Talk:Draža Mihailović

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serbia Portal Draža Mihailović is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Collaboration?

To the person who wrote that Tito collaborated with the Nazi's. You did not understand what Djilas was saying in his book. How could Tito collaborate with the Nazi's during that time in 1943, when he was in battle against in southern Bosnia. The reason the Partisans met with the Nazi's was sign a "Live and Let Live" deal with the Germans. Where Tito and the high comand of the Partisans would lay down their weapons, and the members of the army would live. Hitler returned word to Tito saying "I never talk with rebels, I shoot rebels." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.231.252 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Josip Broz collaborated with the nazis?! Care to give any evidence of that, or did you just pull that one out of your serb-ass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.205.154 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, Mihailovich NEVER did collaborate with the Germans, period. While it may be true that some of his lieutenants did, namely Djurisch, who was later repudiated by Mihailovich and murdered by the Ustasha in 1945, Mihailovich himself never did.

The similarly named Pop Djuic, who commanded Chetnik forces in Knin and later in Slovenia, DID collaborate with the Italians - namely to save Serbian lives.Djuic later saved scores of American and British Airmen and was allowed refuge in the USA at the end of the war.

BUT - Guess who did directly collaborate with the Nazis? - Good Old Ustasha-Commie Josip Broz himself. The facts? Read Milovan Djilas "Wartime" - Djilas wasn't exactly a Chetnik, was he, yet he documented meetings approved directly by Tito between top Partisan commanders and the German High Command. The most important of these meetings took place in March 1943, just when the Allies, based on the falsified Intelligence provided by the Communist Klugmann were about to abandon Mihailovich in favor of Tito.

Who actually kept those 32 German divisions bound for North Africa and Russia pinned down in Yugoslavia? The evidence suggests, from Martin and Lees on, that Mihailovich's Chetniks did, at least from the Summer of 1941 up to the spring of 1943. This was a force provided with machine guns that didn't work, ammo that did not fit revolvers, no mortars, no anti-tank weapons, summer uniforms dropped in the Winter - all courtesy of the Communist bastard and Soviet Spy Klugmann. By contrast, when arms deliveries to the Partisans began in earnest in the spring of 1943, they received mortars, tanks, machine guns, and later aircraft. NONE of these were provided to Mihailovich. None.

The source - hey, if you don't want to read the books by David Martin or Michael Lees, then here's one for you - Basil Davidson's own memoirs - "Special Operations Europe". Davidson, a Crypto-Communist, was Klugmann's deputy in SOE Cairo, and himself was an unabashed supporter of the Communists. Indeed, it was Davidson who supervised, with Klugmann, the initial dispatch of Croat Communists, former International Brigadiers, to Tito in the spring of 1942, after they were trained by the British. This, at a time when Mihailovich was still supposedly the principal ally of the British and Americans.

Klugmann deliberately changed Intelligence reports. He also sent false information to the BBC, claiming the Partisans were responsible for acts of sabotage against the Nazis when it was actually the Chetniks who completed the operations. Case in point - the notorious lie about the destruction of the Bor Mines - done by Chetniks and witnessed by the British Major Archie Jack, yet broadcasted as a Partisan operation. When Jack protested, he was silenced and later transferred out of Yugoslavia.

Another case in point, Chetnik operations against the Germans in Serbia in the fall of 1944 - all of the villages and towns up to Belgrade were ACTUALLY liberated by the Chetniks. American OSS officers witnessed these operations - and also witnessed how the Partisans would mortar and shell the Chetniks as they stormed these towns - doing NOTHING to the Nazis. Eventually Mihailovich had to abandoned the towns, as Tito's main patrons - the Red Army arrived.

Much more facts to refute the Communists and Croat apologists. But better yet, read a balanced history - or even read the Partisans own accounts - they were up to their eyeballs with the Nazis and with Pavelic too.

[edit] Old weaselly language

There's a lot of weaselly language here regarding collaboration with the occupying forces, and then the post-war astonishment and whatnot. --Shallot 10:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shallot, you are from Croatia, aren't you?, thus I don't think your opinion is objective! --195.178.32.50

Well, if you'd a priori dismiss arguments of a poster just because of their background, that's not objectivity, either, is it?

And anyway, this particular bit of text is obsolete because of many changes in the article made since July 2004. --Joy [shallot] 23:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you be more precise? I tried not to judge whether he was a traitor or not. That's why it is only stated that he was sentenced for high treason. The rest, I guess, might be disputable and is left for someone more competent to correct (if there is a need to correct anything). Halibutt 11:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

It should be stated straightforwardly whether he should have been on a trial or not, and not imply that the partisans just somehow "accused" him and that CDG was pissed off... --Shallot 18:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMO whether he should have been on trial or not is not of our business. The fact is that he lost support of the western Allies and that Tito won while Mihailovic lost and was put on trial and sentenced. Whether he was guilty or not - we should not judge. We just report. Halibutt 09:19, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's rather hypocritical to insist on this logic and at the same time remove the report of the likely reason why he was on trial, the massacres of Bosnian Muslims (at Foča etc) by his forces. --Shallot 12:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First organized resistance

Oh and the reference to the first organized resistance looks fishy to me. I don't know about the whole of occupied Yugoslavia, but in Croatia, the Partisans organized at the same time (a few days earlier even) as the Chetniks, cf. Ustase#History so the latter wouldn't deserve such particular praise. I vaguely recall old history books saying the Partisans organized even earlier in Bosnia, but I'm not sure. --Shallot 12:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found a few sources on the net saying the Partisans rebelled in Bosnia on July 27[1], and that Draza Mihailovic first signed himself as the leader of the Chetniks on June 14[2]. I suppose the sentence could be right, but it's rather inconsequential given the context. --Shallot 12:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I only reinstalled a slightly modified remark by some anon (check the history for details).

As to his trial - he might've been accused of 10000 sins. The important thing here is that he was found guilty of high treason, not of war crimes (which, IMO, he might've commited a lot). Halibutt 16:58, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

But I doubt that the crimes had nothing to do with it. If they charged him of treason, that must have meant that he did something against the country. Given that they can't have been talking about the royal Yugoslavia (because DM was its general after all and I doubt he ever did anything contrary to the monarchy...?), the country had to have been defined by the new government, supported by those people his troops killed. --Shallot 20:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably, but that is but an assumption. Halibutt 17:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

"I die as a sinner. I was nothing more than the judge of death", said at the end of his life the judge of his trial. It is no secret at all that every anti-communist with enough influence was charged of treason and executed in the late 40es and 50's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.94.104.140 (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

The above is very true one of the first orders of buisness for Tito was to execute over 10,000 people who were an opposition to him within his first month or so. I havn't read it in a while but that was in Michael Lee's book "The Rape of Serbia."

[edit] NPOV notice

I'm putting a NPOV notice on this article. Right now it reads like a hagiography. Thanks to the tattoo and the picture of him in Ban Jelacic Square, there is renewed interest in Mihailovic and what he was/what he did. This article doesn't even come close to painting a complete picture, and uses highly inflammatory and contentious language.

Dear anon, could you please be a tad more specific? What sentences are wrong, what info is missing, what statements are incorrect? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign my previous comment. Anyway, statements such as "his murderer, Marshal Tito" and "colossal blunder" don't belong in a neutral encyclopaedia entry. That would be the "inflammatory and contentious language" I was talking about. Furthermore, some of the "facts" presented within are highly questionable, others, of meager importance, are highlighted, and still others, which don't paint such a flattering picture of the Djeneral, are omitted entirely. Hence, NPOV. --tracer_bullet 18:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have made some changes to the article. However the more I was doing it, the more I realized that much of this stuff belongs in an article about the Chetniks, and not necessarily about Mihailovic. In any case I think I've rebalanced the POV somewhat, by removing some speculation as well as irrelevant commentary, as well as adding a section on collaboration with the NDH. I think now I need someone to help me decide if some of the stuff should be moved to the Chetnik article, as well as if it's worth adding a section about posthumous..er.."activities", the popular impression of Draza in Serbia, etc...--tracer_bullet 15:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT DRAZA WAS AWARDED WITH CROIX DE GUERE by CHARLES DE GAULLES, no COLABORATOR OF NAZIS WAS EVER AWARDED WITH THIS, as WELL as LEGION OF MERIT which you do mention....TITO's trial of Mihailovic is irrelevant-TITO WAS CROATIAN DICTATOR and COMMUNIST, therefore anti-ROYALIST (MIHAJLOVIC WAS ANTI_NAZI ROYALIST). And it is about the time for Croatians to accept history as it is and stop blaiming everybody for their dark and muddy past......

Ok thanks for that anonymous vandalization of the page, but you'll have to go about it differently. Trying to spell things correctly is a good start. Mihailovic is a highly controversial historical figure, and the goal here is to present a balanced picture, not write a hagiography. His trial is not irrelevant, because someone reading this might want to know how he died. They might also want to know that he was tried and convicted of war crimes in addition to the arguably more vague charge of treason. And while might have been an anti-Nazi Royalist, he certainly was not above collaborating with the Nazis or NDH when it suited his goals. He was not above intimidating and murdering civilian, in particular non-Serb, population. The Allies did not arbitrarily switch their support to the Partisans - they did so after MI-6 informed them of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis, and massacres committed by Chetnik troups in eastern Bosnia.--tracer_bullet 15:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mistakes

I just don't have the energy to refute all this Communist propaganda. I'm sure you know the victors wrtie the history books. Just one thing. The Allies stopped supporting Mihailovic as he did not attack the Nazis much. Not because he was a Nazi collaborator(which he may or may not have been), but because the Nazis had a rule that for every dead German soldier, 100 civilians would be shot and for every wounded German soldier, 50 civilians would be shot. Naturally, this was an effective deterrent. However, the Partizans didn't care, as the reprisals which THEY THEMSELVES CAUSED, drove hordes of angry volunteers into their arms.

Another point of view... First of all, anyone who believes the trial against Mihailovich was fair are probably the same people that think Stalin had fair trials. Tito was a ruthless communist that killed over 200,000 people in Slovenia, mostly Croats, because it was payback for what they did to the Partisans during the war. So it is fair to say that the trial againt Mihailovich was nothing but LIES. Tito was known to liqidate all those he did not like. He also had to destroy the Chetnik's name in order to prevent any sort of legend. He did not want people to love the Chetniks. He did not want any kind of following. He had to do all he could to tarnish their image. So the whole story about the Chetniks involvment with the Nazis is a joke. In fact, Mihailovich had one of his own Chetniks killed because he had decided to befriend the Nazis and offer them a peace deal. For that, Draza had him executed for being a traitor. Why would he execute his own men that collaborated with the Nazis if he himself was a collaborator? Also why would the Congress award him a medal of merit? Why would the French award him with their highest award? Why would so many leaders consider him to be a hero? The Chetnik and Mihailovich were some of the first to stand up to the Nazis. The only reason there are some questions is because the Communists tarnished his image and destroyed all records that made him look like a hero. Today he is considered a hero by many in Serbia. His picture hangs in many Serbian churches throughout the world.

[edit] npov

• There is nothing "alleged" about his collaboration with the Nazis. He did collaborate. Idea that all documentation to prove it was "fabricated" is speculation that came out of various nationalist anti-communist movements following the break up of Yugoslavia.
• I reentered removed links. --Dejan Čabrilo 07:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not all, but some documentation was fabricated. – that was discussed in American Congress during the trail, even before he was executed. I think that Ninam’s wording is much better:

"After the war he was tried for alleged collaboration with the various invaders by the rival Communist Partizans, shot and buried in an unmarked grave."

Mihailović never had a chance for fair trail. Trial against Mihailović was not fair, the court was not independent, etc. He was convicted and executed by same communist dictatorship that executed thousands of POWS (subject of current investigation in Slovenia) or sent thousand of their “comrades” to Goli Otok (Yugoslav version of GULAG by all means). Charles de Gaulles and Hari Truman didn’t buy this - Mihailović was awarded both Croix de Guere and Legion of Merit. Too much for quisling, Nazi-collaborator and mass-murder.

I suggest you gather all the relevant literature, and not from far-right sources, and try to improve an article with good NPOV facts. Don't just go about changing things to better suit your ideology. Also, if would be very helpful if you created an account on Wikipedia - we could communicate easier. --Dejan Čabrilo 10:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War Crimes?

A Bosnian friend of mine wrote the following about this fellow: "...He exterminated muslims on the border line btw Serbia and Bosnia. He established Chetniks' movement as such, which exists nowadays." Are any of these allegations correct? Does anyone know where one can find unbiased sources that would answer my question? ~~Bagboobard 14:01, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased. For instance, Croats & Bosniaks equate Chetniks and Mihailović simply with terror and atrocities. Squabble over "anti-fascism" is of minor importance (who cares whether the ones who are to slit your throat politically side with Xs or Ys ?). Chetniks wanted to create ethnically pure Greater Serbia and they slaughetered tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. A bit shy indicator is a diluted article http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_04.shtml Comprehensive stats can be found at http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm Mir Harven 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tens of thousands seems terrifyingly high. Isn't it overrestimated? And yes; but further clarifications about that fact would move the article a little closer to the terror of the Ustašas, and if we look at the two factions; we must differ the Ustashas as the "bad guys" and the Chetniks as the "good guys" (even next to the atrocities). HolyRomanEmperor 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this is trying to paint an extremely negative picture of the djeneral who started the first partizan movement in Europe. Somebody above mentioned that Croatians(who, by the way, were under control of Ustasa neo-Nazi government) started an organized revolt before Dragoljub Mihailovic. This is simply WRONG. The Partizan movement did start, however not in Croatia but in Slovenia at least a month after Ravnogorski Pokret (Ravna Gora Movement) was organized by Mihailovic. Even then, the size and impact of those local movements were nothing compared to the djenerals'. Second, there is no evidence anywhere that Mihailovic's de facto goal was to establish ethnically clean Serb territories. This is a blatant lie and an offense on the character of a highly intelligent, educated and capable officer of then powerful Yugoslavian army who fought and came out a victor in WWI(Serb army back then). What is a known is that Ravnogorski Pokret was found to counter foreign occupation and to protect Serb population. Third, language use is very exact in this article, meaning it is used very precisely toward the ultimate goal of shaming djeneral's name. Collaboration with Italians and Germans, de facto objectives, extremely opportunistic and several other phrases in their respective context are proof of my point. Some points are overly stressed, while some other points are avoided or are completely omitted. For example, nowhere does it say that his Chetnik movement was extremely effective in sabotaging German troop movement and logistics in the area. Off course, later Tito's Partizans had a role as well, but Chetniks' effectiveness cannot be denied. Also, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that about 10%, or parhaps even more of Draza's men were from other ethnic groups, including Croatians, Bosniaks and Slovenians.

Next, the whole situation surrounding Chetnik collaboration with axis is hazy, as there is really no hard proof or evidence to confirm that Mihailovic himself and the units directly under his control actually collaborated with fascists and(or) nazis. I am not saying that it is not possible that some detachments sided with Italians to fight Tito's Partizans in what is now a civil war, but not the entire army under Mihailovic's control. From the strategic point of view, there was no need to side with the Germans or Italians because by 1944 most of the present day Serbian territories in then Yugoslavia are free of axis oppression. Rather, most of the evidence for Cica's persecution comes from communists which seized power after WWII. Naturally, the charges and evidence were very skewed to fit the needs of Tito's government and Tito himself who wanted to 'legally' terminate his foe. Now i know that i am jumping back to the point i made earlier about phrase and word usage, but the author of the text notes in the beginning paragraph that Truman awarded Cica 'Legion of Merit' as an act of defiance toward communism. That's just garbage for the lack of a better word. If it would have been done as an act of defiance then it would have been mentioned publicly. But it has not. Rather, the medal was awarded for the bravery of Draza and his men and for the fact that Chetniks sheltered and saved over 500 downed American airmen. Now you tell me who you are going to believe: leaders of the western/free world such as de Gaulle, Truman, Eisenhower and others or the communist dictator Tito (whose identity is also very mysterious) whose methods are well remembered by my ancestors. The bottom line is that the truth is very hard to get to because it has been expertly covered up by Tito's communists.

Also, the pictures posted here are extremely, extremely suggestive and biased. It leaves an impression that these men were butchers which was their calling. Its outright rude, manipulative and subjective. What is being portrayed in these images is far from the legacy Draza's Chetinks (the operative word here is Draza's) left behind. They were first and foremost freedom fighters, fighting for their beliefs and to protect their nation. Perhaps the author is trying to in some way equate Chetniks to the murdering, ruthless and utterly sick Croatian Ustasa regime. For those who know what i am talking about, it is a very shocking, disgusting and at the same time a feeble attempt. Chetniks committed murders, perhaps even crimes, but this was WWII we are talking about. They were surrounded by fascists and fascist supporters on all sided who mercilessly went about cleansing their land from Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and other labeled peoples. The infamous camp Jasenovac is enough, where some sources say that around 700,000 Serbs were systematically exterminated. With Croatians and Bosniaks being the direct enemy of Serbs and committing horrible atrocities against them, it is only natural to assume that the victims of Chetniks would be members of these two ethnic groups, who are by this author conveniently labeled as only civilian victims.

The bottom lines is that this article is perhaps one of the worst and most unobjective artices i have ever read. It would not surprise me at all if this article was written by a staunch Croatian or Bosniak(non-Serb) ultra-chauvinist. I do not know how the process works, but i want some action taken. This article should either be removed or extensively modified by someone who is more objective.

Something very interesting I have noticed is that most people on here don't seem to understand that the "Chetnicks" in Bosnia and Crotia had very little if anything in common with the Chetnicks in Serbia. They only accepted the name Chetnick but were not directly under the comand of Draza Miahilovic, they were mostly just local police forces that were created to protect the local Serbs and yes sometimes go on the offensive. The thing I'm trying to say is just because Chetnicks killed in Bosnia and Croatia does not mean it was under the command of Gen. Miahilovic, those were indipendent forces working under their own will.

[edit] Page Rearrangement

In the last couple of days, I slightly rearranged the page by adding the 'Legion of Merit' section, correcting some typos, and by adding Pollard's portrait of Mihailovich as the main picture of the page - it resembles Draja in the War more than his photo from the 30's that stood before. The page needs further modifications and additions, too. Marechiel

[edit] Vandalism of this page

Is there any way to prevent it? It became quite annoying - do we need this "cyber-war" of reverting the original page to propaganda BC, and back? ~Marechiel

[edit] War crimes!

Semso Tucakovic's estimate of 100,000 people is laughable, were it not for the fact that it's included, with seriousness, in this article. Published at the end of the Bosnian civil war, this is perhaps revisionism and political propaganda at its worst. I understand that Bosniaks may need to NAZIfy Serbs, since after all, they allied with the NAZIs unlike the Serbs, but this is really too much... Wikipedia's quality standards must be very low indeed. - DTC

First of all it is a LIE that bosniaks allied with the nazis, there were far more bosniaks in partizans than in the handjar division. Bosnian islamic leaders issued a document that was forbidding any bosnian muslim to colaborate with the nazi regime. Serbs were also fighting with the nazis, remember Prinz Eugen division? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.205.154 (talk) 08:58, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think the question mark should be omitted with this title. Mihajlovic openly collaborated both with Germans and Italians during the WW2, and his followers did numerous atrocities on non-Serbian Yugoslav people. This last war with all the genocide methods used in Srebrenica, Vukovar etc. is just a continuation of the same Serbian expansionist politics and Mihailovic's methods. For Wikipedia's sake, fascist propaganda articles like this should not find their place here.

1. Mihailovic didn't openly collaborate with both Germans and Italians, otherwise he wouldn't be recognized and decorated as anti-fascist by the Allies. 2. If by his followers you simply mean every group/person that used the Chetnik name, then that's irrelevant; Chetnik literally means partisan or guerrilla fighter (guerrillero) and many groups and fractions not submitted to Mihailovic used the name, for instance Kosta Pecanac, who did collaborate with Fascists, and was tried and executed by Mihailovic's Court because of that. 3. Vukovar, Srebrenica, blah, blah, blah... Have you people nothing else to add? Mihailovic has been dead since 1946., and during the 1990's war political parties that support Mihailovic were, what was then called, 'Democratic Opposition to Milosevic's regime', while both contemporary Yugoslavia and Republic Srpska continued the Communist policy of treating Chetniks as traitors, so there's not any possibility left for the 'continuation of Mihailovic's politics' you mention. (Plus, General Mladic, directly responsible for Srebrenica massacre, was a staunch anti-Chetnik, which makes your your arguments even more absurd). 4. And last but not least, the number of Serbian victims Mihailovic was accused for, far exceeded the number of non-Serbian ones you mention.

In other words, the question mark (?) is definitelly more than appropriate. Marechiel 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reference to him collaborating with the Germans? Everyone knows that he collaborates with the Italians, and this is mostly considered a good thing (by some), however I've seen only blatant notes of him collaborating with Nazy Germany... but where/when? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I want cast iron sources for such claims as User:Bosniaco has added, not some scans which could be anything.--Methodius 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Instruction" and Alleged Crimes (Sources)

Zbornik NOR-a is at the very least not neutral, as the Communists were in conflict with the subject of the article. Realistically, it is communist propaganda. Maybe we should rewrite the democracy article to fit the Communist understanding that "democracy is the dictatorship of the proleteriat"? If you can't find neutral sources, don't add rubbish to the article.--Methodius 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that historiography is a tricky thing and that sources should be treated with care. I also agree that this topic has been widely abused and that one needs to be extra cautions. However, Zbornik NOR-a simply contains reproductions of documents held elsewhere (State archive, Archive of Belgrade, Military Archives). It was not designed for general public anyway. It is not a collection of opinions, although the choice of documents undoubtedly may serve a particular purpose. That (in)famous Instruction is consistant with other opinions expressed by Mihailovic and it is important to clarify whether it is authentic or not. This is not "rubish" as you would have it.--88.110.127.197 10:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zbornik NOR-a is Communist propaganda (seen in the non neutral name itself: NOR=narodno oslobodilacki rat=national liberation war, a Communist propaganda phrase in Communist Yugoslavia). If what you're adding can be sourced elsewhere, great! If not, then it's almost certainly bullshit.--Methodius 11:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bullshit" is not the word you can use here without harming your own credibility.--As286 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you have no credibility since you rely on a propaganda source published by a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of people, so you're not saying anything.--Methodius 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted it, which reeks of you trying to push your own point of view. May I remind you that we should be trying to find a consensus version we can both agree on?--Methodius 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try to sort this out. I have seen the document which is quoted. What I am interested in is seeing is the original, in whatever archive it is held. I have no objection to disputing the authenticity of that Zbornik for which I have no words of appreciation myself. But from what I have read most (although not all, e.g. No. 4 and partially No. 7 is suspicious) of the points are consistent with Draža's other statements. My grandfather was in the army with him way before WWII and this is what he and most of them publicly talked about. Maybe we need a section on his political views? Then we can put other better documented statements there and prevent this propaganda war.

Also, the crime in Vranić is a historical fact, you can only talk about who ordered it and whether he knew about it. I think we do need a section on these crimes too, whether they are real and alleged and who ordered and committed them. If the trial is ever reopened these will surely be revisited?--As286 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well can we remove your additions for now? There wouldn't have been any talk of Bosniaks back then, so the English text of the "Instruction" is not faithful to Zbornik NOR-a for a start, which is all we have to go on. And that itself is hardly unbiased, as Mihailovic was in conflict with the Communists, who executed him (and authored Zbornik NOR-a). So if all we have is their word, that's worth nothing reliability-wise. Also, the "alleged crimes" section is very dubious, because the Chetniks were highly decentralised - so much so, that it is perhaps more realistic to talk about several separate groups which cooperated. The events in that section are tenuously connected to Mihailovic at best, and so do not belong in this article on that basis too. Indeed, the linked source aknowledges this:[3]

Kraljevina Jugoslavija - ni vojni deo u zemlji ni politicki u inostranstvu - nikad ni prema kome. Zlocini izvrseni pod njenom kapom, a bilo ih je, spadaju u domen pojedinacne odgovornosti, nikako drzavne, ideoloske ili etnicke politike.

i.e. they did not come from the top (Mihailovic)--Methodius 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These were his troops under his (partial or total, at least initially) command. Vranic is not isolated. There was Drugovac village near Smederevo immediately after that, where Sveta Trifkovic (Avalski Coprs) and Zivan Lazovic (Smederevski Corps) were commanders. People are still alive who remember this. They had their family members killed even though there were only a couple of communist supporters in the whole village at best. Mihailovic would have been convicted for that alone, simply for being commander in charge. And this was 1941, not the chaotic 1944.

There is also the issue of collaboration with the Germans. When the British asked Mihailovic to blow up the Belgrade - Thesaloniki railway line, he refused, even though he blew up another similar bridge to Greece just a few months earlier. Finally the British simply revoked their mission, believing Mihailovic to be collaborating with the Germans. This is quoted in their own books. Lees (Lees, M, The Rape of Serbia, San Diego 1990, p. 256-258, 262) is by no means sympathetic to Tito!--As286 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Chetniks committed terrible war crimes. And loads of them (remember the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in eastern Bosnia). But these do not, nor any other have anything to do with Draza Mihailovic himself. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you might be mistaken here. The Nürnberg and Tokyo trials were of officers who were responsible for issuing orders. None of them committed anything themselves. Adolf In this case, the question is a) have these really been committed and b) under what and whose orders were Chetniks when they engaged in these atrocities. I think there is little doubt as to a). There are a few cases when Partisans and Chetniks attributed to the other side the crimes they committed themselves to gain sympathy of the local population but these were relatively few. b) the allegation here is that the troops acted under Miahilović's command, not only that he knew of them. This is the command responsibility.--As286 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. There were 2 units of Chetniks that committed crimes. One was a unit that served the Serbian collaborators in Nedic's Serbia, outside the Yugoslav Fatherland Army. The other is a Montenegrin Chetnik Unit, that joined the Ustashas - it was also outside the Fatherland Yugoslav Army.

2. There was a trial in the United States where (in 1945) the allies wanted to study the whole matter of Draza's trial and execution by the Partisans (as per being ideology-based) - in the end he was (posthumously) released from all charges, his execution condemned by all the Allies of WWII (especially USA, UK and France) and he was awarded a medal of honor by the US President. --PaxEquilibrium 14:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You raise an important point here. There were even more than two, but it is essential to understand the relationshi between these and their relationship to Draza. This merits a separate section.

There would have been no "trial" and certainly not in 1945, as Draza was only executed in 1946. What you are probably referring to is the examination of the commission in charge of decorating. Draza was decorated for rescuing US airmen, not for his fight against the Germans.--As286 20:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the section below to here until the original is seen.--As286 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political aims

The aims of the Četnik movement in Yugoslavia were explained in an order/instruction issued by Draža Mihajlović to his commanders Lašić and Đurišić in December 20, 1941 (Document 370 from 20 December 1941, "Zbornik NOR-a", Vol. 3, book 4, Document 185 and Vol. XIV, Document 34, pages 93-100) These were to be:

1. Struggle for the freedom of all of our people under the scepter of His Majesty, the king Peter II; 2. Create Greater Yugoslavia, and within it Greater Serbia, ethnically clean within the borders of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Srem, Banat, and Backa; 3. Struggle for incorporation into our social structure of those unliberated Slovenian territories under Italy and Germany (Trieste, Gorica, Istria, and Kaernten), as well as Bulgaria and Northern Albania with Shkodra; 4. Cleansing from the state territory all national minorities and anti-state elements; 5. Create direct common borders between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Serbia and Slovenia by cleansing Bosniaks population from Sandžak, and Bosniak and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina; 6. Punish all Croats and Bosniaks who have mercilessly destroyed our people in the tragic days; 7. The areas cleansed of national minorities and anti-state elements are to be settled by Montenegrins (to be considered are poor, nationally patriotic, and honest families).

There may be no collaboration with Communists, as they are fighting against the dynasty and in favor of socialist revolution. Albanians, Bosniaks, and Ustashe are to be treated in accordance with their merit for the horrendous crimes against our population, i.e. they are to be passed to the "People's Court". The Croats living on the territory under Italian occupation are to be treated based on their disposition at the given moment.

[edit] The neutrality of this article is disputed!

This article has to be deleted.It describes a war criminal as a hero. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and contains unverified claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.108 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

This man is lucky to be awarded any medals because he is a criminal. One of the worst, But maby he had no brain. He is a noooooooooooooooooooooob --Marbus2 5 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an internet forum. If you don't have anything to say about this article, please go argue about this on a history forum.--Hadžija 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what you have done is vandalism. Please stop...--Hadžija 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Djurisic Izvjestaj .jpg

Image:Djurisic Izvjestaj .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

24.176.214.141 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) if you read the TIME magazine article (pic on the draza page) it explicitly states that Hitler had a million dollar bounty on Draza's head! Seems pretty weird for a collaborator don't you think?

[edit] Legion of Merit not only for the United States airmen who were rescued

I quote the explanation in 1948. by Harry S. Truman why he posthumously awarded Mihailović(read carefully the last sentence):

"General Dragoljub Mihailovich distinguished himself in an outstanding manner as Commander-in-Chief of the Yugoslavian Army Forces and later as Minister of War by organizing and leading important resistance forces against the enemy which occupied Yugoslavia, from December 1941 to December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his troops, many United States airmen were rescued and returned safely to friendly control. General Mihailovich and his forces, although lacking adequate supplies, and fighting under extreme hardships, contributed materially to the Allied cause, and were instrumental in obtaining a final Allied victory." BoDu, 23 Jul 2007

[edit] Mihailovic: The First resister in Yugoslavia

For an accurate article on Draza Mihailovic, the basic facts must at least be correct. And, from what I have seen on this talk page, there is a lot of invective and inflammatory remarks but a shortage of facts.

'1. FACT: 'Mihailovic and the Chetniks were the first to resist the Nazi occupation of parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. When the Royal Government capitulated in mid-April 1941, as an officer in the Army he (and other Serbian officers) immediately went into hiding rather than be taken as a POW. While active fighting may not have begun immediately, it is clear that immediatelty upon the surrender he did not submit to the occupation. I say "parts" of Yugoslavia because the Germans largely did not occupy Croatia like they did Serbia.

2. FACT: Contrast Mihaliovic's actions to those of: Tito, the Yugoslav Communist Party, and Croatian elements of the Royal Armed Forces. From mid-April to early June 1941, these 2 groups were very similar in that they absolutely did not resist the German occupation at all. For the first group - Communists - the reason is incontravertibly simple: at that time, Tito and the Communists took all their orders from Stalin and Stalin and Hitler were allies until June 6, 1941, thus the Communists mounted no resistance and there is every reason to believe that they would not have unless and until Germany invaded the Soviet Union. This is similar to the position of the French Communist Party from September 1939 until June 1941. Once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the communists (who may not have really liked the nazis but obeyed Stalin's directive to be friendly), everything changed.

3. FACT: For Croatian (and Slovenian) members of the Royal Army, they largely did not fight the Germans at all. Most Croatian units mutinied immediately and threw down their arms. Besides the overwhelmingt force of the invading armies of Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, this was one reason that the country capitulated so quickly. FACT: Most Croatians welcomed the german invaders and, the fact is, that the Independent state of Croatia was set up immediately after the invasion and with the support of the Catholic clergy and much of the population.

4. FACT: To state that Mihailovic was convicted of treason and to maintain that "well, that IS a fact" as Halibutt and leave it at that, as if he had a fair trial with the standards expected in countries where the rule of law is respected, is to misrepresent a fact. The fact is that thousands of people in numerous communist countries have been "convicted" of treason - some of them even communists themselves like Zinoviev and the other Bolsheviks. But you would be hard pressed to find any disinterested lawyer who would defend those trials as having been fair.

5. FACT: To state that the Allies withdrew support from Mihailovic and to maintain that "well, that IS a fact" as Halibutt and leave it at that, as if that decision was made in a vacuum with no information regarding the reasons for the change, is also to misrepresent a fact. Churchill's decision to switch support had several major reasons but 2 of the most important are that the Soviet Union demanded the change and that Churchill's representative who made the recommendation, Fitzroy McLean was very friendly with Tito and the Partisans but not with the Chetniks. In fact, he was awarded a Partizan medal after the war and had a house on Korcula in Croatia. Finally, Churchill and the Brits in general never had much use for the Serbs and Mihailovic and most Chetniks were Serbs. (To tell you the truth, Churchill and Roosevelt had little use for most pro-Western-Allied Slav resisters like the Free Polish as they sold them all down the river at Yalta and later). This is amply shown by the 1944 bombing of German-occupied Belgrade (twice) while Zagreb, and Sarajevo remained bomb-free despite their collaborationist status in the ISC.

Alexandanu 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Alexandanu

Dear Alexandanu, no wonder you wasted hours trying to come up with reasons to prove Chetnik innocence. I am not going to waste my time with you, but will publish a longer article at Srebrenica Genocide Blog (1.5 million visitors per month) tommorow to expose truth about Serbia's Fascism in the 2nd World War. Good luck to you. You won't win with you lies and you shall find answers to your fascist propaganda in my upcoming article tommorow. Bosniak (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS NOT NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

This wikipedia article has been created to whitewash Draza Mihailovic's nazi past and genocide that he committed agains Bosniaks - Muslims of Bosnia. In this article, authors and references are carefully used to support preconceived conclusions. Why haven't you uploaded photo of Draza Mihailovich and Adolf Hitler meeting and handhake? Bosniak (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HE KNEW OF GENOCIDE

So you are defending Draza Mihailovic? He knew that his forces were committing genocide of Bosniak Muslims, but he did nothing to stop it! He is a war criminal, but in Serbian society war criminals are celebrated as heroes (e.g. Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, etc) 142.179.67.238 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-standard article

I'd just like to express my disdain with this article: I see jumbled sentences, misspelled words, POV words, etc. Bad article, and it doesn't help that the people editing it are partisans, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.244.246 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:: The article is substandard because it is dominated by "WikiProject Serbia" - it's their point of view. Bosniak (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to mention that I am not a historian. I'm an engineer. I am Serb, but I don't live in Serbia currently. These articles (and many others) I am reading as I never had enough time to research this topic before (engineering schools), but it is relevant to me as my father's side of the family is from Ravna Gora, and many of my family members were Chetniks. I still remember the stories about great-granduncles who spent their last years up in the mountains (Maljen) hiding because of Communist prosecutions. And I am (from time to time) researching this as I want to know more if possible.

In that sense, this article is not ideal, yet it is not that badly written and it seems to mention negative and positive aspects. I, personally, find it believable that more not very well correlated groups used the same name: Chetniks. And it seems not to be impossible that some of them had different goals and approach. Stories of my friends from Montenegro seem to support this point of view. Their families are extremely anti-Chetnik. However most of the people in the village my father comes from and surrounding areas are very grateful for what they did for the people there.

Many of the things I have mentioned seem to have been discussed on this discussion page, but some seem to insist that this article is just bad. My question to previous two comments is: why haven't you commented on the arguments presented (which are similar to the tale I was told from time to time). Also, I saw some "threatening" by the same user in the sense: "I'll write a bad thing about Serbs tomorrow in my very visited blog!" which doesn't seem to help in any way. Why does it have to be a black and white picture? It seriously offends me when I hear Bosnians referring to "Chetnici" in a bad connotation. It also offends me when Serbs go to support the unproven stereotype of brutal killers by chanting some weird hating of Croats and calling themselves "Chetnici" because of it.

I have seen/met one too many Serb hater and vast majority of them stayed speechless when I asked them: why? What did Serbs do to you? And if a Serb did something wrong to you why would you hate all of us? I have friends in all exYu nationalities. Actually, my family, traced back around 300+ years is purely Serbian, as far as we know. I spent my youth in Belgrade and I have only few "Serbian" friend. My three best friends are: Slovenian, Vlah and Montenigrian. All born and raised in Serbia without any trouble. And many examples of Croats and Bosnian Muslims living in Serbia during the worst of times (for Serbs) in 90s as they were before. Do you know of any mass migration of non-Serbs from Serbia during the war? I have lived there and I have not seen it. None of my Croats and Muslims disappeared or complained.

Thus, after all this writing, please do not hate and oppose for the sake of it. I am very willing to know what was going on. And as I said: though not perfect this article does point out many things, good and not so good. I first want to see all those who shamed Serbian and did wrong "in the name of Serbia" to explain themselves and pay the price. No Serb should be ashamed of his past. That much I know, and if anything is casting a shadow on achievements of Serbian culture I am all for resolving it. But I rarely see any sense in these mutual accusations, and right now I had to express that to try getting at least some answer as no one before managed to tell me what they actually wanted to show. Many were not even there (in Serbia) ever or didn't even know more about "Chetniks" than "they were the bad guys", but would still spread that incomplete and superficial "knowledge".

Did I raise enough questions? :) Also, could someone explain (maybe in some different article) the genesis of word "Chetnici"? Is it from "Cheta" (formation)? all the best r18.62.30.9 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody hates you, but the article is substandard piece of Serbian propaganda. Haven't you resesarched what Chetniks did to Bosniaks? They slaughtered over 100,000 of us. They also collaborated with Nazis (read Marko Attila Hoare's work). AccountInquiry (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on proving my point, guys. Of course the reason that the article is sub-standard is because it's part of the Serbian wikipedia, not because the people who are editing it are nationalist fucktards who use the internet as an avenue to spread their nationalist propaganda from, with no real intention of improving wikipedia. God, some people.83.92.244.246 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

User:Bosniak|Bosniak recently added a POV tag to the article citing pov issues. The editor above also cites pov issues. If we are to keep the pov tag, it would be good if the specific pov issues are listed so that they can be discussed and adressed. Be specific!Osli73 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli, are you still denying genocide in Srebrenica? Well, if not, then I congratulate you. However, POV tag is there to stay. :: The article is substandard because it is dominated by "WikiProject Serbia" - it's their point of view. Bosniak (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, to begin with you should refrain from your personal attacks ("fascist" and "genocide denier"). That is absolutely not appropriate. Second, POV tags must be motivated by specific allegations, not general complains such as "it is dominated by Wikiproject Serbia". That is not sufficient for a pov tag.Osli73 (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli, you have no authoirity to decide what's sufficient and what not for POV tag. The article is horrible, it is one sided Chetnik propaganda writted by Serbians. AccountInquiry (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is horrible one-sided Chetnik propaganda

Sources were carefully selected to rehabilitate Chetnik collaboration with Nazis and to excuse Chetnik genocide over 100,000 Bosniak Muslims. WikiProject Serbia is attempting to rehabilitate Nazi Fascist Chetniks. AccountInquiry (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mihailovich's Collaboration with Nazi Fascists

The Chetniks of D. Milhailovic were represented as fighters against the occupiers, while in actual fact they were allies of the Nazi-fascists in Yugoslavia where a nationwide people’s armed rising under Tito’s leadership had began as early as in July 1941; abundant archive materials of foreign provenience, primarily German, British, American and Italian, hitherto unknown to the public, have become accessible during the past three decades. These documents have made it possible to remove the veil of mystification that enshrouded the genuine role of D. Milhailovic’s Chetniks for so long. A large number of western historians and publicists are still writing very maliciously and untruthfully about the Chetniks of D. Milhailovic, concealing the very existence of the relevant archive materials which are available precisely and exclusively in western archives. At the same time certain emigrant Chetnik leaders, such as Ž. Topalovic, D. Jevdjevic, M. Žujovic, M. Djuic, Zv. Vuckovic and others have published memories and other works in the allied countries and in which they seek to conceal or justify Chetnik collaboration with the enemy invaders. http://www.croradio.net/cet.htm Bosniak (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

"A large number of western historians and publicists are still writing very maliciously and untruthfully about the Chetniks of D. Milhailovic, concealing the very existence of the relevant archive materials which are available precisely and exclusively in western archives."

I'm not an expert on Yugoslavia in WWII, but lines like this raise a ginormous red flag. Wikipedia is based around verifiability, not truth. If you admit that "western historians" think that Mihailovic and the royalists fought the Nazis rather than collaborated, then that means that's exactly what Wikipedia should report, even if it's false. If you disagree, then you need to change the historical consensus on the topic. Anyway, I find this all fairly hard to believe. Everyone can agree that the Americans were clearly fighting the Germans in WWII, and from the testimony of captured airmen from Operation Halyard, the Mihailovic's forces supported downed American airmen. That doesn't make any sense if they were working with the Nazis.

Now, it's entirely possible and in fact probable that royalist forces may have also settled old grudges and fought against Bosnians who weren't working with the Nazis, but that doesn't mean that they weren't an anti-Nazi outfit themselves, just that there was a lot of in-fighting in the Balkans then (and through quite a lot of history). SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed for controversial/strong statements

The article makes a number of controversial/strong statements which really should be sourced properly. Some examples:

• The statement that "...he decided against a mass uprising because of catastrophic Serb losses in World War I..." really should have a reference
• The statement that "Croat historian Vladimir Zerjavic claims that roughly 40,000 lost their lives to forces affiliated with the Chetniks" needs a proper source (given the nature of the accusation). The current source is a Croatian website and not an academic paper. Vladimir Žerjavić is not a historian but a retired UN employee. His views are controversial and he claimed by many to be politically motivated. We should find another source (preferably academic paper) for this claim, or remove it (or at least the figure).
• The statement "It is unclear however how much say Mihailović himself had in these incidents. The Chetnik movement was highly decentralized, and in that way was more like a collective of many small regional guerrillas which shared the same name, rather than a unified army under complete control of Mihailović and his staff." should also be sourced, as it relates to the controversial issue of DM's.
• Nikola Kalabić's statement indeed needs to be sourced.
• The entire Controversies over "Instructions" section needs to be sourced. As it stands now, it is complete WP:OR.

Osli73 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree about Zerjavic; I don't really think it should be in the article either, but I stuck a single sentence there as a compromise for the long rant section that was being repeatedly added in citing Zerjavic.

As for the first statement, my main interest in the article is a book called "The Forgotten 500," whose main topic is Operation Halyard and backs up that and a few other sentences in the article. The Yugoslav stuff is important background material, but I'd be nervous about hanging too much of the article on that source. Still, I'll try and put some more in over the next few days. SnowFire (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other, reliable, source for the type of information now provided by Vladimir Žerjavić? In that case I think we should use that instead.Osli73 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Razbojnik i zlocinac

Ne da mi se pisati na engleskom posto vidim da su svi ovdje hrvati i srbi pa je glupo govoriti nekim trecim jezikom. Ne mogu podnijeti te cetnicke gluposti o tome tko se borio za oslobodenje, a tko je bio kolaborator. Prvo: mislim da je jako velika uvreda, svima onima koji su se borili u NOR-u, da su Mihajlovic i Tito na istoj listi saveznicke vojske na ovoj stranici. Cetnici, nedicevci, ustase i svi ostali izdajnici i kolaboratori su se zajedno s njemcima borili protiv partizana.Suradnju ustasa i cetnika potvrduje dosta ocuvanih spisa i izvjestaja iz NDH. U partizanskoj vojsci nisu bili samo komunisti nego i svi oni koji su se borili za oslobodenje (do 1943.? nosili su nacionalne trobojnice svi oni koji se nisu deklarirali kao komunisti). Drugo: mojim sunarodnjacima hrvatima zelim reci da je cinjenica da je prvi organizirani ustanak bio 22. lipnja kos Siska, ali je isto tako i cinjenica da su vecina ustanika bili hrvatski srbi. Bar do 1943. kada je Italija kapitulirala i dalmatinci masovno presli u partizane. Od pokreta otpora u srbiji nije bilo ni p (dobro bila je sacica partizana ali nista vece od bataljuna) do '44. i '45. kada je glavnina snaga NOV-a presla iz Bosne u Srbiju. Zelim jos samo poruciti svim cetnicima, ustasama i ostaloj nacistickoj bandi da bi bilo najbolje kada bi ucinili svijetu uslugu i slijedili svog Hitlera. Strojar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.85.75 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nije glupo ovdje pisati engleskim (premda ti je možda teže), jer pretpostavljam da ovaj Talk page neće posjećivati samo oni koji razumiju "naše" jezike. Ne moraju ti ovdje ništa dodavati, već samo da se upute u komplikovanost odlučivanja o nekim činjenicama. A možda ako neko od nas i posustane i oni ovdje možda nešto budu dodali. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Several connections. One, the Partisans maintained a level of open talk to the Nazi Germans, although not keeping as direct as the Chetniks had with the Italian Fascists. However, an important thing must be noted - Partisans' connections were based on ideological & personal interests, while that of the Chetniks relied in national interests of the people. On high command Draza never collaborated with the Germans, he was acquitted by the Partisan court - which could not have been the most supreme neutral & objective one in his royalist case - of all charges regarding war crimes against humanity and collaboration.

Two, the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland was composed of countless parchments and wasn't in centralized command like the Partisans, therefore there were Chetniks in normal service of the Serbian collaborators (and thus tolerated by the Axis), there were Chetniks fighting against the Partisans, Soviets, and even other Chetniks and Allies in General in service of Fascist Montenegro or together with the Ustashas, and there were the mainstream ones under Draza Mihailovic, which belonged to neither of these two groupations.

Three, the uprising was raised in Srb, and not Sisak.

Four, in 1941 in Montenegro and Serbia was the very first anti-Fascist uprising, and of massive scale that most of the countries were liberated, intense concentration of forces and shifting men from inland reserves and the fronts is the only thing which made the Axis regain secure control over the two regions, collaboration in Montenegro failed so they established dictatorship, and in Serbia it occurred the other way around - they were forced to give high privileges to seek collaborators to pacify the freedom fighters. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revert 080423

Hi, I've made a number of changes to the article. Here are my motives. Please comment them in turn if anyone has any issues with them:

1. Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland: is the formal name of the army which he commanded. Chetnic is the colloquial term.
2. Nationalist chetnik: three problems with this: this is a POV adjective clearly injected for present political purposes. It suffices to say that he was a leader of a resistance movement.
3. Chetnik Crimes Against Bosniaks and Croats: there is absolutely no reliable soruce for this section. The only source given is the Croatian Information Centre, a Croatian government propaganda institute from the time of Tudjman and the Croatian Heritage Foundation, a Croatian emigre interest group. That is not a reliable and notable source for such claims.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Article called say Yugoslav Allies in WW II

The section on relations with Britain & America belongs in the main article Yugoslav Front of World War II or a new expanded page to take over that section of it, called say Yugoslav Allies in WW II. There is no mention of the main influences Fitzroy MacLean and Ultra (not Randolph Churchill. Randolph Churchill was with Evelyn Waugh. Waugh put in a report about Tito’s persecution of the clergy, which was buried by Anthony Eden). Hugo999 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The trial

Draza Mihailovic was acquitted by the Partisan court of war crimes against humanity and on most accounts. Of the 47 points of the Prosecutors, he was convicted only for 8 - responsibility for mistreatment of Partisans and crimes against members of the Yugoslav Partisans, and for high treason (meaning loser in civil war). We should also note that the court was, naturally, ideologically biased against him, and not in any way in favor. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the History Channel documentary about WW2 in Yugoslavia differs from these Serb nationalist articles on wikipedia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMbaPVvwHAY

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)