Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Admission standards

Removed the Chetniks from this, much to DIREKTOR's displeasure I'm sure. Explanation:

Being listed on this template is a serious claim. If this template is to be of use, it must have strict admission standards considering that everybody fought everyone else in the Yugoslav civil war of the period. I would propose that only governments / people / groups that openly acknowledged an alliance with the Nazis should be included. I hope that even people who dislike the Chetniks will admit that they claimed to be on the Allied side. (I would add that they were on the Allied side in fact as well, of course, but that's not relevant to the point.) The Allies did in fact fund the Chetniks lightly, even if they stopped later, which further puts this issue way too far into the gray to blanket-call them Collaborators. SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I did not include them lightly or out of some "belief" of mine. This is not about "liking" them or "disliking" them. Perhaps if you read the sources which convinced me, you'd change your mind as well. Apart from cynically claiming to support the allies, the only major contribution to this theatre from the Chetniks is their assistance to the Axis occupation. Shall I list the sources? You can find them all in the "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to the library today anyway, so I will give it a look. I'm not contesting that there WERE incidents of collaboration with Axis forces, mind. I'm disputing that this is a fair characterization for the movement as a whole. By way of analogy... I have no idea if this is true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese Communists left Nationalists to their own devices sometimes when under attack from the Japanese, and the Nationalists surely did the same to the Communists. But let's go further than that. Suppose incontrovertible evidence came forward that some high-ranking Communists had contacts with the Japanese, and worked with them to kill Nationalists... or for that matter the reverse, that some Nationalist warlords worked with the Japanese to kill communists. Would that mean that said Chinese sides should be listed as Axis collaborators? The answer, to me at least, is clearly no. There was a three-way war going on in China where each side hated the others, but it's clear that both the Communists and the Nationalists should be listed on the Allied side.

Like I said I suppose I will need to finally go read some more sources on this, but if it was just "some Chetniks reached agreements with local fascists to kill communists first" that doesn't mean that they were collaborationists. If, theoretically, the communists had been defeated and their common enemy removed, they surely would have gone back to fighting each other. SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why go to the library? :) You can find The Chetniks, a very detailed and highly professional work by Jozo Tomasevich (Stanford University Press) online at Google Books. I also recommend you read said Axis collaboration section of the Chetniks article. I composed it following the sources almost verbatim. As I said, you will find four or five high quality sources listed in the article, and since most of them are available online you can also find the links to their respective Google Books entries provided in the References section. I'm no POV-pusher, I do my homework :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I went to the library because I wanted to see for myself. If a movie gets 200 bad reviews and 20 good reviews, it'd be pretty easy to make a well-sourced article that just happens to quote only one side. Anyway, some of the books were pretty Chetnik-friendly but also written before 1960, so I didn't look too much at them (like Ally Betrayed) as I figured this could theoretically be written off to lack of data. I focused most of the time on "Serbia's Secret War" (which was no friend to Nedic's Serbia nor the Chetniks), though I did look a little at Tomasevich's "War & Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-45." Which didn't actually cover the Chetniks, but the preface proved interesting enough.

Anyway, p.40-48 of "Serbia's Secret War" seemed on point (along with some parts around 95-110 IIRC). As expected, the Chetniks were unpleasant hyper-nationalists, and the book pretty strongly hits the "they participated in genocide" angle which would fit them. That said... it also grants that fear of German reprisals was part of a bunch of reasons behind the slow fighting of the Nazis, rather than saying it was just an excuse. It also has the line "his[Mihailovic's] relation to the Axis powers evolved into a pattern of complexity and compromise" and it notes that many other scholarly sources have defended the Chetniks as basically Allis-supporters (to refute the idea, yes, but he's granting that this is under dispute). The most telling quote you've already quoted yourself, actually, on the Chetnik talk page:

Despite claims that the Chetniks were devoted to a common cause with the Allies, the Chetniks were neither genuinely anti-Axis nor pro-Axis in orientation, but primarily opportunists for Greater Serbia, for which cause they solicited both Axis and Allied support.

This, pretty much. If someone who is taking a fairly harsh line against Serbian actions in WWII basically calls the Chetniks opportunist neutrals playing both sides, well, they are. (And yes, I know that elsewhere he does call them "collaborationist", but this particular line is more on point here.) "Secret War" also notes that the probable plan for the royalists would be for the Allies to win and depose Nedic's rival government, and for the commies to be too weak to oppose them afterward. (For now, let's take steps to establish an ethnically pure Greater Serbia by killing everyone else.) I don't want to hark back to the China example too much, but the Chinese nationalists infamously stockpiled the best equipment the Allies sent them in a misguided plan to "save it up" for the coming Chinese Civil War with the communists. Stupid but it doesn't make them on the side of the Japanese.

Didn't read too much of the Tomasevich since it didn't cover the Chetniks, but when explaining why he noted:

I discuss only openly (emphasis SF's) collaborationist regimes and groups in various parts of the country. This does not include the Serbian Chetniks of General Draza Mihailovic.

He does say "they became a collaborationist force" in the later years of the war, but the "openly" part is a very notable distinction to me.

Anyway, as far as constructive ideas on where to go forward... I think that having the Chetniks here with no qualifications isn't really accurate since their unique position doesn't lend itself to easy categorization. I'd tentatively suggest replacing this with a general "Yugoslavia in World War II" template, have the open Nazi/Italian puppets on one side, and then all the other sides listed with no judgment as to who's who. SnowFire (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So we're quote-mining now? Use the references for information on Chetnik collaboration, not as a source for single sentences that, by your own admission, do not come close to describing the whole situation. The chetniks were an Axis force in effect, though not in ideology. However, I think we'll concern ourselves with what they actually did, not what they said they'd do, or whether they did it "openly" or not (which is quite irrelevant). SnowFire, you're reaching...

In light of the very conclusive list of professional sources describing the widespread and massive collaboration between Chetniks and the Axis, for now I will revert your undiscussed (and controversial) edit. Please do not edit-war to push your views. The current state of the template is very well supported by sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Been both sick and on vacation over the past week, hence the delay.

Well that's abrupt, isn't it? And "quote-mining?" That was in good-faith, and I noted that when the text had later comments at variance. The most notable quote, though, is one that you saw fit to quote yourself! I think it's an accurate summation of the author's research. I've read some of your other Wikipedia work, and I do think that you push the "Chetniks were Nazi stooges" line farther than the sources themselves do. (I will say, though, that I will withdraw some of my criticism of you from the Draza Mihailovic talk page a year or so back - I see now that the allegations of Nazi collaboration have more basis on fact.)

You also seem to have missed something I was trying to imply before; these were all sources with dimmer views of the Chetniks than others. We can safely call their statements an "upper bound" of exactly how bad the Chetniks were. There are entire other sets of sources that paint the Chetniks a lot more nicely. (I haven't even bothered too much with Chetnik-friendly sources because I figured you'd dismiss them as biased; I'm reading through a bit of Tomosavich's "The Chetniks" via Google Books which you recommended, perhaps I will have more comments on those lines.)

I still don't see what's wrong with my suggested solution to just recreate this as a "Yugoslavia in WWII" template. The thing is that the Chetniks fighting the Partisans - even with occasional German coordination - strikes me, and probably many others, as merely part of the secondary "Yugoslav Civil War" conflict and not part of WWII. If we were to take Mihailovic at his word when he indiscreetly ordered his enemies with the Partisans first and the Italians / Germans last.... well, the Italians and Germans are still on the list. That would NOT be true of, say, the Ustase, who relied on the Germans for support. This difference is not being reflected in the template as it stands. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On your last note I will not linger long for fear of sidetracking things, but the "push my views" assumption is not appreciated. As I've said before I have no dog in this fight. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am removing Draza Mihajlovic from the "notable collaborators" list. A condecorated U.S.A. and France war fighter that lead the Royal resistence during WWII just, even considering some collaboration, isn´t "notable". And Chetnik movement too. An difamatory attempt against him, and the entire movement was donne by one editor to just consider them "Notable collaborators". A person that lead a resistance movement just can´t be a "notable collaborator". And even if they played in both sides, that isn´t the same as having played only in one side. FkpCascais (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you want to remove him. You seem to have gotten the impression from your edit-warring in the Draža Mihailović article that Wikipedia works by revert-warring until an admin accidentally happens to protect your version in place. Unfortunately for you (who have not brought forth a single source here on enWiki), Wikipedia works on the basis of reliable references. You'll find all the sources concerning the fellow in the Draža Mihailović article. The sourced information is that: 1) the Chetniks were "the most useful" of the collaborating military forces, and 2) Draža Mihailović, their commander, was a collaborator.

This Serbian nationalist nonsense has gone far enough. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You really think USA and France wouyld condecorate him if he was an collaborator? His role as a resistence was very important, as demostrated and recognised, so thus, it doen´t make sence having him included here. Its like putting Saddam Hussain in American Alies section only because they had agreements in the past. A "notorious collaborationists" are those that were collaborators by most period of thime, and this isn´t the case. Try to see more than just your Tito propaganda. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion regarding this issues is taking place in Talk:Draža Mihailović page. The result of the discussion will determine the kind of final edit that will be in place, so please, until a conclusion is not reached, don´t revert any recent edits. An "Notable collaboration" accusation is a very serious issue, at least a consensus must be reached. FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you are so much not allowed to write: "Serbian nationalist nonsense"! You can be blocked again for personal attack. That question that is here is very much disputed in the whole ex-Yugoslavia now. If you don't provide strong neutral and reliable sources that those people and organizations were really collaborators of the Axis powers, then that information should be removed. Please, i agree with SnowFire proposition. If you cannot source something that is questionable, we don't need that then. Croat source cannot be WP:RS. --Tadija (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tadija, that's just the point: you think it is disputed while in fact it is NOT. Much like Croats think the Domobrani were "the good guys of WWII" and similar nonsense. This is why I'm having these silly discussions about whether the sky is blue. I'm not going to debate this with you guys as it is pointless. The Chetniks collaborated since late 1941 and en masse since early 1942 (and yes, all formations in the movement collaborated by late 1944). Draža Mihailović collaborated with the enemy since late 1941 as well, engaging in treasonous activities such as "placing himself at the disposal of the occupation". Hence both are in the template. In addition, sources (German military reports and records from the 1943-1945 period) clearly indicate that "the Chetniks were far more useful to the German efforts than the Ustaše".

As I said just above, I'm not going to debate on this particular issue with guys from Serbia since I know from experienece on Wiki it is absolutely poitless. I'm NOT a Croat nationalist, and you can check my edits if you don't believe me (even though I'm not obliged to prove anything to you). I've more often been in conflict with Croats than Serbs on Wiki, since I intensely dislike Croatian nationalism as well (perhaps even more, being confronted with it 24/7).

The sources are in the article. Please do not engage in POV vandalism and removal of source info. And User:Tadija, save your Wikilawyering for some newbie. "Serbian nationalist nonsense" is a comment on content, not the contributor (WP:NPA) and "nationalist" is hardly an insult. Are these edits "Serbian nationalist nonsense"? Without a shadow of a doubt. How do I know this? because expert professional historians published by some of the best univerisities in the world tell me so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don´t see nothing of these in your sources... You are just manipulating. Please go and finish the debate in Draza talk page. Some of the sources are not neutral (Tomasevic). FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. :) The person was published by Stanford University Press and you think you can claim he is "biased" because you think so? My good fellow, your opinion on a professional scholar is utterly and completely irrelvant. If you want a university publication by a professional historian disregarded you need at least one negative opinion of his professional peers, and even then its arguable. If you think he's being unprofessional because of his nationality (I did not even know he's Croatian), get an opinion from someone who matters. In addition, neraly every syllable in his work is referenced with primary sources.

To be brief, simply forget about this idea of yours. On enWiki you don't just "proclaim" university publications invalid when you feel like it.

Heh lol, I still can't believe you removed all those sources. Unbelievable. Well, as long as you're having fun. Good to know that no amount of scholarly references will shift you from "your position". It would've saved me a lot of work on actual research if I knew I can simply revert-war and keep my edits that way.

Obviously we need admin intervention. You don't just vandalize templates at will and remove university publications and then simply edit-war to have your way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored sources per WP:SOURCE. User:FkpCascais would do well to note: "The most reliable sources are usually books published by university presses." Your own personal feelings, thoughts, and opinions on noted scholars and historians (published in some of the best universities in the world) are not likely to be of any concern to anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It makes me smile. Why, DIREKTOR, don't you copy and paste your statement above on Talk:Fausto Veranzio? It seems to fit pefectly. - Theirrulez (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1