Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts

Here's a draft. My thought is to replace the current ethnic cleansing and massacre sections in the Chetniks article with the first section, and add the second to the Milhailovic ariticle, and link each to the other subsection. My rational is that the ethnic conflicts were not all due to Milhailovic, and were endemic.

1st proposal

Ideally, I think we should create a separate article that treats these ethnic conflict in toto, as ethnic cleansing actions by one group are generally interlinked one way or another with ethnic cleansing actions of others, at least in the Balkans. We're clearly not looking at a situation where one group completely dominates another, such as the Holocaust in which Jews, Communists, and Romani were completely overwhelmed in Germany, and it seems to me that the most neutral way to approach these events is to treat them in the same space, so as to have all events in context. To treat one group's actions in isolation makes a neutral presentation very difficult.

The draft is rough, and I've left the references in shorthand form, as I figure we'll have long discussions before reaching any consensus. It certainly needs filling out in places and trimming in others. For example, I think the relationship between Djurišić and Milhailovic needs exploration, and the terror tactics used by and against the Partisans needs expansion.

I ask that Sunray outline how we should deal with textual changes, although I lean towards the previous method we've used of picking a color for changes or additions, and striking rather than deleting. Enjoy!

Ethnic conflict and terror tactics

See also: Ethnic cleansing

Chetnik ideology revolved around the notion of a Greater Serbia within the borders of Yugoslavia, to be created out of all territories in which Serbs were found, even if the numbers were small. This goal had long been the foundation of the movement for a Greater Serbia. During the Axis occupation, however, the notion of removing or "cleansing" of these territories was introduced, largely in response to the massacres of Serbs by the Ustaše in the Independent State of Croatia.

Prior to the outbreak of WWII, use of terror tactics had a long tradition in the area as various oppressed groups sought their freedom and atrocities were committed by all parties engaged in conflict in Yugoslavia. During the early stages of the occupation, the Ustashas had also recuited a number of Muslims to aid in the persecutions of the Serbs, and even though only a relatively small number of Croates and Muslims engaged in these activies, and many opposed them, those actions initiated a cycle of violence and retribution between the Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, as each sought to rid the others from the territories they controlled.(Pavlowitch, p47-49) In particular, Ustaše ideologs were concerned with the large Serbian minority in the NDH, and intiated acts of terror on a wide scale in May of 1941, and by July, even the Germans protested the brutality of these actions. Reprisals followed, as in the case of Nevesinje, where Serb peasants staged an uprising in response to the persecution, drove out the Ustasha militia, but then engaged in reprisals killed hundreds of Croats and Muslims.

In the summer of 1941, the Rava Gora Movement had attracted a small number of Serbia intellectuals who developed a political ideology for the Chetniks. Stevan Moljević believed that Serbs should not repeat the mistakes of World War I by failing to define the borders of Serbia, and proposed that at the end of World War II Serbs should take control of all territories to which they laid claim, and from that position negotiate the form of a federally organized Yugoslavia. This plan required the relocation of non-Serbs from Serbian controlled territories and other shifts of populations. He produced a document, Homegenous Serbia, which articulated these notions. These proposals were very similar to those later formulated by the Belgrade Chetnik Committee and presented to the Government in Exile in September of 1941, in which the Cetniks set forth specific figures in regard to population shifts. Over one million Serbs were to be brought into newly acquired territories, while over 2.5 million people were to be expelled in order to create an "ethnically pure" Greater Serbia comprising Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Vojvodina. The Sandzak was to be cleansed of the Muslim population, and both Bosnia and Herzegovina were to be cleansed of the Muslim and Croate populations.

A series of instructions attributed to Mihailović contained similar language, although the authenticity of the document are disputed--there is no original and it may have been a forgery made by Djurišic to suit his purposes..

The Chetnik Dinara Division created a similar program in March 1942, which, like the instructions attributed to Mihailovic, propose a Greater Serbia with a corridor between Herzegovina, northern Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Lika to Slovenia, and cleansing of these areas of non Serbian populations. This was later accepted by the military leaders of the three areas. This document contined additionals formulations of strategy, including collabaration with Italian forces as a modus vivendi, formation of Croatian Chetnik units as part of a continuing struggle against the Partisans, Domobrans and Ustasha. This document also proposed decent treatment of the Muslim population in order to prevent them from joining the Partisan forces, and noted that these groups could later be eliminated.

In the fall of 1942, a program was fomulated at a Conference of Young Chetnik Intellectuals of Montenegro, which also proposed a unified Yugoslavia consisting only of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, exclusion of other ethnic groups, which was to be controlled by the Chetnik forces with the endorsment of the King, as well as agrarian and political reforms, nationalization of banking and wholesale trade, and increased propoganda to promote Chetnik ideology. Mihailovic was not present, but was represented by his subordinate commanders Ostojic, Lasic, and Djurisic. Djurišić played the dominate role at this conference.(Pavlowitch, p. 112)

Some of the directives associated with cleansing of non-Serbs were later incorporated into a manual prepared by Chetnik military leaders, which detailed a three phased approach and the military structure to be used during the war. The manual argued that both the Serbs and the Croates had been politically victimized in the period between the two world wars, and the unproven notion that in Serbia and especially in Belgrade, Croates held the upper hand in the government. Except for the Ustashas, Croates were not seen as the enemies of the Serbs, and a goal was set for the incorporation of croatian forces under Chetnik leadership. Ustashas,on the other hand, were to be summarily executed. The question of shifting populations and religious conversion of the Croates was to be left aside until the Serbs had assumed power in Yugoslavia. Revenge was incorporated into the Chetnik manual as a "...sacred duty of the Serbian people against those who had wronged thenm during the war and occupation".

Throughout the war, the Chetniks engaged in a series of massacres carried out against Muslims in southeastern Bosnia, especially in the area in and around Foča and Sandžak. In the winter of 1941, approximately 2000 Muslims were killed. Actions of greater serverity were carried out in the same area in August of 1942, and further escalations occured in January and February of 1943, which the Chentiks justified as punitive actions in response to claimed attacks by Muslims against Serbian villages. In the latter action, Chetnik units from Montenegro engaged in "cleansing actions" against the Muslims of Foča and Sandžak, in which an estimated 10,000 muslims perished. Actions against the Croates were of a smaller scale but similar in action, and the violence against civilian Croate and Muslim populations were severe enough that the Italian General Roatta threatened to stop supplying the Chetniks if the attacks continued.(Ramet, p. 146) Although many of these actions were justified as reprisals, they were consistent with the orders for cleansing actions attributed to Mihailović and as a response to the large scale "crimes against humanity" initated by the Croatian Ustashas.

The Partisans were also targets of terror tactics. In Serbia, Chetniks killed an unknown number of Partisans, their families and sympathizers, on ideological grounds. During the summer of 1942, using names supplied by Mihailovic, lists of individual Nedić and Ljotić supporters to be assassinated or threatened were broadcast over BBC radio during news programming in Serbo-Croatian. Once the British discovered this, the broadcasts of these lists were halted, although this did not prevent the Chetniks from continuing the assassinations.

For the Mihailovic article

Ethnic conflict and terror tactics

Chetnik ideology encompassed the notion of a Greater Serbia, to be acheived by forcing population shifts in order to create ethnically homogeneous areas. Partly due to this ideology and partly in response to violent actions undertaken by Ustasha and Muslim forces attached to them, Chetniks forces engaged in numerous acts of violence including massacres and destruction of property, and used terror tactics to drive out non-Serb groups.

Mihailović's role in such actions is unclear as there is "...no definite evidence that [he] himself ever called for ethnic cleansing. Instructions to his Montenegrin subordinates commanders, Lasic and Djurisic, which prescribe cleansing actions of non-Serb elements in order to create a Great Serbia have been attributed to Mihailović by some historians,; Mulaj, p.42; ) but some historians argue that the document was a forgery made by Djurišić after he failed to reach Mihailović in December of 1941 after the latter was driven out of Ravna Gora by German forces. It is important to note that if a forgery, the document was forged by Chetniks hoping it would be taken as a legitimate order, not by their opponents seeking to discredit the Chetniks. The objectives outlined in the directive were:

“

1. The struggle for the liberty of our whole nation under the scepter of His Majesty King Peter II;
2. the creation of a Great Yugoslavia and within it of a Great Serbia which is to be ethnically pure and is to include Serbia [meaning also Vardar Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srijem, the Banat, and Bačka];
3. the struggle for the inclusion into Yugoslavia of all still unliberated Slovene territories under the Italians and Germans (Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, and Carinthia) as well as Bulgaria, and northern Albania with Scutari;
4. the cleansing of the state territory of all national minorities and a-national elements [i.e. the Partisans and their supporters];
5. the creation of contiguous frontiers between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as between Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

”

Whether or not the instructions were forged, Mihailović was certainly aware of both the ideological goal of cleansing and of the violent acts taken to accomplish that goal. Stevan Moljević worked out the basics of the Chetnik program while at Ravna Gora in the summer of 1941, and Mihailović sent representatives to Conference of Young Chetnik Intellectuals of Montenegro where the basic formulations were expanded. Djurišić played the dominate role at this conference. Relations between Djurišić and Milhailovic were strained, and although Mihailovic did not participate, neither did he take any action to counter it. At his trial in 1946, Mihailović claimed that he never ordered the destruction of Croate and Muslim villages, and some of his subordinates hid such activites from him, but Djurišić, for example, boasted of his actions to Mihailović after leading actions to destroy Muslim villages.

2nd proposal

For the Mihailovic article

Terror and cleansing actions

Chetnik ideology encompassed the notion of a Greater Serbia, to be acheived by forcing population shifts in order to create ethnically homogeneous areas.(Tomasevich, p. 169) Partly due to this ideology and partly in response to violent actions undertaken by Ustaše and Muslim forces attached to them, Chetniks forces engaged in numerous acts of violence including massacres and destruction of property, and used terror tactics to drive out Croatian and Muslim (Bosniak) populations.(Tomasevich, p.259; Hoare, p.148) In Serbia, Chetnik terror was directed exclusively against the Partisans and their families and sympathizers, with numerous general and specific orders being issued with the goal of achieving the complete destruction of the Partisans, regardless of nationality. While in terms of the number of victims, and the cruelty of dispatching them, the Chetnik cleansing actions are not to be compared to the systematic genocide carried out by the Croatian Ustaše, they do constitute activities of the same kind. However, it should also be pointed out that the Ustaše atrocities were undertaken first, and that at least to some extent the Chetnik terrorist activities against the Croatian and Muslim populations were in the nature of a reaction.(Tomasevich, pp.256-261)

Mihalovic's role in such actions is unclear as there is "...no definite evidence that [he] himself ever called for ethnic cleansing." (Malcolm p. 179). Instructions to his Montenegrin subordinates commanders, Lasic and Djurisic, which prescribe cleansing actions of non-Serb elements in order to create a Great Serbia have been attributed to Mihailovic by historians,(Lerner, p 105; Mulaj, p 42; Milazzo, p. 64, Tomasevich, pp.256-261)

In January and again in early February 1943, the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered units gathered in Montenegro to perform what were known as "cleansing actions" against Muslim populations, first in the county of Bijelo Polje in the Sandžak, and then in February in the counties of Čajniče and Foča in southeastern Bosnia, and the county of Pljevlja in the Sandžak.(Tomasevich, pp.256-261) This resulted in an estimated 10,000 Muslim casualties, with nominal Chetnik losses, constituting the "worst" terror campaign against the Bosnian Muslim population undertaken by the Chetnik movement. Upon completion of the first operation, the officer in charge, Major Pavle Đurišić, submitted his report on 10 January 1943 to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, Draža Mihailović, detailing that 33 Muslim villages had been burned down, with 400 Muslim combatants and about 1,000 women and children killed. Đurišić's report to Draža Mihailović on the second, February operation (dated February 13) lists 1,200 Muslim combatants and 8,000 elderly, women, and children killed by the Chetniks; all property was destroyed, with the exception of seized foodstuffs, and with large numbers of Bosnian Muslims fleeing the area, mostly to Sarajevo.(Tomasevich, pp.256-261)

The Chetnik Supreme Command, headed by Mihailović, issued a statement on 24 February 1943, describing the operations as punitive countermeasures prompted by the "aggressive actions of the Moslems who had attacked Serbian villages and killed some Serbian people." Circumstances indicate, however, that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailović's directive of 20 December 1941 to Major Đorđe Lašić and Captain Pavle Đurišić about the cleansing of the Sandžak of the Muslim, and of Bosnia of the Muslim and Croatian populations. In both the document, and in a preceding proclamation to the Serbian people of that same month,(Tomasevich, pp.256-261) Mihailović alludes to the plans for large-scale population shifts with the goal of forming a Greater Serbia, in-line with the theoretical propositions of Stevan Moljević. According to the document, "the mission of the Chetnik units" is:

1. The struggle for the freedom of our whole nation under the scepter of His Majesty King Peter II;
2. The creation of Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srijem, Banat, and Bačka;
3. The struggle for the incorporation into Yugoslavia of all those as yet non-liberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorizia, Istria, and Carinthia), as well as Bulgaria and northern Albania with Skadar;
4. The cleansing of the state territory of all national minorities and a-national elements [i.e. the Partisans and their supporters];
5. The creation of contiguous frontiers between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as between Serbia and Slovenia, by cleansing the Muslim population from the Sandžak, and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina;
6. The punishment of all Ustaše and Muslims who have mercilessly destroyed our people in these tragic days;
7. The settlement of the areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements by Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).
   — excerpt, Mihailović's instructions to Major Đorđe Lašić and Captain Pavle Đurišić (20 December 1941)

However, historian Lucien Karchmar presents the argument, quoted in a number of publications, that the document was a forgery written by Major Pavle Đurišić himself, after failing to reach Mihailović in December of 1941. It is important to note that, if a forgery, the document was forged by Chetniks hoping it would be taken as a legitimate order, not by their opponents seeking to discredit them. Whether or not the instructions were forged, Mihailović was certainly aware of both the ideological goal of cleansing and of the violent acts taken to accomplished that goal. Stevan Moljević worked out the basics of the Chetnik program while at Ravna Gora in the summer of 1941 (Tomasevich, p. 179), and Mihailović sent representatives to the Conference of Young Chetnik Intellectuals of Montenegro where the basic formulations were expanded.(Tomasevich, p. 171) Đurišić played the dominate role at this conference. Relations between Đurišić and Milhailovic were strained, and although Mihailović did not participate, neither did he take any action to counter it.(Pavlowitch, p. 112) At his trial in 1946, Milhailović claimed that he never ordered the destruction of Croat and Muslim villages, and some of his subordinates hid such activites from him.(Pavlowitch, p. 127; Tomasevich, p.258).

In the summer of 1942 the BBC was used as a means of implementing one of the Chetnik terror tactics against political opponents. Draža Mihailović personally supplied lists of Nedić and Ljotić supporters, marked for liquidation, to be broadcasted by the BBC. The broadcasting of the "Z" lists was quickly stopped when the British authorities discovered their purpose, but the Chetniks continued the selective terror practice, singling out their targets one by one. In this way a large number of the movement's political opponents, mostly prominent Serbs, were assassinated.(Tomasevich, pp.256-261)

Discussion

Many thanks to Nuujinn and Direktor for their work on this. I have a few questions for starters:

1. Direktor: Does Tomasevich refer to Karchmar in that text (p. 179)? If not do we not need to quote or paraphrase from Karchmar himself in the first part of that paragraph?
2. In any case, is it not preferable to use a citation directly from Karchmar?
3. Looking at the two drafts, it is apparent that the text in Direktor's version speaks more about the Chetniks and less about Mihailovic. In an article on M., should we not focus on him? If so, can the two drafts be combined?

Other questions? Suggested changes to either draft? Editors are encouraged to make changes directly to the text (using colour is best, I think). Sunray (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Which paragraph are you referring to? The one that begins "However, historian Lucien Karchmar..."
2. Yes indeed, I would like us to have Karchmar.. unfortunately, I'm not in Split right now but on one of the surrounding islands (Hvar), so I can't access the university library where I first found Karchmar (years ago). Hopefully Nuujinn will find the quote.
3. Really? I would say rather that the latter does not exclude cleansing operations and various "terror tactics" associated with Mihailović, which are after all the whole point of the section. There are indeed numerous other Chetnik ethnic cleansing actions, I've only listed those two or three with a direct connection to Mihailović. In other words, in a section on terror actions connected to Mihailovič, it does not seem excessive to describe terror actions connected to Mihailović.

Another important point is that the Malcolm quote seems to have been taken rather out of context to mean that "Mihailović is not associated to any ethnic cleansing actions". Malcolm is only referring to the instructions and is simply another author putting forward Karchmar's theory as a possibility. Also, whether Mihailović publicly "called" for ethnic cleansing is a whole seperate issue from Mihailović's actual association with cleansing actions. We can see for example that he justified the cleansing actions as "reprisals" and "defence of Serbian people", not as open efforts to remove civilian populations.

P.S. You seem to have crossed-out a lot more text than is actually excluded, Sunray. I did not exclude this much of Nuujinn's stuff, its almost all in there. My only changes to Nuujinn's text are concerned with the Malcolm quote and the long lists of people. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has all this text currently in the Chetniks article been removed in Nuujinn's proposal?

The Chetniks systemically massacred Muslims in villages that they captured. These actions were portrayed by the Chetniks as countermeasures against Muslim aggressive activities; however, all circumstances show that these massacres were committed in accordance with implementing Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941 that ordered Chetnik commanders to ethnically cleanse Muslims (among others). The massacres were carried out in areas relatively untouched by the Ustaša genocide until spring of 1942 and were an expression of the genocidal policy and ideology behind the Chetnik movement. These massacres reached their culmination in a genocidal campaign carried out in late autumn of 1941 in which the Italians handed over the towns of south-east Bosnia to the Chetniks to run as a puppet administration. The Chetniks, after their break with the Partisans, began their goal of creating a civilian and military government - the 'Provisional Administration for East Bosnia'. This goal was reached through talks held in November with the Italians which resulted in the Chetniks receiving the towns of Visegrád, Goražde, Foča and surrounding areas, from which NDH forces were compelled by the Italians to withdraw from. After the Chetniks gained control of Goražde on 29 November 1941, they began a massacre of Home Guard prisoners and NDH officials that became a systematic massacre of the local Muslim civilian population. Several hundred Muslims were murdered and their bodies were left hanging in the town or thrown into the Drina river. On 5 December 1941, the Chetniks received the town of Foča from the Italians and proceeded to massacre around five hundred Muslims. Additional massacres against the Muslims in the area of Foča took place in August 1942. In total, over two thousand people were killed in Foča. In early January, the Chetniks entered Srebrenica and killed around a thousand Muslim civilians in the town and in nearby villages. Around the same time the Chetniks made their way to Visegrád where deaths were reportedly in the thousands. Massacres continued in the following months in the region. In the village of Žepa alone about three hundred were killed in late 1941. In early January, Chetniks massacred fifty-four Muslims in Čelebić and burned down the village. On 3 March, the Chetniks burned forty-two Muslim villagers to death in Drakan.

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

back to discussion

-In regard to Tomasevich and Karchmar, the latter is not listed in the bibliograpy of The Chetniks, which was published in 1975. Karchmar's work was published in 1987 as a book, and Pavlowitch indicates that the PhD thesis dates to 1973. Dissertations were not readily available at that time, so I think it likely that Tomasevich was simply unaware of Karchmar work. But in any case, Tomasevich doesn't mention Karchmar. Citing Karchmar directly would be preferable, and I hope to be able to do so, but I'm dependent on the vagaries of the interlibrary loan system.

-I think it is important to note that the basic program of the Chetniks, which is reflected in the instructions attributed to M., were promulgated by a number of Chetnik groups, some of which Djurišic attended or played a role. See esp. Pavlowitch p. 111-112, which suggest that Djurišic pretty much acted on his own, regardless of Mihailovic's desires.

-In regard to Malcolm, I cannot find the passage quoted by DIREKTOR. On page 179, Malcolm says "But on the other hand there is no definite evidence that Draza Mihailovic himself ever called for ethnic cleansing. The one document which has frequently been cited as evidence of this, a set of instructions addressed to two regional commanders in December of 1941, is probably a forgery." That's pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure what the objection to it is. DIREKTOR, I don't know what you mean by "long list of people.

-PRODUCER, the reason I did not include the long list of atrocities is I see no need for such a list. We're writing an encyclopedia, so hitting the "low-lights", so to speak, seems sufficient, and I'm far from certain that all of these actions stem from M's instructions, even if it were genuine. Tomasevich does not, as far as I can see, claim that the instructions were the source of all of the massacres.

-It appears that Sunray has assigned red to DIREKTOR, yes? In any case, I call dibs on dark blue. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, regarding your first point, that's what I thought. So something from Karchmar would be needed. It also makes sense that the quote from Malcom be added. What do you think of my question about the focus on the actions of the Chetniks, rather than a more direct focus on Mihailovic? It seems to me that the focus has to be the latter--and that would apply to the list of atrocities as well. Yes, I applied the red to Direktor's text, so I could see what had been added/kept. You are welcome to the dark blue as far as I am concerned, (suggest you use boldtext so it's visible, though) I'll take light blue. Sunray (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said at the top of the draft page, my thought is that since some portion of the violent acts were independent of M., and we'd be amiss in any case to not have them in the article on the chetniks, it makes more sense to me to put the bulk of it there, and deal with the specific links to M. in the article on him. We can follow the sources to deal with the ratio in regard to M., but I don't think we need a laundry list of atrocities in either article, and we can cross link as needed. Ideally, in the long run, it makes more sense to me to make a separate article treating ethnic violence and terror tactics for Yugoslavia during WWII, since that way we can deal with the specific cases within the general context, and in that way give due weight to all of the actions taken by the various groups. We do seem to have a number of content forks that have cropped up in the balkan articles, and it would be nice to try to reduce those, although that will have to wait until we're done here. In regard to color, I'll play with the hex to get a nice tone that's distinct, and if it's not, please feel free to ask me to change it, as I'm a bit color blind. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment. Let us edit with these ideas in mind. Sunray (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Allright, I'm back - with a tan! :) So, are there any objections to the additions, and if so, lets see if we can't iron-out the problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The concern raised by Nuujinn, in response to my question (see paragraph immediately above), is that there is too much description of Chetnik atrocities. He agrees that "cleansing" actions linked directly to M. should be kept. So it would make sense to edit your re-draft with that in mind. The other options would be to either modify his version or re-combine the two versions. Whichever you two would prefer is fine with me. Sunray (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I only added cleansing actions connected to M. That was the inclusion criteria I used. Are you saying we need to cut down on the details in their description?

There are only these two or three incidents that are connected to Mihailović, adding a little detail is not something that should be frowned-upon, but encouraged. This is a free encyclopaedia, fellas, and you can't really prevent people from expanding articles based on one's personal estimate of how long a section should be. If the material, if the actions described, are related to the subject of the article (and they are), there is no reason whatsoever to exclude them. In short, if the actions are connected to Mihailović, there's no reason not to describe them in even greater detail (two paragraphs perhaps one for each of the two actions), than is currently the case.

Gentlemen, I do sincerely hope we can move on to the collaboration business and end this "side-quest". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely collaboration involves working together. This isn't a debate in which there are winners or losers. A problem has been posed. We need to get consensus on solving it and then we can move on. Sunray (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as minor remark, I understand direktor´s will to expand certain areas, however, I beleave the "early life" section has been too much resumed, and the one that some editors had expanded in the "old article" was quite ok and undisputed. I beleave that some users want to give too much focus on certain events (and that is ok with me), however in order to archive a better quality article, all sections should have a similar level of expansion if possible, so having an "early life" section which includes numerous important events resumed into two paragraphs, and going almost directly into WWII seems not balanced then... I please hope no one understands this words of mine as critic, just as a note and sugestion. FkpCascais (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sunray. I've as yet seen no good reason to remove a single word, and I do not agree with your reasoning that it should be done just so we can collaborate (though I do like your choice of words). As I said, if the actions are connected to Mihailović, there's no reason at all not to describe them in even greater detail - that is content related to the article's subject. If we were to post Nuujinn's proposal in the end, and someone say added the stuff I did into the article, under what reasoning would you revert that person or remove some of the accurate and related information?

@Fkp. I agree, the content is really not disputed.. but it was by-and-large unsourced. Lets talk about this later once we've finished with the dispute? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me, it was just a reminder. FkpCascais (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, would you be able to weigh in on what we have been discussing with respect to the drafts above. The question is, with respect to the one with red text, does it focus on Mihailovic to an adequate degree? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, I am still at a loss to understand the problem here. And frankly I'm starting to get annoyed by the apparently manufactured nature of the dispute, and by your and Nuujinn's evasive behaviour - why do you consistently refuse to clarify your reasoning here? And please note the sequence of ignored questions I put forth to that end. You may rest assured, without a valid reason for ignoring the information, I will simply not be pressured into excluding it.

I assure you, and you can see that yourself, the text only describes incidents with a clear connection to Mihailović. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here.. the Chetnik Supreme Command is essentially equivalent to Mihailović, him being the only Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command throughout the war. He is the head of the Supreme Command, actions involving the Supreme Command - involve him as well. And to be honest, I cannot imagine what reasoning one might put forth (barring rhetorical "lobbying" and pressure) to prevent users from adding relevant, accurate information to an article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've got your point of view on this. I would like to hear from others as well. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

the Chetnik Supreme Command is essentially equivalent to Mihailović. Got a ref for that? I have sources that suggest that Djurišic was basically an independent operator, see Pavlowich, pp. 94, 111-112. Roberts suggest that others ignored M's orders, see page 68. It is far from clear as to how much control M had over the Chetniks, and given that the program of the Chetniks was formulated by multiple groups, some of which were not under M's control, coupled with the fact that many of the actions taken were local reprisals the M could not have ordered or controlled suggests he is simply not the original source for all of the atrocities.

The basic question is really about due weight, and the problem I see with many of the balkan articles is that they focus on one group's action in isolation. Chetnik atrocities should be treated in context with Croate atrocities, German atrocities, Italian atrocities, etc. The actions taken by M and the Chetniks did not occur within a vacuum. To not treat the totality of the situation violates, I think, NPOV. Now we cannot fix all of this instantly, but a good start would be to focus on M's biography here, and move the bulk of the atrocity issues first to the Chetnik article, and later to try to bring together the atrocities committed by all groups into it's own article. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sunray for giving me the oportunity to express my view on the progress made on this chapter, and I apologise I haven´t been able to contribute much in this recent period. With regard to the draft and the red text, I will like to say that the level of neutrality, seriousness and commitment to archive a high quality encyclopedic text is evident, and I want to congratulate Nuujinn for the effort he has made. Having this controversial events described with objectivity is much appreciated and seems definitely that the section is being edited in the right direction. Congratulations once more. FkpCascais (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, Nuujinn, I have a ref that links Mihailović to the actions of the Supreme Command - he was the head of the supreme command. What kind of nonsense discussion is this when you demand evidence that the permanent and only chief of staff of the supreme command is involved with the actions of the supreme command?? That is just too much for me, I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned discussion is closed on that subject.
• Do you have sources that contradict Tomasevich on these two operations in January and February of 1943? Or are you just doing a little WP:OR here? Because unless you do, this is sourced, related info and is going into the article per Wikipedia policy, even if I have to take this to ARBCOM or wherever.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich says "According to a statement originating with the Chetnik Supreme Command dated February 24, 1943, these were punitive countermeasures prompted by the "aggressive actions of the Moslems who had attacked Serbian villages and killed some Serbian people". No direct attribution to M. By that reference, pretty much any officer in proximity to M. could have issued the statement. Tomasevich says "More details are revealed in the reports that Major [Pavle] Đurišić, the officer in charge of these operations, submitted to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command (Mihailović)", again, no direct attribution that the orders for the action came from M., only that he was told about them. Tomasevich say "all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941", again, no mention of direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence, based on Tomasevich's assertion that the document in question came from M., which is disputed. No where can I see Tomasevich claiming that M is equivalent to the Supreme Command. Command structures include more than one person. Tomasevich also says "In Yugoslavia, as in all the Balkan countries, there was a certain traditional inclination to the use of terror as a political tool. Living for centuries under foreign rule, frustrated in their repeated attempts to gain freedom, their rewards as a rule being only increased oppression, the peoples of the South Slav nations grew accustomed to the use of terror as a means of dealing with an enemy." There's no doubt that M knew what was going on, but we also know that M was concerned about his reputation with the Allies, and tried to hide some of his actions, such as his negotiations with the Germans, from them. The instructions are the strongest evidence of his complicity in the cleansing actions, but the validity of that document is disputed. We know that all parties engaged in atrocities. So again, the questions are of placement and weight and how much control M had given his circumstances. And if you want to take this to arbcom, please, go right ahead. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're a bit confused, and I urge you to read again. Tomasevich specifically states Đurišić's forces were "ordered" to commit these operations, now: either Tomasevich is a moron who likes to write random sentences, or you're nitpicking beyond any reasonable measure and these forces were "ordered" by the one and only authority that could possibly "order" them - which also happens to be the exact same authority he keeps referring to throughout the paragraph. This sort of nonsense is very much akin to demanding a link between the chief of staff of the supreme command and the supreme command.

Furthermore, if you'll note, Đurišić (referred to as "the officer in charge of the operation") did not "report" the outcome of his operation to Mihailović once - but twice: first finishing one "ordered" operation in the Sandžak, then reporting on January 10, afterwards immediately proceeding out to carry out the second operation, and then reporting once again to Mihailović for the second time on February 13. And you are suggesting Tomaseevich is actually saying these operations were done without Mihailović's consent - consider that.

And finally: "all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941, to Đurišić and [Đorđije] Lašić about the cleansing of Sandžak of Moslem and of Bosnia of Moslem and Croatian populations".

Now that we've established that Tomasevich does, in fact, connect these events to Mihailović, do you actually have a counter-source or don't you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Nuujinn's post more carefully Direktor and avoid personalising this discussion.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your personal remarks Direktor.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, Fainites. Tomasevich most clearly attributes the operations of January and February to the Chetnik Supreme Command. The first response I get from Nuujinn is that I need to show the connection between the supreme command and the actual head of the supreme command. The second response is the proposition that Tomasevich, who exclusively refers to the Supreme Command throughout the paragraph, in one of the sentences of that same paragraph (instead of the only authority that could conceivably order Đurišić's forces) talks about, I don't know, the Mysterious Ethnic-Cleansing-Ordering Fairies of the Nether Balkans.

Nuujinn, the Supreme Command itself took responsibility for the operations. Their proclamation, which describes the actions as defensive measures for the protection of local Serbs, also may serve to show how Mihailović intended to shield himself from, as you say, any loss of reputation with the Allies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which would explain why there are no written records of him giving such orders. I note that Tomasevich does not say anything directly about Mihailović's consent for these operations, and other author have suggested that Mihailović was in no position to order Đurišić to do anything he didn't want to do, since M was dependent on the Montenegrins. Tomasevich is precise in his wording and we should reflect that. That an order or statement was issued by the Supreme Command does not mean M is the one who issued it. Đurišić could well have acted on his own, and since he was one of three commanders in the area, I would assume that he, too, was part of the Supreme Command, but I don't want to say that in the article because I do not have a source for that yet. We have to be precise in following sources, that's why I asked you for a source stating that M was equivalent to the Supreme Command. As Chief, he was part of it, but not the only member, and thus not equivalent. We can say the Đurišić reported the atrocities to M. and that Tomasevich asserts that the circumstances indicate that operations were a partial implementation of M's instructions, but I don't see a source making a direct and definitive link, as you want to say. Find a source, and we'll talk about. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which proposal to adopt?

It would be good to get an indication from participants as to which of the proposals to work with. Nuujinn's first proposal for the Mihailovic article (above) [1] or Direktor's 2nd proposal (with red text showing differences.[2] The litmus test, as always, for a biography is WP:NPOV with particular regard to WP:WEIGHT. Sunray (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nuujinn´s proposal is definitely balanced and encyclopedic. However, some parts of DIREKTORS edits are ok. FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to indicate which parts? Sunray (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh I shouldn´t have entered into details without having the necessary time to see the sources, and I just spoke in general (something I shouldn´t have done). I was refering only to direktor´s first paragraph, which by knowing the general circumstances at that time doesn´t sound bad, although I shouldn´t have said it because I read Tomasevic and took notes a long time now (one year, or so), and I read very little of Hoare´s work. Not familirised as necessary with the additions and sources content, I will ask everyone please to ignore my posterior remark and count only my support to Nuujin´s draft which is exclusively based on sources. FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• He's talking about the "Croats started it" parts Sunray.. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it is an effort from your side, so I though of giving you some credit for it. ;) FkpCascais (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it an effort, Fkp, I've made it clear from the start we should, just like Tomasevich, make these sort of things clear from the outset; but thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look the bottom line is that the actions are connected to the Supreme Command, hence they are related to the article's content, hence one would need a very good reason to justify excluding them - which we have not yet seen. If content is related the question is why not to include it, and I've yet to see any justification. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote for the Nuujinn's proposal. BoDu (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you again BoDu, your preference was never in doubt, but this is not a vote. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, in this case to vote means to express an opinion. So, you are wrong, this is a vote. BoDu (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In general Nuujinn's is concise, neat and covers the material and would be a better basis for a modest expansion by a summarised inclusion of further material. It is also a proper expression of the diversion of historians opinions about the "instructions".Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And I've expanded it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only expanded it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's treatment of Karchmar is, as I have explained before, unbalanced on three separate levels. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a question of not understanding your explanation Direktor. It is that nobody agrees with it. You have been pointed in the direction of RSN. All that can be said about it here has been said. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"WP:RSN", are you kidding me? Seems it is a question of understanding my explanation. For the fifteenth time: I am not disputing Karchmar as a source. I'll repeat myself once again as to why Nuujinn's treatment is not acceptable.

The way Karchmar's theory has been represented is really not acceptable. Firstly, it is his theory, and he alone should be attributed to it (others are simply quoting him). Secondly, as I said before, it is biased and unnecessary to list a hand-picked selection from the hundreds of publications that simply do not mention Karchmar. Thirdly, the vast majority of the authors listed supposedly in "support" of Karchmar's theory simply mention it as a theory or possibility, without voicing outright support. The text now suggests that the falsification theory is one belonging to many authors, who actively support it (as opposed to simply making note of it as a possibility), and a theory that is opposed by fewer(!) other authors. None of the implications of this format are accurate. I'll remind you that PRODUCER agrees with me here, and that our goal is to reach an acceptable compromise, not to bully users with fake votes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that we keep rule 1 in mind. In regard to the drafts, I prefer mine, but I am certainly amenable to suggestions and changes. FWIW, I have Karchmar in hand, and I'll post some quotations later today or early tomorrow.

Sunray, would it be appropriate for you or Fainites to post notes to the other editors who have participated in the mediation asking them to comment on the content of the two drafts here? I am thinking that their comments might be helpful, and some of them may not be following the discussions here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunray will need to do this I think as he was mediator. (I can't recall who they were). Seems like a good idea to me.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mediation participants have been notified and a note placed on the article talk page Sunray (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I will reply here in full to your most recent post.

• @"I note that Tomasevich does not say anything directly about Mihailović's consent for these operations"

The source shows the consent of the Supreme Command. Mihailović was a member of the Supreme Command. As such, you require a source before you can claim he was excluded from that particular involvement.

• @"other authors have suggested that Mihailović was in no position to order Đurišić to do anything he didn't want to do, since M was dependent on the Montenegrins."

WP:OR. The source clearly states Đurišić's forces were ordered to conduct the two operations.

• @"That an order or statement was issued by the Supreme Command does not mean M is the one who issued it. We have to be precise in following sources, that's why I asked you for a source stating that M was equivalent to the Supreme Command. As Chief, he was part of it, but not the only member, and thus not equivalent."

The Supreme Command is one body, of which Draža Mihailović was a member. Your claim is akin to saying "that an order was issued by the government does not mean the PM was the one who issued it". He didn't issue it, the supreme command takes action collectively as one body. You require a source before you can claim that Mihailović did not participate in this decision of the command authority he presided over, which is quite an extraordinary claim considering there in no indication whatsoever that would suggest that.

• @"Đurišić could well have acted on his own, and since he was one of three commanders in the area, I would assume that he, too, was part of the Supreme Command, but I don't want to say that in the article because I do not have a source for that yet."

WP:OR. I suppose he could have, yes, so what? He didn't: his forces were ordered to go forward with the operations. Ordered. Not acting on their own, which seems to be a theory you came-up with, but ordered. (He, a major and far-too-open Italian collaborator, was certainly not a member of the Chetnik Supreme Command.)

There is no question at all that Tomasevich is referring to the Supreme Command in the sentence (and frankly I cannot believe this has even come-up as sort of "straw" to cling to, I thought the discussion has evolved past these sort of nonsense word-games). The fact that the Supreme Command is indeed the subject is obvious 1) from the fact that he refers to it throughout the paragraph, in preceding sentence as well, and 2) also from the fact that noone else could possibly have given the order. To claim that unless a fact is laid-out in one sentence, it somehow "does not count", is something I am not prepared to play-along with. I suppose poor Tomasevich had no way of knowing his every sentence would be subject to deliberate misinterpretation by decontextualization. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I formally request that you remove the personal attacks above, esp. the implication that I am deliberately misinterpreting Tomosevich by decontextualization.

Nuujinn, what are you seeing as a personal attack? The tone may be scornful, but I don't see a personal attack. Sunray (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I take "deliberate misinterpretation" as an attack, and the accusations of OR about Đurišić when I clearly state that I am making assumption that I do not wish to use because they are not sourced--my understanding is we are allow to have opinions, but not to use them as material in the article. Both are not about the content, and and the first characterizes motive. Also, below, "it is but another indication of your unbalanced, unscientific approach to the issue". Unscientific, I can accept, since we're not talking about science. Unbalance characterizes mental state, in a pejorative manner of which DIREKTOR may be unaware. The constant expression of distain toward others in repeated walls of text in repeated posting which violate the rules to which we agreed is very tiring, and I realize I may be overreacting. If you don't see those as about the contributor, instead of the content, I will not protest and let the matter drop. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This affair is little more than posturing: I am to be discredited and participants are to be biased against neutrally evaluating the issue by continuously depicting me as an insulting individual. To that end, insults are being invented out of thin air. To say an approach is "unbalanced", meaning that it does not appropriately cover the subject matter, is not exactly saying a person is "unbalanced". And yes, since I have studied medical psychiatry, and assisted in the publication of a paper in that field, I am fully aware of the meaning of an "unbalanced" mind. I will not, however, start screening my posts for words that, placed in an entirely different context, could conceivably be insulting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What about "deliberate misinterpretation" ?Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that characterizing another user's contribution as an "unbalanced, unscientific approach to the issue" is an ad hominem (and thus contrary to the terms). I think that participants should strive for a more civil discourse. Direktor, would you please remove that remark? Sunray (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You say Đurišić was not a member of the Supreme Command, can you provide a source that says that, or better, a source which lists the membership? I haven't see any so far, but could well have missed something in the last year and a half. Can you point to where Tomosevich says that Đurišić was ordered to carry out these actions? The most I see is Tomosevich's statement that "all circumstances indicate that the operations were a partial implementation of the Chetnik plans mentioned specifically in Mihailović's directive of December 20, 1941". I would characterize that as informed conjecture on the part of Tomosevich, and we can use that since he is a trained historian, but I am not personally willing to push that statement further by representing what he characterized as an indication based on circumstances as a definite fact. Do you have a source for 'the fact that noone else could possibly have given the order."' If you point directly to sources that you believe support your assertions, I'll take a look. Otherwise, I'm not interested. Simply repeating your assertions does not give them any more weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am repeating my assertions because you (deliberately?) do not address them, proceeding to repeat yourself as well. And they need no additional "weight".
The wole paragraph is quite large, as you know, so I will post only excerpts here. I've basically cut-out the long descriptions of the slaughtered Bosniaks etc.. the stuff feels like reading through a news report on Srebrenica.

“ According to a statement originating with the Chetnik Supreme Command dated February 24, 1943, these were punitive countermeasures prompted by the "aggressive actions of the Moslems who had attacked Serbian villages and killed some Serbian people." Chetnik units in Montenegro [referring to Đurišić's forces, as is explained below] were ordered early in January and again early in February to undertake what were known as "cleansing actions" against the Moslems... More details are revealed in the [two separate] reports that Major [Pavle] Đurišić, the officer in charge of these operations, submitted to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command (Mihailović). ”

Barring any decontextualization, there can be no question that the Supreme Command, referred to in the first sentence, is referred to indirectly as the originator of the orders to Đurišić in the second sentence. Indeed, as I've said three times already, to contemplate the alternative is to suppose Tomasevich is talking about some other Mickey Mouse, fictitious authority above Đurišić - which he does not even name.

As for your personal characterization of Tomasevich's assertion, it is but another indication of your unbalanced, unscientific approach to the issue: note the enormous weight you place on Karchmar's conjecture, which you do not even characterize as such, and compare it with your proposal for that of Tomasevich.

P.S. You really need to get out of the habit of constantly shifting the burden of evidence: show me Đurišić was a member of the Suprme Command, don't ask me to show that he wasn't. And lets stop with the WikiLawyering please. Not a single personal attack was posted. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nuujinn´s proposal seems ok to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hah, no doubt. Just like with BoDu there was never really any question as to what the opposing "club" might prefer. Calling for opinions with the participants is really futile, anyone can tell you in advance what each will say. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, well, we've probably had all the input we are going to get for now. So far of those who have commented (I count seven: Nuujinn, Direktor, Producer, BoDu, FkpCascais, Fainites, and JeanJacquesGeorges) all but Direktor and Producer are happy with Nuujinn's draft. Direktor would prefer to add more about Chetnik atrocities, but that proposal hasn't gained much traction. Fainites has indicated that Nuujinn's text is a good summary of historian's views and would allow for "a modest expansion by a summarised inclusion of further material." Nuujinn is agreeable to that. Is that a fair summary? Sunray (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I would not like to add more Chetnik atrocities, I "would like" to add Chetnik atrocities with a sourced connection to Mihailović - that would otherwise remained effectively "censored". That effective censorship is what I am not prepared to accept. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a fair summary to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, comments by all participants are valued. It looks as though you have not succeeded in persuading others to your point of view. Let's move on to the next topic. Sunray (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have commented. It looks like we have consensus to go with Nuujiin's proposed addition on ethnic conflict. Sunray (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes? And why is that? Because that's your "assessment"? This is where your fundamental fallacious premise about Wikipedia shows, Sunray. If its sourced with reliable sources, I do not need to "convince" anyone. Wikipedia is not a "democracy" or a popularity contest you've made it out to be. Its about facts, sourced facts. And I am going to include them in the article, and bring this up on ANI, or wherever it may take us, should they be removed - and keep bringing it up until the facts cease to be censored by "popular vote". It seems this quasi mediation you've set-up is essentially a method for bullying users into accepting whatever happens to be the most popular view, with you there to tip the scales whichever way you please by means of "declarations of consensus" - even though one whole side of the argument does not agree, and with good sources in support. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is, indeed, my assessment. Now to policy: Editorial decisions in Wikipedia are made by consensus. Your threat to violate consensus will not go down well at ANI or any other WP forum that I know of. Sunray (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Since we have rough consensus, I figure on moving the 1st proposal into place shortly. Also, I figure to bring up the issue of the part for the Chetniks article over on that talk page, just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. By all means, please proceed. Sunray (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, mostly. Some clean up to do, I'm sure, in both articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)