User talk:BoDu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!


Hello, BoDu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Also...

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Kosta Milovanović Pećanac article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Luna Santin 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] creating redirects

BoDu, I have reverted your edit here, which made conservative liberalism into a redirect to classical liberalism for two reasons:

  1. This is not a way to request redirects. Please use the procedure specified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to delete, merge and redirect substantive articles to each other.
  2. I disagree with your edit, because I believe that conservative liberalism is an ideology separate from classical liberalism.

I would advise you not to re-revert my edit, but instead use official procedures and article discussions for substantive changes to articles. Happy editing! C mon 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{liberalism}}

BoDu I have again reverted your edit on the template liberalism. Please use the talk page to discuss major changes that are disputed, instead of disrupting wikipedia. C mon 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draza Mihailovic

The reason why I keep reverting your edit is that you have not provided evidence for the claim that Mihailovic was decorated for other actions but the rescue of the airmen. Please talk about this in the Discussion section before editing again.--As286 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection of the Partisans (Yugoslavia) article

Hi, BoDu. I feel I must ask, do you have any backing in your redirection? Was there any discussion, any consent here? They were known as the Partisans, you know (the chetniks most certainly were not). I await your answer, in the meantime I will look into this matter... DIREKTOR 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So far I have no backing in my redirection. I think that the name of the article should be the official name of the movement which is not "Partisans" but "People' Liberation Army". BoDu 10:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying your move was wrong, but such radical changes must be discussed first. I read they were also known as "Partizanski odredi Yugoslavije" in some capacity. DIREKTOR 10:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:200px-CedomiljMijatovic.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:200px-CedomiljMijatovic.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An inquiry

Just for my information, would you answer a question: Are you a supporter of the so-called Chetnik movement (Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland)? I mean this not as an insult, of course, but I ask for the sake of easing further communication. (Also, it somehow seems logical due to your background and the character of your edits.) DIREKTOR 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I am a supporter of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. Though I do not support everything they did. BoDu 11:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


I certainly hope not. In my oppinion (and in the oppinion of mainstream history) they were little better than the Ustaše (their counterparts, so to speak), merely because they were a much smaller organisation and because they were founded as an anti-fascist organisation. This is all besides the point though... thank you. DIREKTOR 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I have to say this - but you are say saying nonsense. Ante Pavelic was a fascist. Draza Mihailovic was not a fascist. Ante Pavelic advocated genocide against non-Croats. Draza Mihailovic did not advocate genocide against non-Serbs. BoDu 10:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


That's true, but he committed crimes against non-Serbs, just as unhumanly as the Ustaše. The difference was the Ustaše had the Axis to help them. He was not a fascist, strictly speaking, but a rose by any other name... as they say... (he DID support Greater-Serbian dictatorship over other Yugoslav nations)


1. There is no proof that Draža Mihailović ever ordered crimes to be committed against non-Serbs.
2. On January 27,1944 at the Chetnik congress in the village of Ba, Draža Mihailović proposed democratic federal Yugoslavia. BoDu 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


1. That is just riddiculous (even if it is true, and I doubt it). There is no proof Tito ordered any crimes either then. Those are his troops under his command.
2. By 1944, the Chetniks would probably say anything. They were a nearly annihilated movement without (official) backing by the Axis or the Allies. Any declarations Mihailović made are irrelevant in 1944. Besides, it does nothing to redeem their policies of Serb dictatorship they supported up to then. DIREKTOR 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


1. If Josip Broz did not order his troops to commit crimes - he is not a war criminal. The same applies to Mihailović.
2. Mihailović did not propose dictatorship before 1944. And it is relevant what Mihailović declared in 1944 (was he honest is open to speculation). BoDu 11:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


1. The Chetniks had a genocidal agenda in the Yugoslav front, this is well known. They killed and muredered on an ethnic basis, not on a political basis. They performed organised ethnic cleansing operations on specific areas, this is also well documented. Such a level of multi-unit cooperation required for this clearly more than implicates the Chetnik command. (Are we talking about Tito or the Chetniks, here? If you knew your history, you would know that same rules DO NOT apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders.)
2. Like I said, what the Chetniks proclaimed in 1944 is not important (for them the war was practically over). You may not be aware that even the Ustaše started approaching the Allies (and changing policy accordingly) in 1944. Does that exempt them from their crimes? DIREKTOR 07:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


1. Karchmar says that it is quite possible that those Chetniks who commited the crimes did it without the approal of Mihailović. Are we talking about Broz or Mihailović, here? Well, you first mentioned Broz so I responded.(Which rules do not apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders?)
2. As I said, what Mihailović proclaimed in 1944 is important. Is interesting that you ignored my argument that Mihailović - unlike Ante Pavelić - did not advocate dictatorship before 1944. BoDu 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


1. Oh I'm sure its possible. Just not probable by any logical standards. Different standards do apply to Allied and non-Allied commanders, because of the cause they were fighting for. This is obvious from War Crimes Trbunals' findings and statements after the war.

2. Why exactly is it important what a defeated commander of a nearly annihilated and denounced movement says, after his previous actions to the contrary? Mihailović advocated (prior to his defeat) the old Serbian Yugoslavia, wich was anything but democratic, and had been ruled with an iron fist first by the dictator King Alexander and his lackeys, and afterwards the Regent Paul. You cannot claim this was a democracy, it simply wasn't. DIREKTOR 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


1a. It is not established fact by historians that Mihailović ordered Chetniks to commit the crimes. It is established fact by historians that Pavelić ordered Ustashas to commit the crimes.
1b. Allied commanders were court-martialed and found guilty of committing war crimes. For example, Sergeant Horace T. West.
2. Mihailović did not advocate - prior to his defeat - the old Yugoslavia. In 1942 Mihailović proposed program for Yugoslavia after the war. This program proposed universal franchise(inluding votes for women)secret ballot,parlamentarizam. BoDu 11:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


1.a It is not, but in the long run that does not matter. Their crimes were numerous and gruesome. They were a Serb radical nationalist genocidal movement, famous for their hatred of non-Serbs (the vast majority of thefew non-Serbs that did join their movement in the beginning left it within a year).

1.b Yes (of course!), but different standards were applied because of their alignment.

2. They advocated a Yugoslavia in wich all the other nations were to be repressed and their existance subjected to democide. Does the angelic Draža state at any point he accepts the need for national self-determination of the Yugoslav peoples? DIREKTOR 11:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


1.a Some Chetniks did gruesome crimes but Mihailović was the leader of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. If the leader of the YAF did not order his men to commit the crimes than it can hardly be said that YAF was genocidal movement.
1.b My point is that Sergeant Horace T. West found guilty of committing a war crime of the same kind that the Partisans commited.
2. Karchmar says that Mihailović's first program in 1942 was "far from chauvinistic" so I guess the answer to your question is - yes. BoDu 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


1.a What? So what you're saying is that the Chetniks colud kill half of Yugoslavia's civilians, but if they weren't ordered to do so by Draža, they are not a genocidal movement? My friend, its what you do, not what you say that matters.

1.b Trials are conducted case by case, like I said, different standards apply for filing accusations. And anyway you cannot compare the Yugoslav front with the Western one, or Marshall Broz with a Sergeant in the US? Army.

2. I don't care about Krchmar's claims, for every author that says Chetniks were "moderate" I can find you a dozen that say the Chetniks did not accept the demands of the Yugoslav nations for self-determination.
I ask you again: Does General Draža Miailović (on behalf of the YAF) make a proclamation/declaration at any point that he accepts the need for national self-determination of other (non-Serb) Yugoslav peoples? Yes or no?


1.a I stand by my words. It is interesting what Britannica says about Ustashas and Chetniks. Britannica mentions Ustashas crimes but it does not mention Chetniks crimes.
1.b It does not matters is it Yugoslav front or Western one, Marshall Broz or a Sergeant in the US - to order murder of prisoners was a war crime.
2.a You should care about Karchmar's claims because he is the most reliable historian on Draža Mihailović
2.b I answered your question BoDu 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


1a So you refuse logical arguments and stick implicitly to what you claim? I can't say that suprises me... Like I said, its what you do, not waht you say that matters.

1b Yes it does. Wich Soviet comander was tried for war crimes?

2a We are talking about his personal oppinion here. Not scientificly proven facts. He is not the only acclaimed expert on the Chetniks, you know, but he certainly is the most "radical" one, so to speak.

2b Please indulge me and answer me again, yes or no.

DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


1a. Exactly, its what you do, not what you say that matters. Some Chetnik commanders were saying that they are members of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland but in fact they were pursuing its own policy. These Chetnik commanders were de facto leaders of the independent Chetnik movements.

1b. The Nuremberg Tribunal stated that the 1929 Geneva Convention was binding to all nations which fought WW2. Consequently, all Allied commanders who ordered murder of prisoners are de facto war criminals.

2a. Karchmar's claims suggest it is not established fact by historians that Mihailović advocated dictatorship before 1944.

2b. I answered your question. BoDu 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna do this any more... your POV is increadibly strong. You answered my inquiry more than sufficiently, thank you. DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Momčilo Đujić

As you seem to know a lot about Chetniks, I suggest you look at Momčilo Đujić, a croatian user recently vandalized the article. Paulcicero 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)