Talk:Battle of Dražgoše

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Are you sure this incident may be called "a battle"? Surely this is too grand a name for this village skirmish? --Ghirla -трёп- 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It lasted for 3 days and was significant for the war (first armed anti-fascist appearance in Slovenia). Also, that's what this is usually refered to as. --dcabrilo 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Neutral stand, both of you are right. i suggest to use "The battle(Resistance)of Dražgoše.--Quek157 10:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a battle but not the first: the German forces/occupation already tried to fight the Cankar Battalion some weeks before (24.-27.12.1941) following an attack on a police platoon on 12.12.1941 with heavy losses for the police. At that time there was no Wehrmacht stationed in the region, only Police Reserve Battalions. It was a fight between one battalion of partisans (motivated and well trained younger men) and five police Battalions (44,193, 171, 181, 325)and it was a victory for the partisans because they could retreat into the woods again, had only moderate losses. The inhabitants of the village were left behind on the "mercy" of the Germans which killed the remaining men and sent the women to a German prison camp near Ljubljana. --Aschland (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Strength and deaths[edit]

The numbers in the article do not match the numbers in the chart. I suggest that this be resolved by finding which are the true statistics and applying them uniformly. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result[edit]

The Slovene WP article characterizes the result of the battle as "Partisan withdrawal, German tactical victory," but the English WP article states "victory of the Slovene Partisans." The characterization in Slovene WP appears more accurate; somebody should reassess this. Doremo (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, see the Slovenian talk page. A source is needed to characterise this as a German victory. --Eleassar my talk 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A possible source would be [1]. It contains the sentence "To je bil velik uspeh partizanov, ki pa so že med 9. in 11. januarjem 1942 na Dražgošah doživeli popoln poraz.", but I can't verify who stated this, because I don't have access. --Eleassar my talk 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to know what some of the period sources are claiming, unless it's just propaganda; for example, Jan (1961): "... smo v Dražgošah izbojevali veliko zmago, dosegli smo velik uspeh! Naš bataljon je ostal dejansko cel, mi smo Nemcem zadali hujše udarce, kakor oni nam." ("... we fought our way to a great victory in Dražgoše, we achieved a great success! Our battalion remained completely intact, and we hit the Germans harder than they hit us.") It's difficult to see it as a Partisan victory when it was the Partisans that retreated and the Germans that stayed and massacred the civilian population. Doremo (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dražgoše is also sometimes referred to as a "Slovene Thermopylae"; with the analogy Greeks:Persians = Slovenes:Germans, the implication is that it was a German victory (the Battle of Thermopylae is considered a Persian victory). Doremo (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This would be a valuable addition to the article, but for the infobox, we need a source that directly states that the Germans/Partisans won or were defeated. --Eleassar my talk 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Otherwise it's "original research." Doremo (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Historic account[edit]

This diploma thesis (Gašper Ločnikar] contains some information about how the battle proceeded, although I'm not sure Ivan Jan is a good source. It seems like everybody has opinion on what was the significance of the battle, but there are relatively few articles written about it by neutral authors. --Eleassar my talk

In any case, it's important to contextualize what Boštjan Turk was referring to; otherwise it sounds like "they fought the Germans ... and this was a disgrace"—which, of course, isn't what he meant at all. Probably even more development of the story is needed: how the communist Bertot came to the village before the war, how Benedik was assassinated, how the Partisans arrived and were asked by the villagers to leave, how the Germans attacked and took revenge after the Partisans withdrew, how the villagers rejected the postwar development plans, how the local church was oppressed, and how the "cult" (in the ethnographic sense) of the Battle of Dražgoše was finally established. This would clarify Turk's narrative—namely, that the Partisans sought to create an "event" without regard for the safety or wishes of the villagers. It's a complicated story. Doremo (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to expand the narration, just don't repeat the same text in both paragraphs. --Eleassar my talk 18:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; I'd overlooked that the text had been moved to another paragraph. Doremo (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not really my area of specialty; hopefully another editor will be motivated to work on it. Franc Kavčič's account is very informative, not only for the Battle of Dražgoše article, but also for the history section in the Dražgoše article as well. Doremo (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but a scholar secondary source that has picked it up should be cited instead of Reporter. I'll see what I can find. --Eleassar my talk 09:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a weightier source is always preferable. But, until one is found, I don't see a problem with the Reporter source. Doremo (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Boštjan M. Turk[edit]

I don't think the opinion of Boštjan M. Turk should be included (or it should be at least put in a proper context). He's not a historian and has a dubious reputation as a political analyst. I mean, his view is most surely held also by some expert for Slovenia during World War II, like Tamara Griesser-Pečar or someone else. I'll try to find a proper source and will remove Turk from the article, if there are not some objections. --Eleassar my talk 09:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Turk could be replaced with a more prominent source. Turk's comments are the same as what I've heard orally from individuals from the area, so Turk is a better source than oral conversations, but something more authoritative would be better than Turk. But until a more authoritative source is found, I think it's better to keep Turk because otherwise we're left without a reference for something that's clearly not limited only to his individual opinion. Doremo (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The historian Tamara Griesser Pečar in Razdvojeni narod tells a similar story, despite not directly characterising it as "the biggest shame" etc. Another work that tells what happened in detailed, although from a different but probably not incompatible point of view, is the historian Martin Premk in Poljanska vstaja (I currently don't have it at home; COBISS 259521280). --Eleassar my talk 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It has not been replaced with a prominent view in almost 5 years, so I removed it. --Sporti (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the material. It is better-sourced than the paragraph that was retained. I've also added another source to the paragraph. Doremo (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't think Turk's opinion is really relevant at all as he is a political analyst, not a historian. --Sporti (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's probably equally as relevant as the opinion of Danilo Türk (cited in the previous paragraph), who also has no credentials as a historian. Doremo (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That is if you look at him purely as a person, but at his position of the time (President) this was also official position of the country. --Sporti (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Being elected president doesn't make him a more reliable source on a topic that he has no background in. At the same time, I do appreciate your drawing attention to the second paragraph so that the references could be further improved. Doremo (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Both views belong to the article because they illustrate the diametrically opposite opinions of two political poles on the event. However, an assessment by a reputed historian is a must for its credibility. --Eleassar my talk 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon an interview that was held by the historian Stane Granda at Nova24TV only a few days ago. He describes the Dražgoše Battle as a catastrophic mistake, the devastation of the village of Dražgoše, and an ideological-political construction.[2] It is worthy to add this material to the article. It's still not the best, because Granda specialises in the 19th-century history; nonetheless, it is a significant improvement. --Eleassar my talk 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; that is a good improvement. Doremo (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Best I could find on dlib.si is [3]. --Sporti (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlike Granda, Ivan Jan was not an academic historian; he was primarily a Partisan, a Yugoslav Army officer, and an amateur history writer. I don't think that his contribution belongs to the article, unless it is used to illustrate the ideological stance of the communists in the 1970s. --Eleassar my talk 14:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, well here is a view by B. Repe [4], also in the text he mentions a recently published book, which could be a good source. --Sporti (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. This book has been mentioned already above. It is the most authoritative source. An excerpt from it would be a very welcome addition. --Eleassar my talk 01:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is a video lecture by Martin Premk. --Sporti (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Dražgoše. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources[edit]

Hey.

A significant portion of the article is based on sources with a well established ideological tilt. Demokracija and Nova24TV are party publications controlled by the Slovenian Democratic Party, and Revija Reporter is essentially a Slovene equivalent of Breitbart. The historians/experts cited in the article are also known to be of a particular political/ideological persuasion. Wikipedia has been known to exclude certain publications from being cited as sources (e.g., recently, the Daily Mail) because of their history of poor reliability and bias. I think it's improper to include the aforementioned sources if the claims are not grossly backed up by neutral scholarly sources or possible bias is not explicitly pointed out in the Wiki article. Anyone familiar with the political atmosphere of Slovenia knows that the political right has a vested interest, and has for some time been attempting to sway political and cultural discourse regarding the recent history of Slovenia to fit its ideological narrative, so claims coming from publications associated with said political right should be considered with utmost diligence. Kind regards, --Jay Hodec 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with this article. The lede and following two sections (battle, aftermath) are simply descriptive facts. Ideology is only a factor in the "Intepretations" section, which is exactly where one would expect to find ideology. There, first pro-Partisan historiography is presented, and then non-Partisan historiography. The tag added today seems unnecessary. Doremo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
"The historians/experts cited in the article are also known to be of a particular political/ideological persuasion." I'd like to see a source for this claim. --Eleassar my talk 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
First off, sorry for the belated reply. I seem to have made an error while combing through the references. The references in the "The battle" sections seem to have kept referring me to the opinion pieces cited in the "Interpretation" section, possibly due to a slow browser. I'm sincerely sorry for the overly hasty critique of the article. However, I still find the inclusion of the "Interpretation" section a bit superfluous/problematic, as contemporary political discussion regarding WWII events (including this one) often amounts to partisan/ideological bickering, often intended to rally the base, and less to a historical analysis and interpretation (which I don't really find to be clear reading the article). Kind regards, --Jay Hodec 19:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)