Archives

Archive 1 - Pre-mediation discussion Archive 2 - Opening statements Archive 3 - Participation Archive 4 - Early drafts Archive 5 - Discussion on collaboration(1) Archive 6

Discussion

I've put together some quotes from various sources charging or refuting Mihailovic's collaboration, since that comes up often. Please feel free to add material to the page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the compilation will be most useful in informing the discussion. Thank you for doing that. Sunray (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this source - [1] page 35 - it says that some chetniks collaborated while others did not, adding more complexity. (LAz17 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Not a bad idea, but it has a flaw : the issue is not black-and-white, and the fact that Chetnik groups collaborated, and that Mihailovic himself took advantage of it on several occasions, is not disputed by the majority of authors. The issue is to see if Mihailovic must be considered, above everything, an Axis collaborator. As it has been said above, to make such a statement is caricatural at best. Walter R. Roberts, for example, should not be listed as an author supporting the image of Mihailovic as collaborator, even though he does go into detail about Chetnik collaboration and/or accomodation. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Jacques Georges. The issue is legal in nature and therefore most certainly black and white, however "evil" that may sound. One is either "guilty" (black) or "not guilty" (white), a "traitor" or "not a traitor". However "profound" your approach may sound at a glance, there is unfortunately no "gray area" when discussing such categories.

Here's some new material for you guys to oppose heartily. I copy pasted the four quotes from above and added others. These are only the reports and primary documents that exclusively deal with Draža Mihailović personally, i.e. those on the general collaboration of the Chetnik movement are not included (my hand hurts :). Please note also that these sources are in addition to the ones quoted in the Draža Mihailović article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so what ? Nobody here denies that contacts were made, and that many acts of collaboration were committed by Mihailovic's "troops", which means the Chetniks as a whole. May I add that I find your insistence on keeping a "black-and-white" approach to the matter to be, at best, counter-productive ? As for the argument about the issue being "legal".... well, what can I say, do you really believe that he had a fair trial ? The problem we are facing is to find a way to make a decent and complete article, in order to replace the current version, which is beneath contempt. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are portraying my "black and white approach" as unwillingness to compromise. This is not so, I have nothing against cooperation and compromise. These are word games - you call it "black and white" with negative connotations, I call it a "legal approach" (if it is an "approach" at all). It is simply a fact that trying to find a "gray area" in legal issues is utterly absurd. When I say "legal", I am not referring to his trial, I am describing the obvious nature of this dispute, i.e. one is either "guilty" (black) or "not guilty" (white), a "traitor" or "not a traitor". Or are you suggesting we describe him as a "well-meaning half-traitor of the good kind"?

The sources do not merely describe contacts. Word games again. Please read them all and address them all if you seriously wish to discuss. Furthermore, "making contacts" or even trying to make contacts alone is collaboration, fraternization with the enemy, i.e. high treason in legal terms. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes which you painstakingly present into pretty little boxes in order to give them more formal weight describe "alleged" contacts made by M. himself, mention the fact that it is "According to a trustworthy source", that M. never openly compromised himself (and indeed, that shall be adressed later in the draft), that cease-fire agreements were made (indeed they were) and that Chetnik groups cooperated with the Germans and had liaison officers (which is true). One of the quotes states that "We are striving to dissuade him [Mihailovic] from actions against German", which means that such actions existed. Another that "The question is if these, under the circumstances, can be won over for our side." (i.e., they were not, or at least not all of them). The quotes actually mean nothing, besides the fact that the Germans were striving to find a modus vivendi with the polycephalous Chetnik movement (and indeed they were, no one here is denying this). Tito also made contacts with the enemy, such as the truce during the third offensive, which gave him more time to fight the Chetniks. Does that make him a traitor ? I must say that I am increasingly doubtful over your approach, which seems motivated less by the desire to favor historical truth than by the apparent desire to make a point. Interpreting sources and carefully selecting them (or misquoting them) so they fit one's personal opinion is not the right way to improve the current article which is, I repeat myself, utterly worthless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was eagerly awaiting the arrival of your standard offhand dismissal of essentially "damning" sources, not to mention your ignoring of the crucial segments of both the sources and my post above. It would seem you have no choice but to discuss in this manner.

In addition to seeking and having contacts with the Germans as you admitted (Note: this is collaboration), the sources (as primary quotes from historical documents quoted in secondary scholarly publications) can be used on this project as 100% proof positive that Draža Mihailović has indeed, among other things:

• "allowed" his commanders to collaborate with the Axis (Note: this is collaboration). (Or even "ordered" them to do so, according to a source considered by Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs to be "trustworthy" during battle in the Second World War. It seems this source isn't "trustworthy" enough for Wikipedia User:Jean-Jacques Georges. :) This point is moot however.)
• authorized a series of cease-fire agreements after meetings with the German envoy Dr. Neubacher (in late 1943) (Note: this is collaboration),
• had a meeting with collaborationist General Milan Nedić (Note: this is collaboration) during which he authorized General Nedić to offer the Germans the inclusion of his Chetnik units in the "unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom" (Note: this is collaboration). The Germans accepted,
• disobeyed orders from the King and government to submit his forces to the command of the newly appointed commander-in-chief of all Allied Yugoslav forces Marshal Josip Broz Tito, and instead approached the Germans (Note: this is collaboration),

...etc, read the quotes for more info. The man has, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, engaged in "collaboration" with the Axis forces. He is hence, a "collaborator" and "traitor". As emotional and "negative" as this sounds, it is a fact, and I am merely stating it plainly (and without word games). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traitor to whom ? As for his meeting with Nedic, ahem... could I mention that by late 1944, Nedic was himself considering switching to Allied side ? In may 1945, Nedic actually wrote to Eisenhower, pleading that he had always been on Allied side, and that he had been a secret ally of Mihailovic. Nedic's attempt, of course, was pathetic, and did not take into account the fact that the Allies had dumped Mihailovic, but would he have said that if Mihailovic had been an all-out collaborator ? Would the British also have proposed to evacuate Mihailovic ?

I am not dismissive of sources, I am just dismissive of your treatment of them, which seems far too biased to me. May I also add that you are being needlessly agressive ? Regardless of what you seem to think, sarcasm is generally not funny. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Traitor to whom?" :) To the Allied state of Yugoslavia, represented by King Peter II and the royal government in London and later by the joint coalition government headed by PM Josip Broz Tito. The same state in who's military he was serving at the time. The same state which was at war with the Axis Powers at the time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. Mihailovic was initially considered by the Allies to be representing them in Yugoslavia. The fact that King Peter II was gradually forced to accept Tito's de facto dominance over Yugoslavia does not detract from the fact that in 1941 (and even most of 1942) Tito was a complete unknown and that the Allies initially had no idea who he was. Actually Mihailovic's side considered that Tito was a traitor to the King. That Tito ultimately proved the most efficient commander cannot be doubted. But laying down the situation in such simplistic terms as you do seems to come from a comic-booky vision of history. Sorry, but in any exam, you'd get at least a "D" for writing this. Now I'd like to end this conversation. If anyone else wants to comment, I'd be more than willing to have a meaningful exchange on this matter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense? LoL... Draža Mihailović was subordinate to the Yugoslav government (1941-1943), which alone represented Yugoslavia 1941-1943. After the recognition of the Partisans in late 1943 there were essentially two Yugoslav government which agreed to merge and did so in 1944. Draža Mihailović's actions were treasonous towards both.

Furthermore, what the Allies thought about Draža Mihailović is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing actual events in Yugoslavia, not their perception 60 years ago. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's keep the discussion civil. Direktor, I'm glad to see that you are still following the discussion, and I hope you will participate in the discussions as we work on the wording of the article. JJG, I do not think the issue is whether we should or should not consider Mihailovic "above everything, an Axis collaborator". The question is how do we merge information from various sources. For what it's worth, if we had to say (and we don't) what Mihailovic was, I'd suggest he was anti-Partisan first and foremost, and secondly, pro-Serbian to the point of supporting/condoning ethnic cleansing, and that both his resistance and collaborative activities were subordinate to his desire to maintain Serbian hegemony. Traitor to whom is, I think, a valid question, since it appears to me his loyalties were solely to Serbs and the King, and the latter eventually withdrew support. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say : we do not have to decide between ourselves if Mihailovic was, above all, this or that, but to lay down what he did, when he did it and - as far as that is known - why he did it. The problem is that Direktor's sole concern is apparently to make a point, not to build a credible article.

The current version is not only propaganda : it's bad and ineffectual propaganda, and has to be taken down.

Indeed, to make a long story shorter, Mihailovic was one of those for whom "Yugoslavia" actually meant "Serbia", or a least "Serbia and other subordinate states". But considering him as a traitor to the King is absurd. Anyway, the Allies initially played him up as one of them (grossly inflating his actual deeds) and even after he fell from favor, never openly condemned him as a traitor (at least, as far as the western allies were concerned) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person was certainly not "above everything, an Axis collaborator". I want to be clear that I do not claim anything of the sort. He was, first and foremost, a royalist Serbian general and leader of the Serbian nationalist faction during the WWII Yugoslav front. He is, however without a shadow of a doubt, a collaborator as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do claim such a thing, for you keep supporting a version of the article starting with "an Axis collaborator..." (this claim being supposedly supported by a myriad of sources... only most of them are being grossly misquoted). And, without a shadow of a doubt, he also founded a resistance movement which was, for a time, considered a very valuable asset by the Allies. Hence, the current version is biased and inadequate. The new version should present all aspects of the character, whithout looking like a shrine (which it used to be, I think) or like a clumsy smear campaign (which it is now) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not, and I furthermore do not think you should go around defining people's positions for them. I am completely flexible on the issue of the lead (which you would know had you read the discussion on the talkpage), I merely do not support the removal of the statement that this person was a collaborator as that is textbook Balkans nationalist whitewashing. I did not support your edits because they were 1) completely undiscussed and without consensus, and 2) because the discussion is on here and we do not need another edit-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I furthermore think that you should not start openly doubting the honesty of other users, like you did for me, if you do not want them to doubt yours. Agressivity is not the best way to build good cooperative behaviour. "I merely do not support the removal of the statement that this person was a collaborator " : hence you support an intro which would include a controversial - and simplistic - opinion. By the way, had you read the draft on which I am currently working (and Indeed I should be doing that instead of discussing here) you would have seen that the collaboration issue is mentioned in the intro. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt your honestly in the slightest, you are merely an apt debater very well versed in word games. Calling a plain and simple fact "simplistic" is another word game. This man was a collaborator, plain and simple - the lead should state that, plain and simple. ALL variations on the theme are acceptable as far as I'm concerned (e.g. "he collaborated in this way, that way", etc.). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's keep to the topic at hand. Also, I see some consensus in these last paragraphs, can we work on refining that? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had another crack at the lead above, could everyone take a look and see if it's closer to something we can all accept? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmh.... Yes and no. Being a lazy bastard, I'm afraid that before we do anything, I'll have to go against my nature and get back to work on the draft and, if possible, finish it tomorrow (or thursday, at worst). This way, we'll be able to work on a "complete Mihailovic story" (that is, with a beginning, a middle and an end). I might give a hand myself to rephrase the lead. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both these initiatives seem to be a good way to move forward. Nuujinn, you would like comments on your re-draft of the lead. I will take a look. Then we can put it into a new section and ask other participants to comment. JJG, I applaud your initiative in carrying out a re-draft. I think we should get participants to comment on that once you are done. Sunray (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR has said that since Mihailovic was engaged in "collaboration" with the Axis forces he must therefore be, a "collaborator" and "traitor".

I would like some discussion of this. We will decide on the wording by consensus. Let me pose the problem with an example: Let's say that a subject of a WP article stole some goods at one time; this might have been done out of necessity (like the character Jean Val Jean in Les Miserables. The individual, like Jean Val Jean, may have done many other things in life that were more notable. Is that person properly labelled "a thief"?

Words like "collaborator" and "traitor" are in the eye of the beholder. They are also loaded. How would a Serbian anti-communist nationalist, have seen Mihailovic? Not likely as a traitor. The complication of this article is that there was a internal struggle going on at the same time as the World War. So it seems that there are no blacks and whites—only shades of grey. We need to reflect the sources accurately. From what I have seen the majority of sources do not make simplistic assertions such as "M was a collaborator," or "M was a traitor." On the other hand, most sources seem to agree that there was collaboration and participants generally seem to accept that. Have I reflected the problem accurately? Would participants please give their views on this? Sunray (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) e[reply]

Sunray, whether or not the word "collaborator" is used is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. I do not suggest that we use such POV labels in the article, I was merely illustrating his status in the most blunt manner to make a point (after all in the strictest sense a person who commits treason is a "traitor", and a person who steals is a "thief", circumstances be damned). In the end, I believe we're here to discuss facts, not quibble over the most PC wording. This person was a soldier in the Yugoslav army. The question is: did this person "collaborate" with the enemy military or not? I believe the many sources brought forth have established this conclusively as far as fraternization is concerned.

In other words, essentially stating that "Draža Mihailović collaborated with out of necessity" is perfectly fine by me, as long as we do indeed mention that he collaborated. I am aware that he was more-or-less "forced" to do so strategically (I say "more-or-less" since nobody really put a gun to his head, and the Partisans managed rather fine without Axis aid). However, excluding the term "collaboration" is I think a step too far towards sacrificing factuality to "feel-good" wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clarity on this. I am in agreement with your statement about not using POV labels in the article. I don't think we are trying to find a "PC wording," though. In a civil war, one side will often declare members of the other side as "traitors." Thus one side's "hero" can be the other side's "traitor." Words like hero and traitor rarely belong in an encyclopedia, IMO. The convention is: Describe what the the individual did. Let the reader decide.

That being said, I am confident that we can find the best wording. And Wikipedia will be well-served if we do. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One quote that struck me from Cohen work, from Major Peta Martinovic-Bajica, officer of the Serbian State Guard and intelligence office for Mihailovic: "Milan Nedic collaborated with the occupier, the Serbian State Guard collaborated; the Serbian Volunteer Corps collaborated; the Chetniks--with a few exceptions--collaborated; I, myself, collaborated, too--[however,]not one of us did it for the sake of himself but for the sake of the Serbian people." I do not think the simple statement "Mihailović was a collaborator" is appropriate anywhere in the article, and I agree it is a loaded term, so we should be very careful with how we phrase things. As for traitor, I do not think the sources support use of that term. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] @Sunray. Ok this has to be clarified. This is not about two sides in a civil war calling each-other "traitors" (i.e. "Those people are traitors because they're opposed to us, the rightful side"). This is about collaboration with the Axis occupation (i.e. "Those people are traitors because they collaborated with the military occupying our country"). Both sides of the "civil war" (though that term is disputed) were at war with the Axis, only one faction's commander collaborated with the enemy. The term "collaborator(s)" is just not mutually applicable.

Lets move forward. I think we've by now agreed that the label "collaborator" is not NPOV? I'm willing to grant that this may paint a slightly too "negative" picture. However, labels aside, the general statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia" is simply correct and very much accurate, and I think this is where we should draw the line. (The sentence in the lead need not of course necessarily be the one above, but the essential statement of fact should remain.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is noteworthy that about "who is collaborating against who". The Partizans have stated that their main enemy is the Chetniks, in 1943. They were in negotiations with germans. And they stated this. Therefore I certainly see nothing wrong in any way with the chetnik actions - I think that does not automatically reduce them to being Axis.

Quoting German commanders might not be a good idea. In 1944 or 1945 a german commander said that the croats had killed 1.5 million serbs er so, some insanely huge figure. Germans commanders hence are not always the most reliable source, considering the the furherer would probably have their head if he news that he did not like.

The chetniks have had tied with the english and americans well into 1944. Therefore I hope we could at least agree that they were not on the side of the nazi's until after the Treaty of Vis - since which their legitimacy to exist was no more. Does that automatically make them Nazi's though? I would say that it's enough to say that they were with the Nazi's - reluctantly, but they were so, out of necessity to survive - and they were against the partizans whom they did not see to be allied.

This is the problem that we have with Direktor- that he feels that the Chetniks were Axis since day one. He goes off saying "they did not send any big forces to attack germans" while I fail to see how that matters whatsoever. (LAz17 (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

LAz, your views are somewhat "archaic" as far as this issue is concerned. Virtually ALL that you stated has been conclusively refuted by now.

• First and foremost: this is about Draža Mihailović himself, not the Chetniks. That large elements of the Chetnik movement were collaborating by late 1941 and early 1942 (while the remainder remained inactive) has been effectively established beyond the point of contention. This is not a debatable issue, certainly not here.

"In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans."
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

• Please understand: the perception of Chetnik activities 60 years ago is completely and utterly irrelevant to this issue. It is their actual actions we are concerned with, not what people may or may not have thought about them in 1944 or something. This is crucial, you must understand this or we can't really discuss.
• Its not up to you or any of us to determine the validity of primary sources, its up to scholars. These primary sources were published in scholarly secondary sources and therefore cannot be dismissed on the grounds of your opinion. In addition, these are not crazy post-war statements, but official OKW reports.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that they collaborated, nor have I every denied that. However, you refuse to acknowledge that they were a resistance army, and label them as collaborators since day one pretty much. I feel that you are biased against the Chetniks - I don't like any of the groups there during that time, but I honestly feel that you are pushing to equate them with the occupiers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

It would be much better if we could focus entirely on the content, and leave aside personal views of other editors. Also, please understand that it is not necessary that we agree completely, a teacher of mine described consensus as the moment when everyone is equally dissatisfied. I hope we can do better than that, but it's a illustrative view.

LAz17, I think you raise an interesting point in that the British did criticize Mihailović and the Chetniks for not engaging Axis forces, and in turn, the British have been criticized for holding them to a different standard than other European resistance forces. Roberts treats this on pp. 72-73, noting that the Yugoslavian government in exile promoted the notion that 'the Cetniks had risen against the occupier'. By their nature, resistance forces generally do not engage in direct conflict, and I think the issue in this case is further muddied by the confusion as to whether a given act of resistance or conflict was committed by the Chetniks or the Partisans--some of the sources assert that the Yugoslavian government in exile claimed Partisan actions to be those of the Chetniks, and other sources assert that the Soviets claimed Chetniks action to be those of the Partisans. But I think the sources do support the notion that opportunistic collaboration began in the fall of 1941. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I "miswrote" when I said "views", I was in fact addressing LAz's "stance" in this discussion. Some of these facts had to have been cleared-up if productive discussion was to ensue, I think. Though I appreciate your keeping everything in focus, Nuujin. :) As for the British and their opinions about Draža Mihailović, I don't see how this is relevant. "He did not collaborate because sixty years ago the British thought he did not collaborate"?

To keep the discussion on track, I'll copy-paste part of my earlier statement: I think we've by now agreed that the label "collaborator" is not NPOV? I'm willing to grant that this may paint a slightly too "negative" picture. However, labels aside, the general statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia" is simply correct and very much accurate, and I think this is where we should draw the line. (The sentence in the lead need not of course necessarily be the one above, but the essential statement of fact should remain.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, participants are not in agreement that we should use the word "collaborator." In reviewing the discussion in light of policy on the matter, how can you say that use of the term meets WP:NPOV? Sunray (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we state that Mihailovic "collaborated" with the Axis, it will confuse many readers of the Wikipedia. The word "collaboration" has 2 meanings:

1. work jointly on an activity or project

2. cooperate traitorously with an enemy

Many readers may well conclude that in this context the word "collaboration" has the second meaning as shown above (number 2). I think we should state that Mihailovic approved "controversial arrangements" with the Axis. BoDu (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... BoDu, if you were to write "this person collaborated with the occupation forces" only a total imbecile would conclude they "worked jointly on an activity or project" :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several participants do agree that the wording should talk about the collaboration in the proper context. Sunray (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, as do I. The above post has me a little confused, what is the purpose of the dictionary quote? The meaning we are referring to in this discussion is obviously the second one, which refers especially to this type of situation.

On to the context. The question is what is the "proper" context? Claims that Draža Mihailović was "forced to collaborate" by his strategic situation need to be sourced in some way before they can be seriously considered, don't you think Sunray? Otherwise they're plain speculation and personal user estimates of the (highly complex, varying, obscure) strategic situation. Collaboration brings significant, tangible benefits. It is just as plausible that Mihailović intended to do so, after all, we have his envoys approaching the Germans in 1941 not vice versa. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything must be sourced. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, according to the Oxford Dictionary the second meaning of the word "collaboration" is: "cooperate traitorously with an enemy". If Mihailovic's collaboration with the Axis was not a treason, than we are talking here about the first meaning: "work jointly on an activity". BoDu (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodu, I do not believe we are bound by a single dictionary's definition, see others, such as here, here, here and here. Collaboration has a very wide range of meanings, and I think at this point there is no question that Mihailovic collaborated, but rather how do we present that aspect balanced against others, such as his creation of a resistance force. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoDu, these actions do constitute high treason under any legal system. Collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a way to commit treason, i.e. collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a form of treason.

In other words, Draža Mihailović did most certainly "cooperate traitorously with an enemy". Thank you for proving that treason is naturally implied when stating that someone collaborated with the enemy during wartime. I can agree that the term itself is not NPOV enough for encyclopedic use, but certainly not that it isn't factual and correct. Why in the world are you bringing up dictionaries? Everybody knows what "collaboration" means in this context, i.e. everybody knows its not "publishing a paper together" or something. "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Germans in publishing an article in Nature"? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, we are not bound by a single dictionary's definition. My point is(I am repeating myself) if we state that Mihailovic "collaborated" with the Axis it will confuse the readers. Are you against my proposal that we state "Mihailovic approved controversial arrangements with the Axis"? In case you do not agree, can you tell me why not? DIREKTOR, can you say how many scholars claim that Mihailovic's actions constitute high treason? And you have not explained how I proved that treason is naturally implied when stating that someone collaborated with the enemy during wartime when I quoted the Oxford Dictionary?BoDu (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoDu, I would prefer to think if we phrase things correctly we will be illuminating readers, but we are obligated to follow sources in any case. I honestly think you would do better to leave aside dictionaries and encyclopedias and find some reliable secondary sources to bolster your claims, since the latter have precedence over the former by policy. I would also point out that your logic is backwards--since we have sources that say he collaborated, if we accepted you view that collaboration means "cooperate traitorously", then we'd be obligated to use the word traitor as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, statements "Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis" and "Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis" do not contradict. If Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis, then he logically collaborated with the Axis. Regarding the meaning of collaboration, "cooperate traitorously" is not the only meaning of this word according to the Oxford Dictionary, so we'd not be obligated to use the word traitor as well. BoDu (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the statements you listed do not contradict one another, and sources do say that Mihailovic did, in fact, approve cooperation with Axis forces. You are, I think, incorrect in your assertion that because the Oxford dictionary uses the phrase "cooperate traitorously" we must use the word "traitor" in characterizing Mihailovic. Indeed, unless reliable sources use that word, for us to do so would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not understand what I am saying. I am strongly opposed that we use the word "traitor" in characterizing Mihailovic. I am saying that we do not have to use word "collaboration" to describe Mihailovic's actions (approval of arrangements with the Axis). The statement "Mihailovic approved some arrangements with the Axis" is enough. BoDu (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to follow what the sources say, and most of the source say that he collaborated to one degree or another, so I say we say "collaborated", although we have a responsibility to phrase that appropriately. I agree that we should not use the word traitor, as it is not sourced. But if, as you say "...Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis, then he logically collaborated with the Axis", and we know from sources that he approved arrangements with the Axis, why do you object to using the word collaboration? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to using the word collaboration, because this word is sometimes used to describe traitorous acts during the Nazi occupation. If use this word it will confuse many readers. On other hand, I do not object to state that some historians claim Mihailovic cooperated traitorously if such scholars exist. BoDu (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the word "traitor" is much more problematic than "collaboration." When you use it, it begs the question: "Traitor to whom?" As far as I know he was loyal to the King and the exiled Yugoslavian government. When his enemy Tito came to power, he was executed. I would be suspicious of sources that refer to him as a "traitor." Sunray (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, its a lot more complex - you're getting the wrong impression entirely. He was, in fact, a traitor to the King as well. (This is all sourced, if necessary I can back it up.)

• Throughout 1943 increasing reports of Chetnik idleness and even collaboration with the Italians were received by Churchill, the main backer of the King and his government in London. At the same time, the Partisans had just successfully evaded two massive attacks, each by Axis forces numbering around 120,000 men, and had managed to actually gain influence and territory in occupied Yugoslavia. This was also noted by Churchill.
• In November 1943 at the Tehran Conference, Tito's government (AVNOJ) received Churchill's backing and official recognition by the Allies. The royal government in London reluctantly consented to this (under pressure from all sides), and agreed to form a coalition government with Tito's People's Liberation Front in the near future.
• In early 1944, the Treaty of Vis was signed formalizing the coalition government, with Tito as the official prime minister of Yugoslavia and the commander-in-chief of its military. Both sides agreed that the new name of the state is "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", and the question of "republic vs. kingdom" was deliberately left open - to be decided in the post-war elections. (The King was not deposed at that time, but in November 1945.)
• Following these developments, Draža Mihailović was ordered by the King and the royal government-in-exile in London to submit his forces to Tito's command. He did not do so, but instead approached the Germans.

In short, Tito was the universally recognized Allied prime minister & commander-in-chief of Yugoslavia as early as 1944 - with the (albeit unwilling) support of the King and government. At this time, Draža Mihailović was a "traitor" to all Yugoslav authorities, and was, as such, permanently abandoned by the Allied powers. Its a lot more one-sided than you think, Sunray. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is months shortly before the war ended (1941-1945). FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need to clear this up first: having collaborated since 1941 he was, in fact, a "traitor" from then on - his actions were simply unknown. It is only in 1943/44 that they became widely known and had cost him dearly. My above post simply refers to the fact that the King and Tito had come to an understanding later on, with Mihailović refusing to accept that - thus finally even coming into conflict with Peter II, as well as Tito. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "traitorous" acts have been documented by reliable sources after Tito came to be the universally recognized prime minister in 1944? Sunray (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise Sunray for interfering, but I hope that you allow me to also ask direktor what sources claim they collaborated as early as 1941? FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunray. Oh that's easy. As of 1944, the military of Yugoslavia were "the Partisans", i.e. the NOVJ (again, they were universally recognized by the Allies as such, even by the King in London). (This is why Draža Mihailović was instructed to join them.) Any military action against them was effectively "traitorous", and especially so if in coordination with the enemy. Draža Mihailović and the Chetniks most certainly continued to fight against them, as is easily verifiable (most notably in the Raid on Drvar). These were the last stages of the Yugoslav Front theater, and Chetnik movement was increasingly "forced" (by their refusal to join the Partisans) to collaborate with the Germans. They had no source of supplies and munitions other than the Axis, and were increasingly dependent on them. The Red Army was also fast approaching, pushing them further towards the Axis.

Thank you for your detailed response. As I read it, it strikes me just how incredible a story it is. The more we can work together to tell this story, the better it will be for WP readers. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 10 Ju ne 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Yugoslav Front is a very complex, but also very dramatic and interesting theatre of WWII (albeit relatively small in scale). Despite Jean's objections to "comic-bookyness" it was rather one-sided in terms of "good guys"/"bad guys". In addition to all this, the Serbian Chetniks had proclaimed an ethnic cleansing campaign and carried out as much of it as they could - much like the Croatian Ustaše state. The Partisans were the only faction to promote pan-Yugoslav tolerance. Though a communist-run movement, they represented a a large coalition of republican, federalist parties and prominent individuals from every Yugoslav nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may look one-sided to some, but from what I have read thus far, I don't see it that way. Mihailović, like many resistance fighters, played a dangerous (and deceptive) game. Clearly, though his arch enemy was the communist Tito. In hindsight, we might say that he underestimated Tito, but realistically, he probably couldn't have known that Tito would win. And so he wound up on the wrong side of history. Black and white? Only to those who share that perspective. As to ethnic cleansing. I note the use of the term "ethnically clean" (or rather, the translation of the term from Serbian). I doubt very much that the term he used had the connotations of the term as it is now. And that is the difficulty with history, I think. Just as (you argue) Tomasevich's skill was his ability to reflect events in the context of the time, so must that be our task. Sunray (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but in the course of his game Mihailović benefited significantly from bargaining with the Axis. Something Tito had not done. In the end this not only lost him much of the support of the populace who suffered terribly under fascist occupation, but also the recognition of the Allied powers. Crucially, he was hoping that the British would be in Yugoslavia and defeat Tito for him, and that his force should remain intact until such time as they can be used - and if they can help the Germans knock-out Tito before that time, all the better. This is a good strategy, but it assumes to much - for example it underestimates the MI6 and the Ultra intercepts. The British caught on and consequently left him to his own devices long before anyone could even speculate whether they or the Red Army were to arrive in Yugoslavia first.

Churchill, a stauch royalist and traditionalist, paradoxically backed the left-wing Tito movement. Why? is an interesting question. Churchill considered Tito not to be a pawn of Stalin's or an easily controllable man. It turns out this move was very clever and could not've been better for the western Allies. Had Churchill backed Mihailović throughout, its still unlikely the Partisans would've been wiped out (the worst attacks were over by 1944). Either way, the Red Army would've been in Yugoslavia first and would've installed whom they pleased - leaving the British with no influence in Yugoslavia. As it actually turned out, a British-friendly Tito broke completely with Stalin after a couple of years (in 1948, the Tito-Stalin split) with Tito's Yugoslavia becoming a neutral country well outside (and actually threatened by) the Warsaw Pact - the Soviet Bloc was left with no exit in the Meiterranean Sea. My home city, Split (the former HQ of the Yugoslav navy), would've no doubt been used as a large Mediterranean Soviet military port. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some points I would like to adreess and clarify. The veracity of the "Instrukcije" is disputed (I´ll try to provide further on this). Even in the document, the ethnic cleansing is not tha clear, specially having in mind that the consideration of what were Serbs was much wider back then (Macedonians or Bosniaks, Bosnian Muslims, were considered Muslim Serbs, by the Monarchists), and if you read the document, the "cleansing of all national minorities" comes in same point along with the anti-state elements, by that meaning, the national minorities that welcomed the Axis occupiers, that unfortunatelly were many (Bulgarians, Hungarians, Italians, Albanians, Turks...) having as target, the "collaborationist minorities", far from "all" as wanted to be given understand. For exemple, the Jewish part of family was never in danger from the Monarchists neither the Chetniks, right the oposite, they were even protected! FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Instrukcije are a document produced by one of Mihailović's commanders, and are very damning in terms of ethnic cleansing. The defense claimed it was forged, but then the defense claimed many things we now know are false. Whether the commander who produced them at Mihailović's trial was "lying" or not is a matter of meaningless speculation.

Monarchists are not at all necessarily opposed to Jews and do not advocate their extermination. The Chetniks were not Nazis. The "national minorities" referred to in the document were Albanians, Muslims ("Turks"), Hungarians, Germans, and Croats. "Ethnic cleansing" refers to "cleaning" out regions populated by non-Serbian populations. Its debateable whether the term can apply to the Jews at all, which were a rather small minority and did not claim any areas of the country as their own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But even here, we can see how the "collaborationist" apologists enter in contradictions relatively to Chetniks. It is a fact that those mentioned minorities did welcomed the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. The Croatians made their puppet state, many Bosniaks fought along the Germans or Croatians (the terrible Handzar SS units), the Hungarians welcomed the Hungarian invasion of Bačka, Baranja and Prekmurje, Italians and Albanians welcomed Italian Mussolini troops that invaded almost 1/3 of the country, Germans and Austrians mostly welcomed the invasion, Bulgarians supported the invasion and anexation of Vardar Macedonia, etc. All those "targeted" minorities had within them strong collaborationist movements and, as said, "anti-state elements". By that, you can see that M-Chetniks kept anti-collaborationist policies, by fighting collaborationist state elements/national minorities. When Partisans fought the same minorities, you´ll certainly defend, direktor, that they fought the enemy. See my point Sunray? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) all assertions should be sourced. If you make a claim and don't provide a source, you're really just talkin' 2) We have some questions for resolution below, my thought is there's not much point in bringing up new issues until we resolve the ones we have. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fkp. Yes, and the Serbs had their own puppet Serbia so they must've "welcomed the Germans" too... You will find collaborators in every country and among every nationality [2][3][4]. The Croats and Muslims were particularly opposed to the occupation with hundreds of thousands joining the Partisans. The Ustaše were a tiny party with no political support, their Home Guard was a joke, and the Handschar was just a unit, no larger than the Serbian Volunteer Corps. Such generalizations are very strange... what puppet states or military units the occupying powers choose to establish do not reflect the position of the nationalities they target with such acts.

(Thugh admittedly sources do describe the Yugoslav Germans as "highly organized" and almost exclusively controlled by the Nazis, this is certainly not true with Albanians and Italians.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, yes, here we are just talking. I already contributed "below", thanx for reminding.

Direkor (and Sunray), the difference is that in Serbia most (not to say all) population was terribly frightened with the German invasion because WWI was still very fresh in their memories, and I think is well known how Serbs regarded Austro-Hungary as "Germans", so for many it was like a continuation of same (Germany helped A-H in WWI). That is why Serbs had less disposition for collaboration in first place. It´s unrealistic to compare Serbs with Yugoslav minorities of Hungarians, Germans, Albanians, Italians and Bulgarians, that saw in the invasion a chance of "liberation", just as Croatians (most were, by then, oposing to the idea of Yugoslavia, anyway) saw an oportunity for their aspirations, as well. I´m not saying that ones are right, or others wrong, just that the situation was different for each ones, and that was influential in the resulting alliencies during the war. FkpCascais (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

@Fkp.

In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans. [etc...]
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

OK, now, do you have any other that is not Tomasevic? FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 9June 2010 (UTC)

I refuse on principle to lift a finger. Do you have any relevant reason why I need someone other than Tomasevich? (By "relevant" I mean anything other than personal opinions.)

Sunray notice: the above source by Tomasevich is beyond question. Few authors have covered this specific issue in such meticulous detail. The author does NOT state his own opinions, but merely describes events based on concrete primary sources. As an example of the Nedić-Mihailović collaboration he explains in great detail the system of transferring Mihailović's detachments to Nedić and back, in order for them to be suplied by the Axis and used by them against the Partisans. Every word is sourced with in-line citations, mostly from US archives. This publication is Stanford peer-review and critically acclaimed.

Do you consider this source unreliable in any way? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this at length. No one has brought forward credible peer-reviewed evidence to dislodge Tomasevich as a reliable source. Fkp raises an interesting point though: We should not rely on only one source. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. This issue keeps getting reopened for some reason, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, lets avoid precipitated conclusions, it was a simple yes or no question. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rushing things"?? :) We've been talking about this for almost two months [5]. Sunray, despite that being obvious I'll still make a point of stating that I was certainly not trying to force you into a "yes or no question". I'm merely asking your opinion on the reliability of the source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is to my question that you need to answer with yes, or no. Do you have any other source that claims that collaboration happend as early as 1941? FkpCascais (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one:

• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568.

p. 8 "Moreoever, as already suggested, Draza Mihailovic entered into open collaboration with fascist Italy and cooperated with the Germans on certain occaisions as well. Mihailovic was quite open about the fact that he regarded the anti-Axis Partisans, rather than the Axis occupation forces, as his principal foe."

p. 133 Sept 1941, M. enters secret negotiations with Nedic's gov. On or about 15 oct, Col Popovic on behalf of Nedic brought Mihailovic 500K dinar in addition to a similar sum paid 4 oct. On 26 Oct, Popovic delivered another 2.5M dianr. "Acting in the name of the Nedic government, Acimovic served as the key liaison between teh Germans and Mihailovic. By mid-November 1941, M had placed 2,000 of his men under the direct command of General Nedic, and a few days later these Chetniks joined the Germans in a military operation against the Partisans."

And another:

• Cohen, Philip J. (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 0890967601, 9780890967607.

p, 41 "In fact, Mihailovic's efforts to establish cooperation with the Germans had so favorably impressed Capt. Josef Matl of Abwehr (German Military Intelligence) that, in October of 1941, Matl reported that the Chetnik detachment of the Yugoslav army under the command of Col. Draza Mihailovic had placed themselves at the disposal of the German Wehrmacht."

p. 42 "Prior to the November meeting, Mihailovic also had attempted to forge cooperative relationships with committed Axis collaborators. As early as May, 1941, a little more than one month after the German's had invaded Yugoslavia, Mihailovic sent his second lieutenant, Vladimir Lenac, to Belgrade to meet with Ljotic. Lenac, who had headed the Zbor youth movement at Zagreb University, informed Ljotic of Mihailovic's interest in collaboration...."

p. 43 "Nevertheless, even as Mihailovic offered to cooperate with Tito against the Germans, he promised to join the Nazis in fighting the Partisans. It appears that Mihailovic kept his word only to the Nazis. During November, 1941, Partisan-held territory near the Serbian town of Pozarevac was attacked jointly by one German battalion, the Hungarian Danube Flottila, and four Serbian formations; Ljotic's 6th Volunteer Detachment, two of Nedic's detachmets, six Chetnik detachments led by Pecanac, and Mihailovic's Chetniks"

--Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nuujinn. I´ll study the sources you provided. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were listed in the article for nine months, complete with Google Books links. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an easy question then. Please don´t forget Sunray´s question that I unfortunatelly interropted. FkpCascais (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger.

— General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb (Source: Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421)

According to a trustworthy source, Mihailović has ordered his commanders to co-operate with Germans. He himself can not step forward in such a fashion because of the impact such move could have on the disposition of the populace.

— Report to the OKW (German High Command) of 23 November 1943 (translated), Frhr. Maximilian von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall; Commander, Army Group F (Balkans) (Source: Janusz Piekalkiewicz, Krieg auf dem Balkan 1940-1945; München - Gütersloh o. J.)

Though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them. And they did so, more and more...

— Frhr. Maximilian von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall; Commander, Army Group F (Balkans) (Source: Werner Roehr (zusammengestellt), Europa unterm Hakenkreuz-Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945), 1994, p.358)

As in fall of 1943 Tito´s movement grew stronger, supported by Russian and English help and as Mihailović movement was being pushed into Serbia (and additionally weakened by non-existence of Italian support), Mihailović realized that the time has come to re-examine his attitude to the Germans. As the German leadership in the same time was striving to unite and activate all of the anti-communist forces in the South-east (for which a Sp. envoy for South-east, Dr. Neubacher, has been appointed in October 1943),the contacts were made and in the next two months a series of cease-fire agreements was made between German military posts and Mihailović's commanders. He refrained from personal involvement, mostly because he didn't want to lose the Anglo-American arms shipments, which he still received, no matter how smaller than before. Anyway the actions by Mihailović's organization against the Germans stopped. This lead to a marked improvement of situation.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, p.632-732

On August 17th (OB message of August 20th) Nedić [Prime Minister of the Serbian collaborationist state, "Nedić's Serbia"] offered [the Germans] the unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom. He emphasized that he was officially speaking for Mihailović too, after the meeting they had. He asked for a immediate shipment of 3 million small-arms rounds and a approval for creating of a 50,000 strong Serbian army made mostly of Mihailovic's units. OB South-east,after consulting with Mil. Bef. Suedsot, quickly reached a conclusion that a turning down this offer meant antagonising all of the Serbs,new Tito's succeses, cuting all the comunications (especially to Greece) and to the stopping of economical exploitation.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b, 7/I, p.706

Serbia: Mihailović strives for a national-Serbian army. He waits for an outside impulse to take action. Because there is still no such impulse, his movement faces crisis. Opposite to him, communism steadily gains influence; it pushed Mihailović out of Croatia [Note:this is the Independent State of Croatia and includes Bosnia]. Because of this, he seeks contact with German posts. We are striving to dissuade him from actions against Germans; still, precaution has to be taken against blackmailing methods. Apart from that communist action aimed at the dissolution of his forces has far advanced.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW b.6/II, p.1252-1253

...Possibly under impression made by these German counter-measures, Mihailović - this time personally - tries to make contact with German posts at the end of March/begging of April. According to the information the Sp.envoy had, Mihailović was faced with an ultimatum by the [Royal Yugoslav] government-in-exile and the Soviets, in which his subordination to Tito was demanded.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b.7/I, p.640-641

From the German point of view it is desirable that Tito switches [to] the coast as his main objective. So far he has pushed back the Serbian Chetniks. The question is if these, under the circumstances, can be won over for our side. Sp. envoy Neubacher is authorized for the negotiations.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW b.6/II, p.1261

During the defense against the incursion of the [Soviet] Red divisions in March, April, and May, Serbian units proved themselves well, notably the Serbisches Freiwilligen Korps but also more-or-less illegal groups of Chetniks, allegedly under the personal command of Mihailović.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.706

In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

I´m sorry, but are these the sources that I was asking for? Because all they speak is just meatings, altearnatives, possibilities... It even sources the open strugle between Mihailovic Chetniks and the Germans, specially when speaks about "cease-fires"... Cease-fires mean what? That there was fighting going on between them. Fighting, not collaboration. Of course, we end with Tomasevic... FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal comments removed) this is ALL collaboration and fraternization with the enemy. ALL of it. Discussion is above, please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal comments removed) Would you like me to analise the sources one by one? FkpCascais (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, could you please do something to avoid comments like this: [6]? Can you? Me asking to other user to avoid such statements are treated by you as same as direktors trolling and attacks to other users. But you strategically decide to act allways when I respond... FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that comment and considered it inbounds (acceptable), though barely. I have to call things the way I see them. That is my role and I do the best I can. Your task is to avoid commenting on other participants. You seem to be having difficulty with that. How many times must I repeat this: PLEASE STICK TO CONTENT. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah hold on, I did NOT mean to imply anything about BoDu with that, and it was a comment on "content". I think that's pretty much obvious from the sentence. I was making a point (though perhaps too "vividly") that there is no chance of confusion on the meaning of the word collaboration. I am allowed to write the word "imbecile" on this project, am I not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, thanks for answering my question. Yes, I do have difficulty to cope with some sort of provocative attitude, and I ask other users to behave adequatly, as I did, when nobody else (like you) does. It also looks that you have difficulties to act, but when it comes to me, you sudently don´t. I know that only imbecils could think that, right? (See, other users know to indirectly insult using 3rd person, as well. How productive if we all engadge in this!). Wanna answer my question, direktor, the "real" one, about the sources? FkpCascais (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sunray, can we remove D.Mihailovic and its movement from the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. Everyone has it clear that he wasn´t a "notable collaborator". His inclusion there is insulting! FkpCascais (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this section for "Sources"?? Why are we discussing here?

Prehaps the entry should be reworded into "Collaborating persons"? Thus removing any "labels" and removing the word "notable" ((Personal attack removed) the word "notable" in that context distinguishes from "ordinary" people that collaborated, i.e. the rank & file.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now just wait a second, that was NOT a "personal attack"! As noted by a number of editors besides myself, Fkp's English skills are realistically less than perfect and have in the past led to similar misunderstandings, as bad faith is generally assumed. "Notable" in this context most accurately means "not an ordinary soldier or ordinary person, but someone in charge", but I imagine Fkp might've construed it as "especially collaborationist person". How did I "attack" him by trying to clear up another (possible) language misunderstanding, Sunray?? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will assume good faith and accept your statement that it was not a personal attack. However, it was a personal comment and I have asked you repeatedly to stick to content. By making such personal comments, you do not advance the progress of this mediation and, on the other hand, open the door to a rejoinder from the other party. We do not need observations on other participant's abilities. I had understood you to say you would cease making personal remarks. Would you be willing to do that from now on? Sunray (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how we can avoid linguistic misunderstandings if nobody is allowed to say he/she thinks someone made a mistake in interpreting wording? To my understanding I have been sticking exclusively to content, and I certainly intent to continue doing so. In my response to BoDu I was perhaps a bit too "illustrative" but I did not comment on him in any way, and here I was trying to clear up a possible misunderstanding. Fkp stated he was "offended" by the wording so I thought he may have misconstrued the meaning of the word in that context. I admit it was a "nuance" so I corrected it to a more unambiguous wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"To my understanding I have been sticking exclusively to content". No, you have been selectively using content when it fits your personal vision. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is disappointing to see (Personal attack removed) having to be used here. Mediators are facilitators of compromise, not enforcers of conduct policy. The parties to this case should bear in mind that should this mediation fail because one or more editors could not contribute to the discussions in a productive way, the next stage will doubtless be something unpleasant like arbitration. Please think through your comments before you post them. Good work otherwise, everybody. Regards, AGK 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunray accepted that my comments were not personal attacks - they were not. And if this simple & straightforward issue actually winds up at ARBCOM I will have lost all faith in Wiki process. All this dispute is founded on is refusal to agree to what the sources very clearly state - incredibly, without any sources of one's own. By this definition of a "problem issue", any single dispute can be turned into a Wiki bloodbath lasting six months, simply if someone keeps disagreeing out of his own opinion. The silliest dispute I've ever been in. And most depressingly, in six months another guy will come who's whole world is shaken up by what the sources say and we'll have to go through all this again - since nobody really cares enough to simply say "so this guy is edit-warring and removing sourced information... that's bad... I should probably tell him that's wrong, instead of just assuming this is some complicated ethnic issue that requires the attentions of ARBCOM..." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I seing another comment on me? There, on 2nd line, disguised as "is" instead of "his". Cleaver trick! Should I also mention why have we been loosing 6 months on this? Who was the only one not signing mediation for months? Who was the one completely missinforming about what the sources actually say? Btw, who is being acused of removing sources? I even insisted in analising them further, because I find out that some users manipulated them so much that their meaning was in ocasions closer to the oposite, that what they claimed. And, who is the "guy edit-warring"? The user? Anyway, why are you direktor explaining all this to AGK? He intervened so we continue discussing civily, he is not going to change WP because of you. I agree fully with him, and I want be responding you anymore whatever your next excuse is, but you should really stop missinforming, because that is also uncivil in my opinion.
    • I apologise for my comment, but if this direktors comment is acceptable, so should be my honest response to it. Anyway, what I really support is that neither should be tolerated here, and I´ll refrain from making any of them anymore, but equal treatment should be considered, and what I really expect is that no further comments of this kind should be tolerated. Anyway, I do feel in minus here, because I was insulted, and I was recomended to stick with it. I will forget this but I want tolerate any further behavior of this kind. I don´t take indicency in life, and I had already tolerated too much here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective

@User:Jean-Jacques Georges. Look I've had enough of this "selective" sources nonsense. We need to get that straight. The sources are out there, available on Google Books, and I'm certainly not going to write-up whole chapters by hand here, so I only copy down the more significant quotes directly and obviously relating to collaboration. The idea that this is "selective" is another word game:

Yes, I'm "selecting" the quotations relevant to the issue. Yes, my position in this dispute is based on those sources since I spent months on researching them (or if you like the poetic version, the sources "fit my personal vision" :)). But that does not make it "selectively using content when it fits your personal vision". Nice one.

In short, the statements that are 1) published in peer review secondary sources, 2) that are written by acclaimed experts on the specific subject, 3) that are directly quoted from primary sources - blow everything else out of the water, esp personal "estimates" of scholars if they don't cite strong primary sources in support of them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One year ago, I didn't know much about the subject. Discussion with you arose my interest, and I have been reading quite a bit about World War II in Yugoslavia. Now that I am somewhat informed, and to be absolutely honest, I must admit that I am very unimpressed by your knowledge and treatment of the matter and, so far, have no evidence that you have been doing anything but reading a few pages on google books and looking for the info which you deemed convenient for your personal opinion. I wouldn't have said this if you hadn't been complaining that I was "biased on ideological grounds" (I'd really like to know which ideology).

Whatever your methods and motivations, I find the end result to be lamentable and the way you select and read the sources to be objectionable. The comic-booky version of history which you apparently want to impose is woefully inadequate to the complexity of the subject. As I said before, I myself find Mihailovic a deplorable leader and the Chetniks a reprehensible bunch (at least for a good deal of them). I just find that your vision of the subject is wholly subjective and entirely inadequate. I really have no interest in Balkan sensitivities, and am just interested in achieving more fair articles : hence, I am currently adding more info to the draft (using Tomasevich et. al. whenever possible). This is the only matter that interests me and I'd prefer if we could avoid any more personal attacks for the time being. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is this: I am NOT selectively representing sources. If you think I am, prove me wrong: show me a source that says Mihailović did not collaborate. We can easily see who's the one representing the minority view and choosing to "select those sources that fit his personal vision", while disregarding others. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 2

I've been combing through some of the sources for data relevant to Mihailović and the issue of collaboration. I'll be posting any relevant quotes. Bare in mind that this is but a fraction of the massive detailed accounts that exists of such actions, since I'm pretty much forced to write all this down by hand (and I'm rather busy lately, both on and off Wiki). Most, if not all of this is still available at Google Books, I think, so any one of you guys can review the matter at your discretion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Mihailović's orders, one of their [Herzegovinian Chetniks] political leaders, Milan Šantić, proposed through Sinčić that the Croatian army [the military of the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia] cooperate with the Chetniks in operations against the Partisans in northern Dalmatia. (...)
[Note 53.] See especially Sinčić's report of January 2 1943, in Micr No. T-501, Roll 265, Frs 503-6. The Chetnik offer to cooperate with the Croatian army was apparently a part of Mihailović's plan for a "march on Bosnia", formulated in the closing weeks of 1942 and issued as Directive No.1 on January 2 1943, to become effective at a date to be determined later. (...) Šantić also asserts that Mihailović fully approved of Chetnik collaboration with the Italians. Micr. No. T-501, Roll 265, Frs. 1026-30.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.261 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

The British began to doubt the value of Mihailović and the Chetniks as their allies in Yugoslavia. They began to realize that Mihailović was less a fighter against the Axis powers than a collaborator with them against the Partisans.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.231 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

Tomasevic... FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. Either you finally provide someone other than you who criticized this acclaimed author who specialized exclusively in this subject, or kindly stop with the incessant basless and unfounded attacks. Frankly, its hard to find anyone who reviewed his work and didn't praise him for complete and utter adherence to primary sources. In fact, I've taken the time to list some of them above. Your negative comments on this acclaimed expert actually celebrated for his unbiased approach are completely and utterly baseless, and until you can find someone at all relevant who supports them you should not repeat them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stay behind I say. He is not neutral, and his claims about the Chetniks are not supported by any other historians. Anyway, you say "celebrated for his unbiased approach", can you source that? Celebrated as unbised by who? Mihailovic´s "bbf" Tito? FkpCascais (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what you (or I) say, regardless of whether we "stand behind it" or not. You should stop trying to create an entirely false impression of this author that, by your own admission, is based on ethnic prejudice.

Your comments on this scholar are to be disregarded entirely, as they would be in any serious scientific discussion. His work is acclaimed as the very best on this subject, this is why I quote him. His series of three volumes (two published in full, the third interrupted because of the author's death) on the subject of WWII Yugoslavia is by far the most complete and detailed work I could find. Did you even see one of his books? Its HUGE. Its the man's life work as a Stanford University history professor. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not disregarding him, as person, but regarding Mihailovic and the Chetniks, his work is evidently more tendentious than of other historians. You should preferably use other sources. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... we are not even talking about him "as a person". I don't know him "as a person", do you? And frankly I don't care if he's "dismissed as a person", feel free to do so. We are talking about him as an expert on this subject. As for his "tendentiousness" - again, find someone other than yourself that thinks so.

@"Anyway, you say 'celebrated for his unbiased approach', can you source that? Celebrated as unbised by who? Mihailovic´s 'bbf' Tito?"

Ha. Not quite. You will find the reviews here (You were already informed of this [7], so I assumed a link was unnecessary.) e.g.:

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
Eric Gordy, Clark University

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is not a problem, but regarding his claims about Chetniks and Mihailovic, they are quite unique. Please find other further historians that confirm his claims. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are NOT "claims". These quotes are 100% scientific proof positive. They do not need to be confirmed additionally since they're based on, and supported by, listed primary sources. These sources are most certainly very far from "unique", nor should your unfounded claim that they are "unique" be taken for granted.

I already did post additional authors. Four of them on this page alone. More than enough, I think, to prove my point beyond the stage where continued user disagreement alone can be counted as "counter-sources" (since everyone seems to have been at that interesting stage up to this point). But, if you insist: --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is little doubt that Mihailović knew about these arrangements [the Chetnik arrangements with the Germans], that he regarded them as the lesser of two evils and that he stayed in the background in order openly to maintain his anti-German attitude, while tacitly hoping to gain an advantage in his primary aim of defeating the Partisans.

— Roberts, Walter R., Tito, Mihailović, and the allies, 1941-1945, Duke University Press, 1987, p.120 ISBN 0822307731

Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Fkp.

@Sunray, are we at last in agreement that the general statement "Mihailović collaborated" is factual and correct, or should I continue to scan for source quotes when I find the time? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said thank you for providing sources that are not Tomasevic. Again, is this last your best source to link Mihailovic with collaboration and that is not Tomasevic´s? It does mention some "arrangements"... FkpCascais (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration has been conclusively sourced. I do not believe I can ever satisfy you so I'll only be talking to others on the need for additional sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Conclusively sourced"? You know, "Arrangements" can perfectly mean cease-fire, for exemple... FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrangements" with an enemy military are the very definition of collaboration. And why are we talking about only one of the half-a-dozen sources, and only one of the quotes from them? This is like trying to prove evolution to Kirk Cameron. I honestly get the feeling that if I brought Draža Mihailović in person yelling "Ja sam kolaborator!" ("I'm a collaborator!" :)) at the top of his voice it would not be enough to satisfy. I had long since concluded that no amount of evidence will create a full consensus, but luckily (and logically), that is not required (WP:CONS).

One's baseless unsupported disagreement, no matter how persistent, is not an argument.

I think it may be becoming obvious why I characterized this discussion as incredibly frustrating... Sunray, your opinion on the issue as mediator? Would you say that this is sufficient in light of the complete absence of any opposing source? Or is it necessary to continue to scan for source quotes? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's all remain calm and civil, there aren't any kittens that need rescuing from a burning house here. FkpCascais, one reason I started the subpage with the quotes on it was to collect relevant source material in a single location to ease discussion. If you look here, you'll see that Cohen, Ramet, and Roberts all to one extent or another acknowledge Mihailovic's opportunistic collaboration (which is not to deny that Mihailovic engaged in resistance activities, too, and I fully admit there's a lot of grey out there.). I've asked you numerous times to provide sources showing the Mihailovic did not collaborate and ones showing that he engaged in open conflict, perhaps you might spend some time tracking those down? New sources are always welcome. And if you have issues with Tomasevic as a source, perhaps you should explain exactly what your concerns are--it seems to me that you have problems with him as a source, but I don't recall any explanation of what those concerns are. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall. On Talk:Draža Mihailović User:FkpCascais explained a number of times that he suspects this source because the person is (reportedly) of Croatian American ancestry (reportedly, I'm not even sure, his name could be Serbian or Bosniak or Montenegrin just as easily). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the information, Direktor, but it would probably be best to let FkpCascais speak for himself. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again to bring the main issue a bit closer to closure. Sunray, given the sources presented here and at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic/sources_relating_to_collaboration, would you say that the inclusion of the general statement that this person "collaborated" can be considered sourced? Or would you say that we need additional quotes? While I can agree that the labels "collaborator" and "traitor" may be too POV for the article, I believe that avoiding the statement that he "collaborated" would be POV in itself considering the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have sufficient quotes for now. The statement on collaboration seems fine to me, when properly qualified. JJG has re-drafted the article and covers the issue, see below, "New draft of article." I will be interested in participants' reactions. Sunray (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tomasevic:

• As I repeatedly said on the DM talk page, I had read the book in Serbo-Croatian version that is found in my parents house. I read the book, Chetniks, in the late 1990s, and I remember, even then, about having noteced about the way how he concentrated on the entire book to basically subtily, and sometimes not so, accuse the Chetniks and Mihailovic of everything possible. The perception of this is absolutely clear, and since I had read some other books in that period about the subject, more precisely about the pre-war Yugoslav politics, and the WWII, that became even more obvious. The trouth is that even him, Tomasevic, is carefull in many situations trying not to exagerate so his work doesn´t loose credibility, but his tendency is absolutely clear, specially because he evidently concentrates on the (possible) negative aspects of them, resuming and ignoring completely the positive ones. All of this is understandable if we honestly see that he does perceve the situation, as much as you deny it direktor, in Croatian POV.
• Regarding his nationality, he is not American-Croatian, or whatever direktor said, but he is Croatian from the Croatian Dalmatia, curiously same as direktor. :) Please don´t charge me of racism or something similar towards Croatia, or the Croats. I like Croatia, I have many Croatian friends, I had a beautifull Croatian girlfriend (I still miss her..:), and my family has a house in the Croatian Adriatic coast. I´ve been there many times, in many other places too, and the last time I´ve been there was around 8 years ago (around 2002). But, lets be honest, the perception that Croatians have about Serbs in general, and specially its history, is completely influenced by centuries of propagandas and missinformation, so is completely biased, and the vice-versa is exactly the same (Serbs about Croatians). So, being Tomasevic Croatian, it is inevitable that he might be influenced when analising a Serbian monarchic movement, that btw, any Croatian has all the reasons to dislike. Chetniks and Mihailovic defended the monarchy (Serbian, and consequently Yugoslav Karađorđević dinasty) that was almost absolutely rejected and disliked by all sectors of Croatian society. They defended a centralised (Belgrade) governament, very much oposed by all Croatian parties. They fought the Independent State of Croatia, they were the major internal enemy of (Croatian) Tito... So, again, lets be realistic, what possible reasons would any Croatian possibly have to simpatise with them? Also, it can be even noteced in some participants opinion here on WP on the monarchic Yugoslav period, so tipical, regarding it as "Serbian nationalistic nonsence"... Resumingly, even if we consider Tomasevic a non-nationalist Croatian, it is inevitable and realistic that he has no reasons what so ever to have any feelings towards the movement, but many to dislike them. Also, I remember not seing many (or any) words in his work about the good things that the movement did, also a sign about the inevitable tendentioness. I don´t disregard him as historian, but it is clear that there is a conflict of interess regarding him analising a Serbian monarchic movement.
• Regarding WP, and the WP:SOURCE, as seen, many of his acusations, specially the most hard ones, are unique, and I have not seen any other independent historians to agree with them. If there are, as some participants claim, please use them instead, because I do feel that it would be correct, or unfair not to, apply Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Also, there is a much better defended claim if you have some other author making some claims, because if not, we risk having a constant discrediting of the claims on the side of Serbian editors because of it, so if neutral authors are found, that would facilitate much more the credibility and defence of them.

Resumingly, I feel that is unfair to use Tomasevic as source. Since the oponent participants claim that the collaboration is so well sourced, and that everything is so clear and there are no doubts among historians, I recomend to use those other sources, that would be benefitial for entire project. I´m not exactly sure if I was as clear as I wanted to be, but for any questions, I´m on your entire disposition. FkpCascais (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is just getting silly. Its like I'm talking with creationists - if a source contradicts Fkp's baseless preconceptions about this person unfounded in any reference whatsoever, the source simply has to be wrong. In my experience, with the sources the way they are any normal discussion would've been over a loooong time ago. This person is a nationalist "sacred cow".

Fkp, you can write an entire article about how you think this person is not a reliable source. You can write a book and publish it in volumes. The fact is, he is not only reliable, he's among the BEST sources available, and unless you find one of his professional peers that thinks as you do, I can't see the point of this. As for the statements on Mihailović, they're not his opinions, they're quoted directly from primary sources and records the man spent his whole professional life studying.
In short: no, he's not unreliable, his statements ("accusations"?) are not "unique" simply because you claim them to be [8][9][10], and your nationalist ethnic prejudice against non-Serbs will be reported on WP:AN/I should you once again attempt to attack the credibility of established experts on such basis. CANVASSING on this issue shall not help you either.

"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University

"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
-Choice Magazine

"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books

"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
-American Historical Review

"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers

"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
-Slavic Review

...etc. This person is not only "reliable", during his lifetime he was actually among the most prominent experts on these events. In fact, he is the only one to publish an extensive detailed professional work exclusively on the subject of the Chetniks and Draža Mihailović (the massive and "monumental" The Chetniks) after years of research, so one might call him the Chetniks expert. And I really doubt he particularly "disliked" them or their leaders.

User:FkpCascais, before you post anything more on this subject, I challenge you to please find any peer review of Tomasevich's professional opus that has anything at all negative to say. Anything at all. I don't think anyone here is prepared to discuss your "review" of Tomasevich, seeing as how you did not even read his work, and are basing your attack on his credibility exclusively on the fact that he is challenging your own preconceptions about Draža Mihailović. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, anything further to be said on this matter would need to be properly researched and documented. Until we have that, would the two of you be willing to leave this and work with the other participants in determining areas of agreement in the article and, where there is no agreement, proposing alternatives? Sunray (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I was asked to answer this, so I did. I am also avaliable to further explain, if needed. Nothing more, this is not up to me anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that Direktor's generally condescending tone, and his tendency to stuff everything into quotation boxes to make it look more valid, are particulartly irritating ?

Anyway, regarding Tomasevich, as I say below, I have not read him entirely so I don't want to be judgemental about him. However, what I could see on google books might justify PKPCascais's claims about the general tone of the book. If this is justified, what Tomasevich says might be taken with all due precautions ("Tomasevich says that...") although this can be done for all historians. The tone of his work does not mean, however, that all the facts he presents are unreliable.

But it should be noted that Tomasevich also calls the Chetniks a resistance groupe (example page 157 : "the break between the two resistance groups in Bosnia was only a matter of time"). He also writes that some Chetnik resistance acts were attributed to the Partisans by the BBC (page 316), etc.

Regarding the fact that Mihailovic did fail to act against collaboration policies by Chetnik groups, and occasionally condoned them, I think this is beyond dispute. But labeling him, above everything, a collaborator (he never ceased to be considered an enemy by the Germans) and a traitor (traitor to whom ? considering that he betrayed the King because he was against Tito is utter nonsense) is completely inadequate. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that use of the word traitor is not appropriate. That accusation does not appear in most sources, any that I can recall. Mihailovic was a royalist, a nationalist, and intensely pro-serbian, and I think the sources show that his allegiance lay in those directions. And I agree that that he should not be labeled "above everything" a collaborator. I think you are correct in pointing out that some acts of resistance committed by the chetniks were attribute to the Partisans, particularly at towards the end of the war, but the same can be said in reverse at the beginning of the war, when Partisan actions were attributed to the Chetniks by western intelligence agencies and press unaware of the existence of the Partisans. You are also correct that the German high command did not trust him, and that he saw the Germans and Italians as enemies. But I think there is also no doubt that the sources show that Mihailovic engaged in opportunistic acts of collaboration with the Axis in order to further his campaign against the Partisans.

I also agree that in his tone, Direktor might get on the nerves of some editors, but that's not really of import here. I do think we all should try to be as civil as possible in these discussions, and would suggest that everyone consider their words carefully before posting anything, so as to not inflame discussions. It seems to me that most of us are not really that fair apart, and reasonable compromise is within reach, if we can all agree to focus on the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuujinn, you say "Direktor might get on the nerves of some editors, but that's not really of import here", well that user just acused me of "Nationalistic ethnic prejudice", insisted on it at Sunray talk page, all this because I aswered to you why I considered Tomasevic not to be apropriate as source for this case. I gave you there a detailed explanation about my reasons, and whoever can agree, or not, with them, but that should never allow other users to insult me! I gave him the chance to explain himself and he ignored it, further attacking and intentionally giving phalse ideas, I asked him for evidence, he gave me a comment of mine from the last year, I gave him the oportunity to apologise, he didn´t. That shouldn´t happend and I shouldn´t be pressured not to comment on a certain author if I feel like, specially when asked, as in this case. I saw his excuses (direktors) and they just add wood to the fire, and I´m also very disapointed with Sunray for having double standards about comments removal and not being coherent on this. This was all very unnecessary, but some people just want me to stick with the insult and take it! Shamefull! FkpCascais (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, there's a mirror, I'm sure, in your bathroom, my suggestion is you go take a long look into it. It takes two to tango, and I think you, too, have been harsh in your accusations against other editors. Also, for what it's worth, when you say "coherent" I believe what you mean to say is "consistent".

Your objections to Tomasevich are based on remembrances over a decade old, and consist primarily of the assertion that as a croatian, he cannot be considered reliable: "it is inevitable and realistic that he has no reasons what so ever to have any feelings towards the movement, but many to dislike them". Your view (and mind you, I'm characterizing the view, not you) could be considered racist. If you want to refute Tomasevich, go to the library, check out some books, and bring some references here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can allways object to my opinion, but they are not racist, and they don´t give anybody the right to insult me. And btw, you should stop leaving me "suggestions" around (you did on other pages as well), maybe it is you, that should step of the horse and give suggestions only to people that actually care what a person that doesn´t keep his word thinks. Please refrain from talking anything like that ever again, and speak to me only if you have something regarding the debating issues, otherwise please keep your pretentious sugestions to yourself..."Nuujinn´s bathroom suggestions"... FkpCascais (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you, but please note I'm not saying you are a racist--what I am saying that your assertion that Tomasevich is not a reliable source because he's croatian is a view that could be considered racist. I think that's a fair statement. And you certainly don't have to take anyone's advice. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also apologise to you as well, for giving you such a harsh unswer, but the trouth is that I hate to repeat myself. I´ll say it once more:

• 1 - I was asked (by you) to give my reasons for the objection on Tomasevic.
• 2 - Knowing the reaction that some users might have, I even begin by askeing politely not to confuse my explanation with any sort of racism (that includes obviously acusations of ethnic prejudice). Obviously, I predicted it.
• 3 - Not knowing how well the situation is clear to everybody here, I started the explanation by analising the possible reasons why the two nationalities are not very compatible to analise eachother. That is not "ethnic prejudice".
• 4 - I mentioned also some policies applied for these cases.
• 5 - I was acused of ethnic prejudice for it by one user.
• 6 - Everybody failed to sanction it. Explanations for it, or apologies were also not given.

Now, should some internet mediation be more important than the integrity? I don´t think so. If the participants that disagree with me are being allowed to insult me, well how good exemple that is for this, or future mediations here on WP? Nuujinn, please be sure that if I ask you something, and if I have from you a responce that maybe I don´t agree with, the last thing you´ll expect from me is to insult you. I don´t mind criticism, but nobody has the right to tell that I have to take insults because I have a certain opinion. Also, I don´t think that you need to defend too much other paricipants from me, because I was allways been, without any exeption, reported for every minimal reason I gave, so don´t give the phalse impression that the situation is equal and fair. Now, a view that Tomasevic has a conflict of interess while analising the Chetniks is not racist, and it can´t be considered racist. Anyway, there is a number of alternative answers to that if you disagree with, but insults should not be included in any. If I used insults in every ocasion I disagree with some opinion, how would that look? This is not about the discussion, or about the opinion of each one of us, this has to do with minimal respect that we should have for WP and all the participants here. And also Sunray, your judgment on how I am Serb (???), so because of that I am entitled to hear this sorts of insults from a Croatian (???), has nothing logical on it... FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have had enough of this. From now on, all unreferenced attempts to discredit sources should be completely ignored. I recommend a simple "radical" rule: all non-sourced statements should be completely disregarded. Nobody anywhere cares in the slightest about whatever you (or I) have to say about acclaimed authors, or about your (or mine) "reviews" of professional publications. I'm still having vague hopes that this is a serious scientific discussion.

These sort of outbursts and essays are extremely detrimental to the mediation, as they sap energy and time, diverting attention from actual discussion. Not to mention that its annoying to have to go in circles and repeat the same things for the fiftieth time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I would be going to say how much I had enough of certain users that just go around posting comments in which every sentence is full of crying, propaganda, bad faith and blatant lies, I would probably occupy this entire page. Some lye about sources, other users comments, whatever reasons... Should I add that I would be recomending another "radical" rule, that is expelling from the mediation the slightest untrouth comment, or personal offensive remark that somebody makes. It would also include making phalse statements and "situation analisys" to admins and other participants here. Btw, please don´t call Nuujinn "nobody".

Regarding the issue here, we all know the version and the tendency some users defend about the subject we are analising. Isn´t it strange how same users so strongly only deffend Tomasevic? It happend here, and it already happend on the talk page, agressivness included in both times! Some even try insistently to missinform about his nationality just to avoid any possibility of analising him. Is he that important to their POV? Waren´t they claiming that he doesn´t make any exceptional claims, and that what he transmits in his work is widely accepted? Why is he important so much then if, alledgedly, so many historians agree? Is it because his claims are obviously exceptional and controversial, very favorable just to one side here? I don´t know, but makes me think... FkpCascais (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, Direktor didn't call anybody nobody. Tomasevic's nationality is irrelevant, and his claims are hardly 'exceptional and controversial'. I think we should all calm things down a bit and take a look at JJG's draft. Any ideas on how to proceed? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn´t, but I was unswering to you, and I think that a good way of having this discussion would be to avoid the missleading use of some "us" or "nobody´s". Anyway, we disagree on this issue, but I agree with the JJG approach to it, which basically consists in mentioning who says what, and leaving the readers a more complete information, that way, avoiding us the work to give, or not, credits/support to one, or other, historian. Can we agree on this, as diplomatic solution for it? FkpCascais (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this document say? And what says under the image at Chetniks article? Exactly the oposite! FkpCascais (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have many good images from the Mihailovic article from the Serbian wikipedia, but curiously, here, we only have the acusational pictures. See: [11]. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fkp, the Serbian Wikipedia is not at all neutral in approaching this matter and should not be taken as an example no more than the Croatian or (heaven forbid :) Bosniak projects.

1) This image is completely unrelated to the subject. It does not mention Draža Mihailović.

2) This document (assuming its legitimate) needs to be published in a secondary source before it can be used.

3) We know today that most of the statements in it are blatantly wrong (A. the Partisans with cca. 800,000 men faar outnumbered the Chetniks in 1944, B. those Chetniks that did not defect were immediately wiped out by the Partisans after the war. Two-year civil war?)

4) Whatever those people saw while in Mihailović's influence is highly suspect. "Witness accounts" from those sent to Tito's HQ (such as those of Major Churchill) were equally subject to suspicion by later scholars.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why you posted if you didn´t answered even one of the questions... I changed the image, so now includes the comment that is found on Chetniks article. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Sunray, aren´t you going to express yourself about the fact that these kind of missuse of sources has been done by an active participant here? Or, since it was him, it is excusable? Can I also use whatever source to say whatever I feel?

P.S.:What about the template? FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since my exposition of another exemple of missuse of sources has been considered "personal attack", because I directed it towards the author of the phalse statement on the source, I´ll rephrase it:

@Direktor, since I see that was you who edited the missinforming comment under the document [12], could you please explain to us how did you get to edit the comment in the sence obviously oposite to the content of the document. Please, explain, so your way of editing gets clearer to other users that may not be so familiarised with your habitual editing procedure. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post. This image is not a "source" at all. I repeat:

• This is off-topic, and this is the last post I make on this subject. We were making some progress on the main issue, and should avoid sidetracking the discussion.
• This document (assuming its legitimate) needs to be published in a secondary source before it can be used.
• We know today that most of the statements in it are blatantly wrong (A. the Partisans with cca. 800,000 men faar outnumbered the Chetniks in 1944, B. those Chetniks that did not defect were immediately wiped out by the Partisans after the war. Two-year civil war?)
• Whatever those people saw while in Mihailović's influence is highly suspect, even if it were oublished. "Witness accounts" from those sent to Tito's HQ (such as those of Major Churchill) were equally subject to suspicion by later scholars.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn´t answered the question. Also, this is not off-topic, since it is regarding the Chetniks. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that until we manage to come to some consensus regarding the Mihailović article, there's not much point in getting into the article on the Chetniks. Others may disagree, but personally I'm finding it a bit difficult to keep up with all of the issues on this single page. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I exposed here is specific, and not only related with Chetniks article, but with the use of sources in all related articles, including Mihailovic. Anyway, it is also a source, isn´t it? It was treated as it was... FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "it", you mean the copy of the Donovan document, it's a primary source, which we are supposed to avoid so as to not be engaged in original research. We have plenty of good 2ndary sources, we should stick to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the issue I am complaining should not be tolerated, in any case. FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly possible that the Donovan "document" is a fake. No sources at all refer to it as far as I can see. On the contrary, Musulin, the OSS representative at Mihailović HQ was withdrawn in February 1944, the beginning of a six-month period when there was no official Allied presence at Mihailović HQ whatsoever [13]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, if this document is cited by a reliable secondary source - its usable, if not - its not. As things stand this image is not a "source" at all and cannot be "misrepresented". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat here what I've said before: Given the number and variety of sources and points of view, we will have to agree on the application of WP:Undue, to wit:

Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".

To aid in this we have a redraft of the article prepared by Jean-Jacques Georges to refer to (see below, "New draft of article"). Sunray (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is evident that the User:Jean-Jacques Georges' drafts do not represent the sources fairly with regard to the evidence for the collaboration of Draža Mihailović. The fact that he has worked hard is immaterial. Most if not all of us have expended huge effort during the course of this dispute.

You are welcome to suggest other sources. We will agree on them by consensus. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of Draža Mihailović's collaboration is the main and primary cause of this dispute. I believe it is paramount that this primary issue be resolved conclusively in this mediation prior to the start of the work on the new draft. Starting work now is practically pointless, since the original point of contention has not been settled. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do these comments square with the discussion above? All participants were alerted to JJG's earlier draft and AFAIK he has been reflecting the discussion in his work. What specifically is it that you object to in his current draft? He deals with the collaboration issue. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording, and sources, and I can ask other participants whether they agree. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the above discussion has been going on, Jean-Jacques has worked diligently to produce a revised draft of the article, reflecting much of the discussion. Would participants be willing to look at his proposed version and provide comments in the section below? I would like to hear from everyone, if possible. If you are pressed for time, would you be able to at least review the lead and indicate whether you:

1. Agree
2. Have some concerns [describe them], but are willing to stand aside—i.e., accept the decision to go ahead with the proposal, or
3. Do not agree, but are willing to work on an alternative version.

I will ping all participants to get their input. Sunray (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Do not agree with User:Jean-Jacques Georges' version, and do not agree with working on a draft before solving the main original point of dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a general comment and does not fit in any of the sections below. If others share this view, please comment here, otherwise, please indicate your views in one of the sections below. Sunray (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I must say that Direktor's opinion is, to put it mildly, the least of my concerns. I also don't think people should vote over the content on an article. However, being far from done, I am open to well-founded corrections, suggestions and additions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it is your privilege to care or not. Nevertheless, I do care about DIREKTOR's opinion, as I do about that of all participants. That's why I get the big bucks for being a mediator ;-) My hope is that participants will each chose one of the categories below and we can continue making progress. BTW this is not to be confused with voting. This is a test of consensus (and I suspect we will have more work to do). Sunray (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If JJG version was favorable to DM and Chetniks (which it isn´t), then we would need to find some solution "in between" his and the current version, but that is not the case. If we have to take into consideration the current version, it would be fair then to let a "real" Mihailovic simpatizer writte a version, and then make an intermediate version... Please stop this false idea that JJG is not neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, did I make any claim regarding Jean-Jacques Georges's neutrality or lack thereof? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, in the logic of finding "fair" to make an "intermediate" solution. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I use the word "fair" or "intermediate"? I do not believe I did. As for letting a "'real' Mihailovic simpatizer" edit a version, I'd be ok with that--it doesn't matter to me who might personally regard him as a villain or a hero so long as they can produce reliable and verifiable sources for whatever edits they propose. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if you suggest it, indirectly, you consider it "fair" (unless your intention is not to be fair), but anyway, OK, clear then. Also, JJG has already expressed his will in hearing what more sources could/should be added, and I even sugested an inclusion of one chapter dedicated to "collaboration", so I think we are in a good way to get somewhere. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments and suggestions below. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I do not consider my draft to be a "definitive" version, but only a basis for creating a worthwile article and be fleshed out with as good info as possible (that's what draft are for), the first thing to do being to replace the current horse manure that is on the Mihailovic page.

Good thing that someone actually acquired Tomasevich's book. I'd like to know if AlasdairGreen27 also has read it and (most importantly) owns it : if so, I'd really like to be submitted helpful quotes from the book (and when possible links to google books) so I can add them to my draft. As for FPKcascais' s opinion that he should not be used at all, so far I have no definitive opinion.

Still about the sources : if the only source for Mihailovic's order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans (I'll check that fact) is Philip J. Cohen's book "Serbia's secret war", then I suggest we dispense with this info entirely. I have taken a look at Cohen's book on google and my opinion (though I may be wrong) is that it's a piece of shit, just interesting as an example of anti-Serb literature. It seems also that Cohen is not a historian, but a dentist who likes history (please let me know if I am wrong) so he shouldn't be taken as face value. I have a strong hunch that his book should not be used as a source, though it can of course be mentioned.

One major flaw in AlasdairGreen27's reasoning is that it seems to rest on the idea that there is a consensus among historians to consider Mihailovic as a collaborator. From what I have read, it appears that this is not the case at all, or at least not like he seems to imply. What emerges is that historians agree, for the most part, that the Chetniks indulged (though not all of them, and not constantly) in acts of collaboration, but the responsability of Mihailovic himself is definitely not clear-cut.

To make a long story shorter, the dominant thesis among historians is not that Mihailovic was a collaborator who indulged here and then in acts of resistance, but a resistance leader who allowed that part of his (nominal) troops indulge in acts of collaboration against the communist Partisans, or who at least failed to take action against it. (granted, not what you normally expect from a resistance leader). This is also pretty much what emerges from Roberts and Pawlovitch's books who, I repeat, are not sympathetic to Mihailovic, but merely try to be neutral (Pawlovitch can even be considered unsympathetic to the Chetniks as a whole, although he is not pro-Partisan either, at least not pro-Tito).

However, if my draft appears pro-Mihailovic and seems to state that the British's change of mind was unmotivated and unfair, then I'm very disappointed, because that's one of the things I was trying to avoid. I thought that the facts that the British were worried about Mihailovic's insufficient actions and the Chetnik's collaboration were clear enough. If that is not the case, I may rewrite those parts and add more facts. I also thing that Mihailovic comes across as anything but a reliable leader.

Here is what I propose : since I plan to finish a complete draft in the next few days (not today, but perhaps tomorrow if time permits), I'd like to know if the users here would be willing to give me a hand and give me ASAP as many quotes and links to google books, in order to have more sources and flesh out the article, so it can also be finished ASAP. Just give them to me here and I'll add as many as possible to the draft, correcting it as I go according to what is said here and trying to take opinions in consideration. This way we can hope to have a worthwile draft in the course of next week. I'd also like to add that, although the lead has to be trimmed, I am very reluctant to remove any of the info that I have put in the draft, which means we'll mainly be able to add info : so the article is bound to be quite long, which is not necessarily a bad things in my eyes, regarding such a complex and touchy subject.

Please tell me what you think so we can work together and finish this business. The urgent thing being, I repeat myself, to replace the current article, which is completely inadequate and a real shame to wikipedia : IMHO, not a word of it should be kept.

I'd like to add that my goal is also to rewrite completely the article on the French wikipedia, which is equally pathetic, but on the opposite side (last time I had a look at it, it basically said that Mihailovic could do no wrong and walked on water, which is also problematic) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also : I remind everyone here that I plan to rewrite Chetniks, Yugoslav Front as well as Yugoslavia and the Allies, using the same "draft" method. Since I do not want to indulge in overly personal essays, and since the opinion of several users here may be worthwile, I will notify them when I'll be working on each draft, and ask for advice, comments and suggestions (provided they are still willing to spend time on these subjects, of course). I think this might be a good way of producing fair and balanced articles. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JJG. You should already be awarded for all the efforts you have made. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work on JJG draft

I see that Jean-Jacques Georges has finished his draft. Does anyone has any suggestions on how we should proceed? Does it make sense to copy it to a subpage here and try to work on it together? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to move the draft to a subpage here, so participants can work on it. Would you be willing to do that?

I suggest that participants list any questions or concerns about the most recent draft and discuss them one by one. It would be more effective to be specific. For example:

• "What is the meaning of __________?" or
• "I have the following question/concern [state question or concern] about this wording ________ and propose this alternative _________."

We need to capture the questions that have already been raised in the "Comments" section above and in the "Agree/Disagree" sections, below. I would suggest that we begin a new section listing these. Would anyone like to volunteer to facilitate the discussion? I can do it, but it would be nice to have someone else working on it as well. Nuujinn has shown initiative in this area, perhaps he would be willing to do this? Comments? Sunray (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I think that having all questions together as you recomended a good solution. I consider that we can/should all participate and we´ll see how the discussions on each question goes. Of course, some participants are more concentrated on one issues and others on another, so each discussion may have its own path, and obviously an intervention of all would be good on the conclusion of each one of them. FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have some time to look at this tomorrow. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just let me know. Please take note that I do not regard the draft as "finished" (is anything ever finished here ?) but just as a satisfactory starting point to build an acceptable article. I might add some stuff in the following days but need a little break right now. We can discuss here whatever you like and see how you can help me improve it. BTW, I hope that the "finished" product shows that any intention to "support" or "rehabilitate" Mihailovic is far from my thoughts (next I'll work on the Chetniks article, for which help will be also appreciated). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added a section with questions for resolution below, please add additional questions as needed, and I am copying the draft here --Nuujinn (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

• There are some minor details that I hope I will be able to explain with time soon, but generally is way better handed than the current version, much more precise about the facts, and definitelly much more "encyclopedic", with all the meanings of that, and something that the current version was far from being it. As a diplomatic compromise, I wouldn´t mind to add the prefered section of some participants here, that is the "Relations with the axis", but obviously, it should be rewriten in much more precise perspective about the description of the facts and supositions, and way less childishly acusational as the current version is. There are also some other sections that could be added. Generaly, what I see there is very NPOV, and makes me start to beleave that we are in the right direction about this complex important historic biography. FkpCascais (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. BoDu (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have concerns (described below) but am willing to stand aside

Do not agree, but am willing to work on an alternative

• This piece of work by a single editor would catapult the Mihailović article to the top of the tree among Balkan articles in terms of detail, referencing, etc. This Wiki area is, by and large, appalling. However, with a heavy heart, given the obvious hour upon hour that JJG has devoted to this task, I have to say that I do not agree with this draft, for the following reasons.

While it is undoubtedly factually accurate in many details, it is far too reliant on Pavlowitch and Roberts, who themselves are not representative of the sources available. The result is that the reader is left with the impression that the withdrawal of Allied support came as a mighty injustice, because the preceding text focusses almost entirely on the acts of resistance and glosses over the collaboration as a minor detail. That is not what pushed Churchill into saying that Mihailović had openly collaborated with the Germans. Typical of this imbalance, as I perceive it, is the sentence in the lead of the role of Mihailović during the war as being disputed: let's look at the number of sources given to support the differing views - "while some authors claim that he was an unsung resistance hero, ultimately betrayed by the Allies[2][3][4], others concentrate mainly on the accusations of collaboration against him[5], and others give a more nuanced version of his actions[6][7][8]. His place in History remains controversial[9][10]". By accident, implication or design, the reader is led to suspect that the view that he was a collaborator/he collaborated (only one source) is a minority view, while precisely the opposite seems to be the case. And so the text goes on - thus they read section after section that focusses on resistance activities and then almost out of the blue and for little or no obvious reason the Allies withdrew their support from Mihailović. The overwhelming reliance on Pavlowitch and Roberts (and the total exclusion of, for example, Tomasević), sources that are, on balance, quite sympathetic to Mihailović means that, for example, there is no mention of the order given to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans, nor of Mihailović's approval of the collaborationist agreements made by Trifunović-Birčanin and Jevđević.

This being my view, I would propose that we use JJG's excellent hard work as the basis for the new article, and all or most of the factual detail is good, but the thrust of it must, must, reflect the sources that we have at our disposal. The majority standpoint among the sources is that, overall, his collaborationist activities somewhat outweighed his resistance activities. Sorry JJG, I really am, as your work is an act above and beyond what 99.999% of Wikipedia editors ever dream of undertaking. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that I do not have Tomasevich's book at hand and do not want to rely on something I have only glimpsed on google books. However, I am certainly willing to add info using him. Please note also that Roberts and Pawlovitch are not what you'd call sympathetic to Mihailovic. I have no problem with my draft being used as a "skeleton".Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Agree: I thank Jean-Jacques Georges for this work, he has put in a great deal of work and I find his draft very helpful. My feeling (obviously) is that what we need is somewhere between the current version and Jean-Jacques Georges's version. Regarding the lead, Jean-Jacques Georges's version really needs to be trimmed down. I respect his position regarding having sources at hand, and for what it's worth, I obtained a copies of Tomasevich's and William's works yesterday, so I'll be able to put some work in on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply, comment and suggestion above in the "comments" section. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tryied to get feedback on this several times now, but nothing happend. The issue is simple, D.Mihailovic and the Chetniks can´t hardly be considered fairly included. I had already heard from direktor that a solution would be removing "notable" from the wording. Well, that looks more as an attempt to do whatever it takes just to include them, than a honest aproach to the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Sunray, please feel free to do whatever with this section, but the issue shouldn´t be forgoten. I also don´t know if you had some different idea of when discussing this issue, so please feel free to postponed it if you find correct. FkpCascais (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template (created by Direktor, I may add) is inadequate and is Mihailovic certainly too controversial to be added. Same things for the Chetniks as a whole (though some did collaborate, no one here is denying this, I think). IMHO, the best solution would be a template like this one, including everything Yugoslav in World War II and avoiding to label anyone. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt in my mind that according to the sources, the chetniks on the whole engaged in collaboration, and some did not. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I could read, some collaborated and some did not (and some actually did both). So the situation is too complex to label the whole movement "collaborationist", as if it had been its primary aim or the primary aim of its leader (nominal leader, but still formal leader). This is definitely not the same thing as the Greek Security Battalions. And even in Greeece, some EKKA members actually joined the Security Battalions after they had been under attack by ELAS. Does that make EKKA a collaborationist organization to start with ? The situation is too complicated to put definitive labels (and Yugoslavia's WWII situation is admittedly more complicated than Greece's, which was itself complex) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia. While they were primarily in Italian employ, German insistence that they be disarmed were rejected by the Italians with the explanation that they would be actually unable to maintain the occupation without them (we have the actual communiques). Note: the issue was disarming them, not imprisoning/executing them as rebels (all captured Partisans were executed on the spot). After the Italian capitulation, and a (well sourced) shift of German policy towards the Chetniks, their troops were praised in numerous reports as the "only useful combatants". Constant forceful Ustaše demands that they be disarmed were continuously rejected by the Germans on the grounds that, again, Axis control over the outer territory of the Independent State of Croatia would be impossible to maintain without them ("...they [the Chetniks] are making a worthwhile contribution to the Croatian state").

The collaboration of Draža Mihailović has been profusely sourced with (according to WP:V) highest quality sources. If you would like now to shift the discussion over to the collaboration of the Chetniks as a whole, we can do so. I assure you - compared to Mihailović's actions, which he was (reportedly) very careful to conceal to the best of his abilities, sourcing large-scale Chetnik collaboration is a pushover. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point: there is a recurrent myth circulating throughout this discussion that the Chetniks in southern Serbia (which were somewhat more directly under Mihailović's control) were not collaborating (the "good Chetniks"). This is entirely false. I'd like to remind everyone that the Chetniks in the territory of Nedić's puppet Serbia enjoyed what was described as a "flexible system of collaboration" with Axis Serbia. (Side note: Nedić and Mihailović were professional rivals and did not like each other at all. Nedić was a successful military "big-shot" before 1941, Mihailović was not.) Further elaboration on the Nedić-Mihailović relationship in Serbia can be found in the sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "the collaboration of Draža Mihailović" has not been "profusely sourced with highest quality sources". What emerges from this discussion and from the vast majority of sources is that his case is much too complex to label him a collaborator above everything (and it is also inadequate to label him a stainless character without any trace of deviousness). While he did tolerate many acts of collaboration of his troops (or "accomodations" as one may call them), labeling him a traitor (which is the general meaning associated with collaboration) and put him at the same level as people like Joseph Darnand or Anton Mussert is stupid to say the least. I think we should dispense with such inadequate manicheism, especially in his case. IMHO this template should be changed into a general "Yugoslavia in world war II" template. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying something is "not sourced" does not really mean much. Do I need to copy-paste the sources after my every post? Let me repeat myself again:

• I would not presume to use the word "collaborator" or "traitor" to describe Draža Mihailović. I agree with your assessment: that may give the false impression that this was his primary role in the war (though it does come close).
• The statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated", is very much different in tone and meaning, being a general unassuming statement of fact. It is completely correct, neutral, and most importantly, sourced profusely with highest quality sources. (Of course, additions or sentence structure variations are irrelevant.) Now one has the right to his own opinion and certainly to disagree with the sources (even for six months), but in the end personal opinions are irrelevant.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@direktor, your statement of "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia" is in my consideration unsourced. Can you please remind us of the source for that, so there are no questions left? FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges that this template should be changed into a general "Yugoslavia during World War II" template like the Greek version. BoDu (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as well. Also, I would apreciate a response from direktor, so we can definitely know if the statement is wright, or not, because direktor insists on it, and I had already challenge everyone to analise this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind changing the name of the template. But I do not agree about not being able to say the Chetniks collaborated just because the situation was complex, unless someone can produce some sources that show they did not collaborate. Were there any Chetnik units that did not engage in some form of collaboration at some point during the war? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlowitch (certainly no admirer of the Chetniks) says, page 248, "In February 1944, a German report listed thirty-five different Chetnik groups [in the Independent State of Croatia, and Dalmatia] totalling some 23,000 men, of whom 5,800 were considered rebellious". "Considered rebellious", hence not engaging in any acts of collaboration (okay, that's an interpretation but that's what logically comes to mind. And that was in Croatia, where Chetnik groups under Djujic of Jedvjevic had been collaborating with both Italians and Germans). Do we want to study all thirty-five different groups, and all the others in the rest of Yugoslavia ? What should be stressed is that the Chetniks were a polycephalous and largely incoherent movement. I think that shall be more evident when the Chetniks article is rewritten. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is regarding the statement "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia". It is a related, but different claim, and I am asking for evidence for that specific claim. FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks, our natural allies, only they are fighting. Kroatische Kampfgemienschaft exists only on paper.

— Report to the OKW from the Split Abwehr office, extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b.7/I, p.751

At the end of September 1944 German commander of Split arrested the Ustashi-leader of the town in reprisal for Ustashi actions against the Chetniks who were allied to the Wehrmacht, threatening to "...shoot five Ustashis for every Chetnik."

— Hory, Ladislaus; Broszat, Martin, Der Kroatische Ustascha-Staat 1941-1945. Referenced by: Telegramme des Stabchefs der Ustascha-Miliz, Oberst Herenčić, von Ende September 1944; PA/AA, Gesandschaft Zagreb: Bd.67/4, Bl.75f.

I actually know a bit about the above myself, since I'm from Split. Namely Split was briefly liberated by the Partisans in 1943, after the Italian capitulation, and about a third of the city joined the Partisans and left with them. After fierce fighting, the Germans reoccupied it and placed it into the nominal control of the NDH, while they retained direct control. The Ustaše came to the town from the Dalmatian hinterland and started killing the families of anyone who was even remotely connected to those who left - and naturally stealing their property. The Germans did not like this, but allowed it. The Chetniks under Đujić, who held much of the Serbian-populated parts of Dalmatia for the Germans then slaughtered an entire village (200 people) of Croats at Gala. The Ustaše went crazy and attacked them, but that was too much for the Germans - they arrested the Ustaše boss and threatened to execute him...

The ten-day report of the commanding General [of Fall Weiss, "Battle of the Neretva"] states even that the Chetniks "have proven themselves in co-operation with German Wehrmacht better than any of the Croatian Army units"

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.134

Partly, the Serbs [referring to the Chetniks] have furthermore shown themselves as the most reliable allies in fighting against the red bands, that is against communism. They are always ready to fight against the bandits with the German Wehrmacht and even to place themselves under its command.

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.307

In the few weeks that have passed since the division moved into this region formerly occupied by the Italians, the Chetniks have made themselves indispensable at securing the supply routes (especially the Knin-Drniš railroad). If Đujić [Chetnik commander Momčilo Đujić] were to be arrested at this moment, said Egleser, it would mean the troops would have to "...fight constantly for their own supplies".

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002 p.232

...imagine that. The Partisans would've forced the 114th Jäger Division to "fight constantly for their own supplies". Luckily the Chetniks were happy to lend a hand.

The divisions that took part in Weiss II gave consistent reports ["aeusserten sich uebereinstimmend"] on the good conduct of Chetnik units. Through scouting and relieving attacks they have helped our troops, all that without asking for German support in any way.

— Klaus Schmider, Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, Hamburg; Berlin; Bonn 2002, p.308

And, of course, the quote from above:

The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger.

— General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb (Source: Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421)

I still didn´t analised all of them, but begining with the last one, that you had already posted, I think we have a missunderstanding issues about it. What I understand is that talks about possibilities ("could"). It never says that actually anything happened. Just "could". FkpCascais (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fkp again: you misunderstand the meaning of the sentence. That's past tense: General von Horstenau is remarking on how the Chetniks were the units the Germans were able to "use" to the best effect. He's talking about past events. If you don't believe me, ask others.

In Serbo-Croatian: "Jedinice koje su se stvarno mogle koristiti protiv Partizana su bili Srpski i Ruski dobrovoljci i - Draža Miahilovićevi ljudi."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, even in Serbo-Croatian ("koje su se stvarno mogle" precise translation) has the exact meaning, "that could" not saying if they actually ended being used or not.

Exemple:"The country that could really bring down Ahmadinejad´s regime is Israel", but it doesn´t say if happend, or not, just "that could". I honestly have no doubts whatsoever on this, and I think that we could ask others :) Agree? FkpCascais (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, come to think of it the sentence is ambiguous in Serbo-Croatian, hence the misunderstanding, - but its not ambiguous in English. If you were right the text would have to go "The units that could really have been used against the Partisans..." Fine, you don't believe me... anyone? Its a post-war statement, part of his memoirs... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No,no,no... in both languages it´s exactly the same. I know where you insist, in the fact that the Germans could use them, the problem with the sentence is that it has a non concluded action, leaving it open. As in English, or any other language, "could" brings down your interpretation. You can´t read "were" instead of "could have". FkpCascais (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,yes,yes. I don't know what to tell you... There's no point in discussing this since you won't believe me, and I'm not going to start digging up grammar references. Sunray seems to know a little English, perhaps he can help. :) Next time though, promise you'll trust me? I do not lie. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion won't go anywhere. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but if it is to go anywhere, I think we'd need the German version, does anyone have the German text? I taught German at the university level for about ten years, I think I can parse it out. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now just wait a second fellas, am I crazy?

• "The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger."

This is in past tense (this person was in the 1980s talking about WWII and the second sentence, along with the entire context, is in past tense.) The sentence does NOT talk about possibility, since the subject is in the past. If this person were talking about past possibility in the past the sentence would go "The units that could really have been used against the Partisans...". The only way it could be construed as a discussion about possibilities is if the person were talking during WWII about future possibilities, but this is not the case - this is decades after WWII.
Also, the Serbian and Russian volunteers were really used against the Partisans, the second sentence, along with the entire context, is in past tense. I can't believe I actually have to play these games... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with your interpretation of the English, in that I think you're correct. What I'm uncertain of is the original German. German has a more grammatically distinct subjunctive mood than English, and the passive voice complicates things a bit, so seeing the German would clarify the issue nicely I think. Additional context would help, too, of course. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the formal English translation, therefore it can be accepted in its form. Also, notice that the Serbian and Russian volunteers were really used against the Partisans. So what does that mean? Its paradoxical to try and assume he was talking about possibility in the past, in the wrong grammar, and ONLY about "Draža Mihailović's people" (since the Russisches Schutzkorps Serbien and the Serbisches Freiwilligenkorps were in fact used against the Partisans). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, where did you get this translation? There's a small problem with it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, I´m sorry but you said that you agree with direktor, could you specify, agree on what? Also, we can have clear from the first direktors explanation, actually relatively correct, where he says "were the units the Germans were able to "use", the problem is that direktor interprets it if "they were used", but the sentence never says that, and even direktor´s explanation says "able", but not "were used", so that can hardly source much. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is wrong. The original is here (p. 421). The German text is: "Wirklich brauchbar waren für den Kampf gegen die Partisanen nur die serbischen und halbwegs auch die russischen Freiwilligen und - die Draža Mihajlović-Leute, zu denen ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte". In English: "Really useful (Wirklich brauchbar) for the fight against the partisans (für den Kampf gegen die Partisanen) were (waren) only the Serbian (nur die serbischen - "serbischen" is an adjective, like "russischen") and partly (und halbwegs) the Russian wolunteers (die russischen Freiwilligen) and - Draža Mihailović's people (und - die Draža Mihajlović-Leute), to wich (zu denen) I had a Major and recipient of the Knight's Cross of Iron Cross as liaison officier (ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte)". Glaise von Horstenau never said that he or some other German commander used the Mihailović's people, but only that this people was ready to fight against the partisans.--151.21.253.196 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, I agree with DIREKTOR's interpretation of the english version. 151.21.253.196 is right that the translation has some errors, but I don't agree entirely with that translation. Here's what I have. I found a copy on line here, it's the usual limited preview but page 421 is available. Looking through the book, it's a combination of general information about von Horstenau's role in the war and background information, including some relevant material to our discussion I'll take a crack at later, in the first part, followed by what appears to be an annotated diary. I believe that explains the tense. The quote is from june of 1994. Edmund_Glaise-Horstenau committed suicide in 1946 after his capture by the allies. The translation is mine, and a bit rough.

Ich ging aus Serbien mit dem Gefühle web, daß auch hier die deutsche Position ein Kartenhaus ist. Der einflußreicheste Mann im Lande ist nach wie vor, trotz seiner Niederlage durch Tito, Draza Milhajlovic, dessen Anhang bis ins Kabinett Nedic hinaufreicht. Mit Nedic war ich zweimal beisammen, er ist sicherlich ein ernst zu nehmender Mann, der sich's aber heute auch hundertmal überlege würde, seinen verlorenen Posten zu beziehen. Deutsche mobile Kräfte gibt es in Serbien überhaupt kaum, von ein paar Polizeitruppen abgesehen. Das bulgarische Krops, dem man in dem größten Teil des Landes die Besetzung anvertraut hat (nur der Nordwestwinkel und das Banat sind ausgeschlossen), ist die schlehteste Truppe, über die Bulgarien verfügt. Als ich das Oberkommando in Belgrad übernahm, waren gerade zwei Kompanien Bulgaren samt ihre Führern bei Leskovac zu den Partisanen übergegangen. Wirklich brauchbar waren für den Kampft gegen die Partisanen nur die serbischen and halbwegs auch die russichen Freiwilligien und - die Draza Mihajlovic-Leute, zu denen ich einen Major und Ritterkreuzträger als Verbindungsoffizier hatte.

I left Serbia with the feeling that also there the german position is a house of cards. The most influential man in the country is still as before, despite his defeat at the hands of Tito, Draza Mihailovic, whose supporters reach into Nedic's cabinet. With Nedic I met twice, he is certainly a man to be taken seriously, who, however, also a hundred times daily reflects on recovering his lost position. German mobile forces hardly exist in Serbian, apart from a few Military Police units (?). The bulgarian corps, in whom is entrusted the occupation of the largest part of the country (only the northwest corner and the Banat are the exception), is the worst troop the Bulgarians have at their disposal. When I took over the high command in Belgrade, two companies of Bulgarians and their commanders went over with Leskovac to the Partisans. Truly useful in the fight against the Partisans were only the serbian and, to a certain extent, the russians volunteers and - Draza Mihailovic's people, to whom I had attached a Major and Knight's Cross recipient as liaisons officer.

Some things of note.

• This quote is essentially a primary source, and as such should be handled with great care. The general sections in the first part of the book may be more useful.
• von Horstenau credits Mihailovic as the most influential man in the country, which would appear to undermine the notion that Mihailovic had no control over the chetniks in mid 1944.
• He does not here speak of any direct relationship between he and Mihailovic.
• He does cite Mihailovic's people as being truly useful in the fight against the Partisans, and I think this clearly supports DIREKTOR's reading, not FkpCascais's--in other words, the German is not in subjunctive mood. Also, it's written in the past tense after he's left Serbia, so I do not believe the original text supports 151.21.253.196's interpretation that Mihailovic's people were ready to fight, but rather that they did in fact fight the partisans.
• Most importantly in my mind, the german text clearly sets the scope of the "to whom" the liaison officer--it's Mihailovic's people, not the serbian volunteers nor the russian volunteers. So von Horstenau did apparently have a formal relationship through a liaison officer with Mihailovic's "people".

FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand. Thank you very much Nuujinn. I had read carefully all you and IP wrote. Please have in mind that your explanation is way more helpfull than just a simple insistence. I think that by this, we all forgot my initial point, that was about direktors claim that he did on several ocasions and articles, and, as I remember, was very much based on this specific source, which was to repeat that, citing "According to Axis reports. Chetnik formations were the most useful and effective collaborating force in occupied Yugoslavia.", which I still find a litlle bit inacurate and exagerated, despite your explanation of the source. What you and others think? Also, JJG, this discussion has to do about a specific claim that I am certain that some participants would like to see included in your draft, so that is the reason of opening this question, I´m just antecipating things. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take not that my draft mentions very clearly the fact that Pavle Đurišić, Momčilo Đujić and Dobroslav Jevđević all collaborated at some point with the Germans, while still recognizing Mihailovic as official leader. Hence, they certainly could be considered "Mihailovic's people" and they certainly did help the Germans at some point (at least Jevđević, since Đurišić and Đujić seem to have been less reliable). This may also include several lesser-known Chetnik officials who may or may not have aknowledged Mihailovic. Once again : the Chetnik movement was de facto very "polycephalous". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we first simply answer the questions, and keep comments to a bare minimum in the style of !votes in AFD discussions and RFCs, so we can see if we have consensus on any of these issues. It is my hope that we can resolve some of these, and then we can focus on issues that require additional discussion. Also, I want to point out that since JJG went to the trouble to write out this draft, some of the questions may seem critical of that work--but some of the questions came up before he completed the current version. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M.'s alleged order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans

Jean-Jacques Georges: 'Still about the sources : if the only source for Mihailovic's order to Momčilo Đujić to collaborate with the Germans (I'll check that fact) is Philip J. Cohen's book "Serbia's secret war", then I suggest we dispense with this info entirely.' Do we have another source for this claim? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cohen's Serbia's Secret War a reliable source?

Jean-Jacques Georges: 'I have taken a look at Cohen's book on google and my opinion (though I may be wrong) is that it's a piece of shit, just interesting as an example of anti-Serb literature.'

I could only find this. Too bad the text of the review is not complete, but the beginning seems less than enthusiastic. Note also that the review states that "Until recently, there were no comprehensive, reasonably-objective English-language histories of World War II Croatia and Serbia" and mentions most books as "sketchy, outdated or hopelessly biased". I think we should really keep these sentences in mind when it comes to appreciate the various sources. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is JJG's lead properly balanced?

AlasdairGreen27: 'By accident, implication or design, the reader is led to suspect that the view that he was a collaborator/he collaborated (only one source) is a minority view, while precisely the opposite seems to be the case.'

Please take note that since this remark was made, I have done my best to modify the draft and make it more balanced. To start with, it dealt from the start with the question of collaboration, which I have tried to present in detail. Moreover, from all the sources I have read, I'd say that the majority of serious sources do not present him as "a collaborator", but rather present both collaboration and resistance acts by the Chetniks without taking sides. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJG's draft too reliant on a small number of the sources?

AlasdairGreen27: 'it is far too reliant on Pavlowitch and Roberts, who themselves are not representative of the sources available. The result is that the reader is left with the impression that the withdrawal of Allied support came as a mighty injustice, because the preceding text focusses almost entirely on the acts of resistance and glosses over the collaboration as a minor detail.'

I am left with the impression that AlasdairGreen27 did not read my draft very well. I have done my best to detail the process which led to the British reversal. Moreover, the draft has been modified quite a lot (not to mention completed) since this remark was made. As for the sources, Pavlowitch and Roberts are the most "neutral" authors I could find and are certainly not pro-Mihailovic. I have just been trying to be selective with the sources, using first of all the books which I have read from cover to cover, and using the references on google books for additional info only). BTW, I have since added several references to Tomasevic (+ Ramet, Lutard-Tavard, Buisson, Evans...) and have put a lot of "X says that..." and "Y writes that...". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use the word traitor?

I think a related question is, do any of the secondary sources we have at hand use this word? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, unless very well sourced. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Traitor to whom ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please inform yourself about the WWII Yugoslav state. Again: traitor to the state of Yugoslavia (both the royal government and the later coalition government) which was at war with the Axis, with whom he engaged in acts of collaboration while a Yugoslav citizen and military person. "Traitor to whom?" makes no sense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Direktor, you don't make sense. He was certainly not a traitor to the royal government. I now seriously doubt that you have any knowledge of the period at all, besides a few pages glimpsed on google books. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!Above all collaborator?

Since a number of editors have put it this way, are we in agreement that we should not characterize Milhailovic "above everything, an Axis collaborator"? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we are --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was considerable discussion on this and it was suggested that we describe his collaboration, rather than using the facile label "collaborator." Sunray (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I have tried to present both sides of the argument in my draft (including the intro) and I suggest we stick to that without being judgemental. Agree with Sunray. Saying "above all collaborator" is ridiculous, since it gives a very misleading impression of his role in history. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, JJG, I'm surprised by your !vote given your expressed position--you may want to reread the question. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have read the question very carefully. Labeling "above all" a collaborator is utterly inadequate. And that comes from someone who is certainly not a Mihailovic fan. I agree with Sunray : the label is "facile", and that is an understatement. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engaged in collaboration?

Can we say that Mihailovic "engaged in collaboration" leaving aside for the moment how often and with whom? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Too simplistic. Or it should be said that his actions included both resistance and - mainly indirect - collaboration. Please take note that I have done my best to address the subject in detail in the draft, mentioning both resistance and collaboration in the intro. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word games. Calling simple straightforward facts "simplistic" is a play on words. This person engaged in collaboration. "Indirect" collaboration is a term you just invented - there is no such thing. Draža Mihailović engaged in collaboration. Do I really need to copy-paste the sources every time this fact is stated? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'd prefer that you stop contributing entirely to wikipedia, but I suppose it's useless to wait for miracles. I have been trying consistently to present both sides (resistance and collaboration) in a balanced way. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunistic resistance?

Can we say that Mihailovic "engaged in opportunistic resistance" leaving aside for the moment how often and against whom? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes --Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No, wouldn't call it "opportunistic". "Sporadic", "sparse" come to mind. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No, the Germans considered him an enemy during the entire conflict. FkpCascais (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main problem is that M mantained during all time an resistance spirit. His main goal was never changed, and he never wished the Axis final victory. Even his "collaborations" were in "resistance spirith". That should also be taken into account. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Resistance spirit"?? What the Germans officially considered him is immaterial. What he wished "deep in his heart" :P is unknown and irrelevant. I won't even comment on "collaborating in the resistance spirit". We're trying to characterize the nature of the resistance of the Chetnik movement, not psychoanalyze the fellow... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are actually talking about the fellow... FkpCascais (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No This is meaningless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treatement of sources

I had proposed a solution at Tomasevic discussion, but I was ignored, so that is the reason I feel free to add this question here, and expect some feedback.

I entirely support JJG aproach to sources on his draft, pointing exactly who says what, and this way leaving to the readers a more complete information. FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have some negative reviews, the discussion about Tomasevich is over. Bringing him up over and over and over again is pointless. Should I copy-paste his peer reviews here? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my English is enough clear so anybody can understand I´m talking about all sources, not exclusively Tomasevic. Other touths? FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should just be juxtaposed, especially when conflicting. Moreover, I raise the question ot Tomasevic's biography : I don't know much about the guy but if he was, as FkpCascai seems to imply, professionnally dependent on Tito's regime, then he should be taken with some precautions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it: the sources are NOT conflicting. I've yet to see a source that claims Mihailović did not collaborate, and even if I were hypothetically to see one, it would be a textbook exceptional claim.

Again with the baseless accusations and meaningless personal opinions. "Dependent on Tito's regime"? The book was published under peer-review by Stanford University in 2001 [14], Tito was dead as a doornail in 1980. Unless you find someone other than User:FpkCascais:

the discussion about Tomasvich is over.

Could you stop being agressive ? If I'm not mistaken, the book dates from 1975. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear, Nuujinn moved Jean-Jacques Georges' latest draft to a subpage of this page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/JJG's Draft. Once participants have worked through the questions posed above, would it make sense to work through the draft section by section? That way, we could work collaboratively and also identify areas of consensus (or lack thereof). Then we could do further work on areas were consensus had not yet been achieved. Would folks be willing to try that? Sunray (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. FkpCascais (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, I would have preferred to be given suggestions and work on it myself rather than have it tampered with before a version is agreed upon... I hope it won't cause more confusion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]