Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II

Was there a 'Chetnik genocide' of Bosniaks and Croats?

This became a contentious issue on the Yugoslav Wars article, as "there is no consensus", so it should be brought up here. According to Tomasevich:

• "A fourth reason for the high human and material toll in Yugoslavia was the widespread practice of genocide—the systematic extermination of large numbers of people for political, ideological, religious, or racial reasons—which was then used in revenge by members of the wronged group or nationality. The most numerous victims were Serbs who perished at the hands of the Ustashas and Croats and Muslims who perished at the hands of the Chetniks." Tezwoo (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Several reliable scholars have described some of the Chetnik crimes as genocidal. Tomasevich, Hoare, Gojkovic etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You could add to the article sth like "Some of the crimes committed by Chetniks have been described as genocide". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That "some of the crimes" are described as genocide does not seem to reflect what Tomasevich and Hoare say (I don't know which Gojković are you referring to). Tomasevich's quote is here already, and here is Hoare's:

"Chetnik genocide was the end result of the long struggle of the Bosnian Serb peasant-radicals against the Muslim landlords, as well as of the competition of Bosnian Serb nationalist politicians with the JMO for control of Bosnia- Hercegovina in the interwar period."

"If it was the Ustasha genocide of the Serbs that sparked a Partisan uprising waged under Bosnian patriotic and autonomist slogans, it was the Chetnik genocide of the Muslims and Croats and the Chetnik assault on the Partisans that definitely transformed the latter into a revolutionary movement aimed at establishing a Bosnian state." Tezwoo (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

:::: A number of prominent historians labeled the Chetnik crimes and atrocities against Muslims and Croats as genocide . Ramet is another historian who describes their actions as genocide. It is even listed on the Wikipedia Genocide page so it has consensus. MaloPoMalo (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Crimes against Muslim population - most probably yes (but there is no consensus in academic works); war crimes against local Croats - no. WP:NPOV wording is a must here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::::There are four (4) sources stating YES for both Muslims and Croats. How do you state it is likely so for one and not the other despite RS saying otherwise? And who decides consensus exactly? This is seeming like a case uncomfortable facts. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. PortalTwo (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: MaloPoMalo. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ::::::::No, it is not. It seems to me that you still need to learn more about consensus and. There are 4 sources (and not all 4 use the same formulation, which is very important) but it's nowhere to be found in most other works on the topic, for example Yugoslav historiography does not mention it. I've read Dedijer, Djilas, Pavlowitch and several more notable historians - they only mention war crimes and ethnic cleansing, which is not disputed. Even the notable documentary TV series Yugoslavia in War 1941–1945 does not mention it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC) ::::::::: I understand where you are coming from given your concern about those other sources not mentioning it. And I don’t blame you being skeptical. But given that these sources do in fact state it was Genocide, how can we ignore it? It was nowhere as deviously organized and wide scale as the Ustashe Genocide of Serbs, but it still happened although not as well looked into or covered. I only came across one source specifically saying the Chetniks did not carry out genocide, McDonald, but he also claims the Ustashe did not carry out a genocide. (Which blows my mind). I assume he has a very peculiar metric for what constitutes genocide. So given the 4, who are not from Croatia nor bare ties to ultranationalist sympathizers, they seem to carry weight. Tomasovich makes up a bulk of Wikipedia pages on WWII. They should be mentioned in the article as I agree with the other two editors. Other historians saying ethnic cleansing and massacres occurred doesn’t mean they cannot be or are claimed by them not to constitute genocide.PortalTwo (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: MaloPoMalo. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it is a significant number of scholars and authors who say it was a genocide of both Croats and Bosnian Muslims, so that needs to go in the article, cited to them. The absence of the word genocide in works by others can't be used to balance the authors who say it was genocide, because that is OR. What you would need to balance Tomasevich et al is authors who specifically say it was "not genocide", of which I am only aware of MacDonald, and as mentioned above, he doesn't think that anything that happened in Yugoslavia in WWII was genocide, so his is frankly a WP:FRINGE view, as the definition he uses of genocide is incredibly narrow and not mainstream at all. Especially not given his definition doesn't take into account Lemkin's original one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Peacemaker67, we must respect the sources and fact that Chetniks committing genocide against Croats and Bosniaks. Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - When evaluating !votes in this discussion it is necessary to have in mind that MaloPoMalo and PortalTwo are recently created accounts while editor interaction analysis shows that significant proportion of edits of Mikola22 (five times blocked this year) are in very narrow topics, systematically supporting the same POV as the other editors, most often aimed to present Serbs as inherently bad. Two of editors who support genocide hypothesis Peacemaker67 (diff) and Ktrimi991 (diff) routinely deny reliability of the sources if they are authored by people of Serb ethnicity. Knowing the ropes here, I am concerned that this !voting may attract members of multiple travelling circuses and sockpupets, so I reccommend any uninvolved admin thinking about closing this discussion to take this in consideration. I do not have intention to !vote in this discussion, and this comment will be my last comment in this discussion here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We all need work together on wikipedia. We have some reliable sources which we should respect. If this bothers you try imagine these people killed in the Chetniks genocide. These people have suffered and this must not be ignored, also and the Ustasha genocide etc must not be ignored. "present Serbs as inherently bad" IMO the problem is that most Serbians actually do not know much of their history (based on historical documents) that's why in my work on wikipedia I warned about forgeries which unfortunately exist and they are transmitted by foreign historians and RS on wikipedia. Instead of helping me keep these forgerys on wikipedia minimal as possible you are not with me. That you find Croatian forgeries I would be the first one to help you delete this citations etc from wikipedia. After you think again I hope you support these reliable sources, cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Typically of Antid, when he can't gain consensus for his POV, he attacks the man (claiming sock, meat, or travelling circus) and then runs away. I hope the closing admin will take Antid's POV editing history and behaviour into account when evaluating his commentary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Another selfrefutal. User:PortalTwo and User:MaloPoMalo are indeff blocked as socks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also the issue of article name and scope. The part about the crimes against Partisans is sourced mostly with Yugoslav-era books and primary sources, and there's not much on that in Tomasevich, Redžić, or Hoare. To avoid WP:COATRACK, it would be best to split that into a separate article. Tezwoo (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The Croats had substantial numbers of Partizans; The Bosniaks, not so much. According to Yugoslav sources, the Bosniaks constituted about 2.5% of the Partizans. Peacemaker is notoriously unreliable and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.187.100.203 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the Chetnik Genocide disputed?

There's an extensive section based on Hoare, Marko Attila (2006). Genocide and Resistance in Hitler's Bosnia: The Partisans and the Chetniks, 1941-1943. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0197263801. among many sources. It describes the ethnic cleansing campaign by collaborators of the Nazis, the Chetniks, as genocide. If some editors want to change the WP:STABLE, do the grunt work and get bibliography, but we won't change how fascist war crimes are described because "it's more NPOV". Thank you. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically in relation to the genocide of Bosnian Muslims, there is also Miletić, Antun and Dedijer, Vladimir (1990) Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945 and Čekić, Smail (1996) Genocid nad Bošnjacima u Drugom svjetskom ratu: dokumenti. And plenty of others if we need to dig them up to make the point. It is hardly a fringe view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In relation to Croats as well in a number of sources. “Hoare’s monograph is divided into eight chapters addressing the Serb Rebellion against fascist occupation, the Croatian Ustasha and Serbian Chetnik genocides, the shift from a Partisan strategy...”[1]

Other historians regarding Chetnik actions during this period as constituting genocide.

Zdravko Dizdar's "Chetnik Genocidal Crimes Against Croatians and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Against Croatians in Croatia During World War II (1941-1945)" in Aleksander Ravlić (ed.) 1998 book Southeastern Europe 1918–1995.

Genocid nad Muslimanima by Vladimir Dedijer, which focuses on the genocide carried out by the Chetniks on Bosnian Muslims in eastern Bosnia in particular. Doesn’t seem fringe. Chetniks had a stronger hatred for Bosniaks and Croats strangely but they are still included. OyMosby (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

*That is still only several historians, as I said before, there is more mentions of genocide done to the Muslims, which is not the general case for Croats. The title alone seems awkward ("Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats") and a verbal construct of Wikipedia editors. The number for the Croats are simply not there, neither is the scale of crimes, which simply can't be compared to most of similar terrible events. Another thing, as far as I know Encyclopedia of genocide is not listing it. I shall check other encyclopedias as well, but those which I've read years ago did not list it, I know that for sure. Another thing, is the disputed /genocide of Croats/ by the Chetniks per UN convention? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly is the UN Convention relevant? It was created AFTER WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

“ The number for the Croats are simply not there, neither is the scale of crimes, which simply can't be compared to most of similar terrible events.” True if you keep ignoring the sources. The same sources that describe Bosniak victims states number of Croat victims. How are they not there? A genocide not being as terrible as another doesn’t discredit it. Number of Croat victims are not that far off from Bosniak victims. The number of victims is sourced in the article. “ there is more mentions of genocide done to the Muslims, which is not the general case for Croats.” Most of sources that are RS state a genocide was waged toward Bosniak AND Croats so I don’t get this constant push to ignore the Croat victims of this crime. It’s blatantly denying the sources and the Croat victims.OyMosby (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The comparison of numbers of victims doesn't a serve any purpose in terms of how historiography approaches the subject. What is a fact is that the Chetnik ethnic cleansing campaign had the goal of eliminating the non-Serb population of Bosnia and it made no distinction between Bosniaks and Croats.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

::::Nor did it make a difference if the target were partisan/communist Serbs. Should we add them to the article as well? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a different between targeting people for ethnic reasons to make a homogeneous ethno state vs political or ideological reasons. The Ustashe killed a huge amount of anti-fascist Croats. By your logic is that genocide? And no I am not at all comparing thenChetniks and the Ustase genocides as equal at all before that accusation arises again from the past.OyMosby (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: The article discusses Chetnik war crimes in general, so you could expand the section about war crimes against antifascist Serbs. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: would it not make more sense to have that as a separate article? Chetnik atrocities against anti-fascist and or Partisan Serbs? Then again that just complicates things into FORKS. And this is a general scope article. So I think I agree with you. OyMosby (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Maleschreiber, this is about Chetnik war crimes in WWII, regardless of against whom they were committed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor @Tezwoo: had proposed “ The part about the crimes against Partisans is sourced mostly with Yugoslav-era books and primary sources, and there's not much on that in Tomasevich, Redžić, or Hoare. To avoid WP:COATRACK, it would be best to split that into a separate article.” but for the time being if the title is crimes in general then atrocities against any Chetnik victims would make sense here. I disagree with Tezwoo on disregarding Yugoslav-Era books though. OyMosby (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A side comment about categorization of victims: We shouldn't overcategorize them. We can all agree that ethnic violence is different from strictly political violence, but both refer to the same end goal: seizure of power. If you strip mass state/parastate violence against civilians from its ideological content, a very cynical reality emerges.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In parallel with the significant improvement of the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article, several editors who opposed some changes have edited this and The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia in a similar way. Before that, there was practically never a debate about the categorization of these crimes. Let's ignore this well-known habit of “countermeasures” on Balkan topics, but drawing parallels is very wrong. Genocide in the NDH is widely recognized by scholars (even Croatian historians claim that the crimes are unequivocally classified as genocide), memorial centers, institutes, head of states (even of Croatia and B&H), Raphael Lemkin, Israel Charny's the Encyclopedia of Genocide, Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Combat Genocide Association etc.

In the case of Chetnik mass crimes, there is a lack of academic consensus on genocide categorization, as well as everything else listed that exists for the NDH and other widely known genocides. Several of the same authors are always cited here, and the lack of consensus is ignored. Moreover, some scholars explain that the crimes can't be characterized as genocide because the Chetniks were not one organized and homogeneous group, as well as they didn't have their own regime, state apparatus and something like that. I really appreciate the significant improvement of articles about Chetniks and their crimes, but simply, this characterization of genocide is not something that is widely accepted in the mainstream media and by consensus of scholars and institutions related to the topic. Of course, no one questions the existence of crimes, their number and brutality, the nature of ethnic cleansing campaigns, and collaboration with Nazis. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB you had just said on another talk page to assume good faith and not engaged in conspiracies such as “countermeasure” otherwise vise versa it can go both ways. There tends to be a certain collection of editors that oppose Chetnik crimes to constitute genocide have also engaged in editing other Similar pages almost in response to the debate on the Genocide of Serbs page and improvements made to The Chetniks page too. But again this is all baseless conspiracy theories. No one apposed mentioned of genocide on the Genocide of Serbs page (which is not new nor has it been dramatically changed for years) so there is no “parallel” As the improvements didn’t change much of the facts already there. Let’s stop with these conspiracy theories. No one is drawing parallels or equalizing the crimes at all. Quite the opposite. The topic of Chetniks crimes constituting genocide predates the recent changes of the Genocide of Serbs page. It was discussed over years a go on the Genocide general page and The Chetniks page. So its a fact this isn’t tit for tat and we shouldn’t avoid improvements in fear of it talking away the spotlight or being done out of pure spite. These are not valid counter arguments. Also please cite the sources claiming these crimes do not constitute genocide. It would help. There are several RS sources saying otherwise. Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

These are not conspiracy theories, I have already been the victim of WP:HOUNDING combined with tendentious editing several times. Some editors literally copied my sentences in a short period of time and replace some words. Regardless, I said we should put that aside. For example, several authors (Tomislav Dulić, Paul Mojzes, Michele Frucht Levy, Philipp Ther, Ana Trbovich...) compared the crimes and campaigns of the Chetniks with the Ustaše and other participants in the war. They unequivocally emphasized that genocide was systematically committed in the NDH, while that the Chetniks did not have a regime, state apparatus, propaganda machinery, etc.

As I have already explained, many genocide scholars and relevant institutions omit to mention and classify Chetniks crimes as genocide, while most authors and virtually all mainstream media describe them mainly as massacres and ethnic cleansing. That is horrible enough, there is no need to equate it with some other events. This all is already a sufficient argument for the absence of a consensus. Simply, the term of Chetniks genocide is not accepted at all (besides the Al Jazeera and some pro-government Balkans media outlets), and Wikipedia should present a predominantly accepted view and categorization. --WEBDuB (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You had said we are not to compare Ustashe atrocities to Chetnik crimes yet you are comparing them. See what I mean? No one is trying to equate them. If they are then they are blind anti Serb nationalists. Genocides vary greatly in size, scope, mechanism and so on. The Rwanda genocide had no system it was people running around with machetes and gardening tools but it was still a genocide. I get your point of “well why isn’t it widely known like the others?”. Historical research is an ever evolving process much like Wikipedia which is updated faster than other platforms. Some of the sources I presented were published in recent years as Chetnik activity, being as you said not as organized and systemic with the power backing of the German Bayonets keeping Pavlic safe and in power direct as a state(all though Chetniks received supplies from the Germans when they got to collaboration stage), it makes research all the more difficult there are still horrors being uncovered we don’t even know about yet they may have happened around the world. The NDH being a German puppet state and having extensive documentation of their own and by the a Germans is easier to trace than guerrilla fighters as you said not in a structured extermination system. When I was reading these books and looking further into the Chetniks in Tomasevich’s book were he made claims of Genocide it caught my attention personally. I can’t speak for everyone else though. And it lead me down a rabbit whole finding reputable sources confirming it constituted genocide. Otherwise I would be here arguing in favor of labeling the Chetnik atrocities as genocide. Please know my intentions are pure here and out of empathy for the civilian victims who cannot speak. And I don’t care what ethnicity any victims were they all deserve the facts to be heard and we should go by RS. Again where are these sources specifying orcountering the other sources that Chetnik activities cannot be labeled genocide? It would help in this conversation. Regards, OyMosby (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't question your intentions for a moment. Also, the emphasis was not on the comparison with the Ustaše, but on the author's conclusions that there is not genocide. Furthermore, it is not necessary here to have a conclusion of that kind, a sufficient argument is the lack of inclusion of Chetniks crimes in most relevant sources related to genocide. It is an indisputable fact that most media, publications, books, institutions and authorities use terms such as “massacres” and “ethnic cleansing”, as opposed to “genocide”. The Rwandan government was led by the ethnic Hutu political leader. Most importantly, Rwanda genocide is widely known by that name. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (WP:UNDUE) --WEBDuB (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My point was was not the notoriety of the Rawanda Genocide but that it was carried out by people using tools inspired by hate speech on a radio unorganized around the country, in a short amount of time with a huge numbers of victims. Regardless of the Hutu leader and government who stood and allowed it to unfold. The Chetniks had a leaser as well. Dragoljub-Draza Mihailovic. Also keep in mind the Rewanda genocide was massive and televised in the modern era. I already said I understand your viewpoint of “ well why isn’t it widely known like the others?”. A valid question. And I gave an explanation. But still what are these sources you mention that outright claim it was not a genocide since ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide, that doesn't deny genocide happened? Bear that in mind. Who defines consensus and which sources are relative? I think at this point we both said what we could say. OyMosby (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dragoljub Mihajlović was the leader of the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland, while the term Chetniks is much broader. It is used for different groups that were not interconnected and ideologically homogeneous. However, that is not the main topic. But still what are these sources you mention that outright claim it was not a genocide since ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide, that doesn't deny genocide happened? That would be WP:OR. It is important to mention that there are authors who characterize crimes as genocide, but it is not correct to state this as a fact established by consensus, we put in the titles of articles, articles and templates about genocide. Most genocide scholars and institutions omit Chetniks. Also, those who describe and investigate crimes classify them differently. These are all facts supported by sources, so as not to repeat myself. Also keep in mind the Rewanda genocide was massive and televised in the modern era. There is also a lot of talk about Chetnik crimes in modern times, and it should be talked about, but different terms and classifications are predominantly used. According to Wikipedia policies, we have to follow that. --WEBDuB (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

But still what are these sources you mention that outright claim it was not a genocide since ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide, that doesn't deny genocide happened? That “would be WP:OR” I said state the sources that say it wasn’t a genocide. Ethnic cleansing is a component of genocide. What is OR here? The absence of the word genocide in works by others can't be used to balance the authors who say it was genocide, because that is OR. You glossed over this quote that was asking you to present the sources you claim say it wasn’t genocide. Otherwise it is OR to assume if the authors says ethnic cleansing that they are claiming it wasn’t or cannot be considered genocide. Chetnik crimes didn’t unfold in modern times, Rwanda did. Talking about old crimes vs seeing them unfold and recorded realtime in modern times is hugely different for historiography and the ease of documenting what happened. I think my point was pretty obvious. The operating nature of the Chetnik factions only adds to the complexities hence my point that some genocides are quicker or easier to document or het more publicity. There are some genocides hardly spoken of not as well covered in the mainstream. I understand your views on this and I think now you might understand mine, that quote of my last reply in particular. We’re just going in circles at this point. The sources are all there up above. They state what they state. They speak for themselves. I’ll leave the floor to others in this thread. OyMosby (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: The discussion has effectively concluded. Existing bibliography is fairly represented in the article. If bibliography emerges, new discussions may start. The important thing is to discuss on the basis of bibliography without allowing a WP:FORUM environment to emerge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: agreed. No need to go on and on. Bibliography was recently updated today however without discussion. Please take a look. OyMosby (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide question

Should it be emphasized throughout the article, first in the lead and the historiography section, that the question of classifying crimes as genocide is open and that there is no consensus? --WEBDuB (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, @Paul Siebert:, @Davide King:, @Volunteer Marek: I would be extremely grateful for your comments.

Comment – It is true that there are authors who claim that the Chetniks committed genocide, but their inclusion in that context as a supermajority and accepted view is WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The fact is there is no academic consensus, nor is it an established majority view in the mainstream media. If the overwhelming majority of sources described the crimes not as genocide, and if most genocide scholars (including Raphael Lemkin and Israel Charny), relevant institutions and memorials (such as the Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Combat Genocide Association, Genocide Watch, International Association of Genocide Scholars...), head of states, authorities, etc., do not include Chetniks crimes among genocides, there is no need to provide a source that explicitly says that was not genocide.

However, we even have sources that directly deal with of categorization and that refuted claims that it was genocide, but massacres, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing! That is horrible enough, there is no need to equate it with some other events. Some of these authors are Paul Mojzes, David Bruce MacDonald, Tomislav Dulić, Michele Frucht Levy. Also, some reviewers questioned the use of the term “genocide” by Marko Attila Hoare, who is often referred to. Furthermore, Samuel Totten notes that some historians argue that the Chetniks committed genocide. He didn't say that it was a dominant and unanimously accepted position. Even, neither Vladimir Žerjavić nor Vladimir Geiger mentions genocide, and they are most cited in Croatia and overall as a source on the death toll.

The term of Chetniks genocide is not accepted at all by mainstream media (besides the Al Jazeera and some pro-government Balkans media outlets and media that try to establish a false balance, primarily trivialize the Genocide of Serbs and make it less visible), and Wikipedia should present a predominantly accepted view and name. (WP:POVNAMING) Also, it is extremely difficult to find a connection between the terms Chetniks and genocide by the Google search.

Comment – It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Any sort of WP:CANVASS is considered inappropriate. It is also necessary to present the overall context. Тhis article was massively changed during the same period with the significant improvement and extensive discussions on the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article. Several editors who opposed some changes have edited this and some other articles in a similar way. That sort of ‘countermoves’ and generally WP:TENDENTIOUS are common on Balkan topics. Before that, there was practically never a debate over whether the Chetniks committed genocide or not. --WEBDuB (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree that this should be a civilized discussion. Perhaps @3E1I5S8B9RF7:, @Peacemaker67:, @3E1I5S8B9RF7:, @Bondegezou: and @Nug: could provide input in these sort of matters as well. Thank you for taking this to the talk page. I will comment further when given more time. “ Before that, there was practically never a debate over whether the Chetniks committed genocide or not.” Not true and not a productive argument in this discussion but comes across antagonistic or provocative. The Serbian genocide page has existed a long time on Wikipedia so please stop with conspiracies that don’t make sense. Same could be said that retaliatory edits were made on the Genocide of Serbs page after a Tomasevich’s passage was added mentioning Anti-Croatian policies of the Yugoslav government before WWII which was deemed by some editors as “justifying or questioning genocide” sensitively. And a sudden uptick in edits and activities on Balkan articles all of a sudden. So let’s not go there. Chetnik crimes meeting genocide have popped up through the years. It isn’t a new phenomenon. Nor did all those historians get together in the past few months to write about the genocides. Please stop repeating the same lines in ever debate involving Chetnik atrocities. It isn’t a counterpoint nor valid. War crime and genocide articles don’t usually put denial or criticism in the intro. That would be undue. The Genocide of Serbs page didn’t always have that title. It used to be named “Persecution of Serbs in NDH” not too long ago. Wikipedia evolves ever growing. Lets not try to force the direction of growth but be open. OyMosby (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to deepen this topic and to equate incomparable events. We discuss this article here, and the context and dynamics in which this version was created are important.:These are not conspiracy theories, I have already been the victim of WP:HOUNDING combined with tendentious editing several times, but also of the WP:LTA, harassment, publishing personal information, etc. Certainly, the whole comment refers to digression, not essential arguments. I ask everyone to stick to the topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Then stick to the topic. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• NPOV is a requirement. Per the sources above, whether it is a genocide is disputed by reliable sources. The qualification as genocide, therefore, should be described as a disagreement, with different viewpoints given weight according to the weight of reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  The Holodomor article does not definitively say "Holodomor was genocide", because that is disputed. Instead it says, "Whether the Holodomor was genocide is still the subject of academic debate..." something like that may be appropriate for this article. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I get were you are coming from with your suggestion. But it Doesn’t seem like a comparable event as the Chetniks had and ideology driven motive for non-Serb persecution as documented. It isn’t a loose case going by the sources. Perhaps Genocide agains Poles would be a more comparable subject though again not completely the same. One that also is being debated on the Genocide list by death toll article. There is heavy RS pointing to genocide by the Chetniks. And doesn’t seem equal in wait by sources arguing against. Much like other Genocides that have historians or authors criticizing evens such as the Bosnian genocide. Again I will hive a more detailed response when free from the holidays. And personal and family health problems. OyMosby (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There are other examples with disputed definitions: Atrocities in the Congo Free State, Great Chinese Famine, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars... Numerous sources claim that these are genocides, but most use some other terms. Also, most genocide scholars and institutions do not include them. I would quote the fellow editor Paul Siebert: “The lack of sources saying "No, the Moon is not made of cheese" does not mean some source saying that the Moon is made of green cheese expresses a mainstream viewpoint.” The importance of certain sources is constantly neglected. In such situations where the consensus is not clear, the sources that analyze the conflicting claims and come to the final conclusion are crucial (as a kind of systematic review and meta-analysis). In this case, they support the thesis that crimes are categorized differently from genocide. I have already citted in previous comments.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

(Inserted comment) - WEBDuB, you are comparing Chetniks' propensity to commit genocide with the possibility that the Moon is made of cheese!? You see the absurdity of that argument, don't you?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bosnian Genocide has even more pushback in academia and deniers yet the intro doesn’t include critics or denial of genocide having occurred. As for your quote by Paul Siebert, is this why you pinged Paul Siebert? Wouldn’t it be be canvassing to bring in people you agree with on the topic. Something you pleaded not to be done? Anyway, topic at hand. We are comparing various articles but this doesn’t address the weight issue of the proposed intro. Making it seem there is as much sourcing explicitly saying no genocide happened as apposed to those that do. Were is the described connection to the articles you mentioned to this one? Are the sources we have before really the same in terms of questioning if it was ultimately genocide or if there are enough doubts in academia to put those doubts in the intro? In this article, doesn’t seem so. I know some will come to this RfC and just agree without explanation as you had mentioned was a concern of yours. And I agree and echo this statement. We are here not for a vote count but a good faith discussion. So I advise everyone explain why they agree with an editors or why they feel the way they do for or against. This makes it clear for others to read quickly the breakdown. OyMosby (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Arnold Suppan, who lists no less than 14 genocides in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia during and after world war II (pages 743–744 of Hitler–Benes–Tito), does not include crimes committed by Chetniks as a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the viewpoint presented by Buidhe. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose What is missing from the discussions here and above are ANY reliable source that specifically says the Chetniks did not carry out a genocide (except MacDonald, and he is decidedly fringe as I have noted above). Instead, what we have are SIX strong specialist Yugoslavia in WWII sources that say it was (Tomasevich, Hoare, Redžić, Dizdar, Čekić, and Dedijer and Miletić). Sadko claims he has read Dedijer and he doesn't mention genocide, but one of the books by him I am referring to is entitled Genocid nad Muslimanima... Specialist sources on Yugoslavia in WWII are far preferred over general sources on matters such as this. There is no reason for Žerjavić or Geiger to mention genocide, they are talking about death statistics, not classification of the crimes committed. Despite WEBDuB's ambit wikilawyering claims, WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:EXCEPTIONAL aren't relevant to this. We have SIX reliable specialist sources that say it was genocide. The idea that accepting a genocide was committed by the Chetniks somehow trivializes the genocide of Serbs committed in the NDH or equates it with that is just complete nonsense, and a typical Serb victimology POV that should be dismissed out of hand. For starters, the scale and governmental involvement are completely different, but that doesn't mean the killing of Muslims and Croats wasn't also genocide but on a smaller scale. According to Buidhe, whether it is a genocide is disputed by reliable sources. Is it? Which ones exactly? Many of the above authors are being misrepresented in the discussion. For example, Totten and Parsons merely note that some historians assert that the Chetniks committed genocide, they don't dispute that assertion. Mojzes notes that there are clear qualitative differences between the Ustasha genocide and the Chetnik crimes, and states that Chetnik genocidal intent existed, but he prevaricates, and does not state clearly that he considers that the Chetniks didn't commit genocide. Dulić also prevaricates, instead focussing on the substantive differences between state-driven destruction and what the Chetniks could manage, using the Hilberg model, a Holocaust-focussed model of the "institutionalism" school that considered the destruction of Jews the achievement of an administrative goal. Hilberg doesn't even mention genocide in his book, and aspects of his work in terms of defining genocide are disputed by scholars such as Douglas Irvin-Erickson. In fact, even though the ICTY isn't directly relevant here, as the Genocide Convention post-dates WWII, the key issue for the court in making a ruling of genocide regarding Srebrenica was the combination of group destruction and intent, but intent narrowed to the dolus specialis, special or specific intent. As Mojzes observes, the Chetniks certainly engaged in group destruction and had genocidal intent, signified by Mihailović's 1941 Chetnik leaflet entitled Our Way, specific reference in a proclamation to the Serbian people in December 1941, and the 20 December 1941 Instrukcije (Instructions) [1], which ordered the cleansing of non-Serbs from territories claimed by the Chetniks as part of a Greater Serbia. I am not seeing the supposed "dispute" claimed by others. If someone can point out, preferably with quotes given the gross misrepresentations of sources thus far, where reliable sources actually dispute that the Chetnik's committed genocide, then we should include that it is disputed, but unless there are more than six, we really should not be giving undue weight to the idea that it wasn't genocide. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of misinterpretation. Numerous authors have written that there was genocidal intent, but claim that genocide did not happen for a number of reasons. There may be intent, but there are no acts of execution that meet the criteria, but WP:NOTFORUM. Also, the Instrukcije refer to ethnic cleansing and deportations. It does not confirm the intention of total destruction. More importantly, Mihajlović was not the leader of all Chetniks. They were an inhomogeneous group of people without central leadership. “Instead, what we have are SIX strong specialist Yugoslavia in WWII sources that say it was (Tomasevich, Hoare, Redžić, Dizdar, Čekić, and Dedijer and Miletić).” - On the other hand, we have hundreds of specialist Yugoslavia in WWII and genocide scholars who wrote about related events, but do not mention the term “genocide” in the context of Chetnik crimes. Wikipedia should represent the mainstream view. “For example, Totten and Parsons merely note that some historians assert that the Chetniks committed genocide, they don't dispute that assertion.” Exactly. They note that (only) some historians assert that. They do not claim that most or all of them suggest that, as it is trying to be presented here.--WEBDuB (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A lot of quality sources talk about genocide and I think this fact must be exposed. I mentioned earlier that the final number of Chetnik crimes ie killed people only later (in the late 1980s) becomes available to the public and to historians (let someone correct me if I am wrong). Therefore if some older sources and earlier historiography do not speak about Chetnik crimes as genocide that does not mean that genocide did not exist because the final numbers and the extent of those crimes in numbers were not known then. Mikola22 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - specialist on modern history of Yugoslavia in relation to WWII inter-ethnic violence (some noted by Peacemaker) agree that what happened constitute a genocide, and article uses some of them for refs. The “number game” should be left out of this discussion, as it is always a slippery slope, not to mention that editors are not the ones who should try to asign any meaning to numbers in the context of the “definition of genocide” and “intent” that sits at its core. Further, related field authors provide very useful insight into historiography and its dynamics, notably Politics of Memory by Škorić & Bešlin. One comment, however, why only some were invited to the discussion, and why, in addition to the above pinged, then the editors who had already participated in the editing and this discussion were not invited as well.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

“specialist on modern history of Yugoslavia in relation to WWII inter-ethnic violence (some noted by Peacemaker) agree that what happened constitute a genocide, and article uses some of them for refs.” Not true. The constant repetition that there are authors who claim that genocide took place cann't change the fact that it is not a majority and mainstream view. Škorić & Bešlin didn't mention genocide at all. Furthermore, I'm also not sure what criteria defines a "strong specialist" on Yugoslavia in WWII, but out of those six historians, Tomasevich, Hoare and perhaps Redžić belong under that umbrella. Čekić is a random Bosniak historian whose credibility is murky. Dizdar's works on the Chetniks are highly polemical. Frankly, Dedijer is also a bit of a polemicist. For example, he has stated that 700,000 people died at Jasenovac (1) and his descriptions of the crimes by the Ustaše are also slightly dramatized for emotional effect. So there's three strong sources in reality, one of whom (Tomasevich) is cherry-picked for one sentence in which he implicates the Chetniks in genocide; a weak endorsement. Hoare is also a controversial figure with controversial statements about the Balkans. He has a great work on the role of Bosniaks in the World War II, but he is very questionable about other events in Yugoslavia. It is wrong that he is overprotected by a group of Wikipedians, he has even been challenged by part of the Bosniak community and called a revisionist. Also, I've invited editors who took part in discussions on the genocide definition and inclusion criteria but are not regular on Balkan topics. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You branded Peacemaker's arguments as "misinterpretations", yet you did it and you are doing it, and would probably continue to do that as long as you need it: when arguing how Gumz and Wiliams "questioned" Hoare's use of the term genocide (no need for long explanations, I have access to both authors papers); then you established failed analogy between the Moon made of cheese and Chetniks' propensity to commit genocide vis-a-vis availability of reliable sources; then, you are offering your impressions on what Totten is saying or not saying when he puts in writing that some historians calls it genocide, with "some" underlined; but you don't attach any of your opinions or remarks when you list authors who do not use the term "genocide", although it would be useful to say at least two things: 1) that they don't deny it either - they simply use other terms, and 2) some of them are simply comparative historians in general; now you are saying Čekić is "murky" - Čekić is author published by UNSA Institute for the Study of Crimes against Humanity and International Law; and NO, Hoare is not controversial in any way, shape or form - he is the foremost authority on the military history of the Yugoslavia and an expert witness at ICTY; all in all, you are trying to build your case against usage of the term "genocide" in relation with Chetniks crimes by decrying "murky", "controversial", "polemical" reputation of, at least, half of the scholars, in attempt to belittle their authority, and it's all based on your own perspective and opinion. (Your attempt to create aura of neutrality by invoking disagreement with Dedier as a proponent of the rejected number of 700 000 Serbs slaughtered in Jasenovac is a bit disingenuous - meanwhile, he may be lead to believe in such a figure for myriad of reasons, while in the same time be precise in estimation of other, and so on.) As for Škorić & Bešlin, I never implied that they mentioned "genocide", I said their work is useful for our insight into local historiography dynamics, especially in regard to our view on history of violence and crimes committed in the name of Blut und Boden.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional remarks - when Peacemaker says "strong specialist", what he means is scholars who publish on analysis, evaluation, and categorization of the crimes committed during the WWII (or any other period of violence, such as wars of 90's), and whose works are published by corresponding field journals, institutes (such as above mentioned Institute for the Study of Crimes against Humanity), and Peacemaker clearly make distinction between those who are simply comparative historians in general and a specialist by saying Specialist sources on Yugoslavia in WWII are far preferred over general sources on matters such as this - and all of "the six" are specialists, unlike those you would prefer, and who either never said that the term "genocide" is inappropriate, or who mentioned it in passing and whiteout particularly exploring its applicability.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this again? I don't have anything more to add than other editors already stated, particularly Peacemaker67.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peacemaker and Santasa who have already explored all significant aspects of the question.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment – Again, I remind everyone of WP:DEMOCRACY. It is not enough to support someone's idea, without presenting evidence of academic consensus. Otherwise, some parts of the article should return to the version from several months ago (April-May) that existed for years (WP:STABLE), before the nationalist POV-pushers and sockpupets made significant changes without consensus on the talk page. Everything can be checked.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly I strongly agree with you that this is not a vote as I said before. People need to explain WHY they agree or disagree with the RfC choices. Also it was stable up to October until in December this all started with the “NPOV” claim in December and then you yourself made massive edits without consulting the talk page. Why is (April-May) the “stable” timeline specifically? Also from April to now who were these “nationalist pov pushers” and “sockpuppets” you claimed to be editing during this time? Please understand these are important claims. OyMosby (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Until April-May, the disputed part stood for years (WP:STABLE!). It was only then that it was changed in parallel with the debates and edit-war on other articles. One can easily check they were sockpuppets. Were there nationalist POV pushers? This all was followed by a wave of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... All this with the silence of the adminis. I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment, but without any response. This is an increasingly important part of the context that non-Balkan editors need to understand.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have any evidence for "a wave of hatred" or "long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats", produce it at the relevant drama boards or direct to ArbCom, by email if necessary. The latter behaviour is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia, and if proven, will almost certainly result in a block or ban for anyone involved. If I wasn't involved, I would apply discretionary sanctions to anyone involved if the evidence was there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussions raised above by different editors. Idealigic (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Most historians obviously describe the crimes of the Chetniks as a genocide and treat them as equal to the crimes of the Ustaše. Tezwoo (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source that draws a conclusion about the claims of most historians. Several of us have mentioned relevant authors who dealt with the events in Yugoslavia and genocides, omitting the Chetniks among the genocides or disputing that classification. As for the comparison with the Ustasše crimes, that is not the question here. All other historians and Wikipedians agree that it cannot be equated.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I started writing a comment on how you misinterpreted/misrepresented some of the sources in the opening comment of the RfC, but then I noticed others did that already. For example, Tomislav Dulić is listed there, but on pp. 94-95 he simply explains the differences between the Ustaše and the Chetniks' actions, and does not say that the former can't be equated to the later. Their actions just took different forms. He also doesn't refute the genocide claim, but gave various definitions of a genocide. In Utopias of nation, p. 344-345, Dulić wrote "Depending on emphasis and definition, it would seem that the Chetniks may have committed genocide, attempted genocide or ethnocide." He wrote a similar thing for the Ustaše: "On the one hand, one could argue that the NDH Serbs suffered an comparatively high death rate, thus being victims of genocide. On the other hand, the destruction was within such proportions that instead one might prefer to speak of an attempted genocide. If, however, one believes that the mass killings were instrumental in the sense that they primarily aimed at inciting people to flee, the killings would probably constitute what has been defined as ethnocide."

And there are plenty of sources that equate the Chetniks and the Ustaše crimes. Other than the ones already in the article, here's a quote from Matjaž Klemenčič and Mitja Žagar, p. 162:

"a bloody civil war, characterized by ethnic atrocities and genocide, also broke out in Yugoslavia, especially in territories controlled by the Ustaša and the Chetniks. These practices started from the very beginning of World War II, and their main protagonists were these same Ustaša and Chetniks who tried to destroy or convert the local populations from other ethnic origins and religions (i.e., the Ustaša wanted to exterminate or convert local Serbs to Catholicism, and the Chetniks wanted to convert local Croats to the Eastern Orthodox religion or exterminate them)."

Or Hoare in Genocide in the former Yugoslavia: a critique of left revisionism's denial: "It is true that the Ustasha regime pursued a genocidal policy toward the Serb population of the Croatian quisling state; there was also a parallel genocide carried out by the Serb Chetniks against the Muslims and Croats of Bosnia and Croatia." ... "The Serbs, like the Croats, were a nation deeply polarised during World War II; like the Croats, they produced both murderous Nazi-collaborators and brave resistance fighters. Many Serbs and Croats were victims; others were perpetrators of genocide."

This whole RfC is based on a select few sources and the notion that just because a certain website or a book dealing with genocide doesn't mention the Chetniks, their actions should not be described as a genocide, despite the sheer number of sources that do describe their actions as such. And I don't see why should websites that specialize in the Holocaust, such as Yad Vashem or the Simon Wiesenthal Center, deal with the Chetnik crimes? Tezwoo (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose What I would say is a summary of what Mikola, OyMosby and Peacemaker said. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Disputed tag

I noticed the disputed tag when it came to several historians describing Chetnik crimes as genocide and in the editing history, it was argued to be changed to "most". I don't think that most historians view it as such, but there's definitely more than a few sources who do, so I'd be fine with "some" or "many" instead. --Griboski (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that some editors are claiming that because a source is silent about whether the Chetniks committed genocide, that means they don't consider it genocide. That is illogical and complete nonsense, and not how we operate on Wikipedia. Going from the sources that have been mentioned above, it is clear that a significant number of sources say it was genocide, and a few explicitly say it was not (including MacDonald, who doesn't even think the Ustashas committed genocide, so his must be considered a fringe view). That means, of the sources identified on this talk page, "most" describe it as genocide. If further sources can be found that explicitly state is was not genocide, and that tips the balance, I'm happy to review my position on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree there's quite a few sources who label it as genocide but the issue is that the current wording is simply inaccurate and going into the territory of OR. By saying "most historians", what we are saying is that the majority of historians in the relevant field, i.e. WWII/Yugoslavia & Genocide Studies, consider it a genocide and that's not true. --Griboski (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PM67. The RfC generated a community response and PM67 transferred that response to the article. We can't have a second, unofficial RfC about the same subject. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that PM altered the wording. I'm ok with it now since it's more specific. My objection was to the previous one that was written in a more broad and general sense. --Griboski (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)