Talk:Draža Mihailović

Quotations and sources subpage

Discussion on this page should refer to specific sources. To streamline the discussion here, quotations/sources have been added to a subpage. Editors are encouraged to add pertinent quotations (verbatim, please) and provide a link to specific quotes referred to in the discussion. Here's the subpage:

• Talk:Draža Mihailović/quotations/

Terms of Discussion

Discussion on this page is moderated. The article had been locked and moderation was a condition of unlocking it. The following terms have been agreed to by participants in the mediation. While newcomers are welcome to join the discussion, they will be expected to observe the policies highlighted at the top of the page, as well as these terms:

1. Participants will restrict themselves to 500 words per post, and a limit of three posts per day on any topic related to this article, the mediation about this article, or any editor involved anywhere on WP--here, user talk pages, ANI, anywhere.
2. Personal attacks or ad hominem remarks will be removed and participants warned in accordance with WP:ARBMAC. Repeat infractions may result in a topic ban.
3. Content discussions will deal with wording issues directly, rather than with broad general statements.
4. For ease of reference, participants will not refactor their comments silently--that is to say, if an editor wishes to change something they said in any substantial way (other than correcting typos or spelling mistakes) that they strike the text they regret, and add new text in a color and an edit summary that makes clear the reason for the change, so as to make it clear that refactoring took place.
5. Editors working on the article will restrict their interaction with one another on this topic to the article's talk page or moderators' talk pages, and not post to other editors's talk pages.
6. In a case of disagreement about appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain sources for the article, or about their reliability, the issue should be resolved at WP:RSN, and once the consensus is achieved on the RSN, it should not be contested in future, unless new evidences have been provided.
7. Any statement about some historical fact or event must be supplemented with the reference to some reliable source that that directly supports the material. It is a responsibility of the user who makes such a statement to provide needed links to the quote from the reliable source that supports this statement.
8. The factual statements that contains no references to RS are deemed just a personal opinions of the users who make them, and therefore have a zero weight and can be ignored.

The foregoing may be summarized as follows: 1) Closely support all claims, 2) propose specific article changes, 3) stick to the subject under discussion, and, 4) be concise.

Remember that the talk page guidelines suggest that being concise is a best practice. While a limit of 500 words has been agreed to, 200 words is better (and 100 words is better still!) Sources and quotes that are referred to frequently should be placed on the following subpage: Talk:Draža Mihailović/quotations/. Please put separate issues/topics in separate, labeled sections. Currently I am moderating and I trust in the support and assistance of participants. Others moderators may join, as needed, in the future. Sunray (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Working on new draft of article

The article is now unlocked and I have moved the draft article that was worked on during mediation. Some clean-up is required, particularly with respect to notes and references. Here's an initial "to do" list. Participants may suggest additions, as needed. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Tasks

• Clean up notes and references
• Consider additions to the article

• Early years - World War I and between the wars (per old article)
• Capture, trial and execution - add draft from mediation page?

• Discussion and consensus on collaboration
• Discussion on "ethnic cleansing" war crimes

Thanks to all who have worked on this. Let's keep the "Terms of discussion" (above) in mind as we proceed. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks lovely Sunray. Just a minor typo point. It reads On the other hand, Mihailovic sought to prevent Tito from assuming the leadership role in the resistance,[39][40] Further talks were scheduled for October 16th.[41] as his goal was the restoration of the Yugoslavian Monarchy and the establishment of a Greater Serbia[42] I assume the bit as his goal... should be after ...resistance,.... I shall shift it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Sunray (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on additions

What is needed in addition to the current version of the article to make it more complete? Sunray (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This sub-thread (that you've added to the top for some reason) is completely unrelated to resolving the dispute. Further sidetracking the resolution of contentious issues already taking over 16 months to resolve is a bad idea, in my humble opinion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your views on that. This is now a moderated discussion and extends beyond the mediation or the mediation participants. I would like to hear from other editors on this. Sunray (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a moderated discussion? I for one don't remember agreeing to moderation, or moderators for that matter. It seems rather irregular that you should unilaterally presume to assume the same position you had on the (failed) mediation project. But I'm not going to press the issue, even if this is a moderated discussion, it is a moderated discussion on the dispute. I will also add that it is precisely your insistance on going through the whole of the entire (comparatively large) Wikipedia article, as opposed to merely the disputed edits, that contributed immensely to the length of the mediation, and the subsequent lack of interest and involvement by all of the participants. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the conditions for unlocking the article was that there would be a moderated discussion on this talk page. Although the discussion begins with the draft that was prepared in the mediation, it extends to the whole article (essentially because the new draft incorporates the whole article). The other reason for it being a moderated (as opposed to mediated) discussion is due to the fact that we are including any editor with an interest in this topic and a willingness to abide by the Terms of discussion. Although that was the subject of considerable discussion (ref, Archives 4 & 5), perhaps it isn't clear enough from the instructions on this page. I will add something to the Terms about this. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll want to expand the legacy section somewhat. I think I can work out how to treat how M. has been used as a propaganda tool, and that might be worth breaking out as a separate section, but that will have to wait I fear until we'd done with the ethnic cleansing discussion. I also note that we have some questionable sources, such as the spartacus site and Martin's work, and too many external links, but I recognize that this section is about expansion, not reduction. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on collaboration

Nov 11 meeting

We have in the article "The meeting, organized through one of Mihailović's representatives in Belgrade, took place between the Chetnik leader and an Abwehr official, although it remains controversial if the initiative came from the Germans, from Mihailović himself, or from his liaison officer in Belgrade.[citation needed]". Without a source, we shouldn't keep this. I have added a quotation from Lampe's work on the quotation page which attribute the initiative to Milhailovic. Do we have any sources supporting or refuting Lampe's characterization? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The meeting was arranged jointly by Captain Joseph Matl of the Abwehr and Colonel Branislav Pantić, Mihailović's chief delegate and representative in Belgrade. The two have already met in Belgrade on October 28, when "the Chetnik command had already 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. 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'." (Tomasevich I, Chapter 7) The meeting with Mihailović in person was arranged (for ten days later) as a continuation of this talks.

In other words, the initiative was Mihailović's, who started the negotations. The meeting in person at Divci cannot be viewed outside that context. Or outside the context that the Partisans were still their de facto allies when the approach was made. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but could you provide a page number and move the quote to the quotation subpage? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the book with me at the moment (I got it at the city library, its very hard to find and costs some 150€). I did quote the text verbatim, however, in my work on the First anti-Partisan Offensive article, but neglected to specify the exact page and posted instead a link which is now dead. Its there in Chapter 7, however, I invite anyone to verify.

But if there's any doubt you can find the same info on Roberts p.35. He further states that Matl was the one who suggested to Pantić that Mihailović comes to Divci in person. That is very likely, Matl was far more enthusistic to accept the Chetnik proposals of cooperation than his superiors. However, as I said, it must not be neglected why Miahilović's personal representative (Pantić) was engaged in negotiations with the Abwehr in the first place, or who sent him to Belgrade to start the negotiations.

Those are the full events, and we can now probably see the cause of the controversy. 1) Mihaiović dispatched his representatives Pantić and Mitrović to Belgrade to offer military cooperation and request assisstance and supplies from the Germans. 2) The German representative Captain Matl then suggests to Pantić that Mihailović and his Abwehr superiors meet in Divci. 3) Pantić then relays this to Mihailović and the latter accepts.

The "controversy" lies in the fact that, even though the personal meeting with Mihailović himself was suggested by the Abwehr Captain Matl, the negotiations of late October and early November were initiated by the Chetniks to begin with, who sent their people to the Abwehr on October 28. So if someone were to play word games he could theoretically say "the Germans invited Draža!", but the actual facts are a bit more complex. (This must also be taken in the context of the three-sided simoultaneous military operations, but I can't go into more deatil because of the 500-word limit.. :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, put the relevant quotes on the quotation subpage. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to collaboration, it must be made clear that Mihailović himself never signed any specific agreements, to use his own words "because of public opinion". It is that he actively condoned and promoted the collaboration of his immediate subordinates that is the issue here. For example, he actually ordered them to do so on at least one occasion, and personally commanded collaborating MVAC formations. In other words, the collaboration way done with his consent.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have found some quotes, Pavlowitch on page 65 asserts that one cannot know who initiated the meeting, and Roberts, p. 35, attributes the initiative to Matl. I think that between the four sources, we can document that it's not clear who initiated the meeting on 11 November 1941. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on war crimes

While the term "ethnic cleansing" was used in an earlier version of the article, based on some of the discussion during the mediation, its use seems problematic, at best. The term was first used in the 1980s and only came into popular use in the 1990s. Thus, its application to events that occurred during World War II is questionable. Moreover, as Naimark (2007) points out, the term "ethnic cleansing" can be used to mean a wide variety of actions, ranging from forced deportation of ethnic groups, to genocide. As ethnic cleansing has not been clearly established by the courts as a category of criminal offense, its use is ambiguous.[1] Were war crimes committed by the Chetniks? What evidence is available? Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, such scholarly terms are used retroactively as a matter of course. The term "genocide" was defined well after WWII yet it is used quite often to describe events long predating its first use. The same goes for ethnic cleansing itself. In short, if the sources use it, there is no reason for us to represent them falsely. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the citation I gave? Sunray (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. Should I cite all the historiographic sources innumerable that use the term in conjunction with events prior to 15 years ago? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is needed, perhaps you could put the historiographic sources on the subpage for quotes. The point made by Naimark is that ethnic cleansing is a vague term. I am suggesting that we focus on terms that are definable, such as genocide or other specific war crimes. Sunray (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide whether the term is too vague or whether it applies to the events in question. That is WP:OR. Lets leave it to the actual historians please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What historians? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point, all I'm saying is that if the sources use the term "cleansing" we should not censor that. (And as it happens they do.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It isthe point. Sources/quotes please for all assertions, or referral to the quotation page where they are set out.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added some sources relative to this issue to the quotation page. I think this is a very tricky issue. Milhailovic generally avoided doing anything, at least openly, that would endanger his reputation with the Allies. I think there is no question that what we would call ethnic cleansing was rampant throughout the region as various groups jockeyed for power. Revenge played a role, I am sure. Note that there is disagreement regarding the instructions supposedly issued by Milhailovic, which some sources regard as a forgery. I think one could make the case that he was not in a position to stop some of the chetnik groups from engaging in reprisals and what we would call ethnic cleansing. I'm not sure as yet as to how to deal with this particular issue, it will require careful thought. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nuujinn. The agreement on this page was that decisions would be based on sources and evidence. Sunray (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My primary concern is how to weigh the sources. For example, both Lerner and Mulaj attribute ethnic cleansing to Milhailovic, but it is more passing mention than significant coverage. Malcolm points to the likelihood that the instructions to which both Lerner and Mulaj allude was a forgery by M's subordinates, and I believe that is supported in Roberts and Tomosevich, but I need to find the relevant passages. I assume that we would give more weight to the works of historians focussing on Mihailovic than we would to those treating a broader topic which only briefly treat Milhailovic. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

tbh I do not see the problem. If the sources disagree let us simply list both views, either with or without attribution. As for weighing the sources in general, I would crown Tomasevich as Jozo I, King of the Sources. The guy's work represents the raw bedrock upon which most of the modern research on this subject rests. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich attributes the directive to being written by Mihailović and that he sent it to Pavle Đurišić and Đorđije Lašić. (added quote) -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Producer points out that Tomasevich attributes such statements to Mihailović. That seems to me to be important in an article on the latter. I also note that the term "ethnic cleansing" is not used but rather "cleansing." As pointed out at the top of this thread, this can mean various things from deportation to genocide. Nuujinn has agreed to look for the actual statements in Roberts or Tomasevich. This seems to me to be the kind of focus needed for this discussion. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, the "cleansing" of ethnicities is called "ethnic cleansing". Your position on this is simply without grounds. If the sources use the term "cleansing" for these events that is the term we must use. The rest is your WP:OR, and your judgement that the term is not "defined enough". The term happens to be in use all over Wikipedia, and by providing context from the source we can easily remove any ambiguity. I shall simply never agree that this page and this page alone should ignore what the sources say in favour of your own standards of terminology with regard to these events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, sometime ago you said you were going to produce some sources on this. I'm looking for quotes that connect "ethnic cleansing" (or any other reference to cleansing) with Mihailović. Sources first. Then discussion, as agreed. BTW, the contention that "ethnic cleansing" is a vague term is sourced. As I have stated, I was quoting Naimark (2007). Sunray (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In the page where I pulled the quote from, Tomasevich uses the terms "cleansing actions", "mass terror", and "terrorist methods" to describe the massacres that the Chetniks carried out against the civilian populace (in this case the Muslims). On another page, discussing the high death toll in Yugoslavia, he uses the term "genocide" to describe the actions of the Chetniks. [2] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Very useful references. If the article is going to use the terms "terrorism" or "genocide," we will need further info. Do you have quotes that give context? Sunray (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I expanded my previous quote on the quotations page. This should clear up any questions. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sunray I truly am astonished as to why you constantly demand sources of me? Imo it is clear that I made no specific claims, but instead simply defended strict adherence to the terminology of our sources - whatever that may be.

@PRODUCER. That's why I like Tomasevich: he rarely presumes to use his own words and instead uses his sources. The Chetniks themselves apparently used the term "cleansing actions", quite ahead of their time. And we can see that Tomasevich does not consider the 1941 directive to have been a "forgery" (which may well turn out to be a fringe conspiracy theory), and anyway, with him ordering "cleansing actions" the issue seems moot.

In any case, the quote refers to the "second" and "third groups", what was the first group? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is from a while back when I had access to the book and was working on the massacres of Muslims section, but I recall the first group being Croats. Edit: Found a link to the page that I quoted from (it's the Serbo-Croatian version however). [3] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 07:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent PRODUCER, thank you so much. We now have access to a superbly detailed and unbiased treatise on instances of Chetnik terror and their connection to the Supreme Headquarters (Mihailovic). The fact that the link is in Serbo-Croatian should not be a problem. The publication's original language is English, being first published in San Francisco, and it can be easily verified whether the text was translated faithfully. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there anybody here who has an actual copy of Tomasevich rather than the partial google books? That would be great if anyone did. I am going to see if my local library can get hold of one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The chetniks volume is in storage at my uni, I requested it yesterday. The occupation volume is in general holding, as is Roberts, Pavlowitch, Milazzo, and some others. I have had all of them in hand and cribbed notes, but did not write out full quotes, last year. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news. I have copies of Pavlowitch, Roberts, Ramet and some others if anyone wants me to look up a quote or page number.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to be useful and productive. With the sources produced, I think we may be ready to write something for the article. Should there be a separate section regarding war crimes, or should it be dealt with in one of the existing sections for World War II? Anyone interested in preparing a draft of the text? Sunray (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I also have a very interesting book called Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia by David Bruce MacDonald. It has sections on historical revisionism relating to WWII. He describes very carefully the parallel historical revisionism that both countries indulged in, trying to exonerate and "victim-centre" their side and paint the other side as - well - evil, anti-semitic, fascist bastards. I mention it because he specifically names Philip J. Cohen in his Serbia's Secret War as a pro-Croatian revisionist. He notes others too but I mention Cohen as he is an author who has been cited as a source. It was published in 2002. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful perspective to ensure NPOV. Tomasevich supports this view when he refers to: "...a terrible pattern of terror and counterterror [that] emerged in various parts of the country during the Second World War..." (Tomasevich, The Chetniks pp. 258-259). Sunray (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One of the things he discusses is "decontextualisation", for example, describing massacres or ethnic cleansing of one band or group against another out of any context of revenge or reprisals but simply as if it were part of an ideologically motivated grand plan. Each side has it's own sets of history books and sources. Key figures in this process are people like Stepinac and of course Chetntniks, Ustashe and other groups of armed forces. Other themes are equating organised genocidal actions with more isolated smaller massacres.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added some material on this to the quotations page taken from Tomasevich's Preface to Vol II. He addresses the issue of biases in the historical literature about Yugoslavia in the Second World War. Sunray (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just put most of pp. 169-170 from Tomosevich's Chetniks on the quotations page. Context is critical, note that Tomosevich is showing that M. agreed with Moljevic's plan for a greater Serbia by referencing the instructions, which do use the word cleansing. However, Tomosevich claims that Moljevic's plans were based on expulsion of people, and not genocide, which is the major connotation of the modern term "ethnic cleansing" (at least in US English). On the basis of this passage, I feel that unqualified use of "ethnic cleansing" introduces an unneeded POV. I haven't gotten very far yet in this chapter, and there may be other areas in which Tomosevich does link M. directly to massacres or acts of what we would call genocide, but I do not think that is the case here. Whether or not this notion that the Serbs could simply move people around without resorting to force or violence to one degree or another is a valid question, but one which Tomosevich does not answer at this point in his text. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to focus less on Moljevic and more on Mihailovic. While Mihailovic supported Moljevic's plan (written in June 1941), he later had his own plan (written in December 1941). Tomasevich speculates that Mihailovic's plan was based on "removing" (question mark in the original as even Tomasevich is unsure of what Mihailovic precisely meant) the Muslim and Croat population. My previous quotes show that the Chetniks, especially Đurišić whom Tomasevich explicitly states the plan was sent to, implemented this "removal" through the use of mass terror - be it by expelling the populace or by massacring them. The term "ethnic cleansing" is not limited to genocide (which the Chetniks' actions have been described as by Hoare) as Princeton defines it as "the mass expulsion and killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area." [4] The use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is most certainly qualified. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer says that Tomasevich refers to "removing" the Muslims and Croats and puts a question mark beside the word "removing." That seems to support the citation I gave at the top of this section (Naimark). It seems to me that we need to be clear on what is being talked about. Is it mass expulsion or killing? Nuujinn has made the point that using the term "ethnic cleansing" introduces a particular POV and should be avoided. The comments by Tomasevich (both in the Preface to Vol II [5] and in the cite by Producer, above) suggest caution. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide". Ethnic cleansing is defined in most sources (contrary perhaps to popular perception in the US and UK) simply as the "removal of the population of an ethnic group from a territory". Genocide, i.e. the killing of the members of an ethnic group - may be used as a means of ethnic cleansing. That is to say, ethnic cleansing may be achieved by a plurality of methods, with genocide on one side of the spectrum, and forced emigration on the other. Sources in general make a clear distinction that ethnic cleansing is simply not "genocide" in and of itself.

With the above in mind, I propose we do not censor the term "ethnic cleansing" - used by our sources(!) - but rather that we use it in the proper context. Making it plain that when the term refers to ethnic cleansing by genocide, and when it means ethnic cleansing by forced emigration (we have plentiful examples of both in WWII Yugoslavia). The term ethnic cleansing is not "POV" simply because it is not specific. It is used profusely by a vast number of high-quality scholarly publications, including our own, and as we all know, it has an entire article on enWiki. To assume its usage will imply genocide where that is unwarranted is an assumption that scholars, as well as Wiki editors, do not and will not make the exact meaning clear. This is Balkans history, and one might say the term applies here more than anywhere. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, in these Balkans issues the term is more accurate than either "genocide" or "removal", in fact that is why it came into use. When a military group wishes to clear an area of an ethnicity, they typically kill most or all of the members they find, having already scared-off the rest of the target population, and they destroy or burn the homes and property of the target group preventing them from returning. This activity is not really "genocide" since most of the population leaves with their lives, and its not really "removal" or "forced emigration" since the target population was not actually "removed" or forced to leave by the militants (e.g. crowded into busses and shipped off). The activity, a "mixture" of genocide and forced removal, is only well defined by its goal, that is, the "cleansing" of the ethnic group from a territory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My meaning here is not easy to follow, so I'll try to sum it up (even if I do post a few extra words, for which I do apologize). At its core and definition, ethnic cleansing is activity with the purpose and goal of removing an ethnic group from a territory. It can be done by killing the group ("genocide"), it can be done by physically "removing" them, or it can be done by scaring them off by a campaign of terror, killing some and preventing the return of the others. The latter is most frequent in the Balkans in general. What I'm trying to say is that "genocide" is sometimes an accurate description of the activities of a militant group performing ethnic cleansing (ethnic cleansing by genocide), whereas "removal" or "expulsion" is sometimes not accurate at all and quite euphemistic since it the "cleansing" activity might include thousands of victims. This is why our sources quite wisely use the term "cleansing" or "ethnic cleansing", which denotes the goal, not the means(!), of the operation. The bottom line is, unless someone wishes to challenge the neutrality of the sources themselves, we should not presume to interfere with the sources' terminology in describing these extremely complex and controversial events. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the two authors on the quotes page who use the phrase are Malcolm and Lerner, though there is a direct translation from documents at the time referring to "cleansing". The problem with using "ethnic cleansing" in general though when it is not used by the main sources is that it is a modern formulation which, as you say, covers the gamut from creating a situation by the use of terror so that people leave of their own accord, through forceable removal or "bussing", to genocide. It would be preferable if it's meaning were always clear so one could use either "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" but it's meaning doesn't seem to be that settled. If the relevant sources use it, that's fine but we shouldn't bandy it about retrospectively. We certainly shouldn't presume to decide upon it's use ourselves when it is not used by sources. It's far too inchoate. For example, is the refusal of Tito to allow the Serbs back into Kosovo into the lands that had been taken by collaborationist Albanians ethnic cleansing? Or was it only the initial removal of the Serbs that counts? When the Ustasha specifically encouraged Muslims to join with Catholic Croats in attacking and removing Serbs, are reprisals of Serbs against Muslims in their midst acts of ethnic cleansing or acts of pre-emptive self defence as claimed (and vice versa). Not that this is particularly relevant to this article, but you see what I mean. If people are massacring, removing, terrorising other groups context and accuracy is more important than the word.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would add that the term is used in titles of works (Mulaj, Lerner). In actual accounts, the term "cleansing" is used, and as Fainites has pointed out, our concern here must be with accuracy. As Malcom (1994) states: "there is no definite evidence that Draza Mihailovic himself ever called for ethnic cleansing." Unless and until we can find an actual attribution of ethnic cleansing to Mihailovic, to ensure NPOV, I can see no justification for use of the term. Now, are participants ready to begin writing? Sunray (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)::I should point out that Lerner does not attribute the "abhorrant words" (p. 104) "ethnic cleansing" to Milhailovic, but rather only the term "cleansing". Malcolm in his work suggests the instructions from Milhailovic were a forgery and suggests that there is no direct link between M and "ethnic cleansing" So the sources that we have so far which use the term "ethnic cleansing" either do not use the term in direct reference to Milhailovic or do so (in the case of Malcolm) denying that there is direct evidence that Mihailovic called for ethnic cleansing. That the chetniks engaged in acts of terror is not in question, nor is the notion that Mihailovic knew what was happening, but absent a source attributing the term "ethnic cleansing" to Mihailovic's actions, we should not make that attribution ourselves. In addition, there is much in question as to the degree of control he had over the Chetniks in the field. Use of the term "cleansing" is perfectly appropriate as we have multiple sources which use that term directly in regard to Milhailovic. Going further than that is, I think, crossing the line into synth. "Ethnic cleansing" is, for better or worse, a loaded term we need not use, let's just stick to what the sources say and not draw our own conclusions. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, if the sources call it "ethnic cleansing" I am fine with calling it "ethnic cleansing", in whichever situation that might apply. I see no reason whatsoever why a term should not be used retrospectively (if the sources use it) - not only is the term "ethnic cleansing" used retrospectively in a huge number of scholarly publications, it is used retrospectively on Wikipedia itself as well (i.e. there are no policy-based grounds for avoiding it either). A vast host of scientific terms is used retrospecitely, just as "ethnic cleansing", "genocide" being another obvious example. As I said before, I see no real argument there whatsoever, and one needs a very good argument to avoid using a sourced term.

@Sunray, I do not see the difference between the terms "cleansing" (as referring to ethnic groups) and "ethnic cleansing". If I'm missing something, please point it out. That said, in line with the above view (since there really is no difference) I am also not opposed to using the word "cleansing" instead of "ethnic cleansing" if that would be more agreeable to you.
In general, I propose we use the term "cleansing actions" (with quotation marks) and in this quote the contemporary Chetnik terminology - as well as the sources themselves (far from applying any term retrospectively).

Re the connection with Mihailović himself. I am quite surprised at Nuujin's post above. We currently do have a strong "case" linking Mihailović to (ethnic) cleansing operations in Eastern Bosnia - in two distinct aspects (see Tomasevich on Chetnik mass terror)

• Firstly, Mihailović/Chetnik SHQ seems to be the author of the Chetnik ethnic policy in general. While two sources do state the claim that the document might have been a forgery, this does not justify our ignoring the document by a long shot. The policy ("Instructions") of the SHQ should be elaborated upon - with the claims of its alleged falsification by Chetnik defendants mentioned with attribution, i.e. "scholars XY state it might have been a forgery etc.". Though, in all objectivity, I cannot really add credence to the falsification claim, in light of Mihailović's and the Chetniks open adherence to Moljević's ideas of ethnic homogeneity.
• Secondly. The sources show that the "cleansing actions" in question, the "worst" ones of note, were done under the direction of the SHQ (Mihailović). I would quote the source itself but that would deny the point of having a quotation page, I've highlighted the relevant passages.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that this is not an article on Chetnik mass terror. Thus, we should briefly review the evidence linking M. to "cleansing" operations (bearing in mind that Malcolm (p. 179) says there is none [6]--and probably including the quote from him on this). We could also set the section up with Tomasevich's disclaimers about terror and counter-terror during WWII, as set out in his Preface to Volume II. [7] When we use the vague (and euphemistic) term "cleansing," we should endeavor to clarify exactly what it means (deportation, mass transportation, genocide, or what).

When participants refer to the quotations page, it would be helpful if they would specify the author and page and provide a link. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including, with attribution, what Malcolm has to say on this in his history of Bosnia - but I am strongly opposed to placing much weight on him as opposed to the more focused, detailed, and critically acclaimed work of Tomasevich. It must also be noted that the Sandžak (pronounced "Sanjak"), where much of the cleansing Tomasevich is referring to took place - is not in Bosnia.

This would be my proposal:

1. A brief introduction (three or four sentences) into Chetnik cleansing and terror activities in general, based on Tomasevich's treatise, but also including a sentence based on his disclaimers.
2. A more detailed paragraph or two on the cleansing actions directly attributed to Mihailović himself. Including the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.).
3. A brief introduction (a couple of sentences) into the Moljević-based Chetnik ethnic policy, with an explanation on the Moljević-based "territorial proposals formulated by the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in the summer of 1941 and in September 1941".
4. A paragraph on the "Instructions". This should explain what the instructions entail, and should end with an attributed statement about the possibility of the document being a forgery.

With regard to the "Instructions". It must be understood why these are claimed to be a forgery. The most important point here is that, for whatever reason, the "Instructions" closely mimic both the Moljević theories and what the Chetniks actually did during WWII. The question is whether these were based on the actions by the forger, or whether the actions were based on the order. If the document was forged it is also possible that the Chetnik commanders, acting in accordance with Mihailović's general territorial policy and orders, needed a single, clear-cut document to absolve themselves to some measure. That is to say, there is little question that the "Instructions" lay out both Chetnik general policy and Chetnik actions, these things were actually done in great measure, - the only question is whether the document itself, a formal order from Mihailović, was a forgery.

There is also little question whether Mihailović was indeed a proponent of Moljević's ethno-territorial theories (as we can see from his "territorial proposals") and was not averse to ethnic "cleansing actions" themselves (as we can see from the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia "actions"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source directly attributing the cleansing actions in the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.) to Mihailović himself? Do you have a source explaining explaining why the instructions are claimed to be a forgery? And, perhaps most importantly, do you have a source that attributes the various massacres and cleansing actions to the M's instructions, rather than to a desire for revenge and settling scores, old and new, between the various bands and groups in the field? I could make any number of suppositions, guesses, or assertions regarding the situation, and I have lots of questions about what happened. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about those questions, as we are only supposed to reflect what sources say. Also, what you are proposing is, I think, putting undue emphasis on this particular issue, and we don't need to duplicate the massacre section in the chetnik article here. The paucity of good sources we have in terms of the instructions bothers me, I'll try to find something in Roberts and Pavlowitch on the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, again, I'm more than a little surprised at your request. Nuujinn, the troops in southern Serbia and Montenegro at that time were under the direct control of the Chetnik SHQ, i.e. Mihailovic, who was there on the spot. Perhaps you're missing some context there. Tomasevich is the source, and he clearly states that cleansing actions were ordered by SHQ. Not only is it perfectly clear that Tomasevich, who is talking about the supreme command continuously, is referring to the supreme command in that sentence as well (as opposed to some new and unnamed authority) , but it is historically inconceivable that any other authority could hypothetically have done so. Tomasevich's text is clear in its description, and anyway, one needs only read it to find several more instances of his direct involvement (for example his other "directive"). I do hope the discussion has grown past playing such word games. Simply "moving on" and ignoring the source that does not fit the preconceived narrative revives some unpleasant memories.

As for M's Instructions directive, which is almost certainly authentic if the forgery claim is unsupported by evidence and originates with Karchmar, they constitute a criminal order and link Mihailovic directly, not only with the Sanjak and eastern Bosnia massacres, but also with Chetnik ethnic cleansing in general. It is both the policy of the Chetnik movement, instituted by its commander, and local "vendettas" we can thank for the killings and mass terror. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Resuming discussion on collaboration

I believe that there is some agreement on how to address the November 11 meeting. What are other issues that participants would like to address regarding collaboration? Would it be possible to generate a list of subtopics to address? Sunray (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of issues I think we'll need to address:

-To what degree M. was in control of various units. For example, M. attempted to subordinate Pecanac's units in mid 1941, but Pecanac (who did collaborate with the Italians Germans) ignored this attempt. Likewise, Raitic (who collaborated with the Partisans) was a subordinate of M. but largely ignored M's orders.

-How we used the words "collaborate", "collaborator" and "collaboration". in common usage, collaborate has a negative connotation in a military context ("X collaborated with the enemy), but a positive connection in a work setting (Our work is done in collaboration with the University of Chicago). Also, we'll need to be consistent, since there are multiple sides in the conflicts during this period.

Also, as a procedural note, I'll only post once more here today since I went over yesterday. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Pećanac, who was a leader of his own very small faction (the Pećanac Chetniks), should not under any circumstances be confused with officers of the Mihailović Chetniks (the Chetniks). Pećanac was never part of the same movement as Mihailović, and really has little or nothing to do with the subject of Mihailović's collaboration. I am a little confused, though, I did not explore the matter specifically but to my knowledge Pećanac did not collaborate with the Italians, but rather with the Nedić government and the German Military Administration in Serbia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• The only question we should concern ourselves with is whether sources use such terms in the specific context we are writing about.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right about Pacanac, I've struck that, and I've had my coffee now. I'm not only concerned with this article, but also the article on the Chetniks. That said, the degree of control that M. had over the various Chetnik groups is important to the question of collaboration. For example, M.'s troops in December attached themselves to Nedic's legalized Chetniks, but it is not clear (to me anyway) what role M played in that, see Milazzo, p 40. In regard to the wording, you might take a look at Milazzo, pp. 19-22, 40-41. In regard to who "the" Chetniks were, Mihailovic wasn't the first to adopt the moniker in WWII, and coined the Ravna Gora Movement to distance himself from Pecanac, who was the leader of the Chetnik movement at the beginning of the war, see Roberts, pp.21. If you wish to make a point about the use of a particular word, please bring sources to support your point. BTW, see Milazzo, p.19, who says Pećanac had about 3000 men, roughly the same number as M. did at Ravna Gora.--Nuujinn (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Political map of WWII Yugoslavia

File:Etnicka mapa SFRJ 1981.jpg

Ethnic map of Yugoslavia from 1981. The map is roughly, I emphasize, roughly valid for the WWII period. The areas in blue were populated by Serbs and Montenegrins ("Crna Gora" is Montenegro) who were generally regarded before 1945 as not seperate from Serbs.
Note the western blue area in Bosnia and Croatia, and its near-complete separation from the Serbian heartland. --DIREKTOR

Since Mihailović's direct control over various segments of his movement varied significantly, both with regard to the specific segment and to the period involved, you've touched on a very difficult subject. However, it must be made clear at the outset that such questions of authority are raised only with regard to those segments of the movement which are detached physically from Mihailović's own central forces in southern Serbia and northern Montenegro. South-central Serbia and northern Montenegro was the Chetnik "heartland" and was under his direct command. Without presupposing a complete breakdown of the movement and its command structure, the activities of Chetnik units therein can be considered as being directed by the Supreme Command (unless sources say otherwise in some specific case of course).

An ethnic map of Yugoslavia may help us here, I'll lay out some basic information, if someone wants to challenge something I'll search out the quote.

• Re western Yugoslavia. Chetnik activity in western Yugoslavia (in regions such as the Krajina, Lika, northern Dalmatia, northern Bosnia, etc) was, generally speaking, firmly in the hands of regional commanders, often under the title "voivode", who had a significant degree of autonomy in their respective commands, but deferred to Mihailović as their commander-in-chief, and often approved major decisions with him through his personal representatives. Chetnik formations in north of the "Western Bubble", i.e. in northern Bosnia, were from the start in (surprisingly) amiable relations with the NDH, and as Tomasevich points out several times, thus indirectly with the Germans. In roughly the south of the "Western Bubble", south of the German-Italian demarcation line, reigned the MVAC. Now, we know from sources that Mihailović was "aware of and actively condoned" Chetnik collaboration with the Italians in the form of the MVAC, and even personally commanded (to disastrous effect) these troops during the major engagements of Fall Weiss. The only question here, is whether he was "aware of and condoned" Chetnik collaboration in the north with the Ustaše/Germans. (With regard to the latter case, I personally doubt very much that he was unaware of any such major long-lasting activities in his movement, and that he certainly did not like it, but did not oppose the arrangements out of necessity.)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In this biographical article about Mihailovic, it seems increasingly clear from the discussion that we should stick to information about actions that M. took or orders he is known to have given. It seems to me that beyond a general introduction on his relationship with the Chetniks, sections of the article should refer to him, not to the Chetniks. Does that make sense? Sunray (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for section on war crimes

Direktor has proposed a format for the section on Mihailović and war crimes:

1. A brief introduction (three or four sentences) into Chetnik cleansing and terror activities in general, based on Tomasevich's treatise, but also including a sentence based on his disclaimers.
2. A more detailed paragraph or two on the cleansing actions directly attributed to Mihailović himself. Including the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia massacres (Foča, Pljevlja, Bijelo Polje, Čajniče, etc.).
3. A brief introduction (a couple of sentences) into the Moljević-based Chetnik ethnic policy, with an explanation on the Moljević-based "territorial proposals formulated by the Belgrade Chetnik Committee in the summer of 1941 and in September 1941".
4. A paragraph on the "Instructions". This should explain what the instructions entail, and should end with an attributed statement about the possibility of the document being a forgery.

How does this sound? Comments? Sunray (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd largely be duplicating ground found in the Chetniks article, which we should amend to reflect the questions of the instructions. And we lack, in regard to 2, as far as I can see, a source that directly attributes the various massacres to Mihailovic's actions in 1941. Plus we know that M.'s view was that his troops should not set policy, but only served in a military capacity. It is not that I think M. would not have issued such orders, and we know that he certainly later either condoned such actions or was not in a position to do anything about them, but I'm not sure that the sources we have show that in the period from late november 1941 through the early 1942 that M. was in any position to command or even influence anyone (unlike later in the conflict, during late 1942 and onward). According to Roberts, p. 53, M was in hiding and out of radio contact from 7 december to 6 january, and had to shut down again due to pressure from German troops until 22 march. I'm trying to work through multiple sources--thus far it seems more likely that Moljević's policy was the over arching one, but I'm far from done. In any case, points 1 and 3 seem more appropriate to the Chetniks article. My inclination would be to have a paragraph on 4, the instructions controversy, since that directly links to M., here, and link to the more general issues there. FWIW I did find this both disturbing and illuminating, see section 3.3. I think it sets the stage nicely, although I'm not sure it is not a primary source for our purposes. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I specifically emphasize that the context, which is absolutely necessary either way, will be briefly layed out. I certainly do not support any long, drawn-out description of Chetnik mass terror in general (which I am indeed saving for the Chetniks article). The section will certainly focus on M, no question. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to propose specific text for this? Also, awhile ago I asked whether it should be a new subsection or incorporated into an existing section. Sunray (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it, but I'm waiting on Milazzo and Karchmar, and working through Trew right now --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose we wait until the open issue of the Instructions is settled. Also I'd like to have a go at the section myself and I'm currently floating about in a boat :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm about 2/3s through a first draft dealing with the cleansing policies and crimes against humanity. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Sunray (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the information from Tomasevich's treatise, esp. the cleansing actions of the Supreme Command in the Sandžak and eastern Bosnia. The indiscrepancy about Mihailović being out of radio contact is most likely due to the year involved, I suggest verifying if the sources are referring to the same Decemeber. If I remember correctly Mihailović was hiding in late 1941, after the failure of his Divci negotiations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am trying to write the most accurate version I can, and that's all I'm going to say about it. In regard to the dates, I've check multiple source more than once, and I just do not find much of anything about his activities or position between december 7 of 1942 and january of 1942, and then again not much until march. I would emphasis that my interest is just curiosity, as I cannot draw any conclusions myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy is our mutual goal. My point was that information from Tomasevich's treatise stands to improve our coverage significantly.

As for the period in question, is there an indiscrepancy in the sources with regard to Mihailović's whereabouts during that time? Or a simple lack of specific information? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm using all of the sources I have available from my own work and the sources in the relevant articles here on WP. I was going to answer your question about the timeline, but there's really no point, since it's just speculation and we can't use our interpretation of timelines without violating NOR. I will just point out that in the quotes I put up from Roberts, there seems to be a conflict in Djurisic's location and M.'s in the period between 7 december and 20 december. A curious matter, but not one we can use. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So the issue does not affect the events in a significant way? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and the Allies

I wrote Yugoslavia and the Allies to point out that the main reason for the Allies (specifically Churchill) switching support to Tito was that the Partisans were a more effective ally, based on the decrypts from Bletchley Park. The decrypts had evidence of "collaboration"; mainly with the Italians not the Germans. Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. Your assistance here on this article and then on the Chetniks article would be appreciated.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Churchill based his decision on German communiques aquired through the ULTRA intercepts, the same evidence Tomasevich uses very frequently. Through it, he could discern that Axis activity in the Balkans was centered on the Partisans. He had need of a (relatively) strong ally in the Balkans to facilitate his bid for a Balkans invasion. The article devotes much of its text to dubunking what are essentially Karchmar's speculative "theories" about communist SOE infiltration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much doubt that there was communist infiltration and some leftist bias. A lot of SOE were idealistic youngsters. The question is how effective it was and whether it was instrumental in the decision making process. Martin saw it as crucial but later evidence puts it (and Krugman) in perspective. The review on Karchmar says "Although he may be exaggerating the "left wing" character of the S.O.E., he is correct in suggesting that the S.O.E. had a hand in persuading the more conservative staid Foreign Office policy-makers to abandon Mihailovic. But the abandonment of Mihailovic cannot be interpreted as an instance where the Foreign Office caved in to the S.O.E. The final word in British policy formulation always lay with prime minister Winston Churchill and the Foreign Office." I don't read that review as "debunking" Karchmar or supporting a suggestion of "speculative theories". Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Template Collaborationism in Yugoslavia

Are we in agreement that we should not use the facile label "collaborator" to describe Mihailovic? If we are, I will remove Mihailovic from the "collaborators" and remove the template from this article. BoDu (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions are not over here. Please refrain from making any controversial edits until we've finally finished with this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is directly related to this article. Do you agree that we should not use the facile label "collaborator" to describe Mihailovic? Yes or no? BoDu (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BoDu, the general consensus here is to try and agree the content of the article first on these controversial issues before tackling the lead. Meanwhile, participants, including DIREKTOR have agreed to some basic rules for conducting discussion here. Please have a look at the top of the page. Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, I am not tackling the lead, but the template. BoDu (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Same argument applies. We can include the issue when we discuss collaboration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Having this template implies that the issue is not controversial. Better option is to remove it, and only after we discuss collaboration, maybe return it. BoDu (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

BoDu please don't make edits which you know are not agreed, without consensus. A lot of people are putting a lot of work into this and have done over a long period. There is nothing here that can't await proper discussion and consensus. If you can just remove anything you don't like, why can't everyone else? Should you decide to edit the template itself, best be aware of WP:ARBMAC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's off topic, but why you need images of Tito, Đujić and Churchill in article?--Wustenfuchs 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I beleave the template should not be about collaborationism, but about the intervenients in Yugoslavia during WWII. It would basically be the same template but adding the Partisans. That would be NPOV and would resolve the polemic issue of having, or not, not nazi resistance movements included as collaborators, as that was highly missinforming as the way it was until now. The template should have all intervenients listed without labeling them as "black or white"... The other solution is simply to delete the template and merge it into Yugoslavia in WWII. Best regrads to all. FkpCascais (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Best discuss this on the template talkpage. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that at least here we could have a easy decition that would spare us from painfull longoing round-and-around discussions... FkpCascais (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it was an easy decision.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, indeed, not easy at all. Thanks for the suggestion, Fkp, I think that we could come back to this as it does seem relevant to the mediation. As Fainites has pointed out, our focus has to be with the article right now. Once we have figured out how to deal with the issue of "collaboration" (discussion now in progress) we could that a look at the template. Sunray (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But, aren´t we being slightly pesimistic at start? We already had discussions on this before, and the arguments infavour of the template can be resumed to: "Chetniks collborated, they must be included", even if that arguments ignores the fact that the way the template was done completely fails to point out any differences and equals Chetniks to all other "real" collaborators... I supose the template really asks for being bold and making a simple antagonist but trouth template that would be named: "Resistance in Yugoslavia", and would list Partisans and Chetniks"... Instead of favouring those two extremes, wouldn´t be much more logical to simplify all to one template having them all dislabeled? After all, the discussion would be basically the repetition of the infobox discussion from Yugoslav Front, cause it is basically about the same. Would I be allowed to have the initiative to ask if anyone oposes my proposal of making one "dislabeled" template, and expresses its reasons. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, your proposal is NPOV, so go for it. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

After analising the options, the one that I find as more adequate in my view would be to merge the template into the other one we have: Template:Campaignbox Yugofront. That template is the one which includes all main aspects of the conflict so, if there is no oposition, this is what I am "officially" proposing. FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Lets leave this for now its a marginal issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasons? I am asking everyone to replace the "POV" template found on the DM article by the one I am proposing to merge it to, which very much includes DM. Replacing one POV template by one NPOV would certainly be appropriate, having the collaborationism template alone is all but logical... You can discuss your reasons direktor later, when you find time for this "marginal issue", as you name it. FkpCascais (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's marginal in the sense of "unimportant". Just marginal in the sense of the work currently being undertaken in respect of this article (and the Chetniks article). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime I created a template dedicated to resistance movements, so I hope I contributed to archive some "templates balance". Best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see rule 4 at the top of the page. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, apologies Nuujinn, I only wanted to remove unnecessary parts of my comment because they were a bit superfluos and when I read it today I noteced that it could trigger a discussion of the kind "what I said and you said, but I meant..." which would not be productive for the process. As no one responded afterwords I hoped that it wouldn´t make much difference, as what really matters is what is left. I am trying to be as concised and focused as possible, and in future instead of shortening my comments afterwords I will be more focused at time of editing. Apologies and thank you for the note. FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, but I would ask in the future that you strike comments you regret rather than deleting them later, I'm sure we all say things we wish to pull back, but one advantage I see to the rules is that they encourage us to think about what we are going to say before we say it. Glad to have you back, --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Modifying Nuujinn's draft

Nuujinn can't post today anymore because of the "Rules", so I'll post the notice myself: he has proposed a draft of an Ethnic cleansing section for this article. Apparently we're supposed to wait until tommorow to discuss this, for no good reason whatsoever, chalk-up another wasted 24hrs to the "Ground Rules".

There are two main objections to Nuujinn's version.

• The way Karchmar's theory has been represented is really not acceptable. Firstly, it is his theory, and he alone should be attributed to it (others are simply quoting him). Secondly, as I said before, it is biased and unnecessary to list a hand-picked selection from the hundreds of publications that simply do not mention Karchmar. Thirdly, the vast majority of the authors listed supposedly in "support" of Karchmar's theory simply mention it as a theory or possibility, without voicing outright support. The text now suggests that the falsification theory is one belonging to many authors, who actively support it (as opposed to simply making note of it as a possibility), and a theory that is opposed by fewer(!) other authors. None of the implications of this format are accurate.
• The second point is more serious. Based solely on one quote from a "short history of Bosnia", we have now completely absolved Draža Mihailović, the symbol and standard of Serbian ethnic cleansing, of complicity in all the cleansing actions of the Chetnik Supreme Command. This is also very removed from the facts. One must not confuse the issue of the Instructions with the issue of Mihailović's complicity on the whole. The Instructions make him complicit in the general ethnic cleansing campaign, but their supposed falsification does not detach him from the cleansing actions undertaken by the Chetnik Supreme Command itself, by his own troops(!), in the Sandžak and southeastern Bosnia. The quote from Malcolm seems to have been misinterpreted: it refers to the Instructions. Draža Mihailović perhaps did not "call" for ethnic cleansing, but he did "order" ethnic cleansing.

“ The worst of the Chetnik terror against the Moslems occurred in Sandjak and southeastern Bosnia in January and February 1943 [these are territories either directly in, or immediately adjacent to, southern Serbia, Mihailović's own territory and his location at that time]. According to a statement originating with the Chetnik Supreme Command dated February 24, 1943, these were punitive countermeasures prompted by the "aggressive actions of the Moslems who had attacked Serbian villages and killed some Serbian people." Chetnik units which had been mobilized in December 1942 in Montenegro and readied for the planned, but delayed, "March on Bosnia" [note: these are troops directly under Mihailović's command, gathered-up by him in Montenegro] were ordered early in January and again early in February to undertake what were known as "cleansing actions" against the Moslems, first in the county of Bijelo Polje in Sandžak and in February in the county of Čajniče and part of the county of Foča in southeastern Bosnia, and in part of the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak. Chetnik losses were nominal; Moslem losses were estimated at about 10,000 persons. More details are revealed in the reports that Major [Pavle] Đurišić, the officer in charge of these operations, submitted to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command (Mihailović)... all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941, to Đurišić and [Đorđije] Lašić about the cleansing of Sandžak of Moslem and of Bosnia of Moslem and Croatian populations. ” — Tomasevich p.256

So gentlemen, are we going to include this information or disregard it? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to propose the text and citation to be added? (Propose it tomorrow, that is, as you are over your limit of posts for today. :) Sunray (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait.. its 10 minutes to midnight my time (CET), can I post now? Do we do this after our own time zones? (I still can't believe I'm doing this..) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but we go by UTC around here. However, you can now post your proposed addition. Sunray (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree not to count one-sentence posts? I've posted the proposal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose that. See you all tomorrow. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section for Mihailovic article

We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:

• Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
• Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Those interested may indicate which proposal they prefer here. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Karchmar

I've added a bunch of quotes relative to the issues on the table. The footnotes in his work are copious, and the text voluminous at close to 1000 pages, but I have included the note to the statement regarding the forgery of the instructions for the sake of completeness. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Most interesting. He appears to have a very readable style from those bits doesn't he. The bit for p 386 needs a serious copy-edit though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to make another pass, the OCR program I have doesn't do well with diacritics, I'll go through it again. He's very detailed, but then at close to 1000 pages he's got the room to be. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent quotations (moved here from my talkpage)

Frankly Fainites, I don't see the point of the recent quotes you added. Radical nationalist propaganda in Croatia is as bad, if not worse, than the one in Serbia. Its all the same trash, really. Croats demonize the Chetniks by emphasizing their collaboration, trying to depict the Chetniks as equivalent to the Ustaše, which is nonsense. Serbian propaganda does not really need to additionally demonize the Ustaše, as they were really quite horrible in fact, but instead whitewashes over any collaboration and atrocities of the Chetniks and depicts them as heroes. I want to make it perfectly clear that I myself am utterly disgusted by the nationalist nonsense in my own country, and under no circumstances do I, or any other sensible Croat, consider the Chetniks to have been equivalent

I hope you see the difference: the Croats really have no choice but to reject the Ustaše, as they were fascists with an open policy of collaboration and genocide against the Serbs that lived within their borders - thus the Ustaše are and have been denounced by all Croatian scholars and political parties since 1945. Chetniks, however, have seen a rehabilitation in their status. The Chetniks used to be denounced by all Serbian scholars and politicians up until Slobodan Milošević came to power in the late 1980s. At present the largest single political party in Serbia, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS), openly supports the Chetniks, whitewashes over any collaboration (often depicting it as supposedly having been committed by the Pećanac Chetniks), and its Party Leader publicly considers himself a Chetnik "Voivoda". Due to the fact that the Chetnik collaboration and war crimes are lesser in scale than those of the Ustaše, Serbia has rehabilitated its WWII ultranationalist movement, while Croatia has not (or could not have).

P.S. The second quote from Balkan holocausts? is very strange: "Even though there is clear indisputable evidence of Cetnik massacres of Croats and Moslems throughout the NDH, there was no concrete proof that the Cetniks aimed to exterminate the entire Croatian nation - nor would they have had the means to do so." This is clearly an erroneous assumption on the part of the author: noone ever said they wanted to exterminate whole nations. Even if Mihailović's instructions are an accurate description of the Chetniks goals, they do not entail the "exterminate the entire Croatian nation" - merely their removal out of the areas they considered Greater Serbia. The same is true with the Ustaše: neither movement ever suggested their goal is to exterminate the entire Serbian or Croatian nations. Refuting that seems to be redundant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rule 5! This should be on the talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I just thought it was a useful roundup of revisionist history - with particular reference to the idea that the Chetniks had an evil plan to create Greater Serbia all along with WWII as just a handy interlude, and the place of the "Instructions" within that. I agree the latter quote appears rather carelessly worded. I assumed he meant exterminate a nation as a nation which doesn't mean kill everyone in it. Mind you - I haven't personally seen all the propaganda he is referring to so maybe people who argue that the Germans and Italians were funding Chetniks to commit genocide against Croats within the NDH (!?!) would have no trouble believing they intended to exterminate everyone.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading what you wrote again - I seem to recall Tudjman and his lot putting up a sterling argument that the Ustasa were misunderstood patriots defending their country against fascists and genocidal Serbs. Not that it's relevent for this article but the book makes it pretty clear that revisionist history was a two way street.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tuđman, in his characteristic pompous style, has stated that the "NDH represented an embodiment of the age-old aspirations of the Croatian people for their own state", and thats about as close as he came to openly supporting the Ustaše. I assure you, while Ustaše crimes have been downplayed by the right wing of Tuđman's (still ruling) HDZ party, the HDZ has always (sometimes more sometimes less cynically) denounced the Ustaše. Tuđman himself fought in the Partisans, was a life-long member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and served as a general in the Yugoslav People's Army, and the current leader of the actual right wing of the HDZ (Andrija Herbrang Jr.) is a Jew who's family was murdered by the Ustaše. The crucial difference between the Ustaše and the Chetniks, you see, is that the Ustaše were quite thorough fascists and brutal ones at that - they can never be supported, at least openly. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a party that professed support for a genocidal fascist movement would ever be admitted into the European People's Party. To my knowledge, the only Croatian party that actually supports the rehabilitation of the Ustaše, the Croatian Pure Party of Rights is a splinter (with no parliamentary representation), of a marginal party on the edges of Croatian politics (the Croatian Party of Rights).

Revisionism, to be sure, was and is most certainly present in Croatia even today - that is absolutely true. To put it in a sentence, its mostly focused on (1) downplaying the massive Croatian contribution to the Partisans, (2) emphasizing alleged or real Partisan and Chetnik crimes against Croats, and (3) depicting the two movements as sort of "Serbian allies" against Croats (based on the huge defections of Chetniks to the Partisans in 1945), all the while severely downplaying any crimes of the NDH - but not supporting the Ustaše. It is indeed a fine point on which they dance ("they were evil, but not as much as the Serbs say!"). Its all mostly centred on the Bleiburg massacre.

It must be pointed out, as a side note, that it is certainly not in the interests of Croatian nationalist revisionism to depict Chetniks as collaborators, and that aspect is quietly overlooked. Indeed, that would seems as though the "pure Croats" were actually close to being actually allied with the Chetniks, unthinkable! - but it was the case in northern Bosnia. And its mostly to spite the Croatian nationalists that I added this little sweet bit to the Independent State of Croatia article ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you really just say that your primary motivation to add some particular material to the NDH article was spite? I honestly cannot believe you would say that, even as a joke. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me yes, its far to gruesome for a joke. I shudder to think what impact that might've had on an unbalanced mind had it not been shielded by my skilfully constructed veneer of comedy..

I wonder if our two venerable admins will respond to this particular ad hominem of yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope they do. If either of them think I was out of line, I'll be happy to apologize and strike the question and comment. I readily admit you're stretching my ability to assume good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh likewise, have no doubt. E.g. your post up there the only apparent purpose of which seems to have been deliberate provocation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I must admit I was a bit taken aback when I saw it (Direktor's remark) but given that it was in the context of a slightly off topic, friendly discussion I couldn't think of a suitable response off hand. I don't see anything unwarranted in Nuujinns response though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald describes two main forms of Croatian revisionist propaganda in this area. One emanating largely from the Croatian Diaspora which was overtly pro-Ustasa. The other which sought to play down the NDH and the support for it during WWII, portraying it as a reaction to Serbian genocidal aims. Tudjman tried to satisfy both. His regime was financially obligated to Diaspora Croats so he needed vindicate wartime Croatia and deny Ustasa atrocities. He also wanted to please Western Governments who were watching like hawks for revisionism. The solution to this lay in downplaying Croat support for the NDH whilst avoiding being seen as pro-Nazi. He made a number ofststaements designed to place Pavelic and Mihailovic on a parallel. Both sides of course were portraying themselves as victims of "holocausts" in WWII and of genocide in the 1990s. So there was a certainly a strand of revisionism that had an interest in portraying the Chetniks as as bad or worse than the Ustasa. Part-time collaborators are portrayed as being as bad as Nazi's and '....Cetnik unofficial collaboration was somehow worse than the than the official highly publicised Ustasa variety'.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)