Talk:Lim-Sandžak Chetnik Detachment

Verification

The material about the involvement of this detachment in Operation Trio needs verification, they may have participated in the Third Enemy Offensive, but not Operation Trio. They are not the same thing. Also, Djurisic was captured before Case Black began. This is a blatant attempt to create a POVFORK in respect of issues that have been refuted at other articles. Please provide translated quotes from all tagged references. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Yugoslav historiography uses term the Third enemy offensive instead of operation Trio. Djurisic was captured in the initial phase of the Case Black, some of his men were also captured in the initial phase, while some of them were captured in the next phases. This is already discussed at relevant talkpages. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The scope of the Operation Trio article is only part of the scope of the Third Enemy Offensive. The Third Enemy Offensive has been split for very valid reasons, including the timeframe, troops involved, geographical scope and the fact that it is already complex enough. What you need to (red)link to is the Italian-led Herzegovina offensive (tentative title) which involved Chetniks (in fact I believe they did most of the fighting). Burgwyn clearly explains the difference here. Operation Trio did not involve Chetniks fighting alongside the Axis, they just melted away. The non-involvement of Chetniks was a point that was agreed upon by the Axis leaders at Abbazia, the Germans and NDH (Laxa) insisted on it. That is a sourced fact, not my opinion. The Italians later reneged on that arrangement for subsequent operations that formed part of the Third Enemy Offensive, but it was only for operations not involving the Germans that followed Operation Trio. If you don't understand this, you just haven't read enough about it. You have linked this unit to an article for an operation in which they did not participate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing irrelevant in my comment. The link you presented is unable for viewing. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The arrangements for the two operations are verifiable, whether you can view the link or not. Hehn, Hoare, any number of academics explain the differences. If you don't understand the differences between the two operations, one a German-NDH one with minor Italian involvement, and the other run by the Italians in their occupation zones using mainly Chetniks, that really isn't my problem. Conflating the operation that this unit participated in with Operation Trio is just factually wrong, they weren't involved in Trio. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Will you please be so kind to provide a quote which directly confirms that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Firstly, Burgwyn Mussolini Warlord: Failed Dreams of Empire, 1940-1943 p. 242, after explaining what happened during the first phase of Trio, "Trio II, launched on 7 May, targeted partisan strongholds at Foca and Kalinivik. Despite the many fissures and mutual recriminations, the Axis armies wound up the last stage of the campaign by taking possession of Foca on 10 May. The Germans and Croats cleared the partisans from eastern Bosnia to the demarcation line, and the Italians, with the help of their Chetnik allies, swept the partisans out of Herzegovina, which was not included in Trio." And Pavlowitch Hitler's New Disorder p. 119, "In Herzegovina, not encompassed by Trio, Italian troops operation in conjunction with chetniks, fully exploiting resentment against the partisans." Obviously, if Herzegovina was not included in Trio, then the Third Enemy Offensive was not just Trio. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the quotes you presented mentions Third Enemy Offensife nor directly confirm that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive). You might be right here, but until now you did not present sources which support your position. Even if Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio you did not present sources which confirm your position that Chetniks did not participate in this operation. You base your position solely on the fact that they also participated in another (Herzegovina) operation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's try this. Do you agree that the quotes show that the Italian-Chetnik operations in Herzegovina were not part of Operation Trio? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Whether operations in Herzegovina were part of the Operation Trio or not is irrelevant here. I presented (diff) multiple sources which confirm that Chetniks from Sandžak participated in the Third Enemy Offensive by attacking communst forces at Čajniče which is in eastern Bosnia, where they supported Italian forces together with Sandžak Muslim militia and attacked communist in Eastern Bosnia (at Čajniče, Goražde and Višegrad toward Rogatica) since 22 April. You based your position on the fallacious proposition that Chetniks did not participate in Operation Trio because they also participated in another (Herzegovina) operation which was maybe not included into Operation Trio.
• The burden is on you, not on me. You claim that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive). Based on this claim, you concluded that Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim militia did not participate in Operation Trio because they participated Herzegovina offensive. You are maybe right here, but if you want your position to be added to wikipedia articles you should present sources that directly support your claim and conclusion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually no, you are the one that linked this unit to Operation Trio. The burden is on you to show that they did. I say they didn't, and have already talked about the Abbazia discussions where the Germans and NDH refused to allow the Chetniks to be involved in Operation Trio. Hopefully you are familiar with the Abbazia discussions, but if not, read the Operation Trio article, it is reliably cited. Either prove they did or drop the stick. You can delete the "Herzegovina offensive" from this article so far as I care, but you have provided exactly zero sources that show that this unit participated in Operation Trio. Until you do, don't re-add it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually yes, the burden is on you. It is you who replaced Operation Trio with Herzegovina Operation (diff). Your position was based on your claim that Third Enemy Offensive ≠ Operation Trio because Third Enemy Offensive = (Operation Trio + Herzegovina offensive) and your conclusion that Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim militia did not participate in Operation Trio because they participated Herzegovina offensive. Will you please be so kind to present sources that directly support your claim and conclusion?
• Yes I did read Operation Trio article. It says that "Operation Trio was followed up by the joint Italian-Chetnik Herzegovina Offensive against Partisan detachments". Will you please be so kind to explain how can actions of Chetniks and Sandžak Muslim Militia in Eastern Bosnia that started at 22 April 1942 be part of the Italian-Chetnik Herzegovina Offensive that followed Operation Trio (20 April and 13 May 1942)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the Herzegovina offensive, as I have not yet looked into it, and I don't know when it began or ended. I know what the sources say about Operation Trio though. So far as I am concerned, the point is moot. You decide what to put in the infobox, but if you put Operation Trio, be sure to provide sources to support it, not some reference to the Third Enemy Offensive claiming it is equal to Trio. Any discussion with you goes round and round in circles, and I refuse to waste any more of my time on this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)