Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive5

Mention of collaboration in the lead

The above draft illustrated the complicated relationships between the Chetniks, Partisans, Axis and Allies. It seems clear that there was collaboration going on between various of the parties (except, it seems, between the Chetniks and the Partisans). The descriptions seem well supported by sources. This seems to me to be a good way to deal with the issues at play.

While work is progressing on the draft for the body of the article, I think we should also turn our minds to the wording of the lead, which is after all, central to this mediation. Consider AlasdairGreen27's summary on the project page here. Given the complexities of the relationships, is the existing description appropriate? How should the collaboration be described in the lead? Sunray (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Which description? AlasdairGreen´s? In my view, is wrong on the following statemets:

• "There is no no dispute that Mihailović collaborated with the German occupiers". Wrong. There is dispute. If not, it would be good to point the exact sources that claim that.
• The alternatives are not serious.

There are good alternatives that are very well sourced found, for exemple, the one I proposed:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly condecorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians.

The best one that was already in place [1], that can possibly be expanded, or improved. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the version I proposed in second place:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general.

He lead the Chetnik movement that formed during World War II to resist the Axis invaders and domestic collaborators but that primarily fought a civil war against the Communist partisans.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the new Yugoslav communist authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad.

Altough a U.S. commision of inquiry cleared Mihailovic of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians.

I only removed the "Čiča Draža" mentioning, that we all had already agreed to exclude from the lede, and changed from "Croatian collaborators" to "domestic". FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FKP, dear friend, we still await sources that say "he did not collaborate" or some form of words equivalent to that. Any source that raises any doubt at all will do - just the tiniest mention of non-collaboration, in any form of words, Please, help us. Or, alternatively, a source that says, in your words, "his role is disputed"; or a source that says "historians have mixed views". Or a source that says "his role is/was unclear". Please, Fkp, would you give us at least one source, a morsel, that supports you? Otherwise, I think we are done here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please everyone accept my apologies for taking part without invitation, even if just for a moment, in this mediation discussion. I have a question about neutrality of some modifications I did on the Bleiburg Massacre article, a secondary issue, but closely related to Chetniks and Mihailovic and even more closely related to what you are discussing about.

Here you can find exactly what I wrote (reverted, by the way): I'd really like to know if you consider those edits in line with what you stated above about collaborationism of Draza Mikailovic and the Chetniks. Tank you to kindly give me an answer, and exscuse me again for my extemporaneous post. - Theirrulez (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is obviously more objective, but has found oposition from the same POV pushing group. It is also dubious to describe the Chetniks as (exclusively) "Serb and Montenegrin", Serbs and Montenegrins were majority in it, but there were other nationalities present in it, same case like in the Partisans, and in the Yugoslav population itself... FkpCascais (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The exchange between FkpCascais and AlasdairGreen27 did not add anything to this discussion, so I've removed it. I don't know why Fkp continues to get personal instead of sticking to content. However, since he has apologized, I think we should just move on. Alasdair, would you be willing to not call Fkp "friend" or "buddy?" He clearly does not like it.

Alasdair asked for sources that say that M or the Chetniks did not collaborate. We have seen abundant sources that state that they did collaborate, at times, and under certain circumstances. Fkp's wording, above, does not deal with the actual collaboration. I am asking participants to suggest wording as to how we might summarize it.

On the other hand, given that the collaboration was complex, sporadic and changeable, it seems problematic to simply label Mihailović “collaborator.” It appears that no source actually uses the words: "Draža Mihailović was a World War II Axis collaborator" (as it is now stated in the lead). How, then, is such a statement justifiable? What is the best way to describe him in this regard? Sunray (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologies for my post, if I am not allowed to participate in this mediation. Although I follow the mediation from the begining, I don't follow a mediator statement "It appears that no source actually uses the words: "Draža Mihailović was a World War II Axis collaborator". So here are some sources which explicitly state that Draža Mihailović was a World War II Axis collaborator: Kebeta (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Pavlaković, Vjeran (2005). Serbia since 1989: politics and society under Milosević and after. Washington: University of Washington Press. p. 408. ISBN 0295985380, 9780295985381. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2008). Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia at peace and at war: selected writings, 1983 - 2007. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 49. ISBN 3037359129, 9783037359129. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Cohen, Philip J. (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. p. 40. ISBN 0890967601, 9780890967607. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Byford, Jovan (2008). Denial and repression of antisemitism: post-communist remembrance of the Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović. Central European University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9639776157, 9789639776159. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. p. 534. ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Bennett, Christopher (1995). Yugoslavia's bloody collapse: causes, course and consequences. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p. 52. ISBN 1850652325, 9781850652328. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Balkanološki institut (Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti) (1970). Balcanica, Svesci 1-2. Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Balkanološki Institut. p. 389.
• Circle, Dositey Obradovich (1989). The South Slav journal, Svesci 12-13. Dositey Obradovich Circle - University of Michigen. p. 95.

It is definitely problematic (highly problematic) to label him a collaborator. He was the leader of a resistance movement, which ended up as an abysmal failure and had the opposite result to that intended. It is difficult to sum it up completely and accurately in one sentence. Also, I think he should be removed from the "Yugoslav collaborationism" template altogether.

BTW, I couldn't do anything for the last two days but have now resumed working on my draft and have made some additions. I hope I'll be able to add much more content tomorrow. Please take a look at it (comments welcome), as I am now getting into the meatier parts (no gory metaphors intended.). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do question the use of "collaboration" in the lede. Why it has to be included? He had quite an interesting life, he participated in several wars (Balkans, WWI and WWII), was highly condecorated, so why should something that was sporadic and questionable be included in the lede? We have an entire chapter where that can be explored, and I obvioulsy don´t opose of having the chapter, just as there is a chapter on the relationship with other intervenients of the war. I do agree on one thing with DIREKTOR, and that is to analise the most acusational sources that exist on the matter of Mihailovic collaboration, and see what can we do with them, and where and how include them in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Sunray, can you please ask also the participants to avoid using expressions that speak about some "we" (when meaning clearly not the hole group), or "we are donne here", when it only shows arrogance and makes purposly people repeat themselfs over and over again. It is not up to the participants to impose when something is "donne", or not. I could also post my version and say: "Here it is, and we are donne!". See the point? FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's all refrain from quarreling. Also, I'd really like (see above) some comments about my draft. I hope it can be useful to get things going.

I've been trying in the draft's intro to sum up Mihailovic's role as fairly as possible.

BTW, here is another example of Mihailovic receiving unfair treatment : on that article, the sources were made to say the absolute opposite of what they actually say. (also, the late 1944 situation and the talks between Nedic and Mihailovic, which did take place, are something very specific, which shall be adressed later. It's not as if Mihailovic led a collaborationist unit of the Serbian State guard during the whole conflict !) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques, have you provided a link to your draft? I probably missed it somewhere.... --Nuujinn (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's there. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About the mention of "collaboration" in the lead. Not only is it grossly biased (quite simply : wrong) and over-simplifying, but I have seen Direktor mention somewhere the "good-quality sources" that support it. I'd like to stress that none of the sources presently used in the intro, with the exception of the book Serbia's secret war, make such a crude and wildly inaccurate statement as "Mihailovic was a collaborator" (unlike what is said above, it does not seem that Sabrina Ramet says that, or that she does it so bluntly). I have been looking at all the links provided on google books : I also have read from cover to cover Walter R. Roberts (which is being used as a source supporting that thesis) and I can assure that the gist of it is not that Mihailovic was a traitor. Unless someone has severe issues with the english language, it is pretty obvious if you look at the sources in good faith. Good-quality sources are one thing. Misuse of said sources is another thing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my hope that no one engaged in this discussion believes that the situation in the former Yugoslavia during WWII was simple, or that Mihailovic's behavior was solely that of a collaborator. Regarding Sunray's question as to AlasdairGreen47's characterization here, I think it is clearly not the case that Mihailovic's collaboration was "wholehearted and enthusiastic." Apparently, it was opportunistic, driven largely by fear of the communists taking control of the country after the occupation was driven off, and developed over time--Mihailovic met with the Germans in late 1941, but failed to reach an agreement, and his collaboration began, from what I've read, in 1942. I think the sources show that Mihailovic was more concerned with eliminating the Partisans than any other goal, and that he and the Axis forces used each other to that end. Characterizing Mihailovic's collaboration as sporadic is, I think, somewhat problematic--it seems to me the sources show that his activity in general was sporadic. But I don't think I've read enough yet to have a good grasp of that, esp, in regard to the late phase of the war.

Jean Jacques, since you brought it up, it may well be that in regard to Walter Robert's book, "the gist of it is not that Mihailovic was a traitor," but Roberts does clearly state at least at one point that Mihailovic's forces collaborated with the Italians. On p 61, he refers to a statement issued on July 24, 1942 after a meeting with the King "in which 'the fine acheivements of General Mihailovic and his daring men' were described as 'an example of spontaneous and unselfish will to victory.'" Roberts continues to say "How little was known in Washington about events in Yugoslavia can be seen by the fact that this statement was issued at a time when Mihailovic's forces were inactive against the Germans and collaborating with the Italians." Please note, he does not say Chetnik forces, but rather Mihailovic's forces.

Lastly, I would really like someone to provide some quotes that claim that Mihailovic did not collaborate. I might have missed something, but thus far, I do not think anyone has provide such a quote yet from a reliable 2ndary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As you just mentioned, Mihailovic did collaborated with Italians, so no serious historian will provide such a simplicist info as "Mihailovic didn´t collaborated", but attention, neither you have sources that say, "Mihailovic, a WWII collaborator". Is it possible for you (or direktor) to number the most acusational sources? Because I seriously doubt that collaboration in 1942 was superior that their engadgement in fighting Axis, by that period, in 1942, as you say (remember that war begin in 1941, in Yugoslavia). FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it's not a question of whether his collaboration or resistance was "superior". He collaborated. He led a resistance force. The latter does not exonerate the former, and the former does not negate the latter. The article, and the lead, should reflect both, with due weight, reflecting reliable secondary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Winston Churchill wrote in his book Closing the Ring, Volume 5, p.415: "Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received show that he [Mihailović] had been in active collaboration with the Germans". [2]. This is obviously an important source that should be accorded some weight. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See my reply in the section below. I concur with what FkpCascais said above. And I repeat : it is no use mentioning that this book or that book says that Mihailovic was a traitor (to whom ? certainly not to the yugoslav monarchy) while providing no evidence that they do say that, and occasionnally using books which actually say the opposite. What most books say - and rightly so - is that Chetniks groups, who recognized Mihailovic as their leader, engaged in many acts of collaboration, and that Mihailovic himself took advantage of the situation in order to defeat the communists (while never stopping to be wanted as an enemy by the Germans). That is much more complex than just saying "Mihailovic was a collaborator". I hope it will be as clear as possible when I have finished my draft. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques George's draft

Jean-Jacques has produced a redraft of the article here. I think it is an improvement and invite participants to comment.

One question concerns the continued use of the word "collaborator" in the lead (second paragraph). Given that only one or two sources actually refer to him as a "collaborator," and the one cited qualifies that, would this description be in keeping with WP:UNDUE, which states: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The lead should summarize the most prevalent view and it seems to me that most sources qualify their description of his collaboration. Comments? Suggestions for re-wording? Sunray (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, there so not a single reliable source which claims that most scholars say Mihailovic engaged in collaboration, nor that most historians claim that Mihailovic did not engage in collaboration. So, as there is no proof which view is most prominent, and as there are reliable sources which claim opposite, I think that we should state in the lead that the issue is controversial, ie historians do not agree whether Mihailovic engaged in collaboration. BoDu (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to continue the draft later today, although it will certainly not be finished before next week (I had hoped it would be by the end of this week, but as anyone knows, there are only 24 hours in one day). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunray writes "It is my hope that no one engaged in this discussion believes (...) that Mihailovic's behavior was solely that of a collaborator". Apparently, some users do, or want the reader to, and that is the article's current main problem. Any student using the current article as a source would get an "F", or at the very least a "C-minus-minus", provided his teacher has any adequate knowledge of the matter.

By "Mihailovic's forces", people, authors, and actors of the period generally mean "the Chetniks" in general (with Kosta Pecanac's forces being excluded in the majority of the cases). That is the meaning of Churchill's remarks in his note. In his address to the House of Commons, he said in essence "Mihailovic has not been fighting lately and his forces have been collaborating with the enemy on many occasions" (the exact quotation is in Roberts' book and I will add it to the draft), not "Mihailovic [as a person] is a collaborator" nor "The Chetniks [as a whole] are first and foremost a collaborationist militia". So, if Durisic's forces collaborated with the Italians, and later with the Germans, on several occasions (which they did), we can say that Mihailovic's forces collaborated, since he was Mihailovic's de facto representative. Although the situation is more complex than that, as I hope to show when I progress in my draft. Saying that the Chetniks were only a collaborationist militia and have to be considered 100% Axis, or Axis-aligned, as Direktor said on Talk:Yugoslav Front, is grossly inaccurate to say the least.

I repeat myself, but I also will rewrite Chetniks and Yugoslav Front. And to be absolutely clear, I do believe that the Chetniks were reprehensible as a whole, although not exactly (or not only) for the reasons currently stated in the current, woefully biased, articles. Not that I think either that the Partisans were little angels with pretty lily-white wings (their article should also be watched IMHO), although they did turn out to be, by far, the most efficient movement. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am offended by being confused with Sunray, but, ironically enough, you're quoting me above. Also, I do not think it is our place to interpret what secondary sources mean, we have to take them at face value--to do otherwise is to engage in OR|original research, although your points about the partisans not being angels and the chetniks not being "devils" are well taken. Also, I think we should be cautious in regard to Churchill--I think quoting him is fine, but I believe he should be considered a primary source. And I agree that the situation is very complex, and look forward to reading your draft in it's entirety. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the confusion. Anyway, I'm glad that you appreciate my efforts. I'll try to work as fast and best as I can on the draft (not that I intend it to be "perfect" even when I'll be finished but at least it should be a more valid start). Indeed, sources should be quoted avoiding interpretation as much as possible, and that's what I'm trying to do in the draft.

A personal thought, just as a sidenote : what's funny, given Charles de Gaulle's scorn for Tito (he hated him for "murdering" Mihailovic), is that some french authors have compared the Tito-Mihailovic situation with the feud between de Gaulle and Henri Giraud in the French resistance. Of course, no blood was shed between the two, and de Gaulle never aimed to kill Giraud or the other way around, but the comparizon seems pretty accurate to me. Giraud was initially played up by the Americans, who distrusted de Gaulle, as the leader of French resistance groups. But while de Gaulle - of whom I am no absolute fan, I may add - proved to be a sly and highly intelligent politician, Giraud turned out to be a man of limited intelligence and political foresight (IMHO, a complete jerk) who would have been completely unable, for personal and political reasons, to unite the French resistance (communists included) under his flag, not to mention leading the country after the war. The tragedy of Mihailovic is, at least in my eyes, that he was some kind of Giraud, i.e. a man who certainly meant well but who was out of his depth in his situation (with consequences far more tragic, for his country and for himself, than in Giraud's case). He was certainly a fine officer, but he was not made to be n°1 of any movement and would have needed to serve under another, outstanding, leader. To make another comparizon with a French situation, I think the Chetniks resembled a little what the Free French Forces would have been (minus the ethnic cleansing business) if they had been led, not by people like de Gaulle, de Lattre or Leclerc but, say, by someone like Jacques Massu (a good officer, who did very well under de Gaulle, but certainly not a political genius). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Made some new additions, comments and corrections welcome. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some fine material in there, and it's pretty well sourced, although it does rely very heavily on two sources, Roberts and Pavlowitch, which I don't have, but presumably can get. Can you put page numbers in the draft for the references? (for the draft, I think just putting 'p.xx' after the reference in the text would be fine).

I do have a couple of suggestions regard sources, tho, in that I'd suggest we not use the Britannica article (it's a tertiary source and we're not lacking for secondary sources, and the wording is vague--for a long discussion between me and BoDu about that issue please see User_talk:Nuujinn/archive1#Britannica.

The other source I'm concerned about is Lee's The Rape of Serbia. Lees claims he relies in part on documents from the Public Records Office, but his citations of same are vague, it's written largely in the first person, and is essentially a memoir with a strong slant anti-communist slant. Some quotes for those not familiar with it:

• From the dedication: "This book is dedicated to the memory of the victims of the murderers and massacres perpetrated by the Soviet-bloc despots, aided by their lackeys and dupes. May those truly patriotic Loyalists who were slaughtered in Yugoslavia in the name of revolutionary liberation rest more peacefully now that the true nature of the communist swindle is at last becoming exposed and generally accepted."
• From the Author's Note: I have also coined the term Loyalist or Loyalist Cetniks to identify the noncommunist national resistance movement commanded by Gen. Draza Mihailovic. The misrepresentation of the centuries-old Cetnik by communist propogandists, by Axis disinformation, and by opportunists and bandits seeking to legitimize themselves obligates us to use something other than "Cetnik' alone.
• And a quote from the text: "It is ironic that I finished by guerrilla career in SOE being badly wounded in an attack against a German corps headquarters in northern Italy and was blamed, reviled and demoted for carrying out this important and successful attack contrary to orders. But I never got orders to the contrary. Neither was I actually in charge of the attack, though I had conceived, planned, and reconnoitered it." (p. 159-160)

The Rape of Serbia is a fine read, but it's not a scholarly work, mostly a primary source, and I just don't think we need it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Para 2 of lead

The second paragraph of JJ's redraft addresses Mihailović's role during World War II. It covers most of the bases, I think and the sources look good. I'm wondering about re-wording the bit about collaboration in the second sentence:

After the war, Mihailović was captured, tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Communist Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad. The role of Mihailović during the war is disputed : while some authors describe him first and foremost as a collaborator, other claim that he was an unsung resistance hero, ultimately betrayed by the Allies, and other give a more nuanced version of his actions. His place in History remains controversial.

Possible alternative wording

... while some authors state that there was collaboration between the Chetniks, under Mihailović, and the Axis Powers<ref>, others claim that Mihailović was an unsung resistance hero...
Comments? Sunray (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there were definitely acts of collaboration - sporadic or not - between a number of Chetnik groups (not all of them) and Axis powers. In my draft, I'll get to that later (I have already gotten to the bit concerning the Italians) The issue is to determine if Mihailovic was, above everything, a collaborator (which means, if we follow to the letter the definition in the WWII context, a traitor against his own country). I think it's better to stick to Mihailovic in this article. The issue of the Chetnik has to be adressed mainly, I think, it their own article, which also has to be rewritten.

BTW, I won't be able to work on it this week-end, but I hope I'll be able to resume work on monday and to complete it by next wednesday. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am only suggesting that you might want to avoid labeling Mihailović "collaborator." If participants were able to agree on some formulation using the word "collaboration," I think it might be more in line with the sources. Many sources talk of "collaboration," but M's involvement is less clear. Calling him "a collaborator" seems arguable. I've modified by suggested wording based on your comments. If you are still not in agreement, would you be able to suggest an alternate wording? Sunray (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to thank J-J G for his excellent and obviously very time-consuming efforts here. Sterling work, which I'm sure is much appreciated by all of us. To discuss the issue of collaborator/collaboration etc, may I suggest that if collaboration is 'the act of co-operating with an enemy occupying force' (note: I have purposely omitted the word 'traitor' here, as I think that complicates things. Traitor to whom? The King? Doubtful, although you could call Tito a traitor to the King. To the people? Tough question to answer, so that's why I've left out 'traitor'), then there is ample evidence from the sources of Mihailović having done this repeatedly and increasingly, from the Nov 1941 meeting at Divci onwards. For example, Churchill wrote all the reports indicated that DM was "in active collaboration with the Germans". However - and this is the sticking point, I guess, as the matter is not absolutely black and white - how much of what he did was collaboration and how much was not? Did his collaboration become more extensive over time? What was the emphasis of his activities during the war? While I really don't think he had a clear strategy in his own mind, and I would say he probably felt pushed into what he did by circumstances, it is perhaps a fair summary for the purposes of the lead to say that "While his and his Chetniks' activities also included acts of resistance, such as rescuing downed pilots, he was involved in acts of collaboration from late 1941 onwards and these became predominant as the war progressed". What do others think? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. Perhaps we should focus on his primary goal, rather than his acts. It seems to me that the sources show that Mihailovic believed the Allies would eventually drive off the Axis, and that his primary opponents were the Partisans, and that goal appears to be what governed his actions. For example, he was willing to work with the Germans in late 1941 once it was apparent that the British would or could not supply him with sufficient arms to achieve victory over the Partisans. Perhaps something along these lines:

• "Although viewed by the Allies in the early stages of the war as the primary leader of Yugoslavian resistance, Mihailovic and his Chetniks' were primarily concerned with overcoming the communist Partisans, and their activities included both acts of resistance against and acts of collaboration with Axis forces throughout the war." --Nuujinn (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, that's good too, but I think that it perhaps ought to somehow point up that during the four years of war our man (due to the success of his no. 1 enemy, the Partisans), from someone who went to the hills as a remnant of the Royalist Army evolved into the leader of a (mainly) collaborationist force. Could you somehow add your ideas to my version to add what you think is missing? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how's this:

"Although viewed by the Allies in the early stages of the war as the primary leader of Yugoslavian resistance, Mihailovic and his Chetniks' first concern was overcoming the communist Partisans, and their activities included both resistance to and collaboration with Axis forces throughout the war. In the final year of the war, the British shifted support from Mihailovic and the Chetniks due to increased collaboration with Axis forces.

After the war Mihailovic's role was a matter of dispute. He was tried, convicted and executed as a war criminal by the Communist government of Yugoslavia and but also lauded for his resistance efforts by a US commission, which awarded him a Legion of Merit medal posthumously." --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, we're overfudging and confusing the reader here. For the purposes of a sentence in the lead, can we boil it down a bit for encyclopedic purposes? Man, if we only had some beer and some paper we'd be able to nail this in twenty minutes...

You're right, it's to complicated. How's this (trying to merge some of JJG and Sunray's edits and working in the point that he was primarily against the partisans):

"Although the leader of the Royalist resistance forces, Mihailovic avoided open conflict against Axis forces and over time condoned increasing acts of collaboration in pursuit of his primary goal of overcoming the communist Partisans, eventually losing Allied support. After the war Mihailovic's role is a matter of dispute, with some historians emphasizing his collaboration and others his acts as a resistance leader." --Nuujinn (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with the above text... as is seen here, [3] "it should be stressed that the trial was anything but a model of justice, as the stenographic record amply proves. It is clear the Mihajlovic was not guilty of all or even many of the charges brought against him. Yet one wonders what kind of trial tito would have received in the aftermath of the war, had he not mihajlovic been the loser." So I think it important to state "controversial trial". (LAz17 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Yes, I do rely heavily on two sources, but the point is that it's more interesting to scrupulously use works which you have read from cover to cover, and which you have on your desk, than on links from google books. (although these can obviously be used for additional info). I'll try to add references to other books as much as possible. As for "The rape of Serbia" : no, it's not a "scholarly works", but it's a work by one of the actors involved. Not having read it, I'll just mention it as an example of pro-Mihailovic books. Pretty much like the (opposite-minded) "Serbia's secret war", which seems pretty much like a pseudo-scholarly work to me, and should be used with all due precautions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with ""While his and his Chetniks' activities also included acts of resistance, such as rescuing downed pilots, he was involved in acts of collaboration from late 1941 onwards and these became predominant as the war progressed". It's a bit too simplistic and could be misleading. I'll try to develop as much as I can the details of his actions in the draft, as they were not limited to the rescue of downed pilots. Admittedly, the current intro in my draft is a bit long (and the article is due to be very long when it's finished) but I think we have to do something like this in order to do justice to the subject. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid the nature of a lead does mean we will have to be a bit simplistic, since it is a summary. But see if this is acceptable:

• Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović, (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Colonel at the time of the invasion of Yugoslavia by the Axis Powers. He founded a resistance movement known as the Chetniks, and was named Minister of war of King Peter II's government in exile. Initially supported by the United Kingdom, Mihailovic and the Chetniks soon found themselves in conflict with Tito's communist Partisans. Avoiding open conflict against Axis forces for fear of reprisals, Mihailovic generally confined his Chetniks' resistance efforts to acts of sabotage. At times condoning and engaging in opportunistic acts of collaboration in his attempts to overcome the Partisans, Mihailović eventually lost Allied support. Mihailovic's role continues to be a matter of dispute, with some historians emphasizing his collaboration and others his acts as a resistance leader. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a pretty good summary of the conflict between Chetniks and the Partisans. The formulation "opportunistic acts of collaboration in his attempts to overcome the [[Partisans]" is, I think, a good summary of the sources. It probably needs some additional information to broaden it for the lead. What do other participants think? Sunray (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite being totally concentrated on WWII (don´t forget he is a Balkans and WWI veteran), the issue regarding the WWII is better handed. Another issue is that too much wight is given to the fact that Chetniks were "avoiding conflict with Axis" when many sources say that they were in open conflict, specially until 1943 (half war, for Yugoslav front). If the "avoiding" sentence is suposed to balance between the open conflict, and collaboration, I think that we could see more posibilities, as well, or work it even better. FkpCascais (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, can you (or anyone else) provide some quote from reliable sources that show that Mihailovic's Chetniks were in open conflict with Axis forces? Perhaps add a section to the quotes subpage? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What a "cease-fire" means to you? It is impossible to have a ceasse-fire if you are not in conflict... Also, you have the Cohen source, that was used in the lede for collaboration, where you have him saying that Germans didn´t accepted Mihailovic aproach because "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". Is that good? But, obviously you have entire books about it, but I beleave Jean-Jacques Georges knows better which ones are better indicated and enter more in detail on the battles, and so... FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean by "you have him saying that Germans didn´t accepted Mihailovic aproach because "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht"." But in any case, you said "many sources say that they were in open conflict, specially until 1943 (half war, for Yugoslav front)", and I'm curious about what sources you mean, because I'm not finding any that claim that, although I'm not finished with any of the books I've checked out yet. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are saying that you don´t understand how a Cohen citation: "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht" says that they were fighting Germans? What is possibly there not to be understood? He couldn´t be clearer. Anyway, you are opening something that wasn´t even in question before... FkpCascais (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am not being clear enough. You said, "you have him saying that Germans didn´t accepted Mihailovic aproach because "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht"." I do not understand what you mean by "you have", since I don't believe I've written that phrase, at least not here. My notes from Cohen's Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History do not contain that phrase, and I do not find it in Google books' preview (which is the access I have). Can you clarify? Also, you said "many sources say that they were in open conflict, specially until 1943 (half war, for Yugoslav front)", can you list a few of these many sources? I'd like to read them. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about that source: Talk:Draža Mihailović/Britannica. It is right at begining, after a few comments, and it is a bolded discussion that I had with AlsdairGreen. It was a Kogard [assistant to the chief of staff of the German military command] quote. Was that your doubts? If it was Cohen´s words, or Kogards quote? FkpCascais (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "you have", I said it because you asked, you have, what is wrong with it? FkpCascais (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now, the sources from the lede were changed! They don´t link to the texts anymore! Why? It was good because you could have seen the statements used for sourcing collaboration inside the text. Why are they changed now? FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"You have" implies ownership in US english. Ok, that's clear. Checking the Cohen text, Kogard did say that Mihailovic's chetniks "were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". Cohen continues to say that Mihailovic denied this, claiming his troops only counterattacked when attacked, and "thus it would be in the future". Cohen also say that Kogard and Mihailovic agreed that their common enemy was the partisans, and that Mihailovic requested arms and ammunition, that Kogard accused Mihailovic's troops of mutilating Germans, that he told Mihailovic that as commander, he was "...responsible for the crimes committed by [his] subordinates" and that suspicions about the mutilations caused the meeting to end without agreement. So, that source says a German officer claimed Mihailovic's troops were engaged in open struggle at a meeting where Mihailovic was proposing collaboration, and Mihailovic denies that his troops were engaged in open struggle. Do you have any other sources? Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He denies it because he tryied to be a politician, as well, and he wanted to give the impression of non-fighting between them, by evidently lying (nothing unusual, giving the circunstancies). They even speak about mutilations that Mihailovic Chetniks did to Germans! J.J.Georges certainly knows to indicate you the best ones. I´ll prefer to let him continue with you on this. FkpCascais (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the claim that he denied it "...because he tryied to be a politician, as well, and he wanted to give the impression of non-fighting between them, by evidently lying"? Also, I would ask that you consider not making claims such as "many sources say that they were in open conflict, specially until 1943 (half war, for Yugoslav front)" if you, yourself, cannot support them with sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you one, be patient. Anyway, that is not as bad as using the sources for opsite purpose, and manipulating, even lying. I can source that. Want? :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, I'm not interested in hearing any accusation you or anyone else might have against any editor here. If you think someone has acted inappropriately, please take it to ANI. I am interested in the many sources you mentioned. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm bloody late (several days late, sorry) but I have resumed working on the draft. Please tell me what you think. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions welcome

The draft now has a beginning, a middle and an end. I have trimmed down the lead a little and am currently correcting it and fleshing it out with additional info. I've also added some relevant info using Tomasevich. I'm open to suggestions about additional sources and facts so we can get things going and hopefully produce a valuable article. We can discuss on the article's talk page but maybe it would be more practical to put concentrate all comments on this section. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of collaboration

Above, JJG made the comment: "The issue is to determine if Mihailovic was, above everything, a collaborator (which means, if we follow to the letter the definition in the WWII context, a traitor against his own country)." The phrasing of this caught my eye, as I do not believe the two are equivalent. The definition I am used to is pretty much what is expressed in the collaboration article. I'm wondering whether some of the contention here is due to semantic differences. For example, Mihailovic cooperated with the Axis, and thus in my use of the term, collaborated. As AlasdairGreen27 points out, that does not make him a traitor, at least not in the simple sense, since he (and I imagine the Government in Exile) viewed the communists as enemies. But I'm wondering what definition other editors would use for the word collaboration. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessarily true that if someone engaged in some action that this then defines them? My question has to do with labeling. The issue is this: In writing a biography in an encyclopedia, one has to be careful to stay with what the sources say. My sense of the sources is that most paint the picture of a complex struggle between the Chetniks and the Partisans during the war. Alliances were formed, and were dissolved; there was collaboration and there was betrayal (at different times and depending on point of view). Tito won, Mihailovic lost. Surely this all has to be treated with care and generalizations avoided. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is true, and I'm still reading. So far, though, no scholarly work I've read disputes his collaboration, and no one in these many long discussions has provided a quote from a scholarly work claiming he did not collaborate. That being said, we may not be able to produce a lead that is sufficiently nuanced with the word "collaborate" in it.

Serious historian Heather Williams in her book "Parachutes, patriots and partisans" uses word "accomodation" rather than "collaboration", when she talks about the arrangements bettween the Mihailovic's forces and the Axis. BoDu (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. There is a serious problem. On the Yugoslav Front page Direktor is continually moving Chetniks off the list of Allies. He does not acknowledge whatsoever that they even were on the side of the allies. He calls them "nominally allied" and dumps them into the list of axis troops. What can be done here? He has not cooperated before and I do not seeing him cooperating in the future. (LAz17 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Also, do take a look at the table of contents of this book [4] - as we can see, there are two different concepts of resistance. Now, Direktor has in the past explicitly told me that the Chetniks were not a resistance group. So that's what we are up against. (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

LAz17, glad to see you're back. I think the place to deal with that would be on the talk page for that article, but please keep in mind the importance of a cool head, and that there's little need to rush the process. Do your best to engage him in discussion, and if that doesn't work, you might consider posting a note to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests to get more eyes on the situation. Thanks for the reference. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good advice.

On that source - there are a few other things in the contents that I found interesting - German Partizan discussions on page 106, and US inteligence joins mihajlovic headquarters 225... (LAz17 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Page 108 and 109, about partizan-german cooperation states that the partizans and chetniks regarded one another as their main enemies, not the germans to be their main enemies. This confirms what Tim Judah wrote in his book called "The Serbs" - that the partizan-chetnik dispute was a serbian civil war. (LAz17 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

I don't want to indulge in personal conflicts, but I do agree that Direktor's attitude, and his unwillingess to cooperate, pose a problem. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)