Talk:Draža Mihailović

Dragoljub Mihailovic

There is absolutely no proof of him collaborating with the enemy. What would he have to gain if he did collaborate? Why did he stay on in Serbia when the late Col. Nick Lalic, a friend of mine, offered Mihailovic safe passage aboard a U.S. transport plane to Bari, Italy. Why did Eisenhower and deGaulle made a recipient of their country's medals? After defying Hitler, calling Mihailovic a collaborator makes little sense. On this stub, for sure, your reputation and Wikipedia's are on the line..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.113.200 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring sources that back up your statements, and we'll surely consider them, but without reliable and verifiable sources, I'm afraid your assertions carry little weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Churchill

Filip, if you can spare a moment to break away from penning frivolous time-wasting posts at AN/I trying to get me blocked, what do you think we should make of Winston Churchill, who wrote in his book Closing the Ring, Volume 5, p.415: "Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received show that he [Mihailović] had been in active collaboration with the Germans". [5]. Do you think this is a source we can use, and if so, how? Thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just add it as a sourced quote... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"penning frivolous time-wasting posts at AN/I trying to get me blocked", sorry, no real good faith on your side. Also, excellent moment for apologies was just wasted by you, and you prefered to insult a report I have rightfully donne on you. I have been allways very polite with you, allways respected you, and discussed with you all the way. You behaviour is some ocasions, specially in your last post directed to me, citing you

:"::Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)"

just tells me it would be a waste of time. If you want to show some good will, make an effort to convince the user that is boycoting the mediation request. Good edits! FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• "I have been allways very polite with you, allways respected you, and discussed with you all the way". Most amusing. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the [6] (I found it...) incident mentioned [7], I sincerely apologise to you, AlasdairGreen27. It happend because I had an edit conflict (see time between different versions), and I didn´t even noteced it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Revision

Ok, let us see if we can come to some consensus. I've taken a stab as a rewrite, trying to take into account some of the concerns expressed while sticking to the secondary sources we have.

One suggested version of a new lead from User:FkpCascais:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly condecorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians.

Current lead:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A World War II Axis collaborator, he lead the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to maintain the occupation and eliminate the Yugoslav resistance, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito.

The Chetnik organization, officially named the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (JVUO, ЈВУО), was founded as a royalist/nationalist Serbian resistance movement, but by late 1941 and early 1942 began collaborating and assisted the Germans and the Axis occupation as an auxiliary militia for most of the war in Yugoslavia. The Chetniks' main adversaries were the Allied Yugoslav resistance forces, the Partisans.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad.

My suggested version, please discuss below, but let's keep it civil, short and on topic, please--when these sections get too long it's tough to keep everything straght:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) served as Yugoslav general during World War II. A veteran of the Balkan wars and World War I, Mihailović led the Chetnik movement, initially founded as a royalist resistance force in 1941 opposing the Axis occupation. The Chetniks, however, soon found themselves in civil armed conflict with the communist Partisan resistance force led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito, and by late 1941, Mihailović and many of the Chetniks were collaborating with the Axis, operating as an auxiliary militia for most of the war.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad. He was also posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit by the United States government for his part in the rescue of American airmen.

Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when mediation request is signed by the User:DIREKTOR, trouth good will will be demonstrated, and further discussion can take place. Anyway, your efforts Nuujinn are much apreciated. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(It goes without saying FkpCascais opposes this - it has the word collaboration in it. Trying to shift the fellow from his irrational position with rational argument is not going to get us anywhere.)

Sounds good, two minor initail suggestions, though:

• I'd replace "many of the Chetniks" with simply "Chetniks". By 1945, all of the Chetniks collaborated. This is conclusively sourced on the Chetniks article with many of the same sources listed here. There wasn't some mysterious phantom brigade or battalion or corps that did not receive arms and supplies from the Axis or that "refused" to participate in Axis offensives. By 1945, there were certainly no exceptions.
• The bit about the legion of merit is not for the lead, I think. It seems a bit biased to list awards and decorations in the lead as suggesting some form of US recognition. To mention another highly decorated Yugoslav WWII military person as a precedent (and to demonstrate that I'm not suggesting this out of some biased motive), the Josip Broz Tito article does not list any of the man's 98 international decorations in the lead. To be sure it is noteworthy, just not quite essential lead info.

Tomorrow I'll have a better look. I'm certainly going to suggest something very similar to the above.

FkpCascais, how's this: give us some time to put together the new lead and we'll go for mediation then? I'll write it up myself once we're done? The rest of us need to be sure where we stand on the lead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's generally good, Nuujinn. A couple of comments though. He wasn't a General, just a Colonel. Is it encyclopedic to have the Uncle Draža stuff on the first line? Where are the sources that say this is important? The bit about "served as Yugoslav general during World War II" isn't right - if there was a "Yugoslav" army during WWII, it was the Partisans. And it is possibly mistaken to refer to the Partisans as "communist" if we are talking about 1941. The communist influence/faction/element/whatever in the Partisan movement prevailed later, probably by 1943 I'd say, but in 1941 it was simply an anti-occupation resistance movement with no political goals. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his rank, FWIW, Brittanica has him a general, but if you have a good source, by all means let's change it. Same for the other bits. Regarding the Yugoslav army, I'm not so sure, just in that the bits I've read refer to Peter's government in exile. Of course, I suppose one could argue that during the occupation, there was no real Yugoslav army at all. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New lead revision

Here's a fresh draft, trying to incorporate suggestions so far:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) served as Yugoslav general during World War II. A veteran of the Balkan wars and World War I, Mihailović rallied Serbians and Montenegrans to form the royalists Chetnik movement as a resistance force in 1941 after the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The Chetniks, however, soon engaged the communist Partisan resistance forces led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito in civil armed conflict, and by late 1941, Mihailović and Chetniks were acting in collaboration with the Axis, operating as an auxiliary militia for most of the war against the Partisan resistance. Chetniks did, however, sporadically engage in opportunistic acts of resistance against the Axis throughout the war, partly in the attempt to retain support from the Allies.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad.

Comments:

• I make some general copy edits.
• I removed the "uncle draza" reference, but we should I think reference that somewhere.
• I changed "Chetniks", but I think if we use it that way for acts of collaboration, we should also for acts of resistance.
• I left "General", since I have found some references to him serving in that capacity, but changed the characterization of the forces.
• I deleted the reference to the legion of merit, but added a reference to acts of resistance, and rescue of allied airmen. The wording is awkward, but I think we need something about this aspect in the lead.
• Regarding the communists, from what I've read, the partisans were started by communists, but they were initially open to anyone who would fight with them against the axis (I'm more familiar with German history, and that makes sense to me since the nazis were devoted anti-communists). Does anyone have a particularly good source on the origins of the partisans? Also, Martin's book does indicate politics were involved by the end of 1941 or early 1942, indeed, if no politics were involved, why would the chetniks and partisans

--Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(this is so I can see the references as they appear in the drafts) --Nuujinn (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC) References

Nuujinn, we can perfectly work from here the lead. Now, some opinions regarding its content:

• I obviously think that regarding Chetniks (and, when Chetniks in general are refered in the WWII, it is about the ones that were under Mihailovic) much information is still wrong in the sentence. For instance, Chetnik movement was never "rallied Serbians and Montenegrins", in same way you say Partisans were open to everybody that is perfectly correct to Chetniks , as well. It is even wrong to say (not that you are saying it, but many times in many ocasions, they are described that way...) that they are a "Serbian" movement. They fought for the continuation of "Yugoslavia", they were defending K. of Yugoslavia. The thing is that he was perfectly aware that in those turbulent years, and having in mind that many separatist organisations were operating in full strenght and with foreign support, the posibility of having some other political unit that not the previous Yugoslavia was possible. But what he certainly defended was the Serbian (that since 1918 also became "Yugoslav") royal family, and the possible territory that would be associated to them. So, it is much more correct not to specify the movement as "Serbian" or "Serbian and Montenegrin" because, despite having some nationalities that had within its population sectors that supported separatism, all of them had also large sectors of its population that were seing as very positive to keep close tights with Belgrade and continue inside whatever new political unit Serbia was in, meaning, the Chetniks, as basically the successors of the former Yugoslav Royal Army, obviously included in its ranks people from all Yugoslav nationallities, and had supporters from all over Yugoslavia in general (of course, somwhere were more, somwere less popular). The fact that it was a "Serbian dominated" movement is equivalent to the situation that the Yugoslav Royal Army or Kingdom of Yugoslavia were as well.
• The mentioning the "rescuing of Allied airman" in this context is also dubious, because you could say that by that fact you are contributing in mentioning their Allied efforts, but in same way, you are giving the impression as that was their main archivement as "Allies", and also that because of only that, they were considered resistance and Allies.
• The entire sentence looks pretty much that the Axis and Allies were replaced: For instance: You say: "Chetniks did, however, sporadically engage in opportunistic acts of resistance against the Axis...", I would very much say that the Chetniks sporadically engaged in act of collaboration. By this, you want to give the impression that the Chetniks were Allied "sporadically" and that is not correct, they did however "sporadically" collaborated... You are atributing the word "sporadically" in a completely oposite situation that, when regarding Chetniks, is normally used. Note that this simple wrong use of one simple word totally dislocate the weight of the understanding of the sentence in favour of collaboration.
• There is obviously more work to be donne in the rest as well, but lets start with this...
• I don´t have a formed opinion about the inclusion, or not, of the "Unckle Draza" citation... I don´t mind at all excluding it from the lead.
• Regarding the communists... despite direktor not agreeding with me on this (I really don´t know why, he should speak with my grandfather that lived it back then and completelly agrees), the general population in Yugoslavia, like in many places in Europe, started to be fragmented into rightists and leftists. Since the King Alexander prorogued the Parliament and introduced a personal dictatorship, that lasted from 1929 until the war, the disatisfaction grouth, and many people from all sectors of the society started to addere to leftist or rightist ideals. The leftists are the ones that with the beginning of the war are generally going to become members of the Partisans. The right wing of the political spectrum was different depending on the region. While political parties undergroundly continued to exist, the dictature made their political activities inuseless. So, some people in some regions begin giving support to some right wing regional separatist movements (Croatian Ustaše for instance are the most notable). Many people remained in the "centre", and many rightists, obviously specially from Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia, mantained their support to the King.
• FkpCascais (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, why do you insist on these incredibly MASSIVE essays?? This is not the way to discuss. Noone can respond to your entire post this way, and very few users will have the patience to read a constant battery of essays. WP:TLDR

I made a small revision to the current lead (which I support completely). I removed the bit about rescuing allied airmen. To quote the sources [8]

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)]

We can either include all the essential information about allied airmen or none of it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the massive essays, I apologise, but frankly, I find it much more usefull because I explain in it the reasons about the disagreements that I have. I could post my version too, and we could just see that wee disagree in almost all but the spelling of the name. So, if a real discussion is going to take place, most of the explanations I already did are going to be needed anyway, so you should really be glad that I am not loosing time. FkpCascais (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fkpcascais, I stated on numerous occasions that I have no problem with altering the lead, so long as it is plainly stated that the man collaborated with the Axis, i.e. so long as the sources and sourced info are not removed.

You don't have much experience on Balkans politics articles so I think you should know that the mediation request may well just be ignored. This is what happens very often - this is why WP:DR is practically useless, and this is why I was reluctant to waste time on it. But lets see... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that we are collaborating on this now (sorry, couldn't resist it) ((sorry, couldn't help myself for that either)). FkpCascais, I'm trying to follow the sources I have seen so far, and I haven't seen any that claim that Chetniks were sporadic in collaboration. Any additional sources you can provide that show such would be welcome, and of course, feel free to post whatever revisions you feel would be helpful. DIREKTOR, you are not, of course, disputing that Chetniks rescued allied servicemen (regardless of motive), or that Mihailović noted by the U.S. government for same. I am sure you are all better read in these areas than I, but I'm a quick read.

Also, I do not think it is helpful here to rehash the past, that is happening enough elsewhere, let's focus on sources and revising the lead here. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, no problem, sorry about the words about the past, I just touth you (or anybody) may find it usefull. About sources, I´ll see if I can find some in the next days, but I have a problem about it:everything I know (nothing, by direktor) is from the books I have in my parents house. I used to read much about this issues, specially in the 1990s. ´There is also the Tomasevic book (that I was being acused of lying) and most of the others. When I go monday to lounch there, I´ll try to see which may be usefull, and later try to see if they are avaliable on the net. Regarding thye existing sources, you shoulod have in consideration mostly Cohen and Ramet. I already told you why Tomasevic can´t be had in account for such accusations, so the claims from Tomasevic must be excluded.
@direktor, do you mean that I must know about things in same proportion I edit articles on WP. Wrong. I never played football professionally, but I edited 90% about it here. That I remember, I have never edited even one article in the area in which I work and in wich I am internationally considered an expert. So, by that you can see that your interpretation on knolledge regarding the number of edited articles and its area is completelly wrong. I would be quite a sad person to do here on WP the same thing I do professionally. This inclusion of mine on this subject was, lets say, "an accident", but that has nothing to do with my knolledge on the subject, in which I obviously am not an expert, but I am far from being an ignorant. It would be quite ironic if you have been loosing all this time here, and also have editors that completelly agree with me, a total ignorant, as you say, wright? I never said I was an expert on this, and I want be sad if I loose this discussion, but you should stop being absurdly pretentious in constantly considering oposing views of yours, total ignorance. It looks more that is some need in you to discredit adverse opinion, by any means. FkpCascais (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, engaging DIREKTOR in discussion about what you've done, or what you know, or the conflict between you isn't helping. You and he have ANI for that. Please leave those discussions for other venues, if we can keep the various discussions separate we may make some additional progress. I understand that you believe Tomasevic is not a valid source, but unless you can provide reliable and verifiable sources that state that Tomasevic is discredited or not trustworthy, I do not believe that he should be excluded--we are obligated to base all actions on good sources. Also, sources do not have to be available online, if you have some good materials in book form, I'm sure we can check them out. I've close to a major research library, and I think that is true for other editors here as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right Nuujinn and I apologise to you both. I was answering to direktor in that way mostly because his comment remembered me about some line of touths, regarding my knolledge on the subject, that he made in some previous comments of his. I don´t know if, neither think that should, the number of edits on certain topics mean knolledge or not on it. Existence of them can be used in positive way, but it can only work in that direction. The ANI´s are olso somewhat "hot" so, for me, a pause for weekend on this subject will be beneficial.

Regarding Tomasevic, I´ll study the case.

I really hope all of us have a great weekend! FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstood: I study medicine and in (a part of) my spare time I edit history and politics (I get more than enough medicine at school :), I did not mean to imply you were unfit to edit politics/history. My point was that since you did not edit much controversial stuff you might not know that WP:DR requests are very often completely ignored. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know you study Medicine (was psychology, right?), you said it several times, we are both in same situation here, we "do" one thing in life and edit another. I didn´t meant by "sad" anything regarding us here, but rather people in general, I find owfull doing same thing 24 hours a day. Also, I know what you meant, that is why I said that your comment "reminded me" of some older ones, you did said in the past things like me having no knolledge, and with all this ANI´s and all, I am extremely jumpy, excuse me, please. And you were right, I didn´t knew almost nothing regarding Dispute Resolution. Anyway, this request of mediation that we are waiting, well, since it hasn´t reach consensus neither within historians (I know you disagree, I know...) it will be extremelly hard for wikipedia and "us" here to "judge" an issue so hard to "judge". So, no surprise nobody really wants to offer on this. But, lets wait and see. It hasn´t been rejected and I beleve it wan´t be. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(Psychiatry is my main interest, not psychology.) Nobody really wants to get involved in this sort of stuff, and on rare occasions when someone does the mediation is very badly done... its a simple fact I've always been pointing out. Welcome to the Balkans. Think of it this way: if you were an admin, would you be interested in studying about some complex African tribal dispute that took place a hundred years ago, then reading IMMENSE amounts of dispute text carefully only to solve something on a page nobody even visits? The article is even stable now... Someone might come, but I doubt it...

I suggest we work this out somehow. Are you still opposed to inserting a reference to his collaboration in the lead? In spite of there existing an entire (unopposed) section called "Axis collaboration"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You know well that the fact of having the chapter doesn´t mean he was mainly collaborator... I don´t opose using the word itself (don´t get too excited) but I oppose the way it has been used until now. You know, I´m not sure you noteced it, but in some point, at the beginning of this, I did indirectly proposed to you to give up on your version of the lead, but freely edit the chapter "Axis collaboration" (meaning, I wouldn´t had lost time back then warring with you in it). I had just ended telling you that [9], but 7 minutes later you ruined it [10]. Anyway, it is "unopposed" because this (the lede) was/is more urgent and because editors understood the "mud" we were in (citing again NSU). Anyway, I disagree with you about the importance of the article. It may not be first page news today, but he was forgoten maynly because of almost half century of Tito. Lets se how this goes, but please, we had already been in this situation in some times but, since I didn´t changed my positions, you were pretty soon calling me "nonsence", "badly written English" and stuff like that. Please don´t disapoint me this time. It is a discussion that we had choused to be so, lets expect the hardest so if it turns out to be easy, it would be great. FkpCascais (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, we'll wait. However, I will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, consent to the removal of the statement that "Draža Mihailović was a collaborator/collaborated with the Axis". I'm certain this is reasonable, I believe I am more than adequately supported with sources on this (no evidence to the contrary), and I am certain that to remove that would not be neutral encyclopedia work, but catering to a national POV. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance and mediation

Just to keep everyone in the loop, I have put up a notice requesting advice/help via WP:EAR. Also, in regard to the mediation request, I'm not sure (since I'm new to this) whether it's going to be processed. It was filed on april 6th, and it's now the 15th (oh happy US tax day), and if it is being considered, by policy should have already been rejected since two parties have not signed on and it's been more than a week. But it could be that it's not been considered yet-as it stands, the request is not fully complete since the section on "Other steps" does not conform to the guidelines. I'm also not sure that User:Hamtechperson was ever notified of the request, there's nothing about it on their talk page or its history. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I have been in contact with some admins that confirmed to me that the mediation request was on hold (thus, not rejected). We should concentrate on that request first, and try to get the edtors that are missing on the acceptance list that sign. Since this article is considered sentivive, it is constantly monitored, so it is hard to beleve that the mediation request is being "ignored". Regarding the missing parties to sign the request (without wanting to ignore User:Hamtechperson), I only see missing User:DIREKTOR, as active participants on this discussion, and involved parties on the dispute. Please, concentrate your efforts in getting the only missing user to sign the mediation request (I haven´t seen you trying that not even once, but now I see you seearching other alternatives other than mediation. It looks like mediation is being avoided. Please demonstrate to me that that is not the case). FkpCascais (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, good to hear that its not closed. See DIREKTOR's comment in the lead revision above, he's opened the door to joining. As I said I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone to go to mediation. I'm certainly not opposed to it, however, and if I can be of help in that process, that would be just fine, too. Is User:Hamtechperson aware of the the mediation request? As I said I'm not familiar with the procedure. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don´t want to hear nothing else that is not:"He signed" (and being trouth). User:Hamtechperson has not been active in this dispute, so please don´t start now finding people that has been active in other discussins that not this one. This sounds like reasons to delay the mediation. If you want to alert him about this discussion, you can feel free to do so, but his signature is not required for the mediation request to be complete.(just clarifiying) FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@direktor, please sign, and make your strategy latter. This is a clear sign about your insecurity regarding your statements. I want be tolerating your excuse for this. You had too much time, and you had showed too much bad faith. If you don´t sign, I´ll have to seek further options. FkpCascais (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While we wait, can you present the sources that support your position User:FkpCascais? Do you have anything at all that contradicts the four expert university publications in the article? I think it would be useful for the mediator to have access to the sources outright, I'm sure you'd agree that idle confrontational chit-chat does not mean much when WP:SOURCE is concerned.

I'll add a piece of advice. You write ENORMOUS posts. :) Please do not post WP:TLDR posts and at least try to be concise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see he signed now. I could be tempteted to say "Thanx", but I feel more apropriate in this case the expression: "finally!".

@Direktor, I am not contradicting the sources present there, but I am challenging your missinterpretation of their content. Any other attempt that you make in order to say that you didn´t understood this (since I have explained this over and over again, even at ANI today) is going to be considered intentional bad faith missunderstanding. I say intentional because otherwise I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you. (I´m showing consideration for you here...) FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujinn, direktor just reported me [11]. See what he claims? Now you can really see what is going on here. He even "says untrouths" about the "IQ" sentence. I am sorry, but I had to be a little bit hard on him because he knows very well what am I claiming, he is just doing his best to skip over it, presenting his interpretation of the sources as garanteed and correct, and trying to get me to bring more sources so that his missinterpretation of the already existing ones would´t be on question anymore... That is clear and intentional missunderstanding on his behalve. How can someone allways and continuously use all sorts of manipulation and obstructions if he really thinks that is right? When I think I am right, I act quite in oposite way, I have no fear in having someone confirming it, I would even be glad to. I am that way even when I am not sure of being right... But this unhealthy "competition" that he had going for all this time here... what can I say? I know that if someones fan is wrong doesn´t necessarily mean his team lost, we´ll see about the outcome here (I am not pretentious in oposition to some other users), but direktors behaviour, that is somethig unique (in bad sence)! FkpCascais (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) P.S.:In case I win, I wouldn´t mind sending you a Porto (or some other of your preference, Mateus Rose?), but if I loose, you could send me a Californian Barbera (one of the rare Californian wines I know). I know it doesn´t make sence (it´s usually the other way around, who wins gets) but when happy, I just love giving! Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I had alerted User:Hamtechperson about the mediation. Sorry about the missunderstanding... FkpCascais (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also another thing I need you to know, since you have been very nice and involved with this issue: I allways sign my comments, so the vast number of IP´s attacking direktor&com. is neither was never me. I have no reason for so, neither I need it, since he has gathered already a great number of enemies, even much prior to this discussion here when I even didn´t knew that he exists. I just needed to tell you this, since you don´t know me well... Also, I need to tell you that I may not be this avaliable in the next days, because much time I had lost recently here, and there are also some other things that I need to catch up. Regarding my English, since you are a native speaker, I think that you have probably understood that I usually writte, in the discussion pages, in the way I speak (some different than literary way, you understand me). I find it easier this way. I know that it is far from good but, I did studied in an English schooll while living in Mexico, and I even worked as translator when young. But, of course, when editing an article, I am quite carefull. Anyway, sorry for the long post, I hope nobody is going to report me because of it. Regards Nuujinn. FkpCascais (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT:

User:Hamtechperson has removed himself from the request (he explains the reasons on the request talk page), so now, finally, all intervenients had agreed on the mediation.

I had removed the following articles, Tito and Ethnic cleansing, from the list because I beleve that the main discussion has been done around the other articles, and because that, in my beleve, may help in order to avoid dispersion on the discussion and help on finding someone availiable to mediate for us. Anyway, the articles that I have removed, just as all the others that may include content that is debated in this discussion, should follow the outcome of this debate on the issues that are discussed here. I have removed those articles without consulting you, intervenients on this discussion, so if any of you disagrees, please feel free to adress it. FkpCascais (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomašević

The two parts of Jozo Tomašević/Tomasevich's trilogy that were completed before his death, The Chetniks and Occupation and Collaboration, are now and will in all likelihood always be the seminal and defining works by any scholar regarding the Second World War in Yugoslavia. Presumably the last part was to be The Partisans; very sadly for anyone who has read the first two volumes, we shall never know. Now, I have a very stern and serious point to put here. Very serious objection should be taken to any 'editor' of Wikipedia who attempts to besmirch the name of Tomašević: if any Wikipedia editor attempts to do this, then they are obviously acting from a political motive, as nobody, nobody in academic circles has anything but the highest praise for him. I hope I have made myself clear, Filip. Let me enlighten you with some academic references: here - just click on reviews. Your comments above about Tomašević are ill-informed, unwise, and detrimental to the discussion. Cut it out forthwith. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters much in reviewing history professionals, but I have to say the guy's work is unbelievable. The books are totally professional. Everything he says is so completely sourced there's no debate at all as to its veracity. He must've been researching and digging through archives of all sorts for years on end to create a book that's so neutral on such a difficult and complex subject. Once you've finished reading Tomasevich its best to stop right there as it can only go downhill in term of professionalism and bias.

I plan to base much of Wikipedia's coverage of the Yugoslav Front on his work. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The kind of talk above "Oh, he's a Croat, can't tell us much about Serbia" is a slur on the work and reputation of the finest scholar and Professor of the history of Yugoslavia in WWII. It comes from whom? - somebody who can post on the internet. Filip, back off on this one. -AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'll add this source quotation to the sourced information already listed in the article's "Axis collaboration" section. More sourced information directly quoted from listed sources on the issue of Chetnik collaboration can be found in the Chetniks article's "Axis collaboration" section. (The reader should note that the Chetniks' commander was Draža Mihailović.) Noth sections and their sources have been pointed out to User:FkpCascais, and he has repeated that he does not (and can not) oppose the facts listed therein.

• Roberts, Walter R., Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945, Duke University Press, 1987; ISBN 0822307731
  • [12] "There is little doubt that Mihailović knew about these arrangements [the Chetnik arrangements with the Germans], that he regarded them as the lesser of two evils and that he stayed in the background in order openly to maintain his anti-German attitude, while tacitly hoping to gain an advantage in his primary aim of defeating the Partisans."

• Werner Roehr (zusammengestellt), Europa unterm Hakenkreuz-Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945), 1994, s.358
  • "Though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them. And they did so, more and more..." [Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, commander, Army Group F (stationed in the Balkans)]

• Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421
  • German officers are quoted as describing Mihailović's Chetniks as the most useful collaborating formation in WWII occupied Yugoslavia, also citing the fact that General Mihailović had a Wehrmacht liaison officer:
    "The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger." [General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb]
    (It should be noted that the Partisans were recognized as the Allied military forces of the Yugoslav state.)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, it starts in 1944... when the chetniks were no longer supplied by the allies. Until then they had backing from the US and UK, and the Yugoslav Government in Exile of course. You are biased. That is a fact. You are a yugoslav nationalist. But, I'll come back to deal with this later, as I am swamped with so many other stuff. I think that I am the only one who had any success with changing your rhetoric in the past- though it was a slightly different topic. (LAz17 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).

"It starts in 1944"? :) I think we've loong discarded that fantasy [13]. Not a single source I've seen even suggests something of the sort. The one's above, for example, refer to much earlier dates. Here's a thought: I've yet to meet a single person to oppose this that was not from Serbia. You've some terribly warped ideas about this guy over there, most likely formed alongside the Croatian "domobran" nonsense in the 1990s. LAz, you will have to come to terms with the fact that I am NOT biased, and that your surroundings have far more unrealistic views not only on Mihailović, but on the Chetniks as a whole, and as such are very much more likely to create bias.

Let me ask you something, if I'm a "Yugoslav nationalist", whatever that is, what was old Draža here? What about King Alexander? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

LAz17 and Direktor, please refrain from personal characterizations, they do not help us proceed.

Also, LAz17, please keep in mind that you will have to support any claims with reliable and verifiable sources. There's not much point in making any claims here unless you already have a source to back it up. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know LAz, he's a good guy, and he knows I did not mean that in the sense of an ethnic remarks. Regarding bias, well... he started it, :) and I'm tired of being called biased without any support from sources - esp. when every single solitary thing I state comes directly from sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Direktor is known to be a yugoslav nationalist. One example... in the yugoslav partizans article he viciously tried to eliminate the facts that the army was mainly a serbian army. Well hard luck direktor ol' boy, you lost that one. Similarly you will lose this when I have time to engage in it. Your sources look at only one side of the story and not the other side. The fact that the British and American openly supported the Chetniks until 1943, as their favorite group in the former Yugoslavia speaks for itself. On top of that they continued some support for them until 1944.

Don't worry NuuJinn, I know that sources are required, and that they should be good sources. Academic journals and accredited books, among other materials helped defeat direktor in the ethnic make up of yugoslav partizans. This is next. Heck, one source that I have saved is the same one that direktor was using - same book, different page. It's nice how one does not bother to read the full thing, eh?, only selective things that suite their tune.

Direktor too is a good guy, but we do have a slighty different perspective. He does not like the chetniks, as he is a big supporter of the pan-yugo stuff. That is the slight biase. But, that is good, as it helps counter the numerous nationalist bigotry regarding the events of the 1990s. But this old stuff is indeed an issue of different proportions.

Hm, if I only have time to do stuff. :( *cry* I can't get around to do most of the stuff I wanna do on wiki... time is the enemy! OH say. Hey... that sounds familiar... hm... not the enemy... yeah... [14] But I prefer their other song, [15] Ah youtube. <3 (LAz17 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)).

"It's nice how one does not bother to read the full thing, eh?, only selective things that suite their tune" is the kind of statement I'd ask everyone party to the discussion to avoid--it's fine to banter when folks are not wound up, but it's just too easy to take something like that too hard when the discussion is becoming heated. There's no winning except when we improve an article. The fact is we are all biased, and following WP:CIVIL and sticking to the sources is how we can achieve that goal. So, please, let's try to be more careful in how we phrase things. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vidit ćemo, LAzo, vidit ćemo...:) (That's "We'll see LAzo, we'll see...", Nuujin.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just want to send regards to everyone and say that I´m keeping an eye over here to see when mediation will come. No hurries, I saw the new sources introduced. I´ll give my opinion at mediation. In the meanwhile, it would be good to alter the lede to a more adequat version which would give real NPOV, instead of having this historical leader being acused by some anon editor that has obvious missconceptions against the nationality and also the political views of the person whos biography is found on the article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S.:Nobody saw this brilliant demo by direktor of NPOV regarding Yugoslav monarchic period? Here [16] (see first and second comments). A clear exemple of objectivity... FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi FkpCascais. If you want to work on that lead, how about rewriting the second revision I posted above, put it in a new section, and we'll discuss it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mihajlovic

Hello, I would like to weigh in on this discussion to express my concern about the existing Wikipedia entry on Dragoljub Mihajlovic being biased and documented with partial historical sources. Historians have presented a number of different viewpoints of Mihajlovic, and the very complex historical topic of WWII Yugoslavia, and the Wikipedia entry about the man should reflect this. I am providing historical and media documentation for all of my claims below.

An often-mentioned fact about Dragoljub ‘Draza’ Mihajlovic (which strangely is not mentioned at all in this Wikipedia article) is that he was awarded the Legion of Merit by the United States Congress (for references, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit Mihajlovic is listed among the notable recipients; http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/pilots-hearing.html ). The Legion of Merit was awarded posthumously to express gratitude for saving the lives of 500 American soldiers during WWII. This heroic act is well-documented, and US Veterans who were among those 500 still pay homage to Mihajlovic today (See for example, Freeman, G. A., “The Forgotten 500” http://books.google.com/books?id=zkZJ6yHG-xwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=book+%22the+forgotten+500%22&source=bl&ots=jMNKNZj3VV&sig=Ax2Ww5RWS0EPatZxspimMTGvlqI&hl=en&ei=nCXmS53hKsP7lweS2ICPDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=book%20%22the%20forgotten%20500%22&f=false , or http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/OperationHalyardmissionevokesforgottenfriendshipsamongSerbs,Americans.aspx or the following news report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5CXope9ncI&feature=related).

The question to ask here is why would a German collaborator save the lives of 500 American soldiers who were flying over Yugoslavia in order to bomb German oil fields in 1944? This act certainly sheds serious doubt on the allegation made in this Wikipedia entry, according to which “by late 1941 and early 1942 began collaborating and assisted the Germans and the Axis occupation as an auxiliary militia for most of the war in Yugoslavia.” Furthermore, the reference for this allegation is given as on page (page 34) in David Martin’s book Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich, an extraordinarily complex book, that cannot in any way, shape or form, be reduced to the thesis that Mihajlovic assisted the Axis occupation. I encourage all involved to take a look at this book in order to understand how grossly it is misused in this Wikipedia entry. (While it is not available online, it is available at most libraries).

While I do not know Jozo Tomasevich’s work well enough to contest or commend the research behind it, he is by no means the only authority on Yugoslavia during WWII. Other well-established works, do not paint a portrait of Mihajlovic as a collaborator. These include, the above-mentioned David Martin’s book “Ally Betrayed,” “The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power, 1943-1944,” by Michael Lees; “Tito, Mihailović, and the allies,” 1941-1945 by Walter R. Roberts (http://books.google.com/books?id=43CbLU8FgFsC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=%22new+york+times%22+mihajlovic&source=bl&ots=hQp64EuW5K&sig=LRXUhmU1RuUjNuiBUCpUHKU9wLk&hl=en&ei=sDTmS9uhLYG88ga1-OGFDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false ) Here is a 1942 Time Magazine article on Mihajlovic, the ally: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,766569-1,00.html

When it comes to a contested topic such as this one, it is necessary that more than one historical viewpoint be represented. Most importantly, the opening paragraph of such a wikipedia entry cannot present only one of them.

As an anthropology PhD student, who works on the Balkans and is familiar with the history of the region during WWII, I am frankly shocked at the biases of this Wikipedia entry. Even a comparison with the Spanish, French and Croatian Wikipedia entries on Dragoljub Mihajlovic, sheds a stark light on the bias of the text under dispute. While the first has no mention of Mihajlovic being a collaborator, the last two present these as existing allegations later in the article. Draza Mihajlovic was suspected and accused of collaboration with the Axis powers, but these suspicions and accusations were never proven. Moreover, the motives for such accusations are the subject of many a meticulously researched and nuanced historical investigations that respect the complexity of WWII Yugoslavia as a topic. Allegations that Mihajlovic collaborated with Nazi powers toward the end of WWII do exist, and they should certainly be mentioned. But the need to be balanced with evidence that points to the contrary, because this evidence exists. If summaries and further documentation of historical works are needed, I am happy to write them up.

For the moment, any of the revisions mentioned on this discussion page are better than the existing first paragraph of the entry. For example, the lead revision above is far more representative of the historical understanding of Mihajlovic. I am re-quoting it here:

"Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly decorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians."

Isidoradaven (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)isidora daven

Again with Operation Halyard and the legion of merit. This must be the fifteenth time I have to hear about that nonsense. For the record, all of the above is basically from Serbian nationalist blogs, is obviously irrelevant, and deals with long-defeated & refuted arguments.

Whether he was mistakenly regarded as a Allied leader in 1942 or not is completely irrelevant to these serious discussions. In either case the Allies and Churchill rectified their error in 1943 by abandoning Mihailović due to his collaboration and inactivity, with Josip Broz Tito coming-up on the cover of Times that year. His decorations are as utterly insignificant as is Operation Halyard. Published professional sources that support your view of non-collaboration would be significant. Unfortunately there are none. Quite the opposite (listing just a few examples):

• Roberts, Walter R., Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945, Duke University Press, 1987; ISBN 0822307731 [17]:

There is little doubt that Mihailović knew about these arrangements [the Chetnik arrangements with the Germans], that he regarded them as the lesser of two evils and that he stayed in the background in order openly to maintain his anti-German attitude, while tacitly hoping to gain an advantage in his primary aim of defeating the Partisans.

• As for Operation Halyard. Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman (Texas A&M University Press, 1996) page 48 [18]:

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)]

Yet another WikiCrusader with warped unrealistic ideas about this person, that regards him as some sort of national icon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Legion of Merit was created by the US Congress and is awarded by the United States President, and there is an entire deliberative process that goes into deciding who receives this honor. It is far from nonsense or irrelevant – it is a time-honored tradition established by FD Roosevelt in 1942 (Executive Order 9260, US Public Law 671). Mihailovic was awarded the Legion of Honor by President Truman in 1948, thus after the war, and hence after Churchill revoked his support. This means that after WWII, the American government decided to honor him as an ally, despite war-time allegations of collaboration with the Axis powers.

The link to the text of the Congressional tribute to Mihailovich I included in my post does lead to a page on a Serbian-interest site (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/pilots-hearing.html) . However, this same document can be found through LexisNexis’s Congressional Record Digital Collection (it is necessary to have a LexisNexis account). The reference is: Conressional Record – House 32939, November 19, 1987, Philip M Crane’s address to Congress in 1987 http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=423778119043+12+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve (search ‘Mihailovich’ – the spelling is different). I also located this document at the Regional Federal Depository Library in Boston, MA (http://www.bpl.org/research/govdocs/index.htm), and it is accurately reproduced on the page to which I provide a link. Congressional record documents prior to 1994 are not available online through Thomson.gov or the Library of Congress, otherwise I would provide a public link. Additional texts of interest might include Congressional hearing of the National Committee of American Airmen Rescued by General Mihailovich asking for the erection of a monument to Mihailovich in Washington D.C. Citation: http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=423778119043+3+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve (also available through LexisNexis Congressional Record)

Indeed, I think that a paragraph on Mihailovic's rescue of American airmen is a much-needed addition to the Wikipedia entry.

While I personally never claim a “view of non-collaboration” above, I am stating that historians have made an entire spectrum of claims about Mihailovic. This distribution of opinion ought to be reflected in a Wikipedia entry on a complex and still murky historical subject.

Re: Direktor: I suggest that we all respect the etiquette protocol established by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines . There is nothing I have contributed to this discussion that suggests I am a WikiCrusader (whatever that means) or that I regard Mihajlovic as a nationalist icon. While I appreciate you references to historical works, which I will look at, your personal attacks are quite unwarranted.

More discussion and documentation to follow. I only recently came across this page and do not have all of my materials collected.

Isidoradaven (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Isidoradaven

I don't know what more to say. I feel as though you do not fully understand how Wikipedia determines consensus. Medals are irrelevant, we're talking about the collaboration of Draža Mihailović's forces, not his reputation or his standing in 1942 or '46. We are not talking about his monuments, his fans, his buddies or whatever because he certainly has his detractors as well. And as popular as he may be among Serbs, we're here trying to determine his actions. At this point, we have almost a dozen first-quality sources clearly showing him collaborating in many, many ways. From contacting Axis occupation forces and trying to reach an agreement, right by approving collaboration documents via his personal representatives (e.g. Major Todorović), all the way to allowing his subordinate commanders to collaborate with the German occupation and employing liaison officers (e.g. Major Ritterkreuztreger) with the Wehrmacht command. Yet you talk about a medal in 1946, a date when nothing at all was known or researched about WWII Yugoslavia.

If there are indeed professional, published works that contradict the one's present here and claim Mihailović did not collaborate, then by all means please do present them. As things stand now, they will however be in a very significant minority compared to those that do. The position of the scientific community has been established beyond question, and any source to the contrary will have to be top quality (WP:V) and verifiable (i.e. no fake sources, we've had enough of that on this article). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Isidoradaven, regarding this:"While I personally never claim a “view of non-collaboration” above, I am stating that historians have made an entire spectrum of claims about Mihailovic. This distribution of opinion ought to be reflected in a Wikipedia entry on a complex and still murky historical subject." If you have reliable and verifiable sources that reflect such a spectrum, please feel free to bring them here. I beg of you, however, please, and Direktor also, to be brief in your comments.

Regarding the Legion of Merit, I think Isidoradaven has a valid point in that it should be in the article--this article is about Mihailovic, not just Mihailovic's collaboration. That being said, I do not think that the awarding of this medal in any way contradicts the finding of many historians that Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis, nor do I think it warrants this statement "his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians". Indeed, so far, no one has presented any sources that show any controversy among historians, all of the historians cited in dicussions so far show that Mihailovic did collaborate with the Axis, and none claim that he did not collaborate, whatever other actions he or his troops took. Isidoradaven, if you have good sources that say otherwise, please do bring them. Therefore, I propose to write a draft of a new section dealing with the Legion of Merit and Mihailovic's rescue or other treatment of Allied and Axis airmen, and of the congressional activity regarding him during the last half of the 20th century.

Regarding the lead, please feel free to pick a version from the section above, copy it into a new section below, edit to your heart's content, and we'll discuss it, I'm sure, at great length. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@Isidoradaven, thank you very much for your intervention here. I´m not sure if you know, but we are expecting here a mediation on this issue. I have been defending that the text is biased (with Mihailovic, WWII Axis collaborator statements). You can even see that neither the sources "they" are using doesn´t say that, it´s pure decontextualization and manipulation of sources and its meaning. You had already seen which editors defend that POV. Would you please like to participate in the mediation on this? It is because I am mainly oriented in destroying the sources found for the biased references about collaboration, but I don´t have much time to go beyond that, and, as I already said in previous discussions, the awards are a very important part missing in this article, and you seem to be the right person to edit them. :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.:Don´t bother with "nonsence" language used by some editors (better, ignore it). That´s a purpose strategy they use as attempt to irritate you, or whatever, I have been going to this sort of debate for 3 months now. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic, please sign yourself, if you can, and wish, and we should really wait for User:Sunray to begin the mediation itself (he said that he hopes to start in few days). Than, we should expose the entire case to him. FkpCascais (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fkp, you're back! Do you have some new sources to share with us? Or would you like to attack my integrity instead? This person has two or three awards, and while noteworthy, they do nothing whatsoever to help your case, as compared to professional research in the subject, the fact that someone was awarded some medal (at a time when nothing was known about WWII Yugoslavia) means little or nothing.

@Nuujin. The legion of merit is certainly noteworthy and already in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm proposing to expand the scope of that section. There have been attempts in the US to erect a monument to Mihailovic, and that itself caused a bit of controversy. And as you pointed out, there are some sources which show that Mihailovic's troops tracked allied airmen for the axis forces.

Seems like a good place to do some work. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Agree with Nuujinn, regards. --172.130.27.185 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over Mihailovic’s collaboration with Axis units in WWII Yugoslavia

Hello gentlemen,

I apologize for the delay. Here are quotes from historical sources and books that counter allegations of Mihailovic’s collaboration with German Axis powers:

• From Heather William’s “Parachutes, Patriots, and Partisans; The Special Operations Executive and Yugoslavia, 1941–1945,” University of Wisconsin Press, 2003

http://books.google.com/books?id=BWWJm6URz34C&printsec=frontcover&dq=heather+williams+parachutes+patriots&source=bl&ots=f8D0-Q9C_c&sig=U8Yuc8C7BBrUDDEldDPVKe96Pi4&hl=en&ei=9n7pS9iPGcOAlAetnfGXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Greenwood&f=false

There appears to have been no hard evidence available to prove any collaboration between Mihailovic and the Germans in Serbia. [British Major Eric] Greenwood was adamant that collaboration with either German or Bulgarian occupation forces was out of the question in his area of Eastern Serbia. Cairo SOE [Special Operation Executive] had talked of there being enough evidence to justify withdrawing support, but although this was constantly promised to the Foreign Office, it never seems to have been forthcoming … Attempts by the Germans and by Nedic to make some sort of deal with Mihailovic were rebuffed … None of the British officers attached to the commanders in Serbia witnessed any collaboration between the forces they were with and the Germans … The appellation ‘collaborator’ was allowed to be attached to his [Mihailovic’s] name, not out of conviction, but for convenience. Tito had made it clear from the outset that the British could not have Mihailovic and the partisans. The British chose the Partisans. (Williams, pp. 216 – 217)

Also a quote on interaction with Italian Axis units from From Heather William’s “Parachutes, Patriots, and Partisans; The Special Operations Executive and Yugoslavia, 1941–1945":

Great play had also been made of collaboration with the Italians. This was a trifle duplicitous of the British who had given gold to Mihailovic for the express purpose of buying weapons from the Italians at a time when the SOE [Special Operation Executive] had not been able to supply materiel themselves. However, Mihailovic was always careful to make a distinction between useful contacts and getting too close to the Italians, and broke with Trifunovic Bircanin when he felt the Dalmatian leader had done just that. (Williams, p. 215)

• Nora Beloff also talks about the British encouraging Mihailovic to cooperate with the Italians in Nora Beloff, “Tito’s Flawed Legacy, Yugoslavia & the West: 1939-84,” London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1985:

By then [June 1943] the British were actively encouraging the Chetniks to link up with the Italians. As Peter Boughey, head of the Yugoslav section of the SOE, London, later recalled: “we certainly told Mihailovic to be in touch with the Italians. We knew the situation in Montenegro and wanted him to be able to get Italian weapons when the Italians withdrew, collapsed or surrendered.” [reference note 41: interview with Boughey] With all this going on, the Communists had an easy time collating evidence of “Chetnik” collaboration…. There was however no truth in the allegation that Mihailovic himself ever supported the Axis against the allies. (p. 78)

• Walter Roberts, “Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945,” Duke University Press, 1987; ISBN 0822307731

Any direct collaboration between the Cetniks and the Germans must be excluded, simply because the objective of the German High Command was the destruction of the Cetniks. (p.101)

I have only had time to consult the sources I own. More quotes on the way as soon as I make it to the library in the next day or two. Isidoradaven (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over Mihailovic’s alleged collaboration with Axis units (cont) -- Being careful about the distinction between Mihailovic and the Cetniks

As most historians acknowledge, the Cetniks were a heterogeneous, dispersed movement full of internal conflict and not entirely under Mihailovic’s control. It is therefore impossible to hold him accountable for all Cetnik actions and Cetnik-Axis agreements. The lead paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Mihailovic therefore cannot make the unqualified statement that he was “an Axis collaborator” as it does right now. This point is supported by:

• From Sabrina P. Ramet, “The Three Yugoslavias: State-building and Legitimation, 1918-2005”:

By its very nature, the Chetnik movement was polycephalous. Thus, even while some Cetnik leaders entered into collaborative relationships with the Italians and with the Nedic government, others avoided any cooperation with the occupation regime. (p.147)

• From Stevan Pawlovic, “Hitler’s New Disorder,” Columbia University Press, 2008:

Mihailovic’s nominal subordinates did not follow his orders; they had their own local agenda. They wanted time to obtain supplies, ammunition and transport; they tried to conceal the extent of their deals with the Italians. They quarreled among themselves, and denounced each other. Tension developed between them and Mihailovic… Most of this was known to the Italians, whose military intelligence deciphered radio messages between Mihailovic and his commanders, intermittently from November 1942, and more regularly from March to July 1943. In February 1943, the Germans contributed their stack of intercepts to convince Rome of Mihailovic’s blatantly pro-Allied sympathies. (p.157)

• From Nora Beloff, “Tito’s Flawed Legacy, Yugoslavia & the West: 1939-84,” London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1985

Detailed Axis analyses, which became available after the war, indicate that both the political and military [Axis] authorities sharply differentiated between the Chetniks whom they could use as auxiliary troops, and those who were pro-Mihailovic and could be assumed to be pro-Allies. (p.78)

• From Walter Roberts, "Tito, Mihailović, and the Allies, 1941-1945," Duke University Press, 1987; ISBN 0822307731

“Pointing to the unnecessary burden of trying to take on the partisans and the Cetniks at the same time, those Germans who believe that some sort of German-Cetnik arrangement was advantageous for Germans finally prevailed, even though they were aware that Mihailovic was as anti-Geman as ever and that he hope for and believed in an Allied victory. Several proposals with Cetnik units, though not with Mihailovic, were worked out in the first two weeks of November [1943]…”(p.157)

The fact that there is ample evidence that Mihailovic did not controll other Cetnik officers who collaborated with Italian or German occupying forces means that the lead paragraph of the Wikipedia entry cannot make the unqualified statement that Mihailovic was a collaborator. The distribution of historical opinion needs to be respected as it is represented as it is in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"Fearful, however, of further brutal Axis reprisals against Serbs, Mihailovic came to favour a restrained policy of resistance until the Allies could provide more assistance. The Partisans supported a more aggressive policy against the Germans. Favouring the latter policy and confronted with reports of Chetnik collaboration (particularly in Italian-held areas) directed against Partisan forces, the Allies switched their support from Mihailovic to Tito in 1944." (Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Dragoljub Mihailovic)

I would like to use this point also to say that the photograph of "Chetniks posing with soldiers of the German occupation forces during World War II in an unidentified Serbian village in occupied Yugoslavia" should be removed from the Draza Mihailovic article, unless someone can verify that he is in that photograph. right now it is a misleading image.

I hope that everyone will have a chance to read what I have posted. I have tried to be as brief as possible. I will write up a new lead paragraph for the article and post it for everyone to consider, as opposed to immediately editing the text of the Wikipedia entry.

Isidoradaven (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your version.

I should point out, however, that your sources do not claim that Mihailovic did not collaborate, and other good sources shown that he did. Not that this is not a complicated topic. My own impression is that as much as Mihailovic hated the Axis occupiers, he hated the partisans more, and collaborated with Axis in the attempt to overcome the partisans.

Regarding the britannica article, we did cover that at length, please see the archive. My short opinion is we should not rely on it as a source anymore than we would with wikipedia, since it's not a 2ndary source. Regarding the picture, I think you have a good point, it would rather belong in the chetniks article if Mihailovic isn't in it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources I put forth claim that there is no evidence that Mihailovic collaborated. A man is innocent until proven guilty. Certain of these sources also state that allegations of Mihailovic's collaboration were false and made in order to justify the British switching their support to the Partisans. As long as reliable sources do not unanimously agree on Mihailovic being "a WWII Axis collaborator", that statement does not belong in the lead of the Wikipedia entry about him.

I agree with you on Encyclopedia Britannica and am not suggesting that it be used as a source, only as an example of a balanced account of Mihailovic. Isidoradaven (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

?? If nobody minds me asking, and with all due respect to the effort that went into them - what is the point of all these quotes? The info is all well known and accepted, we all know the Chetniks were a militia-based relatively disorganized force. As Nuujin points out - this does not detach Mihailović from his troops.

• Roberts, Walter R., Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945, Duke University Press, 1987; ISBN 0822307731
  • [19] "There is little doubt that Mihailović knew about these arrangements [the Chetnik arrangements with the Germans], that he regarded them as the lesser of two evils and that he stayed in the background in order openly to maintain his anti-German attitude, while tacitly hoping to gain an advantage in his primary aim of defeating the Partisans."

• Werner Roehr (zusammengestellt), Europa unterm Hakenkreuz-Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945), 1994, s.358
  • "Though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them. And they did so, more and more..." [Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, commander, Army Group F (stationed in the Balkans)]

The bottom line is that these sources do not state he was not a collaborator, merely that he was not directly and fully in command of his troops. The sources cherry-picked in this way cast him as a poor hapless idiot who's "evil" subordinates did all the collaborating - this idea does not hold water when faced with the facts. This was not some kind of helpless stupid person, more like a clever calculating strategist that allowed his troops the room for collaboration and did absolutely nothing to prevent or curtail it, a prudent commander trying to preserve - and supply(!) - his disorganized force until such a time as he can count on Allied military support. The facts support this. For example:

• The Chetnik command had dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28 1941. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism".
• The agreement forming the MVAC was authorized by Mihailović's personal representative Major Boško Todorović
• December 2 1942, Mihailović states in a report to the Royal government that "Because of the large number of the enemy, we strive to beat one after the other. A fight against all of them at the same time would be useless and unsuccessful." The report clearly implies he was privy to and supported ceasefire agreements with the enemy.
• In an Italian intelligence memorandum dated March 26 1943 to the Italian Army General Staff entitled "The Conduct of the Chetniks", Italian officers noted the ultimate control of these collaborating Chetnik units remained in the hands of Draža Mihailović, and contemplated the possibility of a hostile reorientation of these troops in light of the changing strategic situation (e.g. Allied landings in the Italy and the Balkans).

...to name just a few compromising facts that very much sink the "Poor Hapless Idiot Theory". Furthermore, the idea requires one to pretend he/she is stupid, i.e. one is supposed to assume that with the Chetniks collaborating - enjoying a "ceasefire" with the enemy and thriving on Axis supplies and arms - their commander was the only one opposed to and in disagreement with this highly favorable and strategically very prudent turn of events, all based on his own denial (which was required in order to receive Allied support as well) and the lack of discipline in his force. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Isidoradaven, you said "The sources I put forth claim that there is no evidence that Mihailovic collaborated." I do not believe the quotes you supplied claim that--saying that Mihailović was anti-german or the the chetniks were not entirely under his control does not clear him of the charge of collaboration. Whatever his reasons, whatever his ultimate goals, however good or bad a person he really was, the sources presented thus far do show he collaborated.

You also said "A man is innocent until proven guilty." That is true in many court systems, but I do not believe it is relevant here. We are not here to try Mihailović, we are here to write an article for an encyclopedia, and that means sticking with what reliable and verifiable 2ndary sources say. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think is you (Nuujinn and DIREKTOR) that should take your own, Nuujinn´s, advice and see what really all sources say... FkpCascais (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I honestly have. I've read the material you've pointed me to, I've read material Direktor pointed me to, and I've done research on my own. There are four books waiting for me to pick them up tomorrow. I'm willing to look at other sources, if you have any. No matter what you might believe, I really don't have a dog in this race, having no personal relationship to the subject or groups involved, other than having studied German lit in grad school many years ago. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I think Isidoradaven has a point regarding the picture of the chetnik troops (Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg), it doesn't "say" anything about Draza really. So if there are no objections, I'll remove it (and then probably faint, since the idea of there being no objections to a change here will be a real shock (; ). --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have a pillow ready in a strategic location, and go ahead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I really can't dedicate any time to this before this weekend, but if you are picking up books, and if you are willing to read a range of sources, then try to also get at least Heather William’s “Parachutes, Patriots, and Partisans, The Special Operations Executive and Yugoslavia, 1941–1945,” University of Wisconsin Press, 2003, and read the preface and the chapter entitled "Ditching Mihailovic, or Throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water." It describes in detail how despite there being no evidence of Mihailovic collaborating, the British Cairo SOE accepted false accusations from the Partisans in order to justify the decision to rescind support from Mihailovic. Also worth picking up is Micahel Lees' "The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power."

Also, did everyone read my first post (Controversy over Mihailovic’s collaboration with Axis units in WWII Yugoslavia)? It seems that some of you have only read the second. The first quote from Heather Williams says that "there appears to have been no hard evidence available to prove any collaboration between Mihailovic and the Germans in Serbia." If a serious historian concludes that there is no evidence of collaboration, the statement "Mihailovic was a collaborator" should not be made in this Wikipedia article. Regardless, I am not saying that the Wikipedia article should have no mention of the claim that Mihailovic collaborated, I am just saying that historical opinion which claims the contrary, or which does not claim that at all, also needs to be included. Certain scholars claim that he collaborated, others say that he did not, still others come up with more nuanced and complex conclusion such as: he made arrangements with Italian units in order to save Serbian lives, but he never worked with the Germans. This is called a spectrum of opinion. Such a spectrum of opinion and complex conclusions are only to be expected when dealing with a bloody multi-fronted civil war fought within a bloody, multi-fronted World War. Sadly, when it comes to historical topics of such nature it is difficult to make simplistic statements such as "Mihailovic was an Axis collaborator." The differing opinions out there testify to this.

Heather William's book challenges the claim that Mihailovic was a collaborator. In addition, books such as Stevan Pawlovic's “Hitler’s New Disorder” present a whole history of Mihailovic and WWII Yugoslavia without claiming that he is a collaborator. Stevan Pawlovich is a respected historian and professor at the University of Southampton, not someone considered to twist and obscure facts. The Wikipedia entry as it is right now only presents one view of Mihailovic -- that of him as a collaborator. That view has been challenged by some and not presented at all by other scholars. This diversity of opinion has to be respected. A wikipedia entry cannot only present one opinion on a historical figure when there are many out there!!!!! It cannot point the reader to a narrow, biased subset of sources and conclusions.

MOREOVER, this entire entry reads like an article about Mihailovic's collaboration, not an article about Mihailovic. Even the recently added paragraph about Mihailovic saving 500 American airmen contains the most ridiculous interpretative summersaults all geared towards bringing back the theme of collaboration. Instead of letting that fact stand on its own and simply saying: "Mihailovic's forces sheltered as many as 500 downed Allied airmen and their rescue was eventually achieved in Operation Halyard" and referencing the Congressional document I cited in an earlier post (Conressional Record – House 32939, November 19, 1987) , the paragraph goes onto make the following completely undocumented claim: "However, having by now lost all Allied support to the Partisans (along with the recognition of the King Peter II), and with the Axis defeat in Europe a certainty, Mihailović was going to great lengths to regain Allied support, and to depict himself in a favorable light to the western Allies." It's absurd and almost obsessively biased. My question to whoever wrote that sentence is: How do you know what Mihailovic was thinking and trying to do at that moment? Do you have the ability to travel in time and read people's minds? What about that statement is reliable or verifiable???

Finally, there is plenty of documented historical writing on Mihailovic's fighting the Germans and fighting the Ustase as late as 1944. Why is none of this in the article????

One last thing: DIREKTOR, I have gone out of my way to follow the protocol you (rightly) insisted on of quoting sources, and have even given page numbers for everything. Because of this, I am going to ask you to source your facts. The last three paragraphs of your penultimate post read like you are writing your own history with 'facts' you are pulling out of your head. I never propose anything that could be called the "Poor Hapless Idiot Theory," I am simply quoting scholars who have spent entire careers working on this topic and reached complex, nuanced conclusions -- the only sort of conclusions that can be reached when, as I' have already said, dealing with a complicated civil war coinciding with a world war.

What your last post means, I'm not sure I understand. Maybe you should clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.171.54 (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to sign the above Isidoradaven (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So I take it you're ok with me removing the picture? Which I figured anyway, since you suggested it. (;

Seriously, I have a copy of The Rape of Serbia in my backpack, and I'll see if the Williams books is in our local library. However, even if Williams says there's no hard evidence of collaboration, we have to balance that against other sources. Certainly, if there is a controversy between sources, we can document that as well, but I do not agree with your statement "If a serious historian concludes that there is no evidence of collaboration, the statement "Mihailovic was a collaborator" should not be made in this Wikipedia article." If a serious historian concludes that there was no evidence of collaboration, and other historians claim there is evidence of collaboration, then that is what we should put into the article, and if we disagree about the reliability of a source, we should defer to the WP:RSN. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Which exact historians you, Nuujinn claim that claim collaboration? (just asking names, to know) FkpCascais (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I assume you have no objection to removing the picture--that is the topic of this section. Honestly, it would make this whole process easier if folks would keep separate issues in the separate sections devoted to them. In regard to sources, I've quoted from three already, see /Talk:Draža_Mihailović/Mediation_Request. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I obviously don´t opose it. The picture had the sole intention of "demonstrating" somehow that Mihailovic was a collaborator... FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

There is a mediation now in progress. Normally major changes to an article are discussed on the article talk page if there is any disagreement. However, since the article is under mediation, editors are requested to hold off on major changes. If that presents a problem, the article will have to be protected. It is my hope that the discussion of major changes will return to this page once the mediation has achieved a certain level of progress and agreement. The version of the article in place at the time the mediation commenced will stand, for now. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is bureaucracy pure and simple. Nothing has happened on the mediation page since April 20, and the JJ Georges's helpful additions were reverted on the pretext of mediation, which so far had zero (0) progress. I wouldn't object had the changes been reverted for other reasons, such as WP:NPOV or WP:CITE, but this looks like filibustering. No such user (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked here? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, sorry. I followed the events only from aside, and I'm a bit frustrated with the whole affair. No such user (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Very understandable, given the history and some of the personality conflicts involved. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mihailović’s death

Hello, the Slovenian author Marijan Kranjc has written on añ interesting controversy around Mihailović’s death, which is not reflected in the article or discussion, as far as I can see.

"Mija Nikolić, an officer of Yugoslaw Ozna, in his autobiographic book Odraščanje in ideali (Growing and ideals), Niš, Serbia, 2006, wrote that general Mihailović after death sentence in 1946 was not executed, but he died on 1960 in Moscaw, Soviet Union. …

The first news about this matter came from Russian historical dr. Boris Starkov from Sankt Peterburg University in some international historical symposium in Spain, 1993."

Marijan F. Kranjc, 2007, Mysterious death of Chetnik general Draža Mihailović http://users.volja.net/marijankr/engsum.html#mistery

Tmajoor (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And his birth date

The Serbian WP article says:

• Драгољуб М. Михаиловић је рођен 27. априла (по јулијанском календару 14. априла) 1893 ...

which I understand to mean:

• ... was born 27 April (Julian Calendar 14 April) 1893 ...

Only problem is, 14 April OS in the 19th century equated to 26 April NS, not 27 April, because the gap between the calendars was only 12 days. It did not become 13 days until March 1900.

So, the two possibilties are:

• 14 April (os) = 26 April (ns)
• 15 April (os) = 27 April (ns).

Which of these is the correct pair? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the Second World War

I would edit the part of his biography before the Second World War. That part is not controversial and is not debatable. So there is no reason that this part of his biography is frozen work.--Свифт (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be something I think Sunray would have to decide, but we are rewriting the whole article, not just the section on WWII. I don't know what the protocol is, so let's wait until Sunray gets back. I'm sure that there's some way we can incorporate your suggestions. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

While this article with meditation and apparently are not possible changes to this article, which does not concern the Second World War. This leads to the conclusion that someone intentionally wants to this article stays in this form. Which is impossible as long as it is open for writing. For all that we have changed the war which was made only because they tolerate vandalism of individual users, who apparently want to keep this so-and-under eternal mediation.--Свифт (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be an good idea if you (Swift) wished to participate in the mediation, since I´m not having much time to deal about it lately. Will you like to take a look at the current state of the mediation and the text worked there? Because, the current text you are editing in the article page is going to be replaced, so it would be more benefitial if you could work on the text that will actually be the one to stay in the future. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Free mason

Draza Mihailovic was a free mason, and it should be included in the article, and here are references:

• http://www.imperial-media.hr/index.php?id=15
• 1717 - 2010 Review of the history of Freemasonry in Serbia, the Balkans and the world from the book [20]
• http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/86-4-125.shtml
• A brief overview of the history of Freemasonry in Serbia or a movie in which he presented this book [21]

--Свифт (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On the flag of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, there are Masonic symbols such as a skull with crossed bones and the Masonic slogan "Freedom or Death" which originates from the American Masonic revolution the end of the 18th century. SYMBOL skull with crossed bones in the Masonic ritual is a sign of immortality. Appears on the third, a master degree at the so-called John Masons, and is a symbolic picture of the death of the great master of building Solomon's Temple Hiram Abif.--Свифт (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, while I'm fully aware that a number of the US founding fathers were masons, we do not refer to our revolutionary war as the "American Masonic revolution". I looked at some of the links above, I'm not sure they could be considered reliable sources, we'll have to look further into that aspect. Given that this is the english version of wikipedia, can you provide translations for the pertinent passages upon which you rely for this information? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration and other issues

Axis collaborator legal issue: Commission of Inquiry of the Committee for a Fair Trial for Draja Mihailovich in New York held public hearing which took place in Bar Association of New York 1946 in parallel with rigged process in communist Yugoslavia. Commission undoubtedly concluded that Draza Mihajlovic was not Axis collaborator during the WHOLE period of occupation. Not only on the beginning as stated in this article,please examine the conclusion.(Documents from hearing and other related information here.) American pilots, 6 senators, 8 congressman and 6 governors where among many who participated in hearings. According to this conclusions he was awarded Legion of Merit by president Truman. Stating otherwise is defamation(libel) of a decorated war hero and probably base for starting a legal action against defamer. According to all above mentioned I urge You to remove invalid statements from article.

Fake arguments for collaboration: It seams that meeting with the Germans from 1941. is used as argument for collaboration.

There were only 2 meetings which in D.Mihajlovic participated with Germans(one in 1941. and one in 1944.). This meeting took place in Divci 11.11.1941. and was considered unsuccessful. One month later warrant for capture or execution was issued. Reward was offered by Commander of German Forces in Serbia. The warrant states: "100.000 Reichsmark offered for anyone who brings dead or alive gang leader Draza Mihajlovic", the other-longer part of warrant is a list of various "misdeeds"(link to copy of warrant). The second meting took place in fall of 1944. when Germans wanted to surrender to him instead to partisans(because they expected better treatment). Their request was denied because of previous agreements with Russians on German surrendering in Yugoslavia.

Caption text

Both arguments strongly suggest that he could not be collaborator due to fact that Germans don't issue warrants for collaborators and there is no logic in surrendering to collaborators. Also it seams frivolous to use meetings as arguments because all sides mentioned (cethnicks, partisans, ustase, germans, italians, bosniaks) have met numerous times during the war and created short term agreements against others.

Etnic cleansing section: Image added in "ethnics cleansing section" is used to provide look of paper called "Instrukcije" which should prove ethnic cleansing. The actual paper is on the left side of this image and even with enhancing not even one letter is readable. On the right side is actually a commentary of supposed paper from a book or a newspaper(not clear) from which copy is taken. I recommend the picture to be removed or replaced with something which is actually readable or conclusive. Numbers in ethnics section are used by heavily disputed author Zerjavic. His figures are not only disputed by foreign historians but by several historians in his on country. (link) Therefore if this section is allowed to remain negative criticism should be added. Ngtv (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently in mediation. Regarding "Stating otherwise is defamation(libel) of a decorated war hero and probably base for starting a legal action against defamer.", you may wish to review WP:LEGAL. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the most pathetically dismal sub-teenage legal threat anyway. There is a longstanding legal principle that you cannot defame the dead. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1st, I want to apologize my comment was not meant to be a legal threat. If You look closely the sentence You will see word PROBABLY which gives the sentence totally other tone i.e. this was my presumption. I have made a mistake of putting this in text and I will avoid this kind of statements in future. I have also changed title of topic according to above mentioned.

2nd, You are right about legality of defaming the dead, there is a very nice article about topic, actually first hit on Google.

3rd, the current form and contents of the article is virtually the same as text from history book which I learned from(in school, during communist rule). This texts were written by various communist commesars(not historians) who were part of the same group who executed him immediately after the rigged trial. Which makes the things a little absurd because after they hastily executed him, they had a legal principle to defame him as much as they wanted.

4th, It seams that Wikipedia is a place were war medals, legal hearings and live witnesses(American airman) have less value than "various sources", communist text books and false dissidents turned historians.

5th, "most pathetically dismal sub-teenage", very mature comment.

Ngtv (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This so called 'Committee for a Fair Trial for Draja Mihailovich' was a big joke and a product of Serbian-Chetnik lobbying spearheded by two Serbs Nick Lalich and George Musulin, and their sympathisers, most vocal being Richard Felman. None of these Chetnik supporters reviewed Archives of Military Institute of Belgrade that testify in countless pages of Draza Mihailovic's crimes. 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) 04:35, 6 November 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) 21:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am from Serbia and I can tell you that the Serbs did not kill Jews during World War II. In the German occupation zone "Serbia" (1941 - 1944) Jewish question was the jurisdiction to the Gestapo. [22]--Свифт (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Extradition of Nazi in U.S. Requested by Serbian Court--Свифт (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you. Why would I believe you and few worthless links you posted? Yad Vashem has more credibility than you and your suspiciously crafted opinion-based news articles. There is too much evidence of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnia's Muslims and Serbs, and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. You cannot change the history. As for Richard Felman, I wish he visited hundreds of mass graves of slaughtered Muslim women and children in eastern Bosnia. I wish Felman visited Serbian village of Vranici to see how Draza Mihailovic's chetniks slaughtered Serbian civilians, including babies. See my comment below. Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely Biased

This article is so blatantly biased and one-sided its ridiculous. Here's a couple newspaper articles from the press these days about people who met and spent time with Mihailovic during ww2 and testifying that Mihailovic DID NOT collaborate with the Germans

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwUVUKs7Ept70Do8T5dvuvfqvP-g?docId=5010fd11d1dc43a9b59fb37d356062ec

http://english.blic.rs/Society/7006/A-Serb-from-CIA-decorated-for-saving-of-American-pilots

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/66-years-later-a-bronze-star/

The lead title NEEDS to be changed. It basically outright says that Mihailovic was a collobator citing four second hand sources of authors who have that point of view. I can very easily name four authors who hold the opposite view. Even for Yugoslav standards this article is pathetically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugo91aesop (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Few news articles cannot change the history. Your links are completely out of touch with reality. Why Josip Broz Tito was not awarded medals for rescuing 800 allied pilots? Mihailovic got it thanks to Serbian (Chetnik) lobbying in the United States. 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) 04:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Amazingly very few or none of the new images posted here are properly licensed. Someone is likely going to have to go to work removing them in a while. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Documents of Draza Mihailovic's Crimes and Nazi Collaboration

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) 04:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisan Crimes

The war from 1941 to 1945, all sides have committed war crimes, and the Chetniks and Partisans. Crimes are also committed partisans led by Josip Broz. The Serbian government has formed a committee under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice to investigate partisan crimes [23] . Slovenia has done this before. In an article on Draza Mihailovic can read about the crimes Chetniks. But in an article about Josip Broz is nothing written about the crimes of partisans. I plan to write a separate article about the crimes of the Yugoslav Partisan war crimes in WW2. I have a reference to this article.--Свифт (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Soviet invasion"?

Serbian President Boris Tadić with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during the celebrations for the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade (primarily) by the Soviet military.
According to entire sections of this article Tadić is supposedly thanking Medvedev for the (quote) "Soviet invasion of Serbia".

The article has been rewritten in a highly biased tone, without any connection to actual history.

The political situation of Yugoslavia at the time (September 1944) was as follows. The following was the state of affairs agreed-upon, accepted and recognized by the King of Yugoslavia, his government-in-exile, and the entirety of the Allied Powers. If anyone wishes to challenge any of these facts, please let me know, mountains sources can be provided in the blink of an eye.

• The country was named "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", as agreed-upon by the King/his government and the AVNOJ, i.e. the Partisans, by the Tito-Šubašić Agreement
• The Partisans (by that time numbering some half-a-million men) were recognized universally, both by the king and all of the Allies, as the official military of Yugoslavia.
• The Prime Minister of Yugoslavia was Josip Broz Tito, also recognized universally as such.
• Yugoslavia was at all times during the war (1941-1945) allied with the Soviet Union.

As the Red Army approached the borders of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito met with Stalin to negotiate for Red Army assistance in capturing Belgrade, as the Partisan guerrillas were neither trained, nor equipped, nor experienced in urban warfare (as opposed to the 3rd Ukranian Front). The Soviet military was allowed to enter into northern Yugoslavia to assist in the liberation of Belgrade from Nazi Germany. After they did so, they entered into the city jointly with the Partisans, held a victory parade amidst cheering Yugoslav crowds, and left peacefully off to Hungary (this of course was strange and rather unique: no rape, no pillage, and the Red Army simply walks away).

I cannot express how apalled I am that this absurd gibberish, without any connection to reality whatsoever, stands in a Wikipedia article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You was involved in previous edit wars: may you to wait 3 or 4 weeks for any discussion? I would like to rewrite all sections with related sources!--Tiblocco (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand your English. Molimte reci na našem. (Please say it in our language, I'll translate for everyone else.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, instead of trying to drive the other user to speak in other language, I am offering myself to translate you what you don´t understand, so feel welcome and tell me what is that you missunderstood in Tiblocco´s words? FkpCascais (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note here the hostile, combative tone of User:FkpCascais' post: completely without grounds, he accuses me of trying to "drive" the user into using his own language. As is typical of User:FkpCascais's posts, the user percieves an imaginary "evil scheme" on my part and responds to my posts with hostility. His manner constitutes the most extreme example of assuming bad faith.

@User:FkpCascais. Well you can't really "translate" rather bad English into English, or Serbian into Croatian, can you? Though I would appreciate it if you clarified the first sentence of Tiblocco's post for me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)