Talk:Draža Mihailović/collaboration drafts

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


Proposal one (Nuujinn)[edit]

The degree and character of M's collaboration with the occupying Axis forces has been variously described. According to Milazzo, Mihailovic engaged in selective and tactical collaboration with the Axis occupation forces (Millazo, p.95-96). Tomosevich refers to a "rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedic regime and Mihailovic" (Tomosevich 1975, 214). Roberts points out that the relationship between the Italians and Chetniks were not similar to that of the Italians and Ustashe, in that the Italians did not control the area, and were often protected by the Chetnik from the Partisans (Roberts, p. 101). In regard to the Germans, Roberts asserts there was no direct collaboration, as the German High Command held the destruction of the Chetniks, (Roberts, p. 101) and opposed the Italian's collaboration with the Chetniks (Roberts, p. 106). Both the Partisans and Chetniks engaged in talks with the Germans in order to secure an advantage over the other.(MacDonald and Bruce, p 140-42).(Roberts, p. 120)

Beginning in 1941 some Chetniks groups openly collaborated with the Axis occupation, often acting as auxiliary forces, but those groups were not under Mihailovic's control, and Mihailovic attempted to distance his forces from these groups initially by calling his group the Ravna Gora Movement. (Roberts, pp. 20, 40-41) But Mihailovic soon found himself lacking of arms and under pressure from advancing German forces. (Karchmar, p. 256, Milazzo, p. 37) Following discussions between the German Abwehr Officer Matl and M's aide Pantic, (Karchmar, p. 258) Mihailovic met with Germans on 11 November to negotiate a modus vivendi. Some historians assert that the meeting was initiated by the Germans (Roberts, p. 35), others that Mihailovic initiated it (Milazzo, p. 35), and others that who initiated it cannot be known (Pavlowitch, p. 65). The meeting was unsuccessful, as the Germans demanded M's complete surrender. Prior to leaving for Divci, Mihailovic had reported to the British that he had already met with the Germans at their request and refused their demands for surrender (Karchmar, p.259). When this was reported in the western press, the Germans had Nedic issue a statement stating that Mihailovic had asked to collaborate with the Germans and had received funding from Nedic, the news of which the Partisan's took as evidence of treason (Karchmar, p.259).

Following the failure to overcome the Partisans in Uzice, and faced with inbound German forces, about 2,000 of Mihailovic's officers and men elected to leave Ravna Gora and join Nedic's legalized Chetniks, who were collaborating with German forces (Tomo p. 198). The decision appears to have been made by Mihailovic's men. Mihailovic probably condoned this action although it is likely he could not control it (Milazzo, p. 40). After his remaining forces were overrun by the Germans and dispersed, he remained in indirect contact with Nedic's regime. In March 1942, Mihailovic renewed his offer to cooperate with the Germans in their struggle against the Partisans, but the offer was rejected (Tomo, p. 199).

In 1942, Radio Free Yugoslavia began broadcasting Partisan accusations that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration (Roberts, p. 61, 90), and assertions of Mihailovic's lack of resistance activities and collaboration with the Italians surfaced in the western press (Roberts, p. 74-75). The British evidently became convinced that the Chetniks were primarily engaged in anti-Partisan actions and collaborating with Italian forces, (Tomo pp. 288-9) and that Mihailovic had adopted the Montenegrin Chetnik's policy of collaboration (Roberts, p. 70). During the latter part of 1942 and early in 1943, YGE asked M several times about the charges of collaboration, charges which Mihailovic denied, claiming that he had never met with the Italians or the Germans, and had refused their offers (Roberts, p.66, 95). In may of 1943, Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich W. Heinz attempted to negotiate an agreement with Mihailovic, and did come to an agreement with Chetnik officers. However, when he passed that agreement up his chain of command, he was relieved of his command and accused of negotiating with the enemy (Roberts, p. 124). Later that year a British SOE officer, Deakin, became convinced that the Chetniks were collaborating with the Germans based on Partisan reports and events to which he was witness, although the Chetniks he had seen cooperating with the Germans were likely Bosians not under Mihailovic's control (Roberts, p. 120).

In early 1943, Mihailovic was reported as having given a speech in which he asserted that the Italians were his primary source of aid (Roberts, p. 93). By 1943, the British foreign office was convinced of Mihailovic's collaboration with the Italians, having received reports that he had admitted contract [contact? or a contract??] with them and received supplies from them (Roberts, p. 93). At a large convention at Ba, Mihailovic attempted to turn the Chetnik movement away from collaboration, but did not oppose the formation of Chetnik truces with German forces throughout Serbia (Lampe, 225). Beginning in 1944, the Chetniks collaborated openly with the Germans and Ustaša forces in Serbia and Croatia (Ramet, pp.145-146). By the end of the year, several Chetnik commanders in Serbia had reached accommodations with the Germans (Roberts, p.157). Mihailovic likely knew of these arrangements, but did not participate so as to preserve his anti-German reputation (Roberts, p.157).


This is a rough draft, I'm putting up what I have so far. I propose that we use this for the Mihailovic article and will make a proposal for the Chetniks article. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I like this overview. It would be great if other editors could add their suggested changes (or signify their agreement) and we could get consensus to add a section along these lines to the article. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Nuujinn: What's the Lampe source in the last paragraph? Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a Country? IWTH (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeap, here's the quote: "The Neubacher mission did succeed by the end of 1943 in drawing Mihailovic's commanders in Serbia into negotiating with the Germans. They reached agreements for four zones where Chetnik forces could at least survive as long as they stayed isolated in rural areas. As 1944 began, the beleaguered Chetnik movement and a bewildered Mihailovic convened a large congress at Ba where he tried to stem the turn to collaboration. Still loyal to the monarchy, Mihailovic now advocated a federal and democratic Yugoslavia. He set aside the homogeneos Great Serbai which Moljevic had posited in 1941, but offered no detailed proposal for a federal alternative. Nor did M oppose the Chetnik truces with German forces that soon covered all of Serbia." And yes, that should be contact not contract. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right, those zones. I would say "four zones" here, or some words to that effect. This way those who know the history will know what event is being referred to, while those new to the history will make the connection if they read a book that goes into more detail on this such as Tomasevic. I'll read the whole draft again, but I probably won't be able to make any more comments for another day or so. IWTH (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the proposal, as I said it is rough, just pick a color so we can keep track of who does what. And we're not in a rush, some of us have been discussing this for about two years now... --Nuujinn (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its been over a week now, should we advertise this on the talk pages of mediation participants? Or should I just be bold and put it in the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I got distracted. Can you hold off for another day or two? I'm going to add a couple quotes from John Cripps's "Tito or Mihailovic" essay in "Action This Day" edited by Ralph Erskine and Michael Smith. I looked this book up because it was quoted in the Yugoslav Front article in the lead. The book is about British cryptanalysis in World War Two, and Cripps's essay is about how those decrypts influeced the decision to switch British support to the Partisans. Cripps is cited nine times in the Yugoslav Front article, but I think reading Cripps's actual essay gives a much more complex picture than those nine citations suggest. In any case, the single quote most applicable to the question of Mihailovic's collaboration is this: "Abwehr decrypts disclosed that fighting was still going on between Partisans and Chetniks and that one of Mihailović's principal commanders, Pavle Djurisić, had fallen out with Mihailović as he wished to assist the Germans against the Partisans, a course of action Mihailović refused to contemplate" (p. 254). (Oddly, the book will put the accents on the last "ć" in Yugoslav names, but ignores accents in the middle of names, so I have reproduced that here.) The sentence I just quoted is talking about 1943. Anyway, let me put up some other quotes from Cripps on the quotations page and give your draft another look. Is that ok? IWTH (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, Cripps was quoted on the Yugoslavia and the Allies page, not the Yugoslav Front page. IWTH (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We're not in a rush, and if I beat you to it, you can of course add/alter as you wish under BRD. I'm sure we'll have some lively discussions. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

G'day all, not been on here before but have followed this all with interest for many months. Just wanted to question the reliance on Roberts for key bits of the draft above. I must say I like quite a lot of the draft, but I consider some key differences between Roberts work and Tomo's have not been covered sufficiently. Can I have a couple of days to nut out a couple of suggestions?Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn: If you don't mind, I would like to go para by para through your draft and try to settle things out as we go. With that in mind, it would be great to see the Milazzo and Roberts quotes from the first para of your draft included on the quotes page so I can see what you're referring to. I note from the quotes page that the MacDonald and Bruce quote is actually a Judah reference by MacDonald and Bruce. Could you put the Judah quote up too? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn: Your first Tomasevich quote in the first para of your draft - p.214 must be a typo. p.214 relates to the collaboration of the Chetniks with the Italians in Croatia, not the Nedic regime. Could you check that and put in the correct page for your reference? Thanks Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled about the phrase "Mihailovic likely knew of these arrangements, but did not participate so as to preserve his anti-German reputation ". I find no trace of this on page 156 of my edition of Roberts. Which edition was this taken from ? I should take another look at Roberts, but from what I remember Roberts definitely states that "Mihailovic likely knew of these arrangements" and "did not participate", but he does not go as far as to pretend that his sole motivation for not participating was to "preserve his anti-German reputation".Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have not gotten back to this, it slipped down my watch list. Peacemaker, I apologize for being sloppy, the Tomasevich quote on p. 214 is from War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, not his work on the Chetniks. I do not have the work at hand, but my notes show "p. 214 In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedic regime and Mihailovic occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and the Chetniks in western Serbia" I have put the quotes from Roberts on Talk:Draža_Mihailović/quotations/ page. The quote from 106 follows discussion of the communication between Hitler and Mussolini in which the former admonishes the latter for allowing the Chetniks to operate in Italian controlled territories, and the latter agrees that the Chetniks would make a "common front" against the Axis in the event of an Allied landing. I'll try to get the Milazzo quotes up tomorrow or next, I have it back out from the library. In regard to Judah, I don't have that, but I might be able to get it--the draft was put together using materials from other editors with the hope that we'd work on it together, not all of it is my research.
JJG, good catch, the relevant section from Roberts is from page 157, not 156, and I have put that quote on the quotations page as well. If you think the stress on sole is too much, please do take a crack at fixing it. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


It need not be said that the draft herein by Nuujinn is of course opposed per Talk:Draža_Mihailović#Draft_proposal, on the grounds of bias by omission and a highly lenient POV that, amazingly, ignores nearly all notable incidents of collaboration Draza Mihailovic participated in (as is shown by the relevant examples on the aforementioned thread). Numerous sourced facts, and whole sources in general, have been entirely and purposefully omitted for the purpose of adopting a lenient view towards the treasonous activities engaged in by the person at issue (I say "purposefully", as the sources were repeatedly presented before the writing of this draft).

Due to the very nature of this person's role in history, and his celebrated and carefully guarded reputation in Serbia itself, for years in every issue being discussed the "pro-Chetnik" side of the argument "outnumbered" the opposition. User:Sunray and User:Nuujinn figured out they might utilize this to ignore sources and disregard any opposition in pushing through various "drafts" (such as this one) composed by User:Nuujinn - drafts that are not only supposed to help the users ignore whatever negative (sourced) information they "feel" ought to be excluded, but also remove and delete any previous referenced information on the subject from the article.

The method was used to push through these "Nuujinn drafts" is: 1) WP:CANVASSING, not a WP:RfC, mind you, but a series of "invitations" sent out by User:Sunray to carefully selected users he chooses, making sure that the users he knows full well supported the Chetniks' POV every single time - are in a decided majority among these. The text may, for example, ignore nearly all notable (sourced) incidents of collaboration Draza Mihailovic participated in, then alerting the users who would actually love to see that happen is the proper course of action. 2) The next step, having ensured that the "proper" users are alerted, is a WP:VOTE which would promptly turn out in favor of the (incredibly biased) "Nuujinn draft". Next the users can proclaim an absurd "consensus", in spite of any opposing sources or voices of protest. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it is possible to use WP:VOTES to ignore WP:V, along with first-rate sources and whatever they may state.

Needless to say, "fool me once - shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me" applies. Any attempts to pull this scheme off again will be immediately brought-up with the community, and the attempted non-consensus addition of the pro-Mihailovic "Nuujinn drafts" will be reverted immediately by myself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)