Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pro-Communist propoganda

This entire article appears to be blatently biased toward the Communist "Allied" forces. Why are the "partisans" listed as Allies? They were most certainly NOT allied to Britian, France, USA, or any member of that military alliance, if anything they were an "Allies-Affiliated Faction", or co-belligerant, like the Chetniks are 'Axis-Affiliated'. It is as if you are purposefully trying to make the Communists and Allied forces look like the "Good Guy"! That is a definite violation of the Neutral Point of View. The Soviet Union supported the Communist partisans because of just that, they were Communist. Furthermore, the article rambles about the supposed murders of Yugoslavians by the Germans and thier allies, but gives no mention to the murders of ethnic Germans and Hungarians by the Communist Partisans. >

First, you seem to admit that the Partisans were allies of the Soviet Union, which was clearly one of the Allies ... Second, all main three Allies (the USSR, the USA, and the UK) committed themselves to support the Partisans at the Tehran Conference of 1943 (point 1 of the official agreement: "The Conference ... [a]greed that the Partisans in Yugoslavia should be supported by supplies and equipment to the greatest possible extent, and also by commando operations". Also - correct me if I'm wrong here - I'm pretty certain that the mainly Partisan-controlled Democratic Federal Yugoslavia government was recognized by all Allies as Yugoslavia's government from 1943 on. The Partisans were part of the Allies - whether that makes them the "Good Guy" (your words) is up to the reader, and referring to their side of the conflict as "Communist Forces" is about as accurate as refering to their opponents as "Fascist Forces". 96T (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, 96T. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Hungarian and DanubeSwabian populations in Backa and Banat is totally missinbg from this article although it was conducted by partisan forces, August 1944 to March 1945 as part of the Yugoslavian front engagements. Civilians were forced to dig military trenches under threat of death. Civilians were uprooted from their homes and brutalized, marched into distant towns without warning, treated as animals and forced to sleep in empty houses on dirty straw, and deliberately starved in guarded villages used as starvation prisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Chetnik collaboration (again)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Selected sourced excerpts from the Chetniks article

Axis collaboration

File:Meeting between German, Chetniks and Ustaša commander.jpg

German General Major Friedrich Stahl stands alongside an Ustaše officer and Chetnik Commander Rade Radić in central Bosnia

Throughout the War, the Chetnik movement remained almost completely inactive against the occupation forces, and increasingly collaborated with the Axis, losing its international recognition as the Yugoslav resistance force. After a brief initial period of cooperation, the Partisans and the Chetniks quickly started fighting against each other. Gradually, the Chetniks ended up primarily fighting the Partisans instead of the occupation forces, and started cooperating with the Axis in their struggle to destroy the resistance, receiving increasing amounts of logistical assistance. Mihailović admitted to a British colonel that the Chetniks' principle enemies were "the partisans, the Ustasha, the Muslims, the Croats and last the Germans and Italians" in that order.

At the start of the conflict, Chetnik forces were merely relatively inactive towards the occupation, and negotiated with the Partisans. This changed when these talks broke down, and they proceeded to attack the latter (who were actively fighting the Germans), while continuing to engage the Axis only in minor skirmishes. Attacking the Germans provoked strong retaliation, and the Chetniks increasingly negotiated with them. Negotiations were aided by their mutual goal of destroying the Partisans. This collaboration first appeared during the attack on the Partisan "Užice Republic", where Chetniks played a part in the general Axis attack.

Collaboration with the Italians

Chetnik collaboration with the occupation forces of fascist Italy took place in three main areas: in Italian-occupied (and Italian-annexed) Dalmatia, in the Italian puppet state of Montenegro, and in German and Italian-occupied Slovenia. The collaboration in Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia was the most widespread, however, and the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks took place earlier in those areas. The Partisans considered all occupation forces the fascist enemy, while the Chetniks hated the Ustaše but balked at fighting the Italians, and had approached the Italian VI Army Corps (General Renzo Dalmazzo, Commander) as early as July and August 1941 for assistance via a Serbian politician from Lika, Stevo Rađenović. In particular, Chetnik leaders (vojvoda-s) Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin and Dobroslav Jevđević were favorably disposed towards the Italians, because they believed Italian occupation over the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be detrimental to the influence of the Ustaše state. For this reason, they sought an alliance with the Italian occupation forces in Yugoslavia. The Italians (General Dalamazzo) looked favorably on these approaches and hoped first to avoid fighting the Chetniks, and then use them against the Partisans, which they thought would give them an "enormous advantage". An agreement was concluded on January 11, 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović. Among other provisions of the agreement, it was agreed that Italians would support the Chetnik formations with arms and provisions, and would facilitate the release of "recommended individuals" from Axis concentration camps (Jasenovac, Rab...). The chief interest of both the Chetniks and Italians would be to assist each other in combating the Partisan resistance.

In the following months of 1942, General Mario Roatta, commander of the Italian 2nd Army, worked on developing a Policy Directive (Linea di condotta) on relations with the Chetniks, the Ustaše and the Partisans. In line with these efforts, General Vittorio Ambrosio outlined the Italian policy in Yugoslavia: all negotiations with the (quisling) Ustaše were to be avoided, but contacts with the Chetniks were "advisable" - as for the Partisans: "struggle to the bitter end". This meant that General Roatta was essentially free to take action with regard to the Chetniks as he saw fit. He outlined the four points of his policy in his report to the Italian Army General Staff:

To support the Chetniks sufficiently to make them fight against the communists, but not so much as to allow them too much latitude in their own action; to demand and assure that the Chetniks do not fight against the Croatian forces and authorities; to allow them to fight against the communists on their own initiative (so that they can "slaughter each other"); and finally to allow them to fight in parallel with the Italian and German forces, as do the nationalist bands [Chetniks and separatist Zelenaši] in Montenegro.

— General Mario Roatta, 1942

During 1942 and 1943, an overwhelming proportion of Chetnik forces in the Italian-controlled areas of occupied Yugoslavia were organized as Italian auxiliary forces in the form of the "Voluntary Anti-Communist Militia" ("Milizia volontaria anti comunista", MVAC). According to General Giacomo Zanussi (then a Colonel and Roatta's chief of staff), there were 19,000 to 20,000 Chetniks in the MVAC in Italian-occupied parts of the Independent State of Croatia alone. The Chetniks were extensively supplied with thousands of rifles, grenades, mortars and artillery pieces. In a memorandum dated March 26, 1943 to the Italian Army General Staff entitled "The Conduct of the Chetniks", Italian officers noted the ultimate control of these collaborating Chetnik units remained in the hands of Draža Mihailović, and contemplated the possibility of a hostile reorientation of these troops in light of the changing strategic situation. The commander of these troops was vojvoda Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin, who arrived in Italian-annexed Split in October 1941 and received his orders directly from Mihailović in the spring of 1942.
The Chetnik-Italian collaboration lasted until the Italian capitulation on September 8, 1943, when Chetnik troops switched to supporting the German occupation in forcing the Partisans out of the coastal cities which they liberated upon the Italian withdrawal. The German 114th Jäger Division even incorporated a Chetnik detachment in its advance to the Adriatic.

Collaboration with the NDH

See also: Independent State of Croatia and Ustaše

Representatives of the Chetniks, Ustaše, and Croatian Home Guard meet in Bosnia.

After the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks in Serbia, the Chetnik groups in central, eastern, and northwestern Bosnia found themselves caught between the German and Ustaše (NDH) forces on one side and the Partisans on the other. In early 1942 Chetnik Major Jezdimir Dangić approached the Germans in an attempt to arrive at an understanding, but was unsuccessful, and the local Chetnik leaders were forced to look for another solution. The Chetnik groups were in fundamental disagreement with the Ustaše on practically all issues, but they found a common enemy in the Partisans, and this was the overriding reason for the collaboration which ensued between the Ustaše authorities of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) and Chetnik detachments in Bosnia. The first formal agreement between Bosnian Chetniks and the Ustaše was concluded on May 28, 1942, in which Chetnik leaders expresseed their loyalty as "citizens of the Independent State of Croatia" both to the state and its Poglavnik (Ante Pavelić). During the next three weeks, three additional agreements were signed, covering a large part of the area of Bosnia (along with the Chetnik detachments within it). By the provision of these agreements, the Chetniks were to cease hostilities against the Ustaše state, and the Ustaše would establish regular administration in these areas. The main provision, Art. 5 of the agreement, states as follows:

As long as there is danger from the Partisan armed bands, the Chetnik formations will cooperate voluntarily with the Croatian military in fighting and destroying the Partisans and in those operations they will be under the overall command of the Croatian armed forces. (...) Chetnik formations may engage in operations against the Partisans on their own, but this they will have to report, on time, to the Croatian military commanders.

— Chetnik-Ustaše collaboration agreement, May 28, 1942

The necessary ammunition and provisions were supplied to the Chetniks by the Ustaše military. Chetniks who were wounded in such operations would be cared for in NDH hospitals, while the orphans and widows of Chetniks killed in action would be supported by the Ustaše state. Persons specifically recommended by Chetnik commanders would be returned home from the Ustaše concentration camps (Jasenovac concentration camp). These agreements covered the majority of Chetnik forces in Bosnia east of the German-Italian demarcation line, and lasted throughout most of the war. Since Croatian forces were immediately subordinate to the German military occupation, collaboration with Croatian forces was, in fact, indirect collaboration with the Germans.

Battle of the Neretva

Main article: Battle of the Neretva

One of the highpoints of Chetnik collaboration with the Axis took place during the Battle of the Neretva, which was the final phase of operation Fall Weiss or the Fourth Enemy Offensive. In 1942, Partisans forces were on the rise, having established large liberated territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Chetnik forces, partially because of their collaboration with the Italian occupation, were also gaining in strength, however, but were no match to the Partisans and required Axis logistical support to attack the liberated territories. In light of the changing strategic situation, Adolf Hitler and the German high command decided to disarm the Chetniks and destroy the Partisans for good. In spite of Hitler's insistence, Italian forces in the end refused to disarm the Chetniks (thus rendering that course of action impossible), under the justification that the Italian occupation forces could not afford to lose the Chetniks as allies in their maintenance of the occupation.

Collaboration with the Germans

File:Chetniks with German soldiers.jpg

Chetniks posing with soldiers of the German occupation forces during World War II in an unidentified Serbian village in occupied Yugoslavia

As early as spring 1942, the Germans favored the collaboration agreement the Ustaše and the Chetniks had established in a large part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the Ustaše military was supplied by, and immediately subordinate to, the German military occupation, collaboration between the two constituted indirect German-Chetnik collaboration. This was all favorable to the Germans primarily because the agreement was directed against the Partisans, contributed to the pacification of areas significant for German war supplies, and reduced the need for additional German occupation troops (as Chetniks were assisting the occupation). After the Italian capitulation on September 8, 1943, the German 114th Jäger Division even incorporated a Chetnik detachment in its advance to retake the Adriatic coast from the Partisans who had temporarily liberated it. The report on German-Chetnik collaboration of the XV Army Corps on November 19, 1943 to the 2nd Panzer Army states that the Chetniks were "leaning on the German forces" for close to a year.

German-Chetnik collaboration entered a new phase after the Italian surrender, because the Germans now had to police a much larger area than before and fight the Partisans in the whole of Yugoslavia. Consequently, they significantly liberalized their policy towards the Chetniks and mobilized all Serbian nationalist forces against the Partisans. The 2nd Panzer Army oversaw these developments: the XV Army Corps was now officially allowed to utilize Chetniks troops and forge a "local alliance". The first formal and direct agreement between the German occupation forces and the Chetniks took place in early October 1943 between the 373rd Infantry Division and a detachment of Chetniks under Mane Rokvić operating in western Bosnia and Lika. The Germans subsequently even used Chetnik troops for guard duty in occupied Split, Dubrovnik, Šibenik, and Metković. Independent State of Croatia (NDH) troops were not used, despite Ustaše demands, because mass desertions of Croat troops to the Partisans rendered them unreliable. From this point on, the German occupation actually started to "openly favor" Chetnik (Serbian) troops to the Croat formations of the NDH, due to the pro-Partisan dispositions of the Croatian rank-and-file. The Germans paid little attention to frequent Ustaše protests about this. Ustaše Major Mirko Blaž (Deputy Commander, 7th Brigade of the Poglavnik's Personal Guard) observed that:

The Germans are not interested in politics, they take everything from a military point of view. They need troops that can hold certain positions and clear certain areas of the Partisans. If they ask us to do it, we cannot do it. The Chetniks can.

— Major Mirko Blaž, March 5, 1944

When appraising the situation in western Serbia, Bosnia, Lika, and Dalmatia, Captain Merrem, intelligence officer with the German commander-in-chief southeastern Europe, was "full of praise" for Chetnik units collaborating with the Germans, and for the smooth relations between the Germans and Chetnik units on the ground.
In addition, the Chief of Staff of the 2nd Panzer Army observed in a letter to the Ustaše liaison officer that the Chetniks fighting the Partisans in Eastern Bosnia were "making a worthwhile contribution to the Croatian state", and that the 2nd Army "refused in principle" to accept Croatian complaints against the usage of these units. German-Chetnik Collaboration continued to take place until the very end of the war, with the tacit approval of Draža Mihailović and the Chetnik Supreme Command in Serbia. Though Mihailović himself never actually signed any agreements, he endorsed the policy for the purpose of eliminating the Partisan threat. Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs commented:

Though he himself [Draža Mihailović] shrewdly refrained from giving his personal view in public, no doubt to have a free hand for every eventuality (e.g. Allied landing on the Balkans), he allowed his commanders to negotiate with Germans and to co-operate with them. And they did so, more and more...

— Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, 1945

The loss of Allied support in 1943 caused the Chetniks to lean more than ever towards the Germans for assistance against the Partisans. On 14 August 1944, the Tito-Šubašić agreement between the Partisans and the Yugoslav King Peter II and government-in-exile was signed on the island of Vis. The document called on all Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs to join the Partisans. Mihailović and the Chetniks refused to follow the order and abide by the agreement and continued to engage the Partisans (by now the official Yugoslav Allied force). Consequently on 29 August 1944, King Peter II dismissed Mihailović as Chief-of-Staff of the Yugoslav Army and on 12 September appointed Marshal Josip Broz Tito in his place. Josip Broz Tito at this point became the Prime Minster of the Yugoslav state and the joint government.

Collaboration in Serbia

government and executed by firing squad in 1946. In 2010, the charge was reopened by Canadian, British and American citizens saved by Draza, who call him a hero.]]

In occupied Serbia, the Germans installed Milan Aćimović as leader, and later the former Minister of War, General Milan Nedić, who governed until 1944. Nedić formed his own troops, the Serbian State Guard, made up of ex-members of the Royal Yugoslav Army. However, his forces were also augmented by several formations of Chetniks, one under the pre-war leader Kosta Pećanac (this formation was independent of Mihajlović). The former led a force of around 3,000 men in southern Serbia, and felt that he, as a man with 40 years of service, was senior to Mihailović. In 1944, having lost all Allied recognition, Mihailović was granted command over the entire military force of Nedić's Serbia, including the Serbian State Guard. General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau commented:

The units that could really be used against the Partisans were Serbian and partly Russian volunteers and - Draža Mihailović's people. My liaison officer with them was a certain Major, Ritterkreuztraeger.

— General Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, German military attaché in Zagreb

As the war drew to a close, Chetnik forces continued to fight the Partisans and (on a few occasions) the Red Army alongside German forces. The movement was by this time, though still commanded by Mihailović, plagued with a lack of discipline. Splinter factions emerged, one of which was the Montenegrin People's Army led by Pavle Đurišić which, in a belated bid for Allied recognition, unsuccessfully attacked Ustaše formations in what is known as the Battle on Lijevča field. Remnants of Chetnik troops eventually retreated alongside Ustaše and other Axis forces towards the northwestern regions of Yugoslavia, where they all either surrendered or, in earlier stages, defected to the Partisans. For those troops who took the opportunity, a general amnesty was granted by the Yugoslav Prime Minister.

As part of his policies regarding the restoration of the monarchy and the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia and within, a Greater Serbia, and also as retaliation for the massacres suffered by Serbs at the hands of the Ustaše and the Balli Kombëtar, the Chetnik supreme commander Draža Mihailović issued the following "Instructions" ([Instrukcije] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)) to his commanders on 20 December 1941:

“ The mission of our units is:

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

There may be no collaboration with the communists [Partisans], as they are fighting against the Dynasty and in favor of socialist revolution. Balli Kombëtar [Albanians], SS Handschar [Bosniaks], and Ustaše [Croats] are to be treated in accordance with their merit for the horrendous crimes against our population, i.e. they are to be turned over to the People's Court. The Croats living on the territory under Italian occupation [Dalmatians] are to be treated based on their disposition at the given moment.

”

Mihailović was captured on 13 March 1946 by agents of the Yugoslav security agency, the Odeljenje Zaštite Naroda (Armije) (OZNA). He was charged on 47 counts. The court found him guilty on 8 counts, including crimes against humanity and high treason. The trial lasted from 10 June to 15 July. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by firing squad on 15 July. The Presidium of the National Assembly rejected the clemency appeal on 16 July. He was executed together with nine other officers in the early hours of 18 July 1946, in Lisičiji Potok, about 200 meters from the former Royal Palace, and buried in an unmarked grave on the same spot. His main prosecutor was Miloš Minić, later Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Yugoslav Government.

WP:COMMONNAME

The most common name for the conflict covered in this article is "People's Liberation War" ("Narodnooslobodilačka borba" in Serbian and Croatian), "Yugoslav Front" is hardly even used at all. I've finally done a thorough Google test. I've searched all references to a "Yugoslav Front" (instead of listing all hits that simply include the words "Yugoslavia" and "front"), and I've searched all references to a "People's Liberation War", of course to disambiguate I added the word Yugoslavia and -China, just to make sure I'm not getting false hits. I also of course filtered the results to include only English language sources. The results are as follows:

• Yugoslav Front
  • "Yugoslav Front" -china
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 3,910 hits
    • Google Books - 354 hits
    • Google Scholar - 22 hits

• People's Liberation War
  • "People's Liberation War" Yugoslavia -China
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 16,000 hits
    • Google Books - 2,110 hits
    • Google Scholar - 89 hits

With "People's Liberation War" outnumbering the hardly-even-used "Yugoslav Front" by about six times, I'll request a good faith move per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME ("Articles are normally titled using the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources."). Please do not revert the move unless you have data relevant to Wikipedia policy. Please also take note of the general fact that the Google Books and Google Scholar searches far outweigh the significance of a general Google web search, since they search reliable sources as opposed to websites. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything direktor is refering is strictly refered to communist Partisans strugle, wich was not the only resistance group, just another one. FkpCascais (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And what the article needs is expansion to other strugles, not only the communist one, wich you conveniently expanded ignoring all "nazifiying" all others. That is why all your arguments fall. FkpCascais (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "People's Liberation War" as used in sources refers to the entire conflict, including the Chetniks. The very suggestion that its somehow excludes other factions is laughable. See the sources, please, and restrict your responses to anything that has something to do with Wiki naming policy. As it happened, the Partisans won the war and that very much influenced the terminology with regard to this war. All nonsense comments such as the above will be ignored on my part in the future. There is not much to discuss here, see WP:COMMONNAME please.

Also, your edits in support of the obvious sock are total nonsense. Royal Yugoslav Army? The current status of the article is supported by some 6 sources or so. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have many hits on People´s struggle, but all of them refering to Partisans fight, not the entire Yugoslav Front. You should create a separate article about the People´s war and take all related from this article there, leaving this one for the purpose it is suposed to be, to cover the entire Yugoslav Front, not favouring nor excluding any of the sides.

About the last edit-war you created here, I am revrting your removal of the Chetniks and Mihailovic from the Allied/Axis list, wich is completely against the agreed in the Mihailovic mediation where you are also a participant, so you don´t have an excuse of not knowing about it. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief and to the point: I do not care that you say the term refers only to the "Partisan struggle" (whatever that means). I can find you a couple thousand published sources that, believe it or not, use the term "People's Liberation War" to refer to the entire War.

I honestly did not expect such utterly nonsensical posts here. You'll have to do a lot better than that.

You are edit-warring to push a new sock edit from yesterday. All I have to say is that I am APPALLED you are simply edit-warring without 1) even look at what you are doing (Royal Yugoslav Army??), or 2) even noticing that the Chetniks entry is supported by a half-dozen SOURCES. You are altering long-standing sourced info without discussion. This is not Draža Mihailović we are talking about, this is the Chetniks as a whole, and I can find you about 20 more sources about the Chetniks as Axis support troops. You really need to get over the facts of this war and move on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits

The silly mediation is ongoing (and apparently perpetual). There are no "conclusions". Please stop attempting to push undiscussed POV edits into the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Yugoslav Front → People's Liberation War — Quite simply: WP:COMMONNAME. If it wasn't a touchy, Balkans-nationalist issue this would (and still should) be completely routine. Google tests show that "Yugoslav Front" is an almost unused term, while "People's Liberation War" (which redirects here) is around five to six times more common in published, scholarly sources. Another option would be "People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia)", if there is any need to disambiguate.
In case this comes into doubt, the sources show "People's Liberation War" is (quite unsurprisingly) a term which encompasses the entirety of the War and its every aspect. The People's Liberation War in Yugoslavia is a conflict which fully and entirely includes the Chetniks as a combatant.

I was, and still am, at all times absolutely sure that nationalists from both the Croatian and Serbian side of the Balkans Wiki would flock to find the requested move "wrong", "offensive", "evil", etc. "People's Liberation War" is undoubteldly a term that was coined by communists, and undoubtedly came into prominence in scholarly circles due to the fact that "the communists" won the war in question. Wikipedia, however, does not promote a political standpoint and does not have an ideological bias.
I'll point out that the RM was based entirely on objective research regarding the most common term used in English-language published sources for this war. It is decidedly more common through all periods, in all capacities, and in all search engine tests.
I would reccomend participants focus any opposing remarks on the actual move rationale. Please note that the RM is based on policy (WP:COMMONNAME), and that "votes" alone (followed up or not by personal opinions and comments) are not are not about to sway any Wikipedia requested move (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is a very controversial request. The user wants to relace a wide article ("Yugoslav Front") with a very specific strougle of one of the beligerants, the Partisans and their "People´s Liberation War" this way completely ignoring other resistance groups. FkpCascais (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oh for goodness sake... People are not generally interested in your thoughts and opinions, Fkp. The sources (quite unsurprisingly) use the term "People´s Liberation War" to refer to the entire War, not just the "Partisan struggle" (whatever that is). WP:COMMONNAME warrants a move, and an RM it shall be then. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Across the world there have been many wars and insurrectionary struggles that one group or another would call a people's liberation war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In which case we are talking about the "People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia)". But I could not find any other Wiki articles that link to "People's Liberation War" and the "People's Liberation War" redirect links here (though I don't really mind one way or the other). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Google tests results

• Yugoslav Front
  • "Yugoslav Front" -china
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 3,910 hits
    • Google Books - 354 hits
    • Google Scholar - 22 hits

• People's Liberation War
  • "People's Liberation War" Yugoslavia -China
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 16,000 hits
    • Google Books - 2,110 hits
    • Google Scholar - 89 hits

Survey/Discussion

• Comment. A quick glance at the sources will show that "People's Liberation War" is the term in use for the entire conflict which is the subject of this article. I cannot imagine any basis for claims that it "only refers to the Partisans struggle" any more than, e.g. the "Iraq War" only refers to the "US struggle". "Partisan struggle" is a (rather simple) play on words. The People's Liberation War in Yugoslavia is a conflict which fully and entirely includes the Chetniks as a combatant, that much is a demonstrable and hardly disputable fact.
  At this point I would also like to point out WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and request that comments please center on Wikipedia policy (WP:TITLE, or more spKhecifically, WP:COMMONNAME). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There are other policies, other than just WP:TITLE that are likely to be relevant here - one that immediately springs to mind and which appears to be of great relevance is WP:NPOV. This appears to have been the basis of the argument for moving it away from the proposed name many years ago and it certainly warrants discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:NPOV, I do not however see how you are suggesting it may apply to this naming issue? To be more specific, I cannot see how a conflict name can be "biased" if it is the most common in published sources (as opposed to a name which is barely in use at all)? To my knowledge the neutral point of view is determined by sources usage in cases such as this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, sources do talk about the title you propose, but this article is about a different issue, the entire "Yugoslav Front". Perhaps you are having some confusion in understanding this because the Partisan leader Tito (well known historical manipulator, just as many other totalist leaders) that was afterwords Yugoslav President until 1980, has purpously named the war in Yugoslavia in the WWII by the name his movement gave to it and insisted on it for all that period. Again, "Yugoslav Front" is a much wider issue, and the "People´s Liberation War" was just part of it. FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, and will repeat for the last time: "People's Liberation War" refers to the entire War. See the sources and please stop repeating yourself over and over again. No other term is more common in English language usage than "People's Liberation War". Yes, this is probably due to the fact that the communists won, but reasons for the current state of affairs are irrelevant.

Also that is quite enough. I will immediately report you should you once again make snide comments on my character or mental state in any way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "People´s" just as in the name of "People´s Dem.Rep.of Korea" or in "People´s Re. of China" clearly indicates that is a communist struggle. The "People´s Liberation War" was the name the Partisans gave to their struggle in WWII in Yugoslavia. Yes, the Chetniks and other resistance groups did contributed in Partisan struggle to liberate Yugoslavia, but naming the entire article by this name is simply manipulative and very wrong in many ways. FkpCascais (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please refrain from cluttering the page with personal opinions. The move is based on objective scholarly usage, that you find it "wrong" is besides the point. No other term is more common in English language usage than "People's Liberation War". Yes, this is probably due to the fact that the communists won, but reasons for the current state of affairs are irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose , Yugoslav Front is a much wider issue that the "People´s Liberation Front". The last one deals with specifically the Yugoslav Partisan struggle, and they were far from being the only one involved. This user (direktor) has purpously edited the article in a way that focuses only in the Partisan perspective ignoring and nazifiying completely the other resistance moviments. The user also purpously ignores the aquired conclusions on this issue that have been concluded in the Gen.Draža Mihailović mediation where he is also a participant. This article and many other related will need to go trough a large revision, the only obstacle of beggining with the revision is the need to wait to the conclusion of the already mentioned mediation. Another exemple of this manipulative nature of this user direktor can be observed in the way he first heavily edited the article in a NPOV way, then proposed a page move on this talk page, and without giving any room or time to observe any possible objections, he proposes this move asking for "good-faith" willingness from the part of the administrators and lists this move as non-controversial move request. Resumingly, and as rational possible solution, I will recomend the creation of the People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia) where this issue will be edited in detail (obviously much of the text edited by direktor on this article belongs there) and leave this article where all regarding the Yugoslav Front will be edited (not only the Partisans struggle).
  P.S.: In the article, the different languages section it should be changed because the "Yugoslav Front" in other languages isn´t obviously translated to the name that Partisans struggle has.
  P.S.2: Is it possible that direktor removes the enormous text he unnecessarily brought from another article that is making this page too heavy? FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. All I can say is that this is strictly a personal user point of view, Balkans nationalist POV completely out of touch with sources or WP:TITLE (and, of course, an ad hominem closely bordering on personal attack ). FkpCascais may also have a look at WP:POVFORK.
    As even a cursory glance at the sources can show, "People's Liberation War" is a term which fully and completely encompasses all aspects of this conflict, and entirely includes the Serbian Chetniks as a combatant, that much is a demonstrable and hardly disputable fact. One need only cast a glance at this article's Serbian Wiki counterpart, which uses "People's Liberation War" ("Narodnooslobodilačka borba"), and has always used it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. You are further giving me arguments. The corresponding article on Serbian wikipedia for this one is this one: [2] (translation: Second World War in Yugoslavia). Even a person that doesn´t understand the language can easily see the nature and differences of the articles. The other one, the link that you gave, talks exactly about what I was saying, concentrated in the Partisans struggle. FkpCascais (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should click on this article InterWiki link to the Serbian Wikipedia then [3]? :)
    In any case that point is moot - Wikipedia is not a source (also lets not cherry pick, it was just a side example). You know the move rationale, so please concentrate on actual Wiki policy. The People's Liberation War in Yugoslavia is a conflict which fully and entirely includes the Serbian Chetniks as a combatant, that much is a demonstrable and hardly disputable fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The interwiki link is wrong then, and is never too late to correct it. (P.S.:Please refrain the from bringing nationalism to this discussion, as you already did when you unnecessarily talk about "Balkan nationalism" earlier, and unecessarily wikilinking the Serbian Chetniks here. (Chetniks were a Yugoslav resistance movement, not only Serbian). FkpCascais (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Since I am still waiting for you to post anything at all even remotely relevant to the move rationale, I would like to ask you to do so, or "forever hold your peace" as it were. I will also repeat my request that you refrain from posting your personal views, opinions, feelings, and especially ad hominems, since they unnecessarily clutter a very open-and-shut RM, and may easily get you reported respectively ("this manipulative nature of this user direktor"?).
        I would like to request that you please apologize for your slanderous personal comments regarding my "nature". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "People's Liberation War" has left the vocabulary of all reliable modern historians both within the former Yugoslavia and without. The term originates from the very start of the war in Yugoslavia, exclusively used by the communists (who were hardly the only participants of note). During the subsequent communist period this term was further promoted by the authorities to legitimize their single-party autocratic rule. With democratic reforms it has greatly fallen out of favour from respectable historiography, although its legacy remains in dated literature.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not according to actual research. With all due respect, the above is just your own assertion. On the contrary, "People's Liberation War" is widely used in modern publications (certainly more than "Yugoslav Front"). [4] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course the name still appears in a Google book search. However, isolating the period from 1990 to present ([5]), you will see that the vast majority of the uses of the term are not in a serious academic sense. The name is frequently criticized, and in other situations simply appears within quotations.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • That is quite the arbitrary filter there, it would appear it removes the majority of hits from most history-related searches. You will find however, that "Yugoslav Front" hits are equally reduced [6]. So much so that "Yugoslav Front" still has about half the hits of "People's Liberation War" (93 hits), and still fewer of those are relevant to this move ("Bulgarian-Yugoslav Front" [7], "political Yugoslav front" [8] etc...). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • The end of state-sponsored communist historiography is hardly an arbitrary filter. Jozo Tomasevich's monumental works on the war (heavily cited in this very article!) never use the term "People's Liberation War". Sabrina Ramet doesn't use the term either. In fact, the only time she references it at all is it to say that it was used "in socialist times" [9]. Furthermore, many of these results are incidental or unreliable. Vladimir Dedijer's diaries are one of the first results (he was one of the very people who invented the term). Many of the search results are only pointing to organizations bearing the term in their name (SUBNOR, etc.). Fact is, reputable historical works avoid the term entirely.--Thewanderer (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Again: the term is in wider use than the current title - both in "modern" post-1990 publications and all together. You are missing the point entirely.
            I do not think we are about to disregard ALL pre-1990 publications as "state-sponsored communist ones" on your whim. These are English-language sources, mostly published in Englsih-speaking countries. AS I'm sure you know, Wikipedia does not share your personal political bias between "communist" (bad) historiography and "capitalist" (reputable) historiography. This move is based entirely on objective reasearch of scholarly terminology in the English-speaking world. (Granted, various cockameme communist conspiracy theories were not included in the considerations, but still...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "People's Liberation War", that really should be a disambiguation page. No opinion on the other option with "(Yugoslavia)" disambiguator. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Then "No opinion" would seem the more logical summation of your position, would it not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • NO it would not. Do not try to lawyer my point of view. I have an opinion, a very clear one. I Oppose the proposed move. The alternate proposal is NOT the one in the proposal. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We can discuss how this was "People's Liberation" war, it wasn't some liberation war, we all know how this liberation ended (and can be understud as provocation by very large number of readers). It was Yugoslav Front, not just "People's Liberation War", it was also a People's Ocupation War, if you understand me... This is communist name for the war in Yugoslavia. People's Militia, People's Teathre, People's Court, People's this, People's that, sounds so communist.--Wustefuchs (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment regarding future posts. While I was, and still am, at all times absolutely sure that nationalists from both the Croatian and Serbian side would find the requested move "wrong", "offensive", "evil", etc. I will point out that the RM was based entirely on objective research regarding the most common term used in English-language published sources for this war. "People's Liberation War" is undoubteldly a term that was coined by communists, and undoubtedly came into prominence in scholarly circles due to the fact that "the communists" won. This is, however, an entirely irrelevant piece of information: Wikipedia does not share your (or any) ideological bias. The relevant facts of the matter are: "Yugoslav Front" is virtially an unused term, and "People's Liberation War" is the most common one.
  Further: it would be well for participants to focus any opposing remarks on the move rationale, which remains virtually completely unaddressed. Please note that the RM is based on Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME), and that votes (followed up or not by personal opinions and comments) are not are not about to sway any Wikipedia requested move (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Direktor, please refrain from bringing any unbased nationalism acusations here.(you are insisting, and I already called your attention to this). FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Talk about opening a can of worms. Oppose People's Liberation War People's Liberation War refers to a number of conflicts including those in Yugoslavia, China, Macedonia, Korea, Bangladesh, etc. It should likely be a dab page. Light Oppose People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia) historiographies written from this prospection have traditionally been rather unkind to the Chetnik forces, viewing them a pro-Axis and anti-Allied when they have (since the early 80’s) been contemporarily classified as simply anti-Partisan. As noted by Thewanderer, People's Liberation War has largely fallen out of favour in more current historiographies, when speaking in wider military contexts of World War II. Only 151 of the Google book hits (of the 2,100 cited above) [10] and 26 of the Google Scholar hits[11] were published after 1990. When it is employed, it’s in terms of providing perspective of various sides in general and political historiographies of Yugoslavia. The predominant term during the Second World War was the Yugoslav Front internationally and National Liberation Struggle domestically. Post WWII was, obviously, People's Liberation War and currently appears to be a mish-mash. The current title isn’t perfect (Yugoslav resistance of World War II better?) but it doesn’t appear conclusive that People's Liberation War is any better.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Like Skinsmoke and Joy, I'd Support Yugoslavia in World War II. Its a descriptive title that is accurate, clear and concise.--Labattblueboy (talk)
    • Althought I don´t dislike "Yugoslav Front", I would not challenge the move at all. The move should be proposed with its correspondent motivations specifiyed. FkpCascais (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose So far, the case has not been made that People's Liberation War is the most common term in contemporary English useage. Using Google's Advanced Search in English, it certainly seems to be common for articles that are mirrors of Wikipedia (so is Yugoslav Front), and even for items published prior to 1990. Other than that, a couple of Marxist and Revolutionary Left websites (their descriptions) use the term. Yugoslav Front doesn't appear to be any more popular however. If it was chosen as a descriptive title rather than common useage, it seems a pretty ambiguous one. Perhaps World War II in Yugoslavia might be a better title. It's descriptive, and surely nobody can argue that World War II isn't a common name! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Move back to Yugoslavia in World War II. Frankly, I disagree with the original bold move away from that perfectly sane title in 2007. The KPJ-promulgated term has excess baggage, and it was not really a single front. Using the generic yet very clear term seems eminently sensible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. "People's Liberation War", or "People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia)" if Wikipedia disambiguation is necessary it makes no difference, has been conclusively shown to be by far the most common term for this war in English language publications. It just is, and "votes" be damned. Not to mention that none of us should care in the slightest whether the term was coined by WWII communists or not. I struggle to understand the above comments on the quite conclusive Google, Google Books, and 'Google Scholar tests (mirror sites??). "World War II in Yugoslavia" is a Wikipedia invented term, and is out of the question considering an actual scholarly name for the conflict is in use in thousands of respectable English-languge publications, as well as dozens of professional papers. This entire RM has been influenced by Balkans popular sentiment, and is altogether unWiki-like. I can only once again submit the Google tests for your consideration. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yugoslav Front
  • "Yugoslav Front" -china
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 3,910 hits
    • Google Books - 354 hits
    • Google Scholar - 22 hits

• People's Liberation War
  • "People's Liberation War" Yugoslavia -China
    • Google (-wikipedia) - 16,000 hits
    • Google Books - 2,110 hits
    • Google Scholar - 89 hits

• Comment: "Balkans popular sentiment"? The only sentiment of such nature comes actually from you, being you the only one to push for a "folcloric" naming of extreme POV nature to be inserted in the title of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Your own Serbian-nationalist perception of "POV" does not interest me in the slightest. I am rather more interested in whether scholars and historians find the term "POV". They do not. They use it in thousands of publications. The RM is proposed on the basis of overwhelmingly more frequent scholarly use. Whether the term was coined by WWII communists or not is completely irrelevant. Spare us all your Balkans politics, and plese, do not feel obliged to reply to my every post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I will like to ask someone please to sanction (or at least warn) this user for a constant insulting racially motivated acusations that all users here have been victims of. FkpCascais (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• To DIREKTOR - fine, so the current title isn't so much better the one before. But to disparage a generic title as an "invented term" is just plain silly and makes you look obstinate. If you want to talk in terms of search results, "Yugoslavia" "Second World War" has 83k book hits. If we subtract the former 2k (which BTW lists mainly native authors from what I can see), and then liberally weed out half the remainder because it could easily include various trivial references, that's still overwhelmingly more coverage than the native term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Name one real reason we should ignore the most common single term in favor of a generic title? Surely not a "Yugoslavia World War II" search? It proves virtually nothing about the usage of the generic name, it merely includes every signle publication that mentions both "Yugoslavia" and "World War II" :P. Call me obstinate, but all I'm doing is trying to get the term I invariably find in sources used in Wikipedia. For heaven's sake people, not that any of you should care, but I'm no communist :P - I just can't stand these sort of situations where sources are being ignored in favor of "popular sentiment". Wikipedia is supposed to be built on scientific, objective principles of information-gathering.
    Again, its the most common single name used for this war in English-language (non-Yugoslav!) scholarly publications. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and votes be damned. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the term isn't necessarily most common, or at least I'm not seeing proof of it. For example, a Scholar search for the phrases "Second World War" and Yugoslavia, without China and without the phrase "Liberation War" gives 23k hits. With the latter phrase included, it's less than 300. With "War of Liberation", the results are analogous. That kind of a huge disparity implies that this term just isn't common enough. Also, the same holds for "Yugoslav Front". I also avoided the prefix "People's" so as to cover "National" (possible different translation). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • See, what you've proven is that the war is not often named in texts that discuss it. My question is: so what? Some publications name the war, some don't - but it's most common single name remains the same regardless. It's an obscure chapter of history of an obscure region, but we have a seperate article about it, and the conflict has a name nevertheless. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If the most common single name is not actually common in its own relevant data set, then it's not a generally common name at all. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, neither the current name nor the previous name really satisfy the most basic criteria (in English, mind). The generic name does, and it should be used instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Profoundly disagree. If a conflict is so obscure it is not always given its own specific name, that does not mean it does not have a name. It does. And 2,000 publications is not at all insignificant. Mind you, I've still not seen any indication that some other (generic or otherwise) name is in anything like more frequent use. With sentence fragments, rather than actual titles for this conflict, consisting the vast majority of hits for all specific "generic" name searches. The proposed name is still more frequent in use. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Your claim of 2,000 publications using the term is no more relevant than any of the other numbers above. I clicked on the link above and then clicked the 10th page, where I found four of the ten to be books by local authors (Plenča, Dedijer, Tito, the constitution), one had the phrase in a direct quote from a partisan proclamation, and one was a Wikipedia reprint. So offhand I found a drastic reduction in the number of actual sources among the two thousand, just like I presumed I would find in the tens of thousands mentioned earlier. So if both samples are similarly tainted, and one is by a magnitude smaller than the other one at that, you simply can't expect everyone to magically accept your conclusion that it's nevertheless an authoritative demonstration of the term's commonness. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Now hold on a minute. The 25k hits were on the "'world war II' 'Yugoslavia'" search. What those results are supposed to show I cannot guess, since they simply include Anything that mentions world war II AND Yugoslavia. What I expect an hope to convey is 1) that all other searches which, unlike the aforementioned 25k search, do attempt to determine the usage of a generic term for this war (e.g. "World war II in Yugoslavia") have thus far turned out less hits than PLW, and that virtually ALL of those hits constitute sentence fragments. 2) Furthermore, even if that were not the case, a generic term we ourselves think up here can hardly be compared with an actual specific name used in numerous scholarly publications. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
                • I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and clicked through. To be more fair, I used Scholar rather than books. I also reduced it to those articles where at least summaries were visible, not just citations, and removed "war of liberation" and "liberation struggle" too. All this brought the count down to 15,700. Still 20x the other number, but okay. I also didn't stop at the tenth page, I went to the twentieth. Seven articles actually did not talk about the topic of Second World War in Yugoslavia. The rest did, yet they did not mention the People's Liberation War in any way. So if liberally reduce that percentage from 30% to only 10% and apply it to the rest of the sample, that's *still* a number larger than the number of sources that may have mentioned the People's Liberation War. So, again, the searches are both quite imprecise, but if we're going to at least try to see a trend from them, it will not be one attesting to particular commonness of this phrase. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • My point was that with the 25k it's not a question of "precision" - it just does not even touch on this issue at all. We are searching for a NAME for this specific conflict, not anything at all that has anything to do with Yugoslavia and WWII, no matter how man phrases one excludes afterwards. I'm still rather surprised and flabbergasted that such a completely generalized search is even brought up in this discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Sorry, yes, it does very much touch on the issue, because if a text talks of World War II in Yugoslavia (not just the two topics separately, but actually the combination), but never makes any, even a passing reference to the term that you propose as common, then the term is not common. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. User Direktor has made the claim above that sources used on Wikipedia use the term "People's Liberation War". This couldn't be further from the truth. Jozo Tomasevich's monumental work never uses the term. Nigel Thomas' works (which are very heavily referenced in this article) never use the term. Sabrina Ramet never uses it. You'd be hard-pressed to find any of the current sources which actually use this term. Claims to the contrary are rather silly.--Thewanderer (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wanderer, the fact that you can find a number of high-quality sources that do not use the term is completely irrelevant - thousands of other publications use it. You are missing the point again: articles are NOT titled after the terms used in Wikipedia-quoted sources only. Please read up on WP:TITLE. The term "People's Liberation War" is the most common single name for this war in use in publications in general. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A significant number of publications that do use People's Liberation War are dated or suffer clear POV issues, a point raised by a number of parties thus far. The ontological assumption behind the term People's Liberation War are no longer accepted as being true, hence why it has fallen out of favour. The People's Liberation War ontology views the Partisans as pro-Allied/anti-Axis and The Chetniks as pro-Axis/anti-Allied. However, the Partisan vs Chetnik struggle is no longer framed in a pro/anti Allied/Axis spectrum. Most modern writing accept that its far more complicated than that. The matrix of parties are seen as employing whoever would support their respective cause. In short, I challenge the idea that People's Liberation War is in fact the common term today. The data simply isn't there to support that idea. Only 151 of the Google book hits (of the 2,100 cited above) [12] and 26 of the Google Scholar hits[13] were published after 1990. For Yugoslavia in World War II, post 1990, we get 205 Google books hits[14] and 36 Google scholar hits[15]. For Yugoslav Front, post 1990, we get 105 google book hits[16] and 17 google scholar hits[17]. "Yugoslav resistance" -liberation-war, post 1990, gets 1,580 hits google book hits[18] and 212 google scholar hits[19]. My personal view is that a family of terms are now being employed and that there is no data that shows People's Liberation War to be the most common term today.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I can only stand amazed that ideological considerations influence the views of Wikipedians so profoundly. "Yugoslavia in World War II" or whatever name we choose to invent here is, quite simply, NOT the name of this conflict - it is a part of a sentence for crying out loud (have a closer look at the hits). I reject utterly any requirement to arbitrarily filter results by date - those are weasel arguments. The claim that the sources have been influenced by the KPJ or whatnot is ridiculous to say the least, and will require serious corroboration. U can find no mention of arbitrarily-introduced date filters in WP:TITLE. Such methods and personal definitions of "modern" sources can be used to prove just about any usage, and more than one article would require a move if this nonsense method were applied universally. Regardless of how unpopular it may seem to involved users (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), when a specific name is used for this conflict, the most common English language term is "People's Liberation War". and frankly I'm apalled at these myriad excuses being continuously invented to circumvent that simple fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that you fail to accept that common names change with time. Date lines are used, from time to time, in requested move discussions where a name evolves with time (more often when considering official name changes). It's unfortunate that you believe that the only reason others don't support this move is for ideological reasons. Sorry to disappoint but I don't have any nefarious reasons for not supporting the move, I simply disagree with its merits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Since we're exchanging such sentiments, I too am sorry to find someone actually believes people should accept his/her own private definition of "modern" sources, and then demands(!) that thousands of sources be disregarded on the basis of completely arbitrary date filters, or I should say, on the basis of user whim. And all this without any policy backing whatsoever. This isn't "nefarious", it's weird.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence put forth shows that "People's Liberation War" is indeed the most common name for this subject. I think that the descriptive alternative that was offered by Joy is unnecessary and the argument made by Thewanderer is frivolous as there is no valid reason to ignore publications made prior to 1990. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: CANVASSING? "Brotherhood and Unity"? FkpCascais (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Lol, again... Please read what constitutes WP:CANVASSING... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I should remove the question mark then... FkpCascais (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Definitely; along with the rest of your post. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Formal reason: The article title needs to specify that it's about Yugoslavia. Most English speakers would have no idea what People's Liberation War, the proposed new name, means, even as to what country it's about, so it fails the policy at Wikipedia:article titles miserably. Informal but useful shortcut: If a move rationale can't be expressed in two sentences or less, in practice I've found it's almost always POV, and always invalid. Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The move is to "People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia)". And I can probably do better than two sentences, one word: WP:COMMONNAME. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That proposal would violate WP:DAB. How about Yugoslav People's Liberation War? That might have a chance. Google gives me About 12,300 results (0.21 seconds) (your results may vary). In any case, this discussion is now such a long-winded mess that I'm skeptical that any move can come from it. Suggest that, if that proposal appeals to you, we close this RM and open a fresh one specifically for it with a succinct and accurate rationale, and hope that others will follow a good example. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • My thoughts exactly. A fresh RM is necessary, one that unambiguously proposes "People's Liberation War (Yugoslavia)", and a dab page is definitely needed for "People's Liberation War". Not to mention that the search results for "National Liberation War" should also be researched ("People's" and "National" being interchangeable). I will however be swamped with work for a while now and won't be able to participate, so what's say we take a break with this issue? I'll be sure to notify all involved users (except maybe User:FkpCascais, I just don't like him :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If a DAB can be justified at People's Liberation War, then that proposal has merit IMO. Interested to see. Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chetniks - Allies?!

I don't see the logic here. Someone put Chetniks (at the same time) on the allied and axis side... Why is that? It's important to know that on Tehrena Conference allies stoped to help Chetniks becouse they were helping Axis. Besides, I don't remember any significant battle wher Chetniks fought Germans (except in Užice). All the time of war they fought partisans, and did rescue few American pilots (truth to tell, General Draža was also decorated with Legion of Merit Legionnarie class), but does this put them on the side of allies? Helping Germans and esp. Italians in Dalmatia doesn't sound like being allied). I also read that ther are two kinds of Chetniks, first kind were "bad" Chetniks who helped Gerries, and others were "good" Chetniks, and they helped Brits and Americans, but all of them were under command of General Dragoljub Mihailović, right? As I know, history remembered only one kind of Chetniks in WW2 Yugoslavia (forgive me if I'm wrong).--Wustefuchs (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, no need to excuse yourself. The Chetniks and Gen. Draza Mihailovic are found on the "Allied" section because of several reasons:

• The first can be because they, the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", aka Chetniks, had Allied support troughout most of the time (until Teheran Conference).
• Second, because they were actually the official and recognised allied force in Yugoslavia during most of the war period, and even afterwords, when the support was switched to the Partisans, they were never considered an enemy by any of the Allied nations.
• The ones that you refer as "bad ones" and that actively collaborated, are the ones that were expelled by Mihailović, and they are called Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac. Many times, those are purpously "confused" with the real ones.
• Their fight may not have had much divulgation because of several reasons, but as your own words say, citing: "I don't remember any significant battle wher Chetniks fought Germans (except in Užice)." the "except" part is important here. This remembers me of one user that in the mediation has tryied to conclude that the "dimemberment and decapitation of German soldiers" was not an act of resistance...
• They fought the Partisans, trouth, but have in mind that the royalists were the officialy recognised allies until November 1943, and that fact doesn´t change their resistance nature. The war was actually a 3-side conflict. The periods of alledged passivity against Germans, also many times used as excuse, are also not reason enough to consider them collaborators, that was a surviving tactic, that ended up being wrong.
• Their leader, Gen. Draža Mihailović was highly condecorated for theZ resistance efforts by the most important western allied nations, some condecorations came after the war ended, thus making the condecoration more free of any possible manipulations. Mihailović even had a post-mortum trial organised by the USA Congress, where his resistance effords were confirmed and he was released of all the collaboration accusations that he was victim in his trial held in the communist Yugoslavia of Tito.
• Beside receving material support, their orders were coming directly from the King Peter II, based in London, and with full acknolledge and participation of the British.
• They were created as a resistance movement. Don´t forget that much of Mihailović´s men were actually WWI veterans, and they were seing this struggle just as fighting the Germans (again).
• Gen. Mihailović was hounted by the Germans troughout the war, remember the famous "offering award for him" panflets?
• Their goal was to liberate Yugoslavia, as seen in the "Instrukcije". "Liberate" clearly meant to expell Axis troops from the country.

Regarding collaboration, it seems that some had existed, but:

• The collaboration was donne mostly with Italians, not Germans but, after carefull analisys of all sources used to confirm collaboration, has been conclusively described in Mihailović´s mediation, as "ocasional and opportunistic", thus, their inclusion in the "Axis" side is the one that is creating all this confusion.
• This collaboration has been much exagerated mostly because their major enemy, Tito and the Partisans, ruled the country for almost half a century latter. The new regime had donne their best to make the historians write all the worste about Mihailović and the movement. Unfortunatelly, in totalitarian regimes, the historians, we all know, necessarily have to write "the trouth".
• His trial occured in Yugoslavia with Tito strongly in power, and the appreciation of it varies between "disputed" and "a pharse". Having in mind that even his lowyer ended up death in prison... And it is important to acknolledge that this trial is the only official condemnation for collaboration.

This entire nazyfication of Mihailovic and his movement is actually going troughout a mediation and the articles will surely need to go trough a revision soon, and the only disruption here is coming from the part of one user that is ignoring completely the conclusions coming from the mediation, and on his hand, and against all, edits all this articles in a manner that Yugoslav Partisans and Tito come out very favourably, discrediting and completely ignoring as recognised allies, the Chetniks. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed for most of above, but still, what to do with the partisans, on who's side they were before Nov./Dec. 1943? This is why is so hard to understand the infobox for a regular reader.--Wustefuchs (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are listed in the Allied section because after all, Tito did came out from the war victorious, and with help of other allies, at the end, expelled the Axis forces... What is being confusing is that the main article of the Chetniks should be listed as "Allied" together with D.Mihailovic, and the "rebeld" Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac in the Axis section. That would simplify things, a little bit... One user, Direktor, is edit-warring regarding that issue, allways insistingly putting the Chetniks on the wrong side, however he could expose his reasons, and a "peacefull" decition should come out from here without making here another "Front"... FkpCascais (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But I understand your point. The Partisans were after all, a rebel moviment all the way until late 1943, and the fact that they fought the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland does make them actually an enemy of the Allies, at that period. FkpCascais (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I make a suggestion? Putting the Chetniks in just one side, or the other, or both, seems unsatisfactory to everyone. It strikes me that the Infobox system is simply 'not suitable for this situation. It became obvious from about 1943 or at least 1944 onwards that the Allies were going to win in the end so presumably to some part of the issue then was who was going to be in power afterwards. An infobox with just two simple sides can't cover three way punch ups. Can you make a separate section underneath the belligerents section for the Chetniks which briefly explains their status (for example resistance movement, Allies 194- to 4-, lost Allied support 194-, collaborated with Axis 194- or whatever is the most neutral way you can all agree on putting it).Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. I will do that and expect that will satisfy everyone because it really is the best possible solution. FkpCascais (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was already done, though a better solution might be to simply split the combatants entry into two seperate columns, on two-sided, one three sided. In any case this is a whole diffrent discussion.

User:FkpCascais, please refrain from making any further undiscussed edits to the article. Rest assured you will not be resposnible for anything more than temporary changes without a talkpage consensus.

Fainites, since Fkp seems intent on editing the article (and regardless of his words here the edits will undoubtedly be disputed), I would like to repeat my request that the article be restored and protected for the time being. Would you consider this? The article is only stable at this time due to good will on my part. I admit I strognly feel that neither should good will be exploited, nor edit-warring be rewarded thusly as a means of pushing through changes in an article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all - my apologies - obviously I did not make myself clear. What I had in mind was a separate section in the infobox for the Chetniks rather than putting them in either or Axis/Allies or both. Not - as you have done, FkpCascais, simply adding them to the Allies. This is extremely unlikely to be agreed and really counts as a continuation of the edit war, even though you called them the RYA rather than Chetniks. I have therefore undone them pending resolution of the dispute. If this edit war resumes I will protect the page. I do not intend to be involved in content as such. I merely made a suggestion as to how to represent the complexity of the situation. I shall post an example of what I mean below for your consideration. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that only the neutral resolution of the dispute is a separate section in the infobox for the Chetniks. If we can not agree to be so, then we are left with only the deletion of that part of the infobox.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) This is an example of what I meant - though obviously the detail is for you people to resolve yourselves.

Yugoslav Front
Part of World War II
Partisan fighter Stjepan "Stevo" Filipović, shouts "Death to fascism, freedom to the people!" (the Partisan slogan) as he is hanged by the occupation forces
Date 1941 – 1945 Location Yugoslavia Result Decisive Partisan victory
Belligerents
Allies Partisans Soviet Union (limited involvement, 1944-45) Bulgaria (limited involvement, 1944-45)	Axis Germany Italy (1941-43) Albania (1941-44) Hungary (1941-44) Bulgaria (1941-44) Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea (1941-44) Kingdom of Montenegroa (1941-44)	Chetniks Chetniks or, briefly, Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland b 1941-43 Allies 1943 lost Allied support 1942-45 collaboration with Axis against Partisans, though involved in rescue of Allied airmen
Commanders and leaders
Josip Broz Tito Milovan Đilas Aleksandar Ranković Kosta Nađ Peko Dapčević Koča Popović Petar Drapšin Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo Arso Jovanović Sava Kovačević † Ivan Gošnjak	Maximilian von Weichs Alexander Löhr Edmund Glaise von Horstenau Mario Roatta Ante Pavelić Dido Kvaternik Milan Nedić Kosta Pećanac Sekule Drljević Leon Rupnik	Draža Mihailović Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin Dobroslav Jevđević
Strength
800,000 (1945)	321,000 262,000
Casualties and losses
350,000 killed; 400,000+ wounded	24,267 killed; 12,060 missing
Total Yugoslav casualties: ~1,200,000 a Axis puppet state established on occupied Yugoslav territory b Axis 1942 on, with Italians 1942-43, Germans 1943-45 lost Allied support in 1943. Founded as a resistance movement.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. But please have in mind that direktors editing is all but "acceptable" and he is a user that has have pleanty of problems with this issue, but unfortunatelly his persistance (and only that) makes many other users simply give up. The "chetniks" is just a common name given to the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, something like if we use "Brits" for UK in WWII and yes, they were part of the Chetnik movement but we can be precise and use the official name, so that is why we should use that name, but OK, it´s acceptable the way is now. The flag should be changed to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia one (not the one from the battlefield) because they were the official army of the King. The use of the black flag and ignorance of the official naming of the Army were all very convenient to direktors way of editing this issues. FkpCascais (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding direktors words, what would really be the best is to return all these articles to the state before his own edits, that are pretty much all disputed and only one side favourable. All this articles, after intense direktors intervention came out very favourable to the Partisans, and exageratedly bad to the Chetniks, to the point that we found "Partisan glorification" in Chetniks articles, and enormous "nazyfication" of the entire monarchic movement. All this is so serios that will obviously affect in a very negative way any new intervenient on this issue that doesn´t have much knolledge on this issue. The sources are vbery much used selectively, and it´s real meaning greatly manipulated, having that be the reason for my insistance on opening a mediation on this in first place, request that the user direktor has donne all his best to avoid and delay for months. FkpCascais (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe there is room for both flags - I don't know enough about it. Presumably the Chetniks stopped being the "official" army when the Allies (including King Peter) dumped them? I don't know. Hopefully all these details can be ironed out by discussion. (I think "Brits" is what the IRA etc called the british army. Don't think it's a WWII thing - unless the Yanks did it. The Germans used to say "das Englander". Anyway - I digress) Another point - if you look at your last post down in the section below you will see you said you were not going to express your opinion of Direktors "POV" until after the mediation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing regarding the flag is that the Chetniks were actually the official army of the kingdom of Yugoslavia from the beggining until November 1943, and it is basically during last year that they were a bit "lost". If we directly assume that Partisans are Allies (I´m not disputing that) having in mind that they spent more time as "rebel" than "official" allies, we could also give some credit to the Chetniks, and acknolledge that they were the official allies and defenders of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for most time during the war, attributing them, at least, the flag of the country they officially defended and fought for.

Anyway, I really want to thank you Fainites for spending time and patience in helping on this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all up for discussion. Hopefully Direktor and others will express a view. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regarding the flags, the way they are presented now in the belligerants section is OK (using both, Chetnik military, and K.of Yugoslavia ones linked correspondently) but, the commanders and leaders section, the Mihailovic and other Chetnik/Yugoslav Army oF officials should use the Kingdom flag because Mihailovic, for exemple, was the head of the already mentioned Yugoslav Army of Fatherland and Minister of Defence of the King´s governament, by itself enough reasons for it. I am officially proposing that change here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I beleave that the text under Chetniks should not add the "collaboration..." part because that part is disputed, still under mediation and a POV of one editor that edited all articles assuming that and using doubtfull sources in many cases, beside exagerating and missinterpreting others. Please, lets not include disputed parts in the infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.:Directed to all: please have in mind that I am not a Chetnik movement supporter, and in my family I had one half of the family supporting monarchy and the other were leftists (considered quite progressive back then). My grandfather was a active Partisan and a diplomat of SFR Yugoslavia, having even travelled with Tito in many of his world travels (I have no antipathies towads the Partisans, just in contrary, just as against nobody. All had their own arguments). My other side were a old Belgrade monarchic family. What I am doing here is being a monarchists lawyier, since I understand some of the arguments they had and since nobody here was doing that now that all related articles were edited with a very unfair tone against them. Please have in mind that real monarchic supporters could go much much further in requests wich they would probably find fair. I apologise for this personal comment but I understood it was necessary. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Please realise I have not added things to the infobox as my suggestion of what it should precisely contain about the Chetniks as I have no basis for doing that other than all ideas from reading the talkpage and article. Rather it is an example of a working model. I am hoping that the editors here will be able to agree the contents to produce a somewhat longer-lasting version than the current one. However, it looks as if you are going to struggle to persuade other editors that the Chetniks did not collaborate with Italians, then Germans (Axis powers) against the Partisans. Is the mediation going to resolve this? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course (I meant, "of course" for the first part, regarding your casual inserting of elements in the infobox, and no, I am not going to pursuade nobody that Chetniks didn´t collaborated, they certainly did with the Italians, the ones that it is doubtfull is with Germans) and I beleave your help here is being more than crucial, so in my opinion, and speaking at least in my behalve, all participants here should be extremely gratefull for your assistance and given time to help us solving this issue.

I just saw another possible way of improving the infobox. Perhaps having the Chetniks on the left side, behind Axis that are in centre is not so appropriate as having the Chetniks in middle, with Allies in left and Axis in right sides. Perhaps this is not very important (sorry for trying to be perfectionist) but anyway, it would be not be prejuditial in any way. So resumingly, I am proposing the following changes:

• The change of flags of Mihailovic, Trifunovic and Jevdjevic from the black war Chetnik flag to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ones. Reason: They were the commanders of the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, the official Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia until at least November 1943. Mihailovic was simultaneously the Minister of Defence of King´s Yugoslavia governament. The Chetnik flag (black flag with scull) was basically the war-flag used in the terrein, just as many others, only that this came out to be more remembered.
• Leaving under the YAitF aka Chetniks in minor text only the initial part of "1941-43 Allies , 1943 lost Allied support". That part is undisputable. The rest is currently under mediation, and althought nobody denies that some collaboration did existed, it´s ammount, importance and time duration is discutable. The initial part already says enough for infobox purpouses.
• The change in the order: In my view, and having in mind the relation between them, the ideal order would be: from left to right (Allies, Chetniks, Axis).

Does anyone opose this simple changes, and can he/she explain its reasons? Please, thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposed infobox, is unfortunately, exactly in accordance with Fkp's version of events (no wonder he's all "ok no problem, please thank you" about it :))). It is, however, unfortunately in contradiction with actual sources on several points. Firstly, the "Chetniks" = "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (its merely their full official name). Secondly, there is no question whatosever that the Chetniks served as de facto Axis auxilliary militia troops for the greater part of the war (note this is not me, its high-quality sources - and a lot of them at that). The previous infobox was only wrong in that it did not depict the original period (up until early 1942) in which they actually did engage in several small skirmishes with the Axis.

Not to go too far into the details, listing the Chetniks as "Allies" after early 1942 is quite absurd. We have literally tens of thousands of Chetnik troops actively aiding Axis offensives, advancing alongside Axis formations, and holding territory for the Axis, while combating the Partisans, which were by 1944 official Yugoslav Allied troops.

Fainites, I would reccomend you get a bit more aquainted with this quite obscure part of European history. I cannot emphasize enough the necessity of going out there and getting the information first. Note this (sourced) section in particular in order to get a more thorough view into the actual role of the Chetnik movement in this conflict. Please note also the sources listed in the infobox. Furthermore, you should note that the Chetniks are something along the lines of Serbian nationalist "folk-heroes", and are fiercely supported by nationalists in Serbia. There is a HUGE amount of pressure from Serbian users to ignore the actual, objective facts regarding their (I dare say) extremely extensive collaboration with Axis forces (in particular the Italians, which actually organized and armed them into auxiliary formations, see MVAC).

The only realistic infobox would be one that separates the combatant entry into two horisontal rows: one three-sided - representing the situation up until early 1942, and one two-sided - representing the situation after the incorporation of the Chetniks into the Axis occupation in virtually every region of Yugoslavia.

The ifobox is merely a side-issue, arising from the main dispute - Chetnik collaboration. I am currently unable to participate in this discussion in detail, and would like to request that consensus on all matters pertaining to this particular issue is postponed until such time as I am able to present what the sources say about the actual situation on the ground more clearly. I also intend to include into the article a full account of the (very numerous) Axis-Chetnik collaboration agreements and pro-Axis activities. User:FkpCascais has no doubt noticed I am not particularly active at the moment and is attemptiong to steamroller the discussion in his favor. I am not about to accept allow this attemot to circumvent the references. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read my posts above where I said Please realise I have not added things to the infobox as my suggestion of what it should precisely contain about the Chetniks as I have no basis for doing that other than all ideas from reading the talkpage and article. Rather it is an example of a working model. I am hoping that the editors here will be able to agree the contents to produce a somewhat longer-lasting version than the current one. . I am not suggesting anything in particular by way of content as definitive. Simply proposing the idea of separate columns in the info box to deal with the complexity of the situation. For example - if it was the case that the Chetniks started of on the Allies "side" and then switched at a later date - or were only ever nominally allies - or were Axis from 1942 - or were never on anybody's "side" but their own and were purely opportunistic as the situation demanded, just 2 columns doesn't really work. That's all. The content is for you guys to try and agree. Your 5 columns in two horizontal rows might work. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is no question whatosever that the Chetniks served as de facto Axis auxilliary militia troops for the greater part of the war... The previous infobox was only wrong in that it did not depict the original period (up until early 1942) in which they actually did engage in several small skirmishes with the Axis." (user:DIREKTOR)

It is not true. (eg. Operation Kopaonik, Operation Halyard, Battle on Lijevča field)

After the establishment of the Ustasha death camps, German executions of civilians in Kragujevac and similar terror against the serbian population of the German and Croatian authorities, Chetniks were concerned about the fate of the Serbian people, women and children. (eg. Jasenovac concentration camp, Kragujevac massacre)

Therefore it is their conflict with the Axis was less during 1942-1945. They were forced to negotiate with the Axis, in particular the Italians (only their authority did not kill Serbian civilians). That does not mean that the Chetniks were de facto Axis.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, who ever added this infobox I must agree it is a very good way to sort problems out, and probably a very good categorization of Chetniks since they were nominaly allies, de facto axis, and if reader is interested why are chetniks in 3rd row, well, he can read all about it.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you very much! But please note - I hold no brief for content, just suggesting a three column solution with examples. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll add my oppinion now, if I may... Chetniks were de facto Axis, no doubt about it, but what is the problem? Problem is that peace of paper wher it's stated that they are Allies. Now, what to do? This "de iure problem" if I may call it so, pushes them to the Allied side of the infobox, while their activity during the war pushes them to the Axis' side of the infobox... To add a third part or... what? I find this new infobox soulution very good (my personal oppinion) but it may conflict to the historical facts, since, Chetniks didn't have third position in war but they were part of one ore another coalition... I can say I'm confused becouse I don't know what to do with them.--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have this idea, we can add them to the Axis' side and add a note that they were formaly Allies from 1941-1943. But we all know about Chetniks' friendship with Italians, especially in Croatian littoral area wher Italians built good relationship with Chetniks thus "cleaned" Littoral Croatia from Croats (who were an opsticle to italianisation of the area) and setteling it with pro-Chetniks Sebrs who would easier accept Italian occupation, since they considered Italians as friends, like part of Croats felt for Germans (liberators, friends what ever).--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks that after a few talks with direktor on each other talk pages, Wustefuchs suddently forgot his former statements here on this talk page where he clealy stated "I agree with most above" (for the explanation about why Chetniks were Allies) and "I can´t remember many fighting of the Chetniks exept Užice..." and some others. Well, strange how people suddenly make alliences here...

Regarding Chetniks, they were de facto Allies, but they were never de facto Axis. What they were is de facto Partisan enemies, and between this two interpretations is where the manipulation is being done. Wustefuchs, I apologies, but all you said is completely wrong. The chetniks were not fighting for ones or anothers, but for their own cause, the Chetniks were far from being only allies because of one "piece of papper" (Jesus, I never heard worste bias!), your last paragraph can just confirm that they were fighting NDH Croats (assumed Axis puppet state), and unfortunatelly I can only agree with you on one thing, from your own words, that you are really confused.

By the way, the link to Chetnik article that direktor provided (possibly considered a masterpiece of sources selectivity and their real meaning manipulation, we´ll get there with time), beside all the texts that he added in a section earlier to the move request, are edited in a extreme POV manner (at least 90% are direktors edits) and beyond any doubt disputed. Those are exactly the same parts of text and sources that are being analised in the mediation. The sources are not as "highly quality" as presented: Cohen isn´t historian at all, and Jožo Tomašević is Croatian historian that wrote his major work regarding Chetniks inside Tito Yugoslavia (two factors by itself quite negative for any expectation of neutrality while analising a Serbian monarchic movement). Should I also add that both direktor and Wustefuchs are Croatian by nationality, and that, just as coincidence, Croatia is the only country with official policy of condemnation of the Chetnik movement, as assumed by current state official, and school manuals? (I´m just saying this because the Serbian part was already been acused of "nationalism" several times by one user here, without even once the reasons for it having been exposed).

Should I also remind all, and this is what is really important, that in the mediation we have collected all the most acusational sources towards the Chetniks and the final conclusion was that direktors interpretation was far from fair (sometimes even completely contrary), having at the end, all of us, necessarilly agreed that, yes, there was some collaboration between the monarchists and Axis forces (only Italians confirmed), but the best adjectives to describe it were "ocasional and oportunistic". Should I say more?

So again, all I see in the comments of this two editors is continuing pushing of the POV of their convenience, none appreciation for the actual good-will on "my" behalve, and a mixture of provocation and willingness to unfairly mixture nationalism into this. "Folk-heroes" direktor? The only ones I see are not in "my" side here. The infobox was my version of events? So why did Fainites reverted me then? And you are judging my words towards him? Please, judge your own behaviour. Let me just use another exemple of arrogance: citing direktor, "YAitF its merely their full official name". Merely official name? Thank you direktor for finally acknolleging that.

Fainites, is it possible please to ask you to sanction any further nationalistically motivated provocation ("Serbian nationalism", "Serbian folk-heroes", "Balkanic mentality", etc.). Please, this is already a delicate issue, and I beleave many of us are doing our best to solve this, so those kind of attitudes are at least very offensive.

Now please, gentlemen, can we focus first on my proposals, and can I aks you please to provide an concise "yes/no" answer for each and the reasons for the opositions (if). Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well FkpCascais, I would just like to point out that ArbCom have just made the following finding in the WWII arbitration; The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited..Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I perfectly agree on that, and hopefully all intervenients will undertand it correctly. FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't change my oppinion, and as I said I agree with most of you stated earlier becouse those wher some facts like they had support of Allies unitl Nov/Dec 1943. Well you see, ther are also other facts like Momčilo Đujić had support of Italians, why we don't talk about this? Another thing, like nagotiations of Chetniks with Siegfried Kasche about friendship with NDH and united fight against communists... or when Pavelić organized medical help for those Chetniks who were injured in combat against partisans... many things. You denie colaboration of Chetniks with Italians in Lika and Dalmatia before 1943?--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, see this source: Ramet, Sabrina P.; The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918-2004 p 129; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0253346568, it talks about Đujić's friendhip with Ustaše and Italians. This is not a good source? Chetniks were only de iure Allies. And what you ment with this we are both Croats? You are Serb, aren't you? So what is your point?--Wustefuchs (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wustefuchs, we are talking about all of those things (and I am not denying collaboration, just we don´t agree on its degree, intensity, duration or level, among some other issues), but, I already asked once, can we please vote this matter without complicating things much. Simple yes or no, and why. Please. FkpCascais (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vote for what, to add them as Allies - no, to add them as Axis - yes... or for the infobox? I'll remain silent on this one. Now comment, that is why, well why we wouldn't add them to Allies and why would we add them to Axis. First of all they were only de iure allies since 1941 until 1943, during that time, they activly colaborated with Axis powers, that is Third Reich, Italian Kingdom and Nedić's Serbia (Đujić about colaboration with Nedić's Serbia). After Nov/Dec 1943 they were baned from Allies, but they continued to support Axis - they are Axis. We can add a note they were de iure Allies. That's my final point. Voting about this is not good thing, Wikipedia is not democracy as stated, and we can't vote for historical facts, diferent thing would be if we would vote about adding some picture or something like that.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And, stupid of me, but I forgot to mention a very important thing. On 1 November 1941 Chetniks attacked partisans in Užice, and on 13 November 1941 at meeting with Germans, Dragoljub Mihailović signed alliance with Germans in fight against partisans, also he de iure put Chetnisk under command of Milan Nedić and his Government so Germans wouldn't see Chetniks as their enemies, you, ofcourse know for this event.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure we have our terms right - do you mean in principle they were Allies but in fact (de facto) Axis? Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

De iure Allies from 1941-1943 but at the same time they were allied with Axis also de iure, but they hide the fact from Allies, and after 1943 it was anounced to public that they are Axis, so they don't deserve to be listed as Allies.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. So how would you express it in the info box? Something like nominally Allies but in practice collaborating opportunistically with Axis forces against the Partisans. Lost Allied support 1943. Thereafter openly collaborated, though involved in rescue of Allied airmen. Or does all this need to wait until the end of time the mediation? What about the flags point made by Fkp? Should it be the army flag, the black flag or both? I'm trying to see if there is a neutral form of words for the infobox on which there is consensus without having to wait for the mediation but I appreciate this may not be possible. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly beleave my preoposals are quite simple. I will sumarise them (again) since people seem to have been "lost in translation"...

• 1 - I propose a order change. Having the Chetniks "behind" Axis may be missinterpreted as if they are on the Axis side. The ideal order, from left to right, would be: Allies, Chetniks, Axis.
• 2 - I propose not using the war-flag to the Chetniks. All other intervenients use the flag of the country they fought, only Chetniks (conveniently for some) use a black war-flag. They were the official army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and Mihailovic was at same time the Minister of Derfense. The official name of the army, the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, is quite clear, and says it all.
• 3 - I propose the alteration of the minor text under the Chetniks. We should keep only "Allied 1941-1943, lost Allied support 1943-1945" quite enough, in my POV, for infobox use. All the rest is disputed.

I am also avaliable to accept any further recomendations, obviously if neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me be rude, insufferable, blunt, and to the point: with all due respect, none of you have any idea what you are talking about. Period. Of all the participants on this talkpage, I am unfortunately the only one with any real and detailed understanding of the course of this War. Fkp is particularly uneducated with regard to this subject, but he's a "special case" because he does not really care about the facts (which cannot be said for the rest), due to his quite pronounced agenda. To put it in the simplest terms: the sources show the Chetniks as Axis auxilliaries. Chetniks = Axis. What happens if we do not list them as such? Wikipedia would (in principle) be shown as susceptible to popular influence, sources would give in to sheer weight of nationalist sentiment and inane rhetorical babble. I dare say that as a long-serving Wikipedian with tens of thousands of edits, I would in all honesty find that unacceptable.

The actual complex situation in Yugoslavia was as presented on the right. Regarding the situation on the ground, it is not really debateable at all. I repeat once more that every aspect of the infobox, and in particular the Chetnik-Axis agreements, can be, and most importantly allready is fully sourced without any trouble at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front
Part of World War II
Partisan fighter Stjepan "Stevo" Filipović, shouts "Death to fascism, freedom to the people!" (the Partisan slogan) as he is hanged by the occupation forces
Date 1941 – 1945 Location Yugoslavia Result Decisive Partisan victory
Belligerents
Axis 1941: Germany Italy Hungary Bulgaria Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea Kingdom of Montenegroa		Allies1941: Partisans Chetniks
Axis 1941-42: Germany Italy Hungary Bulgaria Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea Kingdom of Montenegroa	1941-42: Chetniksb	Allies 1941-42: Partisans
Axis 1943-45: Germany Italy Chetniks Hungary Bulgaria Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea Kingdom of Montenegroa		Allies 1943-45: Partisans Soviet Union (1944-45) Bulgaria (1944-45)
Commanders and leaders
Maximilian von Weichs Alexander Löhr Edmund Glaise von Horstenau Mario Roatta Ante Pavelić Dido Kvaternik Milan Nedić Kosta Pećanac Sekule Drljević Leon Rupnik	Draža Mihailović Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin Dobroslav Jevđević	Josip Broz Tito Milovan Đilas Aleksandar Ranković Kosta Nađ Peko Dapčević Koča Popović Petar Drapšin Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo Arso Jovanović Sava Kovačević † Ivan Gošnjak
Strength
321,000 262,000		800,000 (1945)
Casualties and losses
24,267 killed; 12,060 missing		350,000 killed; 400,000+ wounded
Total Yugoslav casualties: ~1,200,000 a Axis puppet state established on occupied Yugoslav territory b Axis 1942 on, lost Allied support in 1943. Founded as a resistance movement.

Chetniks fought against the Ustasha in 1945 (I've proved it in my previous comment). They were enemies, not friends. Therefore propose of user:Direktor is not true. I also think that the black flag is not appropriate for this template, especially for the Chetniks of Kosta Pecanac. He was loyal to the Nedic regime, not the Royal Government of Yugoslavia.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You chaps blind or what? It is sourced that they had alliance with Germans, and Dragoljub Mihailović signed this Chetnik-German pact in Užice on 13 November 1941 against partisans. Слободни умјетник, please don't forget colaboration of Chetniks with Ustaše and Pavelić's medical aid to them and their train-transport organized by NDH Railways and Ustaše so they can escape from partisans and so on... Well, Ustaše and Domobrans did destroy all Chetnik forces at Battle of Lijevča Field in '45, but I thnik that this is Ustaše's problem since they were a bit disloyal to their so-called "allies". :)--Wustenfuchs (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen please. Let's not be rude, insufferable and blunt. Or at least - not rude and insufferable. Regarding your Infobox Direktor, can you add in where you would put the headings "Allies" and "Axis" and some dates? Thanks. The three way split in both directions helps set out complexities quite nicely. Then we can see where we go from there.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I still have people escaping to directly answer my questions. I really supose that happends because of lack of direct reasons for oposing. Resumingly, I still don´t see any fundamented oposition, I support Слободни умјетник proposal (Pecanac is definitelly wrongly added the Chetnik flag from where he was banned) and I will also propose that someone archives at least part of this talk page that is too heavy. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the situation in 1945 and the Battle on Lijevča field - it was not fought by the Chetniks at all. It was fought by the ex-Chetnik splinter group known as the "Montenegrin People's Army". Please keep in mind that they were not affiliated with the disintegrating 1945 remnants of the Chetnik movement.

Furthermore, we have the Battle of Poljana (the "last battle of World War II"), in which these remaining members of the "Montenegrin People's Army" joined with Ustaše and German remnants to attampt a breakthrough through Allied lines - namely Partisan lines (the Partisans were at the time the universally-recognized Allied military of Yugoslavia, numbering some 800,000 troops in four field armies and 22 divisions). (For the record, Faintes, the Ustaše were the (openly-declared) pro-Nazi fifth column in occupied Yugoslavia.)

Aaaand furthemore, You've got actual Chetnik troops surrenderring alongside the Ustaše at Bleiburg (see sources in the article).

And finally, Chetnik-Ustaše collaboration agreements of 1942:

"As long as there is danger from the Partisan armed bands, the Chetnik formations will cooperate voluntarily with the Croatian military in fighting and destroying the Partisans and in those operations they will be under the overall command of the Croatian armed forces. (...) Chetnik formations may engage in operations against the Partisans on their own, but this they will have to report, on time, to the Croatian military commanders."
Chetnik-Ustaše collaboration agreement, May 28, 1942 (direct quote from primary sources, quoted from Tomasevich, Jozo (1975) War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. 1. Stanford University Press. p. 226.)

Again: users interested in having a glance at what the actual sources say can find more information in the (conveniently titled) Collaboration with the NDH section of the Chetniks article (along with all the other dozens of collaboration agreements the Chetniks signed, and the the four Draža Mihailović personally approved through his representatives such as Major Boško Todorović). More free information is available on Google Books, I think.

Kosta Pećanac used the identical Chetnik flag for his crazy little splinter group, because he claimed seniority in the leadership of the Chetniks. In other words: though seperate, the Draža Mihailović and Kosta Pećanac splinter groups both used the same insignia, since both claimed legitimate "Chetnik-hood". Not that Fkp might know that... or care. After all, the Chetnik flag is being "defiled" isn't it...

I'll just say again: we can go with the "sourced infobox" (and lets please remember that the sources were listed in it from the start), OR we can go with the "DIREKTOR's-a-communist-and-I'm-really-polite-even-though-I've-been-proven-dead-wrong-dozens-upon-dozens-of-times Infobox".

P.S. Will someone block the (painfully obvious) SPA already? I can't believe we're being so "neutral" we're not blocking socks anymore. I think he himself can't believe he's getting away with it... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, can I ask you please not to speak about what other participants do know or don´t. That is your POV and I know that you usually observe things that way, but expressing it is not favourable to you. I do know regarding Pecanac and his claims, the question is another one, do they deserve to be included in the infobox with it? What about the other points, why can´t you simply answer point by point? I already asked you all PLEASE several times, I mean, come on! Can´t we have some minimal respect and tolerance? FkpCascais (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montenegrin_People's_Army&diff=next&oldid=367093767

I will only cite one example for each year. These are not the only evidence, but only examples that I first come to mind:

1942. Operation Kopaonik

1943. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DrazawantedbyNazis.jpg

1944. Operation Halyard

1945. Battle on Lijevča field

Wikipedia should use a neutral reference, not those who are in the service of propaganda (Tomasevich, Jozo, 1975). I am not an expert on this subject, but what user:direktor claim is absurd and rude. This is a serious attempt to manipulate. Just look at this and you will know who are the victims of the war.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why we don't finish this? Can anyone say something about how Chetniks fought Italians or Germans? You can't, but, can you say how they fought allies? I can. So, it is very simple - Chetniks were Axis. Your talk how they were Allies, but still they helped Germans says only that Chetniks were scum, nothing more, just human scum. I say, at least Ustaše (how ever they regime was bad) remained loyal to Axis until end of war :D. Now, add them to Axis - end of story.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Take for example the Jasenovac concentration camp. Killed between 49,600 to 600,000 Serbs. Killers: Croats (Ustashi). You claim that the Serbs (Chetniks) were allied with the Ustasha. I do not think so.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I added Axis/Allies to the table where I understand it is agreed. Is everybody agreed that the Chetniks started as a resistance movement to the Axis invasion and therefore nominally Allies in 1941? That they started collaborating with Italians and others against the Partisans, certainly by 42? That from 43 they openly collaborated with the Axis? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, regarding collaboration, is far simple as what you said. The collaboration with Italians was donne with the purpose of fighting the Croatian puppet state, that was German allied but in conflict with Italy because both had pretentions in Dalmatia. Thus, Chetniks collaborated with Axis forces against Axis. The only other Axis force that Chetniks allegedly collaborated was with Germans, but the sources direktor used for that were basically German military reports from negociations that existed where non agreement was archived and where you even have a German official saying that Mihailovic man were not to be trusted because they "decapitated and dimemebered German soldiers!" What certainly seems to have existed between them was some kind of cease-fire, in order to mutually tolerate themselfs while triying to eliminate the Partisans that in their eyes were more and more seen as an "annoying" growing danger. The Chetniks did however stayed enemies with Germans all the way and Mihailovic had his head for price all the time. We should also not forget that the Chetniks were also engaged in fighting the "Bosnian" 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). The conclusion is that the Chetniks never "openly" collaborated because of several reasons, being the obvious one that they, even when lost British support, allways hoped to have a role after the more and more obvious "liberation", and the collaboration donne was very much well described as ocasional (many metings between several intervenients occured but a full scale collaboration never happend. It did, but it was with the expelled Pecenac Chetniks, not Mihailovic ones) and oportunistic (meaning, when an oportunity appeared to aliminate a mutual enemy, the Croatian Ustaše forces and the Partisans). Fainites, would you be willing to explore much further this and to open a new chapter where all sources would be analised and correctly interpreted, something as a support for the mediation process? FkpCascais (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, in Jasenovac died over 15 milion Serbs, that is the fact. Now, other thing Chetniks were also allies with NDH, you forgot it? They also colaborated with Germans since 1941, more corectly since 13 November 1941. Alliance was signed by most-prominent anti-fascist Dragoljub Mihailović. Also, his friend Momčilo Đujić helped Italians, but not to fight Ustaše, becouse not a single battle happend in Dalmatia and Lika between Ustaše and Chetniks, but they only killed inocent Croatian civilians and fought partisans (Allies). Now, Chetniks only didn't colaborated with Japan, Mihailović would probably send few chaps at Gudalcanal but they did't have any planes. Ok, truth to say, he saived five American pilots..., so did Oskar Schindler save over thosuend Jews--Wustenfuchs (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Negotiations Chetniks in northern Bosnia with Croatian authorities (NDH) have existed. It is not disputed, but the Chetniks were never official allies with NDH and Nazi Germany. In Yugoslavia there was a complicated civil war. It is not possible to really show the template with only two columns from 1943. to 1945.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Look we have to accept that the two "sides" here will never agree about the Chetniks. That is why we we need to a) rely on sources and b) fairly represent, from the sources, a brief synopsis in the info box which captures the complexities. The details can all be explained in the article. As I understand it you people are mediating about Mihailovich and the extent of collaboration. As I understand it, everybody here, except Слободни умјетник, accepts the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis, whether opportunistically or otherwise, for part of the period from 1941 to 1945. There are three columns available. In the first it shows them - on the Allies side. (They started before the Partisans right? And had just been invaded and dismembered by the Axis? As a resistance group?). In the third column it shows them with Axis from 1943 onwards, because , I understand everybody agrees, they collaborated with Axis against the Partisans? For whatever reason? Is that agreed? For the middle column, can we agree on a neutral, scholarly source? If you don't like Tomasovich, can we agree on Ramat? Fainites ^{barley</sUup>scribs 12:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)}

I understand you idea, and your effort is much appreciated, but I beleave that putting Chetniks on the Axis side simply too simplicist and wrong (the most apropriate formula would be something like a third colums really). We could have some intermediate solution, but they were Allies until November 1943 wich includes ALL of 1943, so, how can they be on Axis side from 1942 or 1943? FkpCascais (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, how can an Army that was considered an enemy all the way until the final of the war by Germany, who´s main goals, as seen in "Instrukcije" (The Chetnik Instructions) was to "liberate" the country from Axis troops, and who´s commander had his head for price from Germany be ever considered "Axis". You can´t be allied if you are not allied with the main Allie. See my point? FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomasevich is the best source available on WWII Yugoslavia. Period. I find the very suggestion that he should be disregarded on the basis of some guy's personal "dislike" offensive to say the least. The last time fkp attempted to get rid of tomasevich (and generally all sources that contradict him) I copy-pasted a couple-dozen peer reviews on wiki. The praise was nothing short of universal. The day wikipedia disregards sources on the basis of user whim will be a sad day indeed. As things stand now, I do not think we will be disregarding Tomasevich - in fact I think we will disregard User:FkpCascais a lot sooner than a university publication (Cohen included) -DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Faintes, I think that after a year of inane nonsense its high time someone finally explained to fkp that his own personal disagreement is not alone something that should influence discussions. This absurdity has to come to an end sometime. The way the ridiculous, year-long mediation has been (mis)handled is this: unless both sides agree, we can't move on. This unbelievable method has enabled Fkp to simply ignore any and all sources - by simply disagreeing :). The whole thing should have been over after a week. A metric TON of sources stands now listed in the mediation describing in full the MASSIVE extent of the Serbian Chetnik collaboration - yet a couple of Serbian users have been (amazingly) allowed to essentially make a mockery of WP:V and ignore sources at will. The stupidity behind this is staggering, and is the primary reason for my short fuse on this talkpage. Instead of determining the WP:NPOV on the basis of actual sources, the inane personal views of involved users were taken into account.

To put it simply: if the sources say the chetniks collaborated - the Chetniks collaborated. the fact that some guy may disagree with this fact, or it's implications, is so irrelevant it's amazing we're even talking about it. The Chetniks will be listed alongside their allies, with whom they signed their agreements, and with whom they cooperated in dozens of military operations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that completely unbiased book about this period of Yugoslav history not yet written. Tomasevic (which is not neutral) mentioned Chetniks fight against the Germans in October 1943. (Visegrad and Rogatica).--Слободни умјетник (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's so nice to hear you guys and your views regarding the bias of world-renowned professional historians, you should get published - get back to me when you do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ok, now, we all have sources, and I know, by sources ofcourse, that nominaly, Chetniks were Allies since April 1941 until 1 December 1943. After that, we all bealive to sources what say Chetniks colaborated with Axis during that time and continued to do that until the end of war in May 1945. So, if we ever collected votes for a third columne, then add one more, but whit a note they were colaborators.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Thomashevich does not go so far as user:Direktor. I can agree to use the Thomashevich until we dispose of the appearance of better sources. At issue is something else. How do you explain fighting Chetniks against their "German Friends" in October 1943?--Слободни умјетник (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The nominal allegiance of the Chetniks is UTTERLY irrelevant. The infobox displays the actual combatants. The fact that the Allies mistakenly thought the Chetniks were de facto on their side is not about to change historical facts, and anyway, Churchill quickly caught on:

"It was a lamentable fact that virtually no supplies had been conveyed by sea to the 222,000 followers of Tito. (...) These stalwarts were holding as many Germans in Yugoslavia as the combined Anglo-American forces were holding in Italy south of Rome. The germans had been thrown into some confusion after the collapse of Italy and the Patriots had gained control of large stretches of the coast. We had not, however, seized the opportunity. The Germans had recovered and were driving the Partisans out bit by bit. The main reason for this was the artificial line of responsibuility which ran through the Balkans. (...) Considering that the Partisans had given us such a generous measure of assistance at almost no cost to ourselves, it was of high importance to ensure that their resistance was maintained and not allowed to flag."
Winston Churchill, 24 November 1943

• Comment: What does this have to do with Mihailovic Chetniks? Yes, we all know the Partisans were more effective, but that fact by itself, which is told here, doesn´t say anything about Chetniks at all. FkpCascais (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

...the Yugoslav King Peter II himself (the idol of the royalist Chetniks) caught on as well. Having issued a call for all Yugoslavs to join the Partisans he commented on the Chetniks and Draza Mihailovic, stating in his speech from London of September 1944 [20]:

"With this my address to you [Yugoslavs] I firmly condemn all wrongful use of the name of the King and the authority of the Crown, which was used tojustify collaboration with the enemy, and the creation of discord within a fighting people going through the gravest moments of it's history, being of use only to the enemy. (...) All those who rely on the enemy against the interests of their own people and it's future, and who do not heed this call [to join the Partisans], will not succeed to rid themselves of the mark of traitors, neither before their people nor before history itself."

Comment: Yes, Mihailovic Chetniks refused this, we all know this, and that is why they lost support from the Allies, but the Kings words doesn´t say anything specific regarding the Mihailovic Chetniks, and the reference of "traitors using the name of King" can be adressed as well to Pecanac Chetniks. These words hardly proove what you want. Unfortunatelly for you direktor, Kings words do call all troops to join Partisans, and he does condemn the troops that use Kings name, but he does not specify, you are the one making assumptions from this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Chetniks were not "Allies on paper" and it is actually you who ignore what sources actually say beside purpously ignoring all effort done by Mihailovic man in fighting the Axis. For exemple, it is incredible how easily you source "massacres" against Croats and Bosniaks and all other things of that kind while completely ignoring that they were killing actually Axis allied armies. (you say they killed women and children, while others say thay actually fought strong pro-German armies... The trouth is probably in the middle, I admit. Many inocents obviously suffered, but beside they actually fought those armies that were Axis!). It is amasing how you simplify all efforts to show it as "they saved a couple of airman", so the post war condecorations were simply given because the Allied countries were stupid? How you use the "Instrukcije" to source all kind of negative aspects to them, but you completely ignore that the main purpose is clerly stated that is to "liberate" the country from Axis troops. You biblically use the Tito fantoche trial as 100% trouth, but the American Congress post-mortum trial and consequent condecoration isn´t troustfull? And even Mr. Tomašević (yes, we all know that is his real surname, and not Thomashevitch or anything else) doesn´t go as fare as you do, beside being obviously more disfavourable towards the monarchists. Should it be because he wrote the book "Chetniks" while living inside Yugoslavia of Tito? Is it maybe because he is a Croatian from Dalmatia (coincidentally just as you direktor, and coincidentally all editors here supporting the Chetnik nazyfication are from Croatia)? I don´t know the answer to this, but it makes me want further sources, just in case. Direktor, it is actually you and your followers that are actually deniying and ignoring all positive facts for them. You are the one being blind. I already asked once on my previous comment: should we make a deep analisys of all sources on this issue and use this as support for the mediation? Or is all this just way to solve the infobox? Any of the answers to this is positive for the process, it is just that they are a bit different one from another. If we are only trying to fix the infobox, I already proposed several ways to fix things, and I haven´t still had direct answers to them. FkpCascais (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, please see the exemple of the sources that direktor put in his last comment. See the real words of Churchil and King Peter II? The problem is that direktor assumes many things from them that are not said there. That is basic manipulation of the sources, and he has been massively doing that. All the articles that contain this massively edited sections by direktor are all donne in this way. Another user, User:Jean-Jacques George even found out that direktor used as sources for collaboration a book that basically glorifies Mihailovic. I found out that ALL sources were manipulated and exagerated when transponded to the article text. Fainites, in all this time, not even one reliable source has claimed that Chetniks were collaborators among all, I haven´t seen any reliable source that could be used to insert the Chetniks in the Axis side in any period at all. If I am wrong, please present those sources. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha lol, how interesting. Dearest Fkp, the ONLY faction in WWII Yugoslavia to claim legitimacy from the Yugoslav King and Crown were Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks. Pecanac's Chetniks were a ridiculous little bunch that noone even heard of who was spared of the "good Chetniks, bad Chetniks" nonsense.

• The Chetniks of Kosta Pecanac did NOT claim legitimacy from the king, being openly (rather than secretly) allied with the Germans. Ok?
• The Chetniks of Kosta Pecanac were DISBANDED in March 1943, and Pecanac himself was dead by the time the King gave the speach of September 1944.

I challenge you to name or invent some faction, anyone in Yugoslavia, that called upon the legitimacy of the crown. I should like to hear who you think the king was refering to, i dare say such s feat is beyond even your imagination. This is the definition of an apologetic argument: even when being shown irrefutable obvious evidence of a fact, the stalwart apologetic simply carries on his nonsense argument regardless. But don't mind me, continue writing your massive nonsense posts, be sure to get back to us when you get published.

I can only repeat: User:FkpCascais is completely uninformed as to this subject, and shows it continuously. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I´m not that sure about Pecanac Chetniks. It is well known that they "imitated" the actual Chetniks in almost everything, and they even claimed legitimacy over the Chetnik movement itself, that by nature and tradition defended the Serbian Royal dinasty. They seemed to have used all the parafernalia of symbols, flags, traditions, just as the real ones. Anyway, I apologise, but your citations simply doesn´t say what you pretend to. Are those something like the "best sources" for your claims? P.S.: Isn´t really possible to you not to make personal attacks while discussing issues? FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not sure. I'm told my "nature" is rather too "manipulative" for me to discuss without commenting on the personality of other users.)

Regardless, the King did NOT refer to them - they were long gone. But I am fascinated: I would like to hear your theories. Who was he referring to in September 1944?

I'm also interested in your opinion on the part of the speech where the King himself quite unambiguously states that those factions that do not obey his word and join the partisans are traitors? Refresh my memory: did Mihailovic join with the partisans after his King had publicly commanded it?

Lets cut the nonsense. That part of his speech refers to the Chetniks, the ONLY faction in existence claiming legitimacy from the Crown. The King condemns their activities as collaboration with the enemy, calls on all Yugoslavs to join Tito's Partisans (whom he refers to as "Our army"), and unambiguously states that those who do not do so will be considered "traitors". Even after this public command by the King, Mihailovic did NOT join the Allied Yugoslav forces, while tens of thousands of his men held territories in Bosnia and Dalmatia for the Germans.

It goes without saying that this stuff quoted here on this talkpage is of course naught but a small sampling. There are books and pages of equally condemning documents, agreements with the enemy, with the Nedic regime, etc. part of which I have quoted elsewhere on Wiki, but I cannot be expected to copy down whole books here - instead I list them as sources. -DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I have protected the page for a week and blocked Слободни умјетник for a week for edit warring over the infobox (again).Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On sources, I suggested Ramet because it was written long after the end of Tito's Yugoslavia, is scholarly and was well received. This was not intended to be a value judgment on Tomasevic. Fkp - whether germany wanted to dispose of the Chetniks is not decisive on whether they collaborated or not. The germans were quite happy to make use of people and then dispose of them to suit their own convenience. The other point is that motivations for collaboration are irrelevent for the infobox. If the Chetniks believed the Allies would ultimately win and therefore concentrated their efforts on destroying the Partisans, and collaborated to do so, it would still be collaboration. If the Chetniks believed the Axis would win and collaborated with them and fought the partisans to try and get the best end result, as they saw it, from the situation, it would still be collaboration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My Tomasevich rant up there was not in response to your post, Fainities. Tomasevich's publications are the most thorough and discuss the obscure matter of the Chetniks in greatest detail - naturally Fkp had on several previous occasions attempted to post enough of his own opinions to make people disregard the Stanford-published expert (in spite of universally positive peer-reviews, of course :)). My post was in response to Fkp's renewed attempt. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but is that enough to list them in the Axis side? Because even when they lost support they also had pro-Allied actions. That is why I don´t deny collaboration, but I think that the way some users describe it and to list them as Axis is way too excessive and wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A third column could say something like Originally formed as a resistance movement and nominally Allies from 1941 to 1943 but collaborated opportunistically with Axis from late 1941 onwards. Lost support of Allies and Yugoslav government-in-exile in 1943 and openly collaborated with Axis therafter.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front
Part of World War II
Date 1941 – 1945 Location Yugoslavia Result Decisive Partisan victory
Belligerents
Allies Partisans Soviet Union (limited involvement, 1944-45) Bulgaria (limited involvement, 1944-45)	Axis Germany Italy (1941-43) Albania (1941-44) Hungary (1941-44) Bulgaria (1941-44) Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea (1941-44) Kingdom of Montenegroa (1941-44)	Chetniks Chetniks 1941 formed as a resistance movement to Axis invasion. Nominally Allies from 1941 to 1943 but collaborated opportunistically with Axis from late 1941 onwards. Lost support of Allies and Yugoslav government-in-exile in 1943 and openly collaborated with Axis therafter.

Rather than writing it all up with words, why not simply make use of the infobox syntax and display the change as I suggested above? And besides, the Chetniks were decidedly axis and should be listed as such for the period in which that alignment is accurate. I would find it rather pov if this were avoided, we have tens of thousands of Chetnik troops assisting the major Axis offensives at the Battle of Neretva and elsewhere, to just name an example. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But I still don´t see how the word "openly" fairly describe events from the moment they lost support on. The word "openly" doesn´t match the description as "ocasional and oportunistic" (made to the entire war period). And the Allies operations in that period somehow make such description sound unfair. And they were not only "nominally allied" in that first period. They were actually allied, they fought Axis troops, sabotaged Axis whenever possible, and did all kind other resistance groups did. I still beleave that too much emphasys is given to Tito´s trial on the subject, and too little to the American Congress judgment that ended up attributing him a high condecoration for his resistance efforts. Despite all, none major Allied nations considered them enemies at no point, and never the Germans considered them real Allies, and had Mihailovic head on price until the end. Because all this, we can say they were allied between 1941 to 1943, but in 1944 and 1945 we can only say that they lost support, because in this period, they did actions in both ways, not being really Allied, but also not Axis. What I also mean is if collaboration is mentioned in that way, so should the "cooperation with Allies" be equally included, and that would simply be too much for infobox purposes. FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, the infobox you made last excludes all of my proposals done in this section. FkpCascais (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Let's try and keep the massive unsupported Chetnik-praising posts to a minimum if possible?

To be brief, they essential served as an axis auxiliary force from mid-1942 at the very latest, and it just got worse from there on. Their role was that of axis support troops, local static militia divisions that held the partisans out of their areas with axis support and under axis overall command (at first just under italian command, see MVAC, and then after the Italian capitulation, under German "patronage"). this was both "opportunistic" and LARGE-scale. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

MVAC does say that Italians had preference in having Serbs in their ranks, but Serbs doesn´t equal Mihailovic Chetniks. How did you make that link. Another assumption? Serbs were also the majority as ethnic component of the Partisans as well, so? Fainites, why you reverted all my proposals if hardly any reasonable oposition was provided to them? FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my own unfounded assumptions. Certainly. Look I'm getting sick of this repetition. Did I not advise you numerous times to have a look at the actual sources?

"Chetnik collaboration with the occupation forces of fascist Italy took place in three main areas: in Italian-occupied (and Italian-annexed) Dalmatia, in the Italian puppet state of Montenegro, and in German and Italian-occupied Slovenia. The collaboration in Dalmatia and parts of Bosnia was the most widespread, however, and the 1941 split between the Partisans and the Chetniks took place earlier in those areas. The Partisans considered all occupation forces the fascist enemy, while the Chetniks hated the Ustaše but balked at fighting the Italians, and had approached the Italian VI Army Corps (General Renzo Dalmazzo, Commander) as early as July and August 1941 for assistance via a Serbian politician from Lika, Stevo Rađenović. In particular, Chetnik leaders (vojvoda-s) Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin and Dobroslav Jevđević were favorably disposed towards the Italians, because they believed Italian occupation over the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be detrimental to the influence of the Ustaše state. For this reason, they sought an alliance with the Italian occupation forces in Yugoslavia. The Italians (General Dalamazzo) looked favorably on these approaches and hoped first to avoid fighting the Chetniks, and then use them against the Partisans, which they thought would give them an "enormous advantage". An agreement was concluded on January 11, 1942 between the representative of the Italian 2nd Army, Captain Angelo De Matteis and the Chetnik representative for southeastern Bosnia, Mutimir Petković, and was later signed by Draža Mihailović's chief delegate in Bosnia, Major Boško Todorović. Among other provisions of the agreement, it was agreed that Italians would support the Chetnik formations with arms and provisions, and would facilitate the release of "recommended individuals" from Axis concentration camps (Jasenovac, Rab...). The chief interest of both the Chetniks and Italians would be to assist each other in combating the Partisan resistance.

In the following months of 1942, General Mario Roatta, commander of the Italian 2nd Army, worked on developing a Policy Directive (Linea di condotta) on relations with the Chetniks, the Ustaše and the Partisans. In line with these efforts, General Vittorio Ambrosio outlined the Italian policy in Yugoslavia: all negotiations with the (quisling) Ustaše were to be avoided, but contacts with the Chetniks were "advisable" - as for the Partisans: "struggle to the bitter end". This meant that General Roatta was essentially free to take action with regard to the Chetniks as he saw fit. He outlined the four points of his policy in his report to the Italian Army General Staff:

To support the Chetniks sufficiently to make them fight against the communists, but not so much as to allow them too much latitude in their own action; to demand and assure that the Chetniks do not fight against the Croatian forces and authorities; to allow them to fight against the communists on their own initiative (so that they can "slaughter each other"); and finally to allow them to fight in parallel with the Italian and German forces, as do the nationalist bands [Chetniks and separatist Zelenaši] in Montenegro.

— General Mario Roatta, 1942

During 1942 and 1943, an overwhelming proportion of Chetnik forces in the Italian-controlled areas of occupied Yugoslavia were organized as Italian auxiliary forces in the form of the "Voluntary Anti-Communist Militia" ("Milizia volontaria anti comunista", MVAC). According to General Giacomo Zanussi (then a Colonel and Roatta's chief of staff), there were 19,000 to 20,000 Chetniks in the MVAC in Italian-occupied parts of the Independent State of Croatia alone. The Chetniks were extensively supplied with thousands of rifles, grenades, mortars and artillery pieces. In a memorandum dated March 26, 1943 to the Italian Army General Staff entitled "The Conduct of the Chetniks", Italian officers noted the ultimate control of these collaborating Chetnik units remained in the hands of Draža Mihailović, and contemplated the possibility of a hostile reorientation of these troops in light of the changing strategic situation. The commander of these troops was vojvoda Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin, who arrived in Italian-annexed Split in October 1941 and received his orders directly from Mihailović in the spring of 1942.

The Chetnik-Italian collaboration lasted until the Italian capitulation on September 8, 1943, when Chetnik troops switched to supporting the German occupation in forcing the Partisans out of the coastal cities which they liberated upon the Italian withdrawal. The German 114th Jäger Division even incorporated a Chetnik detachment in its advance to the Adriatic.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)"

You are using your own edited texts here, and I already told you how much I trust your edits. Please bring sources, and stop bringing your own texts and use it as "the great trouth". FkpCascais (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

lol. The sources are listed both on this talkpage and in the Chetniks article. I'm not asiking you to "trust" me, check the sources. You may be surprised, but that's why we generally list them, you know (not that I particularly give a damn whether you "trust" me or not).

I'll be waiting here for you to start attacking the various scholars, historians, etc. Don't give up, maybe if you write-up enough of your thoughts, feelings, and opinions people might take your own "reviews" over those of actuall peers. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR has provided his sources, regardless of the text above. They are Ramet and Tomasovic. What I am unclear about is what your sources are Fkp. Are you using the same ones? Is this just a matter of interpretation? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, regarding this I am challenging the correct interpretation. We are using a group of sources that were presented on the mediation. There are entire books to be found. I beleave that is the "acusation" the one that needs to make a case, and in my view has failed until now. If someone is saying that they are collaborators and are to be included in the Axis list needs to have strong sources supporting that. The sources of my side, just to make it simple, are the condecorations, for exemple. FkpCascais (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. So you are both using Ramet and Tomasocic but have different interpretations of the information therein. Now, as I understand it, you are saying there is a difference between being just collaborators (which you accept they were) and simply adding them to the Axis list. As I understand it you also say their collaboration was opportunistic rather than wholesale. One of the reasons why I suggested the "third column" solution was because there was a possibility that the Chetniks could be accurately represented without trying to put them in either or both Axis/Ally columns. One version might be 1941 formed as a resistance movement to Axis invasion. Officially Allies from 1941 to 1943 but collaborated opportunistically with Axis forces, mostly against the Partisans, from late 1941 onwards. Lost support of Allies and Yugoslav government-in-exile in 1943 and collaborated with Axis forces therafter, though involved in the rescue of Allied airmen. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the solution you proposed of having them in a third column is the best by now, althought, not in the "Axis" side in order, but perhaps the most correct would be in the middle (just as orange goes between yellow and red). The wording could be improved because they seem to have been more involved in actions against Axis than just saving Allied airman, which is the idea your suggested text gives by now. Also, we should discuss the points regarding official naming and flags for the Chetniks, because as they are now, they are convenient to one side only. FkpCascais (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I fully apreciate your efforts, Fainities, and I hope you won't take this personally (as people often do), but a third column would not be a fair representation of the Chetniks. I stand by my proposal above with regard to the infobox, and support a more complex representation, since it more accurately depict the extremely complex war situation (as described in the relevant sources).
Furthermore, lets be sure not to allow Fkp to add confusion into a straightforward issue. He appears to be very good at that, lots of lengthy speeches, unfounded claims, pretty words, etc. To be perfectly clear: there is NOTHING to "interpret". If the faction has been shown to have engaged in widespread collaboration with the Axis during the period in question (1942-45) - and it has (fighting as support troops in Axis offensives, holding territory as static militia units, receiving HUGE amounts of supplies from the Axis, signing myriad agreements, etc.), then it is quite POV to enter them as an independent combatant for that period. Especially since that constitutes the majority of the length of the war (1941-45).

Fainites, I'm assuming here you may be willing to get into this obscure issue independently and a tad more thoroughly. You may get a better understanding of "where I'm coming from". In order to gain some insight into the full extent of Chetnik collaboration (and form an opinion of your own regarding its extent), you may want to read Chapter 7, "Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy" of The Chetniks by Prof. Tomasevich - you can find it here: [21], its in English, and, if I'm not mistaken, its entirety of it is available for free. The chapter deals specifically with the subject of this discussion.
As for Tomasevich, you may note that The Chetniks is the only detailed work of comparable quality focusing exclusively on the (relatively obscure) matter of the Chetniks. His are reliable, peer-reviewed (Stanford) university publications, very detailed, and of very high quality. They are a delight to read to anyone mired in the frightful bog of Balkans history, as they are teeming with primary sources - I feel safe to say that virtually nothing the author states is without direct backing.

I'll post a few indepdendent peer reviews, just in case User:Fkpcascais gets one of his urges that require him to slander the late scholar:

"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University

"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
-Choice Magazine

"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books

"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
-American Historical Review

"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers

"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
-Eric Gordy, Clark University

"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
-Slavic Review

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No I don't take it personally at all. I have read some of the sources such as Ramet, - though not Tomasovic as yet - including one which sees the Chetniks as the wronged victims of a Partisan misinformation campaign with the British as almost equal baddies and the BBC full of communists. I am however trying to avoid becoming involved in content as that makes me an involved editor and then I am not in a position to use adminly powers to prevent edit warring/block edit warriors and the like. I can see where everybody is coming from. (It reminds me slightly of the 1066 and All That description of the English Civil War Cavaliers and Roundheads as Wrong but Wromantic and Right but Repulsive). The only thing I was wondering regarding your third horizontal column is whether or not it is appropriate to put the Chetniks under Axis despite their extensive collaboration. This because they never formally allied with the Axis. The collaboration was localised (in the sense that it was different in different areas), opportunistic and undertaken in pursuit of the Chetnik objectives which, as I understand it, where based on an assumption the Allies would win in the end. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front
Part of World War II
Date 1941 – 1945 Location Yugoslavia Result Decisive Partisan victory
Belligerents
1941-42: Germany Italy Hungary Bulgaria Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea	1941-42: Chetniksb	1941-42: Partisans
1942-45: Germany Italy Chetniks Hungary Bulgaria Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea		1942-45: Partisans Soviet Union (1944-45) Bulgaria (1944-45)

This would be the best generalization according to available sources. I've done some further research into the matter. While independent up until mid-1942, the Chetniks on the whole begin to serve as Axis support troops throughout that year, which saw the signing of several Italian-Chetnik and NDH-Chetnik pacts. Their usefullness as support troops culminated in their participation in the massive 1943 Axis anti-Partisan operations, where they participated wholesale on the Axis side. With their subsequent defeats after the Battle of the Neretva, Chetnik usefullness slumped, but their dependence on the Axis logically increased. After the Italian capitulation in late 1943, they became closely involved with the Germans (the latter having no choice but to use them, having lost the assistance of the Italian army). By late 1944, the Chetniks lost the support of the Crown and the Allies in general, the Partisans were effectively the Yugoslav Army, thus Chetnik opposition to them constituted anti-Allied military activity (in addition being closely supported by the Germans). Essentially we have the very definition of a pro-German force.
Not to start quoting sources here, and without going into details, this would be the general summation. I've based this above text primarily on Ramet and Tomasevich (Chapter 7: The Chetniks and the Foreign Enemy), but also on the Cohen (which is a peer-review publication) and:

• Cripps, John (2001). Mihailović or Tito? How the Codebreakers Helped Churchill Choose (Chapter 13 pp237-263). In Smith, Michael; Erskine, Ralph. Action This Day. London: Bantam
• Walter R. Roberts. Tito, Mihailović, and the Allies; Duke University Press, 1987

The previous infobox was correct as a rough generalization. However, I myself do accept that infoboxes are a very flawed way to describe wars. With that in mind, and taking into consideration Fkp's position which is, in essence, only correct for the first 15 months of the conflict, I've put together a more detailed version. It is simply what the sources say, only in more detail. The initial period of active Chetnik-Partisan cooperation is only 5 weeks long, and does not really merit an entire row in the infobox. Furthermore, Italian puppets of Montenegro and Albania, do not constitute seperate combatant authorities and were merged with the Italian entry. They, unlike the NDH and the Nedić regime, did not have seperate military commands. Also, "Axis" and "Allies" designations were removed, in recognition of the problematic status of the Partisans (at the start of the War) and the Chetniks (at the end of the War), as was initially proposed by User:Jean-Jacques Georges.

To be brief: this is the fixed-up infobox, shorn of needless clutter and inaccurate, over-rigid categories. It is not a "compromise". People like that word on Wiki, but facts are not something to "compromise" on - it is merely a more detailed depiction. I can't imagine my accepting anything other than this, as it is fully supported by the sources (that attitude is known as "uncompromising", a word not particularly liked on Wiki :)). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The pared to a minimum approach is very sensible. I also see what you mean about not heading them "Axis/Allies". After all - the fact that the Chetniks hated the Partisans worst of all and concentrated on fighting them doesn't mean they wanted the Axis to win - or that they would have fought on the Axis side had the Allies landed much earlier as they hoped they would. They wanted to inherit, after the Allies won (as I understand it). And - the Chetniks started before the Partisans did because the Partisans were waiting for permission from Moscow - and the USSR was in a pact (putting at it's most neutral) with Nazi Germany until Barbarossa. (It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if Germany hadn't invaded the USSR - but that's another issue). But would that be an additional reason for putting them on the opposite side to Germany for 1941? What do you think. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Chetniks were, in fact, formed earlier than the Partisans, but did not commence actual fighting until the Partisans forced their hand with their initial success in what is termed the "First anti-Partisan Offensive". The first significant revolt was started by the Partisans. The Chetnik policy of "waiting the war out" is well-documented (and quite prudent, if I may add). Also, if you'd care to cast a glance at the above article, you'll notice that the Chetniks had already in 1941 approached the Germans (the following is essentially a verbatim quote from the listed sources):

"The Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28 [1941]. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić [the head of the pro-German collaborationist government in Serbia, the "Nedić regime"] and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel [Draža Mihailović] was willing to 'place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism'. The two representatives further gave the Germans their commander's guarantee for the 'definitive clearing of communist bands in Serbian territory' and requested aid from the occupation forces in the form of 'about 5,000 rifles, 350 machine guns, and 20 heavy machine guns.' "

These negotiations failed, later to be replaced by more successful agreements with the Italians and German-backed puppet regimes, the NDH and the Nedić regime, and then the Germans directly after the Italian capitulation (by 1943 the Germans were a lot less picky with their allies in the region, with the Partisans numbering some 250,000 troops). It is only because of the failure of the initial Mihailović negotiations that I think it is warranted to place them as a seperate combatant in 1941/early 1942.

In short, in ideology (which was essentially "Francoist") and general disposition the Chetniks were significantly closer to the Axis than the Partisans were, even during this initial period. Also, any additional shuffling would imho ruin the whole "minimalistic" appeal I'm trying to achieve :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fkp, what do you think about the solution of not labelling the columns "Axis" or "Allies" ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. As direktor in his exemple said "these negociations failed", so we are basically dealing with negotiations and suppositions what would have happend if. Chetniks were Allied including entire 1943, and the infoox doen´t represent that. FkpCascais (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

-.- "Wrong"? The 1941 negotiations failed, therefore the Chetniks are listed as a non-Axis combatant. Later negotiations with the Axis did not fail. At this point we're seeing disagreement for the sake of disagreement. I would not expect these discussions to go any further towards agreement than this, Fainites. As I described earlier, Fkp has been led to believe that research and sources can be rendered irrelevant on Wikipedia - by simply refusing to "agree". He will simply say, having never read two words of any of the references, that he disagrees on the "interpretation", or he will simply restart the argument, or shift it onto another subject. If allowed to do so, he is perfectly capable of simply holding this position for years on end (as was the case in the absurd, year-long RfM).

The current infobox is about as close as we can possibly get to the sources. I don't see what more there is to discuss on this subject. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From the point of view of actual collaboration, probably yes. But what I am asking is - if the Chetniks collaborated with Axis forces in order to defeat the Partisans, whilst waiting for the ultimate Allied victory, which they wanted, is that sufficient reason to simply put them in the Axis list? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but its not the "Axis list", is it? That's why I removed the labels in the first place. Rather, all we have on the left is the group that fought together for the described period.

However, if you're asking whether their collaboration with the Axis would in general merit their inclusion as a pro-Axis combatant, we should remember a few additional facts. Firstly, by the end of the war (late 1944 and early 1945), the Partisans' commander (Tito) was also the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia (universally recognized by the Allies), and the Partisans were the "official" Yugoslav military (e.g. see the King's speech above where he refers to the Partisans as "Our army"), i.e. an Allied military. The Chetniks (greatly decreased by that time) were a force dependent on German supplies and (in many areas) on German protection as well. They granted support to Axis efforts and were, of course, actively combating the Partisans (the Allies!). I must say that in all objectivity, this description is that of an Axis force. However, as I said, I think the point is moot with the removal of the labels? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I've got it. Lets separate them from the lot in the lower row. How's this?
Also fine-tuned the infobox somewhat. I must say I like it a lot now ^_^ --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front
Part of World War II
Date 1941 – 1945 Location Yugoslavia Result Decisive Partisan victory
Belligerents
1941-42: Germany Italy Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea Hungary Bulgaria	1941-42: Chetniksb	1941-42: Partisans
1942-45: Germany Italy (1941-43) Independent State of Croatiaa Nedić regimea (1941-44) Hungary (1941-44) Bulgaria (1941-44) Chetniks		1942-45: Partisans Soviet Union (1944-45) Bulgaria (1944-45)
Total Yugoslav casualties: ~1,200,000 a Axis puppet regime established on occupied Yugoslav territory b Resistance movement. Engaged in collaboration with Axis forces from mid-1942 onward, lost official Allied support in 1943. Full names: initially "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army", then "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland".

Very inventive. Short of putting them in upside down or back-to-front, I can't at the moment think of a better illustration of their somewhat ambiguous position. Hopefully it will also intrigue the reader and lead them to the article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this: we put the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (official name, not their common name, Chetniks) in the Allies section for the 1941-1943 period, since they were the official Allied forces in Yugoslavia and supported by all Allied states, and the Partisans instead of the Chetniks in alower row, since they fough against the official allied forces and they were not recognised as Allies. It will intrigue in same proportion the reader to read more about it. FkpCascais (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• No need for full names, "Greater German Reich", "Kingdom of Italy", "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" etc. (the "Independent State of Croatia" only has the full name to disambiguate from the simultaneously-existing "Federal State of Croatia"). The Chetniks were initially named by Mihailović as the "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army", and the name "Chetniks" stuck even after they were renamed to the more "Allied-supply-friendly" name. They also used it.
• There's no "1941-43" period in the current proposed infobox, nor should there be. The infobox is here to depict the actual combatants in the war, not their "de jure" status (which has NO effect whatsoever on the actual conflict). This is not to say that it isn't worth mentioning: we can easily explain the "de jure" status of the Chetniks in a note (as is actually the case in the article right now).
• There is no "Allies section" in the current proposed infobox, and frankly I see no reason to shuffle the combatants around to make someone "feel better".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if you exclude naming "Allied" and "Axis", we can solve this by having the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland in a separate column all the way. And no, there is a need to use the official name and so should be donne in all other related articles. The exemple you provided regarding Croatia is bad. The exemple that could be comparable is if we writte instead of "Independent State of Croatia" simply "Ustaše". Both would be wrong, so that is why using the "only official" as you said earlier, naming is the most correct in an encyclopedic context. FkpCascais (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we restarting the thread? I expect the next stage is either an attack on the sources or a claim of "false interpretation"... A third column all the way is POV, the Chetniks collaborated extensively with the Germans, Italians, the Nedić regime, and the NDH. The sources are listed. There is really no way I'd agree to separating them from the Axis column in the latter period. And I'm not writing up and going through all of the above again...

Infoboxes use short names whenever possible. "Independent State of Croatia" is not wrong. "Croatia" would also not be wrong - except that there existed more than one "Croatia" (Federal State of Croatia, Banovina of Croatia). "Ustaše" would be wrong, like writing "Nazis" instead of "Germany". Again, no way we're using "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland", not only is it unnecessary and not correct for the whole period, but nobody outside Serbia even heard of that name. Infoboxes use short names whenever possible, we will not be using full names in this one.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the first point - the Partisans and the Chetniks each have their own column in the first bit which reflects ambiguity. Regarding the second point, how about a little footnote, official name" Yugoslav Army of the Fatherland", 194- to 194- but rarely used Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First point: agree. Second point... its kind of silly since then we'd need the full official names of all the other movements to be fair: the "Partisans" were the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" ^_^, the "Nedić regime" was the "Government of National Salvation of Serbia", "Germany" was the "Greater German Reich", "Italy" was the "Italian Kingdom", etc. etc. But... I suppose since we already have a note on the Chetniks regarding their status, we can mention their full name there as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've inserted the notes mentioning not one, but both the Chetniks' official names. Shall we post it in the article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As a person trying not to get involved in the rights and wrongs of content - but having read Ramet and parts of Tomasovic - this seems to me to be a fair representation of the ambiguities about the Chetniks, leaving detailed explanations for the article. The reader would immediately appreciate from this infobox that the position of the Chetniks is not straightforward. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be the bold one then... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK but we haven't heard from Wustenfuchs or others on this version though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I was "bold". WP:BRD... that page really ought to be a part of a proper policy. Would spare me a lot of grief on these godforsaken Balkans articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this interpretation would be more accurate:

1. period (April 1941)

Axis powers against Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Yugoslav Royal Air Force gave strong resistance in the April War) 1, 2, 3(sr), 4(sr) List of victories YRAF fighter-pilots in the April War

2. period (May 1941 - July 1941)

YAITF(Chetniks) against Axis powers

3. period (July 1941 - November 1941)

Yugoslav Partisans against Axis powers

YAITF(Chetniks) against Axis powers

4. period (November 1941 - September 1944)

Yugoslav Partisans against Axis powers

Yugoslav Partisans against YAITF(Chetniks)

YAITF(Chetniks) against Axis powers (e.g. Operation Mihailović (1941), Operation Kopaonik (1942), Višegrad (1943), Rogatica (1943), Operation Halyard (1944))

(Occasionally YAITF (Chetniks) in some parts of the country conclude a ceasefire agreement with the Axis powers, and support in the fight against Partisans)

5. period (September 1944 - May 1945)

SSSR against Axis powers

Yugoslav Partisans against Axis powers

Yugoslav Partisans against YAITF(Chetniks)

YAITF(Chetniks) against Axis powers (e.g. Kruševac (1944), Battle on Lijevča field (1945))

(Occasionally YAITF (Chetniks) in some parts of the country conclude a ceasefire agreement with the Axis powers, and support in the fight against Partisans)

(In a footnote to explain who were the Axis powers in Yugoslavia and for how long time)

Jozo Tomasevic in his book mentions all of these struggles, which I mentioned as examples. Although he was trying to disparage them in his text, but there is no doubt that each of these battles occurred. More details about some of them may be read online in Serbian. 5(sr) (source: a prominent Serbian political magazine NIN) In any case (neutral) infobox with three columns is better than a (biased and complicated) infobox with two columns.--Слободни умјетник (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

LoL. Right... If I had an hour I might be able to write down all that's wrong with the above, but since I'm sick and tired of this nonsense, all I'll say is: nope. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)