Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive8

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

I have tryied to get feedback on this several times now, but nothing happend. The issue is simple, D.Mihailovic and the Chetniks can´t hardly be considered fairly included. I had already heard from direktor that a solution would be removing "notable" from the wording. Well, that looks more as an attempt to do whatever it takes just to include them, than a honest aproach to the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Sunray, please feel free to do whatever with this section, but the issue shouldn´t be forgoten. I also don´t know if you had some different idea of when discussing this issue, so please feel free to postponed it if you find correct. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This template (created by Direktor, I may add) is inadequate and is Mihailovic certainly too controversial to be added. Same things for the Chetniks as a whole (though some did collaborate, no one here is denying this, I think). IMHO, the best solution would be a template like this one, including everything Yugoslav in World War II and avoiding to label anyone. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that according to the sources, the chetniks on the whole engaged in collaboration, and some did not. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to what I could read, some collaborated and some did not (and some actually did both). So the situation is too complex to label the whole movement "collaborationist", as if it had been its primary aim or the primary aim of its leader (nominal leader, but still formal leader). This is definitely not the same thing as the Greek Security Battalions. And even in Greeece, some EKKA members actually joined the Security Battalions after they had been under attack by ELAS. Does that make EKKA a collaborationist organization to start with ? The situation is too complicated to put definitive labels (and Yugoslavia's WWII situation is admittedly more complicated than Greece's, which was itself complex) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia. While they were primarily in Italian employ, German insistence that they be disarmed were rejected by the Italians with the explanation that they would be actually unable to maintain the occupation without them (we have the actual communiques). Note: the issue was disarming them, not imprisoning/executing them as rebels (all captured Partisans were executed on the spot). After the Italian capitulation, and a (well sourced) shift of German policy towards the Chetniks, their troops were praised in numerous reports as the "only useful combatants". Constant forceful Ustaše demands that they be disarmed were continuously rejected by the Germans on the grounds that, again, Axis control over the outer territory of the Independent State of Croatia would be impossible to maintain without them ("...they [the Chetniks] are making a worthwhile contribution to the Croatian state").

The collaboration of Draža Mihailović has been profusely sourced with (according to WP:V) highest quality sources. If you would like now to shift the discussion over to the collaboration of the Chetniks as a whole, we can do so. I assure you - compared to Mihailović's actions, which he was (reportedly) very careful to conceal to the best of his abilities, sourcing large-scale Chetnik collaboration is a pushover. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another important point: there is a recurrent myth circulating throughout this discussion that the Chetniks in southern Serbia (which were somewhat more directly under Mihailović's control) were not collaborating (the "good Chetniks"). This is entirely false. I'd like to remind everyone that the Chetniks in the territory of Nedić's puppet Serbia enjoyed what was described as a "flexible system of collaboration" with Axis Serbia. (Side note: Nedić and Mihailović were professional rivals and did not like each other at all. Nedić was a successful military "big-shot" before 1941, Mihailović was not.) Further elaboration on the Nedić-Mihailović relationship in Serbia can be found in the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, "the collaboration of Draža Mihailović" has not been "profusely sourced with highest quality sources". What emerges from this discussion and from the vast majority of sources is that his case is much too complex to label him a collaborator above everything (and it is also inadequate to label him a stainless character without any trace of deviousness). While he did tolerate many acts of collaboration of his troops (or "accomodations" as one may call them), labeling him a traitor (which is the general meaning associated with collaboration) and put him at the same level as people like Joseph Darnand or Anton Mussert is stupid to say the least. I think we should dispense with such inadequate manicheism, especially in his case. IMHO this template should be changed into a general "Yugoslavia in world war II" template. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saying something is "not sourced" does not really mean much. Do I need to copy-paste the sources after my every post? Let me repeat myself again:

• I would not presume to use the word "collaborator" or "traitor" to describe Draža Mihailović. I agree with your assessment: that may give the false impression that this was his primary role in the war (though it does come close).
• The statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated", is very much different in tone and meaning, being a general unassuming statement of fact. It is completely correct, neutral, and most importantly, sourced profusely with highest quality sources. (Of course, additions or sentence structure variations are irrelevant.) Now one has the right to his own opinion and certainly to disagree with the sources (even for six months), but in the end personal opinions are irrelevant.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@direktor, your statement of "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia" is in my consideration unsourced. Can you please remind us of the source for that, so there are no questions left? FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges that this template should be changed into a general "Yugoslavia during World War II" template like the Greek version. BoDu (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Also, I would apreciate a response from direktor, so we can definitely know if the statement is wright, or not, because direktor insists on it, and I had already challenge everyone to analise this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind changing the name of the template. But I do not agree about not being able to say the Chetniks collaborated just because the situation was complex, unless someone can produce some sources that show they did not collaborate. Were there any Chetnik units that did not engage in some form of collaboration at some point during the war? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pavlowitch (certainly no admirer of the Chetniks) says, page 248, "In February 1944, a German report listed thirty-five different Chetnik groups [in the Independent State of Croatia, and Dalmatia] totalling some 23,000 men, of whom 5,800 were considered rebellious". "Considered rebellious", hence not engaging in any acts of collaboration (okay, that's an interpretation but that's what logically comes to mind. And that was in Croatia, where Chetnik groups under Djujic of Jedvjevic had been collaborating with both Italians and Germans). Do we want to study all thirty-five different groups, and all the others in the rest of Yugoslavia ? What should be stressed is that the Chetniks were a polycephalous and largely incoherent movement. I think that shall be more evident when the Chetniks article is rewritten. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My question is regarding the statement "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia". It is a related, but different claim, and I am asking for evidence for that specific claim. FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Chetniks, our natural allies, only they are fighting. Kroatische Kampfgemienschaft exists only on paper.

— Report to the OKW from the Split Abwehr office, extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b.7/I, p.751

At the end of September 1944 German commander of Split arrested the Ustashi-leader of the town in reprisal for Ustashi actions against the Chetniks who were allied to the Wehrmacht, threatening to "...shoot five Ustashis for every Chetnik."

— Hory, Ladislaus; Broszat, Martin, Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat 1941-1945. Referenced by: Telegramme des Stabchefs der Ustascha-Miliz, Oberst Herenčić, von Ende September 1944; PA/AA, Gesandschaft Zagreb: Bd.67/4, Bl.75f.

I actually know a bit about the above myself, since I'm from Split. Namely Split was briefly liberated by the Partisans in 1943, after the Italian capitulation, and about a third of the city joined the Partisans and left with them. After fierce fighting, the Germans reoccupied it and placed it into the nominal control of the NDH, while they retained direct control. The Ustaše came to the town from the Dalmatian hinterland and started killing the families of anyone who was even remotely connected to those who left - and naturally stealing their property. The Germans did not like this, but allowed it. The Chetniks under Đujić, who held much of the Serbian-populated parts of Dalmatia for the Germans then slaughtered an entire village (200 people) of Croats at Gala. The Ustaše went crazy and attacked them, but that was too much for the Germans - they arrested the Ustaše boss and threatened to execute him...

The ten-day report of the commanding General [of Fall Weiss, "Battle of the Neretva"] states even that the Chetniks "have proven themselves in co-operation with German Wehrmacht better than any of the Croatian Army units"

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.134

Partly, the Serbs [referring to the Chetniks] have furthermore shown themselves as the most reliable allies in fighting against the red bands, that is against communism. They are always ready to fight against the bandits with the German Wehrmacht and even to place themselves under its command.

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.307

In the few weeks that have passed since the division moved into this region formerly occupied by the Italians, the Chetniks have made themselves indispensable at securing the supply routes (especially the Knin-Drniš railroad). If Đujić [Chetnik commander Momčilo Đujić] were to be arrested at this moment, said Egleser, it would mean the troops would have to "...fight constantly for their own supplies".

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.232

...imagine that. The Partisans would've forced the 114th Jäger Division to "fight constantly for their own supplies". Luckily the Chetniks were happy to lend a hand.

The divisions that took part in Weiss II gave consistent reports ["aeusserten sich uebereinstimmend"] on the good conduct of Chetnik units. Through scouting and relieving attacks they have helped our troops, all that without asking for German support in any way.

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002, p.308

And, of course, the quote from above:

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

— General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb (Source: Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421)

I still didn´t analised all of them, but begining with the last one, that you had already posted, I think we have a missunderstanding issues about it. What I understand is that talks about possibilities ("could"). It never says that actually anything happened. Just "could". FkpCascais (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fkp again: you misunderstand the meaning of the sentence. That's past tense: General von Horstenau is remarking on how the Chetniks were the units the Germans were able to "use" to the best effect. He's talking about past events. If you don't believe me, ask others.

In Serbo-Croatian: "Jedinice koje su se stvarno mogle koristiti protiv Partizana su bili Srpski i Ruski dobrovoljci i - Draža Miahilovićevi ljudi."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, even in Serbo-Croatian ("koje su se stvarno mogle" precise translation) has the exact meaning, "that could" not saying if they actually ended being used or not.

Exemple:"The country that could really bring down Ahmadinejad´s regime is Israel", but it doesn´t say if happend, or not, just "that could". I honestly have no doubts whatsoever on this, and I think that we could ask others :) Agree? FkpCascais (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, come to think of it the sentence is ambiguous in Serbo-Croatian, hence the misunderstanding, - but its not ambiguous in English. If you were right the text would have to go "The units that could really have been used against the Partisans..." Fine, you don't believe me... anyone? Its a post-war statement, part of his memoirs... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No,no,no... in both languages it´s exactly the same. I know where you insist, in the fact that the Germans could use them, the problem with the sentence is that it has a non concluded action, leaving it open. As in English, or any other language, "could" brings down your interpretation. You can´t read "were" instead of "could have". FkpCascais (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes,yes,yes. I don't know what to tell you... There's no point in discussing this since you won't believe me, and I'm not going to start digging up grammar references. Sunray seems to know a little English, perhaps he can help. :) Next time though, promise you'll trust me? I do not lie. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion won't go anywhere. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but if it is to go anywhere, I think we'd need the German version, does anyone have the German text? I taught German at the university level for about ten years, I think I can parse it out. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Now just wait a second fellas, am I crazy?

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

This is in past tense (this person was in the 1980s talking about WWII and the second sentence, along with the entire context, is in past tense.) The sentence does NOT talk about possibility, since the subject is in the past. If this person were talking about past possibility in the past the sentence would go "The units that could really have been used against the Partisans...". The only way it could be construed as a discussion about possibilities is if the person were talking during WWII about future possibilities, but this is not the case - this is decades after WWII.
Also, the Serbian and Russian volunteers were really used against the Partisans, the second sentence, along with the entire context, is in past tense. I can't believe I actually have to play these games... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with your interpretation of the English, in that I think you're correct. What I'm uncertain of is the original German. German has a more grammatically distinct subjunctive mood than English, and the passive voice complicates things a bit, so seeing the German would clarify the issue nicely I think. Additional context would help, too, of course. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the formal English translation, therefore it can be accepted in its form. Also, notice that the Serbian and Russian volunteers were really used against the Partisans. So what does that mean? Its paradoxical to try and assume he was talking about possibility in the past, in the wrong grammar, and ONLY about "Draža Mihailović's people" (since the Russisches Schutzkorps Serbien and the Serbisches Freiwilligenkorps were in fact used against the Partisans). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, where did you get this translation? There's a small problem with it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I´m sorry but you said that you agree with direktor, could you specify, agree on what? Also, we can have clear from the first direktors explanation, actually relatively correct, where he says "were the units the Germans were able to "use", the problem is that direktor interprets it if "they were used", but the sentence never says that, and even direktor´s explanation says "able", but not "were used", so that can hardly source much. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The translation is wrong. The original is here (p. 421). The German text is: "Wirklich brauchbar waren für den Kampf gegen die Partisanen nur die serbischen und halbwegs auch die russischen Freiwilligen und - die Draža Mihajlović-Leute, zu denen ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte". In English: "Really useful (Wirklich brauchbar) for the fight against the partisans (für den Kampf gegen die Partisanen) were (waren) only the Serbian (nur die serbischen - "serbischen" is an adjective, like "russischen") and partly (und halbwegs) the Russian wolunteers (die russischen Freiwilligen) and - Draža Mihailović's people (und - die Draža Mihajlović-Leute), to wich (zu denen) I had a Major and recipient of the Knight's Cross of Iron Cross as liaison officier (ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte)". Glaise von Horstenau never said that he or some other German commander used the Mihailović's people, but only that this people was ready to fight against the partisans.--151.21.253.196 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I agree with DIREKTOR's interpretation of the english version. 151.21.253.196 is right that the translation has some errors, but I don't agree entirely with that translation. Here's what I have. I found a copy on line here, it's the usual limited preview but page 421 is available. Looking through the book, it's a combination of general information about von Horstenau's role in the war and background information, including some relevant material to our discussion I'll take a crack at later, in the first part, followed by what appears to be an annotated diary. I believe that explains the tense. The quote is from june of 1994. Edmund_Glaise-Horstenau committed suicide in 1946 after his capture by the allies. The translation is mine, and a bit rough.

Ich ging aus Serbien mit dem Gefühle web, daß auch hier die deutsche Position ein Kartenhaus ist. Der einflußreicheste Mann im Lande ist nach wie vor, trotz seiner Niederlage durch Tito, Draza Milhajlovic, dessen Anhang bis ins Kabinett Nedic hinaufreicht. Mit Nedic war ich zweimal beisammen, er ist sicherlich ein ernst zu nehmender Mann, der sich's aber heute auch hundertmal überlege würde, seinen verlorenen Posten zu beziehen. Deutsche mobile Kräfte gibt es in Serbien überhaupt kaum, von ein paar Polizeitruppen abgesehen. Das bulgarische Krops, dem man in dem größten Teil des Landes die Besetzung anvertraut hat (nur der Nordwestwinkel und das Banat sind ausgeschlossen), ist die schlehteste Truppe, über die Bulgarien verfügt. Als ich das Oberkommando in Belgrad übernahm, waren gerade zwei Kompanien Bulgaren samt ihre Führern bei Leskovac zu den Partisanen übergegangen. Wirklich brauchbar waren für den Kampft gegen die Partisanen nur die serbischen and halbwegs auch die russichen Freiwilligien und - die Draza Mihajlovic-Leute, zu denen ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte.

I left Serbia with the feeling that also there the german position is a house of cards. The most influential man in the country is still as before, despite his defeat at the hands of Tito, Draza Mihailovic, whose supporters reach into Nedic's cabinet. With Nedic I met twice, he is certainly a man to be taken seriously, who, however, also a hundred times daily reflects on recovering his lost position. German mobile forces hardly exist in Serbian, apart from a few Military Police units (?). The bulgarian corps, in whom is entrusted the occupation of the largest part of the country (only the northwest corner and the Banat are the exception), is the worst troop the Bulgarians have at their disposal. When I took over the high command in Belgrade, two companies of Bulgarians and their commanders went over with Leskovac to the Partisans. Truly useful in the fight against the Partisans were only the serbian and, to a certain extent, the russians volunteers and - Draza Mihailovic's people, to whom I had attached a Major and Knight's Cross recipient as liaisons officer.

Some things of note.

• This quote is essentially a primary source, and as such should be handled with great care. The general sections in the first part of the book may be more useful.
• von Horstenau credits Mihailovic as the most influential man in the country, which would appear to undermine the notion that Mihailovic had no control over the chetniks in mid 1944.
• He does not here speak of any direct relationship between he and Mihailovic.
• He does cite Mihailovic's people as being truly useful in the fight against the Partisans, and I think this clearly supports DIREKTOR's reading, not FkpCascais's--in other words, the German is not in subjunctive mood. Also, it's written in the past tense after he's left Serbia, so I do not believe the original text supports 151.21.253.196's interpretation that Mihailovic's people were ready to fight, but rather that they did in fact fight the partisans.
• Most importantly in my mind, the german text clearly sets the scope of the "to whom" the liaison officer--it's Mihailovic's people, not the serbian volunteers nor the russian volunteers. So von Horstenau did apparently have a formal relationship through a liaison officer with Mihailovic's "people".

FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Understand. Thank you very much Nuujinn. I had read carefully all you and IP wrote. Please have in mind that your explanation is way more helpfull than just a simple insistence. I think that by this, we all forgot my initial point, that was about direktors claim that he did on several ocasions and articles, and, as I remember, was very much based on this specific source, which was to repeat that, citing "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia.", which I still find a litlle bit inacurate and exagerated, despite your explanation of the source. What you and others think? Also, JJG, this discussion has to do about a specific claim that I am certain that some participants would like to see included in your draft, so that is the reason of opening this question, I´m just antecipating things. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take not that my draft mentions very clearly the fact that Pavle Đurišić, Momčilo Đujić and Dobroslav Jevđević all collaborated at some point with the Germans, while still recognizing Mihailovic as official leader. Hence, they certainly could be considered "Mihailovic's people" and they certainly did help the Germans at some point (at least Jevđević, since Đurišić and Đujić seem to have been less reliable). This may also include several lesser-known Chetnik officials who may or may not have aknowledged Mihailovic. Once again : the Chetnik movement was de facto very "polycephalous". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Polycephalous", yes, but "most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia."? That is what was in question in my discussion. Do we agree that this claim is not valid? FkpCascais (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You and User:Jean-Jacques Georges? Yes. Anyone else? No. So after a huge mess we've discovered that ONE of the above sources is not falsely quoted. Whether or no the movement was "polycephalous" is not only debatable (since everyone fully acknowledged Mihailović as the "cephalus" of the movement), but also completely irrelevant to the question of their usefulness to the occupation. (The phrase is relevant in the discussion about Mihailović, not the Chetniks as a whole.)

Other than the Partisans, the only Yugoslav faction in occupied Yugoslavia mthat can be compared to the Chetniks is the Independent State of Croatia (the "NDH"), i.e. its military - the Croatian Armed Forces (the "HOS"). The Croatian military was notoriously unreliable. It comprised of the very small Ustaše party army, the "Ustaše Militia" (similar to the SS), and the hapless drafted Croatian Home Guard which formed the vast bulk of the military numbering on average some several hundred thousand men.

The Croatian Home Guard was, in short, described as proportionately the most unreliable and inept military organization of WWII in Europe. Thoroughly infiltrated by the Partisans and commanded by inept, corrupt officers, the Home Guard was referred to as the Partisans' "supply depot". Average desertion rates were also among the highest in WWII Europe.

So its not that the Chetniks were particularly "useful" as such, they were just far more reliable than the Croatian Home Guard - thus, if we exclude the various single units formed by the occupation, the Chetnik movement was the most useful large faction collaborating with the Axis occupation, again: by the Axis own admission. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides all this being completely wrong (how can someone be usefull if is in same time the enemy and fighting them most of the time???), it is not said in that way by any source. FkpCascais (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of it is "completely wrong" is it? :) I really have to copy-paste the sources after my every post, it seems. They are simply ignored in discussion for some strange unfathomable reason. You will find some of the sources about Chetnik "usefulness" above, User:FpkCascais. As for the "utter ineptitude" of the Croatian Army, you will find relevant information in the "pro-Croatian biased" Tomasevich Volume 2, which deals specifically with the collaborationist factions such as the NDH. I recommend Chapter 10. "The Armed Forces of the Independent State of Croatia" as a very interesting place to start your exploration of this subject. This is the source for the above. Further sources may be found in the Croatian Home Guard article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Germans are not interested in politics, they take everything from a military point of view. They need troops that can hold certain positions and clear certain areas of the Partisans. If they ask us to do it, we cannot do it. The Chetniks can.

— Mirko Blaž, Major, 7th Brigade of the Poglavnik's Personal Guard, March 5 1944

Partly, the Serbs [referring to the Chetniks] have furthermore shown themselves as the most reliable allies in fighting against the red bands, that is against communism. They are always ready to fight against the bandits with the German Wehrmacht and even to place themselves under its command.

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.307

• Please do not disregard all the other sources and focus only on one. Refuting one of them, which was not the case all the way up to now, will not make the others less valid.
• Please note carefully when I repeatedly say that whatever I take the time to "painstakingly" copy here by hand is only a small part of the vast hoard of information easily and readily available to you and anyone else at the click of a link.

To conclude, while they most certainly were the most useful collaborating movement of the only three existing ones (Chetniks, NDH, Nedić's Serbia), that point itself isn't crucial to this particular discussion. We should now close this discussion since it is very obvious from a metric TON of sources of all sorts they were a very important collaborating movement. Removing them from the template is nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Common sense:In a 3 side war situation, the 3th part is obviously usefull to fight the 2nd.

The problem is that you are bringing here the NDH forces in question, which were quite 100% collaborative with the Germans all time (and Chetniks is questionable if were even 50%, and only in periods, hipotetically speaking), and what the sources EXACTLY say is that the Chetniks were most "usefull in the fight against Partisans", never saying that they were "the most usefull collaborative force". Words are important and you are pushing them way more to your POV that common sence allows. FkpCascais (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense: "...the most reliable allies". Also, following your logic, in a three-sided war the Partisans should've also been useful to the Germans against the Chetniks, and the Germans should've been useful against the Chetniks. Both those latter statements are outlandish to the point of comedy.

I'll repeat: while they most certainly were "the most useful" collaborating movement of the only three existing ones (Chetniks, NDH, Nedić's Serbia), that point itself isn't crucial to this particular discussion. We should now close this discussion since it is very obvious from a metric TON of sources of all sorts they were a very important collaborating movement. Removing them from the template is nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is your purposly naively persistent pushing of the "collaborative" word. They were not fighting the Partisans because of the Germans, but because they had their own reasons, and if the Germans finded that usefull, good for them... The Kurdish groups were helping USA fighting Saddam, but that didn´t make them necessarilly NATO members... FkpCascais (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Chetniks were receiving arms and coordinating actions with the Axis forces. The vast majority of sources use the word collaboration. The allies withdrew support when it became apparent that the Chetniks were not effective as a resistance force because they were primarily interested in fighting the Partisans. Also, I can't find much in the way of sources outlining actual acts of resistance by Chetnik forces. If you or anyone else have any sources, please put them up at /Sources_related_to_resistance. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)