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)

Sources

Ok, Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/#Pavlowitch.2C_Stevan_K._Hitler.27s_new_disorder:_the_Second_World_War_in_Yugoslavia Pavlowitch sheds some light on this, pp. 79-80, referring to Karchmar's work, which suggests that Djurišić forged the instructions, believing the M. might be dead, and wanting to have M. authority. I've requested Karchmar's work through interlibrary loan, should have it early next week. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well that explains it. Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. I'm not at home right now, but when I get back I'll see about his peer reviews myself. The whole forgery idea looked like a unsupported conspiracy theory from the start. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if Pavlowitch was naive about his sources given the circumstances.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Pavlowitch is also a Serb emigre :), though i do not mean to imply any serious bias on his part. Be that as it may, I can assure you, Lucien Karchmar has a very bad reputation in Bosnia. At the very least, he is most certainly famous for being a "pro-Serbian" source, and giving the Chetniks the benefit of the doubt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Karchmar's work is criticized in parts of the Balkans, and I have no doubt it is also equally praised in other parts of the Balkans. Radical polarization seems part of the territory there. Karchmar is pretty widely cited, thus far I have found no academic sources in English that are critical of the work in terms of historical accuracy (the only criticisms I've found thus far is that Karchmar tends to be long winded). In particular, I would point out that Marko Attila Hoare, reviewing Partisans et Tchetniks en Yougoslavie durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale: Idéologie et mythogenèse by Antoine Sidoti in the Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 429-430, in criticism of that work says "Most puzzling of all, the classic works on the Chetnik movement by English-language historians Jozo Tomasevich, Matteo J. Milazzo, and Lucien Karchmar do not appear in the bibliography and are not cited in the text, not to mention many equally important sources published in Serbo-Croatian." If Hoare, who is extremely critical of attempts to rehabilitate Milhailovic's reputation accepts Karchmar as a classic work, that's indication that Karchmar is not discredited in the general historical academic community, nor so biased as to be problematic for our use here. There is also this, and I cannot help but point out that Stanford is not exactly a backwater institution. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I propose we find work which is either praised or ignored or criticized equally in the Balkans. Tomasevich, for example, is criticized by nationalists from both the Croatian and Serbian "side". Far be it from me to imply Balkans public opinion should be relevant here, but I don't think a source from a Serbian emigre that is praised by Serbian nationalists and criticized by all other factions is quite up to par. To be more specific, Karchmar is famous for hatching various "theories" that absolve Chetniks, along the lines of "well this might've happened, who's to say it didn't?". What I mean is, unless his personal opinion is supported by direct primary evidence (like Tomasevich for example), we should not list it without attribution - and it should certainly NOT be cause for ignoring Mihailović's instructions in our draft in any way.

Does anyone have Karchmar, can we have his relevant quote, the source of the conspiracy theory? I would propose, therefore, that unless his falsification claim is supported by direct evidence, as opposed to merely his own opinion and conjecture, that we take into account his controversial nature in the Balkans and include his claim as an attributed quote, otherwise proceeding as planned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the review, Nuujinn, one finds very good examples of what I'm talking about. The review states outright that "Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt". The theory mentioned therein for example, originating with Karchmar, that the SOE was full of evil "Stalinist spies", was one of his "ideas" that historians in Britain took the time to thoroughly debunk. Karchmar generally lays the blame squarely on the British (while ignoring British records), and is an originator of the "western betrayal" rhetoric in Serbian radical circles. We must acknowledge that Karchmar's PhD certainly harbors some degree of bias. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, we really can't start deciding whther secondary sources opinions are based on direct primary evidence or not. Sure they look at it in the first place but they don't quote or include it all. They couldn't. That's why we use reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. We can only look at reviews or specific mentions in other published works. Besides which, what source says the theory that SOE was full of Stalinist spies originated with Karchmar? This was a well known issue in Britain during and after the war - not just in SOE. It's highly unlikely it originated with an American work published in the 70s. What about Martin (1946) or Lees who although he was writing in the 80s used a host of earlier publications of memoirs of the operatives. What the review says about Karchmar is "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". Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, we do not exclude reliable sources, especially academic ones (which are vetted, as is the case with dissertations and scholarly publications) because we think they are biased. Hoare has a bias, but we accept him as reliable because of his credentials, not because we agree with him. And we certainly do not base decisions of reliability of academic sources on public opinion. Fainites is correct that sources indicate there were conflicts within the SOE and between the SOE and the Foreign Service between leftists and rightists. It appears that it will be a while before we get to it, but there's a similar tension between the US and British governments as the former did not trust Tito (as a communist) whereas the British did. So I think what we do is document the dispute, and say that some academics hold that the document is real, and others that it is a forgery. If you want to attribute by name, that's fine, but we should do it bilaterally. In terms of this review, I cannot help but note that you have pulled part of a sentence, out of context, to support your POV, and I think you have misrepresented the source by doing that: "Heaping all the blame on Mihailovic, however, may be too harsh a judgment. Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt, and his exhaustive study yields a great deal of material that helps us understand the nature of the problems faced by Mihailovic and his Cetniks." That's praise for Karchmar, not criticism of bias. Finally, Karchmar's opinion is based in research in the topic, so it is a very well informed opinion, as are the opinions of Roberts, Tomasevich, Hoare, Milazzo, and professional historians. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, did I say we should "disregard" or "exclude" Karchmar? If you look at my proposal you'll note I support the inclusion of the possibility that the Instructions were falsified. I am simply pointing out that "we must acknowledge that Karchmar's PhD certainly harbors some degree of bias", and treat it accordingly. I constantly get the feeling of an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere. The quote Nuujinn, was not taken out of context and it retains its meaning - being praised for providing a pro-Mihailović point of view (at a time when it was lacking), does not make it any less a pro-Mihailović POV. In light of this, I do not support bilateral attribution: Tomasevich is not described as giving anyone the benefit of the doubt.

To sum-up, taking into account that the Karchmar PhD "gives Mihailović the benefit of the doubt" (for which he is quite famous btw), and since his falsification claim is speculative ("who's to say this didn't happen?"), I do not support bilateral attribution. In other words, the burden of evidence is on Karchmar, not Tomasevich, and given that the former's positive assertions consitute speculation and personal opinion (unsupported however well-informed), it seems quite biased indeed to grant them equal treatment where that is unwarranted.

• Concerning the SOE. Karchmar naturally did not invent the idea of SOE communist infiltration, but he did invent the idea that his own abstract "communist spies" in the SOE were behind Churchill's support for the Partisans - as it happened it was the ULTRA intercepts (the old review was published before the idea was debunked). That is to say, there were communist spies in the SOE, and the SOE did have a (small) hand in the shift of support, but it is speculative conjecture that these communist spies in the SOE brought about the shift of support (were Randolph Churchill and Sir Fitzroy MacLean communist spies?). In addition Karchmar places the blame entirely on these spies and the SOE, while we now know that the SOE was not instrumental to the shift in support. That's my point.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Professional historians are entitled to express opinions. That's the whole point of experts. They are the ones who can give opinions - unlike us who are mere compilers of secondary sources. Your version of Karchmar is not in accordance with the review in any event which 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. It then makes it plain that the evidence of contacts with the Axis was damning and the ultimate decision rested with the FO policy makers and Churchill. As for the idea that Karchmar invented the theory, what about George Orwell? If you have access to Karchmar, lets have a look at what he actually says. Also, you say Karchmar is "famous" for giving Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt. Can we have sources for this please. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, and we aren't in a position to decide whether Karchmar or Tomasevich is correct about the document, and thus I believe our only recourse is to attribute the statements and document the controversy. Also, DIREKTOR, if you're going to say things like "the old review was published before the idea was debunked", you should point to the source upon which that assertion relies. I believe that you are mischaracterizing the review, but perhaps you're not familiar with the idiomatic usage--"Karchmar does his best to give Mihailovic the benefit of the doubt" doesn't equate to a "pro-Mihailović POV" as you characterize it. And finally, I have to ask, have you read Karchmar? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fellas: since we agree its an opinion, it should be attributed. That is all. This is not my position on Karchmar specifically, but on the representation of professional opinions in general on Wiki.

While "teaching the controversy" might be a popular approach in the States nowadays, in science it is complete nonsense to equate a scientist making an unsupported positive claim (a statement of opinion), with all others who do not. Does Karchmar state an opinion? Very well, lets post it and attribute it - and the story should end there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be brief, and I apologize for being terse, as it may come across as a bit harsh, but we'll falling into the walls of text problem (again).

1. History isn't science. And Karchmar's direct statement regarding the instructions is Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/#Pavlowitch.2C_Stevan_K._Hitler.27s_new_disorder:_the_Second_World_War_in_Yugoslavia endorsed by Pavlowitch in note 25 on page 80. It is not uncommon for a later historian to build upon the work of others or review old or newly uncovered evidence and to articulate a new view of an old matter. Not having read Karchmar, I don't know what the situation is yet.
2. That Karchmar takes one view and Tomasevich another is not a matter of simple opinion, both are professional historians--in such case we do attribute the difference to the sources in question. We aren't in a position to evaluate the fine points of either scholar's work. And we're not teaching the controversy, we documenting a disagreement between sources, which is the WP way to handle such matters. Karchmar, as I have shown with the review of his work and quotes from both Pavlowitch and Hoare, is a respected authority in this area. If Karchmar is an apologist for M (and not having read his work, I cannot possibly have an opinion on that issue), that Hoare endorses Karchmar's work is particularly compelling, given Hoare's views of M.
3. You're making lots of statements, but you're not providing references to sources that directly support your claims, and until you do, I, for one, am not putting any weight at all on those assertions per rule number 8.
4. I asked you a direct question, have you read Karchmar? And if you haven't, on what exactly are you basing your judgments? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be even more concise. Whether history is a "science" per se is the subject of some debate, Nuujinn, but the point is that historiography (and Wikipedia) function in accordance with scientific principles. Indeed, more adherence thereof would certainly help this discussion along.

Nuujinn, a professional opinion should be attributed to its author. With the instructions above, that will document the indiscrepancy in the sources quite sufficiently indeed. It is biased and unnecessary to list all the scholars who do not mention the claim at all, due to the fact that this equates their position to that of a scholar making a positive statement of personal opinion. And, in spite of the imo excessive "egalitarianism" noticable in your train of thought, the two positions are far, far from equal. Science, just like Wikipedia, is not a democracy, and two "votes" do not carry equal weight.

Once again: my position here is that a professional opinion should be attributed to its author. Nothing more. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But as I understand it Direktor, you do not state that in relation to Tomasevic? This is all nonsense. Karchmar's opinion is no more or less an opinion that any other professional historians opinion. Our decision as to which sources we consider the best or preferable or whatever does not rely on some mythical ability of a bunch of editors to analyse the primary sources comprising the foundation of a decades long career as a professional historian. You have misunderstood Nuujinn's point and are personalising the argument by implying he is proposing a "teach the controversy" approach (in which an unsupported claim is equated with supported ones), an insult in anyone's book surely? And where does he suggest that we "list all the scholars who do not mention the claim at all" as you claim? Please be a littlemore carefulin reading others posts before replying so that this discussion does not descend into the usual bad-tempered TLDR. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But Fainites, I have the exact same position with regard to Tomasevich. The thing is, Tomasevich is an incredibly thorough scholar and his statements very rarely, if ever, go without direct support in primary sources (e.g. "Mihailović ordered Đujić to cooperate with the Germans, we know that because we have the transcript of the radio transmission where he says that himself", etc.).

What I am doing here, Fainites, is pointing out the difference between a theory and a fact. Tomasevich is a good example of a secondary source that is little more than a glossary of raw facts on the period, at times, he expresses an "opinion" ("theory") based on these facts. The same is true with Karchmar. My position here is that, taking into consideration the obscure and extremely controversial nature of the subject matter, opinions should be attributed when they are in question with other sources.

This is a general proposal, and certainly not exclusive to Karchmar, it only seems to have come-up for the first time with him. Though he is perhaps a good example because of his doing his best to grant one party in a controversial issue the benefit of the doubt (to quote the review). Imho, his will grant our discussion (and version of the text) an increased measure of neutrality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the sea change in your opinion, from the above I take that A). you have no objections to use of Karchmar and B). you have no objection to attributing Tomasevich's take on the instructions to Tomasevich and Karchmar's to Karchmar. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in a universe where positive assertions and negative ones have the same validity, you would be right. In our universe, someone making a claim, or proposing a theory, has to prove and stand behind it, not the one rejecting it. The burden of evidence is on him, not on anyone and everyone who does not support him - thats the whole point of attribution. Its Karchmar's theory, he has to be attributed, all those who ignore/reject him do not need to be - their positions are NOT equal as they are not proposing anything. That is how science, and the world in general, work. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Oh for goodness sake why are we even discussing this? If Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt, we attribute it to him as his theory and we move on! Its basic logic and neutrality. I can't fathom how I'm being unreasonable in some way, and I'm starting to get the feeling you two fellas just like opposing whatever I say for the "kick" of it.. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, despite the view that you presented, history is not science, neither is it law, and historians weigh the assertions of historians, we don't. I would point out that generally speaking, we weigh the work of later historians more heavily than earlier ones, since the former have the advantage of the cumulative efforts of the latter. In this instance, Karchmar has been endorsed on this particular issue by Pavlowitch. Tomasevich, Milazzo, and Roberts accept that the instructions are genuine. We can document that by attribution or we can document it without, but I see no justification in not being consistent. In either case, it will be clear as to which historian takes which view by virtue of the footnotes, so I'm not concerned either way. You said above we needed to use direct attribution "...unless his [Karchmar's] personal opinion is supported by direct primary evidence (like Tomasevich for example)". Well, if by direct primary evidence, you meant another noted historian, it is. If you mean direct primary evidence in the sense of physical documents referenced by historians, we don't work that way, as Faintes pointed out above--we rely on secondary sources. We could just use Pavlowitch on this issue and be within wikipedia's policies.

What is interesting to me about the issue is that the latter group (and every other source) place M., his troops dispersed, in a ditch hiding from the Germans, and say that he is on the run with a few officers, out of radio contact, from then through the end of December. So I'm curious about the nature of the headquarters where Djurišić at which claimed to have met with M. and how Djurišić managed to find M. two weeks after M. fled the area. Hopefully Karchmar addresses the issue.

I understand that you view Tomasevich as the non plus ultra in this area, and he is a fine historian, but there are other fine historians out there. You have failed to answer me twice now about whether you had read Karchmar. I assume you have not, so now I ask, how can you possibly begin to evaluate his work in the face of praise in an academic review and endorsement on this particular if you have not even read the work in question? Finally, we can no more reject Karchmar based on his ethnic background as you have sought to do than we can reject Tomasevich for his (something you argued with Fkp at great length as I recall). And until you present sources supporting your assertions, they carry no weight with me here. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing, once again, your phiolosophical position on whether historiography is a science.

I read Karchmar years ago, but I'm afraid he was a very dry read (as a raw PhD) and my memory is shoddy there. I do remember that his instructions claim was based on conjecture, as I have stated before. You will also note that it was I who asked above whether someone happened to have access to Karchmar (so that one may demonstrate). This is superflous, however, as we can see from the sources quoting him that he is merely presenting a theory.

As I said, in a universe where positive assertions and negative ones have the same validity, you would be right. In our universe, someone making a claim, or proposing a theory, has to prove and stand behind it, not the one rejecting it. The burden of evidence is on him, not on anyone and everyone who does not support him - thats the whole point of attribution. Its Karchmar's theory, he has to be attributed, all those who ignore/reject him do not need to be - their positions are NOT equal as they are not proposing anything. That is how science, and the world in general, work. Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

I do not understand why we are even discussing this? If Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt, we attribute it to him as his theory and we move on!

(Personal comment removed per Terms of Discussion) Sunray (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Historiography isn't history either. You don't own the article, so from my point of view your assertion about reserving your "right" is nigh meaningless. Tomasevich doesn't treat Karchmar's view, and not saying anything about an assertion is not equivalent to refutation same. Silence on a topic is just that, and not any kind of implication. And I disagree about "...the sources quoting him that he is merely presenting a theory." In regard to the specific matter at hand, the instructions, we have to my best recollection only one source referencing him, Pavlowitch, and what he says is "...The reconstruction of Djurišić's move and the convincing case for the forgeries is made by the Canadian historian Lucien Karchmar". Evidently Pavlowitch is convinced of Karchmar's theory, and that is sufficient for us to take it seriously.

And I formally ask you to retract each of the personal attacks you have made recently by striking them. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Karchmar does not size up to our standards. His book is not a university publication and you have yet to show us positive peer reviews of the book. The evidence that you've cited (reviews of other books that simply mention his name) that you believe makes him reliable is insufficient. The only review of his book that you did provide is on the fence as to whether his book is good - (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing). -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources please for that assertion. The publishers, Garland Publishing, New York: London, publish academic reference books. The current evidence is that he is taken seriously by Pavlowitch and Marko Attila Hoare, who describes his work as a classic on the chetniks. Do you have any reviews? DIREKTOR, your assertion that you read him years ago but can remember that particular point is insufficient for our purposes. If you recall, you kicked off this discussion by stating Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. I'd like to see some links to these Balkans discussions if possible (as they may contain some evidence). I have searched every mention of Karchmar on Wikipedia and all I can find are a few unevidenced assertions made by you in the course of similar arguments to the one here. I also found that Karchmar is one of two recommended "additional reading" authors on this period on Brittanica - the other one being Tomasevic. Also, please provide any peer reviews or other works you have which support your contentions. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Garland Publishing publishes textbooks, but you can sugar coat that as much as you wish. Regarding the reviews, the ball is not in my court. Nuujinn is the one who wishes to include Karchmar's book and has no reviews. It is absolutely absurd for us to accept Karchmar as a reliable source when no positive reviews have been provided by Nuujinn, especially given the topic that is at hand (a simple passing mention of his name in a different book being reviewed is, again, inadequate). What is even more absurd is the suggestion that he be treated as equivalent to Tomasevich whose book is universally praised. [8] Your willingness to accept Karchmar on a whim and on such weak grounds troubles me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

a) Garland publish academic reference books. b) Nuujinn has Karchmar on order so we can actually see what he says. c) endorsement by other historians is not "a passing mention". d)The older the book, the more difficult to find reviews. Hopefully more will be found in time - whether positive or negative. e)I am not accepting or not accepting anything. I am asking Direktor to provide evidence for the rather definite and specific claims he makes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tomasevich's "The Chetniks" was published in '75 and we have an incredible amount of reviews verifying his reliability. I see that Nuujinn is contributing book reviews that are not of Karchmar's "Draza Mihailovic and the Rise of the Chetnik Movement, 1941–1942", but of other books. That is unacceptable. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say impossible to find - just more difficult. If they are not on the internet they are unlikely to be produced overnight as access to the right kind of library is required. I am asking DIREKTOR to evidence his claims about Karchmar.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER, first of all, please do point me to the policy that requires we must have an academic review of a scholarly work in order to use that work as a source. Garland may publish textbooks, but that's irrelevant, as dissertations for PhDs are considered scholarly publications, see Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.

Then, please point me to a policy that prevents me from adding quotes from related works on a talk page.

Then, please note that I did provide a link above to an academic review of Karchmar, this one. Also note that I provided references to Pavlowitch's note on Karchmar in regard to the instructions, and to a review by Hoare on another work that mentions Karchmar's work in the same breath Tomasevich. I've added a review on another work, by Biber that also mentions Karchmar with Tomasevich in a list of acknowledged scholars on the Chetniks, as well as a review by Pavlowitch in which he asserts that the instructions were forged and used as propoganda. These demonstrate that Karchmar is considered a reputable scholar and historian, despite your and DIREKTOR's assertions to the contrary.

Now, I'm providing sources supporting what I am asserting, while you and DIREKTOR are just talking, and I suggest that both you and he begin to read this page more carefully and provide sources for what you are claiming. Without sources, your assertions do not carry any weight with me, please review point 8 in the rules at the top of this page. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence that Karchmar is on par with Tomasevich requires that you provide academic reviews of Karchmar's book as DIREKTOR did with Tomasevich's. I will not allow for double standards.

No, I did not miss that sole review (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing) and I stated that it "is on the fence as to whether his book is good".

If Karchmar is the "reputable scholar and historian" that you claim he is then why is it so difficult for you to provide actual positive reviews of HIS book? Until you do so your assertion does not carry any weight. Everything that you just added to the quotations page is of reviews of books which we are not even discussing. They are irrelevant. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my long abscence, and I see the mediation has been moving so hope I´ll be able to catch up things with time although I probably may not have as much time as I desire. Just as curiosity, I read some dispared arguments about Karchmar and Pavlowitsch being Serbs. Are there any sources backing this? I mean, Pavlowitch (possibly Pavlović) can be Serb, but also Croat, Bosnian, even Slovene... and Karchmar is not at all a Serbian surname. Regards to everyone! FkpCascais (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I haven't found more reviews yet, nor am I obligated to, as that is not a requirement to establish reliability of a source per WP:RS. Nowhere have I compared Tomasevich's body of work to Karchmar's body of work, nowhere have I criticized Tomasevich as being unreliable. Karchmar is supported by Pavlowitch, and an acknowledged professional historian, as I have shown. There is no question that we can use Pavlowitch, and, if someone has access to Karchmar, we can use that as well, no question about it. This entire extended discussion is just about how to attribute the material, and a good example of why we cannot move forward on difficult issues. The dogged refusal to simply document a divergence in academic sources is not helpful. You cannot control this discussion by exerting your personal views on what is reliable and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, or what is allowed and what is not. You must reference policies supporting your position, as must DIREKTOR, if you want to change my opinions here, or sources, if you want to argue weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but you wish to represent the two books as equivalent in reliability without any substantial evidence proving that they are. Again you are absolutely unfit to deem Karchmar a "reputable scholar and historian". You have failed to provide reviews that show Karchmar's book is positively "vetted by the scholarly community" in accordance with WP:RS. What you have done, and I'm really sick of repeating myself, is provide reviews of other books which simply mention Karchmar, come to your own conclusions that he is reliable from these passing mentions or "endorsements" as you like to call them, and say that they are somehow sufficient which obviously they aren't. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Producer: You have failed to demonstrate the unreliability of Karchmar (see my summary of this discussion, below). As Nuujiin points out, Pavlowitch supports Karchmar. Further, Alex Kitroeff, in his review of Karchmar, concludes: "... specialists on wartime resistance movements or on Yugoslav history will welcome the appearance of this study even in its present form." It is not up to any of us to cherry pick sources based on our own original research. BTW, the glowing reviews of Tomasevich you refer to are known in the publishing business as "blurbs." They do not constitute peer reviews, only excerpts from reviews. In their present form, they bear no weight. On the other hand, the review by Kitroeff posted by Nuujinn is a valid peer review. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you yourself are unable to gain access to the full peer reviews of Tomasevich does not lessen their weight. Also, just because the publisher has opted to include excerpts of some of the reviews in the forward does not diminish the importance of the reviews. Kitroeff's review is the only vetted review of Karhcmar's book that has been provided and is hardly the convincer that you try to make it out to be. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That Karchmar's work is a reliable source is established by RS policy by the mere fact that it was originally a dissertation for the PhD. The mention of his name along side other historians acknowledged as professionals in not needed, by policy, to establish that his work is a reliable source, but rather to help establish the relative weight of his work. To argue that he is not respected by other professional historians, you would need to produce quotes from professional historians of similar stature which assess Karchmar in a negative light. You have not done that.

In reference to me, you have said "...you wish to represent the two books as equivalent in reliability without any substantial evidence proving that they are", no, I do not, as it isn't necessary, and I'm not in a position to make such a judgement. You have also said, 'Again you are absolutely unfit to deem Karchmar a "reputable scholar and historian"'. I agree, I am not a professional historian, and thus I am relying on the fact that he has a PhD from a highly ranked university, per policy, had his work published by an academic press, per policy, and I have turned to reliable secondary sources to establish that other professional historical regard him as reputable, per policy. None of my activity here violates any policy of which I am aware, so I ask you again, what policy have I violated? On the other hand, just as I am not myself fit to make such determinations, neither are you, yet you repeatedly assert that Karchmar is not a reliable source without supporting that statement with sources, which seems to me to violate the policy against original research. And you are mischaracterizing my actions in a manner which I believe is bordering on personal attacks, and I respectfully ask that you cease doing that. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you have provided adequate documentation regarding Karchmar. PRODUCER has not supported his claims. I've requested that we now move on. Would you be willing to return to the main question here: The question of collaboration? Sunray (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple more sources added. One, Lee and Loyd on sources for WWII which lists Milazzo, Karchmar and Tomasevich on the Chetniks. Also MacDonald citing Tim Judah to the effect that the instructions are accepted by mainstream historians as a forgery. I am trying to get hold of a copy of Judah to see what he actually says.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief summary of discussion on sources

Most of the above discussion has been on the use of Karchmar as a source and the merits of K. as compared to Tomasevich. Direktor and Producer have argued that Karchmar is not a source comparable to Tomasevich. While there has been much argument, repeated requests by Fainites to produce sources to justify this conclusion have not been addressed. Most recently Producer has argued that there are no peer reviews to substantiate Karchmar's reliability as a source while there are many that substantiate Tomasevich's reliability--concluding that the peer review provided by Nuujiin is somehow lacking.

Recently, Producer has made the following statement, directed at Nuujiin:

"Your insistence that Karchmar is on par with Tomasevich requires that you provide academic reviews of Karchmar's book as DIREKTOR did with Tomasevich's. I will not allow for double standards.

No, I did not miss that sole review (Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, Pella Publishing) and I stated that it 'is on the fence as to whether his book is good'."

This is, in my opinion, an example of original research. It is not up to editors to judge the relative value of sources (or whether one is on the fence or not). Only citations can do that and none have been provided.

Based on the evidence presented, it seems clear that both sources are viable and there is no justification for arguing that Tomasevich somehow trumps Karchmar. Unless and until someone can present a source that disproves this, we had best move on. There are two topics to be concluded: War crimes and collaboration. There has been progress on the war crimes issue. Can we now get back to the issue of collaboration? Sunray (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn provided one review. A review which, if we want avoid personal interpretations of the review, gave the book three stars. That's what his sole review has judged the value of Karchmar's book to be. Compare that to the numerous positive reviews that Tomasevich's book has received and then tell me why they should be regarded as equally reliable and carry equal weight. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitroeff, writing in 1988, states: "None of all the works published on Yugoslavia's wartime resistance movement, however, go into qui[t]e so much detail in describing Mihailovic's activities as does Lucien Karchmar's lengthy two volume study of Mihailovic..." That, along with the Pavlovitch reference, would seem more than adequate to justify reliability. This is not a popularity contest. There is no policy that tells us to gauge reliability by number of reviews. Moreover, you have not demonstrated "numerous positive reviews," only a book publisher's blurbs to help sell T's book. No one is questioning Tomasevich's authority as a source. However, you have not shown any evidence that Karchmar should not also be used. Until you do that, we need to move on. Sunray (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the level of unsourced endless argument on this page. DIREKTOR claimed Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history. but has produced no sources in support of this claim. PRODUCER claims that Karchmar does not size up to our standards but again produces nothing in support of this claim. Professional historians whose work is utilised by other reputable historians in the field cannot be excluded in this way. Enough arguments. Please produce sources to back your claims.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to dispute Karchmar further, they are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Sunray (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, nobody is saying we need to dispute or exclude him as a source, at this juncture at least. All I am saying (and I still can't believe its causing such a long discussion!) is that Karchmar should be attributed in the text that describes the falsification theory. Why? 2 reasons: 1) Because we know, from peer reviews, that he (quote) "does his best to give Mihailović the benefit of the doubt" (which indisputably and quite unambiguously implies bias in the latter's favor). And 2) because this particular theory he proposes is far from universally accepted.

Nuujinn proposes bilateral attribution. In an academic text, this is never done. As I pointed out: evidence and support are never required for a negative, only for the positive, the alternative is a world where arguments from ignorance are valid. Philosophy aside, a neutral execution of the idea in practice is, well, impractical. If we were to do this and do this fairly, we would have to list Karchmar as the author of the theory on one side, and every single author that ignored or rejected his theory on the other - as opposed to letting Nuujinn pick and choose just a few of the latter group.

As I said above: if Karchmar has a theory, and there is some doubt with other sources, lets attribute it to him and move on. I do not see the problem, I honestly don't. It seems almost as though Nuujinn and Fainites assume everything I say is biased by default and should be opposed, essentially for opposition's sake. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try and avoid offensive personal remarks! You have made quite extreme claims about Karchmar above and I have asked you to provide evidence of that more than once. It was agreed that claims made in these discussions would be sourced. Unsourced claims have no weight here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What "unsourced claim" am I making right above that you want verified, exactly? What is the "unsourced claim"? Please specify. The peer review quote has already been sourced by Nuujinn, see the first paragraph of p.152 here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You made unsourced claim that Karchmar is a Serbian nationalist. Can provide reliable source? BoDu (talk) 14:48, 18 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)

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)

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)