or their own agenda of ethnically cleansing areas populated by non-Serbs (not Croats exclusively, or even predominantly, but primarily Bosniaks and Albanians, then also the Hungarian and German minorities). Nor are the Ustaše acts justification for such and agenda.
• Secondly. The term "ethnic cleaning" has been introduced recently in 1992, but that by no means indicates that events and acts constituting ethnic cleansing could not take place before 1992. I should think this, at least, is obvious and common sense.

The Chetniks most certainly did have an ethnic cleansing agenda, and most certainly did perform ethnic cleansing in territories under their control - and this is supported by sources. Omitting it is whitewashing. As to the personal involvement of Draža Mihailović, to that respect we posses the Instrukcije. Before you say anything, Fkp, please find a neutral published scholarly source that confirms any claims as to the "falsification" of that document. As always, opinions only waste time - sources please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I don't think anyone here wants to do any whitewashing. However, an encyclopedia needs to stay away from loaded terms. You note that the Chetniks did do some things that would could be called "ethnic cleansing" today. Much of what they did could also be characterized as "warfare." Since the term "ethnic cleansing" was not used in the 1940's, despite the tendency of some writers to revise history according to the lens of the present, it seems to me that we would be ill-advised to use the term here. However, there are good quotes in those sources about what amounted to a "holy war" between the Serbs and the Croats and some graphic descriptions of the violence. Peer reviewed sources will be best in this area. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's this: Bosnia: a short history, Noel Malcolm url, date=1994, isbn=0814755208, publisher-New York University Press, p. 179: "But on the other hand there is no definite evidence that Draza Mihailovic himself ever called for ethnic cleansing. The one document which has frequently been cited as evidence of this, a set of instructions addressed to two regional commanders in December of 1941, is probably a forgery--though it must be pointed out that is was forged not by enemies wanting to discredit Mihailovic but by the commanders themselves, who hoped it would be take for a genuine Cetnik document." But I'm just getting into this issue, Direktor, can you bring additional sources to this particular issue? I agree that that there were massacres committed by both Serbs and Croats, I'm collecting sources on that now, and we should treat that with an appropriate weight. As Malcolm points out, even if the document was forged, it was done so as to push for an ethnically pure Serbia. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know (from the Kosovo issues discussions here on WP), Noel Malcolm is considered to be one of the most anti-Serb authors that exist, and is even disregarded by Kosovar-Albanians editors themselfs, aware of his ridicolousness and inacuracy of his works. I saw some exemples of saurces wanted to be used, and it was childish, at least (he advocated Kosovo was never part of Serbia, even during Yugoslavia (???) What else we know about him? FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About the issue itself, lets be clear, the only thing we have that links Mihailovic with the ethnic cleansing issue is: "Mihailovic himself never advocated ethnic cleansing" from Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945 by Walter R. Roberts. Quite a simple and direct quote, the kind that in many cases is missing in other claims. About this, clearer impossible. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Correcting:""...although it is unclear as to whether Mihailovic himself ever advocated 'ethnic cleansing', as did some other figures within the Chetnik movement". FkpCascais (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source characterizing "Noel Malcolm [as] one of the most anti-Serb authors that exist", please produce it. And regarding 'Mihailovic himself never advocated ethnic cleansing,' what page number from Roberts are you quoting? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, exactly the one you linked to, or next. FkpCascais (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The section in Roberts I linked to does not contain the text you quoted. The one following doesn't either, that would be Roe "...although it is unclear as to whether Mihailovic himself ever advocated 'ethnic cleansing', as did some other figures within the Chetnik movement", which is a far cry from 'Mihailovic himself never advocated ethnic cleansing.' Correct sourcing is very important, I would like to ask you to consider being more careful in your attributions, both to the sources and to our discussions. --Nuujinn (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Grrrr... I can´t find it now (I see the Roe quote). I did go pages up and down a lot, but you´re leaving me in doubts now... I´ll continue searching. FkpCascais (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, I haven´t had much time lately, and I have been coming here in short episodes. I still didn´t found the sentence, so I´m begining to beleave that in the rush, I may have misquoted the Roe text. I´m feeling terrible by beleaving now that it was that that happend. I also wrongly said that Roes text was Roberts, it really looks I have been distracted lately. I´m still not a 100% sure because I usually copy/paste quotations, but, not allways, I really can´t remember. I´ll search further, because of that, but also because the books may be usefull. Anyway, I´ll correct the quote in all places for now, and I trully apologise to you and to all other participants. As much as I sware that I didn´t, I am aware that leaves an open doubt about me having done it on purpose, and I feel terribly bad, specially because that has been one of the most important issues I have been fighting here for (the missquotation of sources). I´m still not 100% sure, but I´ll correct the quotes, and I deeply apologise once more and this is definitelly a lesson to be more carefull. FkpCascais (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Homogena Srbija.gif

A 1941 Chetnik conception of an enlarged "homogeneous" Serbian state within an enlarged royal Yugoslav state (which the former would dominate). based on a Chetnik leaflet entitled "Our Way" from the archives of the Institute of Military History in Belgrade.

Well, as von Weichs observed, Mihailović seems to have been very careful not to implicate himself in the deeds of his subordinates (as always, I might add :). Does this absolve him of all responsibility? Maybe, I'm not sure. "Command responsibility"? I think it may be worthy of mention in the article.

As for the Instrukcije, I'd also mention them in the article, but of course noting that a number of authors doubt the documents veracity. We should remember that there is really no evidence that the thing was forged by anybody, and that all we have is speculation and opinion by various authors. (Mind you, I'm not contesting the quality of the source, merely that nobody really knows - as per the author's own admission.) Fkp please note that, if forged, the Chetniks themselves forged it - not the Yugoslav authorities.

Well in any case, as for the ethnic cleansing itself, both the Croatian Ustaše AND the Serbian Chetniks, being the two principal nationalist factions, engaged in ethnic cleansing. There is really no question there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A map of Greater Croatia, for Sunray. As you can see, the territories of the two "Greaters" do conflict slightly ;)

There are sources on Chetnik ethnic cleansing, more than enough (I'll write them up soon if necessary). In the end I propose this wording, directly quoted from Ethnic violence and the societal security dilemma (p. 84):

• "The desire to create a Greater Serbia was implicit in the Chetniks programme [they are practically synonymous with supporters of the idea] - although it is unclear whether Mihailović himself ever advocated ethnic cleansing, as did some of the other figures in the Chetnik movement."

I completely agree with the above, and recommend a very similar, if not identical sentence. I am myself not clear as to whether Mihailović did actually support ethnic cleansing. I couldn't find any hard evidence in neutral, respectable sources, so I won't claim anything of the sort.

Nota bene: It is important to note that "Greater Serbia" or "homogeneous Serbia" is a term completely synonymous with the ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs from the territories included in it. As noted earlier, the term "ethnic cleansing" itself was actually coined for describing the actions of the proponents of the ideal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have missed my point entirely. Sunray (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, but that would be rather difficult - I was not in fact responding to your post, but 1) replying to Nuujin and 2) making a general statement describing my stance on the issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Great Serbia (more correct translation from "Velika Srbija", "great", like from Great Britain, Velika Britanija, not greater, but English has for some unknown reason adopted "Greater") was not in any way, citing you, "term completely synonymous with the ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs from the territories included in it", but that is another discussion. Also, important to mention, the way of portrating Chetniks as racists is completely wrong and fantasist. FkpCascais (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• English, Fkp... English. Thank you for the gracious overly-direct translation from our mother tongue, but in English - its Greater Serbia, Greater Hungary, Greater Albania, Greater Croatia, Greater Germany, Greater Bulgaria, Greater Italy, Greater Israel, Greater Romania, etc, etc... Its not a conspiracy... :)

• I'm not calling the Chetniks a "racist" movement. That's called a straw man argument, Fpk. Ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia can hardly be described as "racism". Did they endeavor to establish a homogeneous ethnic Greater Serbian state via ethnic cleansing? Most certainly. I can find you perhaps a dozen sources on that within fifteen minutes.

• "Greater Serbia" is a concept advocating the establishment of a homogeneous Serbian state spanning over huge areas populated by non-Serbs. Fact. Ethnic homogeneity can only be established (in this context) via ethnic cleansing, i.e. via forceful emigration/massacre of the "non-homogeneous" nationalities from the area in question. Fact. Plus this is all common knowledge and common sense. There's nothing really to discuss on this issue, we both know all this... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Greater/Great Serbia issue was debated alerady (on other article), and I am certainly not going to discuss this, or other science fiction with you. With you, direktor..., with you. :p FkpCascais (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. I'm glad to see we're in agreement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on edited version (continued)

Those who want to continue the sideshow on "ethnic cleansing" are welcome to do so. In the interest of moving forward, I would like to see other comments on the Legacy section. Sunray (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One question, I find distracting to find more changes done on the revision without discussion. For instance, the inclusion of the sentence:"With the breakup of Yugoslavia and the renewal of ethnic nationalism, the historical perception of Mihailović as a collaborator and traitor has been challenged by parts of the public in Serbia.". Well, it gives the (wrong) idea that the idea that he is a collaborator is worldwide accepted and challenged only in Serbia... I think that is not the case, it was challenged way before and by many more that just people from Serbia, having in mind people from other regions of the Balkans, and many other "people", but most importantly, historians worldwide. FkpCascais (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And we're back to the main issue yet again (and again not by my doing, please note Sunray). I think I've been asking for about six months that you present me with these mysterious sources that refute the perception of Mihailović as a person that collaborated with the Axis. We're going in circles. Need I copy-psate the source again here Fpk? And yes, the idea that he suddenly did not collaborate is a Serbian idea almost exclusively, originating from the nationalist 1990s (along with a great many nationalist fantasies from all former Yugoslav nations, Croats not excluded). An idea inaugurated by radical nationalists with virtually no backing of any sort in the international scientific community. As I pointed out - this false perception originating from the 1990s is why we're having this rather silly argument in the first place... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the participants have agreed that we must mention collaboration. I have suggested that we avoid labeling him collaborator and simply describe what the Chetniks, led by Mihailović, did. Sunray (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, I finally found out what happend. Here ([9]), one participant has edited the "edited version". I think that the changes should be announced, because if not they go trough unoteced. Shall we discuss them (direktor changes), or concentrate rather on the original draft? FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your query, above, about what happened. Those edits were made before I set up the "edited version" and reiterated my request to show, or discuss, changes. I removed "traitor" from the edited version and explained why. Can we move on now? Sunray (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Would you like us to discuss any particular issue that you find helpfull in discussing? FkpCascais (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For instance, I find a bit unbalanced that direktor changed the text in order to include all the Franch awards Tito receved... That is for Tito article. On the other hand, we are still missing all other Mihailovic awards. FkpCascais (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That section is no longer in the edited version. We do have the references to the US Legion of Merit (although the sourcing is pretty bad), what other awards do you have in mind? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What would improve the sourcing? Would you be able to make those changes? Sunray (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Chicago Serbs timeline isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but I haven't been able to find much better--there just isn't much coverage in the mainstream western media. But I'll take a crack at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the croix de guerre awarded by de Gaulle in 1943, there is a mention here. In Buisson (page 38), it is mentioned that in 1918 he received the Military Cross and the Order of the White Eagle with Clusters. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG, if the Buisson source isn't available on line, can you post the relevant quotation here? In french is fine, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is the French original text : "A sa nomination au grade de lieutenant s'ajoutent deux nouvelles médailles : la croix militaire anglaise dont il est le seul décoré dans sa division et la médaille de l'Aigle blanc avec les épées du quatrième ordre "pour son courage et sa conduite exemplaire pendant la guerre"." Hope this helps. As for the legion of merit, you can easily find more sources, since there have been protests about this in Croatia. here (photo of Gordana Mihailovic included) and here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

coming from outside (as a result of see this carried over onto the AN/I noticeboard), I wonder at the elimination of the sentence "In Tito's Yugoslavia, Mihailović was considered a traitor and a collaborator by official history" which would seem straight-forward enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue did not spill over to AN/I, that post there is about a completely different set of articles entirely (those on post-WWII Yugoslav history). This may be where JJG's animosity towards me comes from, but that's all.

The sentence suggests that he was/is not considered a collaborator outside Yugoslavia. There is no reason to assume anything of the sort, the sources on this person's collaboration are all non-(ex)Yugoslav. While the sentence itself is very much correct, there is no reason to suggest this was the case only in Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why missinforming DGG with the argument on non-Yugoslav when Tomasevic, the most used source for linking him to collaboration, is from Yugoslavia (today Croatia)? Sunray, please see who is the first to mention nationality of the sources when wanting to gain credibility. Participants should choose between having that argument, or excluding Tomasevic. FkpCascais (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. It speaks of the "historical perception of Mihailović's collaboration." That would surely be a general perception. Sunray (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow... why do you think it necessary to emphasize Yugoslavia in the sentence? (As opposed to "With the breakup of Yugoslavia and the renewal of ethnic nationalism, the historical perception of Mihailović's collaboration and traitor has been challenged by parts of the public in Serbia.") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to suggest alternative wording? Sunray (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "With the breakup of Yugoslavia and the renewal of ethnic nationalism, the historical perception of Mihailović's collaboration and traitor has been challenged by parts of the public in Serbia" is wrong because gives the wrong impression that he was/is considered mainly a collaborator out of Yugoslavia, while he was considered mainly collaborator mostly exclusively in Tito Yugoslavia, and on the other hand, even inside Yugoslavia, Serbia was not the only one challenging the "mostly collaborator" insistence.

The sentence "In Tito's Yugoslavia, Mihailović was considered a traitor and a collaborator by official history" is absolutely right, and Yugoslavia must be mentioned (it should be Tito Yugoslavia, to specify) because it was the only one to consider him traitor and (officially) collaborator. FkpCascais (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fpk, you've just proven my point. The original sentence I altered did suggest that he was not considered to have collaborated outside of Yugoslavia, and was probably designed by JJG with that in mind. This is simply fantasy. All the sources describing his collaboration are non-Yugoslav and are published outside of Yugoslavia. There is no reason whatsoever to push this silly concept that, apart from the "eeevil communist Yugoslavs", the "outside world" considered him a hero or whatnot... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What alternative wording would you propose, Direktor? Sunray (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the current sentence very carefully to ensure no information is omitted, I stand by it. Is there anything wrong with it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry, but both sentencies are completely wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to remove the sentence "In Tito's Yugoslavia, Mihailović was considered a traitor and a collaborator by official history". It is very important IMHO to give a proper idea of how Mihailovic's role has been assessed in history. Implying that Mihailovic has been unanimously branded a traitor and a collaborator in other countries is misleading at best. As Roberts clearly explains in his book - and as I had noticed, much to my amazement, way before I read Roberts - books, sources, and historians are conflicting over his case. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree with you JJG, I meant, the direktors changes of the two sentences are completely wrong. I think I explained it in my recent comment. FkpCascais (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG, I put that back in, with an opening sentence. What this means, I think, is that we'll have to include the characterizations from DeGaulle and Churchill that we already have, as well as ones from Croats, Bosniaks and others, as well as some text explaining how his "official" view has been rehabilitated and altered over time. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"In the general public and politics, views of Mihailovic run the range from traitor and collaborator to resistance leader and traitor." : "Resistance leader and traitor" ? What is this supposed to mean ? Is it a mistake ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Doh! My bad, fixed now. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating a win/win result

Yesterday, the conflict that has been simmering just below the surface (and, at times, surfacing) during this mediation erupted at AN/I. That is neither good nor bad. Conflict is a part of life. However, conflict can have two results: win/lose or win/win. I am sure from reading your posts that no one really wants to lose. Therefore, I conclude that we should strive for a win/win result. To create a win/win result, we need to focus some of that conflictual energy into work. Nuujinn has contributed to this possibility by redrafting a portion of JJG's draft, below. If other participants could take a look at this and add constructive comments, we will have a way of moving this mediation forward. Sunray (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, the issue was JJG throwing insults around and canvassing some users into helping him influence the consensus on other articles, such as Bleiburg massacre and Josip Broz Tito. Aside from perhaps being the source of JJG's hostility, I don't think the RfM has anything to do with it... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about the relationship between the ANI and RFM, but I think Sunray's point is nonetheless well taken. There's no question that there is a good deal of disagreement, but there's also no question that we'll need to resolve some of our differences and come to consensus if this mediation is to be successful. I'll be more active editing the next few days, I've been doing some reading and taking notes. And I would appreciate feedback below. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that JJG was allways contacted and he was just responding, not being him the one to contact others. FkpCascais (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, I agree with you that the report at AN/I is not related to the mediation in content. JJG and I have discussed his comments to you and I am in no way excusing them. However, your allegation of "meatpuppetry" was an in kind response, IMO. I intervened at AN/I and made the above comments because I believed that the incident had the potential to adversely affect the mediation. Conflictual statements and responses rarely meet the needs of participants. In resolving conflict, it is necessary for participants to:

1. Understand that their needs will not get met by continuing accusing each other
2. Mourn those unmet needs, and then
3. Find a way to achieve a win/win result.

By introducing this section, I am saying that I want to achieve these three steps. I think that this mediation has great promise if participants are willing to do that. Sunray (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of first paragraph of the edited version

I did some copy edits and went back to Tomasevich and Roberts, corrected some synthesis that had crept in, and tried to tighten the prose.

Historians vary in their assessments of Mihilaović. Tomasevich (1975) suggests one main cause of his defeat was his failure to grow professionally, politically or ideologically as his responsibilities increased, rendering him unable to face both the exceptional circumstances of the war and the complex situation of the Chetniks. Tomasevich also criticizes Mihailović loss of the Allies' support through his associations with the Axis, as well as his doctrine of "passive resistance" which was perceived as idleness, claiming "of generalship in the general there was precious little." Pavlowitch (2007) also points out to Mihilaović's failure to grow and evolve during the conflict and describes him as a man "generally out of his depth". Roberts (1987) asserts that Mihailović's policies were "basically static", and that he "gambled all in the faith of an Allied victory", while the "Chetniks allowed themselves to drift into a policy of accommodation with the [Germans and the Italians] in the face of what they considered the greater danger," the Partisans.

Please take a look and see if it's an improvement. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As main difference, we have inserted collaboration whenever possible ("associations with the Axis", and "accomodation with Germans and Italians", wait, Germans???) FkpCascais (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Germans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because of the sourced encounters? FkpCascais (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, respectfully, I have not inserted "collaboration" at all. We've had some consensus that the words "collaborator" and "collaboration" are loaded and should used very carefully. I haven't used them at all. "associations with the Axis" has been in the edited version for a while, I'm not sure why an objection to that is coming up now. "Chetniks allowed themselves to drift into a policy of accommodation with the [Germans and the Italians] in the face of what they considered the greater danger," is a direct quote from Roberts--I don't have the book at hand, but I'll double check it later today to make sure I'm not misrepresenting it. Also, I would ask for suggestions as to alternate wordings if anyone has any objections. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, from what I understand, we are here making a simple resume of how the authors describe M. Of course we can have quotations favorable for both sides, we should just try to find a middle ground here. And Nuujinn, if your intention is to replace the word collaboration with sinonims, well, that´s the same... JJG is way, way, more neutral version. I see little reason for new version, unless some grammar cosmetics... Otherwise, it is just inserting what different sides propose. I could propose then to insert a version of "Ally betrayed" with his heroic resume of M. FkpCascais (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, as long as you just view this discussion as people taking sides, we'll be moving very slowly. If you want to suggest wording or bring a source, feel free. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, as long as you start reviewing and reinserting collaboration everywhere, we´ll be moving very slowly. If myou want, acept the neutral JJG version, and lets concentrate on more important issues. I propose leaving it as it was. FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, I did not insert collaboration. I did quote Roberts directly, and accurately. Why do you have a problem with my quoting sources? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is generally a productive discussion.

However, I would like to underscore Nuujinn's request for alternative wording if you don't agree. If we could get into the habit of proposing alternatives, rather than just stating "I don't agree," I think we will be able to progress faster. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Associations" is too strong a word. "Accomodation" (or something synonimous) would be better. If it is a direct quote from Tomasevic, quotation marks should be used.

The exact quote from Roberts is "Although hostile to the Germans and the Italians, the Četniks allowed themselves to drift into a policy of accomodations with both in the face of what they considered the greatest danger". Roberts also says, on the same page, "Mihailovic found himself unable to control his subordinates, and some Četnik leaders brought early disgrace upon his movement". Might be worth quoting, although I think the rest of the draft is clear enough about that.Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

JJG, would you object to using the first quote directly, eg: "Although hostile to the Germans and the Italians, the Četniks allowed themselves to drift into a policy of accommodations with both in the face of what they considered the greatest danger"? Also, FWIW, as a native speaker of United Statsian, I'd say that accommodation sounds worse in this context than association. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose it, although I think both quotes should be used (the sentence I quoted in second actually comes first in the text). Also take note that I plan to use this exact sentence in the rewrite of the "Chetniks" article which I plan to start ASAP. It might just seem repetitive to have the same quote in both articles, but that's a minor point. As for the nuance between "accomodation" and "association", I might trust native speakers of english on this matter, although I have some doubts (does Tomasevic actually use the term "association" ? If so, it would be better to make a quote). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Association is way more direct, and explicit, accommodation (commodity) is much more apropriate to the situation. Quite a difference. FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The science of history is not a democracy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is not a tool with which to override factuality for the sake of the agreement of a couple of internet users. Its not about "loaded" or "unloaded".
FACTS. I shall repeat: any draft which does not state in plain English that Draža Mihailović did "engage in collaboration with the Axis" is misrepresentation of sources, pure whitewashing, and completely unacceptable. There is NO scientific dispute on this issue. It does not exist. We simply have sources that directly state he collaborated, and other sources which do not directly dispute this fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Wikipedia may be, editorial decisions are made by consensus. Making positional statements will not assist this process. We are talking about specific passages. I have repeatedly requested participants who are not in agreement with something to present an alternative. To be crystal clear you will need to refer to the actual sentence (in the edited draft, above) and propose an alternative wording. We have several options, presented, above, so let's pick the one that best reflects the sources. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd round

Ok, how's this version:

Historians vary in their assessments of Mihilaović. Tomasevich (1975) suggests one main cause of his defeat was his failure to grow professionally, politically or ideologically as his responsibilities increased, rendering him unable to face both the exceptional circumstances of the war and the complex situation of the Chetniks. Tomasevich also criticizes Mihailović's loss of the Allies' support through his the Chetniks' associations with the Axis, as well as his doctrine of "passive resistance" which was perceived as idleness, claiming "of generalship in the general there was precious little." Pavlowitch (2007) also points to Mihilaović's failure to grow and evolve during the conflict and describes him as a man "generally out of his depth". Roberts (1987) asserts that Mihailović's policies were "basically static", that he "gambled all in the faith of an Allied victory," and that ulimately he was unable to control the Chentiks, who, "although hostile to the Germans and the Italians ... allowed themselves to drift into a policy of accommodations with both in the face of what they considered the greatest danger."

Please suggest alternative wording for anything you disagree with. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds better... I think I haven´t explained myself well about my complains. I don´t opose using the word collaboration if we are just gonna replace it with synonims, I even support using it when it should. My complain has to do with the fact that we are mentioning here the "varios assesments historians make about M.". By saying this, I was mostly oposing because the edited version gave the idea that most historians blame him for collaboration (using synonims for the case), when we should/could say that historians vary from Tomasevic, that acuses him of collaboration (I find better using actually word "collaboration", if trouth for his work), to others that glorify him as resistance leader. The positive part on the M. assessments is missing... See my point? The problem is that your version starts with Tomasevic (quite negative vision) and ends with "accomodation" (worste impossible)... Shows only one side. FkpCascais (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the red letters on the edirted version. Concise and precise. Good. FkpCascais (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No further comments? If not, I will assume that everyone either a) agrees with the edited draft (including Nuujinn's re-write of the first paragraph), or b) can live with it, and we can move on to the next section. Sunray (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm about ready to push some more changes up.... --Nuujinn (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I added back churchill and de gaulle (since if we're giving tito's regime's view and the US view, might as well for balance) and material covering historical revisionism in the post yugoslav countries. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my absence everyone, final exams and all that. The paragraph is fine by me, very good in fact - excellent work Nuujin. I do however stand by my position, as (inappropriately) repeated above, since I simply believe that is the bare minimum sources on the issue can allow. Will be back in all my glory by July 1 :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

At first reading, I'd say that version is acceptable. I'd say it would be useful to keep the mention that de Gaulle wouldn't even meet Tito even though their countries had friendly relations (at least after the Algerian crisis, during which Tito supported the independentists, had cooled down) is quite significant. Quite rare, actually, as far as modern-day western leaders are concerned. Did anyone find something about Churchill's post-war assessment ? (if he wrote anything explicit) Just one concern : are we going to spend that much time on every bloody paragraph ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect things will move faster in general, since we're dealing with general issues as we go along. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Say rather that we're avoiding the main issues as we go along. I expect the main issues (1) Draža Mihailović's collaboration, 2) Chetnik collaboration in general, 3) Chetnik ethnic cleansing, & 4) Greater Serbia) will rear their ugly head again in the relevant sections. I should think a separate talk page might be required, either for each or for all four at once, in which we may finally crystallize the position of the sources on those questions. Well, all in due time I suppose. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If we go that way, how could we avoid getting bogged down once more? There is some common ground but there are also remaining differences. If we can capture them, the differences can be positive, resulting in a more sophisticated and nuanced article. My sense is that to get consensus we will have to look at each issue when presented. I am impressed with the progress we have made and would like to move along at a faster rate. Would you be willing to continue the process that we have started? Sunray (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed get bogged down when we try to solve the issues - which basically means that we're not doing it the right way. Perhaps if we were to (when Sunray feels we've reached the appropriate stage) establish pre-defined criteria regarding sources to which all parties agree to adhere to? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I think we were bogged down when we were trying to take on the various topics (e.g. collaboration, etc.). However, it seems we are making progress now that we have started to work on actual sections. The Legacy section was the first we tackled and I believe it took longer because: a) it was our first attempt at actual work together, and, b) it is one of two sections (the lead being the other) that summarize the whole sweep of the subject's life. I think it will be easier (and hopefully faster) as we go through other sections. Sunray (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Final comments on edited version of "Legacy" section

Is there anything that anyone cannot live with in the current edited version of the Legacy section? I will flash up the next section for discussion. We can still revisit/tweak/whatever the Legacy section as needed. But I think we should keep rolling, now that we have a way of working. Thank you all for constructive comments thus far. Sunray (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems acceptable to me. As I said, de Gaulle's attitude should be further detailed (refusal to meet Tito) for I find it more significant, politically speaking, than a tatoo on the shoulder of some athlete (which is also interesting in its own right). But then again, we can get back to this later. The sentence "losing the Allies' support through his associations with the Axis" still needs to be revised. IMHO, we can write "losing the Allies' support through the Chetniks' associations with the Axis", which is more factual, or maybe put a direct quote of the author. Then again, it's a detail that can be revised later. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's put the Tito issue in the "parking lot" and come back to it. Sunray (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change about "the Chetniks' association with the Axis." Sunray (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)