Talk:Operation Kopaonik

WP:NOTABILITY

This article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria, although some basic content might be merged into the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen article. The reasons are: 1. it lacks significant coverage except in a primary source (Kumm); 2. the only source for the actual operation is Otto Kumm's Vorwärts Prinz Eugen! Geschichte der 7.SS-Freiwilligen Gebirgs Division „Prinz Eugen”. Kumm was a divisional commander of the 7th SS, and cannot be considered a reliable or secondary source. 3. As far as reliable sources are concerned, a search for Operation Kopaonik on Google Books shows no hits other than self-references to this article- [1]

Any thoughts? Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest deletion per WP:FAILN. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -- Director (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hardly Yugoslavia?

Again, here we have Peacemaker67 denying Chetniks their resistance efforts and representation of Yugoslavia (diff). Peacemaker67 has insisted troughout time to be linked in any way to Yugoslavia, claiming to be an Australian who is just interested in history. However, such radical stances, tipical to be shared only by Croatian extremists and anti-Serbian movements, make it really irrelevant the origin and reasons for such biased views. We see a continuos insistence by the same user in denial of Chetniks resistance nature in a comment made here. I believe it is time to reexaminate the anti-Chetnik content that has been inserted and kept by force by Peacemaker67 in all articles related to Chetniks. Ultimatelly, the user has managed to eliminate Chetniks from all resistance lists in a sort of argument "they were mainly collaborators, hardly resistance movement, believe me, I have sources, ultimatelly, lets keep them out as controversial anyway". His insistence that Chetniks hardly made resistance activities and sistematically collaborated is the very one which was tryied to be inserted in articles and opposed, giving way to Draza Mihailovic mediation which concluded that description being wrong, and that after presentation of reliable sources, their collaboration was sporadic and oportunistic in nature. Of course there are sources saying they were evil collaborators, as there are sources prasing them as Allied heroes, so there was a need of someone uninvolved seing all sources and analising them by scholar weight, coming to wording that would be the most common and neutral. After 2 years in which it was mostly the side sharing Peacemaker67 view that created all sorts of obstacles including accusations and reporting, the mediators finally came to a conclusion and basically escaped. What happened next is that Peacemaker67 come out of nowhere and claimed neutrality while favoring their side. The mediation conclusions were ignored and they added their POV into the articles by force. After seing apsurds such as claiming that the Legion of Merit award refers only to the episody of airman saved, and not to overal resistance efforts, for me was enough to see that there was no real will to acomplish a balanced text, and alone as I was back then, my efforts were useless.

Further apsurds appear, for instance, in the insistence to deny as much as possible Chetniks relation with Yugoslavia, but present them exclusivelly as Serbian nationalist movement. The participation of other nationalities is ignored and denied. However, understanding the situation from a Serbian perspective is also ignored. One claiming they were Serbian nationalist movement could easily see Chetniks had no motive at all to collaborate. Germans in their Axis dominated world didn´t offer any single advantage to Serbia, or Serbs, rather the opposite. WWI was still present in the mind at that time, and Germans saw WWII in Yugoslavia as way of revenge for all the missfortune WWI has caused to Austria and Germany. Hitler grow-up seing his Austro-Hungarian empire being aniquilated in what was the consequence of what they expected to be an easy and quick victory over small Serbia back then. Serbs were at the very root of the terrible consequences that Allies imposed on Germany and Austria after the war, the very consequences that motivated Hitler to have the policies he had and do what he did. Serbs were ammong Jews and Russians the enemies to destroy. That is why Germans supported the partition of Serbian-inhabited territories, and their genocide in NDH. That is why they executed 50 and 100 Serbian civilians for each German soldier wounded, or killed, respectivelly, without any remorse. Serbs had absolutelly no perspective in an Axis dominated world. That is why no long-term strategic collaboration was ever possible. Scholars agree exactly the opposite of what Peacemaker67 so much insists in. Collaboration only occured because of Partisans, and was sporadic only limited to actions in which both saw strategical advantages in temporarilly focusing in fighting Partisans. It was ridiculous to see the effort of bringing and adding in the articles all existing pictures of any Chetniks posing with some Axis troops, giving the image of some large wide collaboration, but ignoring Mihailovic had his head hunted all time. Not only Chetniks made resistance actions all years from 1941 till 1945, but Chetniks were activelly liberating the country till a point of victory. It is well documented that Tito was supposed to have shared the power, but he didn´t respected the agreement and unilaterally decided to take all power for himself and quickly eliminate Chetniks in what were mass executions and unfair trials. He needed to convince everyone Chetniks collaborated to justify his action of their elimination. Mihailovic and his troops very presence indicates they had clean conscience. Claiming they had only irrelevant resistance actions only in 1941 is an outragious biased view, when we have neutral scholars agreeing vastly in opposite, well documented actions of resistance year-by-year, Mihailovic head hunted by Germans till the end, and Allied high condecorations prasing their resistance efforts. Further denial of their resistance nature is contradicted even by the so obvious beard which was their main characteristic, which was weared because of the commitment not to cut it until the country was not liberated from Axis invasion. Interestingly, editors made an effort not to mention this and ignore their main visual characteristic since it is evidence of their resistance nature. An editor in the discussion at WWII talk-page reminded me of a great point which is that Chetniks even after loosing Allied support, continued being a resistance movement, something any movement which was not resistance in their essence, would not do.

Resumingly, here we have the insistence of denial of Chetniks representivness of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, while in contrast we have the same users mechanically adding the association of Partisans with SFR Yugoslavia, its really selective editing allways trying to make the point that Chetniks didn´t resisted, didn´t represented Yugoslavia, were mostly collaborators, and only Serbian extremist group. FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, unsupported by the reliable sources. Also TLDR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In this case I can´t see if this edit of yours is because you are unfamiliarised with Chetniks, or with Kingdom of Yugoslavia, or a mixture of both? You know Chetniks is just a nickname, but we are talking here about the Yugoslav Army, right? An army formed under a Royal Army general Mihailovic, mostly by former members of the same, adding further volunteers that joined. An army under the command of the king and the governament-in-exile fighting to reestablish the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Furthermore, it is 1942 we are talking about here, a time when Mihailovic had a full recognition and support not only by the king and governament, but from all Allies, as well. What exactly you disagree with because this is straight forward? FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you are following the discussion on GregorB's page. This Chetniks=Yugoslavia argument is pure Chetnik POV. Other than not resisting, which was actually ordered by the government-in-exile, what actions that Mihailovic took (or didn't take) were actually directed by the government-in-exile? He was left to his own devices. And what evidence is there that Dragutin Keserović was actually following orders from Mihailovic when this fighting occurred? You can't have it both ways, stating that the Chetnik movement was heterogeneous but also centrally controlled and directed by the government-in-exile. And you are catching aspersions about my motives above. Either stop it or I will report you at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If you agree to stop making immediate discrediting accusations of pro-Chetnik POV to anything or everyone that disagress with you, I think we can move on. You claim neutrality while defending an extreme of the spectrum in issues that are acknolledged either as opposite, or as controversial or as uncertain even by the highest authorities in history. Here, for instance, you are denying them to be the representatives of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, while you must be aware neutral non-Yugoslav scholars overwelmingly agree Chetniks (until Dec. 1943 for sure overwelmingly) were the forces on the ground fighting and representing the king and the government-in-exile. Even Yugoslav historiographers would mostly not go as far as you go. Keserovic himself was a Chetnik (YAH) commander, making irrelevant evidence of direct Mihailovic involvment in this particular action just to assert that they were the Chetniks of WWII that historians refer to. The content and sources from the article make it quite clear. Karchmar source, just as exemple, leaves no doubts. To make your point, it is you who should bring sources contradicting this straight forward claim. FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Every article I have written has loads of reliable sources, and many have reached FA because they are balanced and neutral. I have been accused of being both a Serb and a Croat at different stages, which should tell you something. I am not getting into a never-ending slanging match with you on talk pages about your unsupported claims. Either make edits on articles providing reliable sources for the material you insert, or do something else, I really don't care, but if you make any further claims about me skewing articles to be anti-Chetnik, I will take you to ANI and you'll have to back it up in front of the community. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I see all sources agreeing this were Mihailovic Chetniks, Yugoslav Army in Fatherland, including Tomasevic as well. I see absolutelly no single source making no controversy. Can you please indicate then what is that you are opposing, that in this particular operation Chetniks were not the ones backed by the king and Allies, or do you generally disagree Chetniks should be represented as linked to K. of Yugoslavia? FkpCascais (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly does Tomasevich say that Keserovic was a representative of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? He was a prominent Chetnik leader, that doesn't make his forces those of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The problem with this approach is that is completely fails to take into account the fractured nature of the Chetniks throughout the war. Many Chetnik leaders collaborated or came to accommodations with the Axis, for a range of reasons. DM had little if any control over many of them, and he didn't order them to collaborate, although he did on at least one occasion agree that collaborating with the Italians was the right policy. With this edit, you are trying to paint the Chetniks as some sort of homogenous Yugoslav army that all answered to DM and followed his orders and through him the government-in-exile. That just wasn't the case. There was no direction from the exiled government, DM and the Chetniks just did what they thought was best. If it were as you are trying to paint it, then the Kingdom of Yugoslavia fought alongside the Axis during Case White, and on other occasions when the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your response. That means that we will need to give a wide view of how historians deal with Chetniks and its representation, or not, of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They were the official allied forces until the switch of support to Tito. Your stance is very controversial. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how my description of the Chetniks is in any way controversial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Mihailovic was proclaimed Minister of Defense by the king and government-in-exile, making him and his army, literally part of the Yugoslav government. On what grounds you then dissasociate them from K. of Yugoslavia? FkpCascais (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, of course. But that doesn't mean every little bit of fighting involved the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" or was directed by DM. As I have explained, the Chetniks were a heterogenous organisation, with many detachments deciding what to do on their own, even without reference to DM, let alone the government-in-exile. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources indicate that the German attack at this operation was clearly directed against the Mihailovic Chetniks. It is mid-October 1942 we are talking here, at this time Chetniks were receving Allied support, and, as seen here, being attacked by Germans. Keserovic was ammong the main commanders of Yugoslav Army in Fatherland at time of this operation. The ammount of heteronization of Chetniks you want to imply doesn´t apply here where we have sources stating Germans were attacking Keserovic troops clearly wanting to inflict damage to Mihailovic forces. Keserovic is a commander of YAF and is being attacked by the Germans because of being it. There is no need to go any further to establish it is YAF we are talking here. If we have reliable secundary sources confirming it, and no sources indicating otherwise, you shouldn´t deny Yugoslav Army in Fatherland the representation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Combatants

Thanks for inviting me here,[2] and sorry for replying a bit late, as I was both somewhat busy and doubtful about whether I can contribute to this discussion or not.

While I'm not an expert on this topic, the first thing that strikes me as odd here is that the idea of Chetniks and/or Draža Mihajlović being subordinate to the Yugoslav government in exile is absolute news to me. Moreover, from the communist perspective, wouldn't this be a great argument against the government in exile? By ascribing them effective leadership over the Chetniks, they could have utterly disqualified them as quislings and possibly war criminals. Yet, to my knowledge, such an argument was never made. Maybe - as Peacemaker duly noted - it would not have made sense: if your country is occupied and you are forced to leave, why would you help the occupiers? (Please note the above is a real-world, personal-experience argument, and thus admittedly of little value for Wikipedia.)

This is probably as much as I can contribute to this topic. The real question is: is there actual evidence (in the way of WP:RS) that Chetniks acted on any sort of commands from the Yugoslav government during the Operation Kopaonik? GregorB (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gregor, I understand how surprised you must feel, as you are usually involved in rather different topics, so I don´t know what has been the reason behind the invitation of your involvement. I hope you don´t take me wrong by saying that what you said are common missconceptions regarding Chetniks. When Yugoslavia capitulated, the Yugoslav Army of Fatherland was formed under general Mihailovic which organised and receved instructions from the kig and government-in-exile from London. Brittish intelligence agents helped with the contacts. Mihailovic was proclaimed the Minister of Defense of Kingdom of Yugoslavia by the king and the government-in-exile, making it officially the head of an army directly representing Kingdom of Yugoslavia on the field. FkpCascais (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the royal family and monarchists suffered major persecution during communist regime. They were stripped from their basic rights and saw their properties confiscated. This move was obviously justified by accusations of collaboration and war crimes, however, they lack neutral confirmation. That is a communist point of view which clearly relies on the accusations to justify their own crimes. Thus this entire issue needs to be taken with caution and full understanding of each ones motives. Chetniks is just a nickname of "Yugoslav Army in Fatherland", the army which was the official Allied representatives in Yugoslavia until December 1943, leadered by general Mihailovic, Minister of Defense. Short descriptions of the situation can easily be verified for instance here. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You make a lot of statements, Fkp, but rarely answer any questions. GregorB is right to ask "is there actual evidence (in the way of WP:RS) that Chetniks acted on any sort of commands from the Yugoslav government during the Operation Kopaonik?". That is at the crux of this matter, not generalities. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nominating Mihailovic for Defense minister clearly indicates not only that the king and government gave him full support, but that he became part of the government. Brittish intelligence facilitated communication and coordenation. Sources in the article indicate Germans attacked Keserovic troops because this were the "Mihailovic Chetniks" forces, which were formally known as Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. I reffered to this already, I checked the sources, they are clear regarding this. I initially even tought there was some controversy mentioned that I was missing and which was giving you reasons for your objections, but, there are none. So, sources indicate Keserovic was at time one of the main YAF commanders, and that Germans attacked them in what was intentional attack on YAF. I am the one reading the sources and claiming what they say, btw I went even further and checked Google books and saw results just confirming this with no mentions of any controversy. Even Tomasevic appears saying Keserovic was ammong the main commanders of YAF. On the other side, you are the one opposing this by making generalised claims without presenting any sources. I don´t understand how do you want anyone to believe you when we have sources saying different? FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

To put it really simple, both Karchmar and Ailsby, and all others, claim Operation Kopaonik was part of a German large-scale attack against Mihailovic Chetniks. Mihailovic was at time Minister of Defense of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Chetniks had full Allied support. On what grounds do you claim that they are wrong? FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You are adding two and two and coming up with five. I've explained the heterogeneous nature of the Chetnik movement, the fact that many Chetnik commanders did not follow instructions from DM, etc. Because of that I've asked for a source that says that Keserovic was acting under instructions from the government-in-exile during this operation. Which would be hard, as DM had been told by them not to resist. I ask again, what about Case White? To follow your logic, the "Yugoslav Army in the Homeland" fought on the Axis side during the largest anti-Partisan offensive of WWII. Right? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is your refusal to acknolledge that this was a 3 sides conflict. The insistance of simplifying it by force to only 2 sides is what is creating all this difficulties. That is why we even see some historians making such an effort and needing so much interpretative gymnastics to fit their narrative when failing to acknolledge this, while ones that get that this was a 3 side conflict with Axis invasion plus a civil war get such a fluid and easier narrative. Chetniks backed by the king and monarchist government weren´t on either side, Partisan or Axis, they were a side of their own. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

So, answering your question, in Case White, yes, the king and Yugoslav government-in-exile were on the anti-Partisan side. Why wouldn´t they? Partisans fought for a communist revolution and overthrowing of the monarchy, why would the king and his givernment be on their side? The article should explain this, Chetniks faught along Axis forces against Partisans, in what was clearly an oportunistic collaboration, but not making Chetniks, the king, or his government, Axis themselves. FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My point (or one of them) is that it wasn't a "three-way" war at all. There were many sides, Partisan, German, Italian, Croatian, etc. Different elements of the Chetniks were on different sides at different times. You appear to want to paint them as one homogenous army receiving direct orders from the government-in-exile via DM, but that just wasn't the case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really. We do have a homogenous block which is formed by Axis powers and its allies. Chetniks, which formed to oppose Axis invasion and liberate the country, performed resistance actions from start to end of the war, had their leaders headhunted by Germans, and strategically failed to find any common ground that not just temporary time-out to focus on Partisans, can´t even be compared to regimes that found total German backing and support and relied on eachother for the accomplishement of mutual goals. Germans, and their allies, never stopped perceving Chetniks as their enemies because Chetniks were not their side, but Allied one. It is the Allies that have a wide ideological spectrum which inevitably came to light and gave way, consequently, to the begining of the Cold War. The was was not even ended and allies already started dividing between them the zones of influence. We´ll never know what was exactly the idea of Britts and Americans on how exactly would have looked a pos-war 50-50% shared influence between western powers and Soviet Union in Yugoslavia and Greece, but instead Soviets supported Tito to take all power in Yugoslavia and betray the agreement, and, consequently, western powers took all power in Greece. One aspect which is very important is that Chetniks, after loosing Allied support to Tito in December 1943, they didn´t switched sides, but instead, they intensified their resistance activities. Operation Halyard was just the most promoted one, because it is still the largest rescue operation in US Air Force history. However, Chetniks acompanied Partisans in their advance against Germans, and even made operations collaborating with Soviets. Would Mihailovic and his army be in Belgrade immediatelly after liberation if their conscience wan´t clean? All of Europe was aprehensive and in fear of Soviets and their communist allies even if they were just innocent civilians, but Chetniks and Mihailovic were some unconscient nuts? Nothing indicates so. Rather the opposite, Partisans, Soviets and Chetniks were victorious in driving out all Axis forces. What happened next is one of the first episodes that will establish the new post-war reality and the start of the Cold War, the betrail of the Tehran Conference agreement with the capture, encarceration and execution of Mihailovic and other Chetnik members. It is their unexpected elimination that made the king and the government-in-exile feel unsafe to return to Yugoslavia, clearly indicating that despite their support of Partisans during 1944, they were counting with the Chetniks as their forces on the field.

We don´t know today if there was any secret agreement made after Tehran between the Soviets and the west giving Soviets rights over Yugoslavia in exchange for Greece, but what we do know is that the king, his government-in-exile, and Mihailovic Chetniks, were the representatives in Yugoslavia of the western Allied powers, while Tito Partisans became clearly Soviet allies. Partisans overtaking of power and brutal elimination of Chetniks doesn´t indicate nothing more than just better definition of their strategy and goals for the post-war period, in comparison to Chetniks one. Chetniks were satisfied that the country was liberated and consdered their mission accomplished, waiting now for a political setlment to be done between Allied powers and local political leaders, while Partisans knew that their goal of a proletarian revolution was a step ahead of the agreement of sharing the power. Incentivated by communist take-over in many central and eastern European countries, Partisans were bold and eliminated Chetniks as their last obstacle towards their goal. Communists are known for their ruthless trials and executions, I can´t understand how can you as an Australian believe in Yugoslav case it was any different. Controlling already the judiciary, communists needed the trials to provide them justification for their actions against the Chetniks, rather then a fair assesment of events. You certainly know that there is a mass consensus ammong historians that the post-war trials of Chetniks in Yugoslavia were not reliable and that were highly politically motivated. The next strategy was to write versions which would acknolledge this, but eventually come up justifiying the trials were right. You rely so much in Tomasevic but do you really think a Croatian historian writing during 1950s, 1960s and 1970s about WWII in Yugoslavia in detail was really free to write in a time Tito regime was in full power? The execution and elimination of Chetniks was the main regime´s issue and you really think he was free to write about it concluding anything else than not the official regime´s version? Yes, sure, he does an excellent job in pretending to be neutral, but all conclusions coincide with communist regime´s ones. Coincidence? Dont think so. Tomasevic ended up being congratulated for his books because it was convenient at time to show friendly signs to Yugoslavia, just as you claim American condecoration of Mihailovic with the Legion of Merith is biased. I am the one here admiting and acknolledging all complexities on this issue and seing the truth may be somewhere in between, while opposing editors editing articles backing Tito communist narrative and making excuses for US high condecorations as wrong.

Another aspect I really need to point out is to see in general the resisatnce movements in WWII and see how majority were simply urban underground organisations which limited themselves in sabotaging ocasionally some Axis activities. We praise them and their activities absolutelly rightfully, however, Chetniks were a resistance army which opened front against Germans, hold territory, were activelly attacked and persecuted, had their leaders constantly head-hunted, made Germans negotiate all time. You and others deny their resistance activities while not even considering what was back then to resist Nazi Germany and their allies! You blaim Chetniks for making a break in their attacks by late 1941 after they were confronted with the policy of 50-100 Serbs killed by each German soldier wounded/killed respectivelly. Don´t you ever consider they were defeated by such extreme violence against them? You think Chetniks were German lovers and collaborators because they weren´t able to be perfect and give response against the most modernised and major army in world back then? You think Chetniks had it easy? Most world were quiet in their rooms praying, while this people went to woods and did their best. They weren´t efficient as crazy guerilla Partisans were, yes, they weren´t, but that doesn´t make them Axis. Mihailovic Chetniks and the government in London were never Axis, but weren´t communists either. You can´t put them always as Axis just because they wenren´t communists. FkpCascais (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)