Talk:Chetniks

Chetniks from point of view of constitutional law

From this point of view their duty was to seek and destroy not only germans but also Partisans , Ustashes ... Because they were king's army defending the interest of king and his goverment . Their duty was to destroy every military element that was not in conection with king .

Not when the King started backing the Partisans. They continued to attack them well after they were an established Allied force. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks vs. Partisans

Chetniks were against partisans because partisans wanted to overthrow regular monarchy , as king's army their duty was to kill pro comunist's , like evrywhere in world regular forces are against revolutionaries during revolution . Sometimes those activities were in the same time when germans were in batlle agains partisans .

Mladic as chetnik and Belgrade ruled by chetnics is nonsense

Mladic was not chetnik , he was against chetnik uniforms in army and chetniks because chetniks tried to burn his mother alive , because he was from comunist family . His Uniform is not chetnik uniform but uniform from first world war serbian army . Belgrade was never ruled by chetniks , but by pro-german goverment of general Milan Nedic .

Copyright permission

Copyrighted text on this page used with permission. --Nikola Smolenski, 15:36, 24 Sep 2003

Comment

Ratko Mladic was not a Chetnik? Are you serious? Can you see that image in the article showing a Chetnik in a uniform? That is the exact uniform you can see on Mladic on numerous photos. The same hat, same symbol on the hat. And not only hat. He was a Chetnik, because he wore chetnik uniform and he obeyed the Chetnik ideology, proposed in a written statut by Draza Mihajlovic where he puts extermination of minorities and expansion of Serbian teritories as the main objective of the movement. The movement is also led by some sectarian ideologies of Orthodox church (cult of St. Sava, similar to occult believes of Nazis). And you didn't have to say you are from Berane, because it is obvious, because that town was a craddle of Chetnik movement in Montenegro. As for your grandfather, he probably was together with Nazis when they executed my granfather's cousin, because he was killed on Jasikovac, near Berane, by the joint forces of Nazis and Chetniks, a day before the town was liberated by Partizans. So I guess he died during the liberation "honestly" defending interests of the Third Reich. Berane was mostly under Italians during the WW2, who were considered the less of three evils. The other two were German Nazis and Serbian Chetniks that colaborated. Ustashas never had a big role in Montenegro, but that was not the case with Bosnia, where Chetnik forces and Ustashas commited a genocide against Muslims and that hand full of Jews which lived in Former Yugoslavia before the War. As it is finally mentioned in the article, Belgrade, under the rule of Chetniks was the first judenfrei capital in Europe. Way before all German and Polish cities. But Chetniks never bothered to take them to the concentration camps. They simply exterminated them. Considering the part of the article where it is mentioned that Chetniks saved some American soldiers, that is a unique case. Let me tell you that there were also some good hearted Nazis who saved Partizans during the WW2. But from that case, it is obvious that it is a part of desperate strategic move of gaining some cheap points towards the end of the war, when even Chetniks new that Nazis are going to lose. It certanly doesn't change the fact that Chaetniks colaborated with Nazi Germany, and were more gruesome and sadistic in torturing, killing and exterminating the civilian populations of Former Yugoslavia. The misfortune is that the movement is still alive and they kill torture and rape (by the ideology of "burned land") whenever there is a chance. Many of the Chetnik financial supporters live in the USA and South America. It is a shame Simon Wisenthal hunted only German war criminals.

---

Well, yes, Ratko Mladic wasnt a chetnik. Belgrade was never a Chetniks ruled (what a stupidity) and was 2nd Judenfrei city after Vilnius, Estonia, just because Jewish community was quite small. Judenfrei policy was boosted by off course Germans whose occupation zone Serbia was, and not by Chetnics - which were without any authority at the time. So "dont mix grandmas and frogs" ... Yes, Chetnics collaborated, Ustashas, some Albanians ... and many other small puppet forces and regimes, no better one from another. Chetnics are alive only in mind of insane, and in some veterans. And its just used iconology, like Croats did with Ustase regime, to boost nationalism, not a reality thing. Wisenthal did not chase Chetnics because he delt with antisemitism. You dont know a fact, and your article will remain just as sign of human stupidy and missinformation. What you can see today at Ravna Gora is mostly drunk old man which are fractioned among many ideas. And this article about Chetnics is quite good. --194.106.188.16 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article above is so extremely wrong and convaluted that it's hilarious to even take it seriously! First of all, even if Mladic was a Chetnik or had a uniform of a Chetnik how is it relevant with Chetnik idealogy? Which "your" version is extremely wrong in the first place. The Chetniks were a nationalist group, they were for the king, and at least the continuing centerpiece of a "kingdom of Yugoslavia". As for "greater Serbia", there is no living evidence to support your rambling of such a movement. The Chetniks wanted to perserve the state of Yugoslaiva not annilate it as the Ustaha, Handjar Division, or SS Skanderbeg's wanted to do. Second, what cult of St. Sava are you babbling about? There isn't any such cult just like your imaginery preminitions of a "greater Serbia" in World War II! Furthermore, please clarify for me where did the Serbs commmite Genocide in World War II--a total oxymoran since they were the ones being killed by the Nazi's themselves. The Chetniks were a resistance-gurilla force that didn't have an organized, planned, or central base to sort out prisoners or set up a concentration camp in the first place. How could they? They faught the Nazi's, Ustasa, and Partizans on three different fronts at the same time. How could they possibly have had the time to commit genocide while trying to fight a war such as this and be somewhat successful? Third, going back to your "fact" about Muslims being killed off by Chetniks? On whose account do you base this? Muslims were allied with the Nazis and Ustasha during the war. How could an ally of the Nazi's legitamtely fight against another alley---it would not make sense because technically if you faught with the Nazi's you agreed to their cause? Fourth, "Good hearted Nazi's" are you insane! The Nazi's had a gold dubblon prize for anyone who captured Tito or Mihajlovic how could they be good hearted to them? In addition, that just defeats your point about Chetniks collaborating with the Nazi's; if they collobroated come the Nazi's still killed 100 Serbs for every German dead. How come the Chetniks weren't recognized by the Nazi's as allies, yet they were still hunted by them, if they were colloborators you don't kill anyone off who helps you. Fifth, did you forget or do you have permanment amnesia as to what Jasenovac symbolized? Let me remind you the most brutal, sadistic, henious, evil, and degrading concentration camp equal to Austwitz itself! Run by our friends the Muslims and Ustasha, by way of the SS Skanderbeg Division as hosted by our Albanian friends! I'm sorry sir, your a disgusting and evil individual who wants to erase any history by reinterpreting, no, lying and manipulating it without any tangilbe and clear evidence to your backing. And sir, I challange you to come up with any evidence that shows the complete and unambigious proof contraty to what I wrote about. In other words please demonstrate and show me where the Chetniks were formal collaborators, set up concentration camps, commited genocide against the Muslims or anybody else during World War II, and while Partizans were the good the old boys of it all during this escapde in history. Please sir don't pollute no troll this article more then your doing it now.

Byzantine Dragon 10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) You appear to know a lot about Chetnik uniforms. Perhapps too much

Comment

I have never read something so true in my life! This is the best artical about Chetniks ever written. I must tell the others that Ratko Mladic is not Chetnik, so I don't know why do they say they got something with Srebrenica. My gran-granfather was killed in Chetniks, and I can speak in his name, he fought for King and Fatherland not for Grate Serbia. Greatings from Berane, Montenegro.

Comments from 194.152.224.194

I beg to differ. While the information on the page is largely accurate, it ommits several facts, such as the fact that the Chetniks were the Serbian equivalent of the Croatian Ustase, with the only difference being in that they were not granted a puppet-state by the German leadership. During the course of WW2, the Chetnik formations engaged on numerous terror campaigns, operating throughout the Yugoslav territory, and waging war mostly on the civilian population as they feared open engagements with the Partisans.

Excuse me, what are you talking about? The Chetniks being the same as the Ustasa during World War II? I don't think so. The Chetniks were resistance figthers without a recognized state; they were seen as enemies of the Third Reich; they saved over 500 American Airmen; they were supported by the West; and they saved anyone their own people from complete destruction as mandated by Pavelic et al. I didn't see the Chetniks setting up a Jasenovac style camp nor did they avoid fights with Partizans quite to the contrary. Instead of cooperating with the Chetniks against the Nazi's, the Partizans just sat there and refused to fight the Axis whenever a fight was raging between both groups. More like the Chetniks would do all the dirty work while the Partizans just stayed behind and became parisitically attached to any Chetnik encounter while attacking them at them (the Chetniks) at their weakest!

Oh Please, the Partizans saved around 790-800 allied airmen, and even hundreds of POWs, chetniks only saved 390. Chetniks fought in Sutjeska battle on the german side, as well as the attempt to capture Tito, chetniks were helping the germans at the time! How do you explain that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.114.241 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i dont agree that Ustase and Chetniks were the same but Chetniks did terror campaigns. Hatred among Croatians and Serbs was huge in second world war and prier to it. Just becouse Chetniks didnt have concentration camps doesnt mean they didnt kill Croatian civilians. You can compare Chetniks with Ustase with theyr agenda which was to kill Croatians, and restore Yugoslavia, in which Croatians, and othere nations were dominated by Serbians. In other words Yugoslavia, was bigger then Greater Serbia, but with the same control, in which Serbians rule. Only major difference was that Greater Serbia deniad any other nationalty and Yugoslavia didnt. Yugoslavia befoure Tito was Serbian hegemony and oppresion over other nations. Moust of what you say is wrong anyway. "The Chetniks were resistance figthers without a recognized state" Go back and check earlier in discusion Chetniks vs. Partisans. They were seen as enemys in the begging and laiter went on axis side. "They saved over 500 American Airmen." Totaly irrelevant and expectable if they were on allies side in the begging. Yes they did same thing as Pavelic but maiby not in such big nummbers. And about partizans just sitting around, do i evan have to go into that. Its such stupidity when all the other facts sad on a contrary. Partisans got more and more people, and axis thought that they were theyr biggest treat which later lead to allience with allies. Yeah and i am shure that when partisans fought axis, theyr dearest friends Chetniks must have helped them. Lol. redicules. Think a little. Think.

Also, regardind my entry on modern-day Chetnik movement. The general reference to all Serb forces as Chetniks during the recent Balkan conflict isn't even worth a mention - that is propaganda. However, during the Serb uprising in Croatia (1990 - 1995), there was a number of Chetnik units operating in the area, or at least units with Chetnik symbols. After the siege of Vukovar, the units entering the city carried a large Chetnik flag and sung traditional songs - this much was seen on CNN and BBC newscasts. Additionally, paramilitary units led by Arkan, did most of the civilian terror campaigns in both Croatia and Bosnia. He was, in turn, under the command of Vojislav Seselj, who has openly called himself 'a Chetnik duke'.

Sure you have Arkan if anything, but how did he have this Chetnik philosophy in the first place? He acted oppsitley to actual Chetnik idealogy. Finaly, "Chetnik" songs as you heard were traditional Serbian songs before the Chetnik movement even started. Get your facts straight! Finally, Vojislav Seselj was now nominated in Serbia's general elections. One can hardly say that the movement is dead, and that no links to it can be found in the present.

-- User:194.152.224.194, 14:36, 11 Jan 2004

Yeah your right about Seselj and that the movement is not dead and thats sad. At least we(Croatians) are willing to admit that Ustase were bad people anlike Serbians who think Chetniks as "Royal army", and not drunken and crazy psycophats that killed any Croatian and Muslim civilian that they can. Just becouse they didnt have theyr own killing kamps(like Ustase), and killed only a small groups of Croatians and Muslim at the time doesnt make them any better at all.

Two-headed white eagles (called “kokarda” by mistake, originally kokarda was three-color sign in colors of flag) are national symbol of Serbs – not a symbol of Chetniks. Their traditional symbol was skull with bones. During the last wars in Bosnia and Croatia, terms “Chetniks” (for Serbs) and “Ustasha” (for Croats) were misused.

Sorry, you made a mistake... Chetnik's cooperated with Germans to save as many Serbian lives as possible (you have it in the text) because we had lost a lot of people in previous wars - only during WW1 we one third of Serbs had died. Where are Balkan Wars, and 500 years under Ottomans rule? Do you know that Germans feared us so much, that they ordered to execute 100 Serbs for every dead German, and 50 for every wounded? That they slaid around 2100 students from high school in Kragujevac? Despite Germans, noone was so cruel as Ustasas. You can se it from the pictures. While Chetniks have pictures of Draza and other commanders, Ustashas have pictures with heads of Sebian men. They were savages. During the WW@ they killed about 500000 Serbs. During the last war about 100000 Serbs from Croatia died. They burned my village. Twice. People say that Draza also ordered execution of many people. But during the war, he was continually asking Allies to send as many observers as they can. Can you tell me why would he do so, if Chetnik's commited so many crimes?

What a load of rubbish. Chetniks cooperated with Germans to save as many Serbian lifes as possible???!!! Well if you hadnt harresed us in pre-titos Yugoslavia, Ustase would have never got into power, and they would never kill serbians, but jews and romas, like in any other nazi puppet gowerent. So Ustase got in power to save Croatian life, and to get free of Serbian hegemony and oppresion. During the last war about 100000 Serbs from Croatia died??? WTF?? You invade my country and then you say about war casualties. You must be joking. And how many Croatians did you kill in last war. Its like americans accousing Vietnam for theyr war casualties. It would just looks redicules. So please try not to look redicules. Thx.

Rubbish croatians and muslems and all oether serb haters tried to make chetniks look like nazis to hide their own nazi history and hide the fact that 80% of partisans were serbs and almost all chetniks (who were the first in europe to start to fight nazis) ... in ww2 in bosnia 750 000 serbs were killed, 60 000 croats and 70 000 muslems (including those dying as soldiers of third reich) so tell me who is bad here and for information that nobody mantiond partisans killed a lot of people (civilians) in the ww2 so that argument cant be used against chetniks to prowe that they are evil nazis, as said before they didnt have concentrations kamps like ustaše ... and by the way in last war serbs didnt attack croatia but croats began war aginst minority that tried to defend it self becouse they didnt want to go again in jasenovac ... its same if germany would attack jews in poland and say they attacked us ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.88.119 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At the end, I must say that these texts are so realistic, they have so much truth in them, that I were speechless while I was reading. Wikipedia team, keep out the good work, don't let them corrupt you.

Greetings from Grat Serbia's republic of Montenegro

It is interesting to notice that in 1931 Bosnia and Herzegovina census there has been 1,028,139 Serbs and in census 1948 there has been 1,136,116 + 70,000 Serbs (which are living in Vojvodina from period 1945-48)= 1,206,116 Serbs.

If Ustaše has killed 750,000 Serbs in Bosnia like you are saying can you please explain us how is possible that census number of 1,206,116 Serbs in 1948. If your words are true for me only possible solution is that they have been breeding like rabbits ???--Rjecina (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time Alija Izetbegovic was a 'Serb'. And many others like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.19 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

graphic photo - need warning, maybe removal

The photo of a person's throat being slit is a bit graphic (despite its low quality). Additionally, previous contributions - he's a problem user and has made repeated inappropriate edits to related pages. If there's some consensus to return the image to the page, it can be done, but I'm still opposed on the same grounds that images of the Berg beheading were not included in the main text of the article. --Abqwildcat 08:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) none. --Shallot 13:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't think that the picture should go. Nikola 22:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Double standards ?

Hmmm….it seems to me that you have a problem with conflicting versions of interpretation of controversial issues. I wont bother about a “problem user” tag (anyway, I got much more serious and ominous labels during Communist rule in ex-Yugoslavia). But- I ask two questions: a) how on earth do you have the temerity to enter into a dispute you, evidently, don’t know anything about ? How do you dare ? b) as for the very nature of graphic violence the photo conveys- why didn’t you react in the case I mentioned ? When you mention the Berg case- I agree. But it only points to the lack of standards in wiki editing: so, if this photo goes, all other suggestive photos with similar content go. I’ll be the first to agree. And not only this. Not only photos, but lies in the text that are proven to be lies (for instance, unsubstantiated propaganda trash spread by a Nikola Smolenski, full of virulent hatred and falsities against Albanians, Croats and Bosniaks)- all this, not only abhorrent images, will have to go to the dumpster. Double standards are just that: quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. Do you subscribe to this adage ? Mir Harven 14:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Četnici

Četnici Soldiers of Draža Mihajlovic who were known for brutality during the WW2. Also, rebel soldiers in Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina, during the War in the 1990's, known for ethnic clensing of non-serbs.

This was POV and written by an anonymous, and since deleted. Another anonymous (from 195.178.32.50) called it "bullshit". --Joy [shallot] 23:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but despite that 200000 Serbs died in last war. Did Chetnik's killed them?

image removal

Marjan, please stop removing images without explanation. --Joy [shallot] 22:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Igor too now. --Joy [shallot] 08:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The next alias/anon that blithely removes a picture will be summarily banned. I've tried the carrot, let's try the stick. --Joy [shallot]

recent mess

The article is currently messy because it duplicates the stories in subsections. It should probably be merged back, although subsectioning doesn't sound like a bad idea per se. --Joy [shallot] 22:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should be deleted

This article should be deleted, for it is not only heavily one-sided, but also insulting to hundreds of thousands of people, victims of Chetniks.

Chetniks were no better that the Fascists in WWII. They were only on paper "King's army" while in fact they were a bunch of mercenaries heavily connected to nazis.

As for wars in yugoslavia. This article glorifies war criminals, and people convicted for ethnic cleansing, such as Vojislav Seselj.

Damn straight, the Chetniks were also racist, even the king was rascist, he called my people "South Serb" which is offensive to my people. The Chetniks are mercenaries, and they carried out racist killings with Momcilo Djujic as one of them! Hell, watch 10th squardron of navarrone. SMRT FAŠIZMU! SLOBODA NARODU! BRATSTVO I JEDINSTVO!! DA ŽIVEE NAŠA JUGOSLAVIJA!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.114.241 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Prove it ! You have complekses and you try to make serbs look bad to hide yout nazist history, and first of all seselj is not convicted, he is an political prisonaire on trial because he dared to speak the truth.

Broken articles should be fixed, not deleted. Please adjust whatever you see is wrong and we'll work from that. Also see the page history where the old revisions were. For example, this one from 14 Nov 2004, before some anonymous user made a large round of edits. --Joy [shallot] 11:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a proud cetnik i still wear the Kokarda and sajkaca. the Cetnici were proud and honorable fighters who protected their country from the brutal Nazi and Ustasa reigime. i wear karadzic and Draza on my key chain and i belive in the fact that karadic is tottaly innocent and nothing happend at Srebrenica its all bullshit made up by the united states. SRBIJA DO TOKIJA

     Kažeš četnici su branili svoju zemlju?? Šta je Srbija do sve Tokija isto tako "njegova" zemlja??

Nothing happed in Srebrenica?? So, nothing happend to my cousins brother, too? Come to Srebrenica, ask about what really happend! Do not speak about it like you were there.

Serba do tokija is a joke invented to amuse people and people like you misuse it, as for Srebrenica, that vilage vas under protection of un but that didnt stop Naser Orices army to kill 2300 serbs (inclouding women and children), thay sad first that there were killed 300 000 muslems in Bosnia today we know that 100 000 people died inclouding serbs and croats, thay sad first that 15 000 muslems were killed in Srebrenica when everybody saw that that is imposible thay sad there are 7 - 8 000 dead, now after 13 years of diging with help of satelite photos they found 2500 deat of wich most were soldiers killed in battle, of caurse there were alsow killed boys from age betwen 18-15, because any boy older then 15 years is considert "military able" (able to cary guns), this was crime and is sad that it happend but those soldiers (most of victimes) who were killed I dont have simpaties for them because they are nothng but ruthles killers ! And if you want to have 8 000 man from age of 15-49 years you would nead 50 -60 000 population which srebrenica doesnt have not eaven whit all vilages together ...

The intro

There have been some attempts by anons to improve it, but insertion of claims or facts which are substantiated much much later in the article is quite an edit war magnet, so I reworded the intro a bit.

That said, the intro should probably be expanded, so that a reader who is reading another article and just wants to learn the basic facts doesn't have to read the whole article to find them. Zocky 08:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Forged pictures

After the WW2, communist regime in Yugoslavia fabricated “proofs” of chetniks’ collaboration with Axis powers. Sometimes, you may spot false pictures very easy. For example, at the front cover of the book that talks about chetniks’ collaboration, there is a picture that shows a German officer with chetniks. Check the forged picture

By mistake, communist forgers haven’t recognized British and American uniforms at the picture. However, the original picture from February 1944 has survived. At original picture, there is no German officer. At both pictures, there are British colonel William Bailey and American major Walter Mansfield. Check the original picture

Ideology

Some ethnic Croats, Slovenians and Muslims also joined Chetniks forces. Most of them were democratically oriented Yugoslav patriots, anti-communists and anti-fascists. They didn’t fight for Greater Serbia but for liberation of their homeland, Kingdom of Yugoslavia:

• General Mihailovic with Zvonko Vuckovic, comandant of 1st Chetnik Corps. Mr. Vuckovic was an ethnic Croat – loyal officer of Royal Yugoslav Army.

• Mr. Mustafa Mulalic, one of Muslim officers in Chetnik’s headquarters, together with General Mihailovic and Mr. Stevan Moljevic (only three of them are in uniforms)

• General Mihailovic with Muslim leaders in Bijeljina.

Added NPOV tag, obvious pro-Chetnik bias, also a mess generally

Subject says it all. This article for the most part has pretty extreme pro-Chetnik bias, particularly concerning the Chetnik atrocities in Bosnia during the 1990s (as in: it glosses over them). It even mentions war criminals by name, without reference to the fact that they are, well, war criminals (e.g. Vojislav Šešelj Serb radical denies war crimes).

Bizarrely, somebody tacked on some text in the "links" section (???) that goes the exact opposite way, flatly accusing Chetniks of being war criminals en masse. While a much more historically supportable point of view, it is mis-placed in the article, and provides no evidence, and so is silly and rather worthless.

Come to think of it, this article just needs to be killed with an ax.

During the civil war in Bosnia, the terms “Chetniks” and “Ustashi” were missused by Muslim-controlled Bosnian government, to refer to Serbian (VRS) and Croatian (HVO) forces. Serb forces in Bosnia made some atrocities – but that was VRS (Army of Republic of Srpska) - not Chetniks! By tradition, Chetniks were 100% guerilla forces, so it was silly to use same term for army with hundreds of tanks and heavy artillery. VRS was everything but not guerilla.

And what about all those people dressed like chetniks during the war in Croatia and Bosnia???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Communist and anti-Serbian Bias

The anti-Chetnik parrts of the article have a clear bias toward the history written in SFRY textbooks and spoonfed to naive children. One should treat those parts of the article with the same credibility as something written in a Soviet textbook regarding 'American Capitalist Decadence'.

Those who equate the Ustase with the Cetniks fall for the idea of treating present day name-calling of Serbs by Croats and vice-versa as a timeless phenomenon when it isn't.

The Ustase were helped by the Nazis, the same group that created Auschwitz, Dachau, and with the Ustase's help, Jasenovac et al.

The Chetniks were the Royal Yugoslav Army in mourning for the occupation of their land by anti-monarchist forces (Nazis and Soviet-backed Partisans). The Chetniks are rememebered by more erudite Americans and Britons as a force against Nazism, and valiant warriors.

This aticle is BAD!

I'd like to mention, "cheti" and "chetniks" were use in the Balkans long before IMRO (Bulgarians) to start the fight against Ottoman Empire. Number of "chetas" came from Vlashko in middle and late 19th century and attack Turks in Bulgaria. Also many "cheti" were form in Bulgaria proper as well. Just to mention, Hristo Botev, Stevan Karadzha, Hadzhi Dimitar. During Bulgarian uprising in 1876 100's of chetas were form, were the most notable was "Hvyrkovatata Cheta" ("the flying cheta") of Benkovski. Also the name "cheta" came from the verb "count" in central Bulgarian dialects. 68.183.199.202 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Nikolay Sarmadzhiev

If someone go to this page he will not find anthing but loads of Serb, Croat and other nationalism. Can someone write this aricle without pushing his natonalist (Serb, Croat or any other) bias?

It's utterly, irretrivably POV in its current form, almost racist. --estavisti 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The introduction is also wrong, not mentioning WWI and Balkan Wars chetniks. Nikola 10:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is peace of shit. You have not bean objective at all. Especialy the introduction is not true. Ratko Mladic and Slobodan Milosevic are comunists so there is not any posibility that they are chetnics. Yo should clean this introduction an this pucture or I will destroy it for all times there.

SLobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic were not communists,thats nonsense,he was probably high when he wrote that.Milosevic was anti-comunist

THE REAL DEAL

The Croat Ustase and Serb Chetniks were both with the Nazis...same thing...only that Croats were slightly stronger and better organised, maybe better educated... BUT Most Croats and Tito included were in the Partizans, as where most Serbs etc... The Ustase and Chetnik were a minority and shouldnt be glorified here or anywhere. Hitler laughed at all Slav people (Serbs-Croats) and said he would use them as slaves. When my great grandfather told me the story of ww2 he said, these soliders...be it Ustase, Chetnik, Partizan or Nazi...they would look for kids or men to join them and if you didnt they forced you to.........so for the most part, most people didnt get a choice of who they surved..... Today there are no more Ustase or Chetniks ...only wanabes...who are mislead into believing these people were the good guys.......trust me only TITO was good..and the Partizans they gave freedom to Yugoslavia..and freed us from Austia Turkey etc.............anyone who doesnt know this is brainwashed nationalist......... Sure there was some odd balls in all parties, such is life, you cant blaim a race for what a few hunderd did.......... The Balkan people are good people

Comment

While there are some points of view-issues in this article, I believe it has suffered far worse from the anti-chetnik camp, as opposed to the pro-chetnik camp. One of the revisions from mid-November of this year seemed pretty fair in both acknowledging the positive and negative aspects of the group.

Furthermore, it seems as though a great deal of edits that have gone down were extrordinarily poorly made, such as stating that the "previous intro was made by Croat propaganda" or adding an overly-dramatic paragraph about how the chetniks were evil at the bottom of the links section. While this may be a contested issue, there's really no reason to continually throw around edits based on your personal speculation. I've noticed the section about the airmen rescue is often deleted and then restored, for example.

Hahahah better educated, u dont nned an education for killing people... All the Chetnik's officers have finished the military school cos they were the regular army and the Ustasass were just murderes. It was all Tito's propaganda that the Chetniks collaborated and killed other people wich in not true. The Chetniks were the regular army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia not just of Serbia and everyone was welcomed to join in. They weren't a fascist organization as Tito said cos everyone against Tito was a fascist. Cheers

Trouth in introduction ????

This article is rasist, an it is realy shame for some normal encyclopedia

This introduction is realy not truth. I would tell you the definitive facts that you can find in any real historical book

1. Chetniks did colaborated officaly with Italians because they had at that time same interests,(Italians didn't wanted Germans to control all the Balcans)
2. Chetniks din't colaborated officaly with Germans, but some chetnik vojvodas did.
3. Chetniks never colaborated with ustshas because at that time that was imposible. At that time in Croatian controled arrea Serbs have been planed to be killed, cleaned , or converted to cathoilycism. So even if they wanted to do colaborate with ustashi they could't do that.Ustashi have bean their biggest enemy.
4. Slobadan Milosevic never wanted to rehabilitate chetniks, actualy his Socialist Party wery often called their political enemies chetniks (especialy his wife Mira Markovic), its easy to find it on the inteternet because it wasn't long time ago. Chetnik rehabilitation came in Serbia after Milosevic was moved avay.

There is one objective article about chetniks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_02.shtml

You should read this and few more articles an then write objective article about them.

• Branko Stojanovic, Belgrade, Serbia And Montenegro

Arkan and Chetnik insignia

"During the Yugoslav wars, several paramilitary formations, including those by Željko Ražnatović "Arkan", wanted by Interpol, boast Chetnik insignia and some of them committed crimes against non-Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia."

As far I know, Arkan's formations never used Chetnik insignia. They boasted historic insignias of Kingdom of Serbia (pre-1918). Thus, reference to Arkan should be removed: "During the Yugoslav wars, several paramilitary formations boast Chetnik insignia and some of them committed crimes against non-Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia."

no 1 who started yu-war? serbs !!! 4 wars they fought and result kosovo going towards own statehood.

This Article, Chetnik

I have depised this article since I first saw it. About time someone said something. A lot of articles on wiki pertaining to Serbs are complete lies! Anti-Serb racists!!

Completely Screwed

I would advise that we tear this article down. Take all information that is not sourced and POV and remove it. Right now, the Pro-Chetnik bias is so strong that the article barely mentions that near the end of the war, the Chetniks were essentially a nazi auxillary force. Terrible. I shall be bold and do so in the next few days. Please don't revert without discussing or leaving some comment. --Irongaard 05:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

About the current edit war

To the anonymous user who continues to assert that Chetniks included only Serbs and Montenegrins and killed many people in Hercegovina and Dalmatia: If you have something to say, just discuss it first on this page. If your comment is legitimate, and can be backed up with references, we can find a place for it within the article. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. --Mihovil 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chetniks in Bosnia and Croatia did make crimes against Bosnian Muslims and Croats during the WWII. It should stay, but someone should give references about that and. Maybe some sentence which would say that "they killed many Croats and Bosnian Muslims" would be OK. May someone put it somewhere inside of the text? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There must be number of victims who are killed by chetniks. I read in chetnik report vhich is send from Pavle Đurišić (chetnik high officer) to Draža Mihailović. "10.01.1943. My units in southeastern Bosnia and Sanđak burned 33 muslim villages, killled 400 mulim mans, 1000 womans and childrens". In february "killled 1200 muslim mans, 8000 old mans, womans and childrens." In october 1943. chetniks burned village Gata in Dalmatia and killed 100 mans.

what u just said here is pathetic and completely biased, muslims did not exist in Yugoslavia until the 1970s they were considered either Croats or Serbs or Bosnians, there was no spliit in religion until the 1970s, although i forget the exact year and date, rendering what you just said completely false.

PS this article is overflowing wtih contradictions and false statements, i suggest that it be frozen and almost completely re-written.

Give to us sources for that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mans, womans????--TheFEARgod (listening) 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd

As of today's version there is no mention of the rescue of the downed Alied airmen by the Chetniks. Yet there is the mention of the Merit Award given posthumonusly to Mihailovic. If I knew nothing of this topic and read this article I would wonder why it was that Truman awarded this metal to the leader of the Chetniks. It is apparant that WWII revisonist are alive and well. (annymous)

Also, the part: Some ethnic Croats, Slovenians[citation needed] and Bosnian Muslims also joined Chetniks forces. Most of them were democratically oriented Yugoslav patriots or monarchists, anti-communists ánd anti-fascists. They didn’t fight for Greater Serbia but for the liberation of their homeland, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Can give us a feeling that ALL the rest of the Serb Chetniks fought for a Greater Serbia.--TheFEARgod (listening) 14:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the following as their is no proof offered:

In the areas of the Serbia Krajina which included Bosnia and Croatia, a bitter ethnic war was fought. The ruling Chetnik regime had proclaimed as its goal to exterminate one third of the Croats, expel the other third and convert the rest to the Orthodox faith. Chetniks fought both the Ustaše and Partisans in these areas, and retaliated for the crimes against Serbs in the East Bosnia villages mainly populated by Bosniaks (who they saw as ones allied with the Ustashe), and also those populated by Croats.

this is typically false mythology that has been put out by Croats and Bosnians in the 1990s, this is unheard of until then, i suggest that someone either sources this information, or it should remain omitted. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia experienced an ideological war in WWII, not an ethnic one barring the activities of Croatians, this entire section needs to get re evaluated as it is filled with propaganda.

Explanation

Chetniks and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland are two related, but separate topics. Shoving both into one article is ridiculous. --estavisti 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is now is useless. Yes, chetniks existed before WWII, but WWII royalist guerrillas were formed from pre-war chetniks, called themselves chetniks, and are the most commonly known kind of chetniks. I think the article should be remerged. 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was useless before as well. Chetniks of the modern era have very little to do with the Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland, which was a multiethnic monarchist force. We should sure improve the two articles, sure, but to remerge them would be like merging League of Communists of Yugoslavia with Socialist Party of Serbia. --estavisti 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no modern era chetniks, there are just groups who informally use the name, or who are called that by other people. Zocky | picture popups 17:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article should cover the various usages of the term. The Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland is a very specific topic and should not be lumped with all the flotsam and jetsam that comes under "Chetniks". --estavisti 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You simply can't divide this subject like that:

• The original usage, to mean "guerrillas", is too general for an article, and warrants at most a sentence in the intro
• 19th century chetniks in Herzegovina, early 20th century chetniks in Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia are the part of the same continuous story of the same organization, as WWII chetniks.
• Not all WWII chetniks were under the command of Draža Mihajlović, and some branches of the pre-war organization openly collaborated with Germans.
• Mihajlović's chetniks neither began nor ended the war as the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland". Mihajlović was named the commander of the army in fatherland some time after his organization was founded, and the army in the fatherland was disbanded and merged into the national liberation army by royal decree in 1944. Chetniks, incuding those that fought under Mihajlović after that were no longer "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland".
• The modern use of the term on Serbian side is regularly about WWII chetniks and their modern ideological followers. The Croatian and Bosnian usage, calling all Serbian forces chetniks, also stems directly from WWII iconography.
• At least since 1918, chetniks have had a distinct ideology, which is common to all the chetniks mentioned above (apart from the croatian/bosnian usage). It is royalist, authoritarian, nationalist, in short, right wing, which explains their position in WWII. This again means that there is a common story to be told.

In short, when the article becomes too large, it will probably make sense to split off some information into separate articles, but as it is, the split only removes the central subject from its correct title. Zocky | picture popups 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the various groups calling themselves Chetniks are related, but not the same. You say not all Chetniks were under the command of Draza Mihailovic. Surely this is just another reason to have a separate article about the JVO? The term JVO is used to describe the ogranisation that existed in WW2, because that is what it was called for the longest period of time, no matter whether it was founded under that name or not.

The usage common in modern Serbia, both by "followers" and "detractors", is incorrect in a historical context, as both groups misunderstand the JVO. I agree to an extent about the "Chetnik ideology", however Yugoslav nationalism and Serbian nationalism were NOT the same. If the JVO were a Serbian nationalist force, they wouldn't have had Slovenian, Croatian, and Bosnian Muslim members. The article as it stood was trying to conflate wildly varying historical groups into a single narrative. Seselj and Mihailovic have about as much in common as Muhammed and Osama bin Laden (to use a poor analogy). --estavisti 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

JVO did have some non-Serbian members and officers, but they were overwhelmingly Serbian, and nowhere in non-Serbian areas did they have mass support of the population. The situation was not entirely simple, but saying that Serbian nationalism is a large part of Chetnik ideology is accurate. In any case, JVO was just a name of the main chetnik branch for some 3 years. The same forces were called chetniks before, while, and after they were called JVO, and they are the central subject that should be covered under this title. Zocky | picture popups 00:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that the article should not have been split, but instead, improved and clarified of the points you are bringing up Estavisti. I would think most readers would expect to read about "Chetniks" of WW2 in this article? // Laughing Man 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, jebi ga. I expect to read about the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina when I type in "Bosnia", but I don't. Just because the pseudo-historical experts of the Balkans expect to read something, doesn't mean they're right - that's why we have disambiguation pages. // estavisti 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got that parallel exactly the wrong way around. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a wider subject then Bosnia, and you can sure read about Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In exactly the same way, you should be able to read about JVO in the article on the wider subject, i.e. Chetniks. Zocky | picture popups 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the parallel was to show that when someone types something in they shouldn't always get exactly what they expect. The JVO should be included here, in one summary paragraph with a link to the main article. // estavisti 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regularna vojska

All the mentioned persons, chetniks or not, had one single goal - Greater Serbia. And all this talk about chetniks defending the Serbian people from Ustashi terror? As I am informed chetniks exist from the beginning of the 20th century(Balcan wars, and after 1918 the official army of Serbia(Kingdom of Yugoslavia - but that was as Serbia in its expanded borders at that time) and Ustashi yet in the 1930s. The communist partisans and the Ustashi had the opposite goal but every of them in their own aspect - destroying Kingdom of Yugoslavia. By the end of WW2 the partisan army counted about 150,000 men(and women) and in such a large and populated state (say 18 million people at that time) they were a privileged minority who took control over everything. The communist Yugoslavia was an irony from the very moment it started. There were 150,000 people and their families which agreed with it totally, and what about the other 17 million? Until the 1970s and 80s the Yugoslav People's Army was a true Yugoslavian army but then started the "serbisation" of the army which led to a horrible rate of almost no Slovenian/Croatian/Muslim/Macedonian officers. On the other hand there was more Montenegrian officers than Slovenian officers and Slovenians are 4 times larger nation. A nation that counts some few hundred thousand lives is nothing if it doesnt have a protector(in the case of Montenegrians that was Serbia). The answer to the question how Mladic, from a hardcore Yugoslav communist officer, became a pro-Serbian general with large affections to the Serbian Orthodox Church I myself do not know but the fact remains that Karadzic and Mladic are the worst butchers of the Bosnian war. One who orders the execution of est. 7000-8000 Muslims in Srebrenica (if someone thinks I am lying there are video records of that) clearly has issues. Or goals? And many killed Muslims are as well as Croatian (western and central Bosnia and Herzegovina mostly) also Serbs (eastern Bosnia mostly, with some exceptions) in ethnic origin. It's not just that he ordered to kill people. He ordered to kill his own people. As a communist general, he was stationed in Knin, Croatia. It is an interesting coincidence that Knin area is a chetnik neighbourhood (was in WW2 1941.-45. and before it when Momčilo Đujić, the chetnik duke, returned from Serbia with chetnik insignia, was in 1990. again when it was the center of Serbian rebellion in Croatia) even today - the city itself not, with only 20% Serbs in it, but all the surrounding villages are 100% populated with Serbs. The war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was fought within the borders of imagined Greater Serbia, and when Serbian tank brigades were leaving Belgrade flowers were thrown at them. In 1989. and 1990. there was such Serbian propaganda and meetings (some of them even had even more than million people in.ex. on "Vidovdan" 28.6.1989.(15.6.1989. in Serbian calendar) which was not seen even in the first Yugoslavia. A Serbian propaganda and glorification of "great" Serbian history(no objective historical achievements of the Serbian nation, with the exception of Emperor Dušan and his medieval Serbia), continous trying to show the Serbs as a victim (what is completely ad absurdum funny with them being the largest nation of Yugoslavia). Yugoslav communism in the late 1970s and 1980s was becoming the rule of Serbs, especially after Josip Broz (communist president of Yugoslavia, Croat by nationality) died. Serbs held all the crucial positions in the government, on local levels all around Yugoslavia, in the army(general and local) and the things that happened were just a logical next step. Yugoslavia was, as I have already said, such an irony. Nobody wanted it. The Serbs wanted that war, to create Greater Serbia, and the Croats needed it, to liberate themselves from Serbian rule with a communist mask.

Rewrite this article and use a non-Serb and non-Croat historian to do so! ==

Article as is, is useless...

the discussion forum is full of propaganda from both sides (Croats and Serbs)..I suggest the articlebe deleted and rewritten by non-Serb and non-Croat hostorian, preferably by someone with no ties to the two countries. !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lusich (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Why don't you try to improve it yourself? --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I took out the purely non-factual information that had a very distinct anti-Serb tone to it and was mainly based on oppinion. They include some comparisons of Mihailovic's chetnik detachments with Nazi regime, which is clarly a biased view and not fact, and i cleaned up a few other things. However, the article is mostly unchanged. - Aleksandar V.

yep, must be deleted! some things correct, but mainly everything messed up!

Yeah i agree that this article is bad and should be wrote by non-serbian and non-croatian. This article is much worser then the ones about Ustase, althou that one has flaws as well. I mean if i wanna here anyside propaganda ill just go to croatian or serbian wikipedia. when i come to english wikipedia i would like to hear truth, and not articles like this one. Alsou modern era of chetniks is totaly wrong. "Their ideology was based upon the old Greater Serbia plans (Nacertanie by Ilija Garasanin), who proposed a furious fight against the Croats "until our or your extermination" ("do istrebe naše ili vaše") in the middle of the 19th century." First Nacertanie didnt proposed a furios fight against the Croats, becouse if you look in there we didnt exist!! In Nacertanie it sad that all the people that spoke shtokavian dialect were Serbs. Alsou it wasnt only against Croatians but Muslims, Makedonians and Albenians as well.

How can yous tell what is truth and what isnt when you didnt grow up there or know the full story. First of all truth can only be told by either serb or croat who grew up over there at the time. In reality nearly every country in eroupe have had commited war crimes during world war 2 whether it be Nazis, chetniks, Ustase , Yugoslav partians or the soveit union, the list goes on. Reality is that there was no difrence between axis powers and the allies. But i can tell you one thing the Ustase were about the Croatian indepedence restoring of Tomislav old Croatian kingdom. The chetniks were a group who wanted to create a greater serbia. Now the difrence is that Ustase were defending themselves while the chetniks were agressers who bruitly murdered Coats under their rule, during world war 2,during Communist Yugoslavia and during the croatian war of independence. --Marbus2 5 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Given the obvious reasons, I added an NPOV tag to this article. Jeremy Tobacman 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy, if the article is to be improved it would be good if you could specify the reasons for the POV tag. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. CheersOsli73 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag because of the extensive, vitriolic disagreements on this talk page. Though those disagreements seem to have quieted, I don't perceive them as yet having been resolved. Jeremy Tobacman 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A POV tag is used to indicate a specific problem in how the content of the article is presented - if it is presented in a non-neutral fashion. Content disputes, controversial content, and so forth do not (necessarily) indicate a POV problem. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

White Eagles

The White Eagles (paramilitary) article is pretty good: it is succint, detailed, neutral, and well-sourced. However, it does not mention the word Chetnik. This omission is difficult to reconcile with the linkage in this article. Can someone clarify, ideally with references? Jeremy Tobacman 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the meaning of the word Selfish in the dictionary should be changed to A GREEDY SERBS WHO WANTS MORE LAND. They always want more. --Marbus2 5 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Beware, something weird just happened: an IP transformed this article into a version that was a copy paste from http://koz.vianet.ca/jack5.htm and an other IP signaled the copyright infringement to WP:SCV. I am quite puzzled to be honest... -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

it is not a copyvio, but a recreation of parts of an eariler version that was apparently used at that site. check the history of this article. the text was composed for wikipedia originally. jebali vas i cetnici i ustase. Moj djed je bio cetnik ali samo zato sto nije volio komuniste i da brane svoja sela od ustasa. Kakva velika Srbija i gluposti. Pa kad je rat poceo (91) rekao je 'Jugoslavija je mala i siromasna zemlja jos kad se iscijepamo vukovi ce nas rastrgati i nista od nas nece ostati'.

Chetnik war crimes

Osli, any reason as to why the war crimes paragraph is removed, despite it being sourced by three references? The Spanish Inquisitor 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisitor, sorry, I was about to enter my explanation on the Talk page when Wikipedia experienced access problems. What I wanted to say was this:

I agree that the current text in the War Crimes section is not satisfactory nor referenced at all. However, to avoid an edit war back and forth between various factions, I suggest that we delete the War Crimes section until we can agree on a text. Before even going ahead and suggesting texts, I think we should find some reputable sources that we can agree to use for this section. Otherwise we'll inevitably end up in an edit war based on differing sources we can't agree on. I've added my suggestion below. Please add to the list:Osli73 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica online

Merge from Yugoslav_Royal_Army_in_the_Fatherland

To my surprise, I discovered the Yugoslav_Royal_Army_in_the_Fatherland article, which was an apparent POV fork. I merged some of the contents from there to here, and fixed the redirect. The resulting version is not my endorsement of any statement therein; I only superficially took an overview and picked up the paragraphs which seemed better and/or more complete. The article is in a bad shape, with zero serious inline references, with story going back and forth, ping-pong of nationalist POVs, and I would be grateful whoever would like to seriously address the problems. I am aware that the article is possibly worse after the merge, but I gather that it wasn't good anyway. Duja► 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

People who don't understand (or don't care about) writing NPOV articles should get the fuck off Wikipedia. Everybody can spot biased articles anyway and will simply discount them, so you're not actually achieving anything. Jonathanmills 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbian fantasy

Photo of Chetniks with german friends will be in this article because this is right place for that. Only in fantasy of Greater Serbia supporters Chetniks have been force of good. For them it is normal that good Chetniks kill 9000 muslims civilians in february 1943 in Foča-Čajniće region (this is only 1 example) Rjecina 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea yea we all know you just want to spread anti-serb propaganda. This article is about chetniks and there shouldnt be pictures on chetniks posing with germans when the majority of chetniks fought against the Nazis. Paulcicero 22:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me where have been this great battles after 1941 ? Rjecina 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You tell me why Draza Mihailovic was exonorated of collaborating with the germans by an independant us comission?

But since i know how you nationalist croats are, we can make a compromise, you can put a picture in the collaboration section Paulcicero 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not worry we will fight on other places, other articles. Example for that is Serbs of Croatia. Serbia kings or despots ruling Slavonia ??? You are really learning myths in Serbia. Rjecina 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea and in Croatia you only speak the truth? Thats why you needed PR-agencys to help spread anti-serb propaganda during the warPaulcicero 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1 little mistake I am from old Yugoslav school. I do not read new (1988 - 2007)history books from Serbia or Croatia. For anti-serb propaganda help has not been needed. You have done very good job in Bosnia. Rjecina 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you still used them, as far as your reading is concerned im surprised you read at all considering how ignorant you seem to be. Paulcicero 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The photograph should not be in the article (especially not as the only photograph) as it shows chetniks in atypical light. Chetniks were primarily opposed to Nazism. Nikola 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes during WWII they have been friends with Partisans and enemy of Germans. It is funny to read Serbian fantasy. Rjecina 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are funny rjecina, you have only read communist propaganda and now you think you know everything about chetniks Paulcicero 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Little data about Chetniks from english book "Noel Malcolm: Bosnia - a short history" which is supported by UK (UK has given this books to library in Croatia):

• Stevan Moljević Serbian lawyer from Banja Luka, political director of Četnik movement in 1943. He is writing in february 1942 :" Serbian land need to be extended all the way to Dalmatia, and that there should then follow the cleansing (čišćenje) of the land of all non Serb elements. The things to do would be to send offenders on their way. Croats to Croatia and Muslims to Albania or Turkey"
• Foča-Čajniće region in august 1942. 2000 muslims killed by Četniks under command of Zaharija Ostojić
• Foča-Čajniće region in february 1943. 9000 muslims killed by Četniks (source- Dedijer and Miletić: Genocid nad muslimanima.

Problem solved. I read english, russian and italian :)) --Rjecina 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! i really have to congratulate you on your language skills! And also what neutral writers you found to show how bad chetniks are - Antun Miletic and Vladimir Dedijer!! Wooow! Paulcicero 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all data from book "Noel Malcolm: Bosnia - a short history". I know, I know this book is POV like UN 91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992 or any other resolution which speak that Serbs have done something bad. --Rjecina 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all Malcolm got those facts from dedijer and miletic (not neutral), secondly our discussion is about if your pictures are representative of the chetniks Paulcicero 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal thinking about Chetniks is that they have been inside Serbia neutral force which wait end of the war. In Bosnia and Croatia they have been evil force because of civilian killings (Croats and Bosniaks). War against military forces of NDH and partisans have been OK but killing of civilians... In the end they are very similar (on NDH territory) to Ukrainian Insurgent Army which has killed people of other nationality. Now you know my thinking about Chetniks. --Rjecina 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well not all of them. Yeah, there were many different Chetnik squadrons. The one in Serbia that worked for the collaborationist regime of Milan Nedic ("safeguarding" north Kosovo and the south of Serbia by fighting the Partisans), there were the Montenegrin ones (Montenegro was controlled by the Chetniks throughout the majority of the war) who liberated Montenegro and later collaborated with the Ustashas and German Nazis, the ones who liberated Serbia in 1941 went to hiding (they were the ones you referred to), there were the very good Dalmatian ones who collaborated with the Italian fascists and fought the Ustashas and (sadly) some Partisans, then there are the Bosnian ones that slaughtered innocent Bosnian Muslims in easter Bosnia and Herzegovina (the toll goes up to 80,000 dead, although that's probably an overestimate) and there were the "Serb Krajina" ones that mostly protected the Serb population of the Bosnian and Croatian Frontiers and in effect saved them from extermination by the Ustashas (more credit than the Partisans for that one), but who're also known for several bad 'retributions' to the Ustashas. etc... --PaxEquilibrium 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland

I don't know anything about the subjects, but they seemed similar enough that I proposed the merge. I hope others will decide and carry out the merge if you all decide it's a good idea. Thanks, delldot talk 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 powerful arguments why the title of this article should be "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland":

1.It is the official name of the movement 2.There were various Serbian movements in WW2 which named themselves "Chetniks" user:BoDu —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoDu (talk • contribs) 11:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't do copy and paste moves. Refer to Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves for more information. --Joy [shallot] 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

refs

this article needs more refs // laughing man 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough Already

Don’t you think this has gone on long enough; instead of factual information there is a lot of slandering going on here! Obviously people who are narrow minded and cant get over the past or who have not experienced anything related to this voicing what they think is the truth. You can voice your opinion but there are civilised ways of doing so not in a bias way or just because you have some built in hatred from friends or relatives who have hammered this into your minds since you where young! Life’s to short as you can see on this discussion, to many people have died already because of what I ask you? Property? Religion? Dignity, pride...? Are not your mothers, daughter’s sons, wives and husbands more important? Everyone should have a right to defend themselves and there family, however would it not be better to start and I mean all of us a process in which these things do not happen again. There are lots of foreigners out there who would like nothing better than to see us self destruct for one reason or the other. Too many external influences in history have shown to instigate these types of evil doings. Do we retaliate every time someone does something bad to us? Let me tell you it takes a stronger person not to fight or argue and I am sure you will agree. I am shocked through my whole life I heard all of this rubbish and am I the only one who thinks “get over it". For all those women, children and men that died the only thing I wish for is to bring them back doesn’t matter where they are from so they can enjoy their lives with friends and family just like you!!! This will not happen but I can remember and make sure my children dont follow a bias view on things. And yes I have lost them too in the these wars thats why today I stand with a smaller version of what our family were like. Anyway tired of it all what a waste one of the worlds most beautiful places along with people who are capable of many terrific things...... what a waste.

I second aforementioned motion for complete cessation of the nonsense going on here... However, I feel the need to add something: in Serbia Chetniks are regarded, almost unanimously, as WW2 war criminals that acted against their own people. A pile of evidence exists that will corroborate my claim, since Chetniks engaged in senseless violence all over Sumadija region (where I'm from), extorting food, drink, live stock, money... from farmers, slitting their throats for being "communist sympathisers", raping young women... Personal example: my maternal great-grandparents were severely beaten (with a wooden stick) after they had bought two blankets from German soldiers, since Chetniks considered it an act of treason! My great-grandmother barely survived and never fully recovered... So, please don't come here to spill your national(istic) frustrations and tell me how you were the only ones hurt by them - they were a large bunch of hoodlums (save gen. D. Mihailovic and his close associates, they didn't even recognise the name Chetniks) who wreaked havoc in WW2 Serbia and did harm to its own people almost as much as Ustashas did to Serbs in Croatia. And Arkan, Mladic,... (insert you favourite Serbian war criminal here) are just the continuation of that type of behaviour, not a certain policy or ideology - the latter were just pretexts, excuses made in order to justify their despicable actions in the eyes of primitives who supported "revenge against the Turks (Muslims/Bosniaks) for their five centuries of terror in Serbia" and/or "revenge against the Croats for their crimes in Jasenovac", as if revenge ever did any good to anyone... Petar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.5.209 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article bears only hints of truth, for the most part it is a fictional depiction of the Chetnik movement during the second world war. It is biased and the picture of Chetniks with Germans is ridiculous. Good luck to who ever wrote this, try and include some facts for those who may not be so educated and base their sole knowledge of the Chetniks on this article. Think about it before you write your next wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.250.87 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well....

Maybe i'm wrong, but in this text it has been worked more on presenting the chetniks as a royal king's guard and guerilla than war criminals and ideologists for ' Great Serbia ' . This article needs more of the latter, since it WAS the main purpose of creation of the chetniks: making all south Slavs Serbian. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.232.137 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince Paul

"his new government established even harsher racial laws than Prince Paul had enacted and immediately established three concentration camps for Jews, Gypsies and others." Could anyone explain me what racial laws were enacted during rule of Prince Paul, otherwise that section should be deleted Luka Jačov (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Chetniks or Chetnicks?

What is the offical word for Cetnići in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.203.123 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Chetniks, I belive --Sloba (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill-defined

This whole article is not about chetniks but about the King's Army in Fatherland and later references to it. The term chetniks is much older than BOTH world wars and is much broader. It originates from the times when Serbia was still part of the Ottoman empire and it designated local village militias that formed ad-hoc in face of some imminent threat such as bands of Ottoman deserters bent on plunder and rape. The earliest mention of the term I found is in biography of Miloš Obrenović by Vuk Karadžić where he mentions a group of "Serbian chetniks" harrasing the retreating Ottoman army after the Battle of Ljubić of the Second Serbian uprising (1815). Probably similar groups existed in other Serb-populated parts of the Ottoman Empire until it's withdrawal from the Balkans in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars, but in the early 1900s the term in Serbia applied to something else. It now designated state-sponsored and organised paramillitary groups that were being sent to the Ottoman Macedonia with goal to wreak havoc with the Ottoman authorities in preparation of the Balkan wars. The commanders were army officers, members were volounteers (both from Serbia and recruited locally - some even being Albanians). Bulgaria and Greece also sent in similar detatchments and, oddly enough, on one occasion Serbian and Bulgarian groups clashed in Ottoman Macedonia. During the Balkan Wars and First World War they continued their paramillitary role, often filling the role of scouts and advance guard, sometimes being used like regular army units, but were most famously used as diversants - conducting bombing attacks on Austro-Hungarian officers in occupied Belgrade for instance and heading the Toplica Revolt against the Bulgarians in occupied Serbia. One of the two leaders of the uprising was Kosta Pećanac, later a notable Chetnik commander in World war 2 - he was flown by an aircraft from the Entetne-controlled territory around Salonika to coordinate the uprising with the main Serbian War effort on the Macedonian front. I'm not entirely sure if any chetnik units existed in the interwar period, but the idea was certainly revived when the danger of German attack appeared in World war 2 - two batallions being purposfully formed in Bosnia with goal to wage guerilla warfare and stage an uprising, but they mostly scattered after the German invasion. However the idea materialised when a group of officers willing to fight on led by col. Mihajlović formed the core of a resistance group and took the name "Chetniks".

Veljko Stevanovich 21. 11. 2007 17:30 UTC

I had contributed 3 video's about Chetnik - Nazi collaboration

Someone ereased it. ((GriffinSB) (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)).

Such links don't seem to fit our external link policy. I also wonder about the neutrality of such changes to the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality.They are video's with picture and no comment.

What's not neutral about pictures???((GriffinSB) (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)).

Your addition included an objectionable "see also" that was subsequently removed, as well as links to three youtube videos, which are not acceptable external links. The content actually does contain a lot of non-neutral POV commentary, and many pictures that do not provide the appropriate sourcing or context. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the qoutes and cites from books of German soldiers serving in Yugoslavia during ww2 and cites of documents of German-Chetnik relations. I also have pictures of the documents about cooperation between chetniks and Germans.The original documents are in Belgrade Museum.

[1] It's a Serbian website ,so it is NPOV. Every quote or cite has the source under the text. ((GriffinSB) (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)).

Perhaps you need to learn more about Wikipedia policies. Being Serbian does not make you NPOV. Please check NPOV policy. Furthermore, that is a blog, and is not a reliable source in any way (and neither is youtube). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all in old books,that i cannot find online.

I'll do my best to find them and to scan the pages.It will take quiet some time.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Uploading scans of copyright works is illegal. Please cite the book (if it is a reliable source, and be sure to present only information that can be verified in this book, phrased without bias. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

War crimes during WW2

Chetnik's war crimes should be mentioned. And especially ethnic cleansing and Great Serbia ideology. They have killed around 100.000 muslims in Bosnia and Serbia during WW2. So, I'll put here a sources (someone has asked for them previously) of these facts:

- Genocid nad muslimanima, Vladimir Dedijer, Antun Miletic, Svjetlost 1990. - Srpski zlocini naz Bosnjacima muslimanima 1941.-45., Dr. Semso Tucakovic, El Kalem 1995.

In these books you can find these facts documented, with a list of nearly all victims. There is also a book of Smail Cekic, but I don't know its name.

I hope someone will put these facts ... (right now it seems that this article was written by pro-Chetnik author) --Ibrahim, Sarajevo

1992 - 1998

There isn't any evidence to substantiate these claims and as such I simply had to remove most of the section. Uninformed or misinformed people might actually believe the statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkabaci (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of sentence refering to Karadžić and Mladić

"The Chetnik propaganda during these wars was facilitaed by Slobodan Milosevic and governed by war-time radicals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic."

Mentioned persons were not politicaly radicals i.e. they didn't belong to Radical party (Srpska radikalna stranka). If this was meaning of "radicals" above it should be removed or changed.--Čikić Dragan (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes,we can simply call them fascists.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of USHMM pictures

During summer of 2007 there has been sort of agreement about which USHMM picture will be in this article, but from May 2008 SPA account Deucaon is again and again deleting USHMM pictures. Our question is if USHMM picture are for this article which is having pictures from 1908 and picture of Chetniks leader in WW II. If wikipedia is NPOV there is need for having picture about colaboration of Chetniks forces with German forces because we are having pictures about Croatian Ustaše from that time period and USHMM has recieved all Chetniks pictures from Belgrade Museum (in Serbia capital). In modern Serbian revisionism Chetniks has been forces of good and because of that USHMM pictures which are showing different situation are very important for neutrality of article--Rjecina (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag and infobox

• Ok, it was established long ago that the black flag was the flag of the Chetnik movement. The flag of the Chetnik movement is not the flag of the country it owed its allegiance to (Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, etc...).
  
• As for the infobox, the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" is simply the long name for the ww2 manifestation of what is known in English sources primarily as the Chetnik movement (per WP:COMMONNAME). Just like "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" was the full name of the Yugoslav Partisans. The infoboxes must be merged because this is the one and the same movement. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  

P.S. If this is about the "honor of the Chetnik movement" or something like that, be advised that a NPOV must be maintained while editing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Picture doesn't prove anything close to collaboration. Following the same logic I could put the picture of Mladic and Clark as proof of collaboration between Republika Srpska and NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucaon (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to you I think that this picture show only Ustaša which is standing between dead people. It is not showing killing. Because of that this picture doesn't prove anything close to killing so why many user from Serbia demand that picture must be in all articles about Ustaše and NDH ?

Maybe is time that I start to write serious. During WWII it is not possible to find pictures of friendly meetings between other patriotic, anti-nazi forces and germans. Maybe Chetniks are special or maybe they are collaborationists but this picture need to be in article. USHMM is having 3 pictures about Chetniks and Germans which are gift of Belgrade Museum so if there is any problem with this pictures we need to ask Belgrade Museum.--Rjecina (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture does not prove anything, but these references from Britannica ([2]), the US Library of Congress ([3]) and published sources do (David Martin, Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich, (New York: Prentice Hall, 1946), 34...). I assure you that the Chetnik collaboration with the Axis is not at all controversial: it is well known and founded on firm historic evidence. The picture is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, its removal is not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of anonymous guys dressed in Chetnik garb with a German soldier is not proof of collaboration. Rjecina wrote that an Ustasha standing next to two dead Serbs is not proof of Ustasha war crimes, well there are pictures of Ustasha decapitating people, operating concentration camps and Ante Pavelic shaking Hitler's hand. If you can get me a picture of a Chetnik leader shaking Hitler's hand or operating in a concentration camp then I will take that as proof. If not then the picture is not proof and it has no relevance - Deucaon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucaon (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, do you read the posts: we're not trying to prove anything with the picture, but with references. The picture is not meant to prove anything, the references are. The fact that the picture does not prove anything is not cause to remove it: it is not meant to prove anything. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I've protected the page. Now, what's the problem here? Mackensen (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple, User:Deucaon keeps removing pictures of Chetnik soldiers with Axis forces, stating that they're "not relevant" and that they do not "prove anything". I'm not saying that they do, but how are pictures of Chetniks on the Chetniks article irrelevant? Furthermore, the User insists on undoing the merge of an unnecessary infobox into the one at the beginning of the page. The one at the beginning of the page is about the Chetniks, and the merged one is about the Chetniks during WW2. His reverts are probably due to the fact that the latter infobox incorrectly used the Yugoslav flag instead of the Chetnik one, and because the infobox uses their full name ("Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland") instead of their common short name ("the Chetniks", or "Chetnik movement").

In short, User:Deucaon appears to be trying to glorify the Chetniks and present them as the "Yugoslav Army" during WW2 or something. He also appears to be trying to remove all references to their collaboration with the Axis, which is a well-established historic fact, as per Britannica ([4]), the US Library of Congress ([5]), published sources (David Martin, Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich, (New York: Prentice Hall, 1946), 34...), and more. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, User:Deucaon has been very scarce with his responses on the talkpage (non of which were an actual explanation), so I'm not sure he will respond. Your thoughts on this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave you my reason for removing the pictures and for making the article more accurate. Now give me back my editing powers - Deucaon.

That is in any way a valid reason for the removal of a picture. It certainly does not prove anything, but it is irrelevant to the subject matter: i.e. the Chetniks. I don't think your editing powers were removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, I'd like to go forward with the general cleanup of the article. I wonder if I could rush a resolution to this matter? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much point in unprotecting if there's just going to be revert-warring again. I'd say the central issue is the lack of sourcing on the "collaboration" section, but if such collaboration took place then sources ought to be easy to find. If sources substantiate collaboration, then the inclusion of the photograph would surely no longer be problematic (and vice-versa). I don't claim specialist knowledge of the fighting in Yugoslavia, but Chetnik collaboration with the Axis is fairly well-established in the secondary literature. A quick perusal of JSTOR suggests the following possibilities:

• Tomasevich, Jozo. The Chetniks: War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945. Stanford University Press, 1975.
• Milazzo, Matteo J. The Chetnik Movement and the Yugoslav Resistance. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
• Wheeler, Mark C. Britain and the War for Yugoslavia. Columbia University Press, 1980.
• Roberts, Walter R. Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, 1941-1945. Rutgers University Press, 1973.

Forgive me if this point isn't actually disputed, but from the above it appeared to be. I'd be intrigued to see a source which disputed the idea that collaboration took place. Anyway, going forward the blind reverting needs to stop, and people need to start using edit summaries. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Following up, Gerhard Weinberg's A World At Arms (which treats the subject briefly) emphasizes Chetnik-Italian collaboration. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There really is no question as to whether or not the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis, especially with the Italians, who both armed and supplied them. After all, Churchill for one would never agree shift support from a royalist to a communist movement if they weren't really collaborating to a notable degree (indeed their collaboration was ignored for a while due to this). At the present I can't think of any better source that illustrates this plain fact other than the US Library of Congress I've listed above, it cites "information from Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919-1945, Arlington, Virginia, 1976". The Chetniks (correctly) asserted that they of course could not defeat the Germans, that if the Axis wins they are finished anyway, and that the pan-Yugoslav Partisan movement would be the greatest threat to a hegemonic (Serb) Yugoslav state if the Allies were to win. Basically all they did was fight the Partisans, and the occupation forces simply supported them in their civil war. In other words, the Partisans fought WW2 and the Civil war, and the Chetniks fought only the Civil war (and received Axis support).

The real problem is that User:Deucaon appears to be in denial about this. I would once again like to point out that his removal of pics cannot be justified in any way (certainly not because of their alleged "irrelevance"), and that the infobox he's trying to "preserve" is simply an excuse to legitimize the Chetniks somehow by adding a Yugoslav instead of their own, rather sinister-looking, flag. All information from the infobox was copied to the merged one, but perhaps Deucaon also finds the title "Chetniks" offensive in some way. However this should not end up as a discussion on Chetnik collaboration, that ended 65 years ago during the Tehran conference. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am not in denial. There is no evidence of collaboration save for words from Socialist, Fascist and clueless (second hand source) authors. Chetniks is the abbreviation of Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. Just because USAF is the abbreviation of United States Air Force doesn't mean people shouldn't know that USAF is the abbreviation of United States Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deucaon (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is evidence of collaboration didn't you read all the sources that are listed above? What you will be hard to find is a source actually biased enough to say that they didn't collaborate, a laughable thought, considering the amount of evidence to the contrary an the fact that it is public knowledge.

"Chetniks" is not an abbreviation of "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", it is the name per WP:COMMONNAME, the common short name. There is no reason to use the full official name of the movement.

As for your removal of pics there is no possible justification for it. All in all, its pretty plain you're trying to "legitimize" the collaborationist Chetnik movement WP policy and historical sources to the contrary. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I try and legitimize something that did not occur? Deucaon (talk)

The "Chetnik movement did not occur"? What are you saying? Have you read all the above statements and noted the sources confirming their collaboration (which is anyway public knowledge all over ex-Yu)? You're supposed to provide an argument to explain your revert-warring, you're doing nothing of the sort. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources about "good" Chetniks:

Records of the office of Strategic Services

BBC abot Chetniks and massacre in Foča

BBC about Chetniks and Partisans 2

BBC about Chetniks and Partisans 3

I am tired with fact that every time when we have new nationalistic SPA account we need 15 days or month to solve problems (I can add sources for modern Serbian revisionism but...). Records of the office of Strategic Services and BBC writing about Chetniks is not possible to defeat, so problem is solved?--Rjecina (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of History Channel documentary about Partizans and Chetniks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMbaPVvwHAY --(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some quotes and citations from books and documents written by Germans who served in former Yugoslavia during the WW2.

Quote: July 13th, 1943

The Abt.Fremde Heere West has informed GenStdH about the message of Gen.Mihailovic to his commanders dated July 7th in which he, in the light of Allied landings in Sicily ,calls for preparations for uprising to be made,but to attack on his signal only...

Percy Schramm (hrsg.) "Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommando der Wehrmacht 1940-1945",Bernard&Graefe Verlgag,Muenchen,1982 (later "KTB OKW"),Band 6/II,p.779

Quote: July 20th,1943

OB Suedost informs about a captured radio-message of Mihailovic dated July 16th in which he,in the light of lthe looming events,calls for Sabotage in Croatia and thrust to the Adriatic,so that the Allies find chetniks instead of communists there.To take the wind out of Tito´s sails,the propaganda is to be Yugoslav rather than Greater-Serbian...

KTB OKW,b. 6/II,p.812

Quote: August 30th,1943

OKW has sent Führer´s decree dated August 28th over appointment of envoy Neubacher as "Sonderbevollmächtigten des Ausw. Amtes für den Südosten" as an addition to his existing tasks in the South-east.Appointment has already been forseen in a regulation concerning Befelsführung in the South-east.His official seat is to be in Belgrade.

KTB OKW,b.6/II,p.1036

Quote: October 30th,1943

On October 29th,Special envoy Neubacher has briefed the Führer on political and economical issues in the South-east,especially on Tito´s growing influence.On the same day an order was issued concerning the united effort in the struggle against communism in the South-east.The foreign ministry has despatched it on October 30th,with a request that all involved military posts are to be informed >"mit der Bitte um unterrichtung der beteiligten militärischen Stellen"<.Special envoy Neubacher,who receives his instructions from the Foreign minister,is charged with the political leadership in fight against Comunnism and with organisation of anti-communist nationalistic forces in the South-east.He is to take care that the political and economical measures are targeted against Communism.The ordering of reprisals is to be done in consultation with him. It is further instructed that the commanding powers are to be tightened in the person of Oberbefehlshaber of AG "F". Sp.envoy Neubacher has also been granted special powers:among others, he has the authorisation to negotiate with nationalsitic bands,if the possibilty occurs.(Bands of Draza Mihailovic,which have partly been pushed back to Serbia by Tito,appear to be breaking up.)....

KTB OKW,b.6/II,p.1233

Quote: November 5th,1943

Serbia: Mihailovic strives for a national-Serbian army >"bemüht sich um...Armee"<.He waits for an outside impulse to take action.Because there is still no such impusle,his movement faces crisis.Opposite to him,Communism steadily gains influence;it pushed Mihailovic out of Croatia. Because of this,he seeks conntact with German posts. It is striven to dissuade him from actions against Germans;still,precaution has to be taken against blackmailing methods.Apart from that communist action aimed at dissolution of his forces has far advanced.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1252-1253

Quote: November 7th,1943

From the German point of view it is desirable that Tito changes the coast as his main objective.So far he has pushed back the Serbian chetniks.It is the question if these ,under the circumstances,can be won over for our side. Sp. envoy Neubacher is authorised for the negotiations.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1261

Quote: November 17th,1943

Proposals for arrangement with chetnik groups have been presented. At the moment,only single bands are involved,not Mihailovic personaly.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1289

Quote: November 20th,1943

The OB Südost sent an extract from an agreement signed between the Mil.Bef.Serbien and Cetnik Staff 148 on November 19th.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1294

Quote: November 21st,1943

The cease-fire agreement between German,Bulgarian and Serbian security forces on one side,and chetnik groups on Serbian-Montenegro border on the other side has been signed between Mil.Bef. Serbien and a high-ranking DM commander. The agreement,in which Mihailovic has not been involved ,should serve as a prerequisite for a joint fight against the communists.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1296

Here is the text of the agreement (scanned from J.Piekalkiewicz´s "Krieg auf dem Balkan 1940-1945" and converted using ABBYY Scan-to-Office software):

Quote: Geheime Kommandosache

Auszug aus Vertrag zwischen Mil. Befehlshaber Südost und Cetnikstab 148, Führer Major Lukacevic, vom 19.11.43.

1.Waffenruhe im Raum Bajina Basta - Drin-Fluß -Tara-Fluß - Bijelopolje - Rozaj - Kos. Mitrovica -Ibar-Fluß - Kraljevo - Cacak - Uzice. In Abkommen sind eingeschlossen Deutsche Wehrmacht und Polizei, Bulgarische Wehrmacht, SFK, SSW, RSK, serbische Behörden und Wirtschaftsbetriebe, auf Cetnikseite Cetnikverbände des Majors Lukacevic im genannten Gebiet. 2.Waffenruhe soll Voraussetzung für gemeinsamen Kampf gegen Kommunisten bilden. 3.Gemeinsamer propagandistischer Kampf gegen Kommunismus. 4.Bestätigung Lukacevic, daß in unterstellten Einheiten kein Angehöriger der mit Deutschland im Krieg befindlichen Mächte vorhanden. 5.Überlassung von Kampfräumen an Cetnikverbände zu selbständiger Kampfführung durch Deutsche Wehrmacht. 6.Eingliederung der Cetnikverbände in deutsche Kampfführung bei größeren gemeinsamen Operationen. Kampfaufträge für diese Zeit durch deutsche Führung an Cetnikverbände. 7.Verpflichtung Major Lukacevic nicht gegen Mohamedaner vorzugehen. Verpflichtung deutscherseits,mohamedanisches Vorgehen gegen serbische Bevölkerung und Verbände Lukacevic zu verhindern. Bei Zwischenfällen gemeinsame Untersuchung und Befreiung. 8.Austausch von Verbindungsstäben. 9.Lieferung deutscher Munition zur Durchführung gemeinsamer Kampfaufgaben entsprechend militärischen Notwendigkeiten. Vorlage von Stärke, Gliederung und Bewaffnung der Cetnikverbände. 10.Vertrag ist geheimzuhalten.

OB Südost (Okdo. H. Gr. F) Ic C/AO Nr. 2107/43 gKdos. v. 20.11.43

Translated extracts:

Quote: 2.Cease-fire should be a prerequisite for joint action against the communists. 3.Joint propaganda aginst Communism. 6.Integration of chetnik units in the German command chain during bigger operations.Tasks of the chetniks will be determinted by German command. 8.Exchange of liason staffs. 9.Ammunition for use in joint actions will be supplied according to the military neccesities.Information on strenght,order of battle and weapons of Chetnik groups are to be submitted.

Here is the original German "Dislokation" map (courtesy of Mr.Awender).Under the "1.Geb.Div", "Cetn.Vbd.Lukacevic" is to be seen:

And v.Weichs' instruction on dealing with chetniks,dated November 21st,1943 (from the same source as the scan above):

Quote: Geheime Kommandosache! Ic/AO Nr. 2171/43 g.Kdos. II. Ang. H. Qu.,den21.11.1943 Der Oberbefehlshaber Südost (OKdo.H.Gr.F) IC/AO Nr. 2171/43 g.Kdos.

1. In Auswirkung der seit längerer Zeit in enger Zusammenarbeit mit dem Sonderbevollmächtigten des Auswärtigen Amtes und OB. Südost geführten Verhandlungen mit Führern von Cetnikverbänden wurde ein Abkommen geschlossen, das örtlich begrenzte Waffenruhe und fallweise zu treffende gemeinsame Kampfführung gegen den Kommunismus vorsieht. 2.Voraussetzung für dieses Abkommen war es und wird es bei möglichen weiteren Abkommen sein, daß die Cetnikverbände a)sich aller Kampf- und Sabotagehandlungen gegen die deutsche Wehrmacht, deren Verbündete, die mit diesen gemeinsam kämpfenden landeseigenen Verbände und die Muselmanen enthalten, b)bei Teilnahme an gemeinsamen Kampfhandlungen gegen die Kommunisten sich der deutschen Führung unterstellen, c)alle Verbindungen zu den mit Deutschland im Kriege stehenden Mächten aufgeben und vorhandene Verbindungsstäbe ausliefern, d)sich an einer gemeinsamen Propaganda gegen denKommunismus beteiligen. 3.Sämtliche Offiziere sind über folgendes zu unterrichten: a) Das bisherige Verbot einer Zusammenarbeit mit den Cetnikverbänden und einzelnen Banden entsprach der eindeutigen Festlegung des Obersten Cetnik führers Draga Mihajlovic auf unabdingbaren Kampf gegen Deutschland und seine Verbündeten,von dem dieser sich bisher nicht losgesagt hat. b)Die Erklärung einzelner Cetnikführer, den Kampf gegen den Kommunismus gemeinsam mit der deutschenWehrmacht führen zu wollen, kam der Gesamtbeurteilung der Feindlage im Südostraum, die das kommunistische Bandenunwesen und seine nachweisbare ideelle und materielle Unterstützung durch die UdSSR als Hauptgefahr erkannt hat, entgegen und mußte demnach zu einer Überprüfung der Cetnik-Angebote führen. c)Die neuerdings loyale Einstellung einzelner Cetnik-verbände kann nicht verallgemeinert werden, da auch heute noch Überfälle und Sabotageakte durch Cetnik-Banden ausgeführt werden. d)Der Truppe sind weiterhin Verhandlungen mit Cetnikverbänden verboten.Eigenmächtigkeiten können nur die von höchster politischer und militärischer Stelle aus angebahnten Verbindungen stören und damit schwere Nachteile für die Gesamtführung im Südost Raum zur Folge haben. e)Örtliche Cetnikführer, die sich zu gemeinsamem Kampf anbieten, sind an die nächstliegende Dienststelle der Abwehr oder des SD zu verweisen. f)Die Propaganda gegen die Cetnik-Bewegung wird eingestellt, ihre Wiederaufnahme ist abhängig von der Entwicklung der neugeschaffenen Lage.

gez. Frhr. von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall

Translation:

Quote: 1.As a result of the long negotiations that the "OB Südost" and "Sonderbevollmächtigten des Auswärtigen Amtes" had with the commanders of chetnik groups,the agreement has been made,which provides local cease-fire and occasional joint action against Communism.

2.Prerequiste for this agreement was,and for eventual future agreements will be that the Chetniks: a) will refrain from all combat- and sabotage acts against Germans,their allies,friendly domestic forces and Muslims; b) will stand under German command in joint actions against the communists; c) will severe all connections with the countries in war with Germany and will deliver all present liason staffs of those countries; d) will co-operate in the joint propaganda against the communists;

3.All officers are to be informed of the following: a) Up untill now the co-operation with the chetniks was forbidden because of Draza Mihailovic´s unalterable insistance to fight the Germans and their allies; up until now,he hasn´t apostized such a stand; b) Declaration of some chetnik commanders that they would fight the Communism jointly with the German Wehrmacht complied with the general evaluation of the enemy position in the South-east: USSR-sponsored communist bands are the biggest danger. That's why the offers made by chetniks had to be re-evaluated; c) Newly loyal attitude of the some chetnik groups should not be taken as a general attiude: sabotage and attacks are still perpetuated by the chetnik bands; d) The troops are still forbidden to negotiate with the chetniks. Arbitrary acts can only jeopardise already initiated conntacts made by the highest military and political posts. Such actions can only bring serious disadvantages in the whole South-east; e) Local chetnik commanders who offer co-operation,are to be taken to the nearest SD or Abwehr post; f) Propaganda against the chetniks is to cease; the results of the current developents will decide if it is to be re-introduced.

sign. Frhr. von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall

Quote: November 23rd,1943

According to a trustworthy source,Mihailovic has ordered his commanders to co-operate with the Germans. He himself can not step forward in such a fashion because of the impact such move could have on populace's disposition.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1304

Quote: December 17th,1943

Lecture notices on

...the deployment of chetnik commander Djurisic,who fell into German captivity in mid-May,and who should now organise his earlier followers for the co-operation with Germany.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1366

Quote: December 22nd,1943

The Head of the POW section >"Chef des Kriegsgefangenenwesens"< should make an inquiry about 1300 former followers of the Montenegrin chetnik leader Djurisic(who should co-operate with Germany in Montenegro) and report on their behaviour so far,because their use for a special action is being considered.

KTB OKW b.6/II,p.1379

Extracts from a draft titled "Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1.April-31.Dezember 1944" which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of Wehrmacht Führungstab and KTB; to be found in "KTB OKW",p.632-732.

Quote: As in fall of 1943 Tito´s movement grew stronger,supported by Russian and English help and as Mihailovic movement was being pushed into Serbia (and aditionaly weakend by non-existence of Italian support) ,Mihailovic realised that the time has come to re-examine his attitude to the Germans. As the German leadership in the same time was striving to unite and activate all of the anti-communist forces in the South-east (for which a Sp. envoy for South-east,Dr. Neubacher,has been appointed in October 1943),the contacts were made and in the next two months a series of cease-fire agreements was made between German military posts and Mihailovic´s commanders. He refrained from personal involvement,mostly because he didn´t want to lose the Anglo-American arms shippments,which he still received,no matter how smaller than before. Anyway the actions by Mihailovic´s organisation against the Germans stopped. This lead to a marked improvement of situation >"Entspannung"< in the Old Serbia around the new year.

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.637

Quote: ...Possibly under impression made by these German counter-measures,Mihailovic-this time personaly-tried to make conntact with German posts,at the end of March-beggining of April. According to the information the Sp.envoy had,Mihailovic was faced with an ultimatum by the exile-government and the Soviets,in which his subordination to Tito was demanded.Sp. envoy was expecting that Mihailovic,faced with unacceptable requests,would try to approach Nedic,i.e. the occupation forces. In agreement with Sp.envoy Neubacher, OB Südost showed no interest for a new round of negotiations,mostly because of what was in the background: Uncertainty toward the Allies,recognition of inferiority to Tito and the unsettled relation to the Nedic´s government.

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.640-641

Quote: ...So,the operation got bigger and more important for both sides;and a new factor has arrisen,namely the involvement of Serbian chetniks.They formed a strong battle group,allegedly under the command of Mihailovic himself,and went into combat against the "eastern group" of the Communist forces which were advancing from Dreiländer-Ecke >Bosnia,Montenegro,Sandzak< to the north-west. (Lagebuch 29.4.).

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.651

Quote: ...The Führer approved of the plan,although it would cause new wave of unrest and would make troubles to the German leadership in the South-east, which was employing more and more Orthodox-chetnik groups and had good experience with them.

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.703

Quote: During the month of May, the action of Djurisic in Montenegro which had made a promising start,took a sharp turn;at the middle of the month it had to be considered as a failure.According to the report made by the representative of the Foreign ministry in Cetinje,and related by OB Südost, several things stood in the way of succeseful usage of still strong domestic forces (including the chetniks) against the communists: absence of a definite goal,minimum of material support and the most important: the lack of a clear military leadership;the domestic groups were split in divisonal commandos,the Feldkommandatur and the police.

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.708

Quote: During the defense against the incursion of the Red divisions in March,April and May,Serbian units proved themselves well, notably the Serbisches Freiwilligen Korps but also more or less illegal groups of Chetniks,allegedly under the personal command of Mihailovic.

KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.706

Quote: The Serbian Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic,who (along from Ustasha and EDES) were the only serious anti-communist movement in the South-east,were biding their time during the summer and were occasionaly willing to negotiate. Tense situation existed in their relations to Nedic government,whose power grew stronger (connected to the strengthening of SFK).In order to make the recruitment harder,they took reprisals against the inhabitants.OB South-east,in this context hinted again at the Dr. Neubacher's propostion on strengthening the Nedic government. However,as the Allied offensive was opened,as the Turkey changed sides,as Bulgaria changed it's attitude and as Tito's forces appeared to be endangering the German positions n the South-east,Mihailovic and Nedic started to approach each other and to seek contacts with the Germans.

This fact had a thoroughgoing meaning. Up until now the German leadship thought that in a moment when the occupation force gets into trouble,all the uprising movements would join hands and call for a general uprising.Now it showed that-quoted in the OB order dated 2nd of August-"Draza Mihailovic,as well as leaders of all other bands believe that (on the basis of a general situation) the invader is the Enemy nr.2; Enemy nr.1 became Communism at home and abroad."

On August 17th (OB message of August 20th) Nedic offered the unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom.He underlined that he was officialy speaking for Mihailovic too,after the meeting they had.He asked for a immediate shippment of 3 million small-arms rounds and a approval for creating of a 50,000 strong Serbian army made mostly of Mihailovic's units. OB South-east,after consulting with Mil.Bef. Suedsot,quickly reached a conclusion that a turning down this offer meant antagonising all of the Serbs,new Tito's succeses,cuting all the comunications (especially to Greece) and to the stopping of economical exploitation.

KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.709

Quote: During the visit to the FHQ on August 22nd,GFM v. Weichs pointed out the fact that with further advance ot Tito and the awaited pull-out of Bulgarian Occupation Corps,the situation in Serbia will grow worse,and that the forces at hand won't be up to it.Chetniks,who in the period March-August lost 5,000 men fighting the communists are lately not hostile towards the Germans....8-10,000 of them are curently fighting the communists alongside the German forces in Southern Serbia under German major Weyel.The Mihailovic-Nedic agreement means unification of all Serbs and 90% support of the people...He proposed the forming of three regiments from proven chetniks, 6,000 men in all,for which necessary weapons should be shipped and officers sent to provide German leadership…

Quote: ...Fuehrer's decission was relayed by teleprinter >“Fernschriftlich“<:Only single,proven chetnik groups are to be placed under German control and command for use in tacticaly small local actions.

KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.710

Quote: As Serbia quickly became eastern front of the OB Suedost,and as Tito-forces advanced from the west,the chetniks continued seeking contections with the Germans;some even offered hostages. In the same time,they were showing their dissapointment with small or non-existent arms shippments…

Quote: …At the end of September,resistance notwithstanding,chetniks were pushed out of important parts of Serbia.Only those who stuck closely with German forces held out. >“soweit sie sich nicht eng an die deutsche Wehrmacht anlehnten“<

KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.711

Following lines are translated from "Das Ende auf dem Balkan":Die Operationen der Heeresgruppe E von Griechenland bis zu den Alpen",Kurt Vowinckel Verlag,Heidelberg 1955, by Erich Schmidt-Richberg >He was the Chieff of staff of HG "E" from 3/15/44<

Quote: It is known that the German attitude towards the chetniks changed several times.As Tito and the communists finaly gained the upper hand in the Yugoslav Resistance,chetniks and Germans reached some kind of neutrality arrangement. This arrangement was not strongly adherred to by the chetniks;apart from that,it lead to troubles with the Croats.The OB of HG "E" had to take a clear stand in regard to disputes between various Yugoslav groups.The interests and mentality of the Croats came in the first place,because the OB had to work with them in the future. Directives on the troops had to be clear and simple. OB reminded on their unreliability and has forbidden offical pacting with the chetniks,as well as supporting them with arms and ammunition.Envoys were to be sent to the OB. It was percieved that only local arrangements with "Heimat-Cetniks" were advantageous.These guidelines payed off.Ccourse of events from the near past played a role in forming of the attitude of the OB. Not so long time ago have chetniks attacked an SS column east of Sarajevo,causing hundred deaths. The attitude of chetniks from Ibar valley (some of them were present near Krusevac when Col. v.d. Chevallerie was captured) and Novipazar was unclear. The night attack on a German company-sized (altough of weak combat strength) column on the old Turkish road Mitrovica-Novipazar was probably made by the chetniks. However,it is not ruled out that the attcak was made by partisans who were sppoted around Tutin,where they promptly retreated.

p.55-56

Quote: The leader of the chetniks ,this nationalistic Serbian resistance movement,Draza Mihailovic was in Vares. In his name general Trifunovic demanded the right to use the Drina crossings at Gorazde;he was turned down. Later,a large number of his men gradualy made it across the river.Anticipated directive of OB came >"Es sei noch vorweggenommen dass bald der Auftrag von OB kam..."< ,which instructed the handing out of ammunition to the chetniks. The V.SS Corps then pointed out that the chetniks ambushed their column,causing 100 deaths.Apart from that,own units were low on ammunition,so the handing out was hardly possible. It was basicaly percieved that the co-operation with this group could hardly yield any more advantages. Old distrust towards the chetniks,Croat enemy nr.1, could not be overcome. This caused the OB to order that chetniks are to be supported only localy.

p.83

Quote: General Geiger,the commander of Doboj,had on his disposal two battalions of the 7.SS divisio,one Flak battalion,local Railway Security troops,detachments from passing-by troops,Domobran division,1000 rifles,still in organisation and another 1000 ustashas. Loose connection was held with chetniks on the Ozren mountain and in Trebovac.They were supported in a very modest way by supplying medical supplies and rifle ammunition.

p.111

Quote: December 14th,1942

Serbia: In the zone of the 704. inf. divison one unreliable chetnik group was disarmed.

KTB OKW,b.4/II,p.1136

Quote: December 17th,1942

Croatia: Eastern Bosnia: Unreliable chetnik group was disarmed.

KTB OKW,b.4/II,p.1150

Following extracts are from KTB OKW,band 7/I,p.732-756. Original document is named "Kroatien (unter militärischen Gesichtspunkten) im Jahr 1944", compiled from "Akten of WFStab and "Merkbuch":

Quote: Croatians repeated protests over the use of chetnik groups by the Wehrmacht in Dalmatia. Führer responded they are only dissarmed Hiwis or that the arangements are made only with small groups; There are no chetnik commanders from Serbia proper in Dalmatia,and these groups represent no threat to the Croatian state....

>Meeting between Hitler and "Croatian ministers" in FHQ on March 1st 1944<

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.739

Quote: ...Mixing even of smallest groups of orthodox chetniks with Croatian citizenship with the troops is not a practical idea,for various reasons. Attachment of single loyal groups (term "Chetnik" is to be ommited) to German units was proposed...

>Message of OB Südost of April 25th 1944<

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.743

Quote: ...On September 1st came a directive to both OB Südost and Deutscher Bev. Gen. to proceed against fraternization with the chetniks and to enforce earlier Führer's orders on this matter.

KTB OKW,b.7/I,p.751

Extracts from the report Wilchelm Hoettl (after the war wrote the book "Geheime Front" under the pseudonym Walther Haagel) of the SD sent to Edmund Glaise von Horstenau in March 1945.Document is quoted in Vasa Kazimirovic,"Njemacki general u Zagrebu",Kragujevac-Beograd 1996.,p.309-310. Original is to be found in Kriegsarchiv Wien,B-67,nr.101.

Quote: "During the preparations for a certain operation in Serbia,liason officer to the group which was to take part in this operation had a conversation with Draza Mihailovic.Conversation went on in especially friendly atmosphere. DM found out that the plan of the group fits good in his own plans-fight against communism-so he promised all the necessary help. DM said that,appart from increased activity of his forces in Serb arrea, he plans to reorganize his troops in western Bosnia and launch an attack on Serbia in the right moment. He is of the opinion that this move should be synchronised with the advance by German army in the Balkans,in which case Old Serbia should be made his arrea of operations...

...As for propaganda against the common enemy,he purposed a settinng up of a secret radio-station,adding that Nedic's stations don't have the desired impact on Serbian people...

...Having all this in mind,it can be said that DM's intentions are honest...

...DM's idea of setting up a radio-station should be considered.He purposed that the impression should be made,as though the station is operating from within Serbia.Impact of such an arrangement should be twofold: first,it should influence effectively the Serbian population (unlike Nedic's station) and it should create the feeling of unconfort among Serbia's current masters."

Extract from the letter written by German soldier Erasmus von Jakimow (March 15th 1918,Skopin-November 17th 1944,at Albertfalu on Danube),dated October 31st 1944:

Quote: "The Situation in the Balkans seems to be changing-for better or for worse,who could tell?...The English seem to have dropped Dalmatia-Montenegro,Chetniks have broken and fled >laufen auseinander<,some to us,but most to Tito.It became clear :it's White against Red now.

Quoted from:Hans-Adolf Jacobsen,Hans Dollinger "Der zweite Weltkrieg in Bildern und Dokumenten",Wiesbaden,3.Band,p.189

Quote: "Attempt of the 342. ID to advance in the territory held by the uprisers,on both banks of upper Drina has failed.Losses were light mostly because of Dangic's orders on his men not to fight the German troops..."

Ladislaus Hory und Martin Broszat,"Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat 1941-1945",p.119,reference to "Bericht des deutschen Kriegsverwaltungschef SS-Gruppenfuehrer Turner vom 16.2.1942 an Himmler;Pers.Stab RFSS,Inst f. Zeitgesch. MA 328,Bl. 651814 ff.

Quote: "Bands operating in Eastern Bosnia also involve,apart from Communists,chetnik bands of the former Col.Mihailovic and Major Jezdimir Dangic...Dangic doesn't want to fight the Wehrmacht and according to the Bericht des Bevoellmaechtigten Komandierenden Generals in Serbien written on 5th of February,this was proved on the field...Major Dangic has made following proposals in the negotiations in Belgrade: He is willing to secure Eastern Bosnia with his chetniks under following conditions:

1.)that all Ustasha withdraw from this area; 2.)that the Germans army takes over the area ; 3.)that the Croatian administration apparatus be made of Serbs,Croats and Muslims.

Based on the former,negotiations were conducted by Komandierenden General in consultation with German ambassador in Zagreb and with Croatian government.They failed because of the objections of the Croatian government,which would not tolerate such reductions to the state's souverenity;Komandierende General who would not act without their consent,broke off the talks."

Ibidem,s.119-120.Reference to "Bericht des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD an Reichsfuehrer-SS am 17.Februar 1942",PA/AA,Buero RAM:Kroatien 1941/1942,Bl.442-449.

Quote: "Whole border between Serbia and Bosnia on the Drina with Visegrad is secured by German and Croatian troops.In the area east of Sarajevo,even the Serbian refugees started to come back to their homes.In the area of Ozren (north of Sarajevo),Croats achieved trough the negotiations that 13 chetnik batallions,though week,placed themselves in the service of the Croatian state >"in Verhandlungen erreicht worden,dass...dem kroatischen Staat unterstellt" hätten.<

Ibidem,s.128.Reference to "Telegramme Kasches vom 15. und 30.5.42;PA/AA,Buero Sts:Kroatien,Bd.3,Bl.89f. und 107.

"As Croat general Franjo Simic was killed on 9th of August 1943,apparently by Chetniks...have the Croatian students published the following leaflet:"

Quote: "The Chetniks,those perfidious snakes and criminals,have pacted in the past with the Italians.Now they do it with the Germans...We ask from the Germans to stop tolerating and supporting the Chetniks who are their worst foes...Chetniks and Croats must not and will not have the same allies...Death and revenge to the Chetniks!Long live the Croatian state!

Ibidem,s.165-166.Reference to the "German translation of the leaflet by Embassy secretary v.Schubert,presented to Ambassador Kasche on 12.8.1944;PA/AA,Gesandschaft Zagreb:Bd.67/4,Bl.56 ff.

"At the end of September 1944 German commander of Split arrested the Ustashi-leader of the town in reprisal for Ustashi actions against the chetniks who were allied to the Wehrmacht,threatening to

Quote: "...shoot five Ustashis for every Chetnik."

Ibidem,s.166.Reference to:"Telegramme des Stabchefs der Ustascha-Miliz,Oberst Herencic,von Ende September 1944;PA/AA,Gesandschaft Zagreb:Bd.67/4,Bl.75f.

Extract from the note by v. Weichs on Mihailovic:

Quote: "Though he himself shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public,no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans),he allowed his commanders to negotiate with the Germans and to co-operate with them.And they did it,more and more..."

Werner Roehr (zusammengestellt),"Europa unterm Hakenkreuz-Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945),1994,s.358;reference to "Johann Wuescht,"Jugoslawien und das Dritte Reich.Eine dokumentierte Geschichte der deutsch-jugoslawischen Beziehungen von 1933-1945",1969,s.64

The following lines come from Klaus Schmider,"Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien",Hamburg;Berlin;Bonn 2002.

"The ten-day report of the Commanding General states even that the Chetniks

Quote: "have proven themselves in co-operation with German Wehrmacht better than the Croatian Army units."

Schmider,p.134; BA/MA, RH 26-114/12 10-Tage Meldung fuer die Zeit vom 11.9.-20.9.42 (20.9.1942)

"So,for instance in context of fighting around Prozor and defence of Konjic.At the end of the operation came Lueters to the following conclusion:

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

ibidem,p.232,footnote 179; BA/MA, RH 24-15/2 Bfh. d. dt. Tr. i. Kroat.,Ia-Lagebeurteilung fuer die Zeit vom 1.3.-15.3.43 (16.3.43.)

Quote: "In the future,ammunition will be handed out only to those Chetnik units who under German command fight the Partisans."

ibidem,p.187; BA/MA, RH 26-118/32 Befehl and die Cetnikfuehrer Cvijetin Todic,Golub Mitrovic,Savo Derikonja,Radivoj Kosoric,Bozo Plemic und Dusan Kovacevic (12.1.43).

Quote: "Partly,the Serbs have futhermore showed themselves as the most reliable allies in fighting against the red bands,that is against communism.They are always ready to fight against the bandits with the German Wehrmacht and even to place themselves under it's command"

ibidem,p.307;BA/MA, RH 24-15/10 SS-Freiw.-Div. "Prinz Eugen" an Gen.Kdo. XV.Geb.AK. (5.9.1943).

"In the few weeks that have passed since the division moved into this region formerly occupied by the Italians,the Chetniks have made themselves indespensible at securing the supply routes (especially the Knin-Drnis railroad). If Djuic would be arrested at this moment ,said Egleser, it would mean the troops would have to

Quote: "fight constantly for their own supplies."

ibidem,p.308; BA/MA, RH 24-15/6 114.Jaegerdivision,Abt. Ic an Gen.Kdo. XV.Geb.AK (4.10.43).

"So,it doesn't surprise that the words

Quote: "Armed support of the brave Chetniks"

were openly said at a "Chefbeschprechung" in Thesaloniki on 1st of March."

ibidem,p.232; BA/MA ,RH 19 VII/7 Aktennotiz ueber die Chefbeschprechung am 1.3.1943 (1.3.1943).

Following lines were written by Edmund Glaise von Horstenau in his diary:

Quote: "The units that could really be used against the partisans were the Serbian and partly the Russian volunteers and-Draza Mihailovic's people.My liason officer with them was a certain major,Ritterkreuztraeger."

>written on situation in Serbia during his visit to Belgrade in June 1944.<

Peter Broucek,"Ein General in Zwielicht;Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau",Wien-Koeln-Graz,1988; p.421

Quote: "Using the general situation in which Mihailovic found himself,we made local agreements with various chetnik groups."

>written on situation in Croatia at the beginning of 1944.<

ibidem,p.352

Quote: "In the meanwhile, single groups which are found to be suitable to be our partners in the fighting against the partisans can be, from case to case, supplied with ammunition. Written commitments on the part of the Wehrmacht are, in every case, not to be made."

Klaus Schmider,"Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien",Hamburg;Berlin;Bonn 2002, p.492 ; PA/AA, SbvollSO R 27303 Neubacher an Kramarz (21.3.1944)

Quote: "Every support provided by the occupying power is to be canceled until further notice, even to the DM chetniks who are fighting the communism."

ibidem, p.495; BA/MA, RW 40/88 Tagesmeldung vom 27.5.1944.

Quote: "Until the clarification of the newly developed situation and it's possible impact, we will distance ourselves from the DM camp, with the only exception of the joint fight against the red partisans, which developed in the field."

ibidem, p.497; PA/AA, SbvollSO R 27301 Neubacher an Junker (22.5.1944)

Quote: "With offers made by D.M. movement, the handing-over of the enemy spies (Englishmen) should be asked for. Those who wish to return with their arms, should be helped on their way back home. DM-units should be bound not to undertake any hostile activities against the German Wehrmacht and it's allies and to return German prisoners. They should also pledge to fight the communists in certain areas, supervised by a German liason officer."

ibidem,p.472-473; BA/MA, RW 40/82 KTB-Eintrag vom 1.11.1943

Quote: "DM has repeatedly tried to make contact with us" >"...mit uns ins Gespraech zu kommen."<

ibidem,p.488; BA/MA, RW 40/86 Militaerbefehlshaber Suedost, Abt. Ia, Lagebericht fuer die Zeit vom 16.2-15.3.1944 (25.3.1944)

Quote: "Important duty of the Pz.AOK 2 and Mil.Bhf.Suedost is to bring all of the chetniks in Serbia and Montenegro to battle with the red forces and keep them engaged, so that they can't act on their own initiative. This initiative, if allowed, could result in action against Germany, given the general situation."

ibidem,p.510; BA/MA, RH 19 XI/28 OB Suedost an Pz.AOK 2 (26.8.1944)

Quote: "Gen.Lt. Winter has determined that is important to realise, that the arms D.M. is asking for are not available."

ibidem,p.517; BA/MA, RH 19 XI/18 Gruppe Ic/AO, Aktennotiz zur Beschprechung am 29.9.1944 (30.8.1944)

"As the Germans tired to have three of their V-maenner >three out of 70 chetniks the NDH powers had arrested after the Otok massacre< freed, came to considerable tension between the Germans and the Croats. Leader of the "Abwehrstelle" in Split commented...:"

Quote: "We cannot abandon the only allies (chetniks) we have in this cursed country >Sauland< (Croatia)."

ibidem,p.373; PA/AA. Inland IIg 401, 2824 Kasche an Auswaertiges Amt (16.4.1944)

Quote: "Chetniks are the only useful fellow combatants"

ibidem,p.378; BA/MA, RH 19 XI/15 Erfahrungsbericht ueber Dienstreise Serbien-Kroatien in der Zeit vom 20.6-4.7.1944 (5.7.1944)

Quote: "Chetniks (...) our natural allies. Only they are fighting! "Kroatische Kampfgemeinschaft" exists only on paper."

ibidem,p.378; BA/MA, RH 19 XI/29 OKW/WfSt, Gruppe Ic/Ao Vortragsnotiz fuer Aussenchefbeschprechung am 25.7.1944 (23.7.1944)

Wow, this certainly ends the argument in my view (if ever an argument there was). I'd like to appeal to the involved Admins to stop the senseless, undiscussed, and unsupported revert-warring by User:Deucaon. In all objectivity, he appears to be a weekend-editor with a very limited interest in discussion, and a Serb nationalist of strong conviction. He has brought forth no sources, no evidence, and no reasons for his revert-warring other than what appears to be a categorical belief in the "rightousness" of the Chetnik cause. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,noone can deny German OKW.That's why i thought it's important to post this. The best way to fight ultranationalist Serbs who think that Chetniks were (activly) fighting Germans is to ask them to name ONE(1) battle where Chetniks fought the Germans.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an ultranationalist Serb in any way but I DO know a battle between the Germans and Chetniks. Unfortenutely it is not from a written source, but an account from my own living grandmother (she was a little girl back then). It was an ambush of a motorised German column at village of Zablaće near the town of Čačak by Chetniks. The column of some 15++ trucks (the number of trucks is my estimate as she described me the length of the column - certainly over 300m - my guess is that it was a batallion-sized unit) moved from the direction of Čačak towards Kraljevo (she does not remember the date or year of this event, but my guess is that it happened during the Chetnik and Partisan joint attack on Kraljevo in 1941. - the column being a reinforcement for the German troops around Kraljevo). The battle lasted several hours in the afternoon, and the Germans withdrew towards Čačak in the evening. Prior to the arrival of the column the Chetniks warned the villagers to leave the area but my great-grandmother who was with my grandmother at the time was slow to comply, so they left the house (for some relatives in the next village) just as the first gunshots were fired and within the sight of the German soldiers of the rear of the column who were emerging from their trucks to form a combat formation (they did not fire at my ancestors who were clearly just fleeing civilians, but those Germans in the head of the column, being already engaged, were more "trigger happy" towards the villagers living in houses next to the road who remained there). After the battle the Chetniks, dead tired and some wounded, settled themselves in the village houses for the night accepting the hospitality of the remaning and returned villagers but also taking what food they needed if the offered was not enough. In the morning my grandmother saw several bodies of German soldiers around the road, but no Chetnik ones (they either had no fatalities or already buried their dead during the night).

Early Chetnik-Partsan cooperation in fighting against the Germans is well known, but it soon broke (during the battle for Kraljevo), and later there were cooperations between the Germans and Chetniks on tactical the level (more in a co-bellegirant then outright allied way).

I think that it is highly inappropriate (nerly propagandic) to have several pictures of Germans and WW2 Chetniks and NO pictures of just WW2 Chetniks. Why not have one with the partisans (to ilustrate 1941. cooperation), one just of them, and one with the Germans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.41 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The OKW is indeed a very reliable source. The recent idea is that, since the Chetniks were undisciplined, there existed "good" and "bad" groups. That these bad "fascist Chetniks" collaborated without Mihailović's consent, and that the good ones were a multinational force that didn't fight the Germans, but didn't collaborate with them. This is, of course, utter nonsense, but it is a "nice try", so to speak. Mihailović almost never (with a few rare exceptions) lost control of his Chetniks, as he was the appointed commander by the King. Those fighting against his standing orders cannot even be considered Chetniks. In any case even such claims can now be easily defeated. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And there are few battles where it's known that Chetniks aided the Germans.Like the Battle of Neretva.Some 20.000 Chetniks fought on the German side against Tito's Partizans there.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I know this is a touchy subject, so before I start working on the article in earnest, I want to make my intent and goals clear:

• I am here to Wikify the article, not to glorify either the Chetniks or the Partisans. I am aware that this is a controversial article, but it cannot remain in this state forever.
• I openly state that I do indeed intend to put together a piece of text describing Chetnik collaboration with the Axis powers, and their Serb nationalist ideology. I will of course use reliable sources for this (some of which are stated in the talkpage above), and will not use unencyclopedic expressions and phrases.

Steps:

• 1) fixing the grammar & spelling of the article, sentence construction, the Wikilinks and text construction. (Many small pieces of text divided by space will be merged) I will also enlarge and rearrange some pics
• 2) a review of sources and an assessment of their reliability and/or bias
• 3) removal of any segments of text that may glorify any of the WW2 factions, as well as original research (editor conclusions): this does not belong in an encyclopedia
• 4) expansion of the text and a corresponding addition of sources

I want to make it 100% clear that I bear absolutely no ill will towards the Serbs or any other Nation in ex-Yugoslavia, or the whole world for that matter. I'm not undertaking this particular task out of any POV or personal agenda, it is simply a part of my general work on WW2 Yugoslav articles. I'm looking forward to constructive cooperation with any involved users. Finally a smiley, :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm basically done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Deucaon

Once again, can an Admin do something about this guy? He reverts without question, discussion, or reason. See "Edit warring" section above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You’re the one screwing with my edits! Deucaon (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't do edits, you just revert. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the collaboration BS and added a picture.

For more reference: http://serbliberationblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/deucaon-ww2.html

It contains pictures, details and sources.

Don't attempt to undo the change.

Deucaon —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Infobox?

The military unit infobox used in the article is not appropriate for a militant political movement that existed in several periods of a country's history. I would like to remove it (while ensuring the information remains in the article), does anyone have any objections? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deucaon :)

Hi, I see that once again you somehow got the idea that you can just waltz in and remove referenced data and images while replacing them with gibberish from some radical nationalist blog. Take the time to learn more about what Wikipedia considers a source. Please discuss your edits and do your homework before making such controversial changes. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is highly unlikely your edits will remain on Wikipedia for very long without discussion and sources. If you really care about making a lasting contribution, you will stop edit-warring (to avoid getting banned) and discuss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture you posted of "Chetniks and Germans" doesn't even state which location they are in! You are a hypocrite. Make yourself useful put up the picture of Chetniks escorting the German POWs through Uzice because I don't know how to.--Deucaon (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack will be immediately reported... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Grab the attention of the mods... hopefully they will put an end to your BS.--Deucaon (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Chetniks

I know that the page in wrong because the Chetniks were not collaborators with the Germans during World War II and that that photo of German soldiers with the Chetnik fighters is in fact a fake photo superimposed by the Communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Germans were superimposed to hide the flying saucer hidden in the background :P. The pic is quite obviously authentic, the Germans and Chetniks are even leaning on each-other. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

-I've put a neutrality tag on this article. My citations of Chetniks aiding allies have been deleted but yet some of the references claiming that Chetniks were axis collaborators remain with just the name of some author with NO title of a book whatsoever. (ex: "Freeman, p57." Is this an appropriate ref?)

Don't be alarmed, I didn't change article content at all. I just want people to be informed this article might not be 100% balanced. Balkanskiredneck (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

-Edit. I didn't find that weird ref i mentioned as an example sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkanskiredneck (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most edited articles on my watchlist. If there was no constant supervision this article would be stripped of data and presented as an ode to the heroic wronged Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all collaborators

Whats wrong with writing that not all chentiks collaborated? Also whats wrong with adding a bit of neutrality to the "instrukcije" part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanmaur (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the first part of your edit. Surely not all Chetniks collaborated, though it would be helpful to find a source for that information. Your second edit, however, did not add "a bit of neutrality" - it's an implication that the document was forged. Unless you have a number of reliable sources making this assertion, please do not add it again. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not all Chetniks collaborated"? Indeed not, in the first years of the conflict. By 1945 we find all Chetniks (and their commander Draža Mihailović) receiving supplies from the Germans and openly fighting Allied forces such as the Red Army and the Partisans. All of them. We find them retreating alongside Axis forces, and we find their remnants surrendering to the Allies with other Axis forces at Bleiburg (see Bleiburg massacre).

The sentence "not all Chetniks collaborated" is often quoted in this talkpage because it has become something of an "official stance" in Serbia. Something of a middle ground between "all Chetniks collaborated!!!" and "the Chetniks were heroes!!!". This "middle ground" stance makes sense if we forget the last year and a half of the war, when the Chetniks were stripped of all their Allied support (Tehran conference), and had no alternative but to become increasingly dependent on the Axis. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The partizans fought the chetniks even before, so we can say that the partizans were axis, using that logic. I want to see some serious source that says that the chetniks were supplied by the germans. (LAz17 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).

Not really. You see, in order to be a "collaborator", you need to collaborate with the occupying forces. In order to be "Axis", you need to fight in concert with Axis forces. As I'm sure you know, Partisan units are not recorded to have engaged in any such activities. Quite the contrary. All Partisans: non-combatants, sympathetic civilians, wounded, sick/dying (typhoid), surrendered or unarmed were shot without exception by Axis forces when encountered (per Hitler's directive).

The issue of Chetniks supplies. Your demand is like asking me to prove the US Army and the Royal Army were supplied by the US and UK. As far as late 1944/1945 is concerned, it suffices to note that had they not been supplies by the Germans (the Axis), they would have dissolved. As long as we are sure they did, in fact, collaborate with the Axis intensively, the issue of supplies is irrelevant.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's your source [6]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As director denounced my sources for yugoslav partizans being primarily serbs, I denounce your source in the same way - it a second hand source, not a direct source. We need primary sources, and that is not a primary source. Furthermore, it does not say that they got some arms, not ALL arms from them. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) Direktor, I want to know about 1944... where does it say taht they were all supplied in 1944, as well as 45? Furthermore, Cetnik ideology was to liberate yugoslavia from germans and all other parties that occupy it. Therefore they were not allies with the axis, nor were they ever in the axis. They were part of the monarchy which was on teh side of the allies. Your example saying that my question is like asking for that US/UK stuff is stupid. It is like your question for sources that partizans were primarily serbs. Everyone knows that the partizans were 90 to 95% serbs in 1941 when most partizan activities were in western serbia. So when you ask me, I answer and my sources are secondary bullshit. When I ask you I get this stupid reply, and I answer to your subaltern the same answer that you gave me there, which is technically valid. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes that author reliable? Is he an expert in any way on the field? If he is do all people agree with him? People like neol malcom write stuff too, and many people disregard a lot of it as biased crap. Is hitler's mein kaumph good too? People sure supported that back in the day and some do today too, especially in croatia, the only country in the world where you can get it legally in original german. (LAz17 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)).

Hmmm. I'm surprised to have to answer these questions. What makes the author reliable is that he was the world's foremost authority on the topic and I have never, ever read a word of criticism of him from anybody. Google search him if you have any doubts. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look man, go read the source that you provided. It only strengthens my argument. On the page right before it it speaks of dialogues between the chetnik command and the US, from which one can conclude that they were still on friendly terms. They were talking of how they wanted to get the US to support them more than the partizans - and this is in late 1944! Further, it says that the Germans gave the chetniks some "limited extent" in terms of guns and ammunition, in order to fight the partizans. The chetniks were not a pro-German force. As said, they did collaborate in some circumstances to some degree, but they remained a support to the end of the monarchy, England, and the United States. They were on the side of the allies. Now sure, they were not pro-communists, but none the less they were NOT with the Axis. Thank you for your source btw, you used it against direktor. :) (LAz17 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

offensive and bias

To me, a Bosnjak this text is very offensive. First of all, this text seems to present chetniks as Serbian heros! Chetniks have always killed mercilessly Muslims, Croats and Jews, so how can they be heros? There is no mention of chetniks in the Bosnian war of 1992-1995, however there are numerous videos of the chetnik flag being carried by Bosnian Serb soliders (or perhaps cowards). Please, at least put a sign warning that the article seems to be bias.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.152.149 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why were my sources deleted

I'd like to ask why my sources were deleted. About 2 weeks ago I added a couple sentences to the first section, without in any way editing the content itself. I was only adding a small piece to it. I mentioned that Chetniks were involved in an operation known as Halyard in which they saved many American pilots and protected them from axis occupational forces. I'll repeat that I did NOT in any way edit any other content of the article. You can confirm this yourself by looking at the last 'Balkanskiredneck' edit made on 23:42 on May 26, 2009. I do not understand why this little addition had to be deleted despite being added with appropriate references. If you want to review these references yourself, here they are:

• [7]
• [8]

Next time content with these kinds of references are deleted, they should be done away with along with a legitimate reason for their deletion rather than a simple unexplained deletion. If I had done the same thing to other kinds of references and content in this article, I assure you that you all would be far less tolerant with those actions than I am with these deletions of appropriately referenced content.

Quick replies appreciated. You can have my honest gurantee I haven't made a single edit to this article since this previous deletion of my addition of content. But if this continues without mandatory and legitimate reasons, it undermines the purpose of contributing to the article and I might attempt to bring more experienced editors to try solving the matter. Thanks in adv Balkanskiredneck (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balkanskiredneck, I must say I've been startled by your post. It seems I did remove sourced unbiased information, please accept my sincere apologies. I have, of course, restored the information I believe you are referring to myself. I can only say in my defense that this article is the busiest one on my watchlist and that there are section blankings and wild nationalist edits that need reverting on a daily basis. Both Chetnik sympathizer and Bosniak nationalist IPs edit here every day trying to "prove" something. My reverts may have become too automatic, I guess. Again, my sincerest apologies and regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I don't see why you've invited Laz here...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Director, this is directly related to our discussion. You see his unbiased sources? They prove that the chetniks were on the side of the allies even in 1944. You have no sources that indicate that ALL the weaponry that the chetniks had were from the nazis. These sources are a direct slap in your face - how are they not? The articles clearly show how the chetniks attacked nazis in these years. You owe an apology, no? Do change the date that the chetniks were still with the allies in 1944 and 1945, please. (LAz17 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

No Laz. His sources prove they saved Allied airmen, which is a well known fact. They do not "magically" prove that Chetniks did not attack Allied troops using Axis supplies and in coordination with the Axis. It is also a well known fact that the Chetniks were (unsuccessfully) lobbying with the Allies for support all throughout 1944. They were essentially denied recognition and almost all supplies, on the basis that they continued to cooperate with the Axis and refused to negotiate with the Partisans (recognized as Yugoslav Allied troops since Tehran). You see, in 1944 the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the USSR are Allies just as much as America and the UK. I hate to burst your bubble, but desperate measures to gain Allied support by getting a few airmen out of the Balkans do not somehow anull all the real collaboration stuff... like offensives against Allied troops and military coordination with Axis forces. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go nurse my face from the slap...

On June 17 1944, the situation on the ground was formalized when even King Peter II of Yugoslavia himself recognized the Yugoslav Partisans as the only legal Yugoslav military force. This is, of course, if we agree to completely ignore that the Partisans were already recognized as the Yugoslav Allied force by the major powers in Tehran much earlier. The problem you have now, is that Chetniks continued to attack the Partisans even after all this. (Of course, they had little choice since Tito would probably have had Mihailović shot on sight if he tried to join him per his orders, but that's not relevant here.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This does not mean that they were axis. They attacked axis partners. Now, look, do not say that they attacked the allies. They did not, as allies means plural. The only allied group that they fought against were the partizans. Is this not true? Same can be said of the partizans. They fought with the chetniks throughout the war. Does that make them axis in say 1941? I don't think so. I don't get this insistence from you that they were nazis. Collaborating does not mean being aligned with. (LAz17 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

Balkanskiredneck, your proposal to "attempt to bring more experienced editors to try solving the matter" would be most welcome. Please do so. We obviously need as many eyes as possible on this. The essence of the matter is as follows. The claim that the Chetniks were on the Allied side is wishful thinking. It is true that Allied airmen were rescued, especially in Operation Halyard (although approximately twice as many numerically were recorded to have been rescued by the Partisans) but the article's current statement that "throughout the war" Allied airmen were rescued by the Chetniks is an exaggeration. It is true that in contacts with American officers and officials both on the ground and in the US, notably McDowell, the Chetniks were sometimes encouraged to believe that they should not give up hope of Allied support against the Partisans. McDowell was without doubt acting and speaking beyond the terms of his mandate in this. The American role in formulating Allied policy towards Yugoslavia was minor, as Roosevelt deferred in the matter to Churchill and Stalin, both of whom were pro-Tito, despite mutual reservations. Allied views towards the Chetniks cooled rapidly during the war and thus their policy shifted away from the Chetniks and in favour of the Partisans as a result of a) the Chetniks entering into local collaborationist agreements with the Italians as early as 1942, for example those concluded by Trifunović-Birčanin and Jevđević, and b) the active role of the Partisans versus the more passive role adopted by the Chetniks in combatting the Germans. Chetnik units also consistently fought under German command in 1944 and 1945, such as Račić's under von Jungenfeld. The article should point out that the Chetniks hoped that the US and Britain would come round to a pro-Royalist and anti-Communist position by the end of the war, and that the published sources frequently apply the adjective "naive" in this regard. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, Balkanski, you should probably read WP:CANVASS before you do anything... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any source the indicates full support of the chetniks to the germans, and that the germans controlled serbian divisions. I only see the war with the partizans. I propose this. Howabout we write that the chetniks were a third front, not on anyone's side? I think that this would be appropriate. At any rate, direktor is changing stuff on the yugoslav page that the chetniks were on the side of the axis between 1943 and 1945. I changed that to 1945, however I feel that it would be best to write that they were independent from 1943 to 1945, not on either ones side necessarily. The only chetnik cooperation with nazis against the partizans came in order to fight the partizans. You mention how there was cooperation with italians. That is true, but the cooperation with italians was against ustashe too, wasn't it? It was to liberate mostar. As we see this region underwent some messeed up things during the war, so the easiest way to solve this is to say that the chetniks were independent from 1943. (LAz17 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

LAz, the only thing we can do in this article is report and reflect what the authors say. That is the essence of WP:RS. It is not for us to adopt any kind of editorial policy. It seems to me, and I hope, that we are now together developing a new ideal for this article, that involves completely rewriting it in line with what the authors have written. This means no POV, no interpretation, no ideology... just an encyclopedic reflection.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, you keep talking about some kind of ideas, but you're ignoring and forgetting my point, the only thing that matters here. Its simply true that the Chetniks engaged in operations against Allied forces in coordination with the Axis. What else is there to discuss??! "Third front"?! LoL... Just take a look at the above listed OKW reports concerning just how great the Chetniks and Germans worked together. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer to which is that we follow the sources. Jesus, it's not that complicated.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Being against only the partizans is not the equivalent of being against all the allies. How hard is that to understand? You say saying attacking partizans = being axis, that is flawed logic. If we are to buy this sad argument, then we can say that the Partizans were not the allies prior to 1943. Lets follow the sources, there is nothing that shows alliance with the axis, and it shows that the chetniks have been with the US and Britain, allies. The chetniks continued to be supplied by allies after 1943, though less than before. (LAz17 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

• "Being against only the partizans is not the equivalent of being against all the Allies." First of all, they were also against the most significant Allied power of WWII, the Soviet Union (with over 500 divisions). Secondly, do you understand the concept of an alliance? An "alliance" means that if someone is against an ally within the alliance, he's against the entire alliance. That's the whole point. If that is not the case, than its not an alliance: its something else. Here it is in the simplest possible rendering: Partisans = Allies. Chetniks attack Partisans. Chetniks attack Allies. How hard is that to understand?
  
• I am NOT saying "attacking Partisans = being Axis", that would be flawed logic. Just like "attacking Chetniks (prior to 1943) = being Axis" would be flawed logic. However, if you add "Partisans" = "Allies" and "attack" = "attack in cooperation with the Axis" to the equation, you might get it: "attacking Allies in collaboration with the Axis = being Axis".
• Finally, it does not matter if the Chetniks had nothing against the UK and USA, who gives a damn about their "feelings"?? Its their actions we will be concerning ourselves with. The US and the UK are no more or less Allies than the Soviet Union or the Partisans. You need to get your facts about the Allies straight. The fact that the Americans sent the Chetniks supplies has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of their collaboration with the Axis powers. To try and use it to disprove collaboration is what I'd characterize as a desperate move. You have no real argument and are "clutching at straws" to somehow try and find a combination of logic that suits your POV.
• "we can say that the Partisans were not the allies prior to 1943." To put it bluntly: forget it... They were a resistance movement. Do you have any idea how many Allied resistance movements were not officially recognized by the Allies within the first period of their foundation? The Chetniks ceased to be "Allies" simply because they were Axis collaborators. If they hadn't actually collaborated, they would have continued to be an Allied resistance, even after the Partisans got the official status.

I have to say it takes a hell of a lot of propaganda and indoctrination to make someone so blind to a fact so blatantly obvious: they were a collaborating organization. Not by ideology, but certainly in practice. They didn't collaborate because they were "evil", it was simply the best course of action available to them if they were to achieve their goals. The Partisans didn't stay loyal because they were the "good guys", they simply had no choice whether they wanted to or not.
The Chetniks' logic, i.e. Mihailović's logic, is sound, very sound in fact. They correctly deduced that if the Germans win in Russia they'll get obliterated anyway, but just in case they lose, the Chetniks will do everything in their power and desperately try to destroy what they correctly perceive as the greatest threat to the Yugoslavia they were trying to (re-)establish. Sine they could not destroy this threat, the left-wing resistance, by themselves, they will join with other extreme right-wing forces in occupied Yugoslavia to do so (i.e. the Axis). The Partisans, of course, simply could not do anything of the kind themselves even if they wanted to: they were the only left-wing faction in the entire area. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LAz, first of all, it's easy to take Wikipedia way too seriously. Basically, who cares what Wikipedia says about the Chetniks? I certainly don't lose any sleep about it - the article is so badly written (clearly it has been written more or less entirely by pro- and anti-Chetnik fanatics) that only a fool would use it as a source of information. That said, in an ideal world, what would you like the article to say? Given that you know, I know and DIREKTOR knows that they consistently collaborated with the occupying forces, and given that hardly anybody except the three of us us reads this article, what would you like it to say? Serious question. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

While the point that is going around is that they were a collaborating organization... I still put up the point that they were collaborating with both sides god damn it, not just one of the sides. They saved allied troops and attacked the axis on numerous occasions! Alasdair- what I want is that it be taken off that they were on the side of the axis from 1943 to 1945. That makes it seem like they were 100% on that side, and 100% against the other side. That is the picture that the article paints, and it is not so black and white, there are shades of grey, and this situation is in the grey, not in the black or in the white. I mean, how on earth can one say that based off of collaborations we'll toss them to be with the enemies. They collaborated with both allies and axis at the same time!!! This is why I proposed a third category, as they were on BOTH sides, like it or not Direktor. (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)).

Yes they collaborated with both sides.

• Collaboration with the Allies. The Good: They saved a number of Allied pilots. Period. The Bad: They attacked Allied forces in pitched battles with tens of thousand of men. They avoided confrontation with the Germans in spite of orders to the contrary, and received supplies from them. They were eventually abandoned and denounced by the Allied powers as early as 1943 (publicly, at least).
• Collaboration with the Axis. The Good: They offered very useful auxiliary mobile formations, highly adept for the Axis purpose: the encirclement and annihilation of the Partisans. They sapped Serbian manpower that the Partisans were trying to tap into, and entered confusion into the Yugoslav resistance. Not least, they defrauded Allied support from the resistance movements that were desperately fighting the occupation, as opposed to their very wise policy of "live and let live". The Bad: They assisted the escape of Allied airmen, and occasionally conducted minor sabotage ops (and that only in the first period of the war).

Yes, they were definitely "collaborating with both sides". Your POV has now become quite obvious. You're not here to introduce new information, or to correct errors. You're on a mission to make the Chetniks look as good as will be allowed. Above you were claiming that they didn't collaborate or that few collaborated, now you're claiming they constitute an imaginary "third front" collaborating with everyone. You'll take any angle you can in your agenda. As I said above, it makes your efforts look desperate... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring the key point that I am making. They were on both allied and axis sides at the same time, therefore you can not say that they were with one side or that they were with other side completely, like the wikipedia article clearly suggests. Perhaps you do not comprehend what I am saying. They attacked german forces, and that is proof that they were not on the side of the axis. I say third front, or something else, because they were not clearly on anyone's side other than their own. But, you are a very biased person, who is anti-chetnik. Your biased goals are to align then with the nazis, and well guess what, it is not so simple. To some extent yes, to other extents NO, no way in hell. You look at only part of the picture and based off of the collaboration you say that they were aligned withe nazis. Dude, they were aligned with the allies at that same time and attacked the nazis... therefore we can not and must not say that they were 100% on the nazis side, like you have indicated in the yugoslav front topic, saying that they were ONLY on the side of the nazis between 1943 and 1945.(LAz17 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).

Your points in your last post there... they are rather biased. You say the good and the bad... come on man, you are trying to say the same thing in both, to place blame. You bold that they attacked the allies under collaborating with allies page. That is out of place. That should be in the bellow category, and you should bold something saying that They attacked the germans many times. (LAz17 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).

File:Churchill & Eden Greet Tito In London jpg.jpg

Yugoslav Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito greeted by "reportedly deceived" British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in London, 1950s. Its nice to see old friends kiss and make-up when one betrays Stalin :)

You're ignoring my point: no they were most certainly NOT on both the side of the Allies and the Axis at the same time. You absolutely can not be on both sides of a war at the same time, that's just the kind of stretch one expects from a desperate POV attempt. If this is about the airmen again, let me once again emphasize the complete and total irrelevance of that particular point in proving that they were Allies. Please forget it, it does not mean a thing.
Despite your smoke screen, the situation is quite clear. The Chetniks were sympathetic to the western Allies, but hostile to the other Allied powers. Unfortunately for them, those are not two alliances. You can't be friendly with one, and murderously hostile to another part of an alliance. This is why the Allies of WWII held the great conferences, in which they determined, among other things, the joint stance of the Allied powers towards any and all factions involved to the war. This included the Chetniks and the Partisans. At the Tehran conference, the Partisans were recognized as the Allied forces of Yugoslavia. More importantly, the Chetniks were not recognized as Allies. Therefore, they are not "Allies" in any way. My point is: the western Allies, to which the Chetniks were sympathetic, publicly abandoned and denounced them.

Let's conclude. You essentially claim the following: The Chetniks movement which engaged in large-scale offensives against Allied forces in coordination and collaboration with Axis forces is not, in fact, Axis, because members of that movement rescued a relatively small number of western Allied airmen. perhaps they were just pretending to be Axis, hm? It somehow seems more likely that the Chetniks, as opportunists, tried to play both sides but obviously failed miserably in their attempts to get the support and protection of the western Allies. Some elements within the western Allies were indeed sympathetic to the Chetnik plight, but that does not make the Chetniks "on the Allied side". The only thing that matters is who they actually fought and in collaboration with whom. A ridiculous rescue operation or two is completely and utterly negligible and irrelevant when compared to war operations and mass offensives. How many times are you going to try and push that bull? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue operations are not ridiculous. There is no source of the chetniks being in total alliance with the nazis. The chetnik goal was the liberation of yugoslavia, which did not stand with the nazis. There was no formal alliance of any sort - was there? The chetniks did not declare war on other allied countries, like all axis countries did. Furthermore, the only reason why the chetniks were not favored in yugoslavia by the allies is because of extreme pressure from the communist soviet union for support of the communist partizans. England's premier said it was a grave mistake to support the partizans. Churchill said that he was deceived and badly informed. The soviet government is the main reason for this, starting with their false reports and exaggerations in 1942. As that book shows, this was an organized communist campaign to paint tito as a democrat and to demonize mihailovic. http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg Funny how the articles say nothing about soviet propaganda interference. Yet this source that we show for soviet propaganda... we actually cite that for nazi collaboration. The source is not about nazi collaboration. Article needs a revamp due to biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

There was no "formal" alliance, of course, because they're not a state. They're a crappy little militia force, they don't enter into "formal" negotiations with world powers. Now you're just talking nonsense. As I said before: the Chetnik ideology is irrelevant in collaboration considerations. Its what they did that matters, not what they said they'd do. You're right: "rescue operations are not ridiculous". Trying to use them as proof of non-collaboration in the face of Chetnik offensives on Allied forces is what's completely ridiculous.
At first Churchill and Tito were buddies, then Churchill was angry at Tito, then they were buddies again after the Tito-Stalin split. That's all irrelevant, and what that all has to do with Chetnik collaboration I have no idea. The Soviet Union made no false reports on Yugoslavia, that's a conspiracy theory Serbian radical nationalists promote so that they can live in their dream world of Chetnik glory. Its a joke. Soviet agents in the MI5?? Does this include Randolph Churchill, who was personally sent on a mission to the Partisans? Concerning the statements by Churchill you've quoted: one is unconfirmed and only reported ("I was deceived"), the other is a diplomatic nicety. A gesture of sympathy to the deposed King, it has nothing to do with the Chetniks whatsoever.
Again: you're rambling on and on and on with not a single sentence actually presenting some kind of relevance to the question of Chetnik collaboration.

We have already concluded that:

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while reciving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration.
See what's happening? You can't refute these main points so you're now just drning on about conspiracy theories, "third fronts" and what not. That's it from me, have fun venting your frustration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You yourself have said that the chetniks did receive some military aid from the allies. Not a lot, but some. So tell me, what is going on there? At any rate, the chetniks were loyal to the crown. Furthermore, many of the claims of cooperations with the germans - some true - were over exaggerated by the soviet media. I understand very well what you mean by collaboration, but geting arms from the allies and attacking germans to save allied soldiers is in itself collaboration with the allies too. That's a fact. Furthermore, was there any collaboration in 1943? From what I know, the partizans ot support in december 1943, after much soviet pressure. When did the chetniks start their collaboration though? Was it before 1943? Was it during 1943? Was it while they were still labeled as allies? Did they do anything at all in the last month of 1943, when they were not longer the preferred fighting force by the allies? In fact, I bet that the soviet union never recognized them as part of the allies. However, I am not aware that Britain or the US ever regarded them as enemies. (LAz17 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

What part of "these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration" didn't you understand? Or am I supposed to repeat it again for the fifth time? (The Chetniks were loyal to the crown only in their theory, in practice they were NOT loyal to the crown. They betrayed the crown by fighting against the Yugoslav forces supported by the crown. The crown denounced them by signing the Tito-Šubašić Agreement.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This agreement was in late 1944, a few months before the end of the war. Congratulations. So clearly the chetniks were not on the axis side until the very end of the war, not 1943. Again I ask you, was there any chetnik anti-partizan activity in december 1943? You also seem to have very little words to say to my last point, and point to this agreement, which was signed at the very end of the war. I suppose it would be legitimate to say that the chetniks were on the axis side SINCE this agreement, in late 1944 to whenever the fighting stopped in the former yugoslavia, which is a few months into 1945. (LAz17 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Interesting how you only replied to the irrelevant text in the brackets. Ok, here we go, copy/paste:

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1)Chetniks attacked partizans(part of the allies) even in 1942 - correct or wrong?

2)Chetniks were the recognized army of the crown until almost the end of the war in 1944 - correct or wrong?

3)Chetniks attacked germans after november 1943 - correct or wrong?

4)Chetniks continued receiving aid from britain and the us after november 1943, though less than in the past - correct or wrong?

All are correct from what I know. Therefore what are we talking about? (LAz17 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

You gotta be kidding when you make fun of chetnik rescue opperations of allies troops. Not only was this a major airlift behind enemy lines, it was the BIGGEST one in the entire war. Operation Halyard. You disrespect the significance of this, and the awards that the US gave to the Chetniks in recognition of their help. (LAz17 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

1) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) The subject of this discussion is not whether they collaborated in 1942, its whether they collaborated during WWII.
2) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) The recognition of the crown is not necessary for admission to the Allies. The AVNOJ was recognized as a body equal to the government-in-exile, leading to a merge of the two near the end of the war.
3) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) Minor acts of sabotage and diversion are completely negligible in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis.
4) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) Again, this is a negligible fact in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis. You should also remember that it was covert, and that it did not last into 1945.
Yeah, phoey on Operation Halyard! Down with the Allied airmen!! Minor acts of sabotage and diversion are completely negligible in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis. I can copy/paste that again if you like. And, yes, it was a minor operation compared to the battles and offensives of the Yugoslav Front, which are all that matters from a serious standpoint.

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, how can you say that that is irrelevant? That proves your pro partisan bias. The chetniks collaborated against the partizans, not the allies. I am not aware that the chetniks ever recognized the partizans as allies. Furthermore, they have been collaborating against the partisans for almost the entire war. Dude, almost the entire war, so why would it matter if it is 1944 or 1942. It does not matter. The crown was always part of the allies, and the chetniks were with the crown until very late 1944. And yes, the collaborated for almost the entire war, so by your logic the chetniks were on the side of the axis even in 1942. Your logic is flawed. Those were NOT minor acts. 500 allies soldiers most definitely is not insignificant like you make it sound. 500 is a LOT. Maybe the chetniks did not get much or any aid in 1945, but they did get aid in 1944. Therefore, even england/USA collaborated according to your logic. You clearly are avoiding serious issues here. I request a FEW third opinions - none of them form the former yugoslavia either, none of them that know me or you, as you are too biased hence unreliable. (LAz17 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

Tim Judah, a well renown and respected journalist and writer of several books notes various things on page 119 in his book "the serbs - myth, history and the destruction of yugoslavia". Among some facts, like that the partizans were composed of mainly serbs at the start of the war, he also notes that the partizans (tito's deputies) in 1943 held discussions on cooperation against chetniks - in zagreb - but nothing came of these talks. On page 122 he notes that some 8 percent of the chetniks in late 1943, some 4,000 people, were muslims. Further on it says that the allies decided to supply the partizan,s as in 1943 italy crumbled, resulting in the partizans to seize their weaponry making them much stronger than the chetniks - this is another fact that is totally ignored, asides from collaboration. The chetniks were dropped of aid from britain in spring 1944 - until then they received aid as they were britain's allies. In their retreats after the partizans and soviets took belgrade in october 1944, chetniks started retreating. Many that passed through ustashe territory were killed by ustashas - aha, so is that collaboration? Some 20,000 chetniks at Eboli italy, a british prison of war camp were treated very kindly, as they were viewed on to be pro-allied. After the war some 8,000 were welcomed in britain, and the rest in USA, Canada, and Australia. To top things off, Chetniks-FascistItalian formations TOGETHER seized Mostar cheering down with the ustasha, as they took it. Wow shit, nazi italy against nazi croatia. Italians collaborating with allies. As you hopefully see, this is a rather complicated situation, and calling the chetniks nazis and on the side of the axis just like that is extremely biased given the complexity of the situation. (LAz17 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being annoying with explaining what collaboration is. Partizans tried to collaborate too, in meetings in Zagreb with Germans. Furthermore, I am by no means trying to say that there was no collaboration - I clearly say there was. The Chetniks attacked the partizans with weaponry that they received from allied troops, not just weapons that they received from german troops. Again, please stop wasting time as you are clearly biased. I want a third opinion from a non-yugoslava nd someone who does not know you or me. And stop calling the partizans allied forces. You make it sound as if the chetniks waged war against the US and Britain, but they always viewed those two countries to be their allies. They only fought against the Partizans, and saying allies instead of Partizans gives this a different tone. You are indeed biased. (LAz17 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fucken bullshit sources

Source 1 and 11 are suggesting clear cooperation between nazis and chetniks. Does anyone bother checking what arbitrary racism redacted put up?! What kind of scum would lie like that?! Misusing sources is such a low down bastardly thing to do. Here is what page 34 is... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg ...seriously people, we need to stop this paranoia. All the points that indicate that source must be deleted, as the source is completely different. This is only the start. This shit is going to have to go under comprehensive evaluation for more source fraud. It's not the first nor last time that croats try to be sneaky. Ceha's fraud maps are a great example. Boy was he pissed when I deleted his prized maps. He defendd them to the last minute, but it was all in vain. Just like Direktor's attempts will be in vain, with these fraudulent sources. You see, just because there is no link that shows this, does not mean that someone can not bother to check. And when one checks, bam, the rotten edifice is found. (LAz17 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)). Sorry, I might not have used appropriate language, but the fact remains that the source is misused, and that is not a small problem, that is a huge problem. We can't take sources and cite them for things that they do not say. Does anyone have a problem with this or is the goal to water down everything, to make any source anything we want it to be? I may as well cite Green Eggs and Ham for this. (LAz17 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).

This page is edited 50 times a week by nationalist Chetnik-loving nuts and Bosniak hatemongers. You can't expect all refs to be right next to the stuff they refer to anymore. SHOCKING as that may be...

I have to say, I've forgotten how obtuse you can be during discussion. You are capable of repeating the same damn faulty argument in perpetuity, regardless of the fact that its long been refuted. You're among the most exhausting editors I've yet encountered. This is simply because you have a very strong POV, and are not discussing logically because of that.

In the future, please read user responses completely and take what they state into account when responding. Otherwise, responding to your posts becomes pointless and repetitive. Posts that do not take into account user responses and continue to repeat the same argument will be ignored by me. I'm sorry, but I can't waste my energy in writing up repetitive answers over and over again in different wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably the one who put that false source there in the first place!! The source on wikipedia says exactly what you are saying, about collaboration whatnot, in detailed reasons. The actual source, as I have uploaded, shows none of that. You are using the bad source! And you won't even admit it, as the source shares your opinion. Furthermore, this source has been on therefor quite some time. I bet that if someone deleted it, you would have put it back. You can't now!(LAz17 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

I don't remember adding a source to this article in months and months. Look, if you'll just stop with your vague accusations and present some kind of evidence to your claims, it would really be a lot less annoying, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But I did present the evidence. Did you ignore what I wrote in this subsection??? Here, look again, http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg , it is the first source in the article which supposedly backs up all your arguments here - but the real source, form the scanned picture clearly shows that you or whoever put this up is false. This also has probably been up for years, or many months. (LAz17 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm talking about me putting it up. Either way, there are plenty of sources and primary OKW reports confirming that text. Much ado about nothing. The source simply isn't next to whatever it supports, it just got mixed-up, I suppose. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When I have more time I will go about deleting everything that is cited by the source, as it is clearly wrong. The question is why do you do nothing to change this error - perhaps because you do not have the same sources but are accepting wrong stuff, as you are taking no action against it. (LAz17 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Direktor, you are still using this source to justify things. Howabout we delete it? (LAz17 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)).

Resistance movement? LoL

The day you'll be able top glorify your Chetniks as the first "resistance movement" - that'll be the day. Once again you look only at 1941 or 1942, since you're biased. When describing the WW2 Chetnik movement on the whole, we generally like to consider the whole rotten apple. So, generally, as the final state of affairs reduces the Chetniks to a collaborating Axis "militia", getting whacked five ways and sideways by just about everyone, the Chetnik movement is simply not a resistance movement. Particularly since they actually "resisted" the Allies more than the Axis (an easily proven statement, given their numbers in the anti-Partisan attacks). If we compare the numbers of Chetnik troops in Axis offensives on Allied forces, with the great Axis offensives against the Chetnik mountain strongholds... wait, there were no such things, were there? So, here we go again with the basic paramount facts you like to ignore and I like to repeat...

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the chetniks were the first resistance movement. Further, please stop with this biased thing of being against the allies, when they were subserviant to the Yugoslav Monarchy who were in fact the allies. This was until late 1944. It is a fact that the Chetniks fought against the Germans. This decreased after the Germans started slaughtering thousands of serbian civilians in places like Kragujevac. Looking at the chetniks as a whole, they were on the side of Western Europe, against the communists ,and against the Ustashe/Nazis. They fought to liberate the country that belonged to the Serbian Monarchy. (LAz17 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)). You ignore that the Chetniks were on the side of Britain and the US, the Allies. They continued to get supplies from the Allies, and they continued to attack German forces in order to rescue allies. Only in November 1944 when the Monarchy recognized the Partizans can we say that the Chetniks were no longer on the side of the allies. You ignore that the Chetniks were until late 1943 the preferred allies force that got the bulk of allied supplies. Therefore they were an allies army, and therefore there is nothing wrong to say that they were the first resistance against Nazi Germany. (LAz17 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

I really, really hate the phrase "please stop!". Its revolting. What you really want to say is "STOP NOW!", instead you (and others on Wiki) concoct a passive-aggressive expression that really turns the stomach upside-down. "Please stop"? Well, I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your polite request. Anyway, I digress...
In order for something to be a "frist resistance movement", it has to be a - get this - resistance movement. The Yugoslav government in London had absolutely NO control of the Chetniks, whatsoever. They were NOT really (de facto) subservient to the Yugoslav government, just like they were NOT really (de facto) an Allied force. Was the Chetnik movement a resistance movement? Well then how come that...

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully support LAz17's statements. DIREKTOR is one of the most consistent POV-pushers on articles regarding Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. I am sure even DIREKTOR is well aware of the fact that the Chetniks started as a resistance movement to the Germans and that they long enjoyed the backing of both the UK and the US.JdeJ (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, but the question is: can they be numbered among "resistance movements" on the whole when WWII is concerned? The answer, of course, is obviously not. You can't very well be the "first resistance movement" of WWII when you can't be numbered among WWII resistance movements.
JdeJ, call me whatever you want, just make sure you note that you're here out of "revenge" because I opposed your edits elsewhere. U probably have little or no idea what you're talking about, and are basing your stance on opposition to me (which is pretty obvious from your post). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the factual question, the Chetniks were a resistance movement and their resistance to German occupation started before the Partisans' resistance, so calling them the first resistance movement of WWII in Yugoslavia is not controversial. As for my "opposition" to DIREKTOR, the user is in fact half right, although it's not persoanl. I am opposed to people using Wikipedia to push their own agenda, be it a political, historical or religious agenda. It is also true that this stance often causes me to oppose DIREKTOR, as the user is very persistent in editing and even vandalising articles if they don't fit his particular views. As for any "revenge", it is of course complete nonsense.JdeJ (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you've just demonstrated your ignorance on the subject: the question is were the Chetniks the first resistance movement in WWII, not in Yugoslavia alone. Secondly, calling a militia fighting against Allied forces such as the Yugoslav Partisans and the USSR, in close cooperation with Axis occupation, the "first resistance movement of WWII" is most certainly not "controversial" - it is outright ridiculous.
I may also say that your cheap "standard" attempts at discrediting me as a Wikipedia editor are obviously petty revenge, and are as transparent as they are disgusting. Your arrival here via my contributions is not something anyone can doubt. You are here to pick a fight with me, plain and simple. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a need to discuss personal issues, and I'm sure I won't provide you with that. The fact under consideration here is that the Chetniks were allies of both the UK and the US for many years during WWII. Your personal views on that factual matter are of no interest. Wikipedia is about verifiable fact, not personal opinions.JdeJ (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My good fellow, read your own posts. You've based your entire view in this matter on "DIREKTOR is one of the most consistent POV-pushers on articles...". It may also do you good to remember who exactly started talking about those "personal issues" you mention. So you see, I'm not really ignoring your arguments and focusing on the personal issues - you've actually presented no new arguments (because you know of none), and are quite obviously only here to discredit me. That, sir, is not an opportunity I will provide you with.
Who's allies the Chetniks were on paper is not something that matters here (even though the Allies never officially recognized the Chetniks). We are not in London in 1942 trying to make sense out of the situation in occupied Yugoslavia, we're in 2009 and we're buried in evidence of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis. To call a collaborating organization "the first resistance movement of WWII", is something that can only be proposed by radical nationalist Serbs (and those who wish to spite their opponents, apparently). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR, I don't think anyone non-biased editor reading through your contributions would come to a different conclusion than I have. Regarding the matter at hand, you seem to be very interested in presenting your opinion of the Chetniks. Your opinion, dear DIREKTOR, is completely irrelevant, as is mine. What matters here is facts, and facts alone. May I remind you that the US awarded a posthumous award to Mihajlovic in 1948 (years after the war) for his contributios to the allied victory. Now, will you go on to claim that the US government at the time was run by "racial nationalist Serbs".JdeJ (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think I care about your "conclusions" concerning my contributions. The suggestion that you, following me around to disagree with me on various issues, are a "non-biased" and objective judge in such things is laughable. I suggest you read WP:HOUND and stop pretending to "defend the facts" while all you're doing is indulging in petty revenge. Concerning "the facts", here's a few cardinal relevant ones (as opposed to the irrelevant ones you like to bring up):

• 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

But no! lets talk about medals, they're facts too... (In the meantime, you should also probably learn the difference between the adjectives "racial" and "radical", and a little something about the SRS) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're free to ignore any of my "conclusions", as you call them. All of the three points you make above are perfectly true, by the way, but that is not the point here. The Chetniks started out as a resistance movement to the German occupation and were, at the time, the first such resistance movement in occupied Europe. See the Britannica article used as a source for this article. That makes the claim of the Chetniks being the first resistance movement correct.JdeJ (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a "conclusion"? You used that term, hence the parentheses, you know... Anyway, I was not aware there were two "Chetnik movements"? If my hypothesis is right, and there is only one movement, could you explain how a movement can be both an effective collaborating militia and the first "resistance movement"? Or are you suggesting that we treat the Chetnik movement as two seperate factions, one in 1941 and '42, another in 1943 - '45? The blatant absurdity of this escapes you? You are unable to consider that it is irrational POV-pushing on the part of Serbian nationalism? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nodoby cares about your "hypothesis". We have solid sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, stating that the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement to the German occupation [Chetnik - Britannica Online Encyclopedia]. Wikipedia is about sourced facts, not individual users' personal "hypothesis".JdeJ (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh *sigh*, let me explain: When I said "hypothesis" up there, I was quite plainly being sarcastic - there is only one collaborating Chetnik movement - and the fact that they were a collaborating organization is supported by a mountain of sources. In light of this sourced fact, it is absolutely ridiculous to call them the first resistance movement and a collaborating movement at the same time. Though I appreciate you reminding me how mortal and insignificant I am by the old "nobody cares about your stuff" routine, just try next time to properly make sense out of the sentence first. (You can probably stop repeating the word "fact" over and over again, I got the "message".) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you're repeating yourself all the time, I understand what you're saying very well. It's just that I don't agree, and as long as we have solid sources claiming that the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement, that is what we say. It's our job to present sources, not to interpret them. As for your "insignificance", as you call it, I said that your personal views are as irrelevant as mine, it has nothing to do with you personally. I think we have both made our views on this perfectly clear by now.JdeJ (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, let me be clear on this: the SOURCES state they were a collaborating movement. Sources. You seem unable to understand what I am telling you, hence I am repeating myself. These SOURCES support my point. I am discussing from a point of view supported by SOURCES. SOURCES, SOURCES stating FACTS. FACTS which support my position on this. FACTS and SOURCES. Your empty, obvious, and worn-out act of "defending facts in the face of personal opinion", is something one tries on newbies, not people who've been around here for a while. My position is actually the one far more supported by sources: the one that the World War II Chetniks were not a "resistance movement" during WWII. The position that takes into account that they are collaborating forces, not to be classified as the "world's first resistance movement". Try passing that in the Resistance during World War II article.

I'm sure you're obviously very objective and "non-personal" (warning: sarcasm)... coming here in violation of WP:HOUND in order to quarrel with me... I mean, it wouldn't make much sense if you followed me around and then agreed with me based on the FACTS and SOURCES, would it? (capitalization is for emphasis, not representing "shouting") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more to say in this question, as you're obviously not listening to anyone not sharing your opinion. The sources are there for anyone to look into without me or you interpreting them for them. Instead I'll offer you a little hint: for someone who has been so long as you say you've been, your argumentation is very weak. I would advice you to drop the sarcasm, all the remarks that you yourself no doubt find witty but others only find childish and the constant insistance that when people don't agree with you, it is because they are biased, out to get you or just unable to understand you. You're not convincing anyone with that kind of behaviour. You will no doubt ignore this advice as well. I have little hope of you paying more attention to my advice than you pay to Encyclopedia Britannica.JdeJ (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact same can be said of you. My argumentation is by no means "weak", and I do not take advice from people who WP:harass me, that would be self-demeaning. You are/were not here to discuss the issue objectively, in a friendly manner, and for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. You came following me, in a hostile attempt to diminish my standing both on Wikipedia and in this talkpage, out of spite and out of a sense of petty "revenge". When your motives are hostile to begin with, you should not expect more than hostility in response. For what its worth to you, what respect I had for your value as an editor has been greatly diminished, as has the possibility of establishing polite, objective discourse on other occasions in the future. Most will have missed this "episode", but it is nevertheless a disgraceful act, a mistake that reveals base personal motivations behind your edits. At the very least, this was a grave error in judgment on your part. Be advised that I will not hesitate at this point to report you if I assess you are in serious violation of WP:HARASS. I do not mean this as a personal "threat", I am simply informing you that deliberte attempts at sabotaging my efforts will not be overlooked. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Very funny! Chetniks were no any kind of resistance movement. Chetniks were created 20 years before WWII as military force to support Serbian expansionism in old Yugoslavia. They served to Serbian king who was supposed to rule aculturised and Serbianized Yugoslavia, they were monarchists, expansionists. When WWII started they were not nazi enemies, they had their own idea what to do, like burning down non-Serb villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They colaborated with nazis from the 1st day of war and were in conflict with the partisans, the only real resistance to the Germans. After Hitler's defeat in the Russian front, Chetniks made an agreement with the allies and started to change sides. So during 1943 and 1944 they massively transformed to the partisans, contributting to resistance, but not before. But in that moment they were no more Chetniks, they became Partisans. Before that they were 3rd Riech allies, not resistance forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous user above also seems to suffer from the idea that personal opinions weigh heavier than sourced facts. Check Encyclopedia Britannica, the link is given above. DIREKTOR, you're repeated accusations of me harassing you is a bit silly. I just had a look at your edit history and you appear to be very active in many articles (that is of course good). If I had the intention of following you around to "undermine" you and undo your efforts, I would probably pop up much more often, right? As we both have an interest in the former Yugoslavia, it is probable that we will come across each other again. That is not harassing by any stretch of imagination, but you are of course welcome to report me if you feel you have a case. As for "diminishing your standing on Wikipedia", why would I waste time on doing something that you do so much better yourself?JdeJ (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. It seems that you suffer from an absolute lack of knowledge on this matter. Check sides in conflict in Battle of the Neretva in the 1st half of 1943! Chetniks were still Axis forces. From summer 1943 things were changing, ex-Chetniks were gradually mobilised to the Partisan forces (mostly during 1944). In too many cases, Britannica is not relevant source for the out of Anglo-Saxon world. And there's another moment, Serbian king in exile escaped to England in 1941. Already before WWII he had good political relations with English Monarchy, monarchists in Europe were always supporting each other and Serbian ruler was the only monarch in countries of Old Yugoslavia, therefore the only possible political partner from English monarchist point of view. What Britannica says is nothing but reflection of the political activity of Serbian monarch in exile and his descendents (who still live in England) after WWII, whose primal intention was and is revision of role played by Chetniks in WWII, unfortunatelly fake one. It only shows how influental Serbian loby is in England. By the way, I've checked, Britannica is tertiary source, according to categorization of sources you use in wikipedia, at the same level as wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your "ha ha", it was very convincing. I think you will find that most Wikipedia editors tend to place more trust in Encyclopedia Britannica than in the opinions of an anonymous user.JdeJ (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. Every kid in the Balkans knows who was on what side in WWII. I don't think that you will find many Serbs who will support weird idea launched by Serb nationalist user up there and you. Use some real source, not overrated Britannica. Why do you even mess with topic completely uknown to you? I suggest you to learn the basic facts about WWII in the Balkans, before coming here. You're building reputation of an unserious encyclopedist this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your sympathy for my lack of knowledge, it is of great comfort to me in my beliefs in the overrated Encyclopedia Britannica instead of the opinions of anonymous users.JdeJ (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should concentrate more on the fact that Chetnik collaboration is sourced, and that one cannot be a resistance and collaborating movement at the same time. This is not "opinion", as your transparent "rhetoric" would suggest, but is the most fundamental logic. This discussion is on labeling the WWII Chetnik movement as a whole with the category "first resistance movement of WWII". However, a movement cannot be considered both a "resistance movement" (B) and a "collaborating movement" (A), since these categories are quite obviously mutually exclusive by definition. In order for the Chetniks to be the "first resistance movement of WWII" (C), then they first must be considered a "resistance movement" (B), in other words, C follows from B. If (published, reliable) sources have confirmed that A is true, then B is excluded, and if B is excluded then C cannot be possible either. Briefly, if A ⊕ B, B ⇒ C, and A is SOURCED to be true, then it is ridiculous to suggest that A ⇒ C, or in other words, that C is true (to put it simply). It is called exclusive disjunction.
Now, you're sure to quickly try and dismiss the above as complex "mumbo-jumbo" or whatnot. Therefore I must remind you that this is simply a sickeningly overcomplicated detailed depiction of the point I have been repeating over and over again above. In the face of your constant insistence that this is just my opinion, and not a logical conclusion based on proven fact. Or am I supposed to find a text about the chetniks that explicitly states the negative just in case? Perhaps a list of all the thing the Chetniks were not? "...oh and by the way, the Chetniks were not a nomadic tribe, they were not Vikings, and they were not the first resistance movement of World War II, they were also not a traveling band of magicians, an American football team, etc..." Proving a negative is efefctively not possible, and the one opposed to a positive statement is always at a disadvantage by people using the argumentum ad ignorantiam, but only seemingly so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is all very impressive as a home-work assignment in philosophy for school kids, but has little relevance to what we're discussing. You're saying we have sources establishing the Chetniks as collaborators, that is perfectly correct. You also say that a movement that collaborated couldn't be a resistance movement. That is just your personal opinion. As any historian could tell you, the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement but increasingly collaborated with the Germans. Some units remained restistance units to the end, some collaborated very early. In your view, everything must be either black or white, but that is not how the world works. So while I don't deny Chetnik collaboration for a moment, and why would I, it still doesn't support your argument as the sitatuion isn't as simple as A ⊕ B.JdeJ (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Undo weight

Cetnik fighting forces were AGAINT the Nazis for the majority of the war (over 95% of the war). So a picture of them with Nazis placed UNDO WEIGHT towards a small period of the war (Is NOT reflective of reality)Rex Dominator (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to remove virtually the only good photo of Chetnik troops from the Chetniks article? "95% of the war"? What's that, your personal approximation? Blowing up a few token trains and rescuing a hundred western Allied airmen somehow pales in comparison to their contribution of 20,000 troops to the great German anti-Partisan offensives such as Fall Weiss and Fall Schwartz. Are you aware that the Chetniks were cut off from virtually all of their Allied supplies in 1943 and were increasingly dependent on the occupation forces for their "bullets and butter"? At wars end, Chetnik troops are even found surrendering alongside Axis formations in places such as Bleiburg. So, while some Chetnik guy somewhere must have fired a gun at a German or Ustaše even in May 1945, that does by no means classify the Chetniks as an "Allied", "anti-German" combatant for "95% of the war".

But all this is not really important. Your edit was reverted, you know full well that it is contested and opposed, but you immediately switched to edit-warring as a means of pushing your "95% opinions" on the article (see WP:EDIT WAR). This image is clearly very much related to the subject of the article, and is the only good photo of Chetniks in it. Removing such images from articles in such a way, without consensus or even discussion, based only on vague claims of "undo weight" founded in personal opinion, may well be classified as vandalism and edit-warring. What we have here is basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image because it places WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German collaboration. Also, the picture is found at the very top of the page (doesn't fit with the text).Rex Dominator (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring discussion? Removing sources and valid related images? Edit-warring to push your edit? Be absolutely sure that next time you will be reported. Your edits have been contested and reverted, valid reasons have been given. Please do not try to push your edits with edit warring. Wait and discuss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture makes the whole article biased. Firstly, Cetniks did not have a large participation with the Fascists. So when you push you BIAS by placing a picture on top of the page, where it doesnt seem to even belong since it doesnt match the text you are being biased, and placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fascist collaboration. Now you are treating me when I TRY to remove the vial filth that you put as a propaganda tool, you attack me and try to silence my right to make the article fair.Rex Dominator (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To simplify my arguments

• The picture doesn't fit with the contents. Its placed on the top of the page.
• Cetniks were NOT aligned with the fascist except for a brief period so it places WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Rex Dominator (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• All lead images are placed on the top of the page. That image was in the lead for ages.
• The Chetniks were increasingly aligned with the Axis throughout WWII. In 1945 they were a fully collaborating movement (this is sourced). It is hard to place an exact date on when they were predominantly collaborating. Some say already from the First anti-Partisan offensive (1941), when they aided the Germans against the Partisans, but 1943 is most prominent because of the participation of tens of thousands of their troops in German operations Fall Weiss and Fall Schwartz, as well as their loss of support even from the western Allies (Tehran conference) which resulted in their subsequent full dependence on the Axis for supplies.

LoL, please stop quoting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT :), as it is utterly ridiculous and simply shows your lack of understanding of both WP:NPOV and the historical context you are "discussing".

By the end of WWII, i.e. in the last state of affairs of their existence (in WWII), Chetniks had an extremely large participation with the Axis. They fought alongside the Axis on all fronts, and we even find them marching alongside other collaborators and Axis forces in Bleiburg (see Bleiburg massacre). Draža Mihailović had a military liaison to the headquarters of the German occupation forces. The Chetniks and the Serbian State Guard were united as one force in late 1944 and 1945 under the command of Mihailović, and continued to fight against Yugoslav (Allied) and Soviet (Allied) military forces, while receiving large amounts of supplies from the Germans (this is all sourced).

Re:"Now you are treating me when I TRY to remove the vial filth that you put as a propaganda tool, you attack me and try to silence my right to make the article fair."

Your "right to make the article fair"? There are no "rights" on Wikipedia, and your personal opinions on what's fair and what's not are completely irrelevant. I am not using any kind of "propaganda tools" (you are being typically paranoid) but am reverting the removal of a valid related image from the article. It is one of the best images of Chetniks troops available, and shows them in good relations with the German forces, as was the predominant state of affairs by the end of WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your statements are delusional. Look at what a real encyclopedia Britannica defines Cetniks as: member of a Serbian nationalist guerrilla force that formed during World War II to resist the Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought a civil war against the Yugoslav communist guerrillas, the Partisans.. Your action are creating a propaganda article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fascist collaboration. Please request a mediation if you don't agree with the definition of the encyclopedia.since your actions are not logical. I keep giving you facts and you keep attacking me and frankly im sick of these attacks.Rex Dominator (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Britannica? Britannica is not some kind of gospel and "ultimate source". It is known to make quite a few mistakes. We are by no means supposed to quote Britannica, or use its wording verbatim. The Wikipedia article is adequately sourced, especially the collaboration. the Wikipedia article is far more sourced

LoL... let me use your own quote to demonstrate: "...primarily fought a civil war against the Yugoslav communist guerrillas, the Partisans.". In 1943, the Partisans became the Allied military forces of Yugoslavia. In 1944 the Chetniks were denounced by the King and the royalist government-in-exile, both of which soon endorsed the Partisans as the Yugoslav forces as well. Fighting a war against Yugoslav Allied forces while receiving supplies from the Germans in order to do so - is collaboration. This is not open for debate, and you "newbish" idea that Britannica somehow trumps everything is comical. Please bear in mind that Britannica does not say much on the subject of their collaboration - it is not a relevant source in that respect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are not discussing. Simply stating your (irrelevant) opinions over and over again and completely ignoring the other side's is not discussion, and is detrimental to the civility of the discourse. Not only that, but it testifies to the typical lack of objectivity (brought on by profound bias) and attests to the fact that you are here on an agenda of improving the Chetniks' "image". Your tags are completely biased, as finding one not-quite-fully-reliable source in the section does not make the whole section "unreferenced". You just wish it were unreferenced so that you can remove even more things you do not like, thus furthering your obvious agenda... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how i can get a mediation and how to report people since im new.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this simply for you: your tag says "This section does not cite any references or sources.". The section most certainly DOES cite quite a lot of references or sources. You are misusing tags (because of your profound bias). Feel free to "report" me whenever you like :), be sure your content blanking and edit-warring to push your disputed edits will not be omitted from the conversation. And yes, I can see that you're new around here... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

  Definition: The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany 
 in the two world wars. Please see reference. 

DIREKTOR, by placing the picture at the top of the page, you are creating a biased article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German-Cetnik collaboration. Look at the definition once again.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

So... this is the third time you will start repeating yourself? How about you actually read my replies this time? Chetnik collaboration is not controversial nor is it open to debate. We have more than enough published sources by professional historians as well as primary sources from German military records. Please read them as well. You should also read what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (i.e. professional works by historians).

• You removed images and engaged in content blanking.
• You engaged in edit-warring to push an edit - even after you knew it was disputed, and that discussion is the next step.
• You contined to revert-war in pushing completely wrong templates into the article, probably because you do not like the section headings.

I reverted your content blanking and blatant misuse of templates, and I did my absolute best to engage in a proper discussion. You simply ignored my posts, repeated your opinions and used some encyclopedia summaries as proof of Chetnik "non-collaboration" (when contradicted by the mountain of other sources in this article). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My last attempt?

What shall i do with you? Ok i will simplify my argument for the 6th time. Right now, as is, the entire section, is cited, by a blog, and a so called "book". By stating that Chetniks "collaborated" with the Nazis you are going against encayclopedia Britanica, which says that they fought against Nazis. I cant simplify it any more. Grow up.24.36.179.22 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My problems with you

• You don't offer discussion, nor sources, as exemplified above.
• You CHANGE my word, here on the discussion page.
• Once again, I prove, using a source, that you are wrong, and you dont offer discissuion except attacking me

  Definition: The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany 
 in the two world wars. Please see reference. 

DIREKTOR, by placing the picture at the top of the page, you are creating a biased article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German-Cetnik collaboration. Look at the definition once again.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Prove to me, as you cliam, otherwise. Rex Dominator (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rex Dominator, kindly READ THE SOURCES. I will not waste my time copy/pasting all the references for you. You think that because you quoted these sentences, and I did not actually link to anything in the talkpage, that "you have sources and I don't". Read the damn article. Read the sources in the article before you say there are no sources.... I already stated in brief all the facts that are supported by sources - three times. If you think for a second that a source is somehow "invalid" because you cannot see it on the net, be sure to think again (and read Wikipedia policy). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument is right above. I followed your so called source to Bleiburg massacre. Guess what, that article also lacks sources in connection between Nazis and Cetniks. Simply put, my view is that this is a propaganda page against Cetniks. I shell give you respect when im talking to you yet i find it harder each time. I will restate my argument. The definition according to encyclopedia sources, among other sources is, posted above. They fought against Germans, by definition so when you try to put a picture at the top of the page, you are creating a false perception of Cetniks in minds of viewers. Do you agree with encyclopedia the Britiania definition that Cetniks fought against the Germans?Rex Dominator (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an "argument". Your sources do not state anything about Chetnik collaboration, and the article is full of sources on the subject that talk about just that. To claim that I have no sources just because I haven't linked them in the talkpage is a joke. Your tags are ludicrous, your edits are nonsense, and you're ignoring whatever I write. From now on I'll be brief. Wouldn't want to bore you with the lists of facts sourced in the article. Just be sure your agenda will not pass... I certainly won't waste my time listing all the sources when they're already listed in the article, here's a taster though:

This is one of the many places where the OKW reports on Chetnik collaboration are posted. This is indeed only some stupid forum (as you're sure to point out soon), but the quotes are sourced in great detail - all the way up to the archive, document, and page of the Wehrmacht document that they quote. As primary sources, the OKW reports on the Chetniks are invaluable and their origin is explained in detail below each quote. There isn't a shred of doubt as to their authenticity. Though, I'm pretty sure you will dismiss every singe source that contradicts your preconceptions and your agenda... Read this thread on the talkpage as well.

Remember that there are about a dozen other similarly powerful sources listed in the article, and that I simply have not the time to list them all out here for you. Kindly read them and stop with the template misuse and edit-warring. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The site "wordpress", posted above as source, is a Blog so its not a valid source at all. Blogs are specifically defined as not valid source in WP:sources. This is what I'm talking about when i placed the tags needed. Please provide me with one valid source that proves collaboration.Rex Dominator (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I emphasize the word "READ". READ my post. I stated myself that this is indeed just a blog I found in five minutes, but that the OKW reports listed there are SOURCED in detail in the blog itself. (You can find the OKW reports posted as a primary source in many places, I just picked the first.) Right next to every quote, you have the exact archive, document, and page where the quote can be found. These are most certainly NOT fabrications. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop beating around the bush. Meaning, if you have valid sources then bring them here. Rex Dominator (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

These are perfectly valid and uncontested primary sources. I'm starting to lose my temper. Let me emphasize the following two sentences as much as possible, please read them extremely carefully:

The sources are listed in the article. Read them yourself. I am NOT here so you can order me about and make me explain all the sources to you because you don't feel like doing the damn research before editing an article.

Your silly WWI poster is obviously completely unrelated to the subject of this article. This is not something I'm about to discuss with you. Find images related to the Chetniks in some way, and do not clutter the article with just any image related to Serbian history. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem/Solution (temporary)

• Problem- The section "Ethnic cleansing" and "Axis collaboration" is cited by foreign Wikipedia pages, offline books, and a blog.
• Solution (temporary)- I want, a poorly referenced section tag, or, section deletion.

• Problem- Chetniks are defined as Serbian nationalists who fought mainly against the German in both world wars, as defined by an Encayclopedia (i cited this Quote above). The picture at the top of the page, is unoutsourced, and creates a biased page by placing too much emphasis on the so called, uncited, collaboration.
• Solution- removal of the picture.

Feel free to comment about the proposed solution Rex Dominator (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tags. The sections are well referenced. You just did not (or can not) read the sources. This is not my concern. Ridiculous tags like "unsourced section" will be removed.
• Image. Nationalist POV-pushing and removal of content will be reported.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop, your trying to argue for the propaganda info, weakly sourced, to stay up

List of refrences in the "Axis collaboration" section that backup "the collaboration"

• 7David Martin, Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich, (New York: Prentice Hall, 1946), 34.
• "Please refer to sources cited in the Serbian Wikipedia article"
• http://srpskaistorija.livejournal.com/tag/serbian+nazi+cellaboration+massacre+of+m

Literally, these are all of the sources in that section. So a "book", refrence to a foreign language wiki article and a blog are ALL of the sources. Rex Dominator (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop creating talk sections every two hours

...you're making a mess of things on the talkpage.

• The "book", is a published work by a professional historian.
• The reference to the Serbian Wiki is perfectly legitimate. No reason why you should list it as "unreliable". Have you thought of "please referring to the sources on the Serbian Wikipedia" instead of complaining? If you require translation from Serbian, I'd be happy to oblige.
• For the final time: the webiste (blog) lists quotes along with their sources. In other words, the source and origin of the primary sources is listed in detail in the webiste.

You are, however, right in one respect: not all sources for Chetnik collaboration have been listed in the article. There are others, and nobody ever took the time to insert them (this article needs work in general). If you care to look around the talkpage, you can READ other sources. Look Rex, if you're here to "fight for the fatherland" or "seek justice" or (as you said) "remove the vial filth!", you should know that that is not how things work around here. Its mostly a lot of READING... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an abundance of idiotic statements that seem to be made to kill the time of admins, and me. Once again, if you think that you have sources, do it, list them, stop wasting my time.Rex Dominator (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL I'm not wasting my time either (we idiots have a lot of stuff to do :), so since I already told you everything I'm going to, I can simply save my time and copy/paste everything for you. Great isn't it? :)
The sources are listed in the article. Read them yourself. I am NOT here so you can order me about and make me explain all the sources to you because you don't feel like doing the damn research before editing an article. Find someone else to boss around.

As for the image, what is your problem?? You remove an image actually depicting Chetnik troops and add a propaganda poster for the World War I Kingdom of Serbia?? Are you aware that the Chetniks virtually did not exist during WWI? What does a WWI poster for Serbia have to do with the Chetniks???? You can't just add any old image related to 20th century Serbian history --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

my last attempt?

Right now as the section stands it is cited by a blog. this is why it deserves the tag. Rex Dominator (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are six or seven very good sources available on the Chetniks, some of them have been cited now in the article itslef, but the article should be carefully rewritten fully describing the exact way in which Chetnik collaboration (and the collaboration of Draža Mihailović) took place. If for no other reason, then to silence these sort of "crusaders" arriving in the article every now and again... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex? You're strangely quiet...? Can I get a response? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... what are we going to do with all these meaningless sections...? We'll have to archive the talkpage. In the future, Rex, please: ONE (1) section per discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Further additions

I was just editing when the page got protected. I'll post the new text on the talkpage until the article gets unprotected (its sourced from three different university publications). I'm thinking of adding two new "Collaboration with the Germans" and "Battle of Neretva" subsections, and maybe a "Relations with the Serbian Military Administration"

Collaboration with the Italians

Chetnik collaboration with the occupation forces of fascist Italy took place in three main areas: in Italian-occupied (and Italian-annexed) Dalmatia, in the Italian puppet state of Montenegro, and in German and Italian-occupied Slovenia. The collaboration in Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia was the most widespread, however, and the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks took place earlier in those areas. The Partisans considered all occupation forces the fascist enemy, while the Chetniks hated the Ustaše but balked at fighting the Italians, and had approached the Italian VI Army Corps (General Renzo Dalmazzo, commander) as early as July and August of 1941 for assistance via a Serbian politician from Lika, Stevo Rađenović. In particular, Chetnik leaders (vojvoda-s) Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin and Dobroslav Jevđević were favorably disposed towards the Italians, because they believed Italian occupation over the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be detrimental to the influence of the Ustaše state. For this reason, they sought an alliance with the Italian occupation forces in Yugoslavia. The Italians (General Dalamazzo) looked favorably on these approaches and hoped first to avoid fighting the Chetniks, and then use them against the Partisans, which they thought would give them an "enormous advantage". An agreement was concluded on January 11 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović. Among other provisions of the agreement, it was agreed that Italians would support the Chetnik formations with arms and provisions, and would fracilitate the release of "recommended individuals" from Axis concentration camps (Jasenovac, Rab...). The chief interest of both the Chetniks and Italians would be to assist each other in combating the Partisan resistance.

In the following months of 1942, General Mario Roatta, commander of the Italian 2nd Army, worked on developing a Policy Directive (Linea di condotta) on relations with the Chetniks, the Ustaše and the Partisans. In line with these efforts, General Vittorio Ambrosio outlined the Italian policy in Yugoslavia: all negotiations with the (quisling) Ustaše were to be avoided, but contacts with the Chetniks were "advisable" - as for the Partisans: "struggle to the bitter end". This meant that General Roatta was essentially free to take action with regard to the Chetniks as he saw fit. He outlined the four points of his policy in his report to the Italian Army General Staff:

To support the Chetniks sufficiently to make them fight against the communists, but not so much as to allow them too much latitude in their own action; to demand and assure that the Chetniks do not fight against the Croatian forces and authorities; to allow them to fight against the communists on their own initiative (so that they can "slaughter each other"); and finally to allow them to fight in parallel with the Italian and German forces, as do the nationalist bands [Chetniks and separatists] in Montenegro.

— General Mario Roatta, 1942

Collaboration with the NDH

After the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks in Serbia, the Chetnik groups in central, eastern, and northwestern Bosnia found themselves caught between the German and Ustaše (NDH) forces on one side and the Partisans on the other. In early 1942 Chetnik Major Jezdimir Dangić approached the Germans in an attempt to arrive at an understanding, but was unsuccessful, and the local Chetnik leaders were forced to look for another solution. The Chetnik groups were in fundamental disagreement with the Ustaše on practically all issues, but they found a common enemy in the Partisans, and this was the overriding reason for the collaboration which ensued between the Ustaše authorities of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) and Chetnik detachments in Bosnia. The first formal agreement between Bosnian Chetniks and the Ustaše was concluded on May 28 1942, in which Chetnik leaders expresseed their loyalty as "citizens of the Independent State of Croatia" both to the state and its Poglavnik (Ante Pavelić). During the next three weeks, three additional agreements were signed, covering a large part of the area of Bosnia (along with the Chetnik detachments within it). By the provision of these agreements, the Chetniks were to cease hostilities against the Ustaše state, and the Ustaše would establish regular administration in these areas. The main provision, Art. 5 of the agreement was as follows:

As long as there is danger from the Partisan armed bands, the Chetnik formations will cooperate voluntarily with the Croatian military in fighting and destroying the Partisans and in those operations they will be under the overall command of the Croatian armed forces. (...) Chetnik formations may engage in operations against the Partisans on their own, but this they will have to report, on time, to the Croatian military commanders.

The necessary ammunition and provisions were supplied to the Chetniks by the Ustaše military. Chetniks who were wounded in such operation would be cared for in NDH hospitals, while the orphans and widows of Chetniks killed in these operation would be supported by the Ustaše state. Persons specifically reccomended by Chetnik commanders would be returned home from the Ustaše concentration camps (Jasenovac concentration camp). These agreements covered the majority of Chetniks forces in Bosnia east of the German/Italian demarcation line, and lasted throughout most of the war.

Images

• Chetniks/Germans image. User:Rex Dominator has recently moved the File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg. It was the main image (alongside the infobox) for I think at least a year (if not more). The User did so without consensus, knowing that the edit was opposed, and proceeded to edit-war in order to push his edit. The image is a photo showing Chetnik troops alongside German occupation troops in World War II Yugoslavia. When the dispute started, User:Rex Dominator removed the (obviously related) image altogether from the article, claiming WP:UNDUE (that Chetnik collaboration did not take place). After seven new scholarly sources were introduced, showing that the claim of WP:UNDUE is unfounded (i.e. that Chetniks did indeed collaborate "more than a little"), the user moved the established image down in order to "hide" it (classic WP:IDL). I oppose his move, apparently because I "own the article"...
• Medal image. One of the leaders of the Chetnik movement received the Legion of merit medal. User:Rex Dominator introduced an image of a Legion of merit medal (not the one the Chetnik received). I oppose this addition because I believe that an image of just any object mentioned in the text is not grounds for adding it into the article. I.e. I hold that a picture of a medal one leader of the Chetniks also received is not relevant to the subject of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

References

The definition of Chetniks is, "The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany in the two world wars." as cited. Your ref links dont work. Fix them so I can see if they are worthy sources. Right now, all you have is claims.Rex Dominator (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)