Talk:Chetniks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 153: Line 153:
:::Thanks to Jingiby, I have now added citations to Sadkovich alongside the ones to Tomasevich. This matter is beyond dispute, and Fkp should just drop the stick. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 04:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks to Jingiby, I have now added citations to Sadkovich alongside the ones to Tomasevich. This matter is beyond dispute, and Fkp should just drop the stick. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 04:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::I second Peacemaker67. There is nothing to discuss about here. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::I second Peacemaker67. There is nothing to discuss about here. [[User:Ktrimi991|Ktrimi991]] ([[User talk:Ktrimi991|talk]]) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::Saying something like "there is nothing to discuss about here" is a sure sign of corrosion of intellect, in my book. Claiming that Chetniks ( a generalisation, no united command existed) were anti-Yugoslav is dubious. It is an agenda, to potray them not as Yugoslav army (and I am making a difference regarding their action in 1941-1943 and later on) but as ''Greater Serbia genocidal plotters.'' Moljevic's work is not that notable, it just his ''dream''. The reason to push it (and is happening on several pages on Wiki) steems from a clear agenda. Chetniks had a Muslim division, Slovenian divisions, Jewish fighters and so and so on. I have personally met several old Chetniks and all of them told me that they were fighting for Yugoslavia, their king and people (some highlighted Serb people, to be frank). [[User:Sadko|Sadko]] ([[User talk:Sadko|talk]]) 14:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:34, 27 September 2019

Relevent quote pertaining to chetniks

During World War II, Mile Budak .

(June 30, 1941), Stevan Moljević (a lawyer from Banja Luka who was also an ideologue of the Chetniks), published a booklet with the title "On Our State and Its Borders". Moljević asserted:

"One must take advantage of the war conditions and at a suitable moment seize the territory marked on the map, cleanse [očistiti] it before anybody notices and with strong battalions occupy the key places (...) and the territory surrounding these cities, freed of non-Serb elements. The guilty must be promptly punished and the others deported – the Croats to (significantly amputated) Croatia, the Muslims to Turkey or perhaps Albania – while the vacated territory is settled with Serb refugees now located in Serbia."[1][2][3]


This quote is relevant to this page in describing ulterior motives.

References

  1. ^ "The Moljevic Memorandum". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
  2. ^ Nicholas A. Robins, Adam Jones (2009), Genocides by the oppressed: subaltern genocide in theory and practice, Indiana University Press, ISBN 978-0-253-22077-6, p. 106
  3. ^ Steven L. Jacobs, Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, pp. 158–159, Lexington Books, 2009

References

Chetniks displayed as Nazi Collaborators

In my opinion it is a disgrace - not only to Serbian people, but also to the 500 American Ally soldiers that were protected by the Chetniks and civilians in 1944 - that they are portrayed as Nazi collaborators (!?). Why does the world just ignore the Halyard Operation and many other published facts about the lies which were said about the Chetniks during WWII? --Vlada grk (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Vlada_grk[reply]

Would you mind SOURCING your fantasy 500 saved american airmen. Other than chetnik propaganda machine in US and Canada. What was the extent of american bombing raids on Rumanian oilfields?
And at 500 "saved" airmen, how many downed american bombers is that?
What were the losses of american airforce on those bombing runs?
It is a historical Fact chetniks were Serb version of SS, and the only thing they engaged in -- was collaboration with the enemy, attacks on communist-led yugoslav partisans, and genocidal slaughter of everything non-serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.152.170 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you read reliable sources and whatever you want to discuss, do it using reliable sources and not your opinions. Goes for both of you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me FkpCascais, Nothing here "goes for both of us". My reliable sources are Established historical facts. Thoroughly documented war crimes, over 45 years of research and testimony. And countless Convictions of nazi trash, at Nuernberg, and in domestic Yugoslav courts. If That is, for you, disputable - you have no business "moderating" Anything here. Would you like someone to provide a Library of evidence for you, on a Wiki page, just because you are a complete ignoramus on WW2 in Yugoslavia?

And the bloody article sections themselves dispute the ludicrous header section assertion of "anti- Axis" activity. Wake the fuck up. Or if you can't - Stay out of European history, and don't revert my edits.

I still read tons of irrelevant text with just your biased opinion. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User can Not be allowed to edit/review articles relating to Serb fascists

FkpCascais is engaged in Both Serbian And Yugoslav historical articles. The two are Not complementary. The user is biased in favor of Serb side, and cannot be counted on to impassionately "moderate" on disputed articles. He reverted my edits of the header, summary section of this article, Without any explanation.

The Body of the article text, Supports my edits, and disputes nebulous claims made in the header of "anti-Axis" or "antifascist" activities of genocidal, treasonous chetnik butchers.

Request Wikipedia remove this person from pages relating to history of Balkans, since fascist revisionists of history are Still stirring up nationalistic fears, and Destabilizing the highly politically volatile region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.152.170 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was reverting this edit of yours. If you continue attacking editors instead of making costructive contributions, you may end up easily reported. All this crying of yours is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:NPA (specially the part saying "Comment on content, not on the contributor", but remind that commenting on content means citing sources, evaluating them, and making WP:UNDUE. Besides you seeming to be a sock of a indef banned editor who´s only purpose was to defend Croatia and atack Serbia and me, I dare to say that even by what you contributed just i this IP account, I can say you have no idea what an encyclopedia is. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are a lunatic. You DON'T know my ethnicity.

Second, your srbo-fascist accusation of me (Unknown) being previously banned is vicious mudslinging.

Third, you Blocked me from editing the nonsensical intro passage for the second time.

Fourth, you perfidiously, and willfully remain BLIND to my argument in edit comment - That the intro section CONTRADICTS the entirety of article. You can howl 'till you're blue in the face that your chetniks were "antifascists" - The BODY of the article Itself - disputes that fully. What I edited was the nonsensical in-your-face rubbish, intended for World audience, which will likely just glance over the Intro, without reading the full article. You Know Very Well what you are doing.

Fifth,... when, Exactly,mein freund, did YOU become Serbia ??? Step down from your puffed up cloud on solid ground, if only for a moment.

Most importantly - I am Reporting YOU with this Talk contribution.

In conclusion, I CONSTRUCTIVELY contributed to accuracy of the article, by removing fascist propaganda in the Intro.

For the Wikipedia staff -- You cannot allow a Serb fascist to edit articles about Serb fascists. Savvy ? He can edit some Serbopedia somewhere. This is the English section, on military history, and by default - this is what the World will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.152.170 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sources. The state of the article was the result of years long mediation. Propose your changes here and obtain consensus first. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, for you, New York Times: The word was proudly used by the forces of Gen. Draza Mihailovic, the first anti-Nazi guerrilla commander in occupied Europe, Chetniks saved more than 500 American pilots shot down by the Germans over occupied Yugoslavia. Alas, some Chetnik units in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then a part of the Nazi-installed Independent State of Croatia, responded to the genocidal slaughter of the Serbs of Eastern Bosnia with retaliatory killings of Muslims of the same area. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disabled Veterans and Their Families recognized the Serbian Chetniks as antifascist freedom fighters and granted them the same social entitlements that partisan veterans had enjoyed since 1945. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, this matter seems to be far more complex than your simplistic view. I will certainly revert any attempt of removing sourced material and replacing it with unilateral personal bias, either being to demonize them or glorify them. It is you altering a long-standing text result from a consensus, not me. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

I think that the background section should include and focus on Yugoslav affairs (politics, inter-ethnic relations, army data, etc) rather than the veteran associations.--Zoupan 06:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Just a heads up, you would do extremely well if you stopped using Pedro/Sabrina Ramet as a source and an "expert" on Balkan history and politics. The works display propaganda elements and outright fabrications, and this extends through every single book the individual in question has written. In addition to frequent visits and book presentations in Croatia, often surrounded by revisionist historians and ultranationalist relativisation attempts (among others, the book presentantions were held in History Institute bearing the name of Ustashe Ideologue Ivo Pilar), his/her works were called out on numerous factual errors and lack of corroboration by primary historical evidence.

In particular, the most unnerving detail is the categorical statement by that author on official NDH/Ustashe Chaplain Stepinac being a "die-hard enemy of Ustashe" (utter nonsense) and the outrageous claims of Yugoslav Partisan ethnicity (also quoted on English wikipedia despite repeated assurances and proofs of them being fake and impossible to find the supposed source, "Tito's speech").

I am left disappointed by the moderation practice of going for apparent "middle ground" between obvious Ustashe sympathizers and WW2 revisionists and people who use only primary evidence. Case in point on this very page, and in other articles.

The victim numbers by ethnicity in WW2 speak for themselves. I have very low expectations, but I still deemed it worth a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.72.91 (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to lead cited to Cohen

There has been persistent attempts to add a couple of sentences to the lead, cited to Cohen. Unfortunately, the edits in question are not a good summary of what Cohen says on that page. Please discuss this here. Edit-warring will only result in a block. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC):[reply]

Milazzo (1975) and Cohen (1996) state that the Chetniks were not a homogeneous force. The opening paragraphs of this page are extremely biased with the introduction devoting 95% of the the text to describe the Chetniks as a homogeneous Axis force. The Chetniks did not have a united command structure and operated under their own accord depending on who was their commander in the region. Each Chetnik group developed their own alliance depending on the region. However, the Chetniks did have a common enemy which was the Yugoslav Partisans and this was in essence a civil war. I have tried to make the introduction more neutral in a civil manner however a crusade of editors are rejecting my edits in an attempt to protect the pro-Axis orientated introduction. This is one of many crusades this group has conducted including promoting pro-Daesh/KLA material across Wikipedia. This Chetnik movement page should be treated as a neutral page while Chetnik sub pages such as groups under the command of Đurišić and say Đujić can have the pro-Axis content that applies to them. Protecting this page by reverting legitimate posts will be considered vandalism. TryDeletingMe (talk) 10:06, 01 Sepetember 2018 (UTC)
You can consider it whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so. You have been adding material that is not supported by the source being used. That fails one of the basic principles of WP, verifiability. So, perhaps you would like to post here what you wish to add to the article, with appropriate citations, and we can discuss it? I have copies of Ramet, Milazzo and Cohen, as well as other references on the Chetniks, so we should be on solid ground discussing it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that addition made by TryDeletingMe (diff) has serious source issue. The text they added is cited with work of Cohen. There were two attempts at RSN to gain consensus that that Cohen's work is RS. Both failed. In the meantime it was officially confirmed by ICTY that the only award Cohen received for this work was given by Franjo Tuđman, a founder and a member of an joint criminal enterprise during Yugoslav wars. Every day I thank God for allowing me to see trough this source the moment I saw it and never used it on wikipedia. Cohen's work is disgraceful for editors who use it and wikipedia itself.
On the other hand TryDeletingMe was correct with their observation that this article is extremely biased with the introduction devoting 95% of the the text to describe the Chetniks as a homogeneous Axis force. The Chetniks did not have a united command structure and operated under their own accord depending on who was their commander in the region. Each Chetnik group developed their own alliance depending on the region. However, the Chetniks did have a common enemy which was the Yugoslav Partisans and this was in essence a civil war. I completely agree with Peacemaker67 that issue with addition in question should be resolved by using RS as citation for this text. Thank you Peacemaker67 for such constructive approach. I am sure that Peacemaker67 (preferrably with assistance of TryDeletingMe) will manage to select appropriate reliable sources for this addition. Until then this addition should be restored, and tagged with "better source" tag to invite other editors to assist in selection of RS to be used as citations. Good luck!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very odd reading of my post above. I am concerned about the failure of verification of the content of the edit, therefore it should not be restored. So far as I am concerned Cohen is a reliable source, he just doesn't say what TryDeletingMe added. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petrovic (2011)[1] provides an accurate depiction of the Chetnik movement in a neutral fashion. If Cohen is of concern then the previous content can be removed and a more neutral introduction can be formulated that accurately reflects what the Chetnik movement really was TryDeletingMe (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current lead reflects hard-won consensus among editors and also reflects the academic consensus on the Chetniks from uninvolved (ie non-Serb) scholars used in the article. Petrovic's work is a PhD thesis, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP such theses "can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties". I haven't conducted a review of the literature to see if he is being cited by historians as yet. It is pretty clear from a reading of the Preface that Petrovic is supplementing the existing historiography, with a particular slant towards the ethno-religious aspects of the conflict and how that impacted on the development of the Chetnik movement. I see this source being used carefully to add material about the development of the Chetnik movement due to the ethno-religious aspects of the conflict, not supplanting what is already there. I suggest you state here what conclusions Petrovic makes that you believe should be included, and we discuss it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A valid point you make. I guess what can be extracted and applied in the introduction is that the Chetnik movement was heterogeneous in that each detachment operated under its own authority. Mihailovic's Chetniks were formed from Royal Yugoslav Army soldiers who refused to surrender and swore allegiance to the Yugoslav government in exile, a group that was an Allied fighting force but also engaged in collaboration due to the German reactions of murdering 100 civilians for every 1 German soldier killed. Chetnik divisions in the Dinara and Montenegro region such as those under the command of Đurišić, Đujić and Pećanac were predominately set up by armed civilians, with Pećanac's units being denounced by the Yugoslav government in exile due to their ties with the Axis. This is an important point to make as the current reference to the Chetniks is that they were a homogeneous group that were under the same command structure in a pro-Axis fashion. This is misleading as Chetnik units operated under their own accord. I will do my best to find reliable sources to add to the literature. TryDeletingMe (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The transformation of Mihailović's Chetnik movement: From royalist Yugoslav forces to Serb nationalist guerrillas". Simon Fraser University. Retrieved 2 September 2018.

Anti-Yugoslavism etc

Tomasevich quotes Živko Topalović's description of the Chetniks, which includes the following: "Anti-Croatism, anti-Moslemism, and anti-Yugoslavism, this is the ideology of the Serbian Chetniks", then Tomasevich says immediately after this "Although this characterisation is supposed to fit primarily the religiously and nationally mixed areas, it also fits the Chetnik movement at large." How is this not clear to you, Fkp? There is no synth here whatsoever. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide exact quotes. The ones you cited don´t appear in the page. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One person describing one Chetnik as such certainly open questions if one entire movement should be described as such. I found the quote on another totally different book. I asked you to bring it to talk for a reason. A person description doesn´t make way to describe an entire army in an infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only one. For example James Sadkovich claims that: Chetnik ideology was anti-Croat, anti-Muslim, and anti-Yugoslav. Stevan Moljevic called for a "homogeneous Serbia" to avoid "the great sufferings which the Serbs' neighbors inflict upon them whenever they have the opportunity to do so. For more: The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998, ISBN 0275950468, p. 148. Jingiby (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jingiby, good to know. Are you accusing me of lying about what is on page 175, Fkp? Tomasevich, an internationally-acknowledged expert on the Chetniks, chose to quote Topalović's observations about the Chetniks and then specifically endorsed them regarding the Chetnik movement as a whole. This isn't a matter of interpretation, he just couldn't have been any clearer. What is gob-smacking about this is that you apparently haven't even seen the page in question, yet have deleted reliably sourced material which is completely supported by the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Jingiby, I have now added citations to Sadkovich alongside the ones to Tomasevich. This matter is beyond dispute, and Fkp should just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second Peacemaker67. There is nothing to discuss about here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying something like "there is nothing to discuss about here" is a sure sign of corrosion of intellect, in my book. Claiming that Chetniks ( a generalisation, no united command existed) were anti-Yugoslav is dubious. It is an agenda, to potray them not as Yugoslav army (and I am making a difference regarding their action in 1941-1943 and later on) but as Greater Serbia genocidal plotters. Moljevic's work is not that notable, it just his dream. The reason to push it (and is happening on several pages on Wiki) steems from a clear agenda. Chetniks had a Muslim division, Slovenian divisions, Jewish fighters and so and so on. I have personally met several old Chetniks and all of them told me that they were fighting for Yugoslavia, their king and people (some highlighted Serb people, to be frank). Sadko (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chetniks&oldid=918206068"