Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslav Partisans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.212.111.58 (talk) at 12:49, 21 August 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Ethnic Composition"

It strikes me that there is a potential problem with the section on ethnic composition of the Partisan forces, especially as it pertains to Bosnia. It is stated that only 2.5% of those involved were deemed to be Bosniaks, but no mention is made of how this figure was arrived at. For one thing, anyone familiar with the region would surely agree that the notion of "identity" was a heavily contested one. It is very likely that many of those that have been identified as Croats and/or Serbs were likely Muslims, that is, Bosniaks. The practice of subscribing to one of the more dominant nationalism of neighboring states was a common practice for much of the population's history.

I think this is further made evident by the fact that the "unknown" category compromises nearly a quarter of the rank and file. I find it highly unlikely, for instance, that there would be that large of a disparity between Croatian anti-fascists and Bosniak ones, especially in the homeland of the former. Most accounts do clearly suggest that the leadership was dominated by Serbs and Croats, but I am wary of the figure presented here.

Perhaps some mention of this fact might be appropriate? - JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.186.147 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since at that time and after the war you could only declare yourself as Serb or Croat. Bosnian, Bosniak, was not an option until 1974 when "Muslim by nationality" was allowed. I personally know people who were in partisans, who declared themselves to be Serb or Croat when in reality they were Bosnian, and declare as such today. Can someone add this to the article, please.66.103.226.61 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books written in the seventies and the eighties of the last century where the ethnic makeup of the NOVJ in B&H is mentioned do take into account Muslims by nationality. In order to avoid any speculation, I have presented statistics from the books written in honour of the selected brigades- in this case, 7th Krajiska Brigade and 16th Muslim Brigade(which I have in my possesion and was included in the text). There, a detailed statistics of the composition of the Brigades are presented (including the ethnic background) followed by a full list of names (which can also help to identify someone who declered himself as a Serb but was clearly a Bosniak). I'll soon have a detailed account of 14th Udarna Srednjobosanska Brigade, 10th Udarna Herzegovina Brigade and 20th Kozara Brigade, where as I'm told the composition mostly resembles that of the 7th Krajiska Brigade. However, I'll wait to get my hands on the source before I presented it. Cheers...byxl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.3.40 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak population at the time, let’s be honest about it, was the only ethnic group in Yugoslavia without any kind of national program or agenda. Aside from local Militia, which had no real strategic goals, Jajce and ZAVNOBIH was the first political and military structure, which gave Muslims an opportunity, first one since the Ottomans left the Region, to claim political power in this new South Slavic Union. That’s why Muslims joined NOB en masse since 1943 and onwards. Also, in Dalmatia, Croats overwhelmingly joined Partisan movement, not because Dalmatian Croats were generaly communists, but due to the lack of other option, since they were fully occupied by Italy, having Partisan Movement as the only natural choice to join in the struggle, whereas in the rest of Croatia, B&H and parts of Serbia under NDH rule, Croats had no real reason to rebel against Axis powers at first. Their national hopes and dreams seemed fulfilled. On the other hand, Serbs in Croatia and B&H were systematically eradicated from the start. Communist, with their impeccable organization skills, leadership and discipline realize that all to well and use the moment to gather the nucleus for their new army. In Serbia proper, where was natural to have a population loyal to the old regime, after the initial rebellion led by Chetniks and Partisans together, the German retribution (100 Serbs for 1 German soldier killed) followed and Serbs from Serbia proper mostly chose more passive line - the Chetniks over rebellious Partisans. For these reasons (generally speaking) the core of the Partisan troops at the start of the Uprising was mostly composed of Serbs from Croatia and B&H. My point is that the ethnic composition reflects the circumstances of the time, which have nothing to do with one nation being more anti fascist over the other. Cheers, BYXL

Again?

Imbris, again? Unsurprisingly, the Serbo-Croatian language (called "Serbo-Croato-Slovene", but virtually identical) was the official language of the unitarianist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. So much so that when the Partisans were formed (mid-1941, a few weeks after the surrender of the Royal Army) there was no other recognized Štokavian language. None. The Partisans promised to reinstate them as official, but that's a whole different story.
Now, I apologize for my alleged "interrogativeness", but please explain your edit. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you wrote is pure WP:OR. First of all there were no official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the sittuation was — in statu nascendi — moving toward a unified Yugoslavian nationality and language. The Yugoslavian monarchy dropped the triune-tribe theory and moved toward Yugoslavianism. In any case there should be written [[Serbo-Croatian language|Serbo-Croato-Slovene]]
Second – recognized by whom, the new-Yugoslavian policy installed in 1937 was a positive Stalinist Marxist view on supporting of nations, like Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians in their right to self-determination (including the right to secession), right of their own language, culture, political representation as equals, etc.
Imbris (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand: there are no fifty languages here, Serbo-Croatian language = Serbo-Croato-Slovene = (hypothetical) "Yugoslav language". It is the same damn thing. There is no seperate Croato-Serbian, or "Yugoslav" languages. The "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" was the language used as official in pre-war Yugoslavia.
I am fascinated by your logic, though: if there was no Croatian language, no Bosnian language, no Serbian language, no Slovene language, no Serbo-Croatian language, no Serbo-Croato-Slovene, and no "Yugoslav language", what language did exist in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? No wait, let me guess: Croatian somehow managed to exist without being official while Serbo-Croatian did not, in a unitarianist state no less? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop patronising. Serbo-Croato-Slovene was a name for the common language of triune-named-nation of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It apparently also included the spoken language of Macedonians (even they did not officialy exist by the decree of the king and his clique). Stop with historical revisionism, you are deliberately excluding the Slovene language to get away with your POV. This is pure WP:SYN what you are doing.
All this time the ordinary folk kept reffering to their Maternal language under its "tribal" name, Tribes being nations — fully aware of their heritage — Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, Serbs (joined by unitarist Montenegrins). The language was at official levels reffered to as Maternal, People's language, and in high-circles as Yugoslav, Yugoslavian, Serbo-Croato-Slovene, but without official decree of any kind.
Croatian language is the undead, nothing has managed to distroy it, which is best visible today, when the majority speaks Croatian (even if that is not good Croatian) in Croatia and wherever Croatians live.
Imbris (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's so romantic, all of it. Unfortunately nothing you write here now can change the fact that unitarianist pre-war Yugoslavia supported the unified language most commonly known as "Serbo-Croatian". That's fact. Claiming that the Serbo-Croatin language somehow did not exist after the country was renamed into Yugoslavia (and started pursuing total unitarianism) is down right ridiculous.
You're making no sense, whatsoever. Let me get this straight: you claim that in the most unitarianist Yugoslav state in history Croatian and Serbian existed while the unified Serbo-Croatian somehow ceased to exist when the country became unitarianist (renamed to Yugoslavia)? I'm sorry, but that's kindergarten-level absurdity. Its a wild stretch concocted by your rabid nationalist POV trying to "de-Serbianize" articles with absurd, petty, and provocative edits. I'm going to bed, tomorrow I'm posting an RfC on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to settle your nonsense once and for all. You obviously need five people telling you you're ridiculously wrong before you consider the possibility. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Led" or "dominated"?

In 1941 the Communist Party of Yugoslavia formed the Yugoslav Partisans along with a number of other anti-fascist parties and organizations in Yugoslavia. They were not forced into this, and were never "subjugated" by the CPY in any way. The CPY organized the military forces of this "coalition" and never faced any opposition from other members of the "coalition".
In any case, I wish you would read sources before editing, the terms used were not picked at random. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, probably the best source on the net for encyclopedic NPOV wording, uses the term "led". [1] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croats underrepresented

In 1944 the croats accounted for only 60% of the partizan troops in croatia, and this was the time when croat support was at its peak. It is well known that most partizan support in croatia was initially from the serbs, due to the extreme genocidal terror that was being perpetrated against them by ustasha. With the imminent defeat of the ustasha, more croats joined. As we see, in late 1944, only 60% of croatia's partizans were actually croats... http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/statistics/partisans/ ...shows clear under-representation as the croats were some 80% of croatia's population after the slaughtering of hapless hundreds of thousands of serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Again?

You'll have to do better than that, LAz. Selective representation of sources will get you nowhere, not to mention your incredibly biased "personal touches". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not biased personal touches. I have sourced all my material. Any material out there that deals with ethnic composition in the early parto f the war suggests that the Serbs were most of partizans. This is in the early part of the war. It certainly makes sense, as the partizans were not active in places with many croats. There were VERY few croats back then and in this day in Western Serbia an Northern Montenegro. So what is your issue here? Quite frankly, Tim Judah, wrote an awarding winning book on this. He is by no means biased, and I have sourced him. He also notes other stuff... croat partizan enslitment happened for a few reasons... the movement of the partizans westward, after being pushed out of their initial locations. 2), Partizan enrollment was not so strictly serbian, they appealed to all nationalities while the chetniks did not, 3) chetniks did many crimes on innocent civilian croats, and bosniaks, and 3) mussolini's italization of dalmacia got many croats to join the partizans. Judah is a very respected author by all sides. Well maybe not since he wrote some pro-Albanian stuff later on, but he is very well respected nonetheless. I shall put him back. Him and those other sources. Thanks for your cooperation in keeping wikipedia a top notch non-biased place. Change your anti-serb behavior. Furthermore, there is no reference to the sisak brigade, so that will be taken off until you get a source. (LAz17 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm very busy right now, so I'll have to "fade away". I'll be back, though. cya soon --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you edit that stuff again? It is all sourced. Look into the sources. Do you have anything CONTRARY to that to offer? YOu do not, or at least have not so far. (LAz17 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

To DIREKTOR ex Udba

Will you stop deleting my posts or you want me to play your game! it is your choice!

I cannot believe that you are deleting the facts just to keep your myth about Yugoslav Partisans!

Yes they did fight Germans Yes they did Fight Italians Yes they did fight Ustase Yes they usually did fight Chetnik

And YES they committed huge amount of war crimes in that process

And All of these fact should be implemented!

Pleas stop deleting every thing you don't like regardless are they facts or not. We don live any more in Your Yugoslavia where every body had to think same and the "truth" was submitted by Communist Party regardless of facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Prvi zdrug (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partizani (locality)

In 2008 I came across a village in Bulgaria called Partizani. Since this article Partizani is redirected to Partisans I suggest a explanation site for Partizani. Sorry for the external link, with some more time I'll register at Wikimedia Commons and u/l the picture there. -- 84.180.168.161 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Front of Slovenian People

Liberation Front of the Slovenian People should be added to Formation section and a link could also be provided to TIGR, as many TIGR members joined partisans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raid at St. Lorenzen -> Raid at Ožbalt

This section is incorrect and contains wrong information.

Firstly it given impression as if there was some some outside command of the raid by some "Allied escape organization". Instead it was organizsed solely by POWs Ralph Churches and Les Laws with one outside Slovene informant (first breakout) and them in connection with Slovene Partizans (second raid).

Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria and even though near the border, this is not Slovenia. There was no resistance to Nazi government in Austria. The raid happened in Slovenia in place called Ožbalt near Lovrenc na Pohorju in Slovenia. Seven freed POWs spent the first night in Lovrenc na Pohorju, and the Šercer's Brigade operating in Slovene Styria and Pohorje just liberated Lovrenc na Pohorju from German presence in days around first breakout. Also in Sankt Lorenzen (1) in Austria there is no railway, which was maintained by POWs; while the railway goes directly through Ožbalt next to Drava river (2) (larger map with both shown (3)). Both places, Sankt Lorenzen and Lovrenc na Pohorju, are quite close, maybe that's the reason for the mixup.

I modified the original article, but it should be still moved to name Raid at Ožbalt (for some reason I can't do that). It should be checked by someone with better english skills and section in this article should be modified accordingly. I've also added some more outside documentation to the original article. Žarišče (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised: Wikipedia articles are named after the most common name in English. In English sources, the raid is called "Raid at St. Lorenzen". All else is irrelevant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald is in Austria. Railway doesn't go through Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald. Unless you are saying that POWs were reparing an imaginary invisible railway, this section is incorrect. Žarišče (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent POV

The Partisans were a movement that represented virtually every party and movement in Yugoslavia that opposed the Serbian-dominated monarchical dictatorship of the pre-war period. Many representatives in the AVNOJ were not socialists at all. The communist party led the coalition, but did not "dominate" it. Your wording, whatever its source, is unencyclopedic and quite incorrect, as it implies forceful control over other parties, movements and individuals of the AVNOJ. The communist party had neither the desire, the need, nor indeed the means to force people to enter into the People's Front coalition and support them in the middle of fighting Germany in one of the largest guerrilla wars in history.

There are many professional works on WWII Yugoslavia, and I've studied a lot (most?) of them. Before trying to bring your "communist exposition crusade" to these and similar articles, I would recommend, in the most friendly manner imaginable, that you read detailed works on the subject such as those of prof. Tomasevich [2] (without a doubt the most detailed and objective professional work on the subject, based mostly on OKW reports).

P.S. There is absolutely no reason to push the flag of the communist party into the article, simply because you think we need a little "red for communism". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in Slovenia, partisan movement spread from activities of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People. Liberation front was founded on 27th of April 1941, which means that resistance in Slovenia has nothing to do with Axis invasion of Soviet Union, as the text suggests. Resistance day, celebrated on 27th of April, is still a holiday in Slovenia. And as you can read on the page about Liberation Front, it was a coalition of following groups: Communist Party of Slovenia, Christian Socialists, people from Sokol movement and individuals, with other groups joining later (such as pre WW2 resistance group TIGR). To say that partisan ideology was communist is simply a facutal blunder and POV. Žarišče (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about actually adding some citations to the article which support these positions? Per WP:BURDEN the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Right now all I'm seeing is the replacement of sourced content with unsourced material and the wild allegation of POV pushing on the part of those editors who are actually using sources to what they are adding and are also kind enough to add edit summaries to the changes they have made. Lt.Specht (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not noticed the link? Communism is obviously included into the "left-wing coalition" entry, and the article clearly states the movement was led by the communist party. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source which is being used for Communism (Fisher) states that While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito. It would seem to be not NPOV to simply disregard that and leave other things in the ideology section which are not even currently sourced. If there are any other sources relating to ideology then please provide. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, if you continue to replace sourced content with unsourced material - the administrators will blocke you. Lt.Specht is absolutely right. BoDu (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they will follow your advice.
What is there to source? That the Partisans were the military wing of the People's Liberation Front? I presented Tomasevich's work here on the talkpage (which was ignored), where the Stanford scholar clearly describes the PLF as being the umbrella coalition of which the Partisans were essentially a military arm. The communist party was the leading member of the PLF, but the PLF obviously included other non-communist parties. Ideology of the PLF = ideology of the Partisans. How would you describe the ideology of the PLF? Communist?
In these sort of disputes the best thing to do is simply present the whole matter. I propose "Left-wing coalition, led by the communist party, republicanism, federalism" (the fact that the AVNOJ's goal was the formation of a federal republic is stated clearly in their declaration following the Second Session of the AVNOJ). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tomasevich's book was not ignored by myself. Although, I have only had the chance to briefly skim through it, which is why I requested if you know exactly what pages relate to politics/ideology it would be helpful. I'm in no way opposed to all aspects of the Partisans ideology being listed, as long as they are all properly sourced and cited (with reliable secondary sources, not proclamations/primary sources). In addition, according to Fisher, the Partisans main ideology was Communism, and it cannot be ignored. Having "led by the communist party" totally distorts what the source says. Lt.Specht (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, what you are doing is the WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original research. BoDu (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BoDu, you're not really doing or writing anything constructive here, though your POV-pushing nonsense contribution to the edit war is appreciated. The nonsense you've pushed will be easily removed with a quick skim through any real source. Hope you're having fun, Chetniks were traitors. :)
@Specht, let me get a few things straight:
  • The Partisans were the military arm of the Unitary People's Liberation Front (JNOF). Is this disputed?
  • The ideology of the JNOF is the ideology of the Partisans. Is this disputed?
  • There were many other distinctly non-communist political parties and factions that were included in the JNOF (in fact they actually far outnumbered the communists in every sense). Is this disputed?
If none of the above is disputed, I cannot see how we can be allowed t generalize in such a way as to present the JNOF as "communist". The source you've cited merely refers to the communist party's leading role in the coalition, a fact that should and has been pointed out. It is not a source that labels the whole movement as exclusively communist. (Tbh, I'm trying to avoid having to dig through five books just to prove a very obvious point that follows logically from the most basic facts. If the Partisans were of the JNOF, then they cannot be labeled as simply "communist", simple as that.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know enough about JNOF things to comment (and it's article is completely unsourced...). I would say however, whatever the ideology of the JNOF might of been, and if it was the "political arm", it does not necessarily mean that all of the Partisans believed the same things. As one could say the NSDAP was the "political arm" of the German army during WWII, but not all German soldiers adhered to its ideology. What you honestly seem to be proposing is some kind of original research, if the JNOF was the political leadership of the Partisans, then automatically all of the Partisans would hold the same. Also, Fisher does not merely refer to the Communist Party's leadership, the source says "While the 1944 Slovak National Uprising was fought not only by communists but also by democrats, in Croatia and the rest of Yugoslavia, the partisans were mostly influenced by the communist ideology of their leader, Josip Broz Tito." I also agree that labeling the Partisans in their entirety as Communist would be wrong, and more ideological stances should be added (properly sourced of course with attribution of the ideology to the Partisans). Lt.Specht (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is somewhat flawed. The NSDAP was the "political arm" of the SS, not the Wehrmacht (i.e. the SS was the military arms of the NSDAP). Since all SS troops were NSDAP members (apart from the non-aryan divisions), it is safe to say that the SS were Nazis. It is not safe to say the Partisans were communists, not by a long shot, since they were not the military arm of the communist party, but of the political coalition which the communist party founded, and which included utterly non-communist parties such as (a large faction of) the Croatian Peasants' Party.
I take your point that the Partisans might not've all necessarily shared the ideology of the JNOF in exact proportion to the parties included therein. In fact I'm willing to grant that most of them were likely communists by the end of the war, however: we do not know that. Reading your source I start to wonder whether it is possible to WP:VERIFY his claim. If there are no primary sources, the sentence is reduced to blind speculation on the part of an author. The whole thing then boils down to "Fisher considers that the Partisans were mostly communists". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if WP requires secondary sources to contain inline citations of primary sources being used. I believe it is the other way around and primary sources require secondary sources for interpretation. I can't be certain if Fisher does or doesn't make reference to a primary source with that phrase as the notes and bibliography sections of the book is unavailable on Google Books. However, in the Acknowledgments section she states that "During my PhD and book research, I interviewed more than one hundred Slovaks and Croats from political parties, government ministries, NGOs, the media, academia, and cultural organizations in an effort to better frame my approach to the complicated issues that are discussed in this book. While many of those interviews are feferenced directly in the text, other interviews provided me with insightful background information..." Her book has also cited somewhat in other works [3], and is published by an academic publisher. There are also literally dozens, if not more, of other reliable secondary sources which make note of the Partisans communist ideology or it being part of their ideology, and others labeling them as communists [4]. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an author's assertion is not backed by primary sources (interviewing 60 Croats is not a primary source), but is thus his own professional opinion, requesting that such an assertion be attributed to the author in the text is pretty standard - particularly if the statement is contested. In other words, the encyclopedia should state this is the author's own opinion.
Secondly, there is no question that communism was one of the ideologies of the Partisans, and I do not see the point of your confirming an unchallenged fact. Its just that they stood for a wide range of political views besides. Whether communism was the ideology of the majority of the movement just isn't known, and there is no way we can know whether it was. On that subject the only kind of information can possibly be author speculation (unless an assertion of that kind can be found that is backed-up by primary sources). To use your own words, we are dealing with highly controversial political labeling here, and cannot be too careful in pursuit of NPOV. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, saying that the communist party had a leading and founding role in the JNOF coalition is perfectly correct, it is even correct to state that their influence over the coalition increased significantly after the numerous military successes brought on by commanders who belonged to the communist party (particularly Josip Broz Tito). What I'm having trouble with is the assertion that the Partisans were "mostly communist(s)". This is unknown and highly speculative. The JNOF and Tito were actively backed by Winston Churchill, a staunch opponent of communism (a move that was later vindicated when Yugoslavia broke with the communist bloc). The Partisans are not a "standard-issue communist movement" the likes of which you can find in the Cold War, they are very much more complex and rather unique in their political diversity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lt.Specht, this issue is not resolved. Should you not respond I will edit the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have that much more to add for my opinion. Right now the article does not state that the Partisans were only or mostly communist. Other ideologies are welcome to be added if properly sourced. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not invited to express opinions, but to work towards WP:CONSENSUS on a text acceptable to both. You are under the wrong impression. If I do not edit the article to facilitate discussion, that does not mean we have agreed upon a version, nor that you've managed to force your opinions through. You may find this is very unlikely to work.
Quite simply, "Communist-led" is the most widely agreed-upon term describing Partisan ideology. This is what the infobox will say under "Ideology:". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be totally incorrect, dozens of reliable academically published sources do not state the Partisans ideology was only "Communist-led", they state that it was Communism or in part Communism. Oxford and MIT press would not be publishing this stuff if it was wrong. I would challenge you to find a source which states the ideology was "Communist-led". Lt.Specht (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If other sources exist which describe other ideologies it could be added as such "Communism, federalism, republicanism...etc." Lt.Specht (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herr Leutnant, please have a look at this link [5]. You really seem bent on making me waste time proving the obvious. "Communist-led" is also how the movement is described on Britannica, and by Wikipedia consensus on the World War II article itself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Koven, please do not edit-war, lets keep the article stable while the discussions are on. Feel free to join-in however. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koven's edit used encyclopedia britannica and a google search as references, neither comply with WP:RELIABLE, so I have reverted it. (Hohum @) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the fact that the Partisans were led by communists (they also had communist political commissars). Having "Communist-led" for the Partisans ideology is a completely different thing, however. After looking through some of the books in the search result its important to note that many of them discuss further what the ideology/goals of the Partisans were rather than just only the fact that they were led by communists. For example, in Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed (Columbia University Press, 1995) by Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine the authors write on page 136:
"...Finally, it became a struggle for a revolutionary social transformation, since the Communist Party of Tito and his Partisans espoused an ideology that advocated an end to the old order. These three conflicts were interwoven and at times indistinguishable. They resulted in violence and devastation of unprecedented proportions, but they also led to a radical recasting of Yugoslav society along lines dictated by Tito and his triumphant Partisans. Bosnia, in the geographic center of Yugoslavia, was at the heart of these epic struggles. Its rough, mountainous terrain and the immediately adjacent areas of Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia became the primary theater of conflict between the Communist-led Partisans and the German and Italian invaders who relentlessly pursued them."
Another source that I found seems to sum everything up, that the Partisans were indeed led by communists, and that some of the Partisans espoused the same ideology.
"The Partisans, under Tito, were Communist-led and gathered all the others in the resistance for all-out war against the Germans. In the end, the Chetniks fought arm in arm, according to Radomir, with the Germans against their brother Yugoslavs, opposing the Partisans as Communists, though in fact, the Partisans were only a partially Communist group." The monks of Mount Athos: a western monk's extraordinary spiritual journey on eastern holy ground (SkyLight Paths Publishing, 2003) by M. Basil Pennington.
To conclude, its quite easy to see that the Partisans were at least partially communist, and espoused the ideology of communism. Having simply "Communist-led" under ideology completely distorts what dozens of sources say, and is certainly not NPOV. Lt.Specht (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And because various groups joined Partisans (such as Christian Socalists in Slovenia, and other groups in other republics of ex-Yu) it is also quite easy to see that the Partisans were also at least partially under influence of other ideologies, such as Christian Socialism. Editors of the article should name the ideologies of all participants of the partisan movement, not just communism, or extract commonalities of those ideologies (and that's how I understood Director's "Left-wing coalition, republicanism, federalism"). 89.212.111.58 (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans&oldid=380142643"