Talk:Chetniks

Concerning Operation Halyard

The following is a quote from Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history By Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman (Texas A&M University Press, 1996) page 48 [1]. It will be used as a source for a text that will be included in the "Operation Halyard" subsection of the article. The work is has been published by the Texas A&M University. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots including 343 Americans from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 [note: this is Operation Halyard] has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. Indeed, with the Allied Support shifted from Mihailović to Tito, Mihailović's Chetniks were courting renewed Allied support and made great efforts to demonstrate their willingness to assist the Allies. However, none of these sources mentiones that the Chetniks rescued German aviators as well as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944, and still, on other occasions, Mihailović's men hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Germans. [primary sources listed by author(s)]
Despite claims that the Chetniks were devoted to a common cause with the Allies, the Chetniks were neither genuinely anti-Axis nor pro-Axis in orientation, but primarily opportunists for Greater Serbia, for which cause they solicited both Axis and Allied support.

wow, what a source from the peak-time of anti-serb propaganda in the us... now this source is stored where it belongs: goerge bush library ! btw: croats should take care of ustashe, and serb should take care of tchetniks... THATS how it works... otherwise your just another croat trying to blame the other side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.103.46 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I really can't understand how can someone speak like this without evidence.This page was probably written by Croat or Muslim nationalist.First of all ,there is no proof that Draza Mihajlovic was found guilty because of high treason and war crimes.He was sentenced to death because he fought against partisans(which was found as treason), but of course is not,and he didn't commit war crimes either.Those crimes were commited by Milan Nedic and Kosta Pecanac,and all people know that both of those weren't under command of Draza Mihajlovic.Even if you find proof that he got sentenced to death because of high treason and war crimes , you will not find proof that he commited those things , because he didnt.Stop spreading anti-serb propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodragristic (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Article Protection

Wow, total bust... I really am rarely wrong about socks it would appear (YaY for me). Not only User:Rex Dominator, but also User:Easy4all, have all been blocked by checkuser for confirmed sockpuppeteering along with nine other socks on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex Dominator. The non-existent dispute is now essentially over (I feel so alone now... :). Thanks for your participation, radek, your objectivity is commendable.
Toddst1, please unblock the article. The dispute, if there ever was a real one, is now definitely over. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, glad to have tried to help.radek (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible semi-protection in the future

This article will most likely require semi-protection in the future. Once the full protection is lifted and the new sources are introduced, IP socks of the indeffed users will quite probably march in. There's already some trouble on the talkpage. Just being "prophetic"... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's currently fully protected and I'm likely to extend that based on the conflict apparent on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't currently a conflict because the edit warring socks are now blocked, so the full protection isn't serving any purpose at the moment. The socks in that SSP case obviously exhibit some nationalist PoV agenda, so if they return, semi-protection should be warranted. If there's any editors not connected to any socking who legitimately want to raise issues about the article, feel free to do so. But further edit warring will likely result in re-protection. So I'll be unprotecting this article unless there's a reason as to what the current full protection is serving. Spellcast (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "conflict apparent on this page". The full protection is currently completely unjustified. The dispute because of which this article was full-protected is certainly over. Troll outbursts by IPs of indeff blocked sockpuppeteers are not a "conflict". A simple question: exactly who are the Users supposedly "in conflict"? I am frankly surprised you did not even read my post on your talkpage informing you that User:Rex Dominator has been indeff blocked as a sock troll. Shall I ring him up and end the "conflict"? :)

This article needs plenty of work. It is wrong to keep it blocked at all, let alone for no reason whatsoever, and especially when there are users willing to fix it (basing the edits closely on proper sources). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did the talk page go?

Where did the talk page go? It was much bigger. Someone must have whipped it clean. It should be restored. (LAz17 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Archived. Way too big. See the talkheader for the archives link. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of četnik

I have corrected the etymology of the word četnik as it was incorrect. The source of the etymology is http://hjp.srce.hr/index.php?show=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.16.68 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

what happened you couldn't handle the truth so you erased it like croats muslims and albanians erase their history. Croatia was built on serbian childrens blood and you have the nerve to write what you write, i and countless others from the evangelical church here in america will continue to write wikipedia to get you to shut down your disgusting twist of the truth. No matter how you croats, albanians or muslims try the world knows the truth about how Serbs won WWI, how Serbs won WWII with Chetniks, and how the 90's wars was started by the croats, muslims, slovenians. These are historical facts, you have interpretations not facts. You have no eyewitness accounts, that is why you like every croat uses false accusation assualts against the truth. You throw accusations to divert against the truth. But we will be relentless in writing wikipedia to take you down and also to take the truth to world, we are preparing we have the money, can you hear the truth coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorusa (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See Also Section

I saw a change made to the "See Also" section a day or two ago and this morning that change was reverted. Before tempers flare I might suggest that the section be made alphabetical. This is suggested by WP:MOS but not required. This is just a suggestion. JodyB _talk 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I apologise JodyB, I didn´t read your sugestion here before doing the revert. Well, much help is needed from some admin here. The point is not just an edit or two, there is a much larger discussion taking place in [2]. The problem also lies in the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. There has been a war-editing with [[user:DIREKTOR that insists in pushing the collaborationism side. The problem is that, the organisation was founded as resistance movement, and it stayed pretty much that way troughout the war, despite some elements K.Pecanac Chetniks collaborated, and were punished by the rest of the Chetniks because of it. Also, the Chetniks were mostly formed by former Serbian WWI fighters, that fought the Austrians and Germans in WWI. They never had any simpaties between them, and they had some collaboration by the end of the war, when the Communist Partisans were being very efficient. The Chetniks, as Royalists, obviously hated the Partisans, so it is really a 3 side war here. Now, Direktor insists they are to be considered only and mostly as collaborators, while their leader and thus the movement were condecorated in the USA and France for their war efforts fighting the Germans. Is he telling they codecorated a "collaborator"? He knows more then USA or France? He insists in this theory maynly because he is a Tito sympatiser and a Croatian, so he has no reason to simpatise with them. I just wan´t to have the articles in a more NPOV way. I am not deniying collaboration, but they were a very important resistance moviment, so we can´t just forget that because some editor just don´t like it. I would be very pleased if this was over soon, but the dialogue with Direktor is imposible, since his manipulation never ends. I seriously desire some neutral involvement here. Thank you for the suggestion. FkpCascais (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Axis vs Allies

File:Meeting between German, Chetniks and Ustaša commander.jpg

German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustaše officer and Chetnik Commander Rade Radić in central Bosnia

File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg

Chetniks posing with soldiers of the German occupation forces during World War II in an unidentified Serbian village in occupied Yugoslavia

Representatives of the Chetniks, Ustaše, and Croatian Home Guard meet in occupied Bosnia

Chetniks collaborated with Germans (Nazi), Italians (Fascist) and NDH (Ustaše) in order to defeat Yugoslav Partisans. Yes or No? Kebeta (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some additional editors could help here. Please bring references to the table. Thanks. JodyB _talk 11:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article, Jody, you will find some half a dozen sources that I've been forced to stack contrary to WP:MOS so that the text they support does not get removed or altered more often than it does now. The Chetniks are something like icons of Serbian nationalism. They not only collaborated, but were, in the words of several high-ranking German officers, the most useful collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia. You can find a lot more details and all the sources in the Axis collaboration section of this article, which was written simply by listing the facts from the sources, almost verbatim in fact.

Now, there are people in the Balkans (or from the Balkans) who just cannot accept this no matter how many times you bring up sources (such as Standford university scholarly publications referenced with actual signed documents of collaboration) - hence the constant removal of the sourced text. I don't know what more to say, I seem unable to keep sourced information in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kebeta, but neither your question, neither this images demonstrate that Chetniks are to be considered more "collaborators" than "resistance". You are putting the things in a too simplistic manner. It is like considering "Bosnian Muslims" a "Serbian allies" because they fought "Croats" in Herzegovina in the 1990s. So by your logic, Izetbegovic was a Milosevic best friend? Please, try to be objective. A three side situation is not necesarilly 2 side situation. And the Partisans were not the ONLY resistence group in Yugoslavia, as wrongly is wished to be demonstrated. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, Ustaše were also "resistance". They wanted independence from Yugoslavia, and Germany just help them, ??? Kebeta (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, nobody is interested in your personal estimates of "resistenceness" and "collaborativeness". Mihailović's Chetniks collaborated with the Axis en masse. Mihailović avoided fighting the Axis, ordering his troops to avoid resisting the occupation. The sources are in the article. Learn to deal with these facts, because I promise you: sourced information is not easily removed on enWiki. Certainly not because a couple of nationalists decide to start inventing a dozen ways to justify their "defense of the fatherland". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But Kebeta, you could consider Ustaše an independentist movement, of course, but how would that make them "resistance"? You mean, because Kingdom of Yugoslavia capitullated? If Ustaše had chousen to allied with the Allies, instead of Germany, well they would be probably considered "resistance". But, is that what you mean?

@direktor, stop being annoying and speak for yourself. "Nobody is interested in this or that...", who? You? And who are you? Nobody? (this went great, see the irony here?) FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the eternal mystery of the English language. I'm getting tired of explaining simple expressions. *Sigh*, when I say "nobody", I mean that the your ideas of "resistenceness" and "collaborativeness" are completely, utterly, indisputably irrelevant for any changes in the article. These thoughts and opinions you insist on sharing with unsuspecting Wikipedians are not likely to help you remove sourced text in any way.

Please stop using enWikipedia as a forum for general discussion. Talk about actual changes in the article, and use sources to back them up. You will notice that it is prohibited to enter into vague discussion on various subjects, and that Wikipedia talkpages are supposed to be used for constructive discussion: WP:NOTFORUM --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais, you stated on Talk:Draža Mihailović that "...fighting Allied forces will make him (Tito) Axis in person, worste than collaborator...".

In late 1943, the Partisans became the recognized Allied military of Yugoslavia (fact). The Chetniks under the direct command of Draža Mihailović continued to launch attacks against Allied forces (coordinated with German efforts). See Raid on Drvar, for just one most notable example, when the Chetniks aided German efforts to kidnap the Prime Minister of the Allied state of Yugoslavia.

Draža Mihailović fought Allied forces, worse still: he fought Allied forces to help Axis forces. The question is: is Draža Mihailović also "Axis in person, worste than collaborator..."??

Well, why don´t you sign the mediation request and let someone neutral decided that? What are you affraid from having mediation? That they will see how you constantly manipulate and decontextualise sources? Please, sign that, so you can have some backing for your claims. FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just please clarify your position to me by answering the above question? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't think you'd answer. Its not just the sources that contradict you, you contradict yourself (this would be the fourth time so far, I think). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

OK, not that I want to take part in the dispute between FkpCascais and Direktor, but I think the article should be more balanced. I plan to write a new version of it in the following weeks - God willing and time permitting. I do think that the Chetniks deserve censure and not praise for many of their deeds, but the article should be more neutral and factual, not look like a ham-fisted hatchet job presenting them only as collaborators (which is completely misleading to say the least). I'll start a draft for a new version ASAP.

Also, I think the article should be split in two for clarity's sake, with one version concerning specifically the Mihailovic movement, and one (called something like "Chetniks (historical)") addressing all the other various movements which called themselves "Chetniks". Cheers. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is nothing but Communist propaganda, I cant believe this is allowed to remain online considering all the lies and misinformation. Wikipedia needs to remove this crap immediately to retain even the slightest of integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.163.55 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This article as evidence in court

This article was admitted in evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Gotovina trial. --Harac (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Why was my edit reverted?

• My additions were properly sourced and come from a university press.
• I removed "sources" that were simply links to pictures.
• Mihailović was found guilty of both treason and war crimes. How is stating this POV? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yad Vashem: Chetniks collaborated with Nazis

I am new to this wikipedia debate and my apologies to administrators if this project page is reserved only for them. I wanted to say that Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205916.pdf . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans."Yahalom Kashny (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Nazi Collaboration and Crimes Against Muslims and Serbs

Hopefully this helps: General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnikcollaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Bratnko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Chetnik massacres

Why was removed the section with the massacres commited by the chetniks? I hope a reply soon. --190.172.232.231 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exemples of POV

This edit is just another exemple of how some users simply can´t stand to have fair information from all perspectives inserted on the article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Says the one who removed a university reference in order to better sensationalize the operation and restore it later only after being confronted. [3][4] If you bothered to fully review my edit you would have seen that I was also reverting a hell of a lot of blanking done by an ip. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading facts and confusion

This article was written in great confusion, and there are lot mistakes about Chetniks. 1.Chetniks were not an uniform movement, similar to Cossacks, so Dragoljub Mihajlovic could not been leader of Chetniks in WW2, inn same manner that there was no leader of all Cossacks in WW2.

2.There were several indipendent (and mutually hostile) Chetnik movements during WW2.

3.All these Chetnik forces had similar uniforms and insignia.

4.5.Some independent Chetnik formations had a loose alliance with Mihajlovic, and later abandoned him.

5.Forces of general Mihajlovic were not collaborators of Germans, but chetniks of Kosta Pecanac and several other indipendent Chetnik militias.

6.Dragoljub Mihajlovic executed Pecenac because of the collaboration.

7.Serbian pro-German puppet government of Nedic also had their own Chetnik units.

8.While Great Britain and Soviet Union abandoned Mihajlovic, United States continued to send military envoys to Mihajlovic up until middle of 1944 (colonel MacDowell).

9.Mihajlovic's Chetniks were Yugoslav royal movement, which included Slovenes (Blue guard), Muslims and Croats (Mihajlovic's right hand was Zvonimir Vuckovic-an ethnic Croat).

10.Mihajlovic was officer in royal Yugoslav army, and he was not member of pre-WW2 Chetnik movement, nor a member of Chetnik units of Yugoslav royal army (which also had Chetnik units).

11.Mihajlovic movement fought for restoration of Yugoslav monarchy, and was not Serbian nationalist movement (existence of Slovenian, Croat and Muslim Chetniks denies this).

12.Flag of "Chetnik movent" posted in article is confusing, since "Jolly Roger" flag was flag of pre-WW2 Chetnik movent ,units of Kosta Pecanac and others created from original Chetnik organization. Flag used by Mihajlovic's Chetniks was Yugoslav royal flag.

13.All non-communist forces in Serbia regardless of pro-allied and pro-axis politics wore former royal Yugoslav uniforms (which in turn originate in Serbian uniform), and had similar markings (Mihajlovic's forces wore Yugoslav, instead solely Yugoslav ones). This confusion helped greatly communist to attribute all these units to Mihajlovic, and to accuse him of collaboration.

14.Mihajlovic was not founder of WW2 Chetniks. Most of Chetnik units in WW2 were organized by local commanders separately from Mihajlovic, who was officer of regular army.

15."Chetnik" in Serbian means something like "brigadier", and meaning of term was identical to "guerilla". Chetnik warfare was term in royal Yugopslavia with guerilla warfare.

16.Pictures of Chetniks with Germans or Ustasa are no evidence of either collaboration, nor that these units belonged to Mihajlovic.

17.Mihajlovic was no collaborator, and both Germans and Nedic regime continued to issue pamflets against him up until 1944.

18.Few Chetnik commanders betrayed Mihajlovic, and joined axis,which was attributed as "evidence" of Mihajlovic collaboration with axis.

19.Many photographs after WW2, that show "collaboration" of Chetniks with Germans, were proven communist forgeries in order to destroy Mihajlovic credibility so that Tito may remain sole leader of resistance in Yugoslavia. Similar accusations were made by Greek communists against monarchist resistance movement in Greece.

20.Unfortunately, most Croats identify WW2 Chetniks with Serbs, and serbian nationalism, so their activists on Wikipedia try to do best to degrade them and to simplify to truth as much as possible.

21.There is confusion about Mihajlovic's Chetniks and other (like Pecanac's), and forces of Nedic and Ljotic, which some people try to atribute all to Mihajlovic.

22.Documents and orders attributed to Mihajlovic after WW2 are most likely forgeries of Communist regime, in order to totally destroy credibility.

23.Crimes committed by Chetnik units should be carefully examined, since Chetniks were not one movement but umbrella term for various groups. Reprisals made by Mihajlovic forces, together with Tito's belongs to "allied war crimes".

P.S There should be made also an article about Slovene Chetniks, since, after all last Chetnik veteran officer is Uros Susteric, Slovene and Catholic. Article must also make distinction between various Chetnik groups. For Mihajlovic's Chetniks Yugoslav royal flag should be put as their flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I called your edits "whitewash", but I must say I actually just don't know quite enough on the subject as I'm not even from the Balkans and never specialized in the subject. One comment, though: you can't just remove sourced stuff. (I know I removed your stuff, yes. But you did it first with several whole sections, so I just reverted everything.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked out your additions were unsourced anyway. Read WP:RS. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also what you wrote on the talk page actually sounds reasonable, but Wikipedia articles must (should) use reliable sources for its content, with no original research of any kind, so you've got to prepare bibliography to cite if you want to counter the current claims. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Also I'm not going to engage in this discussion in any way, since I actually wrote no content but only cleaned-up the article and corrected a few minor errors and I know rather little in detail about this escept the 1990s stuff which is unrelated. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this "vandalize"?

Exactly? According to your superb insight? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting recent whitewash, or maybe my previous cleanup last week or so? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Added text about Slovene and Croat Chetniks

I have added articles regarding Croat and Slovene Chetnik units and commanders, which I will expand further. Constant mention of WW2 Chetniks as purely "Serbian" movement is greatly misleading, and I think is result of confusing modern Serbian nationalist "Chetnik" organizations, with WW2 Chetnik organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate date of end of Chetnik movement

Why there is date May 8, 1945. as the marking of the end of Chetnik operations, when Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, while Chetniks controlled various regions of Serbia, eastern Bosnia and west Montenegro up until 1947? Last Chetnik commander (Vladimir Šipčić) was killed in 1957, so how it is possible that the end of WW2 marks the end of Chetnik activity? Person who put this information clearly lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you must attribute everything to published sources. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did put informations, with links to published sources, but unfortunately someone is deleting them.Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Read my comments in "Misleading facts and confusion", you will have to discuss it with other editors (not me), and you've got to have sources to back your thesis and and trump theirs. It will probablyu take several days, so come back repeatedly until you'll find some common ground. Now, I'm out of this. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for information. However article already mentioned that Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, so this contradicts with claim that (Mihajlovic)Chetnik movement ceased with activities in May 8, 1945.[[User:Ganderoleg|Ganderoleg] —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Wrong photo information

There is a photo signed "German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustaše officer and Chetnik commander Rade Radić in central Bosnia". As I can see there is no "Ustasa officer" on this picture, since clearly no one wears Ustasa uniform. A man identified as "Ustasa" officer is either Croat domobran (which is something different from Ustasha) or Wehrmacht soldier. Besides that, how is picture of Chetnik together with German officer evidence of collaboration? There are pictures of partisans with Germans too, and allied soldiers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They are identified as such in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meeting_between_German,_Chetniks_and_Usta%C5%A1a_commander.jpg (uploaded by a User:Rjecina, who is banned). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They are identified as such by the person who uploaded it. However no one wears Ustasha uniform in this picture. Person in the middle is either a Domobran (different Croat organization) or Wehrmacht soldier.Ganderoleg —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Yes, also the original source is just vagualy stated and cannot be verified unless one contacts USHMM about this or something, which means this pic is actually a candidate for deletion (especially since uploaded by a banned user). If you want you can persue it for deletion on these ground, I'll remove "Ustase" claim here in meanwhile. And this ends my work here, I'm really just not expert on this subject to discuss thesis of the article. Oh, and one more thing before I go: sign your comments (the pencil icon above). --94.246.150.68 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Photograph #46717 from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The caption says "German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustasa officer and Chetnik Commander Rade Radic in central Bosnia." Sean.hoyland - talk 21:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but United States Holocaust Memorial Museum most likely got the photo from Yugoslav sources, where someone confused Croat Ustasa and Domobran units, which belonged to two different organizations. Person in the middle is clearly not Ustasa, but Croat Domobran. These are Ustasa's and their uniforms: http://www.freewebs.com/zadomspremni/15%20studenog%201941%20%20I%20bojna%20Crna%20legija.jpg , http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9440/0068bzy6.jpg , http://www.jerusalim.org/cd/jasenovac/img/image002.jpg .On other hand these are Croat Domobran units and their uniforms: http://www.kalinovac.hr/stare_slike_marijan_slave_1_2/stare_slike_marijan_slava_64.jpg , http://www.kalinovac.hr/stare_slike_marijan_slave_1_2/stare_slike_marijan_slava_65.jpg , http://i49.tinypic.com/keaed3.jpg . As we can see, person in the middle can only be Croat Domobran or Croatian Home Guard. Ustasa's had specific uniform, which is quite distinctive. In former Yugoslavia, all Croat pro-Axis forces were colloquially labeled as "Ustasa's",which is wrong. Ustasa's were ideological Croat fascist movement (like SS), while Domobran's were simply Croat militia and police forces. Lots of Domobran's joined Partisans later in war.--Ganderoleg (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contact the museum and tell them. Their contact details are here. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. However you can clearly see from pictures (and something you can check online),that Ustasa's had different uniforms from the guy that wear Croat Home Guard (Domobran) uniform. It's like posting picture of Wehrmacht soldiers, and claim them to be members of SS simply because someone labeled photo wrong, when it's clear that uniform is different. Besides that, Bosnian Chetnik posted in picture - Rade Radic was not member of same Chetnik organization that beloged to Mihajlovic.--Ganderoleg (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works (see WP:OR and WP:V). The caption needs to be based on information from a reliable source. That is the case at the moment. Alternative captions for the photo need to come from reliable sources that address that photo too. If there is a conflict between sources we point out that there is a conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vague statements

There are several vague and non-precise claims about Chetniks. There are several pictures of Chetniks with Germans and documents of Chetnik cooperation with Axis. The question is-what Chetniks? Mihajlovic's, Pecanac's, those created by fascist Italy in Dalmatia or Nedic's regime in Serbia? There were several separate Chetnik organizations under different commanders, with different goals. Why someone try to claim all Chetniks and their deeds to Mihajlovic? "Chetnik" as term is not about single and unified ideological movement like Ustashas, Partisans, but is similar in meaning and existence to term "Cossack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Few illogical claims in article

There are several problematic claims mentioned in article, that defy common sense and reason...

Article admits that Mihajlovic (and his movement)fought against Germans during 1941-1942 (when Germany was at peak of power), but then he joined Germans in 1943-1944 when it was clear that Germany is loosing the war, and when German allies like Italy, Finland, Bulgaria and other started to flee from it. Does this make any sense? Why would he fought Germany when it was strongest, and then join it when Germany was weakest?

Then there are claims of Chetniks (without any specification who's Chetniks) in alliance with Croat Ustashe,and at the same time making ethnic cleaning of Croats with whom they are allied to. Does this make any sense?

They claimed "Greater Serbia", but at the same time were in alliance with Ustashas who were against Greater Serbia, and for Greater Croatia (ethnically cleansed from Serbs). Does this make any sense?

If they were allies of Ustashas, why the last big battle of Chetniks was not against Partisans, but against Ustashas in 1945 in Lijevce field (Lijevce polje)? There is even Wikipedia article about it.Ustashas killed Pavle Djurisic, Chetnik commander (their and German alleged "ally"). Does this make any sense?

If Mihajlovic was German collaborator, why was he hiding in the countryside all the time of war, when he could live in city mansion, protected by Germans, like Kosta Pecanac, known pro-axis Chetnik commander?

Why would Mihajlovic saved US airmen up until the end of war, and at the same time collaborate with loosing Germans?

Why is fact that some of Nedic's puppet Serbia regime units joined Mihajlovic's movement evidence of "collaboration", when almost half of Tito's partisan commanders and heroes were former members of fascist puppet Croatia's armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is because they were cowards who were changing their side all time. --190.172.251.99 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This claim is totally illogical, since cowards join the winning side, not loosing one. Lets not forget that Italy was major Axis partner, and they joined the allies as soon as it became clear that Axis would loose the war. Remember Finland, Bulgaria and Romania as well. On other, as article claims, Chetniks fought against Germans when Germany was at peak of power, and then suddenly joined Axis when it was clear that Germany would loose the war. Claim that they were cowards, combined with the claims in article further proves illogicality of that claims. It is also interesting to see that Chetniks lost allied (mostly British) support in 1943, after Churchill-Stalin agreement over the sphere of influences, in which Yugoslavia was given to communist camp. Quite the opposite happened in Greece (which also had two resistance groups), where monarchist resistance prevailed(with help of Britain), however they were accused by communists to be "fascist" as well. Also bear in mind that allies sent military envoys to Mihajlovic, until 1944. Michael Lees, British liaison officer to Mihajlovic (1943-1944),during the time when Mihajlovic allegedly "cooperated with Axis", stated clearly in his book "The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power 1943-1944" http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Serbia-British-Titos-1943-1944/dp/0151959102 that Mihajlovic was in no way Axis collaborator(on contrary), and that he was victim of political game of western allies and Stalin. Same fate that Polish nationalist resistance movement suffered. It also interesting to see that most "evidences" of Mihajlovic collaboration came from Yugoslav communist sources, which included proven faked photographs (real originals exist) and documents (bad forgeries, written in Croatian, not Serbian dialect), and western sources that mostly quote these same communist sources. Also the fact that some Chetnik commanders that were not under command of Mihajlovic collaborated with Axis, helped communists to attribute their deeds to Mihajlovic, since after all he was "Chetnik" too.

Also the claim that Chetniks didn't fought the Axis is nonsense, since there are several dozen German declarations from 1941,1942,1943 and 1944 about executions of "Mihajlovics fighters" because of attacks on German military. Germans carefully made distinctions between Mihajlovic's men who fought them and other Chetnik groups who were their allies. Germans executed both Communists and Mihajlovic's Chetniks without any problem. Tito's partisans didn't controlled any larger city in Yugoslavia up until 1944, when red army entered Yugolavia. What were major operations of French, Polish, Dutch or Belgian resistance before 1944? There were none. But no one accuse them of "collaboration" because of that. Several Chetnik commanders died in fighting against Germans, like Veselin Misita, Aleksandar Misic, Ivan Fregl (Slovene). Pavle Djurisic, leader of Montenegrin Chetnik, and alleged "Axis collaborator, that got Iron Cross" was killed by Croat Ustashas (his alleged "allies") in 1945, in last big Chetnik battle, which was against Axis. --Ganderoleg (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Michael Lees book was published in 1990. What is it's status now? Is it accepted as a reliable source? I understand there is a mediation going on at the moment, Ganderoleg, about Mihailovic and collaboration in which sources have been extensively discussed. You may wish to read it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source to whom? Michael Lees was British military envoy to Mihajlovic in those crucial years of 1943-1944. As such, he is clearly more reliable witness, then some historians who quote post WW2 Yugoslav sources. Are sources from Tito's court reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased claims in article

Under the picture of the 1941 German wanted poster for Mihajlovic, there is claim: "Draža Mihailović was to start collaborating with the Axis occupation, placing his Chetniks fully in their command." Then how is possible that Germans issued proclamations of executions of Mihajlovic's Chetniks later in war? Examples- German proclamation from 29.10.1943, on both German and Serbian ( http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7026/46voo9.jpg ),where there is clearly stated "DM Chetniks", and and their execution. Then there is another German proclamation from 15.11.1943 about execution of Mihajlovic's sympathizers (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2006/s201012817536.jpg). And there is German proclamation against Mihajlovic and "his resistance to legal goverment of Nedic" from 25.1.1943 (http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/768/s2010128172334.jpg). Proclamation of German execution of Mihajlovic's Chetniks from november 1942: (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7338/s2010126141339.jpg). This is German proclamation from 21. november 1943, accusing both Mihajlovic and communists for uprising: (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9198/38636471.jpg). German proclamation of execution of "Draza Mihajlovic's followers" from 25. may. 1943: (http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1000/52vk.jpg). All those who are able to read German, may understand what is written. German pamphlets clearly make distinctions between Mihajlovic Chetniks and the other Chetnik groups.

Then there is this Croat pamphlet against both Partisans and Chetniks: (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2361/zjymq0.jpg), which states: "Serbian Chetniks and Partisans are unanimous against Indipendent State of Croatia and in theor brutality against her population. Does this sound like collaboration? --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic and biased sources, ideologically motivated

Amongst references, there are several highly problematic authors who either don't have any credibility as historians, or have clear ethnic and ideological bias on subject. Examples: Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history. Texas A&M University Press. As we can see from his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz1PW_wnHYMC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false , author Philip Cohen is an medical doctor, not a historian. Not only that, but most of his references are from Yugoslav communist sources.

We have: Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. p. 147.. Sabrina Ramet is not a historian, but left-wing professor of political science. Here is info: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Sabrina.Ramet/card/ . Her opinion about Chetnik issue (which is historical) is absolute irrelevant in this context. She was quoted, as valid reference for "Chetnik collaboration".

Then we have: Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. 1. Stanford University Press. Jozo Tomasevic was both a Tito's sympathizer, and ethnic Croat. In his book we can clearly see his ethnic motivation against Chetniks, where he mention on page 471. how Chetnik defeat marks the end of Serbian domination in Yugoslavia, destruction of Serbian ruling groups and end "end of power of Serbian Orthodox Church as bulwark of Serbian ruling groups". Now, he as (nationally aware)Croat clearly shows his motivation for denying the credibility of Mihajlovic. This ethnic problem will be discussed later on.

We also have: "Dr. Marko Hoare, "The Chetniks and the Jews", Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada". Marko Attila Hoare is son of Croat historian (and communist) Branka Magas, who wrote books on Croatian history, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Croatia-Through-History-Branka-Magas/dp/0863567754 . He was also an activist on behalf on Bosnian government during Bosnia war. He is clearly strongly biased, both ideologically and ethnically.

Then we have: "Zdravko Dizdar, Chetnik Genocidal Crimes against Croatians and Muslims during World War II (1941-1945)", which according to link is another modern Croat author from Zagreb: http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/013e-dizdar.htm

And we have another Croat author: Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107.

So if we eliminate all biased and main sources posted here, that may say something against Chetniks of Mihajlovic, we have left with only one valid reference which is this: Martin, David (1946). Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich. New York: Prentice Hall.

As for the rest we have either works of amateur historians, highly problematic documents and photographs given by Tito's (Mihajlovic's rival) regime, or works by Croats as primary sources of "Chetnik collaboration" and "Ethnic cleansing". Now would someone consider books made by Serbian authors about Croat Ustase or about Albanians as unbiased, specially if these authors simply quote another Serbian authors? Croat encyclopedia, 2009. mention "Chetnik" term as synonymous with "greater Serbian nationalist", and this is perception of Chetniks in most of Croat population. Now imagine Croat and a communist author and his motivations? And with the fact that Croats were at war with "Chetniks" not so long ago, we can imagine motivations of Croats in realms of both literature and wikipedia to degrade what they perceive as "enemy". The main joke is that in here all these links were posted by Croat, who aggressively edit every post about Chetniks and Chetnik commanders in one sided manner. So we have Croat, posting Croatian authors about Chetniks, whom most Croatians consider as identical with "Greater Serbian nationalists". Clearly such people are unable to be impartial to this issue. Their references are highly questionable, their motives are questionable, and spamming problematic or biased references does not make the case against Mihajlovic. We have primary sources from Tito's government, which was major rival and ideological opponent to Mihajlovic, and we have later authors who simply quote them. Then other members quote these later authors as evidence of "impartiality". Therefore we have case of circular reasoning in here.--Ganderoleg (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting to see that in Tomasevic's book "Chetniks": http://books.google.com/books?id=yoCaAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tomasevich,+Jozo&source=bl&ots=9eimVZ50OD&sig=ain_8c2tEo2o1jzX98I4Zg0czQ4&hl=en&ei=6c1OTcGMCMeSOtif_NMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false , Croat Tomasevic stated (page 471.) claim of importance that Tito was ethnic Croat, and historical importance of Yugoslavia been dominated by Croat, not Serb. For him, and other Croats, this is clearly a moment of national triumph, and replacing Serbian elites with Croat ones. Clearly Croats have clear ethnic motivation to downplay Mihajlovic's movement, since it was "too Serbian" for their taste. Most claims of collaboration of Mihajlovic with axis came from Croat sources, or from Tito's government, which was largely dominated by Croats (Tito himself, Bakaric, Nazor, Ivan Ribar). Most of these Croat communists fought against Yugoslav monarchy, before the war, and had clear ideological/ethnic motives to fight both Yugoslav monarchy (of Serbian origin) and movement that fought for restoration of that monarchy (Chetniks of Mihajlovic). Bias can be clearly seen in Tomasevic's book in constant referring to Chetniks as "Serbian Chetniks", ignoring existence of Slovene, Croat and Muslim Chetnik units, which again show Croat nationalist interpretation of events.

- Also it should be noted, that in Tomasevic's book (mentioned above), regarding evidences for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" with axis, Tomasevic confessed that allied envoys to Mihajlovic held Mihajlovic in highest regards, and that US colonel McDowell stayed in Mihajlovic's HQ up until November 1. 1944, after Red Army and Tito's forces captured Belgrade and most of Serbia. Now a Axis "quisling" that had US colonel in his staff, and allied envoys throughout the war? All "evidences" quoted about Mihajlovic's collaboration with Axis, mostly came from sources from political trial of Mihajlovic in 1946, and Yugoslav communist authors. German sources never mentioned Mihajlovic's men as their allies, but "Chetniks" in general. Most active pro-German Serbian fighting force against partisans in Serbia were Serbian Volunteer Corps, who had similar uniforms with Mihajlovic's Chetniks, and were colloquially known as "Ljotic's Chetniks" or more famously "Ljoticevci". "Chetnik" was term used amongst Serbs in WW2 of all armed militias who were not partisans. Partisans were military term introduced by communist party in Yugoslavia, inspired by Spanish civil war. If they didn't accept that specific term, Partisans would most likely been called "Tito's Chetniks". Majority reports of Mihajlovic "collaboration" came after the war, and political trial.

- And there is interesting fact, that lots of Tito's Partisan commanders were former members of Axis Croatia's military forces, who joined Partisans later in war. Examples:

- Rudi Čajavec, founder of partisan air force, former member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 21 1942. Partisan air force was mainly created from axis Croat airplanes.

- Franjo Kluz, another partisan airman, and partisan war hero was also member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 1942 (like Cajevec).

- Velimir Škorpik, was founder of partisan navy and officer in axis Croatia navy. He joined partisans in December 1942.

- Most interesting case is Marko Mesić, who was commander of axis Croatian legion in Stalingrad, and after being captured by Soviets in 1943. he changed sides, and later he became Yugoslav partisan officer! Here is picture of Marko Mesic on eastern front (as Axis officer): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg . He died in Zagreb, in 1982 as retired Yugoslav officer and antifascist. "Croatian legion" was renamed "First Yugoslav volunteer brigade",and later participated in operations in Yugoslavia.

- Then there was Husein Miljković, Bosnian Muslim and member of communist party before the war. He formed his own pro-Axis Muslim militia, and later he became member of Ustasa's. Later in war he joined Partisans, and died in battle as partisan commander later in war (1944) fighting Chetniks. His biography (in Polish): http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husein_Miljkovi%C4%87 , and in Croatian: http://domovina.110mb.com/zivotopisi/miljkovic-huska.htm . Here is picture of Miljkovic in partisan uniform, shaking hands with Croat Ustasa, in Western Bosnia: http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/223/huskamiljkovic11116lz.jpg

Croat Partisan in Slavonia, 1943, wearing Croat axis uniform, with all axis markings: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/956/vrazjapartizanor1wy2.jpg , comparing with uniform of Marko Mesic (leader of Croat volunteers at Stalingrad): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg , Croat axis soldier: http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3241/238ae.jpg

Partisan with SS soldiers, Sutjeska battle 1943: http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8414/untitled28jj4qq.jpg , Partisans with German soldier, Serbia 1941: http://i35.tinypic.com/34ep5ic.jpg, Partisans with German officer: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7397/1943bo.jpg , Partisans with German officier: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9439/36dbe69d.jpg Last, but not least-British and German officers: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7200/jackchurchillcommandonr.jpg

Lets bear in mind that similar photographs were used as "evidence" of Chetnik collaboration with Axis on this wikipedia article. Using similar propaganda logic and distortion, we can conclude that partisans and British were "Axis collaborators". This is just small example how meaning of photographs can be manipulated.

As we can see, some people have clear motivation to hide their dirty laundry by aggressive accusations of others, by using biased sources and using circular reasoning.--Ganderoleg (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that photos can be misleading by themselves. They should only be used to illustrate established facts, not as primary evidence. Whilst you no doubt have a point about a number of nationalist sources, I don't agree you can dismiss authors like Ramet on the gounds you give, simply on your assessment of her as a political scientist, not a historian. Also - in relation to Tito and the Partisans, Ramet states that after the war "the communists liquidated opponents.......staged show trials of unco-operative prelates....dethroned heads of quisling regimes...defamed non-communist politicians......pushed out kings.....suffocated the free press and crushed political pluralism and parlimentary life. In this respect, Yugoslavia's communists followed the pattern". She then goes on to give the details. This is hardly a ringing left-wing endorsement of Tito and the Partisans. You'll have to do better than that to bowl out mainstream sources. I also don't see the relevance of people changing from one band of fighters to another. Many young people would probably be swept up in a patriotic desire to fight the invaders and probably join what was at hand. A lot of Chetniks joined the partisans later in the war.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no images are being used as "sources" in this article. In fact I'm having trouble imagining how one would do that. It appears the user is fixating on the images for no other reason other than they caught his/her eye.

Sources like Ramet have been attacked, are being attacked, and will likely continue to be attacked in the future with no objective grounds whatsoever (unless you count HUGE essays of personal feelings and opinions such as the above). However, aside from being an exceedingly annoying aspect of these articles, its not something to particularly concern oneself with. If you try to answer every such attempt you will only wear-out your keyboard some more and become as bitter as I with regard to this nonsense (speaking from personal experience). In a month another account will be created or an IP or a user like Fkp will write-up a HUGE essay on how they really, really, really do not personally like any and all sources that blow their preconceptions out of the water. I can't imagine anyone will accept renowned professionals be disregarded on the basis of user whim even if all the users and IPs came together and wrote a 600-page book on the subject...

For the record, the sources brought forth by the user are unpublished primary sources. The section constituted nothing more than very blatant WP:OR, and as if that weren't enough, its OR 1) by a highly biased user, 2) from a highly unreliable primary source, 3) with no page references to boot (the fact that its user OR alone justifies its exclusion) Nonsense... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources used for the disputed edits on non-serbian chetniks;

• Pavle Borštnik, Pozabljena zgodba slovenske nacionalne ilegale, Ljubljana, 1998
• Katja Zupanič, Četništvo na Štajerskem, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000
• Marijan F. Kranjc in Slobodan Kljakić, Plava garda – poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
• Slobodan Kljakić i Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovenački četnici, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006
• Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002
• Zbornik dokumenata Vojnoistorijskog institute: tom XIV, Dokumenti četničkog pokreta Draže Mihailovića, Beograd
• Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
• Dinko Šuljak, Tražio sam Radićevu Hrvatsku, Knjižnica Hrvatske Revije, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

Now apart from one, which appears to be a primary source, none of these are in English. Whilst a non-English source can of course be a source, it is difficult to check such sources on en-wiki. Are these the ones which are unpublished primary sources DIREKTOR? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

-On what basis and evidence do you claim that my sources are unpublished sources? As a matter of fact, as soon I posted my article about Non- Serbian Chetniks, I expected your reaction. --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide translations of the titles and show where they are published? Googlwe translate brings up;

• Paul Borštnik, Pozabljeno zgodba Slovenian national illegality, Ljubljana, 1998
• Katja Toth, chetnicism in Styria, graduate account, Maribor, 2000
• Mario F. Kranjc in Free Kljakic, Blue Guard - poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
• Free Kljakić and Marian F. Kranjc, Slovenian Chetniks, Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 2006
• Method M. Milaca, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor: a Slovenian student in World War II ˝, New York: P. Lang, 2002
• Military History Institute Collection of documents: the fourteenth, Documents Chetnik Movement Mihailovic, Belgrade
• Dinko Šuljak, I asked Radic Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
• Dinko Šuljak, I asked Radic Croatia, the Croatian Library Review, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation (Google Translate can't help you there's both Serbo-Croatian and Slovene)

• Pavle Borštnik, The Forgotten Story of the Slovenian National Resistance, Ljubljana, 1998
• Katja Zupanič, Chetniks in Styria, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000
• Marijan F. Kranjc, Slobodan Kljakić, The Blue Guards – main confidential report, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006
• Slobodan Kljakić, Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovene Chetniks, Filip Višnjić, Belgrade, 2006
• Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor: a Slovene student in World War II, P. Lang, New York 2002
• Military History Institute document collection, volume XIV, Documents on the Chetnik movement of Draža Mihailović
• Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, pages 163-167
• Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, page 150

As I said, first of all there are no page references in most of them - no way to check them even if someone here spoke Slovene. Second of all these are local Balkans publications of dubious quality (that alone has been grounds in the past for questioning the NPOV of refs). Third of all, it seems these are mostly unprofessional publications by laymen (but hardly peer-review like Cohen). And then there's the unpublished primary source. For one reason or another this bunch of books is mostly rubbish.

That said, there were indeed Slovene and Croatian Chetniks, I'm not disputing that I want to make that clear. Very few, very rare though. Tomasevich has done extensive research on their actual numbers and activities and I'll get back to you on that. I think we can find the actual information in the "BIG Book of the Chetniks" - The Chetniks by Prof. Tomasevich. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The entirety of the Chetnik resistance in Slovenia is explained in gruelling detail in the The Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Tomasevic again.Those books are "rubbish" to you, since they are not from Tomasevic and other Croat sources. This is becoming ridiculous. Tomasevic had made just a small reference of Slovenian Chetniks, which is not enough.Tomasevic, as author is clearly biased and motivated by ethnic and ideological reasons. The fact that biased Croat author published book about Chetniks, does not make him the final word in this issue.While Slovenian sources posted by me mentioned names of units, commanders and number of fighters. Most importantly there are no page references to links provided by you. Claims that my authors are "irellevant" is simply an decoy , to avoid the fact that most of authors mentioned by you are either pure amateurs, or Croat activists, like yourself. --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

-As for Sabrina Remet, I have every reason to doubt her credibility, since she graduated philosophy, and got P.h.D in Political science. Claims by her,that you mentioned, belong to realm of history, not political science. As such, she is no expert on WW2 Yugoslavian history, nor a participant in WW2, so I doubt her credibility on historic facts in WW2 Yugoslavia. As for calling her "left wing",I didn't mean that she is communist, but "left winged" in modern sense. Which we can see from this work of hers: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87232 . She wrote mostly in subject of politics in former Yugoslavia: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87122 . She also wrote on liberal and feminist issues, which raises doubts about her bias on conservative and monarchist movement, like Chetniks of Mihajlovic. To further prove my claim, this is her article about emancipation of women, and feminism in former Yugoslavia: http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01801-1.html , where she praises former communist Yugoslav government for being progressive. She is clearly ideologically biased and motivated for being selective. As for her statement about communits liquidated people, she "discovered" well known fact, that even partisan veterans admitted, nothing new or original in that claim.

- As for Croat Axis units, that joined Partisans later in war I think that's important. Most of them joined Partisans, after Germany started to loose war, which doubts their motives. This is Croat reaction towards Germans in 1941-German documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0P2YLYKSnM . Most Croats that were in Croat Axis forces had amti-Serbian sentiments, (unlike those who joined Chetniks) and joined communists mostly for pragmatic reasons (to avoid being on loosing side). Since lots of Partisan commanders were former Axis officers, that casts doubt even more on their bias towards Chetniks that represented old monarchy, which both Ustasa's and Communists hated. This also cast doubt on ideological bias of communists, in comparing the case of Chetnik commander Jezdimir Dangić, who was captured by Germans in 1942, during his fight with Ustasa's in Eastern Bosnia. He spent most of the war in prison camp in Poland, when in 1944 he was liberated by Polish resistance fighters, and he joined them. After that Soviets captured him and extradited him to Tito's government. He was executed for collaboration. This is simple, because he had some contacts with Nedic's government during the war. On other hand we have case of Croat Axis commander at Stalingrad Marko Mesić, who was captured by Soviets as Axis officer. After the imprisonment, he and his soldiers joined Soviets (how convenient) and later became part of Partisan army. Axis commander Mesic died as retired and decorated communist Yugoslav officer, and antifascist. Dangic, fighter against Ustasa (Mesic's fellow soldiers) and fighter of Polish resistance was executed for "treason" (i.e not joining communists). This show biased and Machiavellian nature of Tito's regime.

- And as for Chetniks joined partisans, I have already posted names (with links) of Partisan high ranking officers that were members of Axis Croat troops. On other hand, there are almost none partisan officers who were Chetnik members. Entire First Yugoslav Volunteer Brigade, was made of former Axis Croat legionaires. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_Reinforced_Infantry_Regiment . --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes now you're getting it: your "sources" are rubbish, Ramet and Tomasevich are top quality. I'm glad that got through to you. As for you trying to get rid of Ramet and Tomasevich, it looks like I have to be blunt: forget about it here and now and save yourself some writing effort. I for one am not even reading your nationalist rants against these scholars. If you think anything you can write here will cause us to abandon peer-review scholarly publications by world-renowned professionals you have no idea where you are, or how this place really works. This is the last time I'm commenting on this. Feel free to write an entire essay if ou like. You will find that removal of those sources (i.e. their supported text) will be reverted immediately and without fail.

You are not providing page numbers, but I'll wait on that. However you can rest assured that 1) all the text supported by un-scholarly publications will be removed, and 2) that the text supported by primary sources will be removed as well. When I get the time I will properly rework the section of foreign Chetniks after I familiarize myself with the obscure matter from real sources.

Now read this carefully, the only acceptable sources are:

• 1) scholarly (written by scholars) and/or peer-review publications
• 2) published (preferably outside of the local Balkans ex-warzone!)

That way you won't be so "surprised" over and over and over again when people tell you your sources stink. Also try to use English language sources and use page references so that your claims can be checked. And please please please, stop cluttering the page with irrelevant links to YouTube propaganda vids, photos, forums, blogs or random googled nonsense. Save yourself the trouble man, you cannot prove a single solitary thing that way. Read WP:V so you can understand why I'm not even looking at the links. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- I have stated all that I have in the case of Tomasevic and Ramet (and provided evidences for other unbiased people to see). They are "top quality" for you for obvious reasons.

- Are you main moderator in here? You behave if this article is your private property and monopoly.

- I not only demand removal of your references but you as well as contributor to this article. You are only person in here unable for any rational discussion. Normal Croats, with non-propagandist agenda are free to join the contribution.

- While I have indeed provided page numbers in references on Croat Chetniks, your references were provided without any page numbers. References about Tomasevic, Hoare, Cohen and others are without any page numbers. As matter of fact most references don't have any page numbers. Please don't ask from me something, that yourself are unable to provide.

- Your understanding of "scholars" is deeply problematic. Quoting biased political scientist for historic references, quoting medical doctor about historical events, quoting opinions of Croat nationalist clearly show your qualifications in this debate. Your entire argument on this issue is generally based on one man alone - Tomasevic. Quoting Tomasevic on Chetnik issue, is like quoting opinions of Soviet NKVD officers about Polish Armija Krajowa.

- "People" don't tell my that "my resources stink" - you do. You do this to hide fact that all your references and quoted authors are either biased to the bone, or are made by useless authors (like Cohen M.D or Remet).

- I'm clearly not an nationalist, but you are. If I am nationalist (Serbian for example), I would certainly denied Yugoslav and multinational nature of Mihajlovic's Chetnik movement, nor I would admit existence of pro-Axis Chetniks that certainly existed. I have done quite the opposite. You are the one that constantly use term "Serbian Chetniks", not me. Both Serbian and Croat nationalists consider Chetniks as Serbian only thing, which shows us who you are. Majority of both Chetnik and Partisan soldiers were Serbs. Why don't you use term "Serbian Partisans"? Croats (in general) are unable to be impartial on Chetnik issue in same manner as Serbs are unable to be impartial on Ustasa issue.By your arrogant and monopolist behavior on this article, you clearly show immature attitude. I have stated several reasons against your references (with external links), but you haven't give any coherent argument on your behalf, only claim "Tomasevic and Ramet are top quality", and attacked my own references who are not main issue in this topic, but yours.

- Last, but not least... There was demand for me to translate my references. Then what should we do with these references?: 53. # ^ Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. , 64. # ^ RADIO TELEVIZIJA CRNE GORE... Nacionalni javni servis Crne Gore, 68. Predsjednik Mesiæ O Odgodi Posjeta Scg-U , 74. Bora Čorba kod Hrge: Ponosan sam četnik - Dnevnik.hr, 71. # ^ Rehabilitovan Dragiša Vasić, Blic ... etc, etc? --Ganderoleg (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the enter ISBN links to my references, here are they:

• Pavle Borštnik, Pozabljena zgodba slovenske nacionalne ilegale, Ljubljana, 1998 COBISS 77215744
• Katja Zupanič, Četništvo na Štajerskem, diplomska naloga, Maribor, 2000 COBISS 10086664
• Marijan F. Kranjc in Slobodan Kljakić, Plava garda – poveljnikovo zaupno poročilo, Pro-Andy, Maribor, 2006 COBISS 57204737
• Slobodan Kljakić i Marijan F. Kranjc, Slovenački četnici, Filip Višnjić, Beograd, 2006 COBISS 134158092
• Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204
• Metod M. Milač, Kdo solze naše posuši : doživetja slovenskega dijaka med drugo svetovno vojno, Prevalje, Kulturno društvo Mohorjan, Celje, Mohorjeva družba, 2003 COBISS 125214208

Unfortunately, article is closed for the time. I will enter them later.

--Ganderoleg (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ganderoleg - you are not in a position to demand the removal of other contributors. These matters are decided in accordance with wikipedia policies. I will also say for the last time that matters must be discussed here with common courtesy and without personal attacks on other editors, otherwise action will be taken to prevent abuse, by anybody. You can all argue strongly without resorting to personal abuse. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 2 and the last one are not books. No. 2 is an undergraduate thesis. This is not suitable. As for the rest - can you provide us with the basis on which you say any of these sources are notable please. Such as reviews, the publisher and the status of the authors. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No.6 is a primary source, No.7/No.8 ("I looked for Radić's Croatia") is not a scholarly work, the same goes for No.5 ("A Slovene Student in World War II"), others could be unprofessional as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you actually disputing here direktor? You don´t like people to see how Chetniks were also well accepted by some other nationalities troughout Yugoslavia, and even participated in their ranks? FkpCascais (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, concern for sources and verifiability without an agenda confuses and disturbs the venerable User:Fkp :). I know Slovenes and Croats joined the Chetniks, since they attracted pro-Karađorđević royalists from throughout the country in the early year(s) of the conflict. Its not disputed - but I still prefer that we curtail nonsense sources and WP:OR. As I said, I'll expand the section myself when I get the real information from Tomasevich and his immense host of verifiable primary sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Ganderoleg - what you really need is a decent secondary source that has looked at all the primary material. It's not surprising that the Slovenes should be part of the original Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. You people could be arguing about nothing. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, while the general fact that Croats and Slovenes joined the Chetniks is undisputed, the details in the section are based on primary sources and unreliable publications (for all the above listed reasons). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- It is quite strange that this topic started as questioning of several references provided, mentioned in the beginning of article. I have supported my claims with external links, and further supported my claims about authors, like Remet. I have also shown, supported by links, that most of authors provided in references are highly problematic.n I didn't get any serious arguments against my claims, but in return got remarks about my references on Slovenian and Croat Chetniks, which should be discussed in different topic. So it would be nice that we discuss first these problematic authors. 3/4 of references for alleged Mihajlovic's "collaboration" came from these sources. Most of them are modern sources, inspired by recent wars in Yugoslavia and have political agenda, written by persons without any expertise about topic they discuss.

- I shall remove reference, which is undergraduate thesis. As for the rest, publishers are clearly stated, both by me, and by links.

- Direktor, first you demanded page links for references, something that you didn't done yourself in lots of cases. Now, you claim that in work, in which I provided page numbers (Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6.)is not scholarly work. Provide some evidence for your claim (like I did). Dinko Suljak was member of partisans and veteran of WW2.

- As for the book "Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204", it can be found in here: http://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Imprisonment-Forced-Labor-European/dp/0820457817 . Metod M. Milač was veteran of WW2, and concentration camp survivor. As witness of these events, he is clearly more reliable source, then modern medical doctors, political scientists and political activists.--Ganderoleg (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Omg... Again: links are not sources. See WP:V.
• You shall remove 1) non-scholarly publications such as those nonsense memoirs, 2) the undergraduate thesis, 3) the primary source (WP:OR). And post the page numbers for the other sources which shall be checked-out to verify that they are scholarly.
• I never demanded "page links" for references (at this point it is becoming obvious you are either not reading my posts or are having trouble understanding them.) I merely requested you post the page numbers, and I still do. Dinko Šuljak - not a scholar.
• Metod Milač - not a scholar. Do you understand what a scholarly publication is?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your criticisms of Ramet are not valid for removing her work as a notable, scholarly, mainstream, well reviewed source. To suggest that she is biased and unreliable because she has written on the issue of the emancipation of women in the area is frankly absurd - even aside from the fact that it is a collection of writings on the subject for which she is the editor. I repeat - you need to find a notable, reliable secondary source. A collection of primary sources from which you synthesise a section will not do. The circumstances in which a primary source is usable are limited. This is why I am asking you to demonstrate the notability and/or scholarly credentials of any of your sources. Further, if, for example, you state that Milac Metod is such a source (and it looks like a very interesting book) - you only attribute this ;After victory of Tito's partisans, most Slovene Chetnik soldiers and commanders fled to Italy. Since most Slovene Chetnik commanders worked for SOE,during the war, they continued to work for British and US intelligence after the war part to him. This quite a claim and I would expect this to be found in scholarly works. Can you give a page number please? Are you talking about chetniks as part of Mihailovic's chetniks or are you talking about domobranci?Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- Direktor, First of all, you shall remove references by Cohen (medical doctor), Hoare (political activist), Remet (expertise in wrong field, political activist), Tomasevic and Dizdar (nationalist and ideological bias), and Omricanin (no IMDB, pro-fascist and ultra-nationalist Croat author, evidence for that:http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Omrcanin,%20Ivo).Pro-fascist ultra-nationalist Omricanin was also quoted as reference (without page numbers) for numbers of civilians killed by Chetniks. He is also an historic revisionist: http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral53.html (English article) under "Black Chronicle of Croatian History: Methods Used to Rehabilitate Ustashe and Stigmatize Antifascists". You haven't provided any argumentative response on your behalf. After that you may demand something from me.

- Link to Amazon was provided for those who are interested in reading the book, not as source.This is your interpretation.

- Since half of references don't have page numbers in article, it is ridiculous to demand that from me.

- Metod Milac was witness of events which article discuss. As such he is much more reliable than modern historians, which most of them are clearly motivated by reasons that goes beyond historic research. He is reliable witness about Croat Chetniks.

- What is "scholarly" does not depend on personal opinion.

- Most references and accusations of "collaboration" of Mihajlovic with Axis came from former Yugoslav sources (mainly Croatian authors), and modern western authors who quote these same sources, and this same pattern we have in here. All accusations for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" must be changed into "alleged" or "accusation for collaboration". For my questioning of validity these references see beginning of this topic. 2/3 of article about Chetniks is about "collaboration", and 3/4 of references for this "collaboration" are from Croatian sources. This was all illustrated by photos of mostly anonymous Chetniks with Axis forces, and without knowing real context context of photos (which was cunningly implicated by article). --Ganderoleg (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

- Fainites, Remet is indeed an scholar, but in wrong field of expertise (political science, irrelevant for validity of historic claims and data). I claimed that she is biased not because she wrote on emancipation of women, but because her praise of former Yugoslav regime and pro-Liberal activism. Besides Remet, I have mentioned other references as well, what about them?

- You have wrongly attributed Milac as reference to Slovene Chetniks, since Milac is reference to Croat Chetniks.

- For most of data about Chetnik massacres and numbers of killed persons, Ivo Omricanin has been quoted. Such claims are "quite a claim", but they were presented without any page numbers,as valid source. If such things was accepted as valid, why there is demand for me for page numbers? Similar (almost identical data and references) about Slovene Chetniks exist in Slovene and Croatian Wikipedia article about them. Since they were accepted, they are according Wikipedia policy. --Ganderoleg (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No Ramet is not in the wrong field and irrelevant. Milac is only cited in the section under Slovene chetniks at ref. no. 36. I believe you added this section yourself. Regarding Omricanin - you may or may not be right, but two wrongs don't make a right. Refusing to produce page numbers for newly added, contentious material because some past editor has not given a page number for some other claim is just silly. If these matters are properly referenced in other wikipedia articles as you say, perhaps you could find those those references and see if they are suitable? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You simply do not know what the word "scholarly" means, and incredibly think that its an arbitrary category. :)

• "Scholarly" = "concerned with or relating to formal study or research" (Merriam-Webster).

Published professional works like those of Ramet - are scholarly. Cohen is scholarly - and peer-review. Tomasevich is GOD incarnate on the subject of the Chetniks (a published world-renowned expert, completely neutral, with universally positive peer reviews). Others are also published professional scholarly works.

Now get this: nobody cares about your links or about your opinions on these scholars and peer-review authors. If its a scholarly publication, its staying. If its not a scholarly publication - its getting kicked out. The two books which are in fact nonsense memoirs of some random WWII guy - are not scholarly. The bare primary source is also not a secondary publication. These sources, along with the graduate thesis, are getting kicked out.

Most importantly: if you want to contest a scholarly publication's reliability, you do NOT post nonsense links. You do not write stories about how you think they're "bad" - you find negative peer reviews ("Peer review" = "a process by which a scholarly work, such as a paper or a research proposal, is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted"). That means you must find their professional peers who have reviewed their work and stated that they are "biased" or "evil" or "lizard-people". Not you writing here on this talkpage, not some idiot in a tabloid, but academic peers! (other experts) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- Fainites yes, you are right, Milac is indeed quoted in reference on Slovene Chetniks, my mistake, I was thinking about Suljak when I wrote that. Sorry, my mistake.

- On what basis you claim that Ramet is is not in the wrong field and irrelevant? She is expert in political science, not history, while she was referenced to back contraversial historic data.

- On Omricanin, I have given several external links to my claims. He is problematic reference (pro-fascist historical revisionist and ultra-nationalist), quoted without any page number. This is clearly accepted by moderation. His claims make larger part of article.

- The fact that some references about highly problematic and important claims (ethnic cleansing) were based upon opinion of strongly biased author, and without any page numbers. The fact that this is accepted by moderators, makes precedent for all future edits. There can not be double standards in posting references.

- However, I will provide page numbers for my references, later on. In think that will resolve this problem. --212.124.173.238 Ganderoleg) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Scholarly" does not mean "historical", it means "concerned with or relating to formal study or research". Her work is a formal scientific publication. We do not restrict sources on the basis of "fields", so that only historians can be used in history articles.

Page numbers are not as important as the sources themselves. You needn't bother posting the page numbers for the two silly memoirs (which are not scholarly), or the thesis, or the primary source ("Mihailović documents").

On Omirčanin: he is a historian ONLY negative reviews by his academic peers constitute relevant criticism (this works for any other scholarly publication as well). Not you or your tabloid newspaper links or whatever. Nothing you yourself can say here is relevant ("he's nationalist!", "he's biased!", "I don't like him!")

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

- Direktor, Ramet is political scientist, quoted as authority on historic data, Cohen is medical doctor. They are scholars and experts in wrong fields of expertise. It's like quoting dentist as authority in the field of nuclear physics.

- Claiming that Tomasevic is "'GOD incarnate on the subject of the Chetniks (a published world-renowned expert, completely neutral, with universally positive peer reviews)". This only proves that you are unable to give any reasonable argument versus my claims. As for his "neutrality" I have quoted Tomasevic himself (with page number), and as we see he is clearly ethnically motivated and have ideological bias. You're quoting him simply because he is Croat author translated to English. Besides that half of Tomasevic's references are without any page numbers.

- My links are toward external sources which include online versions of quoted books, official biographies and bibliography of contested authors.

- Links for modern Chetniks in articles are mostly newspaper articles from Serbian tabloids, and are useless to persons who don't speak Serbian.Ganderoleg)

Page protection

I have protected this page for 3 days to prevent further edit warring. Please discuss the material you are edit warring over here and endeavour to reach consensus.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)