Talk:June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina

POV issue

There is full scholarly consensus that motive of Serbs in NDH to rebel was struggle for survival the Croatian genocide.

I think that this sentences of the current text of the article:

• the Ustaše students in Trebinje shot nine Serbs and arrested another fifteen, apparently due to their links to the inter-war Chetnik Association,......
• The gendarmerie commander in Bileća believed that the reason for the rebellion was that the local Serbs were wedded to the idea of Greater Serbia,......
• .... local Serbs wanted the NDH authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Davor Marijan, this was a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action...
• Professor Marko Attila Hoare states that the full-scale uprising resulted from the Ustaše retaliation against attempts of the Serbs of eastern Herzegovina to defend themselves, combined with the launching of the German invasion on 22 June -

give WP:UNDUE weight to victim blaming pro-Ustaše POV. This text implies that Serb irredentistic ideology motivated them to rebel while Serb poor choices caused Croatian radical actions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There is no pro-Ustasha POV in the article, it is completely neutral. It states what the reliable sources say. Do you have sources that contradict what is in the article about these specific issues/events? For example, do you have a source that contradicts the opinion of the gendarmerie commander in Bileća about the motives of the local Serbs? Claiming a "full scholarly consensus" without specific sources regarding these specific matters is pointless. And I hope you are not planning on a repeat of what happened with the Pavle Đurišić article, with multiple threads attempting to make some sort of point, but a complete lack of any editing of the article. That is tendentious behaviour and I will not hesitate to report it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Radojica Perišić

According to multiple sources one of the organizers and most important commanders of rebel forces during this rebelion was Radojica Perišić.

• Karchmar, Lucien (1973). Draz̆a Mihailović and the Rise of the C̆etnik Movement, 1941-1942. Department of History, Stanford University. p. 446. In eastern Herzegovina, the Ustase began to put the plan into operation at the end of May. ... On June 6, Radojica Perisic, the priest of Kazanci, led his villagers against the local gendarmes.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple other sources emphasize important role of another leader of the rebel forces, Milorad Popović.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You should add this material to the article if you have a reliable source for the latter. I will tidy up any citation issues or grammar problems. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

When this uprising began?

The article presents only 23 June as date of the beginning of the uprising. This date is based on the pro-Communist POV, as explained by historian Mandić in this interview. The communist historiography intentionally ignored pre-22 June rebels in Herzegovina and Sanski Most because they occured in the period of collaboration between communists and Fascist, so it would contradict the communist narrative about rebels being led by communists.

Multiple sources present different dates of the beginning of the uprising:

• Letopis Matice srpske. U Srpskoj narodnoj zadružnoj štampariji. 2000. p. 499. Након почетка усташких покоља 2. јуна 1941, свега дан потом почиње неорганизован народни отпор. ... Устанак су почели војници без старешина, које су тек потом бирали.
• Književnost. Prosveta. 2004. ... већ у виштомнa Историји великог отаџбинског рата 1941-1945 написаше да је устанак у Херцеговини почео 3. јуна
• Književnost. Prosveta. 2004. p. 7. Да је овај Устанак почео 6. а не 7. јуна, зна се и по томе што се први партизански батаљон, који је настао у Гацку крајем 1941. године, звао Батаљон 6. јун
• Нова зора. СПКД "Просвјета", Одбори у Билећи и Гацку. 2006. p. 439. „устанак је букнуо баш у овом крају" и до првих борби са усташком влашћу дошло је на Степену 6. јуна 1941.
• http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/reportaze/aktuelno.293.html:610805-Prva-puska-hercegovacka - Historian Petar Mandić refers to this uprising as Sixthjune Uprising ( U knjizi "Junski ustanak Srba u Hercegovini 1941" on navodi da je KPJ nastojala da se predstavi kao jedini inspirator narodnog otpora i šestojunski ustanak prećutkivala, jer u njemu nije imala neposrednu ulogu.)
• https://www.herceg.tv/drustvo/3521/dan-za-istoriju-6-jun-1941-hercegovci-zapoceli-prvi-ustanak-u-porobljenoj-evropi Gacko municipality proclaimed 6 June as their holiday in honor of the beginning of the uprising and held public ceremonies on 6 June for decades, as the Day of Gacko which may be included in eventually newly created Legacy section
• Ekmečić, Milorad (2002). Дијалог прошлости и садашњости: зборник радова. Службени лист СРЈ. p. 391. Због тога је немогуће тачно одредити када је почео устанак у Херцеговини 1941. Било је простора са више села где хрватске власти и окупациона војска никада нису дошле.

It is necessary to respect WP:NPOV and present information about different views of communist and noncommunist historiography regarding the date of the beginning of the uprising.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

For starters, Sanski Most is not in Herzegovina, so how would anything that happened there be within scope of this article? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In case you missed this, Antidiskriminator, please explain how a revolt in Sanski Most has anything to do with the scope of this article, which is the revolt in eastern Herzegovina. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that communist historiography intentionally ignored all pre-22 June rebels, including the uprising in Sanski Most and also uprising in Herzegovina (which is the topic of this article). I also explaned why they did it. I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

How many of the above quotes relate to the Sanski Most uprising? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, I am happy to discuss the above, just as soon as you explain how many of the above quotes are talking about the revolt in Sanski Most. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in aftermath section

• The Aftermath section contains contradictory and mutually exclusive statement about the communist involvement in the uprising:
  • the uprising involved neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović nor the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ).
  • the KPJ in Herzegovina voted to join the mass uprising, but this only occurred on 24 June, when the uprising was already in full swing.

If the uprising indeed involved neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović nor the ... KPJ, then the text about the subsequent activities and Bosnia-wide revolt violate WP:NPOV because they are connected only with KPJ and their readiness to struggle against Axis. ...the uprising in Herzegovina did not advance until the Bosnia-wide revolt occurred at the end of July, by which time the KPJ was ready for active involvement in the fighting ignoring Chetniks who had significant role in anti-Axis actions in Herzegovina and Bosnia-wide revolt (i.e. Siege of Rogatica (1941), Capture of Olovo (1941)....) and ignoring the fact that KPJ was not ready only ..for active involvement in the fighting but to misuse uprising for communist revolution (Leftist errors (Yugoslavia)).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retaliation"

The sentence:

Professor Marko Attila Hoare states that the full-scale uprising resulted from the Ustaše retaliation against attempts of the Serbs of eastern Herzegovina to defend themselves, combined with the launching of the German invasion on 22 June.

...is a bit awkward, I'd say, and it does seem to suggest - taken out of context - that there was some tit-for-tat stuff going on, which I don't think would be a proper description of the events.

Also:

On 3 June, there were several incidents in which armed villagers spontaneously retaliated against the local authorities. That afternoon, 20 Ustaše were entering Donji Drežanj to confiscate firearms when they were attacked by a group of armed villagers.

Here, "retaliated against" does not fit with what is described in the second sentence. "Resisted", perhaps? GregorB (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input GregorB and your confirmation that text authored by Professor Marko Attila Hoare is not a proper description of the events. It is very important to have in mind the context. Having in mind the context of genocidal state of NDH what do you think about the following sentence:

• .... local Serbs wanted the NDH authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Davor Marijan, this was a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action...

Is this sentence a proper description of the events? Do you think that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice? What would be the good choice for them? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm commenting on the text only, I haven't seen the source (I'd be interested in Hoare's exact wording).

"Leave them alone" - surely there is a better wording. Branch Davidians would like to be left alone too. GregorB (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The context here is in the early period of genocide of Serbs committed by NDH. Maybe you are not so familiar with that topic. Try to imagine, instead, the early period of holocaust in Nazi Germany instead of Serbs in NDH. In that case the sentence would look like: .... local Jews wanted the Nazi German authorities to leave them alone and not impose on their lives. According to the historian Foo Foo, this was a poor choice that gave the Nazi Germany an excuse to take radical action...

Would you GregorB still think that the only issue of the wording above would be the better wording of "leaving alone"? Would you say that desire of local Jews that Nazi Germany should leave them alone (or any better worded expression) and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice? What would be the good choice for Jews? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I don't disagree with the basic point of the sentence you provided - quite the contrary - it's just that the choice of words ("leave them alone") is perhaps unfortunate, as if it's about receiving unwanted phone calls or the like, and not something much more serious. GregorB (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will provide a quotation from Hoare, and we can go from there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In relation to the first query, on p. 28 Hoare says

Small-scale armed attacks by Serb bands on Ustashas, Croatian policemen and soldiers occurred during the April War in many places throughout the NDH, but the first mass uprising in Bosnia-Herzegovina began in June. As the Ustashas attacked Serbs in eastern Herzegovina, the latter responded in early June with ambushes of Ustasha units. Ustasha retaliation coupled with the news of the outbreak of the German-Soviet war resulted in a full-scale uprising in eastern Herzegovina by 24 June. At spontaneous mass rallies sparked by the news of the Axis attack on the USSR, the Serb peasants of several villages of the Nevesinje and Gacko districts voted on 23-24 June for an all-out struggle against the Ustashas, which then broke out across eastern Herzegovina as rebel bands attacked gendarme, Home Guard and Ustasha stations.

Hoare specifically uses the term "retaliation" in this passage. Am interested in GregorB's view on how the wording could be improved to better reflect the source. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not primarly about source misinterpretation, but also about source selection issue. I will point here to discussion about the source issue at Glina massacres article which ended with delisting GA status of that article. I am afraid that this article suffers from the same issue. In one of my earlier comments I already pointed to this issue (link) in relation to Marijan. In relation to poor choice of Serbs issue based on Marijan, Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to present a quote from work of Davor Marijan for claim that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. The entire article is sourced reliably. I have provided a quote from a reliable source for the passage in question. Please explain how I have misinterpreted the source in this instance. If you have reliable sources (rather than your opinion) that contradict this passage in the article, then quote them here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I will repeat my polite question: "will you please be so kind to present a quote from work of Davor Marijan for claim that desire of local Serbs that NDH should leave them alone and not impose on their lives was indeed a poor choice that gave the Ustaše an excuse to take radical action"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I am dealing with one issue at a time. Kindly explain what has been misinterpreted in the quote from Hoare, or how the passage in the article can be improved now you have access to the quote in question. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you misinterpeted the source. Someone who does not AGF (not me of course) might get the impression that you know I caught you red-handed which is the reason why you continue to avoid to present the quote. Here is the quote:

Stajališta su pokazala da se kontaktirano stanovništvo opire priznanju nove vlasti ili se pokušava postići mir zadržavanjem stanja kakvog jest, odnosno bez predavanja oružja i ulaska oružništva NDH na teritorij, što oružništvo nije moglo prihvatiti. Cijena takvog postupka bila je za srpsko stanovništvo vrlo nepovoljna i držala je otvoren prostor radikalnim ustaškim akcijama.

No "poor choice" victim blaming...... The quote instead also explains that Serbs were constructive and tried to achieve the peace and status quo ("pokušava postići mir zadržavanjem stanja kakvog jest"). That is not mentioned in the article. Having in mind that Ustaše planned to genocide Serbs before the war even began, trying to find reasons to blame Serbs for anti-Serb actions of Ustaše in Eastern Herzegovina can only be seen as pushing the pro-Ustaše POV. Since this discussion will hardly result with consensus about the main issues of the article, I will try to resolve the issue of the article by including more participants in it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll deal with one thing at a time, thanks. I'll get to this when you answer my question about the first quote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Retaliation", part II

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for providing the Hoare quote. In retrospect, I can say that the first sentence discussed here ("Professor Marko Attila Hoare states", etc.) is an appropriate summary of the source. As far as the wording is concerned, perhaps it could be improved upon, but I have no specific suggestions or objections.

In the second sentence ("On 3 June, there were several incidents", etc.) I feel that, as already suggested, "resisted against" is a better wording. "Retaliation" suggests a retributive action generally uncoupled from its cause ("tit for tat"), while in this case, the villagers' reaction was apparently directly aimed at stopping the confiscation of firearms, so it qualifies as direct (armed) resistance. GregorB (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Not only Mijo Babić, but also Pospišil and Pogorelec?

Besides the issue related to Mijo Babić (explained in this section) the other two main Ustaše assasins on King Aleksandar were also killed during this uprising, Pospišil and Pogorelec:

• Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1989). Proterivanje Srba sa ognjišta 1941-1944: svedočanstva. Prosveta. p. 342. Došlo je do krvavih borbi u kojoj su poginuli zloglasni Mijo Babić (Mijo Kralj) i Antun Pogorelac, atentatori na bl. poč. Kralja Aleksandra, oficiri ustaške milicije.
• Istorija Radnickog Pokreta. 1965. p. 118. Pošto su imale 4 mrtva (među njima i ustaški emigrant Zvonko Pospišil) 185 i 4 ranjene, ustaše su odstupile prema Avtovcu i Gacku. Kod Pospišila nađena je mašinka (ustaše su svu četvoricu poginulih ostavile na položaju) i isprave na osnovu kojih je identifikovan.
• Bilten. Udruźenja. 1979. p. 25. Из докумената нађених код тог усташе,сазнало се да је то био Звонимир Поспишил.
• genocida, Muzej žrtava; zadruga, Srpska književna; veku, Odbor SANU za sakupljanje građe o genocidu protiv srpskog naroda i drugih naroda Jugoslavije u XX (1995). Genocid nad Srbima u II svetskom ratu. Muzej žrtava genocida i Srpska književna zadruga. ...у првом окрша]у погинуло неколико усташа меЬу ко]има и емигрант Звонимир Поспишил, ]едан од атентатора на краља Александра Карађорђевића

The article does not mention any of them, which means that it does not fully addresses the main aspects of the topic, provided that sources I presented above are correct.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You should add them then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that your claim that the omission of these two individuals undermines the comprehensiveness of the article is utter nonsense. These are two bit players, notable for something other than their role and death in this uprising. Your idea of what is a main aspect of this topic and the level of detail is necessary to make an article comprehensive is seriously faulty. Nevertheless, I would not oppose their inclusion, so go ahead if you wish. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The title of this section is Not only Mijo Babić, but also Pospišil and Pogorelec. No doubt that Mijo Babić is most important, which is the reason I mentioned him first, both in the title of this section and in the sentence. The central point of my arguments on this talkpage is that this article omitted a long list of people, including Mijo Babić, Radojica Perišić, Zvonimir Pospišil, Antun Pogorelec.... Your driving attention to two least important persons is fallacious avoiding the issue. You used the same fallacy in the discussion about when this uprising began drawing attention to Sanski Most instead to Eastern Herzegovina which was the central point. Using fallacies to avoid the issue is not constructive, especially if you are responsible for creation of the issues. That is one of the reasons why I will try to involve more editors in this discussion before I continue my participation in it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You always avoid any issue I raise. Your avoidance of my question about Sanski Most is yet another example of that. Why did you even raise Sanski Most except to try to bolster your argument with irrelevant information? I have asked you valid questions about the Sanski Most issue, but you refuse to answer them. We cannot move ahead regarding the date the uprising began until we sort out how much of the material you are relying on refers to Sanski Most (and is therefore irrelevant here). Once we have sorted that out, I am happy to discuss the issue of when the uprising began. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that the list of important persons omitted in this article is longer than I thought. Before I involve more editors in this discussion I will point to another important Ustaše officer who participated in this event, but not mentioned in the article. Rafael Boban:

Мирковић, Јован (2005). Genocid u 20. veku na prostorima jugoslovenskih zemalja: zbornik radova sa naučnog skupa, Beograd, 22-23. april 2003. Музеј жртава геноцида. p. 196. ISBN 978-86-906329-1-6. У Столац и Берковиће дошли су најближи сарадници Павелића: Мијо Бабић, Рафаел Бобан, Антун Зличарић и Херман Тогонал да се договоре о гушењу устанка у источној Херцеговини и потпуном уништењу српског становништва

Strugar, Vlado (1997). Drugi svjetski rat--50 godina kasnije: radovi sa naučnog skupa, Podgorica, 20-22. septembar 1996. Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti. p. 709. ISBN 978-86-7215-089-6. ...пристигла је у помоћ група усташких официра са "поглавним побочником" Мијом Бабићем. У тој групи налазилу су се још и Антон Подгорелац, „почасни припадник" поглавникове бојпе и поручник Рафаел Бобан, натпоручник Анте Перковић, Крешо Тоногал итд...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again you completely ignore what I ask and again have failed to edit the article, despite the fact I have expressed no opposition to its inclusion, and despite the fact that you have added this information to other articles. What is stopping you doing so here? This is tendentious behaviour, and closely reflects your behaviour on the talk page of the Djurisic article, for which, I might remind you, you received a well-deserved TBAN. Just so we are crystal clear, I have no opposition whatever to you adding this information to the article. I will fix any citation issues and grammar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)