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

Chetnik movement ended in 1946?[edit]

I don't believe saying the movement completely ended in 1946 in the infobox simply due to the death of Draža Mihailović and SFRY repression is accurate. Momčilo Đujić carried on the movement with the Ravna Gora Movement of Serbian Chetniks in the United States and later participated in the Yugoslav Wars by funding Croatian Serbs, "passing the torch" by proclaiming Vojislav Šešelj a Chetnik vojvoda (also ordering him to commit ethnic cleansing), and even received the Order of the Star of Karađorđe from Biljana Plavšić. You have scholars Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop saying "Chetnik groups made something of a comeback" and a "reappearance" after Yugoslav dissolution with Chetnik forces participating in Vukovar and Srebrenica, specifically noting the "Chetnik unit" of the Scorpions. They state Željko Ražnatović was a "self-styled Chetnik" that led the "Chetnik force" of the Serb Volunteer Guard. [1] Historian Sabrina P. Ramet states Šešelj lead the Serbian Chetnik Movement [2] and journalist Paul Hockenos describes him as "a man whose killer commando units operating in Croatia and Bosnia carried on the very worst of the Chetnik tradition" [3]. --PRODUCER (TALK) 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The scope of this article should be extended to include post-1946 Chetnik political movement as well. Same goes for Ustaše. Of course, it should be clearly emphasized that it is political movement differentiated from military organizations which existed until 1946.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to define military units that participated in Yugoslav wars as Chetniks or Ustaše although some of them carried on their very worst tradition.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If those paramilitary units in the Yugoslav wars declared themselves as Chetniks then they are Chetniks. It's not as if there is a Chetnik "code of honor" which needs to be fulfilled in order for someone to be considered a worthy Chetnik. It is all about ideology and self-perception. The White Eagles (paramilitary) are by all means Chetniks. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Advancely self-refutated (diff) "its all about self-perception" position (diff). The most interesting edits I have ever seen on wikipedia. Thank you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As you frequently invoke yourself, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is irrelevant. Also, there is a consensus from earlier for Andric and Selimovic to not describe them as Serb simply because of their politicized self-declaration. Your little revenge edit will be reverted. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
My bad, I had the impression you undid my revert. Anyhow, I am leaving this discussion on account of you being too emotionally invested.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Any change as to the dates when the Chetnik movement was active must immediately reflect on the Ustaše, as well. After all Ante Pavelić established the Croatian Liberation Movement in exile in order to keep Ustaše ideals as well as the movement itself alive. The Ustaše had enormous support throughout the Croat diaspora and an "alternative Ustaša organization" called Otpor was established by Vjekoslav Luburić. (see Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritarian Rulers of South Eastern Europe )
During the 1990s, some Croatian paramilitaries used Ustaše insignia and symbols while some Serb paramilitaries began using Chetnik ones. Both groups derogatorily referred to one another as Ustaše and Chetniks. (see Confronting Genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam ) Furthermore, the Croatian Party of Rights and their paramilitaries claimed to have Ustaše heritage. (see The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives 23 editor (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the events from the 1990s have more to do with the "Legacy" section, rather than making some extensive inclusion of the events from the 1990s in the article. But I recognise this is a good question that producer opened. FkpCascais (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This article is not only about DM Chetniks, or WWI Chetniks or Balkan Wars Chetniks, or 1904-1913 Chetniks, or post WWII Chetniks. This article is a summary article which includes all of them, and none of them belongs to the legacy.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@23 editor: Yes you had the Ustaše movements abroad among the diaspora with HOP and HRB, and also the HOS in the Yugoslav Wars. Additions there would be appropriate too. Hockenos' book is dedicated to that sort of thing. To imply these movements disappeared immediately off the face of the earth after WWII as the current articles do is incredibly misleading. @Antidiskriminator: Me or you personally defining someone or something "Chetnik" would be "wrong", but if you have reliable sources like Totten and Bartrop that themselves carefully and specifically "define military units that participated in Yugoslav wars as Chetniks or Ustaše" then that's perfectly in line with Wikipedia's requirements. The scholars go into detail about the Chetnik movement and the resurgence in individuals and units that followed dissolution indeed this is from a specific entry dedicated to the Chetniks in the Dictionary of Genocide. I can understand the hesitation given the commonness at the time by warring parties to sometimes refer to all Serb forces as Chetniks or all Croat forces as Ustaše, but I don't think anyone is seriously disputing the individuals and units mentioned above especially given the quality of sources. @FkpCascais: AD pointed out correctly the article deals with all Chetniks though primarily WWII ones given they were most relevant at that period. --PRODUCER (TALK) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: I did not point that primary topic of this article are WWII Chetniks, nor I said they are most relevant.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a continuation of the "Chetnik" name in units of Serbian paramilitaries during the 1990's. There has also been a Chetnik political movement from 1904 to the present day. Djujic and Seselj are just the tip of the iceberg. It is well sourced from people like Ramet. The idea that Chetniks as a movement (both militarily and politically) stopped existing in 1946 is completely at odds with the reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If you are implying that a few eighty year old men in California calling themselves Chetniks is evidence of an active Chetnik movement you are greatly mistaken. Đujić died in 1999 and took away Šešelj's title of vojvoda before his death, meaning that even if there was a Chetnik movement today it would have no real "leader". Paramilitary leaders from the 1990s have been sent off to the Hague or have been killed, and those that haven't (i.e. Tomislav Nikolić) have stopped calling themselves Chetniks and have publicly expressed a desire for peace in the Balkans. I haven't come across any source which states that the Ustaše and Chetniks are still active. Saying that they are serves no purpose other than to fuel Balkan paranoia. 23 editor (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I implied nothing of the sort. There were Chetniks in the 1990's, and therefore 1946 is not the correct end date. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Connecting Milosevic's assumption of power with Chetniks' comeback and "Chetnik insurrection" directly contradicts to the real events. After Milosevic's assumption of power there were other opposition parties that promoted Chetnik ideology, while Milosevic was pro-partisan. Referring to events as "Chetnik insurrection in 1990-1992" also directly contradicts to the real events. Some Slovenians and Muslims did participate in Chetnik forces during WWII but to refer to their actions of 1990-1992 as Chetnik insurrection is completely wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Scholars Totten, Bartrop, and Ramet are doing the "connecting". The bit about a "Chetnik insurrection in 1990-1992" is lifted verbatim from Ramet. I don't know where Slovenes and Muslims fit into this. --PRODUCER (TALK) 10:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I googled this term and only result was Ramet. I am surprised she used derogatory term to refer to Serbs who lived in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, because term Chetnik was used as derogatory term for them by the sides who struggled against them. That is additional reason to be extra cautious with Ramet's works in case of exceptional disputable claims.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a simplification of what Ramet says, in particular on p. 419. What she says (inter alia) is "The Serbian nationalist program... represented a revival of the Chetnik dream", and "It is not without significance that many Serb nationalists chose to call themselves "Chetniks". If we bear this in mind, and bear in mind also the fact that many Serbs were completely opposed to this self-declared "Chetnik" program, it will prove to be more useful, at least some of the time, to refer to the Serb nationalists as "Chetniks", rather than as "Serbs"." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The more you defend Ramet's work the more you undermine its reliability. There is an ocean of sources that explain that term Chetniks was derogatory term for Serbs during Yugoslav wars. Although we disagree here I don't see a particular reason to continue this discussion until there is an issue with particular exceptional disputable assertion connected with "Serbian politics, history, art, culture, religion and mentality" which is supported primary by Ramet's work. Therefore this would be my last comment in this discussion here for now. Just to clarify my position about post-1946 Chetniks: The scope of this article should be extended to include post-1946 Chetnik political movement as well.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also believe the article should include right up to the 90's at the very least. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion or change: self potrayal as Chetnik doesn`t mean anything. None of the mentions beyond Djuisic has no root in Chetnick movement, up to volunteers in Ukraine. If someone calls itself "modern white knights" should they be in chivarly section? Arkan (or Republican Seselj) and many paramilitaries, surely have anything to do with 1941-1945.

Maybe some modern (ab)use section should be added.

It also indicative that Ustase section has no such thing, even official Croatian state units and state itself had heavier use of ustase symbols, erecting monuments to Ustase regime participants, commemorating Blaiburg repatriations etc. (which is more likely to be try of state continuation then just some paramilitaries) Rasvoja (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Separate Mihailovich's chetniks to a new article[edit]

I'm afraid this article is a little bit confusing. It mixes old Chetniks in Macedonia (before WW1), a nationalistic organization between the wars, Mihailovic's chetniks during the WW2 and Yugoslav wars in 1990s. The article starts with "The Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army, commonly known as the Chetniks..." - but according to info box, they are active from 1904 to 1946. This is difficult to follow even to the people from ex-Yugoslavia. I think it would be better to have few different articles. At least separate WW2 into a separate article. A PDF generated from this article is 30 pages long, 20,000 words, 80 minutes of reading. If somebody simply print the web page - it's 60 pages. Please check WP:SIZERULE. --N Jordan (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree; there should be an all-encompassing article about Chetniks plus separate articles about Chetniks in Old Serbia, Chetniks in the Balkan Wars, Chetniks during World War I, [the interwar] Chetnik Organization, Chetniks during World War II and Chetniks during the Yugoslav Wars. Simply put, far too much material has been written about the Chetniks for it all to be succinctly covered in a single article. Theoretically, the main article ("Chetniks") would act as a sort of introduction or parent article while the other articles would go into greater depth. 23 editor (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Would be a big job, and would have to be done very carefully. So long as it doesn't result in a POV-fork which removes the thrust of this article (about the DM Chetniks), I am supportive of splitting this article into a series of child articles, with this remaining as the summary article. I think archive 7 or 8 has the most recent discussion of this idea. It is worth a look, as it covers some of the concerns various editors had at that point. I'd consider pinging WPs Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, and MILHIST about it to ensure the idea is properly aired. BTW, there is already a fork article Serbian Chetnik Organization. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe to start with a disambiguation page that will explain the name and provide links to separate articles. Generally, people are looking for chetniks in specific period, not for entire history. E.g. they may look for chetniks in Yugoslav wars and finish here, with 30 pages of text. Or they may look for Mihailovich's chetniks and finish with long introduction. I know that is a large project and should be a team effort. Maybe for beginning the existing text can simply be used for creation of few new articles. Once we have that new article completed, we can simply remove that part from this article. Personally, I would leave WW2 chetniks to the very end, and then work on them. --N Jordan (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
N Jordan, I think that instead a disambiguation page, what Peacemaker67 suggests its better, which is to still have one parent article which would be this one here and where all would be concisely included. Then we will have separate articles where everything will be added with more detail. This was already been discussed in the past, and an article about the Yugoslav Army in Fatherland was one of the proposals for the DM Chetniks during WWII. FkpCascais (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get too far down the track with possible titles. I suggest we try to get a consensus that we should convert this article into a summary article, and what the forks should be, then work through the titles of the fork articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are articles under that name on Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, so I don't se the problem. But I agree, lets try to get a consensus. What would be the next step?--N Jordan (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I imagine we'll get the opportunity to discuss that at length. But in my view, the next step would be to decide what topics would actually need a fork article, and which don't. For example, I think contemporary "Chetniks" like the community organisations in Australia and the Serbian volunteers fighting in Ukraine might not. But the Macedonian conflict ones definitely would. Pećanac Chetniks and Serbian Chetnik Organization already exist, although I think the title of the latter isn't precise enough. Perhaps if we talk through the "categories" of Chetniks, that would help? I've started a sub-heading below to discuss, using the suggestions above plus the ones that already exist.

Sub-sets of Chetniks[edit]

I suggest we try to define the scope of each article beneath each bullet point.


Balkan Wars and WW1 can go together, it's very similar topic. Re WW2, I would separate Mihailovich and Pecanac (as Pecanac exist, new article based on what is already here can be created for Mihailovich) Re Mihailovich, we are missing connection with Allies (there is about loosing, but nothing about how that started). Re Yugoslav War, we need separate article but I'd keep Arkan out of the picture (he was Serbian nationalist but not Chetnik, different ideology and choreography. Milosevic was Serbian nationalist - but not chetnik) That article can also be created from parts of existing one. Basically, we miss Balkan Wars/WW1 and interwar. Bottom line: this should be short enough for people to read. --N Jordan (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Arkan was referred to as a Chetnik in some sources, but let's not get into too much about content here, that is a discussion for a future article talk page. There is no reason we can't just call that article Serb paramilitaries since 1990 or something similar. But can we say definitively that there were no Chetniks earlier than 1900? When was the term first used to refer to Serb insurgents? I do not know much about the Ottoman-Serbian Wars, but I understand there was a book published in 1868 called Četovanje ili četnicko ratovanje. Does anyone know anything about Chetnik activities before 1900? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chetniks were those of World War II; if anything, this article should have a background section, which summarizes, with sub-sections, the historical 1. organization in Old Serbia-Macedonia, 2. bands of the Balkan Wars and World War I, 3. Interwar period. In legacy, there should be information on various Chetnik organizations, Chetnik emigre, and the use of the term "Chetniks" in the Yugoslav Wars. Chetniks (disambiguation) is your answer (a hatnote in this article). četovanje refers to guerilla fighting; the word itself is derived from "(small) unit" (četa). --Zoupan 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not understand your comment. Are you saying that this article should just be further expanded? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced at all that a disambiguation page is a good thing. Regarding that issue I am much more supportive of the idea of having one parent article where all issues regarding everything about Chetniks from all periods would be sumarised and then having separate articles where each period will be expanded into detail. After all, Chetniks do have much in common and share the root and traditions from whatever period they are. FkpCascais (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Fkp. One summary article with a series of forks for subtopics that warrant it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC

)::::: Agree, not a disambiguation page, but something very short with references to other articles. The first book that use word "chetnik" was published in 1848 - check this: So, we should start probably with the etymology of the word and guerrilla fighters and bandits ("hajduks") during the Ottoman rule. In one parent article we can summarize the meaning of word in different periods, with short paragraphs and links to separate articles. If we try to summarize all of those topics in same parent article, that will be just an invitation for adding more information to the main article, and we will finish with a new 30 pages monstrum. It's very important to emphasize that word had different meanings in different time, or in different situations. N Jordan (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one short paragraph for each forked article will be sufficient (esp for the DM Chetniks), but each summary section should be limited to four reasonable length paras, based closely on the lead of the fork article. For example, Pećanac Chetniks might be a subsection of a "Chetniks in WWII section" and be based on the lead of that article. There is a danger that some editors will just want to keep adding to the summary article, duplicating the material in the fork article, but if a few editors keep an eye on that, it shouldn't be a problem. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My suggestion was DM Chetniks at Chetniks, as per common name, hence using a hatnote.--Zoupan 14:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. DM Chetniks at Chetniks per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I agree with that. Which would necessitate a hatnote pointing to the summary article, something like {{About|the WWII Chetniks of Draža Mihailović|the history of the Chetnik movement|History of the Chetnik movement}}, or similar? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I would rather see mix of Serbo-Croatian and Croatian article. Explain etymology of the word and meaning in different periods, without too much details. N Jordan (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We need an overall "History of the Chetnik movement" as a summary article, as it has to cover a long period of time, with each section effectively summarising the main article it represents. They can't be too brief, each section needs to provide a summary of the article it links to. I certainly wouldn't support an approach that was light on the necessary detail. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Imo the only thing that may be needed is that non-DM Chetniks be split-off into articles of their own, such as might be necessary. That's all. -- Director (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning, N Jordan (talk · contribs), a mention of this discussion on the relevant WikiProject talk pages would be worthwhile if you want to get a wide representation of interested editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevent quote pertaining to chetniks[edit]

During World War II, Mile Budak .

(June 30, 1941), Stevan Moljević (a lawyer from Banja Luka who was also an ideologue of the Chetniks), published a booklet with the title "On Our State and Its Borders". Moljević asserted:

"One must take advantage of the war conditions and at a suitable moment seize the territory marked on the map, cleanse [očistiti] it before anybody notices and with strong battalions occupy the key places (...) and the territory surrounding these cities, freed of non-Serb elements. The guilty must be promptly punished and the others deported – the Croats to (significantly amputated) Croatia, the Muslims to Turkey or perhaps Albania – while the vacated territory is settled with Serb refugees now located in Serbia."[1][unreliable source?][2][3]

This quote is relevant to this page in describing ulterior motives.

Odd quote?[edit]

"Professor David MacDonald, however, posited, in his Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia, that it is "highly misleading to suggest that Četniks throughout the war collaborated with the Germans and Italians to carry out genocide of Croats and Muslems."[14]"

This quote is not talk about or validated in the article. Is it saying there was no genocidal intent? Or that there was not collaboration during the entire war? Seems like an attempt to rehabilitate the Chetnik image. Rest of article disproves the quote. Quote should be removed. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is saying the Chetniks didn't collaborate with the Italians and Germans specifically to commit genocide against Muslims and Croats, which is true, considering that for the most part collaboration agreements were reached to gain an upper hand in their fratricidal struggle against the Partisans, have the Ustaše stop mauling Chetnik bands and to ensure the Axis provided ammunition, food and supplies. 23 editor (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
"which is true" But the sentence before it says it isn't? They contradict each other. Unless what is being said is that Chetniks aimed at genocide without the help of the Germans and Italians. There should be a sentence explaining the quote for it gives the impression Chetniks never had intentions of an ethnically pure state. There is also concern with tthis in the intro "The terror tactics used by the Chetniks against the Croats was largely a reaction against the mass terror perpetrated by the Ustaše, " which is misleading considerin this "During Axis occupation the notion of clearing or "ethnically cleansing" these territories was introduced largely in response to the massacres of Serbs by the Ustaše in the Independent State of Croatia.[100] However, the largest Chetnik massacres took place in eastern Bosnia where they preceded any significant Ustaša operations.[47]" Which is mention in this page. Should be included in the intro. To say Muslem populations were being terrorized only due to non-Serb removal policies makes no sense since Croats are "non-Serb" also. To say violence towards Croats was due to Ustase activities is grossly misleading.Maxforige77 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No it is not. It points out that Chetnik violence against Croats (and Bosniaks for that matter), was largely a reaction against the massacres and expulsions the Ustase perpetrated against them. But it goes on to say that the largest massacres by the Chetniks were in areas where these massacres had not occurred, ie the Sandzak and eastern Bosnia. What exactly is it that you are complaining about? That the lead lacks balance in this respect? Or something else? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My previous problem was the single quote claiming Chetniks had no genocidal intent on Croat and Muslem populations in a see of facts stating otherwise. My second concern is that the intro is saying that violence against Croats was mainly due to Ustase activities and that violence against Muslems was due to mainly non-Serb policies. Implying that had it not been for Ustase activities, Croat civilians would have not been effected by Chetnik activities. Even though from an ideological standpoint, to achieve a pure state, Croats would have had to been removed despite Ustase activities. Indeed, Ustase atrocities motivated Chetnik massacres, but ethnic cleansing policies were in place for them already. Yes it appears to lack balance in that respect. Unless those Croat populations would have remained safely untouched by Chetniks had Ustase never enganded in their killings, then I am in the wrong. Croats should be mentioned in the final sentnce along with Muslems as being undesirable in an ethnically pure Serbian states free of non-Serbs. Am I looking at this incorrectly? Maxforige77 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure you are, although I am struggling to follow what you're writing. Those statements in the lead accurately reflect the sources they are drawn from. You need to reliable source material that states what you think should be in the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, here. According to the intro, Chetniks only waged violence on Croatian populations as revenge for what Ustase were doing. This implies that Chetniks would have never ethnically cleansed Croatian populations from the region had the Ustase not committed their atrocities. Then the intro goes on to say that Muslems were ethnically cleansed due to the policy of removing non-Serb populations from the region. Would Croats not have fallen in that category? Plus, the source for that part of the intro clearly states that atrocities by Chetnik forces were a response to Muslem agression, yet only Croats are said to have revenge waged upon them. The source linked to the sentence in question also mentions that "one of the worst Chetnik outburst against Croatian population in Dalmatia took place" on behalf of the Italians. Not a response to the Ustase.(Tomasevich 259)Maxforige77 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, got you now. That is true, the Greater Serbia idea of Moljevic including cleansing areas of various groups, not just Muslims. But I think the current formulation uses words such as "largely" etc for a reason. These are the main reasons, although there were exceptions. Some areas the Chetniks wanted to cleanse didn't have much in the way of Croat population. Chetnik massacres/cleansing of Croats were also less common because the NDH had an army (as poor as it was) that protected some urban areas at least. The Muslims, particularly in the Drina valley, were in close proximity to a large Serb population in the German-occupied territory of Serbia (and thus to Chetniks), which made them more vulnerable. What massacres/cleansing of Croats are you referring to? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, seems we were typing at the same time. I posted an example above to my previous entry. Yes it says largely (though I'm not sure how we determined it was largely), but the other bit is not included. Someone new to this subject would not know that when reading this page. The sentence wording should state that the Chetniks intended to ethnically cleanse the region regardless of what the Ustase did, as stated in the source. Chetniks wanted an ethnically pure Serbia that spanned over main parts of Croatia as well, so the idea that their intentions were largely revenge is misleading. Not to mention the MacDonal quote contradicts that Chetniks ever planned on removing non-Serb entities. Which is simply untrue and never supported in the wiki article. I just sourced proof that Chetniks on behalf of Italian forces destroyed a Croatian village, for example. Seems unbalanced is all. Maxforige77 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The MacDonald quote says nothing of the sort. It explains that the reason for collaborating wasn't to carry out genocide. The factors behind the collaboration were pretty complex, and creating a Greater Serbia was only one of the Chetniks aims. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So it isn't exonerating Chetniks from their intended cleansing policies? In that case okay. Although establish Greater Serbia was a major reason for collaboration. But the other part of my comment is still stands in regards to reducing terror practices on Croat populations down to "response to Ustase activities" as I shown with the example in my previous response. The wording should also make it clear that these tactics, like on the Muslems was to for an ethnically pure Greater Serbia free of non-Serbs. Wouldn't you agree? According to the very text the intro was derived from, it states Chetniks wanted revenge in response to Muslem aggression but that is left out here?Maxforige77 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not clear on this. Are you saying Chetnik terror against Croats wasn't largely a reaction to Ustase terror? Because the reliable sources say it was. According to all the sources I've read, Chetnik terror against Croats was much more a reaction to Ustase terror than in pursuance of Greater Serbia. The sequence of events shows this clearly, and you'll need some pretty impressive sources to convince me otherwise. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

GOD NO! Ustase activities undeniably were a major factor. But that short sentence in the intro should include in words that those Croatian populations were to be cleansed in accordance with establishment of a Greater Serbia just like with the Muslems and other non-Serbs also. Unless sources state that Croats would have been safe in Greater Serbia. If not, it should be made clear that both Muslems and Croats were both deemed as unwelcome in the new ethnically pure state from an ideological standpoint from the beginning AND that Ustase activities increased these feelings and lead to revenge killings. Though the example with Chetniks carrying out one of the biggest massacres in Croatia Dalmatia on behalf of Italian forces is an example that violence happened regardless. That is what the sentence should say in order to be as neutral a possible. Which is factual when looking at the list of policies by the Chetnik command.Maxforige77 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Still not clear what you are saying. Moljevic didn't come up with his ideas in isolation. He knew about Ustase crimes when he developed his tract on Greater Serbia. Surely part of his motive was to make a safe place for Serbs to live? The Chetniks didn't adopt his ideas formally until September 1941, by which time the Ustase cleansing of Serbs from huge swathes of the NDH was already well underway. The order of December was when the policy was first operationalised, and this was closely followed by massacres of Muslims in the Drina valley, not Croats elsewhere. That didn't really start happening until the Croats were able to operate with Italian protection, in mid to late 1942. Unless you are referring to something else? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many Muslems were part of the Ustase order, yet targeting of Muslems is not stated as revenge for Ustase activities which Tomasevich stated in his book that massacres of Muslems was related to Muslems siding with the Ustase. "due to the traditional animosity between Serbs and Muslims"..... Both Muslems and Croats have a problematic history with Serbs, not just Moslems. The sentence of response to Ustase implies the problem between Croats would begin with WWII. Also there were massacres that occurred not for revenge purposes, For example with Chetniks carrying out one of the biggest massacres in Croatia Dalmatia on behalf of Italian forces.
My point is this, I understand that massacring of Croat populations was LARGELY for revenge for what Ustase did, but why aren't the other reasons listed (Like Chetniks using this as an opportunity to establish a GreaterSerbian State) like they are for Muslems? Also Why aren't the massacres of Muslems also described as largely revenge like it says in the source by Tomasevich? Why is it not mentioned that Chetniks " used terror practices on Croatian populations mainly in response to Ustase activities and also to create an ethnically pure Greater Serbia" a better sentence to include. Would that not be a more accurate sentence? It addresses both sides of the issue. And it is accurate to what Tomasevich wrote about in the source used in the intro.
Should be "this action was also undertaken to 'cleanse' these areas of Muslims and Croats in order to create a 'Greater Serbia' free of non-Serbs." For the last sentence in the intro.. There were revenge massacres on Muslims also but cleansing were still mentioned. Before WWII there had been traditional animosity between Croats and Serbs as well. Ustase did not begin this trend as the intro sentence implies (this is the problem). Looking at sourced talkiang about times during the kingdom of Yugoslavia and the formation of the Ustase in the first place support that fact. So why is that not included ads it is for Muslems in the intro? It seems pretty simple see. Maxforige77 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
If you think the lead is unbalanced, I suggest you formulate new sentences (with citations to reliable sources) for discussion here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Side note, " Surely part of his motive was to make a safe place for Serbs to live?" Bit surprised to see you write that. Chetnik command wa sopen about WWII being the perfect oportuinity to expan Serbian borders and to force convert Croats to the Orthodox church or get rid off them and control further territory. While some Chetniks factions believed in that (For not all were genocidal).Some use this to partly rehabilitate the Chetnik movement. Grotesque excuse for the mass killings. All non-Serbs were targeted, not just Ustase. [ Stevan Moljević believed that Serbs should not repeat the mistakes of World War I by failing to define the borders of Serbia, and proposed that at the end of World War II Serbs should take control of all territories to which they laid claim, and from that position negotiate the form of a federally organized Yugoslavia. This plan required the relocation of non-Serbs from Serb-controlled territories and other shifts of populations."] So that reasoning stands no ground. Create a safe place was the said motive of Pavelic and the Ustase. Both used this rhetoric as a excuse to dehumanize ethnic groups so as to remove them for territorial gains and stability. Mass-murder of Muslems and Croats who weren't Ustase associated (Many were not Ustase) and murder of Partisans(Many who were in fact Serbian an also Muslem and Croat) seems odd if it was partly done for creating a safe place.... Maxforige77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I will look into Tomasevich more and other sources and formulate a sentence. It wont't be that much different than in intro. Maxforige77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"Many Muslems were part of the Ustase order", who says so? FkpCascais (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"The militia consisted mostly of volunteers, and only 25% of the officer corps were professionally trained. It was indoctrinated in Ustaše ideology and was committed to defending Pavelić and the Ustaša regime. Whilst Pavelić was its titular commander-in-chief, he exercised no practical control over its military operations, as Ustaše formations and units in the field were placed under command of Home Guard or Axis forces.[2] The militia included a significant number of Muslims, although this reduced after mid 1943, and there were no Muslim militia leaders and few promoted to higher rank.[5] " Although Džafer Kulenović Was Vice President of the Ustase Regime.
[5] Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. p.490
Example "In late 1941, an Ustaše militia unit known as the Black Legion (Crna Legija) was formed mostly from Muslim and Croatian refugees from villages in eastern Bosnia, where the Chetniks and Partisans had already committed large-scale massacres." This taken from the Ustase Militia Wiki. The fact that Chetnik massacres are responsible for a growth in Ustase militia and activities should be mentioned. But the Chetniks Wiki article fails to do so also.Maxforige77 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
[8] Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. p.422
Could someone explain this part to me in the article? Aren't these sentences contradicting?
"Except for the Ustaše, Croats were not seen as the enemies of the Serbs, and a goal was set for the incorporation of Croatian forces under Chetnik leadership. Ustaše, on the other hand, were to be summarily executed.[53] The question of shifting populations and religious conversion of the Croats was to be left aside until the Serbs had assumed power in Yugoslavia.[49] Revenge was incorporated into the Chetnik manual as a "... sacred duty of the Serbian people against those who had wronged them during the war and occupation".[54]"
So are "those who wronged" referring to Ustase or all Croats? Because that would conflict with the previous sentence differentiating Ustase and non-Fascist Croats. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Max, you can't use WP as a reference (even though I created that article). You need a book, journal, magazine article etc, and it needs to be reliable. Now, having written it, I'd say the source used for that is reliable, but you need to indicate what source you are using for you contentions here. Sorry, this must seem like drawing teeth, but if you want to edit, you need to learn the rules. I also make it a policy not to do anyone else's work for them... :-) Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph you just responded to is talking about a new issue. It is me asking about sentences which are in the Chetnik WP. I was asking what they mean. Was not stating them as sources. I was asking do they not conflict each other? This is separate from our other discussion. For the other discussion I have not written the sentence you asked me to write yet. If you meant my response to FkpCascais, then I apologize, still learning protocol. I added the sources in now.Maxforige77 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you answer about the, what seem to be contradicting sentences. Seems the later one about "Revenge was incorporated..." should be better explained? Maxforige77 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not having been clearer in the formulation of my question. It is undisputed that there were some Muslims in certain specific units of the Ustaše (there were some Muslims within Chetnik detachments as well), the issue is that you were impliying there that the participation of those Muslims in Ustaše units could make Chetniks make decitions regarding Muslims as a nation, as if their participation in those Ustaše units would be representative of the stand of Muslim nation. That is why I believe your reasoning there was wrong, cause the numbers of Muslims which were members of the Ustaše although not neglectable, was not enough significant in respect to Muslims as a whole. Like sugesting Ustaše would make decitions over Muslims because of the participation of some Muslims in Chetnik units. See my point? FkpCascais (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Though Tomasevich did say a "significant number" were. Precise numbers are not stated. Some of Ustase high command were Muslems. There make of been some Muslems in Chetnik melitia, but so were there Croats. But there were less in Chetnik betalions than in Ustase order. To equate both is incorrect. Infact Chetniks had a popicey of ethnic cleansing non-Serbs, Muslems in particular. Where as Ustase were very welcoming of Muslems and Islam in general as a religion. Also in his literature it says Chetnik atrocitues were driven in response to Muslem atrocities towards Serb populations (unless these atrocities were carried independent of Ustatse?). To say "some" seems like an understatement according to his works. Ustase were also very close with Muslems and considered them as part of the Croatian Nation. Also could you answer the inquiry I had above about the "Revenge was incorporated" sentence? Maxforige77 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry Max, I really am struggling to understand what you are saying, but even more, what you are trying to get at with these posts. Clearly English is not your first language, and I am having quite a bit of trouble following your line of argument as a result. Muslims were not quite second-class citizens in the NDH, but Muslim civil society throughout the NDH did complain about Ustase massacres of the Serbs, and while Muslims were involved in the Ustase Militia, none of them reached high positions within it so far as I am aware. Kulenovic was a politician, not a military man. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Just passing buy, must point out, there was the Hanjar that were Muslems that collaborated with Ustase and Nazis. (20,000) Muslim volunteers for the Nazi SS - out of total population of 700,000 Stariradio (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
"all of these posts" Well there lies the problem. "what you are trying to get at with these posts" If you hadn't notcied, another user has askem me a question so now we are talking about it. Not all of these posts are aimed at you. So far you have responded to a couple of my posts that are meant for FkpCascais, not you. Hence your confusion. My English is fine...... Why do I get the feeling that was meant to be an insult? I have never had a problem communicating ideas on here before... Though the second part of your post tells me you do understand what I am talking about....I am talking about a different subject with him/her. Read FkpCascais' question directed to me and that should tell you what the subject of conversation is. Here, lets make this simple....
So right now lets stick with the topic at hand: Muslem involvement with Ustase and whether it played a role in Chetnick atrocities towards Muslem populations. You said "Muslim civil society throughout the NDH did complain about Ustase massacres of the Serbs". And there were Croats who did as well. There was still involvement though. Why in Tomesevich's book (p. 251-261) did he say that Chetnik massacres of Muslems was a response to Muslem atrocities of Serb populations? What atrocities is he referring to? These were not by Muslem outfits supported by Ustase? For example
"Reprisals followed, as in the case of Nevesinje, where Serb peasants staged an uprising in response to the persecution, drove out the Ustaše militia, but then engaged in reprisals killing hundreds of Croats and Muslims." Malcolm, Noel (1994). Bosnia: A Short History. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5520-4. p. 175 Which means Chetniks targeted Muslems as well as revenge against Ustase activities. Chetniks even branded Muslims as "Ustase cronies" Velkonija 2003, p. 167. Doesn't get more clear than that. Maxforige77 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No insult intended, just an observation. FWIW, if you decide to change the topic of the conversation, please start a new thread. It is exhausting read all this, and there are buckets of spelling errors. I'm going to leave you to edit the article to change what you think needs to be changed. I'll pipe up soon enough if I think you've got it wrong. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am guilty of spelling errors for sure, hah. Many times I am in a rush to type things up. Sorry about that. I really didn't mean to flood this section with all this talk. I do not have the ability to edit the article due to it being locked. Could I possibly talk to you through email or some other communication so as to not flood this thread any further? I just have a question about a different matter that I don't want to change/edit, just wanted your input on. Also I wanted say I appreciate you having patience with me in this discussion. The subject matter is complicated enough so thanks for taking the time. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, still won't let me. My account is still fairly new so perhaps I have to wait a bit? Maxforige77 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
By now, if I am getting correctly the editing intentions of Max, it would be usefull to express immediatelly my objection to them so we wouldnt loose unecessary time. Here: Max suggests joining Croats along Muslims at the sentence saying they were targets of ethnic cleansing and in danger of genocide. The problem is that this entire issue of Chetniks and their ethnic-cleansing plan is full of missinformation and missconcentions along it. Lets see, Chetniks fought for restoring Yugoslavia as a monarchy, and then within it, creating a Greater Serbia. Serbs tend to treat Chetniks as much allies as Partisans, while Croats tend to treat Chetniks as equals as Ustaša, just in a Serbian version. Neither of them are right, the Chetniks I would say are somewhere preciselly in between. When Max asked the question regarding if Croat population would be safe with Chetniks around if there were no Ustaša (he asked the question wanting to demonstrate that "no" is the answer), immediatelly the wrong missconception about Chetniks killing all non-Serbs everywhere appears. The answer to Max question is: depends of the place. What do I mean? I mean that the Chetnik cleansing actions were directed to the areas of Greater Serbia, not everywhere within Yugoslavia. Just think for a second: if Chetniks would have exited the war as winners and restored the Karađorđević dinasty-ruled Yugoslavia, does anyone actually think Chetniks would have killed half of the country? Max, you really believe Chetniks would have entered Zagreb and killed all its population? I dont think so, and from what I know there isnt any scholar claiming so. Lets not forget the lead wording is mostly a balanced text having in mind the overall story sources tell us, and in this case changing it towards the idea of Max would turn it certainly unbalanced. The case is simple: Chetniks never had an agenda of killing all Croats simply because many Croats lived outside of what was the Greater Serbia Chetniks were planning to create. However, the case is different in regard to Muslims which had most of its people livig within the territory of the planned Chetnik actions. That is why the wording on respect to Muslims and on respect to Croats is different. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thing is, he/she is saying that most of the Croatian territory was within the borders of Greater Serbia in which most Croats were targeted. Not referring to all Croats existing. Stariradio (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Lets not forget that the entire lead section (exception only the first sentence) is dedicated to their WWII collaboration with Axis and their ethnic cleansing plan. This already just by itself seems quite unbalanced towards the negative aspects, charging even more the lead with claims of some sort of genocidal intention towards Croats would further streach the gap. Max, your observation how that sentence is a sort of rehabilitation of them as you claim in your opening comment seems very subjective in my view considering everything. FkpCascais (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FWIW, I believe the current lead is pretty well balanced regarding the Chetniks, and that it reflects the academic consensus. Beyond that, I really can't distill Max's point from the WP:TLDR swathes of text and changing topics, but if it is what you are suggesting, Fkp, then I agree with you, the two cannot be equated. The Croats (not Muslims) held (often tenuous) power in the NDH, even though some Muslims joined the Ustase Militia and were even in the government, they were never in the driving seat. The Muslims were the main victims of Chetnik atrocities, not Croats (although there were some examples, they pale into comparison with the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Drina valley etc). To treat them as equivalent would not be NPOV, it would be highly POV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am curious what Peacemaker has to say about this sentence: "Serbs tend to treat Chetniks as much allies as Partisans, while Croats tend to treat Chetniks as equals as Ustaša, just in a Serbian version. Neither of them are right....Chetniks are in between" Historical record seem to say Ustase and CHetniks both wanted to create "ethnically pure states" which were to be done through ethnic cleansing and religious conversions. Difference being Chetniks were anti-Fascists and fought Axis and Ustase were Fascists and sided with Axis. Ustase also committed FAR worse atrocities. Fkp, this sentence seems to me a more wishful view than neutral. To say otherwise seems POV and conflicts with historical sources and the Chetniks WP. But I'm not sure what is the point of bringing that up as that is not what my discussion is about. Maxforige77 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
You say "Just think for a second: if Chetniks would have exited the war as winners and restored the Karađorđević dinasty-ruled Yugoslavia, does anyone actually think Chetniks would have killed half of the country? Max, you really believe Chetniks would have entered Zagreb and killed all its population?" Of course not. Chetniks had no intention to cleanse Zagreb same way Ustase had no intention to cleanse Belgrade. Both wanted to create "pure" states. (I'm not saying both are equal, mind you). Greater Serbia and Greater Yugoslavia are different things. A Croatia would still existe in Grater Yugoslavia but much much smaller as most of it would be incorporated into Greater Serbia. Fkp, why are you talking about Zagreb when I clearly said Greater Serbia? Also half of the country? Are you denying that Greater Serbia was to be ethnicly pure Serbs only? Really? Chetniks wanted a pure state. How big population wise, nowhere does it say they cared about. Your reasoning makes no sense. What you think doesn't change what Chetniks high command literally stated their plan was. I was talking about all croats within the borders of Greater Serbia.
Directive 5 literally states "the creation of contiguous frontiers between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as between Serbia and Slovenia (Croatia is between) by cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina."So why in the intro is Muslim cleansing mentioned but not Croat?
Again, I am not saying both are equal in terms of suffering but that a significant amount of Croats did suffer that fate (Croats that lived within Greater Serbia borders). I know that Ustase atrocities mostly fueled Chetnik terror over Croatian populations but also should it not at least be mentioned that a portion of the Croatian population was destined to be cleanses due to their location within a part of the Greater Serbia based on non-Serb policies as well? Why not mention both as both are partly true? Of course Croats living outside the planned Greater Serbia borders are not to be included. A significant populations of Croats within Greater Serbia (Dalmatia and Western Bosnia) were to be cleansed just as the Muslims there were. Seems accurate based on what you two just said.I hope I am clearer now.
"However, the case is different in regard to Muslims which had most of its people living within the territory of the planned Chetnik actions. That is why the wording on respect to Muslims and on respect to Croats is different." So you agree that the Croats that lived in the region destined to be Greater Serbia did face the same fate as the Muslem that lived there? So why is that not mentioned in the intro? More than half of the Croat population lived in what was deemed to be part of Greater Serbia.That is simply what I ask. Not all Croats mind you. But the many that did live in Bosnia and Dalmatia and Slavonia? Your posts supports this. Also, Why is it not mentioned that ethnic tensions existed between Croats and Serbs before WWII like it was mentioned between Serbs and Muslems? As for my texts being TLDR, that would explain why you didn't get my point. Sorry, just wanted to be detailed with my reasoning. Again I refuse to edit the article myself without support from you. Maxforige77 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Peacemaker, do you not agree with the last paragraph of my previous post? To keep it TLDR: A majority of territorial Croatia (Slavonia and Dalmatia) a Western Bosnia, both containing large Croatian populations, were within the borders of Greater Serbia. Therefore those same large populations of Croats were destined to be cleansed just like Muslems (Who were the main target) in accordance of making Greater Serbia an ethnically pure state free of non-Serbs. I feel that should be mentioned in the intro. The intro only states that Croats were targeted as revenge for Ustase activities, but the overall end goal was to rid all non-Serbs (not Croats outside of Greater Serbia) in that Greater territory. So why is that not mentioned? (Also Happy Holidays and best wishes. I won't be back for a few days) Maxforige77 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) ________________

Due to lack of response and upon Peacemaker's request, I made the edit of the section I had concern over. I have cited the edits appropriately.

"The Chetniks" by Jozo Tomasevich pg 259

My edit is in accordance with this source which was in fact used for part of the intro originally. Maxforige77 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede should put relevant information first not foreground what you like about the Chetniks[edit]

this is ridiculous.

> was a World War II movement in Yugoslavia led by Draža Mihailović, an anti-Axis movement in their long-range goals and engaged in marginal resistance activities for limited periods.[1] They also engaged in tactical or selective collaboration with the occupying forces for almost all of the war.[2] The Mihailović Chetniks were not a homogeneous movement.[3] The Chetnik movement[4] adopted a policy of collaboration[5] with regard to the Axis, and engaged in cooperation to one degree or another by establishing modus vivendi or operating as "legalised" auxiliary forces under Axis control.[6][7][8][9] Over a period of time, and in different parts of the country, the Chetnik movement was progressively[10] drawn into collaboration agreements: first with the Nedić forces in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[11] then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, with some of the Ustaše forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.[12]

in the first sentence, it foregrounds their purported anti-Axis "long-range goals" and their admittedly "marginal" and "limited" resistance, while failing to identify them as a Serbian nationalist movement. The language is barely even intelligible, it doesn't flow at all. They are "drawn into" collaboration passively, etc etc.

> was Serbian nationalist movement in World War II Yugoslavia led by Draža Mihailović. [1] The Chetnik movement,[2] which was not homogenous,[3] adopted a policy of collaboration[4] with regard to the Axis, establishing modus vivendi or operating as "legalised" auxiliary forces under Axis control;[5][6][7][8] first with the Nedić forces in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[9] then with the Italians in occupied Dalmatia and Montenegro, with some of the Ustaše forces in northern Bosnia, and after the Italian capitulation also with the Germans directly.[10] Their long-term goals differed from those of the Axis Powers, and at limited times they engaged in resistance activities, though of marginal consequence.[11]

This is just a better lede, because it is trying to inform the reader in progressively greater detail. It is incredibly annoying that such a minor change has to be "discussed" with editors who prefer a crappier lede just because it foregrounds dubious "anti-axis" and "resistance" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TitaniumCarbide (talkcontribs) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The lede is intentionally biased and misleading. Chetniks were for the most part Nazi collaborators, fought dominantly with Axis forces against Partisans who were the only anti-Fascist force in Yugoslavia, even collaborating with pro-Nazi Croatian Ustashe movement. Therefore, designating it as "Anti-Axis movement in their long-range goals" is a blatant lie and a sad attempt to justify their extensive collaboration with Nazi Germany. Also, I do not really understand what "marginal resistance activities for limited periods" is supposed to mean, and why this notion would need to be included in the first sentence of the article. Besides, both quotes are taken from a book by someone called Matteo Milazzo, who can hardly be considered a relevant source, since neither Wikipedia or Google seem to know who the hell he is. Sideshow Bob 13:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed at leanght at the archives and even went trough a mediation. The current wording is already unbalanced towards the pro-collaboration POV since the conclusion of the emdiator was that the collaboration was just oportunistic. All you provided here are your personal opinions wich do not provide any reason for the change of the current wording. Pease dont engage in major changes without proper discussion and presentation of new evidence and sources. Also, please take a look at the archives. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The current lead is the awful product of editors working at cross-purposes. "Designed by committee", as they say. TitaniumCarbide's lead reads better, but why should the lead ignore the regularized status of the Chetniks as the army of Yugoslavia recognised by the Allies? Srnec (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I reject Fkp's contention about the lead. It is pretty balanced actually, as the DM Chetniks were essentially collaborators, not the resistance fighters their propagandists would have you believe. I am relaxed about the suggested lead changes. For Sideshow Bob Matteo J. Milazzo was a US-Italian academic who accessed German and Italian archives for his book, which was published by Johns Hopkins University Press. He is clearly a highly relevant reliable source who has been used extensively by me (and others) in FAs across the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area. I have a copy of his book, and am happy to provide wider context for any information cited to him. You'd want something better than WP or Google to challenge his reliability. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The idea of "DM Chetniks were essentially collaborators" is totally against the outcome that had come from the mediation and I am surprised to hear such a simplified unbalanced affirmation coming from an senior editor. FkpCascais (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry Peacemaker, but I will really want you to admit that by saying it, you indeed have a biased approach towards the Chetnik movement. Cause it is impossible for you to so firmly make such a claim and to have, for exemple, an reputable encyclopedia such as Britannica, here, saying nothing of the sort. FkpCascais (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I continue to believe the current state of the article is essentially a cherry-picked collection of the most anti-Chetnik found ammong sources, with continuos disregard towards any positive wording towards Chetniks by using the "propaganda" excuse and the clear inferiority in the number of active editors willing to confront the pro-collaborationst view. I believe an approach towards a balanced wording such as the one found on the Britannica article will contribute in favour for the credibility and respect of our project here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Be as sorry as you like, Fkp. I rely on reliable secondary sources that have examined the situation in depth, not a tertiary source that is ridiculously brief, uncited and frankly unrepresentative of the scholarly consensus. It is eminently clear from the reliable sources that the Chetniks were for the most part collaborators, with Nedic, the Italians, the Germans, and the Ustase. The only period they were not collaborating was the period from the beginning of the uprising against the Ustase in the NDH (and against the Germans in the German-occupied territory of Serbia) until they began to fall in with the Italians and Nedić, which in some places was January 1942. A matter of a few months without collaboration in more than four years. But we have been over this ground before. You will be unsurprised that I consider you to be biased in favour of the Chetniks, a stance which is even more risible given the lack of reliable secondary sources to support it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
We can go to the sources and confirm the existance of resistance activities till the end of the war. Chetniks indeed engaged in both, resistance and collaboration, towards most time. Britannica certainly seems to have had a reading more similar to mine as their wording clearly indicates so, and as much as you can claim, it is hardly believable your claim on how they are completelly wrong.
I oppose the TitaniumCarbide proposal, which is basically the same just cleaverly reworded in order to remove the mention of resistance and further highlight the collaboration, and I absolutelly agree with Srnec on the strange omission of the important status of the Chetniks as the army of Yugoslavia recognised by the Allies. FkpCascais (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So we'll just keep it as it is. Unless you or Srnec have reliable sources for your "strange omission", in which case we should of course include it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You know I'm referring to the appointment of Mihailovic as chief of staff of the Yugoslav Army of the Homeland. You also know, because you are well-read in this area, that many RS refer to Allied recognition of the Chetniks during this period. There is no need to be an ass about it. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No-one is stopping you adding accurate information from a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I never said we should include it. You did ("in which case we should of course include it"). So, if you know the RS are out there, why don't you add it? Srnec (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My "clever rewording ... to remove the mention of resistance and further highlight the collaboration" is in fact a rewording in order of importance. The lede favored by apparently no-one other than Serbian editors neglects to mention at all the single most defining fact about the Chetnik movement – that they were Serbian nationalists. It first highlights their notional "anti-Axis" "long-term goals," then highlights their admittedly marginal anti-Axis resistance, and only then mentions their extensive history of collaboration. The lede I want says: Serbian nationalist movement, collaborated extensively, also differed with Axis' long-term goals and resisted a little. There's no "clever" sneaky agenda here. I want the lede to emphasize that they were a Serbian nationalist movement that collaborated with the Axis, because that's what they were and that's how the vast majority of reliable sources characterize them.
The attempt to use Britannica for support is baffling and infuriating. Britannica's article in fact calls them "Serbian nationalist" right away – because, again, that was their most defining feature and should be mentioned first – and then says that they were formed to resist occupation, but mostly fought Tito's partisans and collaborated with the Axis instead. The Britannica article overall is much closer to calling them "essentially collaborators" than some kind of equal mix of resistance and collaboration – in fact the Britannica article does not explicitly mention ′any Chetnik anti-Axis resistance activity at all.
Presumably if I go and find whatever mediation FkpCascais vaguely refers to, I will see that he has cherry-picked his preferred conclusions from there also, as with the Britannica article. TiC (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
TitaniumCarbide, the lead is not limited to the opening paragraph. The lead gives plenty of attention to collaboration.

No mention of Hanjar in intro?[edit]

The bad blood between Serbs and Moslems is also due to the Moslem Hanjar regiment that collaborated with Ustase and Nazis against Serbs.

"Altogether, it is estimated that some 20,000 Muslims fought in the Hanjar (Sword) SS Division, which fought against Yugoslav partisans led by General Tito, and carried out police and security details in fascist Hungary. The Nazi's recruited two SS divisions from Yugoslavia's Muslim population: the infamous Bosnian 13th Waffen Hanjar (or Handschar) SS division, and the Albanian Skanderbeg 21st Waffen SS division. SS conscription in Yugoslavia during the war produced 42,000 Waffen SS and police troops

The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states:

They participated in the massacre of civilians in Bosnia and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia . . . The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises." Stariradio (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Handschar division didn't go into action until March 1944. The Skanderbeg division even later. While they both committed atrocities against Serbs and others, they are hardly an excuse for the massacres of Bosnian Muslims by Chetniks in January and February 1943, for example. Chetnik massacres of Bosnian Muslims were chief among the reasons that large numbers of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims were willing to collaborate with the Ustase and Nazis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)