Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Extremely biased

In the communist takeovers that followed the liberation of Yugoslavia, tens of thousands of people were massacred. This was justified by the myth of a partisan resistance against the occupying Axis forces. In reality, partisans offered little effective resistance, and survived by stealing food and supplies from local farmers, who, in turn organized local "home guard" patrols to deter these raids. In the years that followed the war, the new regime engaged in a propaganda campaign to discredit the anti-communists as fascist colloborators.

The article, as it stands right now, seriously downplays the extent of atrocities, and propagates the myth of a brave resistance against the occupying forces. I'm currently gathering sources about the mass-murders that took place, but in the meantime I've added the POV tag to bring the bias to the attention of wikipedia readers. --Jonovision 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonovision, the post-war atrocities, commited by Communist Party, are a fact that certainly deserves the chapter dedicated to it in the article. - But to say that "In reality, partisans offered little effective resistance, and survived by stealing food and supplies from local farmers, who, in turn organized local "home guard" patrols to deter these raids." is indeed eytremely biased. It's sounds like you are saying that ordinary Yugoslavians practially welcomed the Nazi-Fascist occupation (killing hundreds of innocent civilias on daily basis, sending them to concentration camps etc.), and even formed the home-guards to protect themselves from liberation. If this is what your revision of historical facts is aiming at - why don't you simply call the Partisans by the name the Nazis and their lackeys used - DIE BANDITEN? Home-guards pledged an explicit allegiance to Hitler, were supported by, organized by and supplied with weapons by the Nazi ocupying force, they paraded the streets side by side with the German army - and were, generally, not recognized by the local population as "protectors" of any sort - and they most certainly were NOT organized by local farmers, though it is true, that most of the people that joined the home-guards did come from a farming backgrounds. - 193.77.250.157 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right that I am biased to some extent. I realize now that I probably came across as sounding like I want to rewrite the whole article from my point of view, which isn't the case. There's already a lot of good information in there. However, I do strongly believe that the other side of the story needs to get more attention than it currently does.

Moreover, I haven't seen any strong evidence that the partisans recieved the wide support that this article claims they did. Yugoslavian nations hadn't been independant in hundreds of years before the second world war, and I imagine the populations had grown accustomed to being part of a larger empire. Is a man a collobrator if he doesn't show his hatred of the Nazis publicly? What if he refuses to fight an absolutely futile war of resistance against a superior power? Can he not wait patiently like his ancestors did?

It seems pretty clear to me that the partisans labeled anyone who opposed communism as a collaborator. According to this article (link), the partisan leadership was already deeply committed to communism before the war ended; they put a death sentence on any fighters who did not support the same ideology.

My point here is that I don't see a big difference between the partisans during the war, and the communists afterwards. The writers of the article, make them out to basically good people who were fighting to free their homeland. Do the facts support that view, or are the writers still living in the haze of the propganda put out by communist governments which are still very influential in former Yugoslavia?

--Jonovision 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment on the "home guard" Domobrans...aren't YOU the one gleefully ignoring that these supposedly peaceful defenders of their homes just so happened to be under the command of a SS General and on Hitler's birthday, April 20, 1944, pledged allegiance to the Führer?

---

Jonovision, I guess you really do need to "gather some more information", as you put it. Try Wikipedia (it is a very nice online, free encyclopedia), and type "serbia" or "history of serbia" or "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" - so you will never have to write such bizzare comments as "Yugoslavian nations hadn't been independent in hundreds of years before the second world war".

Moreover - even if what you say would be true, I can see no reason why this would make any difference. For instance, when Americans fought a revolutionary war against the British monarchy, they certainly "hadn't been independent in hundreds of wears before" that - and so what? Why would this be of any significance? --(195.210.247.154 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ORGANISED KILLINGS

First of all, I would like to say that it is inevitable that soldiers, especially guerillas in the troubled Yugoslavia region, comit atrocities, as they are relatively badly disciplined and their command structure is quite shaky. However, let us not forget that the Partisan movement in Yugoslavia was the only movement that didn't comitt large scale ORGANISED eradication of the populations of any ethnic group(which is logical since they drew their strength from all the 6 nations in the country) attempted to establish a country where these peoples would live in their own relatively independent countries united in the Yugoslavian Federation. This is something that the nationalist chetnics were bitterly opposed to since they were ultimatly interested only in the formation of a larger Serbian state within the boundaries of Yugoslavia (the so called "Greater Serbia"). They did, in fact, organise the slaughtering of innocent civilians just because they happened to be Catholic or Muslims, and, far from the alleged partisan negotiations with the Axis authorities, actually participated in battles on the side of the occupating German and even the ultra-natoionalist Croatian ustasha forces (to which they were supposed to be bitterly opposed) to eradicate the hard-pressed Partisans. In fact the partisans were, as it is well known, the only force that actually dared to oppose the Germans and their collaborators.

At the end of the war, it is understandable that the victorious Partisans wished to annihilate the germans and their colaborators. This is criminal activity though (since the war did end), and it can not be justified. But weighed against the crimes of the other movements (usually fueled by ethnic hatred) these crimes are allmost insignificant and can perhaps even be forgiven. DIREKTOR

These crimes that happened after the war CAN NOT be forgiven, as thousands of young men who were forced to join the Home Guard and thus join the Hitler's army were brutally killed after the war was over. Keep in mind that the young men had no choice, they could either join the communist movement that was already killing innocent people and robbing villages or the side that would fight against them which was the Home Guard that pleged alliance to Hitler. Most of the men in the army did not want to fight with Hitler, but they didn't have any choice. However because this movement was under Hitler control they also did some unforgivable crimes to the other side. But after the end of the war, these men who were looking forward to come back home, were captured, shot and thrown into mass graves by the communists. And if one is to really look through all the horrific things that the communists did, one will discover they were no worse than Hitler.--lenko 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To say something like that says much about your lack of understanding for the historic context. You don't seem to understand how difficult it is to seperate the criminals from their lackeys or how absolutely unthinkable it was for the (in the aerea mostly serbian) partisans to let these people, who have been fighting for 4 years against the People's Liberation Army, just go free. Besides, most units of the'domobran'conscripted NDH army have indeed been allowed to do just that. It escapes you that the majority of these executed soldiers most probably WERE indeed traitors and collaborators with the occupying axis forces(mostly Ustasha)since they decided to leave their own land (and property) rather than attempt to surrender to the victorious forces. It is allso very important to bear in mind that the Partisans never engaged in organised mass killing and ethnic cleansing wich is sadly a rarity among the factions of the time, they did kill, but only out of necessity and for good reason, while the other factions killed because of their own warped ideas of racial purity or just pure ethnic hatred. Finally you are forgetting, Lenko, that the Chetniks and the Ustashe killed INCOMPERABLY FAR MORE CIVILIANS and that the Partisans at least concentrated on killing the enemy SOLDIERS. Besides, the war was over for just a few days and the ustashe were still fighting. Try telling the enraged ,war-torn army that they can't kill the genocidal traitors because of a judicial formality. DIREKTOR

POV tag reversion

216.232.14.145, is there a reason you're removing the POV tag? Just to restate my reason for putting it in there in the first place, I feel that the article is in need of some work to make it more balanced. Before making changes, I would like to gather some more information, rather than make unsourced, possibly controversial edits. I think it is fair to keep the POV tag to highlight the difference of opinion for the time being. --Jonovision 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonovision, I think you just answered you own question - you have no evidence for your opinions. Usually a person who is not biased would do research and then form his opinions based on the results of the research. You, on the other hand, already have an opinion even though you admit that you lack evidence for it.

In addition, you have not specified what exactly is disputed so that we can start debating and revising the article. So to try to make things clearer I will ask a few questions. 1. Are you disputing that Partisans resisted Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia? 2. Are you disputing the extent of their resistance? 3. Are you disputing the extent and number of their atrocities? The atrocities are mentioned in the article so are the some that are missing according to you.

To summarize – in the future when placing a POV tag please do the research on the subject and please be more specific about what is disputed.

Titles and organization

Some of the pages related to Yugoslav partisans have wrong titles - there's a confusion of "people" and "nation" which are called the same in BCMSxyz, but not in other ex-Yugoslav languages. We also seem to lack a clear plan on what we want to put on which page. Since this seems to be the most used and linked partisan-related page, we might as well start the planning here. Here's a general outline, following the usual naming in Yugoslav history, and using "national" where "narodni" is used in Slovenian:

National Liberation Struggle: (NOB) Should be the general history article about the Tito-led resistance in WWII Yugoslavia, including military but mainly concentration on the political aspects, like the government of liberated territories, people's councils, AVNOJ and regional anti-fascist councils, internal politics of the movement as well as relations with other pre-war parties, etc.
National Liberation War: (NOR) Should be the article about military operations, with subarticles about the 1941 uprising, axis offensives, the internal Yugoslav conflict, liberation etc.
National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia: (NOViPOJ) Should be the article about partisans as a military organization with links to units, lists of ranks, etc.
Partisans (Yugoslavia): Should redirect to one of the above, probably the NOViPOJ article.

Any thoughts? Zocky | picture popups 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A Civil War

213.191.138.54 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)When condeming Partisan crimes we must remember to put thing in a historic and demographic cotext of the time. It is beyond discussion wether or not crimes against humanity were commited by the partisans, however they are drowned in the sea of atrocities that occured during those 4 bloody years. It is redicculous to compare the crimes of the Partisan movement with those of Germany's collaborators and Chetniks. The Ustashas (Croatian ultra-nationalists) and the Chetniks (Serb royalist radicals, but allso Axis collaborators) performed ETHNIC CLEANSING, and were both NATIONALIST movements. Thus they were, de facto, opposed to the Yugoslav idea and strived to create Great Croatia and Great Serbia respectively. Both chose massacre as their favorite tool regardless of wether they had Germany's support(Ustasha) or not. Ustashas massacred countless civilians in a Hitler-style annihilation of Serbs and Jews, while the Chetniks attepted to purify large aereas of territory by murdering the Croatian inhabitants.

The Partisans, however, did kill civilians during the war, but it was very rarely or never out of ethnic hatred but out of necessity, nor was there any organised ethnic cleansing organised by the partisans. If mureders did occur, it was mostly becouse villagers objected to having their chickens confiscated in the name of communism, or something like that. After the war most of the fleeing army heading for Bleiburg was indeed fleeing for a very good reason: most were probably collaborators and had good cause to fear the Partisans. But nevertheless the killig of these people was a horrible stain on the Partisans but it is perhaps understadable once we take into consideration that in the eyes of the victors (both Croatian and Serb Partisans), these were the people that massacred their friends and destroyed thier homeland they weren't just gonna let them go free eventually. We have to remember that war in Yugoslavia was extremely 'personal' and that it surpassed in severity a great many other battlefield, it took on a large number of characteristics of a CIVIL WAR(!) a reason perhaps for the victors to especially despise and detest their enemies as they considered them, in essence, traitors to their own country. And a reason perhaps for them to consider dealing with these enemies their own personal and private matter. dIRECTOR

Partisan movement collaboration issue

First of all, I would like to see some references (links) from your acclaimed historians (no more biased radical Serb sites, please) stateing that Partisans actively fought for the Axis at any time. I would like you also to know that the claims you support have been brought forth here before and were promptly rejected by Admins, because they are usually supported by fascists and/or revisionists supporting the criminalisation of the formation of the SFRY. However, if you have new sources, I will keep an open mind. I am from Croatia, but I am also no nationalist in any way whatsoever. DIREKTOR 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find the links you want. However,a German memorandum [NOKW 1088-Record Group 238, World War II War Crimes]states that the German-Partisan conversation took place in Gornji Gornji Vakuf (west of Sarajevo) on March 11, 1943, from 9:30 to 11 A.M. It records that the Partisan delegation stressed that the Partisans saw no reason for fighting the German Army and they would fight the British should the latter land in Yugoslavia. This is the proof that the Partisans collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not men to sound arrogant, but have you considered the possiblity that it is difficult to find these links because this is not a widely accepted historical theory, but a mere allegation? I'm not saying it is impossible for the Partisans to have made attempts at ceasefire negotiations, I am saying this does not mean anything, since they obviously failed. It is certianly not enough to call them collaborators.

As for the Yugoslavia landing resistance, it is pointless to speculate thusly, even if they did make such an agreement (and that really requires irrefutable proof, since they were a recognised Allied movement by 1943), no fighting took place so they in effect did not collaborate with the Axis in any capacity (instead they drew off by far more German resources than any other resistance movement).

Let us concentrate on the fighting. Can you find a (reliable) source that states Partisans fought for the Axis in any way? DIREKTOR 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Germans refused the Partisan's proposal. But you do not have to be a genius to understand that proposal not to fight Germans but instead fight British is collaboration. As for the fact that the Partisans were a recognised Allied movement by 1943 have you considered the possiblity that British did not know about the Partisan's offer to fight against British? And anyway, I do not know any acclaimed historian who claims that the document I mentioned [NOKW 1088-Record Group 238, World War II War Crimes] is a forgery BoDu 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Technically, that is a proposal for military collaboration, not collaboration.
2) Do you have accepted unbiased reliable (non-Axis/Chetnik) sources (like Britannica, or something) confirming the allegations that such a meeting took place, and if it did, did it have that exact tone?
3) Bear in mind that even if the latter is all true, it still does not prove that the Partisans actually intended to fight the British (even if they "promised" the Nazis they would), or that the emissary had the backing of the Partisan High Command.

Like I said, since there was no real alliance (actual fighting alongside one-another) between the Germans and the Partisans (like the one with the Chetniks), there is no real backing to the claim that the Partisan movement was a collaborator movement (that is why this is not generally accepted by historians). In other words, what the Partisans would or would not do is open to speculation and cannot be considered evidence of collaboration. DIREKTOR 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. You would also do good to remember that the son of Winston Churchill (Major Randolph Spencer-Churchill, MBE) was saved by the Partisans during the Raid on Drvar, and that the Partisans (also Allies) fighting the Western Allies would probably mean war between the USSR and the latter, a most unlikely turn of events in 1943. DIREKTOR 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

March negotiations (Martovski pregovori) between Germans and Partisans are more then well documented by communist historians although considered totally insignificant they are constantly dug up by Chetnik revisionist since nothing better can be found, some authors are making things up with such stupidity that even a child would laugh [1]. At that time Partisans were hard pressed in narrow pocket around Nerteva river and another Axis assault would eliminate his force completely, but since both sides were exhausted by months of combat Tito grabbed opportunity to buy himself some time especially since he had large number of German and Italian POW including colonel Strecker - in the end nothing besides prisoner exchange (which were occurring constantly during entire war since alternatively both sides would simply execute them) come out of negotiations besides buying Tito few days of peace. Considering state of Partisans force I have no doubt Tito would have strike a deal with a Devil if he had showed up - maybe he did? :-) --Ivan Bajlo 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, Chetnik propaganda. Please refrain from ridiculous collaboration charges against the first, the strongest and most numerous resistance movement in occupied Europe. Only the Chetniks (of the resistance movements) collaborated extensively with the Axis. DIREKTOR 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do is not Chetnik propaganda. After all, you admited that the Partisans collaborated with the Axis in some capacity. There is difference between tactical collaboration and quisling collaboration. Tactical collaboration was adopted by some resistance movements in Europe including Partisans and Chetniks. Though, it should be noted that Chetniks never made proposal to fight British or any other Alled Powers except Yugoslav communists. The unbiased reliable source that does not doubt that such a meeting took place and had exact tone is historian Walter R. Roberts[Tito, Mihailović, and the Allies, 1941–1945. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1973]. BoDu 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this book was written during Cold war already bring its bias in question [2], I would have to read it first and I hope it isn't a junk like David Martin The Web of Disinformation which sounds like best Stalinist style witch hunt by twisting historical events to prove his theory. As for difference between tactical and quisling collaboration it sounds like being little pregnant - you either are pregnant or not. :-p

For alleged offer from Tito to fight British together with Germans we can hardly use German documents as unbiased sources, after failure of his agreement with major Dangic, Chetnik commander in eastern Bosnia, in part because of strong Ustasha regime opposition, general Paul Bader sent report to German Command that Ustasha Black Legion give munition to Tito's Proletarian brigade which at that time were made up almost exclusive of Serbs and Montenegrins!! So any German report should also be taken with grain of salt. Also Greek communist didn't offer Germans alliance but have openly fought British and other Greek forces (including former collaborators) in Athens while Chetnik commanders even collaborated with Ustashe regime so the fact that they never offered to fight Allies is hardly worth anything to help their image.

Yugoslav leadership wasn't ashamed of March negotiations as possible collaboration but because of the fact that while they thought they were buying breathing space from Germans, Germans pulled fast one on them by moving 70,000 troops into Italian zone and launching operation Schwarz which was complete surprise to Tito and his staff who thought that Germans would leave them alone while negotiations last. --Ivan Bajlo 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I qoute part of the text from your link:

"It is difficult to agree with the Yugoslav reviewers concerning Roberts alleged one-sidedness in presenting wartime events in Yugoslavia. On the contrary, his book is actually one of the rare works in this field in which the author really attempts to be an historian rather than a propagandist"

As for difference between tactical and quisling collaboration, German documents show that Nazis regarded Mihailović as enemy until the end of the war. It suggests that there are different forms of collaboration(not every collaboration is quisling collaboration). As for the German documents as unbiased sources,I can tell you that acclaimed historians take German documents as credible evidence when it comes to the role of the Partisan and Chetnik movements. Both Greek and Yugoslav communists used resistance movement as a way to establish communism in their countries. Greek communists were not lucky as the Yugoslav communists because British in second half of 1943 switched their support to the Partisans. If British continued to support the Chetniks for the rest of the war, it is likely that Yugoslav communists would have fought British too. Chetniks did not fight even Russians when latter entered Yugoslav soil in 1944. The fact that Yugoslav leadership did not speak about the March negotiations for 30 years, strongly suggests that they were ashamed. BoDu 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous! BoDu, they did not collaborate, they never fought together (we are talking about movements). You did not read a word I wrote! read this again and discuss with real arguments and by refuting other peoples' opposed statements (if you can):

"...there was no real alliance (actual fighting alongside one-another) between the Germans and the Partisans (like the one with the Chetniks), there is no real backing to the claim that the Partisan movement was a collaborator movement (that is why this is not generally accepted by historians). In other words, what the Partisans would or would not do is open to speculation and cannot be considered evidence of collaboration. DIREKTOR 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. You would also do good to remember that the son of Winston Churchill (Major Randolph Spencer-Churchill, MBE) was saved by the Partisans during the Raid on Drvar, and that the Partisans (also Allies) fighting the Western Allies would probably mean war between the USSR and the latter, a most unlikely turn of events in 1943. DIREKTOR 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)"

What I'm saying is that even if you had reliable sources (doubtful), this would still not prove nothing (for all we know Tito just wanted a ceasefire to save his wounded troops!, read up on the actual period), the Partisans probably would not have supported any German troops in any capacity, because of the danger of losing their powerful public support. Not to mention the facts that it was obvious they (Germany) would lose the war and that the Partisans were an accepted member of the Allies. Stop this. No offence, but it is becoming quite comical... DIREKTOR 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this disussion is becoming comical but you are making it such. Anyway, I wrote enough arguments for my claim but I do not find problematic to produce more arguments. Here it is:

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Lucien Karchmar's Draza Mihajlović and the Rise of the Četnik Movement, 1941–1942 is the best scholarly work in Serbia's Part in World War II. I quote part of the conclusion in this work:

"Certainly, Mihajlović did approach the Germans in November 1941 and offer cooperation against the Communists. He was in a desperate situation surrounded, attacked on both sides by foreign and domestic foes, and short of ammunition. In precisely the same situation, on March 11, 1943, during the battle of the Neretva, the Partisans did exactly the same thing: they sent emissaries to the Germans and offered cooperation against the Četniks. Like Mihajlović, they were rejected.

Certainly,Mihajlović's forces attacked the Partisans alongside Axis troops during German and Italian offensives. In April 1942, the East Bosnian Četniks under attack by the Ustaša Black Legion, were also assaulted by the Partisans. To the astonishment of the Germans, Communists and Ustaše ignored each other as they concentrated on liquidating the Četniks. If fighting alongside fascists makes for treason, where does that leave the First Proletarian Brigade?

Certainly, the nationalists negotiated truces with the enemy, which left the former the hills and villages, and the latter, the cities and the communication lines. In 1944, the Slovenian Partisans engaged in long negotiations with Germans to obtain just such an agreement. They were ultimately turned down. But the refusal was German, not Partisan. The conclusion is that it ill behooves the present masters of Jugoslavia to fling charges of treason at Mihajlović. What he tried or did, they also attempted, and for the same reason: expediency, and the desire to scotch the domestic enemy. The actual events prove only that the Partisans were less acceptable as partners to the Axis; not that they were morally purer. BoDu 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, read this carefully: the Partisans attacked the Chetniks because the Chetniks betrayed them first, the Chetniks recieved active support from ALL Axis forces (especially the Germans and Italians) except from the Ustaše, and they fraternised with them as well. They were proclaimed a collaborator movement by the Allied forces during the Casablanca conference.

The Partisans, on the other hand, were officially the first, the most powerful and the most militarily significant of all the resistance movements. The Chetniks are genocidal traitors who performed ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs. The Partsans recieved support exclusively from the Allies and never fought a single battle in active cooperation with their sworn enemies, the Ustaše.

Your sources are a book on the Chetnik movement and an unconfirmed report on some kind of (rejected) cooperation that might or may not have actually happened, had the Allies landed on Yugoslav soil. I repeat: it will take MUCH more than that to brand one of the most famous Allied forces as a "collaborator" movement.

Do you even realise how riddiculous your accusations sound? I mean, the Axis executed Partisan POWs without question (including the injured and sick). As for Britannica, I ask you this: where does that encyclopedia state that the Partsians are a collaborator movement? It merely accepts that Karchmar is the leading authority on the Chetniks (and possibly on the Nedichevci), NOT on the Partisans! DIREKTOR 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The leading authority on the Chetnik movement (Lucien Karchmar) is logically the leading authority on the batles that the Chetniks fought. One of these batles took place in April 1942 in East Bosnia. Karchmar claims that in this batle the Partisans fought alongside the Axis (Ustashas) against the Chetniks.

Encyclopædia Britannica does not claim that the Partisans NEVER collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica also does not claim that the Republic of Ragusa NEVER invaded the United Kingdom, does it? What an encyclopedia does not say is not important (obviously!), but that wich it actually does say. And Britannica does not support your claim anywhere.

I read some of Karchmar's work, he is an author famous for being biased towards the Chetniks. Also, he does not state that the Partisans fought in cooperation with the Axis, he merely says they attacked their pro-fascist enemies at approximately the same time as the Ustaše. The Chetniks had a collaboration agreement already at that time with Fascist Italy and had betrayed the Partisans some time before. It will take more than Karchmar, I'm afraid... DIREKTOR 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I wanted to say that Britannica does not support your claim anywhere. Not the opposite

2. I will strees again what I already said: Lucien Karchmar is according to Britannica the most reliable historian in this issue

3. Karchmar claims that in the batle the Partisans fought alongside the Axis against the Chetniks. It is collaboration

4. Karchmar's opinion is proof that it is not established fact that the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. Therefore, this article should not make such claim

End of the discussion. BoDu 10:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is comical, Britannica does not support either claim, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING IT?
Karchmar is not a historian on the Partisans.
If Partisans fought agains collaborators, how can that make them collaborators? (Or maybe you think the Chetniks were not a traitorous, opportunistic movement?)
The article will absolutely NOT state that the Partisans Chetniks fought You will have to dig up more than one Chetnik-expert to prove that riddiculous claim.

I suggest we leave the article without both claims, but remember that Logical disussion functions this way: you have to first find proof of something before I have to find sources to counter your claim. Otherwise, how can you disprove my claim that there is an untouchable, invisible pink elephant standing two meters behind you?

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It is important to say that Britannica does not support your claim

2. As I said, Karchmar is the leading authority on the Chetnik movement so logically he is the leading authority on the batles that the Chetniks fought. In one of the batles that Chetniks fought, Karchmar states that the Partisans fought alongside the Axis

3. Fighting alongside the Axis is collaboration

4. You claimed that it is established fact that the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. I proved you wrong.

End of the discussion. BoDu 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Does your (famously pro-Chetnik) author clearly state that the Partisans attacked the Chetniks in active cooperation with the Ustaše, or only at (approximately) the same time?
2) If so, does he mention any historic sources (proof) of such a claim.

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. He does clearly state that there was active cooperation between the Partisans and the Ustashas

2. He mentions some Axis documents which record that there was active cooperation

End of the discussion. BoDu 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see these documents. Can you post a link? Also, another link to Karchmar's exact statement would be nice.

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Karchmar states in his book that these documents are unpublished and are held in Washington National Arhives (T-501, Reel 247, 1030-4, 1067-60, 1120)

End of the discussion. BoDu 10:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that convenient, now. Well then I guess you don't have real evidence after all. Just unprovable claims. How do we know these alleged documents actually exist? DIREKTOR 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia's content policy it is enough if a editor just quotes a reliable source. So this article can state that this issue is controversial and than mention reliable sources such as Lucien Karchmar.

End of the discussion BoDu 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of what I've been saying is that this is not a reliable source on the collaboration matter. While he may be a respected authot on the Chetniks, in this exact instance, he makes claims he cannot prove. Thereby his claim is unreliable. Or do you believe that Wikipedia supports your views on the infailability of people? I want evidence, not unsupported claims. As far as I'm concerned, Josip Broz Tito himself could come out of his grave and claim Partisans collaborated with the Axis and I would still say: give me proof! DIREKTOR 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Karchmar's book is a a reliable source on the collaboration matter. I suggest we finally terminate this discussion. You can choose:

a) This article does not mention Partisan movement collaboration issue

b) This article claims that Partisan movement collaboration issue is controversial and quotes Karchmar's book + possibly other sources

For me, it is unaccetable that this article claims the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 11:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your respected personal oppinion, or that of Karchmar, does not concern me. Like I said, give me proof! Personal oppinions and unprovable claims are not proof by Wikipedia policy. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for me to repeat all over again my arguments. I ask you what is your decision? BoDu 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the overall lack of any real evidence aside from claims we are unable to confirm or deny, as a compromise I propose we do not confirm or deny Partisan collaboration. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian National Liberation Army merge

That unsourced stub shouldn't really exist and should be merged here, as it was part of this.

Support--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. The Macedonian National Liberation Army is an integral part of the Yugoslav Partisans, its as simple as that. There is really no need for seperate articles on each nations wartime organisations. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

There is a lot information on this page which have no references including the following which are extremely biased and little more then opinion:

The numbers of dead due to Italian, German and collaborationist organised killings, however, far outstrip even the most lavish estimates of the Partisan crimes' death toll.

Indeed, the Partisans didn't have an official genocidal agendas (unlike the Ustaše, the Italians and the Germans), as that would be fundamentally opposed to their cardinal ideal of "brotherhood and unity" (the phrase became the motto for the new Yugoslavia).

To put the extent of the actual genocide occurring in Yugoslavia during the War, it suffices to say the country suffered about one and a half million dead during the fascist occupation, civilian and military. Only a small fraction constitute civilians actually killed by the Partisans.

I suggest they be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.41.47 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

800,000...

Some sources cite this number as the strength of the Yugoslavian resistance - but it is not clear if they cite it as the strength of one or several organizations combined, nor if this is the peak strength in a certain time period or the total number of members throughout various years. Could anybody clarify that, by stating what and when were the peak numbers of Yugoslavian partisans? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A mess

The formations and origins sections are a total mess and are intertwined. Moreover, the start of the rebellion in Slovenia of all places is presented as its beginning in general. This should be reorganized and corrected. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Probably it would be better to move the article under the title Yugoslav partisans as this makes linking easier. It would also provide consistency with Soviet partisans. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the capital letter "P" would be more appropriate in this case as the faction is more widely known as simply the "Partisan movement" or "Partisans". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but in Slovene I've never seen their name written with a capital. Do you have any sources to back up this proposal? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica ([3], [4]) and the US Library of Congress ([5]). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Ok, to whom it may concern, I basically cleaned up the article, did NOT touch the "War crimes controversy" section. I did not add any controversial info, and have sourced my edits (mostly from Vojska.net). The article still needs references, but I would not say it needs a cleanup anymore. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also added the Statistics section which I intend to expand later. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

national vs. people's

It doesn't really matter what Americans use as translation for "communist use". It was a war to liberate the nation, not to liberate the "people" in the communist sense of "working classes". The national liberation war and the communist revolution did largely take place at the same time, but they were separate issues. Plenty of non-communists were partisan allies in the liberation war, but their opponents in the revolution.

The original problem is that the word "narodni" has two meanings in Serbo-Croatian - it can mean both "people's" and "national". OTOH, Slovenian has separate words for both, and Slovenian communist politicians who were in the government presumably knew what "narodni" was supposed to mean in each expression when they chose to call it either "narodni" or "ljudski". So, the police and the army were people's, as was the republic, but the liberation war, the heros, etc. were national. Zocky | picture popups 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a few online sources:

Zocky | picture popups 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographic Composition and Regional Popularity

One key thing the article does not address is the demographics of the Partisans. I, along with anyone else reading the article, would certainly like to know exactly how many Croats, Macedonians, Muslims, Serbians, and Slovenians were actually part of the Partisans. Also, on a related note, it would be helpful to see a map of Yugoslavia showing where the Partisans gained most of their support from.

If you have the data necessary for these additions please let me know (at my talk page preferably). If you don't feel like adding it to the article, I'd be happy to do so for you. Thanks XJeanLuc (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Primarily Serbian and Montenegrin at the start. I added it. Thanks for your concern. (LAz17 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

You're kidding, right? "The Partisan strategy of pan-Yugoslavism didn't work"? They won the war overwhelmingly, virtually fighting on their own: it looks like it worked pretty damn well. "Croats joined the Partisans because they preferred a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia to a Yugoslavia cleansed of Croatians"!? How does an author come by this conclusion? Does he have opinion polls, what? And who would "cleanse Yugoslavia of Croats"? The Partisans, Peter II, the Allies? Are you kidding, seriously?

I'm afraid you should verify your statements or put them in the context of an author's speculation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My statements are totally fine. As anyone can realize, it is hypotethically speaking, a yugoslavia cleansed of croatia. That is just an example. Clearly everyone joins the winners of any war, 'cause if they join the losers, well, that would be the logical consequence. At any rate, my thing is sourced. You do not have an issue with the fact that at the start of the war this was a serbian/montenegrin army. (LAz17 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Oh, your statements are fine? I didn't realize that, you should have presented that argument earlier.

Back to reality. "Hypothetically speaking"? You don't know what that means, do you? I do not believe the author stated "a Yugoslavia cleansed of Croatia", I think he said "a Yugoslavia cleansed of Croats", as in Croats, the nation. You're just speculating as to his meaning, which basically means you're speculating on the meaning of a speculation. Which is kind of funny, really, since none of the Allied powers would or could (ethnically) cleanse Croats from Yugoslavia in 1945. To say that such a possibility existed is pure nonsense. Furthermore, lets analyze the author's speculation on the many thoughts, feelings, cravings, opinions, and/or beliefs of the Croatian nation during the particular period of 1944 and 1945? How in the world, do you suppose such a statement could "hypothetically" be verified? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will upload the page of text onto the internet right now. Stop undoing the stuff. The fact is that the partisans were a mainly serb army at first. You do not like this. The other fact is that they did not transcend the ethnic barriers like the communist propaganda says. (LAz17 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Look, I believe you, the guy did write that. You won't achieve anything by uploading the text. I am questioning the reliability of the source on the basis of the outrageous claims presented. What you have there is a secondary source. What primary source of information does this guy use to base his claim on? You have the book, don't you? I am saying I cannot imagine any kind of information corroborating his statements. (The Croatian opinion crack is particularly amusing) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Check it out yourself. Read more of it. If you want more I will upload more. http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/ddddddd.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Sorry, wrong page. One moment. (LAz17 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

Here you go, this should help the communist brainwashing that you were fed... brotherhood and unity is a BAD JOKE... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/ddddddd2.jpg (LAz17 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

You're not listening. In what way did he check his facts? I'm not questioning that he wrote the stuff, I'm questioning his reliability (Šešelj has a doctorate too). Oh and I strongly advise you not to go any further down the personal attack road. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the reliability. I uploaded the main page. You could at the minimum look at it, because it is clear in what it says, and when you read it you should be able to come to the conclusion that the source is perfectly fine. In fact this was published in the book "Conflict after the Cold War" used in countless courses on International Relations in the US and Canada. This book is not biased like you are trying to say that it is. The authors selected the best articles for it. Students are engaged with many "fundamental" political works and then there are the other chapters. This is from one of those other chapters. Send your serbophobia up your ... thumb and out into the garbage can, 'cause we really do not need it or the communist propaganda where everyone smiles like happy obedient workers that the state wants them to be. Oh, and I added that the Partisans were involved in two wars, one against the Germans and the other one being the ethnic war going on at the same time. This nicely leads into the section that I added. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)).

You're still not getting my meaning. Scientific works quote their sources and references (usually at the end of the book). These are the primary sources of information the scientist(s) used to form and support their theory/opinion/view presented in the work. I am trying to see whether or not the specific information you quoted is supported by actual data (for example, a hypothetical census on Partisan nationality). Since you have the book, I'm asking you to show me where does this information come from, or in other words, whether or not it is based on hard facts or a simple speculation by the author (as you can see, whether or not the author is biased is completely besides the point). If the author is speculating, and did not quote primary sources, he is expressing an (unfounded) opinion: he is speculating. These are the statements that are quite plainly screaming for primary source verification:

"The Partisan strategy of pan-Yugoslavism didn't work." This statement is screaming for support as the Partisans actually won the war (fighting alone, for the most part) and enjoyed massive support among the population. The statement is not based on real events.
"Only in 1944, when German withdrawal made Partisan victory certain, did Croats begin to join the Partisans in numbers, not because they preferred a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia to a Greater Croatia, but because they preferred a multi-ethnic Yuogslavia to a Yugoslavia cleansed of Croatians.." This statement is pure unprofessional dribble that is basically impossible to verify or support by data. Not only that, but it is absolutely inconceivable for the Allied powers to "cleanse Yugoslavia of Croats" in any context, whatsoever.
"Tito was a Croat, but Partisan officers as well as the rank and file were virtually all Serbs and Montenegrins." How does he know this? What does he base this information on? Where's the data?

(btw, you are in blatant breach of international copyright law. You posted pages from a copyrighted literary work on the internet.)
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You start off by addressing that the Partisan strategy of pan-Yugoslavism did not work. Where is this screaming for support? We saw that Yugoslavia failed miserably, and resulted in the worst war in europe since world war two. This is a no-brainer obvious point. (LAz17 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
The point is that they did not want to be on the side of the users.
The last point is common knowledge that anyone who studied the stuff should know.
Hey, I did not post that stuff on wikipedia first off. Second, I did not post the entire thing. What I did was for educational purposes and I am encouraging everyone to buy that book and article. If you go to a local college or university in the US and Canada you should be able to access Jstor for free and find it. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)).

You should read Kaufman's article. He outlines three possible ways to end ethnic conflicts... complete victory by one side, imposed solution, or strong power sharing. I am not positive, but I think it's that, and am too lazy to verify that for sure. You should look at that cleansing statement in that context. Also, the section in which that is talks about identity. In this he mentions psychological stuff, propaganda and how ideas lead people to react a certain way. What he says makes perfect sense and is true. My main problem now is to find where I read that 90% of the generals in the partisans were serbs at the end of the war. That's the problem when one does not keep their own library. Cheers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)).

I have serious concerns about this source. He/She does not cite any references regarding the origin of their claims. This is highly irregular. On the topic of competing claims about the Partisans and their make-up in WWII, I would recommend reading 'Balkan Holocausts?' by David Bruce MacDonald, Chapter 5, especially pp. 151-52. Available here. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Its like I write up stuff, you look at it, but you don't read it. I did not request that you give me your opinion on all the points. I requested the primary sources the author used.

"The Partisan strategy of pan-Yugoslavism didn't work." I believe the Partisan movement and its strategies ceased to exist after 1945. The author is quite obviously referring to World War II, not the 1990s. During World War II, it does not make much sense to say the Partisan strategy did not work, since they defeated all their opponents and won the war. It is at least necessary to corroborate the claim with data. At least. Therefore I'll ask you again: what information does he base his statement on?
Yes, thank you, I do indeed fully understand what the author is trying to say. Its basically that "the Croats calculated they'd avoid being ethnically cleansed from Yugoslavia if they joined the Partisans, so the sneaky bastards volunteered in their tens of thousands". Even if we assumed that he is right (a ridiculous notion), what information does he base his statement on?
Oh its "common knowledge"? I'm sure you think so... another rock solid "argument". If you read my post, you'll see I did not ask you whether or not that is "common knowledge", I asked you to please tell me what information does he base this statement on?

You did indeed undoubtedly violate international copyright law. Your pile of nonsense about educational value and you actually "advertising" the book does not really mean anything. Believe me. (All you have to do is post a page or two and you've breached copyright, you don't actually have to post every single page from the book.)

Let me be perfectly clear: if the author is indeed speculating, and there is in fact no basis for his claims, the pile of nonsense has to go. If you're under the impression that all you have to do is list a source and you can add the opinions of the author regardless of their verifiability, you're in for a surprise (as I'm sure anyone will tell you). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean what he bases it off of? It is clear the Yugoslavia failed. Therefore it did not work. The pan-yugoslav idea has never worked, and the partisans clearly failed miserably at it. Sure, their thing was made, but their pan-yugoslavia thing failed. They partisan pan-yugoslavian thing did not cease to exist after the war. The point is that it achieved something and this something fell apart. Therefore their failed, just like soviet communism failed.
It is not a matter of being ethnically cleansed, it is a matter of being on the side of the losers.
It is indeed common knowledge. Here we go, from Tito's mought itself! "In 1944 Tito recorded that 44% of the Partisans were Serbs, a percentage that probably understated the extent of their participation, for it reflected the swelling numbers of other Yugoslavs who joined the Partisans later in the war." You and your croat propaganda can go out. We are interested in truth, and if you do not like it we do not care. Your and my opinions do not matter. Truth matters. Serbs were the partizans at first, and we can see this figure now. http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R4.html There is so much information on this you there, just try to look up some stuff and you will see it. (LAz17 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

Let's leave the nationalism and the criticism of others at the door, please, LAz17. To take you up on just one point, if I may, I think we can all agree without discussion that Tito's (and others' - he did not come up with this in a vacuum) ideas about Yugoslavia were, overall, a success. While Goli Otok etc is a minus on the report card, the fact that the people themselves were inspired to make a major effort to overcome past differences (and thus, for a period of time, it was genuinely irrelevant whether you were Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, Kosovar etc and there were vast numbers of "intermarriages") demonstrates the success of Yugoslavia. The point is that, at the time, nobody really cared who was what or born where. Yes, the whole thing turned into a circus at the end, but the point is that, while some opponents of the authorities undoubtedly genuinely suffered in the Yugo era, for the ordinary people it was fine. And then Yugoslavia fell apart and half a million people were killed in senseless ethnic slaughter. You know, there are places in the world where it's a really really bad idea to give people too much power. Argue with that point, and half a million ghosts will spit in your face.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell yeah, that book there where that is from is going into my personal library. You should consider getting it too, it's really cheap on amazon.com used... http://www.amazon.com/Bosnia-Hercegovina-Robert-J-Donia/dp/0231101619/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231555463&sr=8-4 in fact it would not hurt for you to learn a few things about Yugoslavia. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

And btw, as it seems the partisans originated in Serbia, so this is why they were almost entirely Serbs in command and makeup. Tito and the Partisan leadership were driven out of Serbia by the combined attacks of the Germans and Chetniks, and retreated to the neighbouring puppet-state, the ‘Independent State of Croatia’ (NDH - Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska). This should be added too. Source - http://henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=297 (LAz17 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

More info off of that previous link, which alludes us to know that the Serbs indeed were the majority of the partisans. This is when the partisans were more widespread... here is the composition, in the republics. The only unfortunate thing is that we do not know the sizes or more detailed info, but we see how many divisions are where and who was the majority in which one. End of Story. Perhaps the current article could be fixed, but it is vandalism to delete everything there that I wrote. Cheers. The Croatian Communists were the most powerful wing of the Yugoslav Communist movement; Tito himself was a Croat from the Croatian heartland of Zagorje. By the end of 1943 - shortly after Tito and the Communists had proclaimed a new, federal Yugoslavia - the western Yugoslav lands were dominating the Partisan movement: of ninety-seven Partisan brigades then in existence, thirty-eight were from Croatia, twenty-three from Bosnia-Hercegovina and eighteen from Slovenia. Of the thirty-eight Croatian Partisan brigades, twenty had an ethnic-Croat majority, seventeen an ethnic-Serb majority and one an ethnic-Czech majority. In Bosnia-Hercegovina, at this time, the Partisans were approximately two-thirds Serb and one-third Muslim and Croat, while the Slovene Partisans were overwhelmingly ethnic-Slovene. At the same time, the whole of eastern Yugoslavia (Serbia, Vojvodina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia) was contributing only eighteen Partisan brigades. Sadley these numbers should be more detailed, but it is at least proof that I am not making up shit like you want to portray. (LAz17 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

Please, let us not forget the Bleiburg massacres, in which up to 300,000 croatians were killed at the hands of the partisans. Why is this information not put on here? Is this a communist brotherhood page or what? Also, my courses resume, so I will not be able to edit as much I regret. (LAz17 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)).

Laz, I don't know what more to say... I could not have been more clearer when I asked you for the primary sources that your guy lists. If there are none, as I suspect, what more is there to discuss? Your information is unsourced and your secondary source is unreliable. I'll respond, but I feel increasingly silly, here's my response to the points:

"What do you mean what he bases it off of? It is clear the Yugoslavia failed. Therefore it did not work. The pan-yugoslav idea has never worked, and the partisans clearly failed miserably at it. Sure, their thing was made, but their pan-yugoslavia thing failed. They partisan pan-yugoslavian thing did not cease to exist after the war. The point is that it achieved something and this something fell apart. Therefore their failed, just like soviet communism failed."

The most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You have no idea what nonsense you've just stated. According to you, the Red Army "failed" because the USSR fell apart 70 years later. Can you please read the following carefully: he is talking about World War II (1941-1945, full stop). This is a matter of pure deductive reasoning, something cannot fail (or succeed) if it does not exist at the time when the "failure" takes place. Just to show you how stupid the above is, let me ask you a question: How did the Partisans manage to "fail" at pan-Yugoslavism in the 1990s when it ceased to exist in 1945(!) The fact that Yugoslavia fell apart has nothing to do with the Yugoslav Partisans, NOTHING.

In the context of World War II, and this is the context we, the author, and the article itself are talking about, the ideology of pan-Yugoslavism was a booming success. Even if the author is referring to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, then this must be removed from the article anyway since it does not deal with World War II, and Yugoslavia was not formed by the Yugoslav Partisans, but 24 years earlier.

"It is not a matter of being ethnically cleansed, it is a matter of being on the side of the losers."

I do not need you to "interpret" the author's words for me. He clearly states the Croats joined the Partisans to avoid ethnic cleansing from Yugoslavia, so this is indeed a "matter of being ethnically cleansed". You're trying to make this crock of nonsense your author wrote sound less nonsensical by focusing only on one part. That's not going to work. Its like you have an author saying: "Hitler was right because he was an alien from Neptune." Now you're saying "this is not a matter of him being an alien, this is a matter of him being right"!!?

You should also know that the borders of PR Croatia were determined long before your author states Croats started joining. The Partisans openly advocated the so called "AVNOJ borders" and a federal republican constitution in which all nations would be equally represented: it was a foundation of their rhetoric. Even your author says so ("Pan-Yugoslav rhetoric", remember?). So I don't see what that supposed sneaky Borg-like collective Croatian consciousness your author postulates hoped to gain by joining the Partisans?

I do not care what you personally consider to be "common knowledge", are you able to understand that? And if you recall, I told you myself earlier that Serb numbers surpassed Croats in 1944 after the liberation of Serbia (with the help of the Red Army), so I don't see what you're trying to say?

Now then. For the final time: do you, or do you not, have the author's bibliography and primary sources? Or, in other words: is he, or is he not only speculating without basis? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make this brief, because I really do not have the time considering that my courses start. Regarding the croat cleansing comment... it is simple logic that anyone can get. I added more of an explanation, and here it is : Their alternatives were to not be on the side of the loosers, Ustashe. The other option, being on the side of the Chetniks was not viable because this group was against non-Serbs. " . So what is there not to understand? It's simple. Second, I added ethnic compositions of the partisans during the war... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans#Ethnic_Composition , with three various sources. It is clear to the point there, but without explanation as it is in the start of the page. The Yugoslav partisans and communists are the exact same thing. It was a movement that existed before the war and after the war. It was a slight name change, but the thing is the same. As for the leadership : we can see the Members of the Central Committee, four serbs/montenegrins, one croat, one slovene, and tito. Dominantly orthodox. We can further see the Members of the General Headquarters of the Peoples Liberation Army of Yugoslavia and Partisan Detachments: Josip Broz Tito - Marshall, Commander in Chief; Arso Jovanović - General, Chief of Staff; Koča Popović - General, Commander of the 1st Proletarian Brigade and HQ Battalion; Peko Dapčević - General, Commander of the 2nd Proletarian Brigade. So 3/4 Serb/Montenegrin. We can also see that most of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Hero_of_Yugoslavia#Notable_recipients were serbs or montenegrins. Cheers and have fun learning. P.S. The Red Army was a bastard for invading and occupying lithuania, estonia and latvia for decades. The soviets were brutal monsters as much as they were good too in some aspects. (LAz17 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

You've completely ignored my repeated requests for the author's primary sources (if you'd like to learn more about Wikipedia and verifiability, please have a look at WP:V). Your secondary sources are unreliable in support of this information, and your edit violates WP:NPOV. If you can still find the primary sources, feel free to add them at any time and restore your edit. Hopefully you will take WP policy, as well as other users, more seriously. Your violation of WP:NPA will also be promptly reported, have fun learning :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For your information, as you clearly do not look at what you edit, I added an entire section on ethnic makeup - why did you delete that? Here, as you have demonstrated that you do not read the article, I'll post it here, and there are many sources...

Ethnic Composition

In the early part of the war Partisan officers as well as the rank and file were virtually all Serbs and Montenegrins.^[1] This changed as the Partisans were pushed from Serbia towards Croatia.^[2] In 1943 there were 97 partizan divisions...^[3]

38 from Croatia (20 with Croat majority, 17 with Serb majority, 1 with Czech majority)^[4]
23 from Bosnia (two thirds serb)^[5]
18 from Slovenia^[6]
18 more Serb divisions from the Eastern part of the country^[7]

For the time being we do not know the sizes of these divisions.

In 1944 Tito recorded that 44% of the Partisans were Serbs, a percentage that probably understated the extent of their participation, for it reflected the swelling numbers of other Yugoslavs who joined the Partisans later in the war.^[8]

(LAz17 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

As we can see, I have continually added more and more sources, and yes, they are accredited and are in journals, or good books. If you are not happy with one sentence, it is no reason to delete the entire thing. (LAz17 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

DIREKTOR is very respected user by ulmost all Balkan editors on wiki. In Balkan disputes "obscure" books are not very reliable source because in must cases they are POV and can't be checked by other users.

I am reverting your change because The Henry Jackson Society is not relible publisher/source if we look wikipedia rules. Aim of Henry Jackson Society is not truth but to promote "democratic geopolitics" and because of that they are not reliable source.--Rjecina (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with promoting democracy? That should make them good, no? Also, there are sources from OTHER sources too, like the one article and another book. What is wrong with that? (LAz17 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).

Society which is promoting anything is by default (and definition) POV organization and because of that not reliable source. --Rjecina (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That article there was not associated with any promotions. I disagree that anything is wrong with promoting democracy. We need more of that. You ignore why that book is wrong. Furthermore, is the BBC a biased jerk too? Look at what they say... While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_03.shtml Whatever surface you scratch you get this same information. It also looks like there was a polish partisan division... http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/yu_wwii.html#pol We also see a book which notes how the serbs were the ones going into battle, and how the croats only went in if victory looked imminent... http://books.google.com/books?id=kBjrJyen4FEC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=partisans+yugoslavia+serbs&source=web&ots=3vbaj3ZjkF&sig=DQON4zkgp5KPJEpTwU8QJ-hJmq0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result Furthemore, you guys ignore the fact that the partisans started out from serbia and moved as the situations chagned... In late 1941, the Partisans lost control of Western Serbia, Montenegro, and other areas, and their central command withdrew into Bosnia. Despite the setbacks, Bosnian Serbs and other Yugoslavs flocked to the Partisans. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14783.html Lets see more sources... Serbs and Montenegrins provided the majority of Partisans but all the nations of Yugoslavia (including non-Slavs such as Albanians and Italians) participated in the Partisan struggle. http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article204 And we have more stuff... The development of the partisans is done initially in Serbia (the first formed unit will be baptized First brigade partisane of Sisak ) and in the areas occupied by the Serb ones. In December 42, there is still, according to the words of Tito, " a vast majority of Serbes" in this Armed with Yugoslav National Release (ALNY). It is in the town of Užice, located in the mountainous regions at the south-west of Serbia, that Tito installs its first general headquarter in September 41. The Germans mass five divisions and take again the city on November 25th. The partisans then are almost completely driven out of Serbia.

During years 42-43, the center of gravity of the partisans slips more in the west, in Bosnia. The development of the partisans takes place initially at the Serb populations of the State independent of Croatia, because of the massacres which are perpetrated there (See the article Yugoslavia in the Second world war). But like the partisans do not devote themselves to reprisals against the Musulmans and the Croatian , the latter little by little will enlarge their rows as the Germans and their allies oustachis become increasingly unpopular in Yugoslavia. from http://www.speedylook.com/Resistance_in_Yugoslavia_during_the_Second_world_war.html So why are we deleting all this information? Appeasing croatian nationalist opinion should not be tolerated. (LAz17 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)).
To make long story short....

Without question Serbs are majority of partisan forces in 1941 (Užice) and 1944-5 (because of mobilization in Serbia). Even during other years they are without question majority, but majority of Yugoslav population during WWII are Serbs, so what is point in this statement ?

Simple speaking statement: "Majority of partisans are Serbs" is misleading. Right statement is:"Majority of Yugoslav population and partisans are Serbs" (something like that). You must to rewrite statement so that noninvolved user can understand both things.

How misleading is Tito statement that 44 % of partisans are Serbs I will show you with example ..... Wikipedia is not having Yugoslav census data from 1930 or 1948 (only republics data) so I am using 1971 data for this example: Serbs are 39.7 % of Yugoslav population. We all are knowing that Macedonians has not been involved in partisans strugle and now we are having that Serbs are 39.7 % out of 94.2 %. Point is that only with this small mathematics Serbs has become 42 % of Yugoslav population involved in war and they are 44 % of partisans. When we remove 6.4 Albanians from Yugoslav population involved in war because in Serbian books (and in reality ?) they are Quislings and not partisans..... You need to have data about nationality of all partisans and not only of Serbs, because we are having misleading picture. If you find this data everything will be OK

Answer about democracy is on your talk page--Rjecina (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the thing is that Direktor and others do not want anything on here to say that the Partizan composition was mostly Serb. They are offended or something, as I understand. But what you say makes sense... so would BBC's statement be okay, that While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs ? Something along those lines... most partizans were Serbs, but the army included many other natioanlities as well, primarily Croats and Muslim Slavs, though even some smaller groups such as Czechs and Poles. ? Sound good? (LAz17 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

This is not so simple question (I am using words of Slovenian historian about other thing). I do not know if you have been reading about new Croatia-Slovenia diplomatic problem. Croatian president has declared that Croats (inside Yugoslav Army) has liberated part of Slovenia in 1945. Slovenian historian is saying this is true, but ......On other side Slovenian politicans are screaming [6]. With that I want to say how members of other Yugoslav nation will be offended if you write this. You need to find more or less full data (for all nations) and then to create table. With that everybody will be happy.
Do you need help for creating table for Partisans victims in Battle on Sutjeska ? You are having data and source on your talk page ?--Rjecina (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources about ethnic composition of Partisan soldiery
In January 1942. Tito said to Adil Zulfikarpasic that 95% of the partisans were Serbs at that point. Source: Adil Zulfikarpasic: "Put u Focu 25.1. 1942.", can be found page 50, in "Bleiburg, uzroci i posledice" published in 1988. by Knjiznica hrvatske revije.
According to a German report from 3. of January 1944. up to the end of 1942. Serbs and Montenegrins were 90% of Partisan forces, while Croats form only 8% mainly in Dalmatia. By the late 1943. (when Croats started joining in larger numbers) Serbs and Montenegrins were still 75%-80% of partisan forces, with Croats about 10%, and on the territory of Croatia 20%. Source: [7]
Also, in late 1942. in Moslavina region, there were 1452 partisans, of which 768 Serbs, 648 Croats, 19 Jews and other, 4 Muslim and 18 Slovenes. In 1943. there were complains that Croats were unsymphatetic to the Partisan cause, unlike the Serbs. Most Croats still celebrated 10th of April and NDH in 1943.
In 1942. Tito complained that Croatian reluctance to participate in the anti-fascist struggle is a shame for the comrades in Zagreb. Bakaric spoke of big problems in getting Croatian masses to join partisans. Many of the few that were in partisans were in fact forcibly mobilised, which only increased antipathy towards the partisan cause.
Also it is explained that to the rapid increase of number of Croats in late 1943. and 1944. main factors were: 1. Defeat of the Nazi troups on the Eastern front and in Africa 2. Decrease of credibility of NDH in Croat population due to atrocities and collaboration 3. Repressals - shooting of hostages
to this, obvious role of the fall of Italy should be added (reference: V.Vujisic - razgovor s Vladimirom Velebitom, p 103).
Useful references also include:
M. Lorkovic: Kroatiens Kampf pp 63-64
I. Omrcanin: Hrvatska 1941-45 pp 204-205
Pavle Kalinic: Andrija Hebrang - Svjedoci govore, Azur Journal Zagreb, 1991. Addenum 6. page 196).
Casesgyro (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This source is not even close to wikipedia reliable source and because of that can't be accepted.--Rjecina (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? That is nonsense, says big expert Rjecina. Hebrang, Zulfikarpasic, Tito, Bakaric - not reliable. Lol! There are so many sources, and we will add the info. Casesgyro (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It is most certainly not nonsense, and if you had a tad bit more experience you would come to the same conclusion.
Source 1. "Tito said this, Tito said that." Even if we choose to believe Zulfikarpasic on this one, it is not a statement based on any study or official information. Tito's or anybody else's testimony is based on personal experience and not a professional study. This is best depicted by that wonderful statement of yours. Think about it for a second: it is simply impossible for Serbs to make up 95%(!) of the Partisan ranks at any point during the war. Anyone even remotely familiar with the topic knows this for a basic fact.

Source 2. "German report from 3 January 1944." It is not disputed that Serbs made up the majority in 1944. And the veracity of the report may be challenged in various ways, but it simply is not relevant to this discussion.

Source 3. "Moslavina region?" What relevance do the numbers in a single (rather small) region have to this discussion??

Source 4. Source for Bakarić's "complaints"? But then, even if you had a source, a difficulty in recruitment does not speak about their numbers in any way. In fact, one might think that the difficulty is caused by the draining of the manpower pool by previous recruitments.

Other Sources. Lorković? An NDH minister? Are you kidding?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Early partizan activities were in the Serbian-Montenegrin regions, so it makes perfect sense that most of the units were Serbs or Montenegrins. We can see that most generals were serbs or montenegrins. Just look at the central commitee- mostly serbs or montenegrins AGAIN. In fact, Croats constituted only 60% of the troops from croatia... yet their share of the croat population was far higher, and most joined towards the END of the war. Stop living in dreams, Direktor, and stop deleting statistics that you yourself said were accredited, on the total of nationalities killed. I know that you want to change the truth, but sorry bro, life's a bitch sometimes, especially if the truth hurts. (LAz17 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)).
Q:
One thing that I would like to see: How are ethnic composition numbers influenced by the fact that you could not declare yourself as anything other than Serb / Croat / Slovene / Macedonian...
"Muslim by nationality" came only in 70's and Bosnian-Herzegovinian was never an option. If what i stated is correct, I would like to include a qualifying statement in that part of the article.

End of War
Because of wrong info sent to Yugoslav commanders war ended week later, but article here (as its wikia norm, all wrong)says May 16, the evidence provided is wrong, we need more sources, it ended on May 15.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_World_War_II_in_Europe, and yuga was europe (balkans)
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/charles-whiting/end-of-war.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyboytoy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Freddy, this is not a reliable source for a significant point of view. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. When you can provide the information required by our policies, then we can revise the article appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Freddy, first of all, I doubt that "fantasticfiction.co.uk" cuts the mustard as a reliable source for this encyclopedia. Secondly, I am afraid that "wrong info sent to Yugoslav commanders" is a tragic figment of somebody's imagination. Next, regarding your attempted changes to this article specifically, the date you have repeatedly tried to change is sourced. If you wish to challenge the veracity of that source, then by all means do so - I am sure there may be some merit to this, as my understanding is that the war on the Yugoslav front is considered to have ended with the hoisting of the white flags by the Ustaše at the end of the Battle of Poljana on the afternoon of 15 May. However - and this is a very serious matter: do not alter sourced material in this encyclopedia without extremely good reason, and before you do anything make sure you find sources of your own. Wikipedia is neither a playground nor a battlefield. I hope this is clear. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Primary sources
Since I won't be able to actively participate in this discussion (I'm unbelievably busy), I'll try to channel it along proper lines:
Where are the PRIMARY SOURCES?! How can I emphasize this phrase any further?! What you are listing are opinions, what you need are polls, censi, etc... What are we discussing here if all you've got are non-scientific guesses? None of the crap you guys listed actually has any serious basis in PRIMARY SOURCES.
You may rest assured that the second I'm able to return to full editing capacity this article (and the total inadequacy of your sources) will receive my undivided attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'll add that the obvious agenda of the opposing side of this debate is clearly the depiction of the war's outcome as a "Serbian victory over Croats". This is even plainly stated by LAz, who apparently thinks that "Croats lost World War II". The fact that certain users have attempted to describe the mentality and personality of an entire nation as "sneaky" and "underhanded" would be amusing if this were not a serious encyclopedia.

Concerning the "Etnic Composition" subsection. The solitary scrap of verifiable information in this entire section of yours, LAz, is the number of divisions per federal unit. Their numbers are indeed correct, and are public knowledge (strangely enough, most are from FS Croatia, an area populated by a vast majority of Croats). Your conveniently added ethnic composition notes are, on the other hand, unverifiable, as it is well known the Partisans had no information on the ethnic composition of their units prior to 1944. There is, in fact, no way to verify your statements, nor are there any PRIMARY SOURCES a scholar could possibly use to put together a proper study of Partisan ethnic composition 1941-1943.

Just to show you how inconclusive the information is, here are the arguments promoting a Croatian majority in the aftermath of the fall of the Užice Republic:
The first Partisan military unit was formed near Sisak (a Croatian-majority area).

The territory of the Federal State of Croatia was (and is) populated by a vast majority of Croats. Most Partisan units (both detachments, brigades and divisions) originated from this Croatian majority part of occupied Yugoslavia.

After the fall of the Užice Republic, Serbia was tightly occupied by German forces. Those areas of Serbia not fully controlled by the Germans were mostly harvested by the Chetniks. Very few "liberated territories" were formed on the territory of Serbia proper. (This changed, of course, when the Red Army moved in and helped the Partisans liberate Serbia)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We can clearly see many sources saying that the serbs were the majority, and we can clearly see that Tito is probably as direct a source as you can get. You have his own words reported by the croats. I do not see what the point is of that Sisak thing. There are no sources on this claim that you put, and furthermore being a resistance unit does not mean that they were part of the partizans. Everyone knows that the main partizan activity was first in serbia and montenegro. Now, you say that most partizans were from croatia. Now, what is interesting is that of the divisions of croatia, how is it that croats constituted only 50% of them, when they were more like 80% of the population? This clearly indicates that the serbian participation was much higher, considering that they composed almost half the partizans in croatia, despite their much smaller population. You clearly awknoledge that the Uzicka Republic existed, so therefore the conclusion is that this is the initial main base of the partisan opperations, a mostly homogenous serb and montenegrin region. As the partizans went into Nazi Croatia, the main people that they recruited were serbs, because the serbs were fleeing croatian genocide done onto them. The serbs were the easiest to recruit. Simple logic. Nazi Croatai did not go after croats much, it went after Serbs, because they were serbian. Therefore it's a no brainer why the serbs were the biggest part of the partizans. Furthermore, we can notice that the serbs were also the biggest population in the former yugoslavia, so I don't get why you have a problem with this. (LAz17 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)).
Whatever, LAz... I've exhausted my powers of repetition with you. I maintain that there are no primary sources on the ethnic composition of the Partisans prior to 1944, this is why the article has kept far away from ridiculous speculation on this subject. If you can find some actual WWII data (primary sources), I'll be happy to include it.
You, of course, have no idea what the ethnic composition of Croatian divisions was, and are just speculating.

Tito's supposed "statement" is clearly incorrect, even if it wasn't fabricated. It is impossible for the Partisan movement to consist of 95% (almost 100%) ethnic Serbs at a stage when their recruitment stemmed primarily from Bosnia and Croatia. Nobody with any kind of knowledge on the subject would take that claim of yours seriously.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly it was said in January 1942. At this time partizan opperations were overwhelmingly in serbia, around uzice, where there were almost no non-serbs. They were on their way into bosnia, where there was little sympathy for bosniaks, and they were in eastern bosnia where there were no croats before or after the war. This makes sense, in every way, that the serbs were the majority, just by the simple fact that they were the biggest group out of all the groups. End of story. And do explain Tito's quote that "Tito complained that Croatian reluctance to participate in the anti-fascist struggle is a shame for the comrades in Zagreb." .... you are clearly a croat and can not stand this painful truth which is also very shameful. (LAz17 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)).
A pile of complete nonsense. The area around Užice was completely occupied by October 20th 1941, four months earlier. And yes, I am "clearly a Croat" and you are "clearly a Serb". The difference is that I know more about this subject than you do, and am an experienced Wikipedian. I can also assure you that I am being 100% objective in this matter, I do not take kindly to your accusations of nationalism.

The fact of the matter is, there are simply no sources on this period. I wish there were, then we'd have no argument. But if you think it is proper to represent virtually baseless speculation in the article as encyclopedic fact, then you need more xp. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
All sources of any sort suggest that Serbs were the majority. How is this source for you, http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/operation/schwarz-1943/losses/ , it shows the deaths of the partizans, and again mostly serbs... oh whoops, I forgot, that automatically makes it bad, as it hurts some people's national self esteem. (LAz17 (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)).

No, that information is good. However, if you actually paid attention to what I write, you would remember I clearly explained that the numerous but inexperienced Serbian troops acquired after the liberation of Serbia (1944) were used en masse on the so-called Syrmian Front, where the Partisans suffered heavy casualties attacking German front lines. That we do have sources for. Its not as simple as you may think, and your generalization that "all sources of any sort suggest that Serbs were the majority", is quite incorrect. In fact, no primary sources of any sort suggest one way or the other.

Remember, I'm not saying that that the Partisan divisions were "all Croatian" up to 1944: I'm saying we cannot know for certain. To depict the inconclusiveness of the data, I'm also pointing out serious arguments in favor of a large Croatian presence among the Partisan ranks. While I may have my opinion, based on these real and serious arguments, that Croats made up the majority of the movement between the fall of the Užice Republic and the liberation of Serbia, I did not include it in the article (which I wrote, more-or-less). Why? because this is a serious encyclopedia, and it should not list opinions and speculation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh, yes, they were mostly from Croatia... Nazi Croatia had much land in Croatia and in Bosnia, so yeah, clearly when the partizans were driven out from serbia, there is no doubt that their units would be primarily from Croatia, and thus "croatians"... but just like me, I am croatian but am a Serb from croatia... similarly the soldiers are croatian serbs, not croat croatians. You can see the casualty list there, and as is clear, croats are only a fraction of the total. The belgrade front... how many could have died there? 50,000 at most? Still, the croats remain a minority of the deaths. As tito said, he complained that croats were not as reluctant to go into battle and only went in when victory was imminent... who would like to kill their fellow croats/ustashe, er fellow nationality... nobody. That's one reason that austrohungary did poor against serbia in world war one, 'cause much of their troops were actually slavs, not austrians or hungarians. (LAz17 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)).

That's it. I'm discontinuing my part of this pointless discussion for several strong reasons:
You're completely ignorant of the subject. How do I know this?
You apparently believe Yugoslav information referred to the Independent State of Croatia, a legally non-existent entity.

You've equated the "Independent State of Croatia" with "Croatia", a sign of complete ignorance of the basic terms used in discussion. Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia during World War II. It was never independent before 1991 (in recent history).

You apparently do not know the meaning of the adjective "ethnic". As in "ethnic Croats" or "ethnic composition of the Partisan movement".

You stated your belief that the First anti-Partisan Offensive took place in January of 1942, which is blatant gibberish. etc, etc...

You ignore arguments presented to you and simply repeat yourself, over and over again.

You further your ignorance with ridiculous speculation.

It is safe to assume you or your family suffered in some way because of Croat actions in the recent war (Operation Storm). This is true for almost the entire Croatian Serb minority. In light of this, it is safe to assume you have reason to be biased against Croats.

Finally, you've insulted me by assuming I refer to the "Independent State of Croatia" as "Croatia" (names mean little), and you've apparently stated that I support the Croatian fascist idea that Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia are "Croats". (This can perhaps be forgiven due to your lack of information on the subject.)

I will limit my further responses to posts containing references to primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
We did not suffer, but I have pity for those that did. Justice is something that they will never get. Regardless, the creator of modern day croatia is himself a hellbent glorifier of nazi-croatia, no to mention that before he died he was also an active holocaust denier. We saw how he tore down anti-fascist memorials and street names, replacing them with prominant croat nazis. There is an abnormally close correlation between croatia now and nazi-croatia.

You my boy are probably a croat who is proud of his people and who a)knows that the serbs were the majority of the partizans and can't stand that, or b)does not want to face that truth. I mean dude, how many sources have I given you that say that serbs were the majority? Like 10 sources, and one of them come is from tito's own lips. (LAz17 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)).
Death toll
Rjecina first of all, does this concern the Yugoslav Partisans or civilian/combined losses? If it concerns general population losses, it belongs in the Yugoslav Front article. Also, I'm afraid I don't fully comprehend the meaning of the second column? Survived? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This are general population losses without 200,000 killed collaborators and quislings. The deficiency is estimated at 20-30%. Deficiency is number of unknown victims (without name).

They have created even victims nationality list, but this will created to much controversy (edit warring) for wikipedia article.--Rjecina (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Then it belongs in the Yugoslav Front article, not here. I'm still hazy as to the numbers in the second column, what do they represent? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not created this list but in words of Federal Bureau of Statistics and Federal Commission in Belgrade (which has consolidated data recieved by Federal Bureau of Statistics):

"listings comprise 1,107,172 people engaged in the war, out of which 597,323 people were killed in different ways". What they want to say with this is another question...--Rjecina (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, so this is a list of soldiers, and the "Survived" column means soldiers that came out alive? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This list is total number of Yugoslav victims (soldiers and civilians - Quislings) killed or wounded during WWII and it is given to Germany for war reparations. It is not important if they have died (or wounded) like soldiers or civilians only important things is that they are war victims of Germany and Quisling soldiers (in eyes of Federal Bureau of Statistics).--Rjecina (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Look, Rjecina, the generally accepted number of casualties in WWII Yugoslavia is around 1,000,000 (not 1,700,000, but 1,000,000). This can't be a total victims list. If it is, then its biased POV nonsense. Have a look at the sources in the Yugoslav Front article where these things belong. I'll remove the table. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You have made small mistake.....

This data is speaking about 597,323 known killed victims (with name and surname) + 20 - 30 % of victims about which Federal Bureau of Statistics is not knowing name and surname. On Federal Bureau of Statistics assumption that the listing has a 20-30% deficiency, the estimated number of killed resistance fighters and civilians would reach 750,000 to 780,000.Together with 200,000 killed collaborators and quislings, the total number would reach about one million.
?--Rjecina (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, you could have mentioned that... In any event, this has no place in this article, it goes in the Yugoslav Front article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Partizani (locality)
Last summer I came across a village in Bulgaria called Partizani. Since Partizani is redirected to Partisans I suggest a explanation site for Partizani. Sorry for the external link, with some more time I'll register at Wikimedia Commons and u/l the picture there. Kr51-2 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
National vs. People's, yet again.
We've had this discussion before (see above), but it doesn't seem to help. "People's liberation war" is a mistranslation, quite common one, but still a mistranslation. It occurs when the term is translated from Serbo-Croatian, in which "people" and "nation" are both called narod. When searching Google Books for either + "Yugoslavia", national is more common, but not decisively so. When searching for either + Macedonia, or either + Slovenia, "national liberation war" is much more common than "people's liberation war".
Regardless of how common both are, there's the problem that if we use "people's", then the English name means something else than the name in Slovenian, and it's highly unlikely that the Slovenian name is wrong. So please, people, primarily DIREKTOR, don't change it back. Possibly a note that it's sometimes translated as "people's" would be appropriate, but even that is probably more appropriate in the NOR article. Zocky | picture popups 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, the term in use in Slovenian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, or Jamaican is completely irrelevant. The term used by published English language authors, however, is all-important. "People's" is usually used in the English terminology to refer to communist liberation armies and liberation wars. I hope you've got more arguments than the name Slovenes happen to have for the conflict... I'll be back tomorrow, with sources. Remember, its not really our job to translate this stuff :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Korean People's Army

People's Liberation Army

National People's Army

Vietnam People's Army, and most importantly

Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija)
First of all, the name that "Slovenes happen to have for the conflict", or rather for the organization NOV&POJ was one of three official names for the movement, not one that just happened.

Next, the Yugoslav liberation movement explicitly wasn't a communist movement. It was led by the Communist party, but it was a wide popular movement which included non-communist political parties. And either way, what Americans often use for communist movements is irrelevant, what's relevant is what is used for this movement, so most of your examples do not apply at all.

As for JNA, the name in Slovenian is Jugoslovanska ljudska armada, not narodna, so "people's" is the correct translation for that. Zocky | picture popups 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, forget about the Slovenian or Croatian or Serbian names for the conflict. Forget them, they don't matter at all, this is the English Wikipedia. (I know all about the Partisans, and I know they were "communist-led", but the West perceived them differently, and they were part of the Eastern Block immediately after WW2.) Here's Google, for "this" movement:

Google results for "Yugoslav People's Liberation War" (cca. 800): [8]

Google results for "Yugoslav National Liberation War" (8): [9]

And this is with your name grabbing the Wikipedia results. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No, google doesn't work immediately, and any wikipedia results are for "people's". Let's try something else:
yugoslavia "people's liberation war" -wikipedia: 607 hits, yugoslavia "national liberation war" -wikipedia: 1804 hits. Zocky | picture popups 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh nice try, or we can try looking exactly for the subject in question, not anything mentioning "Yugoslavia" and any "people's/national liberation war":
"yugoslav people's liberation war" -wikipedia [10] 417 hits

"yugoslav national liberation war" -wikipedia [11] 5 hits in all.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we're looking for mainstream encyclopedic terms the best place is usually Britannica. [12] ("People's Liberation Army", "PLA") It is hard to imagine a more conclusive source as to the more frequently used English encyclopedic term than the Ecyclopaedia Brittanica. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Britannica occasionally gets it wrong, and Google hist as displayed on the first page of results are often deceptive (they include repeated occurrences of the same text), so I went and did a series of proper Google tests. I entered each of the following searches into Google web search, book search and scholar searches. For web searches, I also added -wikipedia, to get rid of the most obvious copies from Wikipedia. Then I clicked next page until actual results ran out. Then I entered the number of hits that Google displayed into the table and added a link to the last page of results.
Here's what I got:

search web (-wikipedia) books scholar total

national people's national people's national people's national people's

exact

"yugoslav X liberation war" 5 24 51 38 4 2 60 64

"X liberation war of Yugoslavia" 9 12 48 53 3 0 60 65

"yugoslav X liberation army" 79 13 193 113 21 8 293 134

"X liberation army of Yugoslavia" 53 39 214 168 28 9 295 216

"yugoslav X liberation movement" 44 4 87 31 41 1 172 36

"X liberation movement of Yugoslavia" 16 1 129 18 22 0 167 19

subtotal 206 93 722 421 119 20 1047 534

ratio 2.2 : 1 1.7 : 1 6.0 : 1 2.0 : 1

uncontrolled*

"X liberation war" yugoslavia tito 160 39 280 165 142 35 582 239

"X liberation army" yugoslavia tito 580 290 340 368 241 238 1161 896

"X liberation movement" yugoslavia tito 350 67 343 175 280 21 973 263

subtotal 1090 396 963 708 663 294 2716 1398

ratio 2.8 : 1 1.4 : 1 2.3 : 1 1.9 : 1

controlled*

"X liberation war" yugoslavia tito 60 24 250 135 47 13 357 172

"X liberation army" yugoslavia tito 166 96 330 277 32 13 528 386

"X liberation movement" yugoslavia tito 78 25 357 140 42 10 477 175

subtotal 304 145 937 552 121 36 1362 733

ratio 2.1 : 1 1.7 : 1 3.4 : 1 1.9 : 1

total 1600 634 2622 1681 903 350 5125 2665

ratio 2.5 : 1 1.6 : 1 2.6 : 1 1.9 : 1

* by adding -china -chinese -algeria -algerian -albania -albanian -bolivia -bolivian -zimbabwe -zimbabwean -uganda -ugandan -mexico -mexican -iran -iranian -palestinian -palestine to remove as many unrelated links as possible.
"National liberation X" is about twice as common as "People's liberation X" in each of the tests. You might also want to check the first few pages of results for the web searches. Out of the results displayed for "Yugoslav people's liberation war" and "People's liberation war of Yugoslavia" about a half are copies of this and other Wikipedia articles. Of the rest, most are hits on forums, youtube, and other user-generated content websites. A few are texts on various general websites (tourist offices, government pages, etc.), and only a couple are books, most of them the same book. All of the hits for "National liberation war of Yugoslavia" and "Yugoslav national liberation war" are books and articles, none of them copied from Wikipedia.
At least to my mind, these results are pretty clear - the most common name is "National liberation war/army/movement", especially in scholarly articles. Zocky | picture popups 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's another search that I didn't think of before, the english translation of AVNOJ (note that I kept "anti-fascist" and "council" outside the quotes to catch variant spellings (antifascist vs. anti-fascist and council of liberation vs. council for liberation, liberation vs. the liberation).
National - web: 226 / books: 336 / scholar: 92 / total: 654

Peoples - web: 40 / books: 143 / scholar: 30 / total: 213.
That's 3.1 : 1 for national. Zocky | picture popups 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It still doesn't change the results above. 400 : 5 cannot be ignored. Besides, the whole reason you've started this quite obviously wrong translation campaign is flawed. The word "narodno" is the only term translatable into "people's", and is used primarily for that purpose. The adjective "nacionalno" can only mean "national" and is used in that capacity primarily. In terms of Yugoslav communist (or communist-led) organizations, "narodno" is 'almost always' translated into "people's". Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija), just for example. It is simply wrong to translate it into "national". Your argument on the Slovene term is fine, and please do make a note of it, but from where I stand it looks like you're trying to use the wrong translation just to make the one in your language make more sense. The Yugoslav People's Liberation army is just one of the many communist (or communist-led) People's Liberation Armies all over history. It makes no sense and sounds completely wrong, I can assure you that it is public knowledge that the term "narodno" refers in this context only to "people's". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The alleged 400 vs. 5 result does not exist. It's an artifact of how google displays the count on the first page. Read the whole thing again, and try actually looking at search results. National is the most common translation in works by Serbian and Croatian authors too. Zocky | picture popups 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The table makes it abundantly clear. "National" is the appropriate translation in English. - Francis Tyers · 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I assure you both, it is most undoubtedly completely incorrect, bordering on the absurd. There was effectively no Yugoslav "nation" at the time. The Yugoslav Communist Party did not support the idea of a Yugoslav "nation", certainly not at that time. Such an ideal, never realized in the whole of Yugoslav history, was not actively supported by the CC CPY. The independence of all the myriad Yugoslav nations was proclaimed with much pomp all throughout the war by the Partisan war propaganda, and was one of the causes of their success. It makes absolutely no sense at all to call this a "national war", or the Partisans a "national movement". Simply because of the meaning of the word "national", and the context in which the word "narodno" is translated. (Please explain how exactly is the Google result incorrect?)
Remember, we are talking about communist party terminology. The Yugoslav Partisans were formed and organized (and named) first and foremost by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The same party that (at the time) fervently opposed the enforcement of the monarchist idea of a "Yugoslav nation". It is clear beyond doubt that the communists were referring to "the people" ("workers and peasants", if you will) of Yugoslavia, not to a non-existent Yugoslav nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I submit further evidence to the proper translation of the word "narodno" in the context of communist Yugoslavia. I truly could go on forever listing the many Yugoslav government institutions and departments, but the most obvious example is the translation of the word "narodno" used in the state name of Yugoslavia and its Republics. Those being the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Croatia, People's Republic of Macedonia, People's Republic of Serbia, People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina etc... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

^ Kaufmann Chaim, "Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars," International Security Vol. 20, No.4 (spring 1996), pp. 136-175.

^ Donia; John, "Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed" Robert Donia and John V.A. Fine, Jr. Page. 152

^ Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

^ Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

^ Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

^ Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

^ Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

^ Donia; John, "Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed" Robert Donia and John V.A. Fine, Jr. Page. 152

[1] Kaufmann Chaim, "Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars," International Security Vol. 20, No.4 (spring 1996), pp. 136-175.

[2] Donia; John, "Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed" Robert Donia and John V.A. Fine, Jr. Page. 152

[3] Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

[4] Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

[5] Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

[6] Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

[7] Hoare, Marko "Adding Insult to Injury: Washington Decorates a Nazi Collaborator" The Henry Jackson Society, published 11th June 2005 , accessed January 10th, 2009

[8] Donia; John, "Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed" Robert Donia and John V.A. Fine, Jr. Page. 152

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Related articles