Jump to content

Talk:Chetniks/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Chetniks from point of view of constitutional law

From this point of view their duty was to seek and destroy not only germans but also Partisans , Ustashes ... Because they were king's army defending the interest of king and his goverment . Their duty was to destroy every military element that was not in conection with king .

Not when the King started backing the Partisans. They continued to attack them well after they were an established Allied force. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks

I know that the page in wrong because the Chetniks were not collaborators with the Germans during World War II and that that photo of German soldiers with the Chetnik fighters is in fact a fake photo superimposed by the Communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Germans were superimposed to hide the flying saucer hidden in the background :P. The pic is quite obviously authentic, the Germans and Chetniks are even leaning on each-other. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


-I've put a neutrality tag on this article. My citations of Chetniks aiding allies have been deleted but yet some of the references claiming that Chetniks were axis collaborators remain with just the name of some author with NO title of a book whatsoever. (ex: "Freeman, p57." Is this an appropriate ref?)

Don't be alarmed, I didn't change article content at all. I just want people to be informed this article might not be 100% balanced. Balkanskiredneck (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

-Edit. I didn't find that weird ref i mentioned as an example sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkanskiredneck (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


This is one of the most edited articles on my watchlist. If there was no constant supervision this article would be stripped of data and presented as an ode to the heroic wronged Chetniks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all collaborators

Whats wrong with writing that not all chentiks collaborated? Also whats wrong with adding a bit of neutrality to the "instrukcije" part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanmaur (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the first part of your edit. Surely not all Chetniks collaborated, though it would be helpful to find a source for that information. Your second edit, however, did not add "a bit of neutrality" - it's an implication that the document was forged. Unless you have a number of reliable sources making this assertion, please do not add it again. Thanks! // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"Not all Chetniks collaborated"? Indeed not, in the first years of the conflict. By 1945 we find all Chetniks (and their commander Draža Mihailović) receiving supplies from the Germans and openly fighting Allied forces such as the Red Army and the Partisans. All of them. We find them retreating alongside Axis forces, and we find their remnants surrendering to the Allies with other Axis forces at Bleiburg (see Bleiburg massacre).
The sentence "not all Chetniks collaborated" is often quoted in this talkpage because it has become something of an "official stance" in Serbia. Something of a middle ground between "all Chetniks collaborated!!!" and "the Chetniks were heroes!!!". This "middle ground" stance makes sense if we forget the last year and a half of the war, when the Chetniks were stripped of all their Allied support (Tehran conference), and had no alternative but to become increasingly dependent on the Axis. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The partizans fought the chetniks even before, so we can say that the partizans were axis, using that logic. I want to see some serious source that says that the chetniks were supplied by the germans. (LAz17 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).
Not really. You see, in order to be a "collaborator", you need to collaborate with the occupying forces. In order to be "Axis", you need to fight in concert with Axis forces. As I'm sure you know, Partisan units are not recorded to have engaged in any such activities. Quite the contrary. All Partisans: non-combatants, sympathetic civilians, wounded, sick/dying (typhoid), surrendered or unarmed were shot without exception by Axis forces when encountered (per Hitler's directive).
The issue of Chetniks supplies. Your demand is like asking me to prove the US Army and the Royal Army were supplied by the US and UK. As far as late 1944/1945 is concerned, it suffices to note that had they not been supplies by the Germans (the Axis), they would have dissolved. As long as we are sure they did, in fact, collaborate with the Axis intensively, the issue of supplies is irrelevant.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's your source [1]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As director denounced my sources for yugoslav partizans being primarily serbs, I denounce your source in the same way - it a second hand source, not a direct source. We need primary sources, and that is not a primary source. Furthermore, it does not say that they got some arms, not ALL arms from them. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) Direktor, I want to know about 1944... where does it say taht they were all supplied in 1944, as well as 45? Furthermore, Cetnik ideology was to liberate yugoslavia from germans and all other parties that occupy it. Therefore they were not allies with the axis, nor were they ever in the axis. They were part of the monarchy which was on teh side of the allies. Your example saying that my question is like asking for that US/UK stuff is stupid. It is like your question for sources that partizans were primarily serbs. Everyone knows that the partizans were 90 to 95% serbs in 1941 when most partizan activities were in western serbia. So when you ask me, I answer and my sources are secondary bullshit. When I ask you I get this stupid reply, and I answer to your subaltern the same answer that you gave me there, which is technically valid. (LAz17 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).
Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What makes that author reliable? Is he an expert in any way on the field? If he is do all people agree with him? People like neol malcom write stuff too, and many people disregard a lot of it as biased crap. Is hitler's mein kaumph good too? People sure supported that back in the day and some do today too, especially in croatia, the only country in the world where you can get it legally in original german. (LAz17 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)).
Hmmm. I'm surprised to have to answer these questions. What makes the author reliable is that he was the world's foremost authority on the topic and I have never, ever read a word of criticism of him from anybody. Google search him if you have any doubts. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Look man, go read the source that you provided. It only strengthens my argument. On the page right before it it speaks of dialogues between the chetnik command and the US, from which one can conclude that they were still on friendly terms. They were talking of how they wanted to get the US to support them more than the partizans - and this is in late 1944! Further, it says that the Germans gave the chetniks some "limited extent" in terms of guns and ammunition, in order to fight the partizans. The chetniks were not a pro-German force. As said, they did collaborate in some circumstances to some degree, but they remained a support to the end of the monarchy, England, and the United States. They were on the side of the allies. Now sure, they were not pro-communists, but none the less they were NOT with the Axis. Thank you for your source btw, you used it against direktor. :) (LAz17 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

offensive and bias

To me, a Bosnjak this text is very offensive. First of all, this text seems to present chetniks as Serbian heros! Chetniks have always killed mercilessly Muslims, Croats and Jews, so how can they be heros? There is no mention of chetniks in the Bosnian war of 1992-1995, however there are numerous videos of the chetnik flag being carried by Bosnian Serb soliders (or perhaps cowards). Please, at least put a sign warning that the article seems to be bias.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.152.149 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why were my sources deleted

I'd like to ask why my sources were deleted. About 2 weeks ago I added a couple sentences to the first section, without in any way editing the content itself. I was only adding a small piece to it. I mentioned that Chetniks were involved in an operation known as Halyard in which they saved many American pilots and protected them from axis occupational forces. I'll repeat that I did NOT in any way edit any other content of the article. You can confirm this yourself by looking at the last 'Balkanskiredneck' edit made on 23:42 on May 26, 2009. I do not understand why this little addition had to be deleted despite being added with appropriate references. If you want to review these references yourself, here they are:

Next time content with these kinds of references are deleted, they should be done away with along with a legitimate reason for their deletion rather than a simple unexplained deletion. If I had done the same thing to other kinds of references and content in this article, I assure you that you all would be far less tolerant with those actions than I am with these deletions of appropriately referenced content.

Quick replies appreciated. You can have my honest gurantee I haven't made a single edit to this article since this previous deletion of my addition of content. But if this continues without mandatory and legitimate reasons, it undermines the purpose of contributing to the article and I might attempt to bring more experienced editors to try solving the matter. Thanks in adv Balkanskiredneck (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balkanskiredneck, I must say I've been startled by your post. It seems I did remove sourced unbiased information, please accept my sincere apologies. I have, of course, restored the information I believe you are referring to myself. I can only say in my defense that this article is the busiest one on my watchlist and that there are section blankings and wild nationalist edits that need reverting on a daily basis. Both Chetnik sympathizer and Bosniak nationalist IPs edit here every day trying to "prove" something. My reverts may have become too automatic, I guess. Again, my sincerest apologies and regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. I don't see why you've invited Laz here...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Director, this is directly related to our discussion. You see his unbiased sources? They prove that the chetniks were on the side of the allies even in 1944. You have no sources that indicate that ALL the weaponry that the chetniks had were from the nazis. These sources are a direct slap in your face - how are they not? The articles clearly show how the chetniks attacked nazis in these years. You owe an apology, no? Do change the date that the chetniks were still with the allies in 1944 and 1945, please. (LAz17 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
No Laz. His sources prove they saved Allied airmen, which is a well known fact. They do not "magically" prove that Chetniks did not attack Allied troops using Axis supplies and in coordination with the Axis. It is also a well known fact that the Chetniks were (unsuccessfully) lobbying with the Allies for support all throughout 1944. They were essentially denied recognition and almost all supplies, on the basis that they continued to cooperate with the Axis and refused to negotiate with the Partisans (recognized as Yugoslav Allied troops since Tehran). You see, in 1944 the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the USSR are Allies just as much as America and the UK. I hate to burst your bubble, but desperate measures to gain Allied support by getting a few airmen out of the Balkans do not somehow anull all the real collaboration stuff... like offensives against Allied troops and military coordination with Axis forces. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go nurse my face from the slap...
On June 17 1944, the situation on the ground was formalized when even King Peter II of Yugoslavia himself recognized the Yugoslav Partisans as the only legal Yugoslav military force. This is, of course, if we agree to completely ignore that the Partisans were already recognized as the Yugoslav Allied force by the major powers in Tehran much earlier. The problem you have now, is that Chetniks continued to attack the Partisans even after all this. (Of course, they had little choice since Tito would probably have had Mihailović shot on sight if he tried to join him per his orders, but that's not relevant here.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This does not mean that they were axis. They attacked axis partners. Now, look, do not say that they attacked the allies. They did not, as allies means plural. The only allied group that they fought against were the partizans. Is this not true? Same can be said of the partizans. They fought with the chetniks throughout the war. Does that make them axis in say 1941? I don't think so. I don't get this insistence from you that they were nazis. Collaborating does not mean being aligned with. (LAz17 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
Balkanskiredneck, your proposal to "attempt to bring more experienced editors to try solving the matter" would be most welcome. Please do so. We obviously need as many eyes as possible on this. The essence of the matter is as follows. The claim that the Chetniks were on the Allied side is wishful thinking. It is true that Allied airmen were rescued, especially in Operation Halyard (although approximately twice as many numerically were recorded to have been rescued by the Partisans) but the article's current statement that "throughout the war" Allied airmen were rescued by the Chetniks is an exaggeration. It is true that in contacts with American officers and officials both on the ground and in the US, notably McDowell, the Chetniks were sometimes encouraged to believe that they should not give up hope of Allied support against the Partisans. McDowell was without doubt acting and speaking beyond the terms of his mandate in this. The American role in formulating Allied policy towards Yugoslavia was minor, as Roosevelt deferred in the matter to Churchill and Stalin, both of whom were pro-Tito, despite mutual reservations. Allied views towards the Chetniks cooled rapidly during the war and thus their policy shifted away from the Chetniks and in favour of the Partisans as a result of a) the Chetniks entering into local collaborationist agreements with the Italians as early as 1942, for example those concluded by Trifunović-Birčanin and Jevđević, and b) the active role of the Partisans versus the more passive role adopted by the Chetniks in combatting the Germans. Chetnik units also consistently fought under German command in 1944 and 1945, such as Račić's under von Jungenfeld. The article should point out that the Chetniks hoped that the US and Britain would come round to a pro-Royalist and anti-Communist position by the end of the war, and that the published sources frequently apply the adjective "naive" in this regard. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm, Balkanski, you should probably read WP:CANVASS before you do anything... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any source the indicates full support of the chetniks to the germans, and that the germans controlled serbian divisions. I only see the war with the partizans. I propose this. Howabout we write that the chetniks were a third front, not on anyone's side? I think that this would be appropriate. At any rate, direktor is changing stuff on the yugoslav page that the chetniks were on the side of the axis between 1943 and 1945. I changed that to 1945, however I feel that it would be best to write that they were independent from 1943 to 1945, not on either ones side necessarily. The only chetnik cooperation with nazis against the partizans came in order to fight the partizans. You mention how there was cooperation with italians. That is true, but the cooperation with italians was against ustashe too, wasn't it? It was to liberate mostar. As we see this region underwent some messeed up things during the war, so the easiest way to solve this is to say that the chetniks were independent from 1943. (LAz17 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).
LAz, the only thing we can do in this article is report and reflect what the authors say. That is the essence of WP:RS. It is not for us to adopt any kind of editorial policy. It seems to me, and I hope, that we are now together developing a new ideal for this article, that involves completely rewriting it in line with what the authors have written. This means no POV, no interpretation, no ideology... just an encyclopedic reflection.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, you keep talking about some kind of ideas, but you're ignoring and forgetting my point, the only thing that matters here. Its simply true that the Chetniks engaged in operations against Allied forces in coordination with the Axis. What else is there to discuss??! "Third front"?! LoL... Just take a look at the above listed OKW reports concerning just how great the Chetniks and Germans worked together. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer to which is that we follow the sources. Jesus, it's not that complicated.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Being against only the partizans is not the equivalent of being against all the allies. How hard is that to understand? You say saying attacking partizans = being axis, that is flawed logic. If we are to buy this sad argument, then we can say that the Partizans were not the allies prior to 1943. Lets follow the sources, there is nothing that shows alliance with the axis, and it shows that the chetniks have been with the US and Britain, allies. The chetniks continued to be supplied by allies after 1943, though less than before. (LAz17 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).


  • "Being against only the partizans is not the equivalent of being against all the Allies." First of all, they were also against the most significant Allied power of WWII, the Soviet Union (with over 500 divisions). Secondly, do you understand the concept of an alliance? An "alliance" means that if someone is against an ally within the alliance, he's against the entire alliance. That's the whole point. If that is not the case, than its not an alliance: its something else. Here it is in the simplest possible rendering: Partisans = Allies. Chetniks attack Partisans. Chetniks attack Allies. How hard is that to understand?
  • I am NOT saying "attacking Partisans = being Axis", that would be flawed logic. Just like "attacking Chetniks (prior to 1943) = being Axis" would be flawed logic. However, if you add "Partisans" = "Allies" and "attack" = "attack in cooperation with the Axis" to the equation, you might get it: "attacking Allies in collaboration with the Axis = being Axis".
  • Finally, it does not matter if the Chetniks had nothing against the UK and USA, who gives a damn about their "feelings"?? Its their actions we will be concerning ourselves with. The US and the UK are no more or less Allies than the Soviet Union or the Partisans. You need to get your facts about the Allies straight. The fact that the Americans sent the Chetniks supplies has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the question of their collaboration with the Axis powers. To try and use it to disprove collaboration is what I'd characterize as a desperate move. You have no real argument and are "clutching at straws" to somehow try and find a combination of logic that suits your POV.
  • "we can say that the Partisans were not the allies prior to 1943." To put it bluntly: forget it... They were a resistance movement. Do you have any idea how many Allied resistance movements were not officially recognized by the Allies within the first period of their foundation? The Chetniks ceased to be "Allies" simply because they were Axis collaborators. If they hadn't actually collaborated, they would have continued to be an Allied resistance, even after the Partisans got the official status.

I have to say it takes a hell of a lot of propaganda and indoctrination to make someone so blind to a fact so blatantly obvious: they were a collaborating organization. Not by ideology, but certainly in practice. They didn't collaborate because they were "evil", it was simply the best course of action available to them if they were to achieve their goals. The Partisans didn't stay loyal because they were the "good guys", they simply had no choice whether they wanted to or not.
The Chetniks' logic, i.e. Mihailović's logic, is sound, very sound in fact. They correctly deduced that if the Germans win in Russia they'll get obliterated anyway, but just in case they lose, the Chetniks will do everything in their power and desperately try to destroy what they correctly perceive as the greatest threat to the Yugoslavia they were trying to (re-)establish. Sine they could not destroy this threat, the left-wing resistance, by themselves, they will join with other extreme right-wing forces in occupied Yugoslavia to do so (i.e. the Axis). The Partisans, of course, simply could not do anything of the kind themselves even if they wanted to: they were the only left-wing faction in the entire area. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LAz, first of all, it's easy to take Wikipedia way too seriously. Basically, who cares what Wikipedia says about the Chetniks? I certainly don't lose any sleep about it - the article is so badly written (clearly it has been written more or less entirely by pro- and anti-Chetnik fanatics) that only a fool would use it as a source of information. That said, in an ideal world, what would you like the article to say? Given that you know, I know and DIREKTOR knows that they consistently collaborated with the occupying forces, and given that hardly anybody except the three of us us reads this article, what would you like it to say? Serious question. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
While the point that is going around is that they were a collaborating organization... I still put up the point that they were collaborating with both sides god damn it, not just one of the sides. They saved allied troops and attacked the axis on numerous occasions! Alasdair- what I want is that it be taken off that they were on the side of the axis from 1943 to 1945. That makes it seem like they were 100% on that side, and 100% against the other side. That is the picture that the article paints, and it is not so black and white, there are shades of grey, and this situation is in the grey, not in the black or in the white. I mean, how on earth can one say that based off of collaborations we'll toss them to be with the enemies. They collaborated with both allies and axis at the same time!!! This is why I proposed a third category, as they were on BOTH sides, like it or not Direktor. (LAz17 (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)).

Yes they collaborated with both sides.

  • Collaboration with the Allies. The Good: They saved a number of Allied pilots. Period. The Bad: They attacked Allied forces in pitched battles with tens of thousand of men. They avoided confrontation with the Germans in spite of orders to the contrary, and received supplies from them. They were eventually abandoned and denounced by the Allied powers as early as 1943 (publicly, at least).
  • Collaboration with the Axis. The Good: They offered very useful auxiliary mobile formations, highly adept for the Axis purpose: the encirclement and annihilation of the Partisans. They sapped Serbian manpower that the Partisans were trying to tap into, and entered confusion into the Yugoslav resistance. Not least, they defrauded Allied support from the resistance movements that were desperately fighting the occupation, as opposed to their very wise policy of "live and let live". The Bad: They assisted the escape of Allied airmen, and occasionally conducted minor sabotage ops (and that only in the first period of the war).

Yes, they were definitely "collaborating with both sides". Your POV has now become quite obvious. You're not here to introduce new information, or to correct errors. You're on a mission to make the Chetniks look as good as will be allowed. Above you were claiming that they didn't collaborate or that few collaborated, now you're claiming they constitute an imaginary "third front" collaborating with everyone. You'll take any angle you can in your agenda. As I said above, it makes your efforts look desperate... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring the key point that I am making. They were on both allied and axis sides at the same time, therefore you can not say that they were with one side or that they were with other side completely, like the wikipedia article clearly suggests. Perhaps you do not comprehend what I am saying. They attacked german forces, and that is proof that they were not on the side of the axis. I say third front, or something else, because they were not clearly on anyone's side other than their own. But, you are a very biased person, who is anti-chetnik. Your biased goals are to align then with the nazis, and well guess what, it is not so simple. To some extent yes, to other extents NO, no way in hell. You look at only part of the picture and based off of the collaboration you say that they were aligned withe nazis. Dude, they were aligned with the allies at that same time and attacked the nazis... therefore we can not and must not say that they were 100% on the nazis side, like you have indicated in the yugoslav front topic, saying that they were ONLY on the side of the nazis between 1943 and 1945.(LAz17 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).
Your points in your last post there... they are rather biased. You say the good and the bad... come on man, you are trying to say the same thing in both, to place blame. You bold that they attacked the allies under collaborating with allies page. That is out of place. That should be in the bellow category, and you should bold something saying that They attacked the germans many times. (LAz17 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).
File:Churchill & Eden Greet Tito In London jpg.jpg
Yugoslav Prime Minister Josip Broz Tito greeted by "reportedly deceived" British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in London, 1950s. Its nice to see old friends kiss and make-up when one betrays Stalin :)

You're ignoring my point: no they were most certainly NOT on both the side of the Allies and the Axis at the same time. You absolutely can not be on both sides of a war at the same time, that's just the kind of stretch one expects from a desperate POV attempt. If this is about the airmen again, let me once again emphasize the complete and total irrelevance of that particular point in proving that they were Allies. Please forget it, it does not mean a thing.
Despite your smoke screen, the situation is quite clear. The Chetniks were sympathetic to the western Allies, but hostile to the other Allied powers. Unfortunately for them, those are not two alliances. You can't be friendly with one, and murderously hostile to another part of an alliance. This is why the Allies of WWII held the great conferences, in which they determined, among other things, the joint stance of the Allied powers towards any and all factions involved to the war. This included the Chetniks and the Partisans. At the Tehran conference, the Partisans were recognized as the Allied forces of Yugoslavia. More importantly, the Chetniks were not recognized as Allies. Therefore, they are not "Allies" in any way. My point is: the western Allies, to which the Chetniks were sympathetic, publicly abandoned and denounced them.

Let's conclude. You essentially claim the following: The Chetniks movement which engaged in large-scale offensives against Allied forces in coordination and collaboration with Axis forces is not, in fact, Axis, because members of that movement rescued a relatively small number of western Allied airmen. perhaps they were just pretending to be Axis, hm? It somehow seems more likely that the Chetniks, as opportunists, tried to play both sides but obviously failed miserably in their attempts to get the support and protection of the western Allies. Some elements within the western Allies were indeed sympathetic to the Chetnik plight, but that does not make the Chetniks "on the Allied side". The only thing that matters is who they actually fought and in collaboration with whom. A ridiculous rescue operation or two is completely and utterly negligible and irrelevant when compared to war operations and mass offensives. How many times are you going to try and push that bull? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue operations are not ridiculous. There is no source of the chetniks being in total alliance with the nazis. The chetnik goal was the liberation of yugoslavia, which did not stand with the nazis. There was no formal alliance of any sort - was there? The chetniks did not declare war on other allied countries, like all axis countries did. Furthermore, the only reason why the chetniks were not favored in yugoslavia by the allies is because of extreme pressure from the communist soviet union for support of the communist partizans. England's premier said it was a grave mistake to support the partizans. Churchill said that he was deceived and badly informed. The soviet government is the main reason for this, starting with their false reports and exaggerations in 1942. As that book shows, this was an organized communist campaign to paint tito as a democrat and to demonize mihailovic. http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg Funny how the articles say nothing about soviet propaganda interference. Yet this source that we show for soviet propaganda... we actually cite that for nazi collaboration. The source is not about nazi collaboration. Article needs a revamp due to biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

There was no "formal" alliance, of course, because they're not a state. They're a crappy little militia force, they don't enter into "formal" negotiations with world powers. Now you're just talking nonsense. As I said before: the Chetnik ideology is irrelevant in collaboration considerations. Its what they did that matters, not what they said they'd do. You're right: "rescue operations are not ridiculous". Trying to use them as proof of non-collaboration in the face of Chetnik offensives on Allied forces is what's completely ridiculous.
At first Churchill and Tito were buddies, then Churchill was angry at Tito, then they were buddies again after the Tito-Stalin split. That's all irrelevant, and what that all has to do with Chetnik collaboration I have no idea. The Soviet Union made no false reports on Yugoslavia, that's a conspiracy theory Serbian radical nationalists promote so that they can live in their dream world of Chetnik glory. Its a joke. Soviet agents in the MI5?? Does this include Randolph Churchill, who was personally sent on a mission to the Partisans? Concerning the statements by Churchill you've quoted: one is unconfirmed and only reported ("I was deceived"), the other is a diplomatic nicety. A gesture of sympathy to the deposed King, it has nothing to do with the Chetniks whatsoever.
Again: you're rambling on and on and on with not a single sentence actually presenting some kind of relevance to the question of Chetnik collaboration.

We have already concluded that:

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while reciving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration.
See what's happening? You can't refute these main points so you're now just drning on about conspiracy theories, "third fronts" and what not. That's it from me, have fun venting your frustration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You yourself have said that the chetniks did receive some military aid from the allies. Not a lot, but some. So tell me, what is going on there? At any rate, the chetniks were loyal to the crown. Furthermore, many of the claims of cooperations with the germans - some true - were over exaggerated by the soviet media. I understand very well what you mean by collaboration, but geting arms from the allies and attacking germans to save allied soldiers is in itself collaboration with the allies too. That's a fact. Furthermore, was there any collaboration in 1943? From what I know, the partizans ot support in december 1943, after much soviet pressure. When did the chetniks start their collaboration though? Was it before 1943? Was it during 1943? Was it while they were still labeled as allies? Did they do anything at all in the last month of 1943, when they were not longer the preferred fighting force by the allies? In fact, I bet that the soviet union never recognized them as part of the allies. However, I am not aware that Britain or the US ever regarded them as enemies. (LAz17 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

What part of "these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration" didn't you understand? Or am I supposed to repeat it again for the fifth time? (The Chetniks were loyal to the crown only in their theory, in practice they were NOT loyal to the crown. They betrayed the crown by fighting against the Yugoslav forces supported by the crown. The crown denounced them by signing the Tito-Šubašić Agreement.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This agreement was in late 1944, a few months before the end of the war. Congratulations. So clearly the chetniks were not on the axis side until the very end of the war, not 1943. Again I ask you, was there any chetnik anti-partizan activity in december 1943? You also seem to have very little words to say to my last point, and point to this agreement, which was signed at the very end of the war. I suppose it would be legitimate to say that the chetniks were on the axis side SINCE this agreement, in late 1944 to whenever the fighting stopped in the former yugoslavia, which is a few months into 1945. (LAz17 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Interesting how you only replied to the irrelevant text in the brackets. Ok, here we go, copy/paste:

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1)Chetniks attacked partizans(part of the allies) even in 1942 - correct or wrong?
2)Chetniks were the recognized army of the crown until almost the end of the war in 1944 - correct or wrong?
3)Chetniks attacked germans after november 1943 - correct or wrong?
4)Chetniks continued receiving aid from britain and the us after november 1943, though less than in the past - correct or wrong?
All are correct from what I know. Therefore what are we talking about? (LAz17 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
You gotta be kidding when you make fun of chetnik rescue opperations of allies troops. Not only was this a major airlift behind enemy lines, it was the BIGGEST one in the entire war. Operation Halyard. You disrespect the significance of this, and the awards that the US gave to the Chetniks in recognition of their help. (LAz17 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

1) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) The subject of this discussion is not whether they collaborated in 1942, its whether they collaborated during WWII.
2) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) The recognition of the crown is not necessary for admission to the Allies. The AVNOJ was recognized as a body equal to the government-in-exile, leading to a merge of the two near the end of the war.
3) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) Minor acts of sabotage and diversion are completely negligible in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis.
4) Irrelevant. (Don't bring this up again, it won't be adressed.) Again, this is a negligible fact in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis. You should also remember that it was covert, and that it did not last into 1945.
Yeah, phoey on Operation Halyard! Down with the Allied airmen!! Minor acts of sabotage and diversion are completely negligible in comparison to large-scale anti-Allied offensives and logistical dependence on the Axis. I can copy/paste that again if you like. And, yes, it was a minor operation compared to the battles and offensives of the Yugoslav Front, which are all that matters from a serious standpoint.

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, how can you say that that is irrelevant? That proves your pro partisan bias. The chetniks collaborated against the partizans, not the allies. I am not aware that the chetniks ever recognized the partizans as allies. Furthermore, they have been collaborating against the partisans for almost the entire war. Dude, almost the entire war, so why would it matter if it is 1944 or 1942. It does not matter. The crown was always part of the allies, and the chetniks were with the crown until very late 1944. And yes, the collaborated for almost the entire war, so by your logic the chetniks were on the side of the axis even in 1942. Your logic is flawed. Those were NOT minor acts. 500 allies soldiers most definitely is not insignificant like you make it sound. 500 is a LOT. Maybe the chetniks did not get much or any aid in 1945, but they did get aid in 1944. Therefore, even england/USA collaborated according to your logic. You clearly are avoiding serious issues here. I request a FEW third opinions - none of them form the former yugoslavia either, none of them that know me or you, as you are too biased hence unreliable. (LAz17 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).
Tim Judah, a well renown and respected journalist and writer of several books notes various things on page 119 in his book "the serbs - myth, history and the destruction of yugoslavia". Among some facts, like that the partizans were composed of mainly serbs at the start of the war, he also notes that the partizans (tito's deputies) in 1943 held discussions on cooperation against chetniks - in zagreb - but nothing came of these talks. On page 122 he notes that some 8 percent of the chetniks in late 1943, some 4,000 people, were muslims. Further on it says that the allies decided to supply the partizan,s as in 1943 italy crumbled, resulting in the partizans to seize their weaponry making them much stronger than the chetniks - this is another fact that is totally ignored, asides from collaboration. The chetniks were dropped of aid from britain in spring 1944 - until then they received aid as they were britain's allies. In their retreats after the partizans and soviets took belgrade in october 1944, chetniks started retreating. Many that passed through ustashe territory were killed by ustashas - aha, so is that collaboration? Some 20,000 chetniks at Eboli italy, a british prison of war camp were treated very kindly, as they were viewed on to be pro-allied. After the war some 8,000 were welcomed in britain, and the rest in USA, Canada, and Australia. To top things off, Chetniks-FascistItalian formations TOGETHER seized Mostar cheering down with the ustasha, as they took it. Wow shit, nazi italy against nazi croatia. Italians collaborating with allies. As you hopefully see, this is a rather complicated situation, and calling the chetniks nazis and on the side of the axis just like that is extremely biased given the complexity of the situation. (LAz17 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).
  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being annoying with explaining what collaboration is. Partizans tried to collaborate too, in meetings in Zagreb with Germans. Furthermore, I am by no means trying to say that there was no collaboration - I clearly say there was. The Chetniks attacked the partizans with weaponry that they received from allied troops, not just weapons that they received from german troops. Again, please stop wasting time as you are clearly biased. I want a third opinion from a non-yugoslava nd someone who does not know you or me. And stop calling the partizans allied forces. You make it sound as if the chetniks waged war against the US and Britain, but they always viewed those two countries to be their allies. They only fought against the Partizans, and saying allies instead of Partizans gives this a different tone. You are indeed biased. (LAz17 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).
  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

That's collaboration, the very definition of it. All your endless gibberish above has no bearing on these simple facts. And these simple facts are all that matters with regard to Chetnik collaboration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fucken bullshit sources

Source 1 and 11 are suggesting clear cooperation between nazis and chetniks. Does anyone bother checking what arbitrary racism redacted put up?! What kind of scum would lie like that?! Misusing sources is such a low down bastardly thing to do. Here is what page 34 is... http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg ...seriously people, we need to stop this paranoia. All the points that indicate that source must be deleted, as the source is completely different. This is only the start. This shit is going to have to go under comprehensive evaluation for more source fraud. It's not the first nor last time that croats try to be sneaky. Ceha's fraud maps are a great example. Boy was he pissed when I deleted his prized maps. He defendd them to the last minute, but it was all in vain. Just like Direktor's attempts will be in vain, with these fraudulent sources. You see, just because there is no link that shows this, does not mean that someone can not bother to check. And when one checks, bam, the rotten edifice is found. (LAz17 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)). Sorry, I might not have used appropriate language, but the fact remains that the source is misused, and that is not a small problem, that is a huge problem. We can't take sources and cite them for things that they do not say. Does anyone have a problem with this or is the goal to water down everything, to make any source anything we want it to be? I may as well cite Green Eggs and Ham for this. (LAz17 (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).

This page is edited 50 times a week by nationalist Chetnik-loving nuts and Bosniak hatemongers. You can't expect all refs to be right next to the stuff they refer to anymore. SHOCKING as that may be...
I have to say, I've forgotten how obtuse you can be during discussion. You are capable of repeating the same damn faulty argument in perpetuity, regardless of the fact that its long been refuted. You're among the most exhausting editors I've yet encountered. This is simply because you have a very strong POV, and are not discussing logically because of that.
In the future, please read user responses completely and take what they state into account when responding. Otherwise, responding to your posts becomes pointless and repetitive. Posts that do not take into account user responses and continue to repeat the same argument will be ignored by me. I'm sorry, but I can't waste my energy in writing up repetitive answers over and over again in different wording. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You are probably the one who put that false source there in the first place!! The source on wikipedia says exactly what you are saying, about collaboration whatnot, in detailed reasons. The actual source, as I have uploaded, shows none of that. You are using the bad source! And you won't even admit it, as the source shares your opinion. Furthermore, this source has been on therefor quite some time. I bet that if someone deleted it, you would have put it back. You can't now!(LAz17 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

I don't remember adding a source to this article in months and months. Look, if you'll just stop with your vague accusations and present some kind of evidence to your claims, it would really be a lot less annoying, thanks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But I did present the evidence. Did you ignore what I wrote in this subsection??? Here, look again, http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/IMG_1274.jpg , it is the first source in the article which supposedly backs up all your arguments here - but the real source, form the scanned picture clearly shows that you or whoever put this up is false. This also has probably been up for years, or many months. (LAz17 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm talking about me putting it up. Either way, there are plenty of sources and primary OKW reports confirming that text. Much ado about nothing. The source simply isn't next to whatever it supports, it just got mixed-up, I suppose. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When I have more time I will go about deleting everything that is cited by the source, as it is clearly wrong. The question is why do you do nothing to change this error - perhaps because you do not have the same sources but are accepting wrong stuff, as you are taking no action against it. (LAz17 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
Direktor, you are still using this source to justify things. Howabout we delete it? (LAz17 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)).

Resistance movement? LoL

The day you'll be able top glorify your Chetniks as the first "resistance movement" - that'll be the day. Once again you look only at 1941 or 1942, since you're biased. When describing the WW2 Chetnik movement on the whole, we generally like to consider the whole rotten apple. So, generally, as the final state of affairs reduces the Chetniks to a collaborating Axis "militia", getting whacked five ways and sideways by just about everyone, the Chetnik movement is simply not a resistance movement. Particularly since they actually "resisted" the Allies more than the Axis (an easily proven statement, given their numbers in the anti-Partisan attacks). If we compare the numbers of Chetnik troops in Axis offensives on Allied forces, with the great Axis offensives against the Chetnik mountain strongholds... wait, there were no such things, were there? So, here we go again with the basic paramount facts you like to ignore and I like to repeat...

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that the chetniks were the first resistance movement. Further, please stop with this biased thing of being against the allies, when they were subserviant to the Yugoslav Monarchy who were in fact the allies. This was until late 1944. It is a fact that the Chetniks fought against the Germans. This decreased after the Germans started slaughtering thousands of serbian civilians in places like Kragujevac. Looking at the chetniks as a whole, they were on the side of Western Europe, against the communists ,and against the Ustashe/Nazis. They fought to liberate the country that belonged to the Serbian Monarchy. (LAz17 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)). You ignore that the Chetniks were on the side of Britain and the US, the Allies. They continued to get supplies from the Allies, and they continued to attack German forces in order to rescue allies. Only in November 1944 when the Monarchy recognized the Partizans can we say that the Chetniks were no longer on the side of the allies. You ignore that the Chetniks were until late 1943 the preferred allies force that got the bulk of allied supplies. Therefore they were an allies army, and therefore there is nothing wrong to say that they were the first resistance against Nazi Germany. (LAz17 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

I really, really hate the phrase "please stop!". Its revolting. What you really want to say is "STOP NOW!", instead you (and others on Wiki) concoct a passive-aggressive expression that really turns the stomach upside-down. "Please stop"? Well, I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your polite request. Anyway, I digress...
In order for something to be a "frist resistance movement", it has to be a - get this - resistance movement. The Yugoslav government in London had absolutely NO control of the Chetniks, whatsoever. They were NOT really (de facto) subservient to the Yugoslav government, just like they were NOT really (de facto) an Allied force. Was the Chetnik movement a resistance movement? Well then how come that...

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I fully support LAz17's statements. DIREKTOR is one of the most consistent POV-pushers on articles regarding Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. I am sure even DIREKTOR is well aware of the fact that the Chetniks started as a resistance movement to the Germans and that they long enjoyed the backing of both the UK and the US.JdeJ (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, but the question is: can they be numbered among "resistance movements" on the whole when WWII is concerned? The answer, of course, is obviously not. You can't very well be the "first resistance movement" of WWII when you can't be numbered among WWII resistance movements.
JdeJ, call me whatever you want, just make sure you note that you're here out of "revenge" because I opposed your edits elsewhere. U probably have little or no idea what you're talking about, and are basing your stance on opposition to me (which is pretty obvious from your post). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the factual question, the Chetniks were a resistance movement and their resistance to German occupation started before the Partisans' resistance, so calling them the first resistance movement of WWII in Yugoslavia is not controversial. As for my "opposition" to DIREKTOR, the user is in fact half right, although it's not persoanl. I am opposed to people using Wikipedia to push their own agenda, be it a political, historical or religious agenda. It is also true that this stance often causes me to oppose DIREKTOR, as the user is very persistent in editing and even vandalising articles if they don't fit his particular views. As for any "revenge", it is of course complete nonsense.JdeJ (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you've just demonstrated your ignorance on the subject: the question is were the Chetniks the first resistance movement in WWII, not in Yugoslavia alone. Secondly, calling a militia fighting against Allied forces such as the Yugoslav Partisans and the USSR, in close cooperation with Axis occupation, the "first resistance movement of WWII" is most certainly not "controversial" - it is outright ridiculous.
I may also say that your cheap "standard" attempts at discrediting me as a Wikipedia editor are obviously petty revenge, and are as transparent as they are disgusting. Your arrival here via my contributions is not something anyone can doubt. You are here to pick a fight with me, plain and simple. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a need to discuss personal issues, and I'm sure I won't provide you with that. The fact under consideration here is that the Chetniks were allies of both the UK and the US for many years during WWII. Your personal views on that factual matter are of no interest. Wikipedia is about verifiable fact, not personal opinions.JdeJ (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My good fellow, read your own posts. You've based your entire view in this matter on "DIREKTOR is one of the most consistent POV-pushers on articles...". It may also do you good to remember who exactly started talking about those "personal issues" you mention. So you see, I'm not really ignoring your arguments and focusing on the personal issues - you've actually presented no new arguments (because you know of none), and are quite obviously only here to discredit me. That, sir, is not an opportunity I will provide you with.
Who's allies the Chetniks were on paper is not something that matters here (even though the Allies never officially recognized the Chetniks). We are not in London in 1942 trying to make sense out of the situation in occupied Yugoslavia, we're in 2009 and we're buried in evidence of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis. To call a collaborating organization "the first resistance movement of WWII", is something that can only be proposed by radical nationalist Serbs (and those who wish to spite their opponents, apparently). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR, I don't think anyone non-biased editor reading through your contributions would come to a different conclusion than I have. Regarding the matter at hand, you seem to be very interested in presenting your opinion of the Chetniks. Your opinion, dear DIREKTOR, is completely irrelevant, as is mine. What matters here is facts, and facts alone. May I remind you that the US awarded a posthumous award to Mihajlovic in 1948 (years after the war) for his contributios to the allied victory. Now, will you go on to claim that the US government at the time was run by "racial nationalist Serbs".JdeJ (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think I care about your "conclusions" concerning my contributions. The suggestion that you, following me around to disagree with me on various issues, are a "non-biased" and objective judge in such things is laughable. I suggest you read WP:HOUND and stop pretending to "defend the facts" while all you're doing is indulging in petty revenge. Concerning "the facts", here's a few cardinal relevant ones (as opposed to the irrelevant ones you like to bring up):

  • 1) Chetniks fought against Allied forces consistently repeatedly and with (relatively) massive forces. 2) They attacked Allied forces in close cooperation with Axis occupation forces. 3) They Attacked Allied forces while receiving Axis supplies to do so.

But no! lets talk about medals, they're facts too... (In the meantime, you should also probably learn the difference between the adjectives "racial" and "radical", and a little something about the SRS) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're free to ignore any of my "conclusions", as you call them. All of the three points you make above are perfectly true, by the way, but that is not the point here. The Chetniks started out as a resistance movement to the German occupation and were, at the time, the first such resistance movement in occupied Europe. See the Britannica article used as a source for this article. That makes the claim of the Chetniks being the first resistance movement correct.JdeJ (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a "conclusion"? You used that term, hence the parentheses, you know... Anyway, I was not aware there were two "Chetnik movements"? If my hypothesis is right, and there is only one movement, could you explain how a movement can be both an effective collaborating militia and the first "resistance movement"? Or are you suggesting that we treat the Chetnik movement as two seperate factions, one in 1941 and '42, another in 1943 - '45? The blatant absurdity of this escapes you? You are unable to consider that it is irrational POV-pushing on the part of Serbian nationalism? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nodoby cares about your "hypothesis". We have solid sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, stating that the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement to the German occupation [Chetnik - Britannica Online Encyclopedia]. Wikipedia is about sourced facts, not individual users' personal "hypothesis".JdeJ (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh *sigh*, let me explain: When I said "hypothesis" up there, I was quite plainly being sarcastic - there is only one collaborating Chetnik movement - and the fact that they were a collaborating organization is supported by a mountain of sources. In light of this sourced fact, it is absolutely ridiculous to call them the first resistance movement and a collaborating movement at the same time. Though I appreciate you reminding me how mortal and insignificant I am by the old "nobody cares about your stuff" routine, just try next time to properly make sense out of the sentence first. (You can probably stop repeating the word "fact" over and over again, I got the "message".) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you're repeating yourself all the time, I understand what you're saying very well. It's just that I don't agree, and as long as we have solid sources claiming that the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement, that is what we say. It's our job to present sources, not to interpret them. As for your "insignificance", as you call it, I said that your personal views are as irrelevant as mine, it has nothing to do with you personally. I think we have both made our views on this perfectly clear by now.JdeJ (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, let me be clear on this: the SOURCES state they were a collaborating movement. Sources. You seem unable to understand what I am telling you, hence I am repeating myself. These SOURCES support my point. I am discussing from a point of view supported by SOURCES. SOURCES, SOURCES stating FACTS. FACTS which support my position on this. FACTS and SOURCES. Your empty, obvious, and worn-out act of "defending facts in the face of personal opinion", is something one tries on newbies, not people who've been around here for a while. My position is actually the one far more supported by sources: the one that the World War II Chetniks were not a "resistance movement" during WWII. The position that takes into account that they are collaborating forces, not to be classified as the "world's first resistance movement". Try passing that in the Resistance during World War II article.

I'm sure you're obviously very objective and "non-personal" (warning: sarcasm)... coming here in violation of WP:HOUND in order to quarrel with me... I mean, it wouldn't make much sense if you followed me around and then agreed with me based on the FACTS and SOURCES, would it? (capitalization is for emphasis, not representing "shouting") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more to say in this question, as you're obviously not listening to anyone not sharing your opinion. The sources are there for anyone to look into without me or you interpreting them for them. Instead I'll offer you a little hint: for someone who has been so long as you say you've been, your argumentation is very weak. I would advice you to drop the sarcasm, all the remarks that you yourself no doubt find witty but others only find childish and the constant insistance that when people don't agree with you, it is because they are biased, out to get you or just unable to understand you. You're not convincing anyone with that kind of behaviour. You will no doubt ignore this advice as well. I have little hope of you paying more attention to my advice than you pay to Encyclopedia Britannica.JdeJ (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact same can be said of you. My argumentation is by no means "weak", and I do not take advice from people who WP:harass me, that would be self-demeaning. You are/were not here to discuss the issue objectively, in a friendly manner, and for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. You came following me, in a hostile attempt to diminish my standing both on Wikipedia and in this talkpage, out of spite and out of a sense of petty "revenge". When your motives are hostile to begin with, you should not expect more than hostility in response. For what its worth to you, what respect I had for your value as an editor has been greatly diminished, as has the possibility of establishing polite, objective discourse on other occasions in the future. Most will have missed this "episode", but it is nevertheless a disgraceful act, a mistake that reveals base personal motivations behind your edits. At the very least, this was a grave error in judgment on your part. Be advised that I will not hesitate at this point to report you if I assess you are in serious violation of WP:HARASS. I do not mean this as a personal "threat", I am simply informing you that deliberte attempts at sabotaging my efforts will not be overlooked. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Very funny! Chetniks were no any kind of resistance movement. Chetniks were created 20 years before WWII as military force to support Serbian expansionism in old Yugoslavia. They served to Serbian king who was supposed to rule aculturised and Serbianized Yugoslavia, they were monarchists, expansionists. When WWII started they were not nazi enemies, they had their own idea what to do, like burning down non-Serb villages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They colaborated with nazis from the 1st day of war and were in conflict with the partisans, the only real resistance to the Germans. After Hitler's defeat in the Russian front, Chetniks made an agreement with the allies and started to change sides. So during 1943 and 1944 they massively transformed to the partisans, contributting to resistance, but not before. But in that moment they were no more Chetniks, they became Partisans. Before that they were 3rd Riech allies, not resistance forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous user above also seems to suffer from the idea that personal opinions weigh heavier than sourced facts. Check Encyclopedia Britannica, the link is given above. DIREKTOR, you're repeated accusations of me harassing you is a bit silly. I just had a look at your edit history and you appear to be very active in many articles (that is of course good). If I had the intention of following you around to "undermine" you and undo your efforts, I would probably pop up much more often, right? As we both have an interest in the former Yugoslavia, it is probable that we will come across each other again. That is not harassing by any stretch of imagination, but you are of course welcome to report me if you feel you have a case. As for "diminishing your standing on Wikipedia", why would I waste time on doing something that you do so much better yourself?JdeJ (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. It seems that you suffer from an absolute lack of knowledge on this matter. Check sides in conflict in Battle of the Neretva in the 1st half of 1943! Chetniks were still Axis forces. From summer 1943 things were changing, ex-Chetniks were gradually mobilised to the Partisan forces (mostly during 1944). In too many cases, Britannica is not relevant source for the out of Anglo-Saxon world. And there's another moment, Serbian king in exile escaped to England in 1941. Already before WWII he had good political relations with English Monarchy, monarchists in Europe were always supporting each other and Serbian ruler was the only monarch in countries of Old Yugoslavia, therefore the only possible political partner from English monarchist point of view. What Britannica says is nothing but reflection of the political activity of Serbian monarch in exile and his descendents (who still live in England) after WWII, whose primal intention was and is revision of role played by Chetniks in WWII, unfortunatelly fake one. It only shows how influental Serbian loby is in England. By the way, I've checked, Britannica is tertiary source, according to categorization of sources you use in wikipedia, at the same level as wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your "ha ha", it was very convincing. I think you will find that most Wikipedia editors tend to place more trust in Encyclopedia Britannica than in the opinions of an anonymous user.JdeJ (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. Every kid in the Balkans knows who was on what side in WWII. I don't think that you will find many Serbs who will support weird idea launched by Serb nationalist user up there and you. Use some real source, not overrated Britannica. Why do you even mess with topic completely uknown to you? I suggest you to learn the basic facts about WWII in the Balkans, before coming here. You're building reputation of an unserious encyclopedist this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.3 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your sympathy for my lack of knowledge, it is of great comfort to me in my beliefs in the overrated Encyclopedia Britannica instead of the opinions of anonymous users.JdeJ (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should concentrate more on the fact that Chetnik collaboration is sourced, and that one cannot be a resistance and collaborating movement at the same time. This is not "opinion", as your transparent "rhetoric" would suggest, but is the most fundamental logic. This discussion is on labeling the WWII Chetnik movement as a whole with the category "first resistance movement of WWII". However, a movement cannot be considered both a "resistance movement" (B) and a "collaborating movement" (A), since these categories are quite obviously mutually exclusive by definition. In order for the Chetniks to be the "first resistance movement of WWII" (C), then they first must be considered a "resistance movement" (B), in other words, C follows from B. If (published, reliable) sources have confirmed that A is true, then B is excluded, and if B is excluded then C cannot be possible either. Briefly, if A ⊕ B, B ⇒ C, and A is SOURCED to be true, then it is ridiculous to suggest that A ⇒ C, or in other words, that C is true (to put it simply). It is called exclusive disjunction.
Now, you're sure to quickly try and dismiss the above as complex "mumbo-jumbo" or whatnot. Therefore I must remind you that this is simply a sickeningly overcomplicated detailed depiction of the point I have been repeating over and over again above. In the face of your constant insistence that this is just my opinion, and not a logical conclusion based on proven fact. Or am I supposed to find a text about the chetniks that explicitly states the negative just in case? Perhaps a list of all the thing the Chetniks were not? "...oh and by the way, the Chetniks were not a nomadic tribe, they were not Vikings, and they were not the first resistance movement of World War II, they were also not a traveling band of magicians, an American football team, etc..." Proving a negative is efefctively not possible, and the one opposed to a positive statement is always at a disadvantage by people using the argumentum ad ignorantiam, but only seemingly so. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is all very impressive as a home-work assignment in philosophy for school kids, but has little relevance to what we're discussing. You're saying we have sources establishing the Chetniks as collaborators, that is perfectly correct. You also say that a movement that collaborated couldn't be a resistance movement. That is just your personal opinion. As any historian could tell you, the Chetniks started out as a resistance movement but increasingly collaborated with the Germans. Some units remained restistance units to the end, some collaborated very early. In your view, everything must be either black or white, but that is not how the world works. So while I don't deny Chetnik collaboration for a moment, and why would I, it still doesn't support your argument as the sitatuion isn't as simple as A ⊕ B.JdeJ (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Undo weight

Cetnik fighting forces were AGAINT the Nazis for the majority of the war (over 95% of the war). So a picture of them with Nazis placed UNDO WEIGHT towards a small period of the war (Is NOT reflective of reality)Rex Dominator (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the right to remove virtually the only good photo of Chetnik troops from the Chetniks article? "95% of the war"? What's that, your personal approximation? Blowing up a few token trains and rescuing a hundred western Allied airmen somehow pales in comparison to their contribution of 20,000 troops to the great German anti-Partisan offensives such as Fall Weiss and Fall Schwartz. Are you aware that the Chetniks were cut off from virtually all of their Allied supplies in 1943 and were increasingly dependent on the occupation forces for their "bullets and butter"? At wars end, Chetnik troops are even found surrendering alongside Axis formations in places such as Bleiburg. So, while some Chetnik guy somewhere must have fired a gun at a German or Ustaše even in May 1945, that does by no means classify the Chetniks as an "Allied", "anti-German" combatant for "95% of the war".
But all this is not really important. Your edit was reverted, you know full well that it is contested and opposed, but you immediately switched to edit-warring as a means of pushing your "95% opinions" on the article (see WP:EDIT WAR). This image is clearly very much related to the subject of the article, and is the only good photo of Chetniks in it. Removing such images from articles in such a way, without consensus or even discussion, based only on vague claims of "undo weight" founded in personal opinion, may well be classified as vandalism and edit-warring. What we have here is basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image because it places WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German collaboration. Also, the picture is found at the very top of the page (doesn't fit with the text).Rex Dominator (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring discussion? Removing sources and valid related images? Edit-warring to push your edit? Be absolutely sure that next time you will be reported. Your edits have been contested and reverted, valid reasons have been given. Please do not try to push your edits with edit warring. Wait and discuss. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The picture makes the whole article biased. Firstly, Cetniks did not have a large participation with the Fascists. So when you push you BIAS by placing a picture on top of the page, where it doesnt seem to even belong since it doesnt match the text you are being biased, and placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fascist collaboration. Now you are treating me when I TRY to remove the vial filth that you put as a propaganda tool, you attack me and try to silence my right to make the article fair.Rex Dominator (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To simplify my arguments

  • The picture doesn't fit with the contents. Its placed on the top of the page.
  • Cetniks were NOT aligned with the fascist except for a brief period so it places WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

Rex Dominator (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • All lead images are placed on the top of the page. That image was in the lead for ages.
  • The Chetniks were increasingly aligned with the Axis throughout WWII. In 1945 they were a fully collaborating movement (this is sourced). It is hard to place an exact date on when they were predominantly collaborating. Some say already from the First anti-Partisan offensive (1941), when they aided the Germans against the Partisans, but 1943 is most prominent because of the participation of tens of thousands of their troops in German operations Fall Weiss and Fall Schwartz, as well as their loss of support even from the western Allies (Tehran conference) which resulted in their subsequent full dependence on the Axis for supplies.
LoL, please stop quoting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT :), as it is utterly ridiculous and simply shows your lack of understanding of both WP:NPOV and the historical context you are "discussing".
By the end of WWII, i.e. in the last state of affairs of their existence (in WWII), Chetniks had an extremely large participation with the Axis. They fought alongside the Axis on all fronts, and we even find them marching alongside other collaborators and Axis forces in Bleiburg (see Bleiburg massacre). Draža Mihailović had a military liaison to the headquarters of the German occupation forces. The Chetniks and the Serbian State Guard were united as one force in late 1944 and 1945 under the command of Mihailović, and continued to fight against Yugoslav (Allied) and Soviet (Allied) military forces, while receiving large amounts of supplies from the Germans (this is all sourced).
Re:"Now you are treating me when I TRY to remove the vial filth that you put as a propaganda tool, you attack me and try to silence my right to make the article fair."
Your "right to make the article fair"? There are no "rights" on Wikipedia, and your personal opinions on what's fair and what's not are completely irrelevant. I am not using any kind of "propaganda tools" (you are being typically paranoid) but am reverting the removal of a valid related image from the article. It is one of the best images of Chetniks troops available, and shows them in good relations with the German forces, as was the predominant state of affairs by the end of WWII. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, your statements are delusional. Look at what a real encyclopedia Britannica defines Cetniks as: member of a Serbian nationalist guerrilla force that formed during World War II to resist the Axis invaders and Croatian collaborators but that primarily fought a civil war against the Yugoslav communist guerrillas, the Partisans.[1]. Your action are creating a propaganda article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the fascist collaboration. Please request a mediation if you don't agree with the definition of the encyclopedia.since your actions are not logical. I keep giving you facts and you keep attacking me and frankly im sick of these attacks.Rex Dominator (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Britannica? Britannica is not some kind of gospel and "ultimate source". It is known to make quite a few mistakes. We are by no means supposed to quote Britannica, or use its wording verbatim. The Wikipedia article is adequately sourced, especially the collaboration. the Wikipedia article is far more sourced
LoL... let me use your own quote to demonstrate: "...primarily fought a civil war against the Yugoslav communist guerrillas, the Partisans.". In 1943, the Partisans became the Allied military forces of Yugoslavia. In 1944 the Chetniks were denounced by the King and the royalist government-in-exile, both of which soon endorsed the Partisans as the Yugoslav forces as well. Fighting a war against Yugoslav Allied forces while receiving supplies from the Germans in order to do so - is collaboration. This is not open for debate, and you "newbish" idea that Britannica somehow trumps everything is comical. Please bear in mind that Britannica does not say much on the subject of their collaboration - it is not a relevant source in that respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, you are not discussing. Simply stating your (irrelevant) opinions over and over again and completely ignoring the other side's is not discussion, and is detrimental to the civility of the discourse. Not only that, but it testifies to the typical lack of objectivity (brought on by profound bias) and attests to the fact that you are here on an agenda of improving the Chetniks' "image". Your tags are completely biased, as finding one not-quite-fully-reliable source in the section does not make the whole section "unreferenced". You just wish it were unreferenced so that you can remove even more things you do not like, thus furthering your obvious agenda... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how i can get a mediation and how to report people since im new.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this simply for you: your tag says "This section does not cite any references or sources.". The section most certainly DOES cite quite a lot of references or sources. You are misusing tags (because of your profound bias). Feel free to "report" me whenever you like :), be sure your content blanking and edit-warring to push your disputed edits will not be omitted from the conversation. And yes, I can see that you're new around here... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition: The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany
in the two world wars. Please see reference.

DIREKTOR, by placing the picture at the top of the page, you are creating a biased article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German-Cetnik collaboration. Look at the definition once again.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So... this is the third time you will start repeating yourself? How about you actually read my replies this time? Chetnik collaboration is not controversial nor is it open to debate. We have more than enough published sources by professional historians as well as primary sources from German military records. Please read them as well. You should also read what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (i.e. professional works by historians).
  • You removed images and engaged in content blanking.
  • You engaged in edit-warring to push an edit - even after you knew it was disputed, and that discussion is the next step.
  • You contined to revert-war in pushing completely wrong templates into the article, probably because you do not like the section headings.
I reverted your content blanking and blatant misuse of templates, and I did my absolute best to engage in a proper discussion. You simply ignored my posts, repeated your opinions and used some encyclopedia summaries as proof of Chetnik "non-collaboration" (when contradicted by the mountain of other sources in this article). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My last attempt?

What shall i do with you? Ok i will simplify my argument for the 6th time. Right now, as is, the entire section, is cited, by a blog, and a so called "book". By stating that Chetniks "collaborated" with the Nazis you are going against encayclopedia Britanica, which says that they fought against Nazis. I cant simplify it any more. Grow up.24.36.179.22 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My problems with you

  • You don't offer discussion, nor sources, as exemplified above.
  • You CHANGE my word, here on the discussion page.
  • Once again, I prove, using a source, that you are wrong, and you dont offer discissuion except attacking me


Definition: The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany
in the two world wars. Please see reference.

DIREKTOR, by placing the picture at the top of the page, you are creating a biased article by placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the German-Cetnik collaboration. Look at the definition once again.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Prove to me, as you cliam, otherwise. Rex Dominator (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


User:Rex Dominator, kindly READ THE SOURCES. I will not waste my time copy/pasting all the references for you. You think that because you quoted these sentences, and I did not actually link to anything in the talkpage, that "you have sources and I don't". Read the damn article. Read the sources in the article before you say there are no sources.... I already stated in brief all the facts that are supported by sources - three times. If you think for a second that a source is somehow "invalid" because you cannot see it on the net, be sure to think again (and read Wikipedia policy). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
My argument is right above. I followed your so called source to Bleiburg massacre. Guess what, that article also lacks sources in connection between Nazis and Cetniks. Simply put, my view is that this is a propaganda page against Cetniks. I shell give you respect when im talking to you yet i find it harder each time. I will restate my argument. The definition according to encyclopedia sources, among other sources is, posted above. They fought against Germans, by definition so when you try to put a picture at the top of the page, you are creating a false perception of Cetniks in minds of viewers. Do you agree with encyclopedia the Britiania definition that Cetniks fought against the Germans?Rex Dominator (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't have an "argument". Your sources do not state anything about Chetnik collaboration, and the article is full of sources on the subject that talk about just that. To claim that I have no sources just because I haven't linked them in the talkpage is a joke. Your tags are ludicrous, your edits are nonsense, and you're ignoring whatever I write. From now on I'll be brief. Wouldn't want to bore you with the lists of facts sourced in the article. Just be sure your agenda will not pass... I certainly won't waste my time listing all the sources when they're already listed in the article, here's a taster though:
This is one of the many places where the OKW reports on Chetnik collaboration are posted. This is indeed only some stupid forum (as you're sure to point out soon), but the quotes are sourced in great detail - all the way up to the archive, document, and page of the Wehrmacht document that they quote. As primary sources, the OKW reports on the Chetniks are invaluable and their origin is explained in detail below each quote. There isn't a shred of doubt as to their authenticity. Though, I'm pretty sure you will dismiss every singe source that contradicts your preconceptions and your agenda... Read this thread on the talkpage as well.
Remember that there are about a dozen other similarly powerful sources listed in the article, and that I simply have not the time to list them all out here for you. Kindly read them and stop with the template misuse and edit-warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The site "wordpress", posted above as source, is a Blog so its not a valid source at all. Blogs are specifically defined as not valid source in WP:sources. This is what I'm talking about when i placed the tags needed. Please provide me with one valid source that proves collaboration.Rex Dominator (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I emphasize the word "READ". READ my post. I stated myself that this is indeed just a blog I found in five minutes, but that the OKW reports listed there are SOURCED in detail in the blog itself. (You can find the OKW reports posted as a primary source in many places, I just picked the first.) Right next to every quote, you have the exact archive, document, and page where the quote can be found. These are most certainly NOT fabrications. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop beating around the bush. Meaning, if you have valid sources then bring them here. Rex Dominator (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
These are perfectly valid and uncontested primary sources. I'm starting to lose my temper. Let me emphasize the following two sentences as much as possible, please read them extremely carefully:
The sources are listed in the article. Read them yourself. I am NOT here so you can order me about and make me explain all the sources to you because you don't feel like doing the damn research before editing an article.
Your silly WWI poster is obviously completely unrelated to the subject of this article. This is not something I'm about to discuss with you. Find images related to the Chetniks in some way, and do not clutter the article with just any image related to Serbian history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem/Solution (temporary)

  • Problem- The section "Ethnic cleansing" and "Axis collaboration" is cited by foreign Wikipedia pages, offline books, and a blog.
  • Solution (temporary)- I want, a poorly referenced section tag, or, section deletion.


  • Problem- Chetniks are defined as Serbian nationalists who fought mainly against the German in both world wars, as defined by an Encayclopedia (i cited this Quote above). The picture at the top of the page, is unoutsourced, and creates a biased page by placing too much emphasis on the so called, uncited, collaboration.
  • Solution- removal of the picture.

Feel free to comment about the proposed solution Rex Dominator (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Tags. The sections are well referenced. You just did not (or can not) read the sources. This is not my concern. Ridiculous tags like "unsourced section" will be removed.
  • Image. Nationalist POV-pushing and removal of content will be reported.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop, your trying to argue for the propaganda info, weakly sourced, to stay up

List of refrences in the "Axis collaboration" section that backup "the collaboration"

Literally, these are all of the sources in that section. So a "book", refrence to a foreign language wiki article and a blog are ALL of the sources. Rex Dominator (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop creating talk sections every two hours

...you're making a mess of things on the talkpage.

  • The "book", is a published work by a professional historian.
  • The reference to the Serbian Wiki is perfectly legitimate. No reason why you should list it as "unreliable". Have you thought of "please referring to the sources on the Serbian Wikipedia" instead of complaining? If you require translation from Serbian, I'd be happy to oblige.
  • For the final time: the webiste (blog) lists quotes along with their sources. In other words, the source and origin of the primary sources is listed in detail in the webiste.

You are, however, right in one respect: not all sources for Chetnik collaboration have been listed in the article. There are others, and nobody ever took the time to insert them (this article needs work in general). If you care to look around the talkpage, you can READ other sources. Look Rex, if you're here to "fight for the fatherland" or "seek justice" or (as you said) "remove the vial filth!", you should know that that is not how things work around here. Its mostly a lot of READING... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an abundance of idiotic statements that seem to be made to kill the time of admins, and me. Once again, if you think that you have sources, do it, list them, stop wasting my time.Rex Dominator (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL I'm not wasting my time either (we idiots have a lot of stuff to do :), so since I already told you everything I'm going to, I can simply save my time and copy/paste everything for you. Great isn't it? :)
The sources are listed in the article. Read them yourself. I am NOT here so you can order me about and make me explain all the sources to you because you don't feel like doing the damn research before editing an article. Find someone else to boss around.

As for the image, what is your problem?? You remove an image actually depicting Chetnik troops and add a propaganda poster for the World War I Kingdom of Serbia?? Are you aware that the Chetniks virtually did not exist during WWI? What does a WWI poster for Serbia have to do with the Chetniks???? You can't just add any old image related to 20th century Serbian history --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

my last attempt?

Right now as the section stands it is cited by a blog. this is why it deserves the tag. Rex Dominator (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are six or seven very good sources available on the Chetniks, some of them have been cited now in the article itslef, but the article should be carefully rewritten fully describing the exact way in which Chetnik collaboration (and the collaboration of Draža Mihailović) took place. If for no other reason, then to silence these sort of "crusaders" arriving in the article every now and again... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rex? You're strangely quiet...? Can I get a response? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Oh dear... what are we going to do with all these meaningless sections...? We'll have to archive the talkpage. In the future, Rex, please: ONE (1) section per discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

  • Chetniks/Germans image. User:Rex Dominator has recently moved the File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg. It was the main image (alongside the infobox) for I think at least a year (if not more). The User did so without consensus, knowing that the edit was opposed, and proceeded to edit-war in order to push his edit. The image is a photo showing Chetnik troops alongside German occupation troops in World War II Yugoslavia. When the dispute started, User:Rex Dominator removed the (obviously related) image altogether from the article, claiming WP:UNDUE (that Chetnik collaboration did not take place). After seven new scholarly sources were introduced, showing that the claim of WP:UNDUE is unfounded (i.e. that Chetniks did indeed collaborate "more than a little"), the user moved the established image down in order to "hide" it (classic WP:IDL). I oppose his move, apparently because I "own the article"...
  • Medal image. One of the leaders of the Chetnik movement received the Legion of merit medal. User:Rex Dominator introduced an image of a Legion of merit medal (not the one the Chetnik received). I oppose this addition because I believe that an image of just any object mentioned in the text is not grounds for adding it into the article. I.e. I hold that a picture of a medal one leader of the Chetniks also received is not relevant to the subject of the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The leader of Chetniks, with help of his Chetnik soldiers, has received the prestigious Medal of Legion for saving 500 Americans is very much worth it.
  • I moved the picture to fit the content.Rex Dominator (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Image. Rex, who are you kidding here? You moved the image because you want to "hide" it and have arrived at this article with the intent of removing or hiding it. The image was the main image of this article for years, because it is the best image showing Chetniks. This article is called "Chetniks". Tell you what: you get another equally good or better image showing WWII Chetnik troops an you can replace the main image. Otherwise, contain your bias and stop moving the established image which was there for a very, very long time (years, I think).
  • Medal. Yes, he won the medal and that is an interesting piece of information. However, your image is not an image of him receiving the medal (yes it was awarded posthumously, but I'm making an example), its not an image of the medal he was awarded - its just any old legion of merit. Its a legion of merit, not the legion of merit. Adding an image of a medal that one Chetnik received on the Chetniks article would be irrelevant even if it were the actual medal he received, let alone this. Its like adding an image of any rifle because Chetniks used rifles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this dispute on the 3O page. Here's my initial opinion though I think it would help if both of you - and Rex in particular - could elaborate your thinking here a bit more (I also note that the image and the medal aren't the only points of dispute):

On the image - the presence of the image in the article doesn't seem UNDUE at all and what it is illustrating appears to be well sourced. However, I can see why we'd want to have the image in the relevant section (Axis collaboration) rather than up top. I'm assuming that Rex thinks that placing the image up top makes it seem like collaboration was all that the Chetniks were about whereas it's more complicated than that, and DIREKTOR thinks that moving the image down hides the fact of collaboration. There's probably a bit of truth on both sides here. I'd recommend definitely keeping the image, but in interest of compromise keeping it in the Axis collaboration section.

On the medal - I don't think that including a general image of the medal is helpful here. If there is a photo of Draža Mihailović receiving the medal that could certainly be included. It might also be ok to include the image of the medal in the Draža Mihailović article, but here it is undue (it might be undue even there). I've written/edited a lot of biographies and it's often people who got some kinds of awards and while the photos of the ceremony are usually included, the generic image of the award is not. So I'd take out the image of the medal. I'd recommend expending the Operation Halyard somewhat and mentioning Mihailovic and the medal there, instead.radek (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Image. Well, the image does belong to the Axis collaboration section, but since it is the best image of actual WWII Chetnik troops ("Chetniks") it had been on top for quite a long time. If User:Rex Dominator finds a better or equally good image of Chetniks, I'd move the image myself.
  • Medal. Agreed. Thanks for the 3O, btw.
Besides the images there's the long "dispute" over whether or not the Chetniks collaborated. However, even though User:Rex Dominator would absolutely never ever admit or agree to anything of the sort, there are now about half a dozen sources of very high quality blatantly contradicting him. All he does is repeat the obviously faulty first sentence of some online encyclopedia which states the Chetniks fought the Germans (see below). There's really no question as to the veracity of the fact that the Chetniks collaborated with virtually all occupation forces in WWII Yugoslavia, and that this collaboration was very, very widespread. The text in the above "Further additions" section is fully sourced. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. I will look over the sources shortly. My understanding of the matter is that they switched or tried to play both sides according to circumstances (which is what your quote down below basically says) - which did involve some collaboration with the Nazis. I think your sources here are fine though. But I also think that putting the image of the Chetniks with German soldiers at the top of the article is a bit provocative. And it appropriately belongs in the "Axis collaboration" section.radek (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Chetniks were "opportunists" of sorts. They were founded as a resistance movement, but de facto were of immense help to the occupation (as can be seen from the primary sources in the "Further additions"). Unfortunately, with the rise of Balkans (Serbian, among others) nationalism in the 1990s, they were idolized by the Serb radicals, much like the fascist Ustaše in Croatia (though this was not public and to a lesser degree). Now you have a huge number of people in the Serb nationalist community who simply will not accept that they collaborated. Its a bit like the "controversy" on evolution, as I like to say. The evidence is blatantly obvious, but a large number of people simply can't and will not accept it. You always had this problem on this article, and I intend to finally bury the matter in sources and end it: they DID collaborate, no doubt at all, and that collaboration was widespread and included Draža Mihailović. This is why a number of users were frantically trying to get me banned on silly counts over the last few days. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Rex Dominator, please discuss the issues and present your arguments. If you think avoiding discussion will facilitate your "designs", you are mistaken. Again: please discuss the issues, or concede the matter. Remember that the article is blocked(!) because of this nonsense. We must finish the discussions as soon as possible. Otherwise, be sure your absence ans deliberate stalling will be reported to the Admin(s). A picture of somebody's Legion of Merit is simply not relevant for the article or for the Draža Mihailović article, concentrate on the Chatnik/German Image issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To get the article unprotected you're going to have to talk this one out (hard work, I know). The image of the medal should be removed - perhaps we could include the picture of Mihailovic instead and note that he was awarded the medal?radek (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I agree, but here's another problem: User:Rex Dominator does not like the photo we have of Miahilović (because he does not look "sexy" on it or whatever xD). He wants us to use a romantic work of art to represent him, instead of a good quality photo. One of the last photos of him in existence and the only photo we have of him on Wiki (you can see it in the infobox of the Draža Mihailović article). Its an excellent image, unfortunately its not very good for pro-Chetnik POV. :) I'm ok with adding the photo of Mihailović with the mention of the medal, but I certainly don't want to see the "artist's impression" used instead of an actual photo of the guy because Rex likes it more.
Can you or Rex link to the other proposed image? I think the photo of Mihailovic in his article would be fine and probably better than the artwork but I want to see it first.radek (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
What about the Chetnik/Germans image? Its not WP:UNDUE, and its the only image of proper, real, WWII Chetnik troops we have available. This is why it was the main image for all this time. If User:Rex Dominator wants to move it from its position, I maintain that he needs to replace it with an equally good or better image of actual WWII Chetniks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely not UNDUE but as I said before I think it makes more sense to have it in the collaboration section. There's lots of articles that don't have a photo up top, aside from the image in the info box.radek (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References

The definition of Chetniks is, "The Chetniks were originally Serbian guerrillas fighting, first against the Ottoman Empire, and then against Germany in the two world wars." as cited. Your ref links dont work. Fix them so I can see if they are worthy sources. Right now, all you have is claims.Rex Dominator (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite up to reliable sources standard. The Cohen and Riesman book quoted above however is.radek (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
(another section, eh?)
  • Published university sources blow an out-of-context online encyclopedia definition right out of the water. These are the best possible sources, and you can check WP:V if you do not believe me:
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses."
  • "My refs don't work"? What do you mean? You mean the talkpage? Well of course they don't work in the talkpage, the whole thing is written for the article. You see, I'm using this: <ref name="autogenerated4" /> - it will link directly to its own source once I place this text in the article. That way I don't have to write-up the hole reference every time I use it :). The links in the article most certainly do work. The sections I've prepared above are mostly sourced from the first four or five references in the "References" section of the article (here's a link). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Its a weekend man, chill out. I will gladly reply soon. Dont act like a hot head, thats the reason why the article got the protection.Rex Dominator (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, the article (regardless of the reason) got full protection(!) and you're talking to me about the weekend? Be sure the admin(s) will be notified of deliberate delays in lifting the protection. (Discuss images in the "Images" section, plz - because of the 3O) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You deserve a proper reply and i cant do it right away. Your spamming the board and its a weekend. I see no reason why you must add this section right away. Simply work on it, cite it well, and then we'll discuss it tomorrow. The discussion will most likely be about what section are cited properly so concentrate on that. See WP:SOURCES. Also, before you start. Offline book in this controversial section shouldn't be used. Simply because you can make up fake citation that way. Rex Dominator (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? Why don't you try and make-up a citation and see how long it lasts? xD banned! LoL No mate, a book does by no means need to be free and posted fully on the internet (read WP:V). (You should also know that constantly raising the "standards" for evidence is a typical phase of denial) By your definition, only a very, very small percentage of publications would ever be available as sources for Wikipedia. In either case, your personal "standards of proof" do not concern me in the least, please do not bring this nonsense up again. Besides, the above sections I've written are based 99.99% on online book materiel.
For future reference, please base all objections to published sources on actual Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:V, thank you for recommending it - I've read it years ago), not your own fanciful ideas of what "should" and "shouldn't be used". You do NOT get to make up your standards :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that you are going against the definition of Chetniks, the topic is a exceptional claim. I quote the rule, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". You are making exceptional claims. You need to find online sources and not use offline books easily used to cite whatever you please. Rex Dominator (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, you would be right, except this is NOT an "exceptional claim". An "exceptional claim" has to be contradicted, or not covered by mainstream reliable sources (see your own link, first and third point). The encyclopedia quote is actually the "exceptional claim" since it is contradicted by seven professional university publications (these are "mainstream reliable sources", by definition from WP:V). Online encyclopedias are not the ones who hand out "definitions". Online encyclopedias are very poor sources. WP:V:
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses."
Besides, what do you want? I told you that I used online books for the sections. The books are the first four or five references in the "References" section of the article. There are links provided in the references. Follow the links, read the sources - they're mostly free online books. Your encyclopedia quote has been completely "blown out of the water" as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, both in terms of quality (university publications) and quantity (seven vs. one). You really can forget about it here and now.
Also, please start discussing the images, so that we can end that matter as well. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Although there are about three or four other sources, the main publications that have been used in the article to confirm widespread Chetnik collaboration (and to form the new paragraphs prepared in the "Further additions" section of this talkpage) are as follows:
  • David Martin, Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich (New York: Prentice Hall, 1946), 34..
  • Jozo Tomasevich, The Chetniks (Stanford University Press, 1975) [4]
  • Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman, Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history (Texas A&M University Press, 1996) [5]
  • Sabrina P. Ramet, The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005 (Indiana University Press, 2006) [6]
These sources have been listed in the "References" section of the article and User:Rex Dominator was twice notified where he can find them (along with a link). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked over your sources posted right above this message and its fine to use those last 3 sources in any way you like.

I will maintain my assertion that, not easily verifiable, off-line sources, are not acceptable for this section given its controversy. Please take a look at a brief history of Chetniks as written on the BBC history website. Nowhere does it say the collaboration existed. Therefore, if you feel you must create a section on collabroration, you will need to use online sources that can be easily verified. Rex Dominator (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex, per "assume good faith", it's fine to use offline sources though you can ask DIREKTOR to provide specific page numbers and quotations from the offline source.radek (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, is no problem. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow thanks Rex, so I can use university publications? great... :) Its lucky that I actually wrote the sections almost exclusively from the last three sources (as will be plainly evident when I include them in the article). Again, I am not at all interested in what sources you personally find "acceptable" or not. Please use Wikipedia policy as a foundation for any and all objections to sources. Published sources are, believe it or not, verifiable. You are misunderstanding the use of that therm. "Verifiable" does not mean "free" and/or "scanned on the internet". Read WP:V. At least I'm glad this matter is concluded. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Sockpuppets and Article Protection

Wow, total bust... I really am rarely wrong about socks it would appear (YaY for me). Not only User:Rex Dominator, but also User:Easy4all, have all been blocked by checkuser for confirmed sockpuppeteering along with nine other socks on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex Dominator. The non-existent dispute is now essentially over (I feel so alone now... :). Thanks for your participation, radek, your objectivity is commendable.
Toddst1, please unblock the article. The dispute, if there ever was a real one, is now definitely over. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, glad to have tried to help.radek (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible semi-protection in the future

This article will most likely require semi-protection in the future. Once the full protection is lifted and the new sources are introduced, IP socks of the indeffed users will quite probably march in. There's already some trouble on the talkpage. Just being "prophetic"... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's currently fully protected and I'm likely to extend that based on the conflict apparent on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There isn't currently a conflict because the edit warring socks are now blocked, so the full protection isn't serving any purpose at the moment. The socks in that SSP case obviously exhibit some nationalist PoV agenda, so if they return, semi-protection should be warranted. If there's any editors not connected to any socking who legitimately want to raise issues about the article, feel free to do so. But further edit warring will likely result in re-protection. So I'll be unprotecting this article unless there's a reason as to what the current full protection is serving. Spellcast (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "conflict apparent on this page". The full protection is currently completely unjustified. The dispute because of which this article was full-protected is certainly over. Troll outbursts by IPs of indeff blocked sockpuppeteers are not a "conflict". A simple question: exactly who are the Users supposedly "in conflict"? I am frankly surprised you did not even read my post on your talkpage informing you that User:Rex Dominator has been indeff blocked as a sock troll. Shall I ring him up and end the "conflict"? :)

This article needs plenty of work. It is wrong to keep it blocked at all, let alone for no reason whatsoever, and especially when there are users willing to fix it (basing the edits closely on proper sources). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did the talk page go?

Where did the talk page go? It was much bigger. Someone must have whipped it clean. It should be restored. (LAz17 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Archived. Way too big. See the talkheader for the archives link. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/109820/Chetnik
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chetniks/Archive_2&oldid=1078395545"