Jump to content

Talk:Case Black

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Battle of the Sutjeska)

Clarify

[edit]

Someone who knows more about this shoudl help clarify some of these facts. The website source linked here contains a very brief description in broken English.

cat Croatia?

[edit]

Croatia was part of Yugoslavia at the time and didn't participate in the battle as a separate combatant. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

[edit]

Churchill and Roosevelt didn't recognize them until November (personally, I see this as deliberate nitpicking o your part), but other Allied powers such as the USSR did. It is generally accepted that world war 2 had two, not three sides. If one was not the Axis, and was actually fighting against them, he logically belonged to the other side. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such simplifications do not hold water. Partisans also fought against "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", which was a recognized Allied force.--Thewanderer (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was recognized as such, but it's obvious that it wasn't. --PrimEviL 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately we do not base verifiability on your opinions.--Thewanderer (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

! This is, naturally, not my opinion: the Chetniks were indeed fighting openly for the Axis by the Fifth Offensive. This is the main reason they lost international support weeks later. For sources I suggest you refer to the Chetniks article and the OKW reports. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont why is flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina on axis side... Bosnia and Herzegovina formed as statehood only in november 25. 1943, after Sutjeska Battle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.195.242 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

casualties

[edit]

30000 axis casualties and 6000 allied ^^ i guess all writers of these funny arcticels are from this area , arent they ? "the skilled yugoslavien soldiers" ... can u stop writing such bullshit figures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

369th divison (SS- no way!)

[edit]

if someone overseeing the article could plese correct this one, as they were not ss but regular wermacht volunteers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_%28Croat%29_Infantry_Division Kolpo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.197.47 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no objections since I posted the comment I removed the SS marking myself, they were not Waffen SS but foreign Wermacht "volunteers"... --Kolpo-san (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Case Black

[edit]

Following agreement here (Talk:Battle_of_Kozara), I am moving this article to 'Case Black' per the German name. Please read the discussion for reasoning. The scope of the article will not change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This operation was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks?

[edit]
Unresolved

Jozo Tomasevich says in his work "The Chetniks" (page 251 and 255, note 164):

  • "While the Partisans and the Chetniks were locked in the battle during the early spring, the Germans prepared their Operation Schwartz, the aim of which was the disarming of all Chetniks and the destruction of all Partisans in Montenegro and Sandjak"
  • "Proof that Operation Schwartz finally evolved almost exclusively into an operation against Partisans, though it was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks, is best indicated by German estimates of losses inflicted upon the two groops:...estimated that the Partisans had 12,000 killed and 1,500 captured, and the Chetniks only about 3,000 captured and disarmed."

This work of Jozo Tomasevich is already used in this article and many other related articles so I guess it meets the requests of WP:RS for this topic. Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting? That this quote should be used in the article? Please be clear about what you are proposing or suggesting. It just reads as a rhetorical comment at present, what action do you think should be taken? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presented the source which explains that:
  1. this operation was conceived as an operation against both the Partisans and the Chetniks
  2. the aim of this operation was the disarming of all Chetniks and the destruction of all Partisans in Montenegro and Sandjak.
At the end of my comment I wrote "Any thoughts?"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no objection to the inclusion of the fact that the disarming of the Chetniks was part of the operation, or that they were disarmed, this was essentially a preliminary phase of the operation. My understanding is that the Chetniks were disarmed without firing a shot, and that the Italians protested. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember all that. The original conception was that the operation would attack the Partisans and also disarm the Chetniks - that is to say, not engage in combat with them. The Italians basically said they could not do so since they relied on Chetniks too much, and in the end, the plan was changed and the Chetniks were not disarmed. In fact, soon afterward the Italians capitulated and the Germans themselves inherited their "use" of the Chetniks.
The fact that the Germans initially also wanted to disarm the Chetniks (who were collaborating with the Italians), but didn't, is really a marginal point. If you wish to insert a note to that effect I myself have no problems with that. But please make sure to do so in a neutral way. Please avoid placing undue emphasis. Most importantly though, it is important to avoid misleading formulations along the lines of "Schwartz was initially conceived as an operation against the Chetniks and the Partisans". It must be made clear that the Chetniks were merely to be disarmed. Could you post your draft here first to avoid any possible edit wars? -- Director (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And captured.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until this matter is properly covered this article should be properly tagged. Would it be better to use Template:Coverage or Template:Incomplete?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both would be the best choice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:UNDUE. WP is not about tagging, it is about editing. I note, once again, that you very rarely edit article space. Putting tags on things you don't like on WP isn't constructive, it's disruptive. Either produce your draft for discussion or drop the WP:STICK. If it is so important that is needs to be discussed here, then it is important enough to produce a simple short draft of a paragraph or few sentences explaining this minor aspect of an operation that as far as I am aware cost no Chetnik lives, but cost the lives of 12,000 Partisans. Tagging without any intention of constructively adding to the article or producing a draft is just disruptive and POV. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, please refrain from tagging the article with completely unwarranted tags for no reason whatsoever. No "feel good tags". This is a barely-relevant point regarding the initial planning of the operation. Put forward a proposal (or give up), but again, please do avoid the above-outlined POV pitfalls. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I don't agree with you.
  • No, that would not be undue weight. One of the main aims of this operation has not been presented to the readers and readers could be mislead with the current text of the article. Therefore appropriate tag should be added, either to the top of the article, or to the top of the section.
  • WP is certainly not about misleading the readers.
  • WP is about content, not about contributors. What matters in this discussion are arguments, not the number of my edits in article space.
  • Tagging some misleading article or its section is actually constructive. Especially if it is based on extensive elaboration on the talk page, with sources, pages, quotes.... all with intention to prevent misleading of the readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we will see what the community thinks about your justification for your disruption if you continue with this nonsense. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator, please feel free to add your sourced information into the article. If there's a problem, someone will probably revert you and then we can discuss from some kind of starting point. If there isn't one, we're done. I'm merely making it clear what the problems will likely turn out to be, so that we might avoid them altogether.
Not only were the Chetniks supposed to be merely disarmed, but they were also not in fact disarmed (with one known exception, the pro-German collaborating commander who took his orders from them, not the Italians). This is a minor point, so please do not place too much emphasis on it. Chetniks generally had little or nothing to do with Fall Schwartz. Most importantly: do not use misleading phrasing ("against Chetniks"), but please make it clear from the outset that the Chetniks were to be disarmed and not actually attacked (and then weren't). -- Director (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jozo Tomasevich says "against both the Partisans and the Chetniks" and "the Chetniks only about 3,000 captured and disarmed". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that's a textbook example of an out-of-context, misleading quote. The author makes it perfectly clear that they were to be disarmed. Merely stating the operation was "against Chetniks" quite unambiguously implies that the Chetniks were to be attacked - that is not the case. Please avoid that formulation (though I get the feeling that might have been the idea).
Re the second quote, please note the word "only". 3,000 Chetniks is a small portion of their number. In general the operation did not include as one of its goals the disarmament of the Chetniks - and the author states that as well. To suggest otherwise is also misleading. -- Director (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "3,000 Chetniks is a small portion of their number" but please keep in mind that this operation was aimed against all Partisans and all Chetniks "in Montenegro and Sandjak". See above quote from JT.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, "against Partisans and Chetniks" is unacceptable wording given that the Chetniks were not to be attacked - but merely disarmed. -- Director (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "about 3,000 captured and disarmed". Please revert yourself.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? then use those words, and not the contested wording. Keep these nonsense tags out of the article since you apparently do not understand what they're for. -- Director (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be so kind and respect WP:NPA. "Comment on content, not on contributor"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antidiskriminator, misquoting policy in every post and falsely accusing other editors of various infractions - is an attack in and of itself. I posted no personal attack. As far as non-imaginary breaches of policy are concerned, you may rest assured you will not find any (especially since I note a certaimn focus on my behavior).
You posted a tag when noone opposes any addition. You merely came onto this talkpage, started an argument, and then decided to tag it - without ever proposing or adding any changes to it. Tags are not added simply because you don't feel like actually making the edit. -- Director (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found German report about this operation (link to Serbian language translation). It says that this operation to destroy Chetniks and Partisans (za uništenje četnika (srpsko-crnogorskih nacionalista) i komunista) was conducted since 1 May 1943. In period between 1st and 12th May Germans prepared and concentrated their forces (Pripreme i koncentracija snaga od 1 — 12. 5. 43.) and then captured Šahovići and Kolašin and broke trough into mountain Sinjajevina in period 13-19 May. (Zauzimanje Šahovića i Kolašina. Prodor u planinu Sinjajevinu od 13. do 19. 5). At the end of this report Chetniks are presented as captured in this operation. Chetniks are not mentioned in the text of this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source, and essentially you appear to be saying what I have said from the beginning, the disarming of some of the Chetniks was part of a preliminary operation, and the collaboration with the Germans (and subsequent disarming) of other Chetniks was part of the operation itself. I believe that I have identified the date of commencement of Case Black in another context, and I believe the reference for it was Tomasevich. I would not be accepting a primary source over Tomasevich if that is what you are suggesting. I will add that I have not edited this article much, and it still needs quite a lot if work. If you have a reliable secondary source, be bold. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pirjevec, Jože (22 May 2018). Tito and His Comrades. University of Wisconsin Pres. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-299-31770-6. The Germans planned Operation Schwarz with the Chetniks as the primary object, in full secrecy, so that even the ...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This sort of partial quote doesn't provide the full context for the statement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Operation "Schwarz" was conducted not only to liquidate communists but, it can be said, primarly to liquidate Chetniks of Draža Mihailović, because communists were ready to fight against Allies together with Germans, in case they invade Adriatic coast.]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ford, Kirk (1992). OSS and the Yugoslav resistance, 1943-1945. Texas A&M University Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-89096-517-7. M. J. Milazzo offers the following assessment of Tito's position in the spring of 1943: "With practically all of his forces outside of the German operation zone and the Italians obviously unenthusiastic about fighting anybody, Tito saw his chance and seized it. ...In this same period the "chief goal" of the German Brandenburg Regiment was the capture of Mihailovich and the destruction of his staff. Deakin also concedes that "during the next critical six weeks, Tito's forces concentrated with impunity, on carrying out the same task as the Germans themselves had outlined in Operation 'Schwarz'- the liquidation of the Mihailovic movement, and for the same reasons - to control the hinterland of Hercegovina and Montenegro in anticipation of Allied landing.
    • Fleming, Thomas (2002). Montenegro: The Divided Land. Chronicles Press. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-9619364-9-5. Large concentrations of Chetniks, including those supported by Italians, formed a constant threat to German forces in the event of an Allied landing, and the Commander-in-Chief, South-east, directed that Operation SCHWARZ, under the Commander of Troops in Croatia, be undertaken in May and June to destroy the Chetniks in Hercegovina and Montenegro. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some images of from in this operation

[edit]

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

be WP:BOLD. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation why Germans conceived operation against Chetniks - Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia

[edit]
Unresolved

There is a major fact neglected by this article but very important for placing the subject in context:

  • (Based on Jozo Tomasevich in "Contemporary Yugoslavia", page 94 or work of Jozo Tomasevich "Yugoslavia during the Second World War", page 94): "....since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western....In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they (Germans) wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič."

Of course, since the Chetniks were known as pro-Western and thus in the case of a Western Allied landing on the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia would surely have turned their arms against the Germans and Italians, it was necessary for the Axis powers to have this possibility in mind and keep a certain number of Italian and German troops in readiness for it. However, the Italians and the Germans never saw eye to eye on policy toward the Chetniks. From the German- Italian discussions of this problem one can draw the conclusion that the Italians wanted to use the Chetniks as much as possible to dispose of the Partisans, after which they planned to dispose of the Chetniks. The Germans, on the other hand, until the Italian collapse and apart from the "live and let live" agreements in eastern and northwestern Bosnia, chose not to collaborate with the Chetniks and instead followed a policy of disarming them. In the event of a Western Allied landing in Yugoslavia they wanted to have the Chetniks out of the way beforehand. Thus, for example, on May 14-16, 1943, the Germans disarmed about 2,000 Montenegrin Chetniks of Pavle Djurišič.

— Jozo Tomasevich

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was before widespread Chetnik-German collaboration ensued in late 1943. But please explain what the Chetniks have to do with this article? You're aware what the scope here is? -- Director (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explained by this edit in the above section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember all that. The original conception was that the operation would attack the Partisans and also disarm the Chetniks - that is to say, not engage in combat with them. The Italians basically said they could not do so since they relied on Chetniks too much, and in the end, the plan was changed and the Chetniks were not disarmed. In fact, soon afterward the Italians capitulated and the Germans themselves inherited their "use" of the Chetniks.
The fact that the Germans initially also wanted to disarm the Chetniks (who were collaborating with the Italians), but didn't, is really a marginal point. If you wish to insert a note to that effect I myself have no problems with that. But please make sure to do so in a neutral way. Please avoid placing undue emphasis. Most importantly though, it is important to avoid misleading formulations along the lines of "Schwartz was initially conceived as an operation against the Chetniks and the Partisans". It must be made clear that the Chetniks were merely to be disarmed (the disarmament of 2,000 of Djurisic's Chetniks is not to be applied to the "Chetniks" in general). Could you post your draft here first to avoid any possible edit wars? -- Director (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this comment of yours :"there's no question that the German offensives Weiss and Schwartz were all because of the possibility of an Allied landing in the Balkans" I assume that you realized what was the main reason for this opearation which is not presented to the readers at all. Until this issue is resolved I will place appropriate tag on this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very basic, uncontested piece of information. The Germans wanted to attack the Partisans and disarm the Chetniks (generally secure the area), because of the threat of an Allied landing in the Balkans. They did not disarm the Chetniks, but they did attack the Partisans. If its not in the article - then add it in there, don't discuss here or place inappropriate tags in the article. I will not repeat myself once more: it is not appropriate to tag an article simply because you're not willing to do an edit. Are you here merely to argue? Or do you plan on actually contributing at some point? -- Director (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

map

[edit]

It would be good if someone would edit File:Map Operation Schwarz.JPG and remove the text "Bosniac-Croat Federation" and "Republika Srpska" because they're anachronistic. A note should also be added to explain that the borders are of the Socialist Republics established soon after (but probably not as early as 1943). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support using a map with current borders. It doesn't provide proper context and is anachronistic. Any map used on this article should show the NDH borders. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the map up as best I could (it actually labeled Bosnia and Herzegivina "NDH"), but I myself am indifferent as to whether we use it in the infobox or not. I wouldn't remove it from the article, though. -- Director (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for war

[edit]

9.1.2014 When discussing a war, please provide some lead up or reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyids (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vojska.net is not a reliable source

[edit]

This comment has been largely copied from my talk page, as the editor involved has continued to revert my removal of it from this article, and has not engaged in discussion on this talk page or responded on my talk page.

Vojska.net is basically a gaming site, not "a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", per WP:RS. It does have some "military history" information on it, but of the many pages on vojska.net regarding Yugoslav/NDH/German etc orders of battle, only a very small percentage even contain information about where the information on that page is drawn from (ie the sources it uses). There is no footnoting at all. The author of vojska.net does not claim any academic qualifications (so far as I am aware). The lack of sources, footnoting, academic qualifications of the author, or any indication that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is reliable are all reasons why it does not meet WP:RS. This cannot be dismissed as "my POV", it is an assertion based on the observable facts regarding the website, and if an editor thinks it is reliable, then a contrary view would need to show that the site was in fact reliable and had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. No such assertion has been made, merely a suggestion that we should "compromise". The reason that "fanboi" websites are not considered reliable is because...they don't meet WP standards for sources. In that respect vojska.net is no different to axishistory and other similar websites, which really fall into the "fanboi" category. It would be far more suitable to use a primary source like German records, than a "fanboi" website. At least those primary records are part of a national archival collection. In the case of casualty figures, which vary wildly between the German records and the Partisan ones, in-line attribution is appropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your assertion, I DID respond at your talk page but you continued to be of an opposing opinion so we remained at an impasse. EkoGraf (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you have produced is your unsupported opinion, and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. I, on the other hand, have pointed to specific reasons that vojska.net does not meet a core WP policy, WP:RS. You have not made any comments refuting anything I have said about the reliability of vojska.net. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Casualties

[edit]

It says casualties were 2/3 killed and wounded, but then says up to 7543 killed. Then in the bulk text, it states "In total there were 7,543 partisan casualties, more than a third of the initial force."


1) So were there 7543 killed, no wounded or 7543 casualties?

2) And if it was 7543 casualties, this means there were 1/3 killed wounded rather than 2/3 killed and wounded.


I have no source information available, so I don't want to change this without really understanding what the truth is. But as it is written now, doesn't really gel together. I propose someone who has access to the source info to please clarify and update. Fscb06 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Case_Black&oldid=1206565056"