Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Needs More Content

I personally think that this article is way, way too short for something this relevant to World War II. Perhaps we should merge some other articles that have to do with the war into this one? (Bavor 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

you see the "expand" template? It says everything. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatently Biased Title

I request that the name of this article be revised, as it is biased to the Communist interpretation of events, as the "people" were enslaved by the "liberators" Tito and the Partisans (and NO, I WILL NOT rephrase that, before anybody asks, because if somebody cannot recognize that Tito was a despotic tyrant, they probably have not heard of him to be VERY generous.). And, it could also be confused with other Peoples' Liberation Wars, like the Russian Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Indochina Wars etc. And thus could be confusing to those who use those terms. ELV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.147.150 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ithink you should note the fact that the Yugoslavian region DID, in fact, achieve it's economic highpoint during the reign of this so called 'tyrant'. His regime was THE most liberal of all communist regimes and he maintained political and (perhaps even more importantly) ECONOMIC stability in this troubled region. The nations of Yugoslavia were granted their independence from Belgrade to a very high level. More importantly the standard of living was the highest during his (very capable) reign. I WOULD NOT CALL THAT ENSLAVEMENT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is easy to achieve an "economic highpoint" with an unsustainable fiscal policy such as that of Tito's communist regime. The title is POV. MMDR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.166.236 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK than, the definition of Tyrant is (thanks to http://www.thefreedictionary.com) is: 1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person The Definition of Enslavement is (thanks to answers.com): The act of reducing to slavery; state of being enslaved; bondage; servitude. Tito may not be the first name to pop into one's head in this situation, but it DOES fit him. Firstly, the state of the economy, as the dictionary shows, is NOT used in defining a tyrant. Most of the great tyrants had some modicum of skill, as the inept-in-every-respects leader would be overthrown by somebody. One can run a rich tyranny, and one can even run a genuinely popular tyranny, and some, like Nasser and Sadat, have even managed to run both at the same time. The deciding factor is who gets the power. Nasser and Sadat, despite having a genuine widespread popularity with the Egyptians, still killed any who spoke out against them unless they (for whatever reason) decided to allow it (usually to draw critique from the Western Democracies off of them.)

And Tito could not even claim to be nearly as genuinely popular.

The only reason Yugoslavia existed to collapse as late as it did was due to a combination of absolutism, strong leadership, foreign allies, and a large military. This is true for both Royal Yugoslavia and for Communist (or Titoist, the difference is minor) Yugoslavia. In Royalist Yugoslavia, the Serb royal government was STRONGLY intolerant of ANYTHING outside their own little niche. They kept their unpopular regime afloat by quickly and efficiently crushing any threat to the throne. However, they could not stifle everything, as they were unpopular outside of their little niche.

They were also, in the grand scheme, when measured against the other European nations, quite backwards, as even tiny Switzerland had more heavy industry present in a 1928 survey than large Yugoslavia had in a survey in February in 1940. The only thing that kept it afloat was the lukewarm support of the old Allies in its various political misadventures, such as its "Little Entente" against Hungary. It also had to make due with a large , poorly trained and equipped army. Many have wondered why the Serbians of WWI, who smashed the Austrians despite gross numerical superiority on the later's side, as well as equipment advantages, became the Yugoslavian Army, Which collapsed so utterly that in some cases, the Yugoslavians took more casualties than the Axis in the entire campaign did. The Answer: Serbia, as the name implies, was primarily Serbs, and no such tension existed amoung them, or in any great scale with their smaller neighbors and allies the Montinegrins. The "Land of the South Slavs," on the other hand, had many ethnicites, Croats, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians etc, all of whom the Yugoslavian Royal Gov't discriminated against.

Things under Tito did not change as much as many would like you to think: The "ecconomic highpoint" which you mention, was built on the back of massive loans from NATO, with most of it coming from the old Western Allies, and that was not because of any great love for Tito, it was because, with Greece isolated in the Balkans as the only Democratic Capitalist Republic, they could not afford to loose the vantage point a neutral Yugoslavia, or one even sided with NATO, could offer.

And speaking of which, you mention that Tito "was the most Liberal of the Communist Regimes." To which I say TAKE A LOOK AROUND!!!! Lenin, Hitler, (Yes, look up what NAZI is shorthand for, and some of his speeches about Capitalism) Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Kruschev, Pol Pot. Ceauseceau. When we say that he was the most "Liberal" Communist Regime, are we really saying anything? That he did not kill Millions of people in (among others) executions, genoicide, purges, ethnic cleansings, and loose Millions more in Wars that they USUALLY (though not always, I will concede that the Japanese in the case of Mao could not give two tripes about the regime of China when they launched their invasion) caused, and immediatly began backstabbing those who helped them survive WWII before it even ended (I am looking at the First Six)?

And What of the men who tried to blackmail an entire continent and Millions of lives (most of which would be termed under the articles of war as "civilians") with instantaneous nuclear holocaust in order to force their demands upon the world while simutaneously keeping their people oppressed? (#7 and #8, I MEAN YOU!)? And the thug who overthrew his countries' government (which, granted, was an opressive Royalist regime) and replaced it with a even more despotic regime that was so Orwellian (Don't believe me? "Democratic Kampuchea" mad "Brother Number One" and "Year Zero" float yer boat?) that if one didn't know better it would seem like he was attempting to parody 1984, all the while criminalizing everying up to AND including the family itself while killing off more than 30% of his own countrymen (Mr. Pot, I am pointing to you)?

And of course, the last absolute Communist despot in Europe, the man who, along with his evil wife; banned all abortions and counter-conceptives, and than sent thugs around harassing women to make sure that they were being followed (I may not be fond of abortions, but I would not simply go about banning the whole thing entirely and than send a terror squad after women simply to ensure it is followed, and I am from the so-called anti-abortionist party in the US) while declaring "The fetus is the property of the entire society?" IN THE MIDDLE OF A FAMINE!!!!! And than dragged his nation so far into poverty that it became law that no ambulances were to be dispatched to people over the age of 70, and that 3 watt bulbs were the legal max? Than arrested dozens of thousands for the least offensive crimes and forced them to work in gulag-like camps on a massive canal (granted, said canal was started by the old communist Romanian Regime, but it was still the bulk that was done under this man) that killed thousands (Nicolae Ceauşescu, please stand up and against the wall.)

My point is that, with contemporaries like these, the bar is so low it has burrowed into the core and than came out the other side of the planet. All Tito has to do is to equally kill everybody regardless of race, religion, or dissident group, kill hundreds of thousands instead of millions, and maintain a human rights level that is somewhere above trying to run his own country to extinction, and he suddenly becomes the "most Liberal Communist Dictator."

As for autonomic relations from Belgrade, they did not really exist. The "autonomic" relations were pretty much having Tito order a parade in Zagreb, a crackdown on Student Rights Group X in Sarajevo, and a monument of "The People's struggle" created and unveiled in Ljubljana, and having people in those three cities carry out his orders. This is old hash, as no dictator I can think of carried out everything personally, and had Yugoslavia not been so inherently multi-ethnic, we would not even be hearing about any "autonomous" relations with Belgrade, as Belgrade IS running the show. One of the main differences between the Serbian Royal Regime and Tito's Communist one was that the Royal family pushed the Serb Nationalist Card. Hard. Tito, as the article mentioned, based his regime on the Communist ideology. This freed his support from racial bounds, and it ensured that, while he would meet at least some dissidents in any corner of the country, he would also meet at least some supporters in any corner too. But the power lay with Tito and Belgrade, and he allowed his agents in the other 'capitals' to do what they wanted SO LONG AS THEY DID NOT SET ONE CENTIMETER-LONG FOOT AGAINST THE PARTY LINE! And believe me, he was more than willing to smash anybody to death who tried to win even the smallest bit of actual freedom. The only area that really escaped his total control was Macedonia, which was practically independant for decades, and was guarded by occasional Western Allied, or later, NATO incursions to ensure that Tito could not maintain a solid hold on it, though he must have considered it a "price to pay" in order to keep the Western Powers relativly friendly.

The 1948 Slaughters crackdowns in Croatia, the Executions of ethnic Albanians, primarily in the Kosovo region, but also elsewhere, to supposidly curb Hoxha's power, it was not an utopian nation, there was blood spilled. Lots of it. Aided by modern machinery and new weapons, it was not a pretty sight.

"The Standard of Living in Yugoslavia was the highest it has ever been?" Even if we were to toss out the evidence disputing this, are we really saying ANYTHING? From the Austrian-Ottoman opression to the Royalist dump to the current post-Yugoslavia wars, is it really much to say that? Also, in some areas of the dead country, there are places where SoL is higher than ever, like Slovenia, some areas in Croatia, and Macedonia.

My point is that YES Tito was a Tyrant and Yugoslavia was enslaved by the top "crust" of the communist party. I do not doubt that he was capable; in fact it would have been far more suprising is he was NOT capable, as most dictators, and certainly all of the "greats" were very capable, in order to maintain absolute rule over a population for so long. Hitler and Stalin were capable, but very malicious, rulers, but you would not call them tyrants?

But now back on topic. Asides from any personal misgivings about the title, it is worth realizing that, for people who use such terms, there could be MANY "Peoples Liberation Wars." Chinese Civil War, Japanese invasion of China, the Cuban Revolution, among others, and THAT is what could cause confusion. ELV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.147.150 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

POV title

Title sounds quite POV in my opinion.--Staberinde 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the Campaignbox for PLW (aka NOR)... I agree that "PLW" is a POV title. It should be changed to something neutral like "World War II in Yugoslavia" or "Yugoslav Front of WW II" as in the article.

However, the discussion whether Tito was a tyrant or an "enslaver" is completely beside the point. Just check out the competition, and anyone whose judgment is not biased by direct association (eg. if one's family was persecuted or executed by the communists) will realize that the partisans were the only relatively consistent antifascist resistance movement on the ground (Chetnik wishful thinking notwithstanding). This is not to deny that they were hopelessly ideologized and had plenty of innocent blood on their hands in the war and the aftermath.

The article needs another title. -- Miranche 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree with that, and that long triade above was in response to that, though I guess I did invite it looking back as I am more than a little bit biasesd in my beliefs, and I will never try to hide or deny that fact. In the Yugoslav front of WWII, as with most wars, no side has no blood on its hands, though this is true even moreso than usually, as due to the ethnic cleansings purpotrated by the Chetniks and the Axis, and due to the massive persecutions of non-Communists by the Partisans. My point is that the title is biased, and that those who would use such honorific titles could get it confused with (Amoung others) the Chinese Civil War, the Northern Expidition, WWII, the Second Sino-Japanese War etc. and Thus the title must be changed. ELV

Campaign Box

I applaud the recent changing of the title to a fairer one is quite good news. However, osme work remains to be done, as the Campaign box underneath the warbox still shows "People's Liberation War" along with the Greco-Italian War, Greece Campaign etc. THis must be changed. ELV

Didn't notice before, but I've changed it now. Why didn't you change it yourself? I myself was quite shocked when I saw the way things were presented, but I only came across this article by chance, and I'm a heavy contributor to Serb-related articles (8000+ edits). If you see something that's wrong (and there's a lot of it, especially pertaining to Serbs and Serbia), just change it yourself. If you don't, chances are no one else will.--Еstavisti 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't I change it myself? That is because when I went into the edit menu here to change it, the thing only says (something to the effect of) [[Balkans Campaigns Box] ]. Since it was that and only that, I could not find a way to change it, as I know of no other way to change it. If somebody could tell me HOW to change things on the campaign boxes, I would be MORE than glad to do it in future instances by myself. I simply do not know how, however. ELV

ELV, you edit the page "Template:" + the text you find in the braces; turn all spaces into underbars. This means, if the page says {{Campaignbox NOR} } you need to edit the page "Template:Campaignbox_NOR". Miranche 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification of the campaign

Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa? Yugoslavia firmly belongs to Europe, and doesn't even touch Mediterranean - only Adriatic.

Very good question. Yugoslavia is, as always, hard to classify :). The 1941 Invasion of Yugoslavia was classified into the Mediterranean theater as a part of the German Balkans Campaign, which was fought in Greece as well. After 1941, Yugoslavia was not linked to any larger European front (Eastern or Western) very tightly. For the Western Allies it was strategically more closely connected to the Mediterranean (Italy, Greece, air-raids in Romania etc). For the Soviets it was an important diversion off the Eastern Front, but was a part of it only briefly, in 1944, when Soviets participated in the liberation/capture of Belgrade after taking over Romania and before continuing to Hungary.

When I classified this article into the Mediterranean, this made sense to me as the Western Allies, it seems, played a more active role. Although Tito was ideologically closer to Stalin, the Brits and Americans were the ones who "decided" that the Partisans were more legit than Chetniks, and started training and equipping their forces long before they got any material help from the Russkies. Most of this equipment and support came by way of the Mediterranean. Also, the Partisans' influence outside of Yugoslavia during the war was to the south, collaborating with Greek and Albanian communist-led resistance movements.

No strong feelings either way -- it makes as much sense to consider Yugoslavia a "third front" of the European theater, simply by geography.

Miranche 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The battle of the Tarnova Forest (1945).

A rather forgotten battle of WWII was the battle of the Tarnova Forest (December 18, 1944 - February 10, 1945) between the IX Army Corps (of the 4th Yugoslavian Army) and the troops of the Italian Social Republic. The target of the battle was the control of the Isonzo River.

About what are you talking ? Yugoslav army has come to talian border only in april- may 1945 !

The units of the Slovene Army as a part of Yugoslav Army operated not only in what is nowadays Slovenia, but also in the parts to the north and west of it in the territories that were considered part of the Slovene ethnic territory. For instance, they formed a partisan brigade and send it, together with some English and/or American agents which parachuted into liberated parts of Slovenia, to the north of the Drava/Drau river into Austrian Carinthia, but had not much success there, it was soon destoyed by German police.

As far as Italy is conserned there was a march in february 1944 of the 9th Corp to the west into Beneška Slovenija (Venice Slovenia), today a small part of Italian province Friuli (on the east of Friuli bordering Slovenia), and they fought there the Axis' armies, so probably also the units of the Italian Social Republic. NikNovi 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of article

The current name is POV. People's Liberation War has gone out of favour with most source except for certain socialist and Partisan-friendly ones. The article should be renamed to a generic term "Yugoslav Front of World War II", which is already in use in the intro. "Narodnooslobodilački rat" only gives 694 search results. Also, the term is inherently biased to the Partisans who coined the term, while the Chetniks who were the recognized "liberators" until 1944 never used this name.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tito or Mihailović

The paragraph on recognition of Tito rather than Mihailović by Britain & America rather cursory and warrants expansion on a separate page, particularly some mention of Fitzroy MacLean and Ultra needed. This article is rather long already. The Draža Mihailović page too, with unsubstantiated claim that Churchill influenced by his son Randolph Churchill. Randolph Churchill was with Evelyn Waugh; Waugh put in a report about Tito’s persecution of the clergy, which was buried by Anthony Eden. Call the new expanded page what? Yugoslav Allies in WW II ?? Hugo999 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven anti-Partisan offensives

I have sources that show the use of this organization, you do not have sources that show they are "not used in modern historiography". Such a claim must be corroborated. In either case there is no reason why the Partisan (Allied) names for the operations should not be used alongside the Axis ones in this manner, and this is how these seven offensives are organized on Wiki, there are among them offensives that do not have any one specific German or any other name, which makes this the more practical of the classifications (of course not excluding the German names for Fall Weiss and Schwartz). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're supposed to discuss after labeling something "POV". (I'd rather say you're the one making POV edits, but let's discuss to determine this...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by R-41

woah woah woah, discuss this! point by point. Some of your edits are ok, but you really need to engage in dialog here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fascist Chetniks? There were some fascist Chetniks, those of Kosta Pećenac, but the rest of the Serbian Military Administration (Nedić's Serbia) were not Chetniks. All Chetniks except those were not officially declared as fascists, but were increasingly collaborationist troops, again this is well referenced and there are numerous sources in the text (look them up). What the personal ideals of "most of them" cannot be known nor is it relevant, it is their actions (who exactly they fought) that determine their allegiance.
• Flag. The flag of the Chetnik movement is not the flag of Yugoslavia, though the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should probably be added to the "Allies:" as an early combatant.
• Chetniks Axis. The Chetniks were increasingly Axis throughout the history of the Front. Especially after 1943 when they engaged in open combat with Allied troops, not only the Partisans, but also the Red Army (this is why I placed them as Axis only after 1943). And the western Allies do not belong under "Yugoslav Royalists:" they didn't switch sides. What "most of them" (Chetniks) believed or didn't believe is irrelevant, they were eventually openly collaborating with the Axis, hence they are Axis collaborator troops. (this is very well referenced in the text.)
• Image caption. We do not know whether the Chetniks in the pic were openly pro-fascist or not (Kosta Pečenac's men), the only thing that is certain is that these are Chetniks, and that they are posing for a picture with Germans.
• Good Chetniks, bad Chetniks? The Chetnik troops of Kosta Pećenac were officially supporting the Serbian Military Administration, hence they were open collaborators in "official" agreement with the fascist occupation forces. Other Chetnik troops were not officially supporting the occupation, but increasingly ended up a collaborationist force, what their official ideals and the thoughts "of most of them" were is not relevant, they were in practice increasingly a collaborationist force (especially so after 1943). Just to make my point clearer:
  • Draža Mihailović was the commander-in-chief of all Chetnik forces for the vast majority of the war (with the possible exception of Kosta Pećenac).
  • The entire Chetnik movement collaborated with the Axis, i.e. joined them and cooperated to a degree in military operations against internationally recognized Allied resistance forces.
  • Certain factions within the Chetnik movement were indeed more friendly with the Axis than others, but in general considerations, this is trivial (see above). No faction of the Chetnik movement actually fought the occupation forces throughout the war contrary to Mihailović's orders, certain exceptions exist only as a desperate bid for recognition at the very end of the war. No faction of the Chetnik movement abstained from conflict with recognized Allied resistance forces (after 1943).

Mihailović's excuse (the text you added). So now we're quoting Mihailović's excuse for collaboration as the official version of history? I'm not saying his point of view should not be added, but it should be formulated while taking into consideration 1) that it is only his personal POV (whether sincere or not), 2) that he did not lose the support of the western Allies for no reason, and 3) that he was found guilty of collaboration (high treason) by the post-war tribunals (questioning Allied post-war verdicts is something I will not discuss). Furthermore, it should not be added in such depth here, an article which deals primarily with actual military operations and fighting, but in the Chetniks article, which deals (or should deal) with their motivations for collaboration, whether humanitarian or not (the collaboration of the entire Chetnik movement is a well known and referenced fact).
(Personally, I somehow think that the prospect of their own possible annihilation at the hands of the Germans (since their power base was much more limited than that of the Partisans) was more motivating than "humanitarian" concerns, since they did slaughter non-combatants all over Yugoslavia. Also, I'm sure they found that Germans and Italian giving them supplies and munitions was much more easier than stealing them.)

A part of the text is ok should be included, though in a shortened version, we should agree on a formulation. The current one is very lenient (POV) towards the fact that the all of the Chetniks decided not to fight the occupation forces, and joined them in destroying troops who actually did fight the occupation. See how differently it sounds when stated plainly? Also, Draža was the commander-in-chief of all Chetniks in 1941(-1943), he ordered them to stop fighting Germans (again, see the difference?). The text is obviously somewhat POV, and should be altered in that respect. Also, it deals with the Chetniks in depth, which should be left to the Chetnik article, it is easy to surmise it in a sentence or two. Also, what are "genuine collaborators"? you either collaborate with the Germans or you don't. The entire Chetnik movement most certainly did so (in varying degrees, i.e. Pećenac), if not by receiving large shipments of Axis munitions, then certainly by fighting Allied troops. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Firstly, the Partisans were not a "communist movement". The post-war Yugoslavia was communist for a number of years before it increasingly became socialist. The Partisans were a pan-Yugoslav communist-led movement, this is an extremely important distinction. That being said, there is absolutely no need to keep mentioning their political affiliation at every reference to them in the article, the only possible purpose of which would be to somehow make the Allies look like "bad guys"(!) because they were communist-led.
Second, Tolstoy is a significantly biased source. This issue was addressed numerous times on Wiki, so if you want to use him as a reference, please avoid controversial statements. Finally, please discuss edits of a controversial nature before including them, as they will likely be challenged and that may lead to revert-warring. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point of view. I was only going for consistency (another possible purpose). Didn't mean to offend.

With regard to the tank "gestures" in Austria, I felt that recounting an incident cited from a published source would add some flavour and depth, serving to reinforce the existing style of that paragraph, as well as providing a "look behind the scenes" at the reason for the note from the British Ambassador to Tito.

I looked to add some balance to the following paragraph "Partisan General Offensive" with some key, eminently verifiable, words that would countervail any perception that the partisan forces were facing, in the winter of 1944-45, annything more than the husks of Axis units. Also, by this stage of the war, any remaining light Axis naval units were living a fugitive existence being hunted by Allied naval and air forces throughout what little Dalmation coast-line remained under Axis control.

Therefore I propose "Set against the Yugoslav Partisans was German General Alexander Löhr of Army Group E. This Army Group had seven army corps (the XV Mountain, XV Cossack, XXI, XXXIV, LXIX, and LXXXXVII). These corps included seventeen weakened divisions (1st Cossack, 2nd Cossack, 11th, 41st, 104th, 22nd, 181st, 7th SS, 373rd Croat, 392nd Croat, 237th, 188th, 438th, 138th, 14th SS Ruthenian, and the Stefan Division). In addition to the seven corps, the Axis had remnant naval forces (under constant attack by the Royal Navy and RAF) to defend the coast, strong police forces to secure the rear, and roughly twenty weak, remnant divisions of local Croatian and Serb units. The Croats included Ustaše and Croatian Home Guard units of the Independant State of Croatia."

(Oz Cro (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Ok, I apologize if I sounded gruff, you would not believe the number of biased "weekend-editors" we get on this and related articles. Anyway, Tolstoy, while published, is not an NPOV source. Here are a few quotes about his works from an article about the Aldington v Tolstoy libel case:

• "Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer."
• "...his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-8313967.html

As for your proposal on the paragraph, its ok with me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

POV The page displays all Chetniks as pro-Axis, not all were Axis.

The page shows a focus on showing the Chetniks as Axis forces. Not all Chetniks were Axis.--R-41 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By late 1943, all were Axis. Begging your pardon, but the idea of Good Chetniks/Bad Chetniks is a recently created myth, used mainly for the purposes of the Chetnik rehabilitation attempts supported by the Radical Party of Serbia.

Read the above section "Recent edits by R-41", and the list of OKW reports on Chetnik activities here: [1]. Furthermore, the Allied Powers as a whole, the Yugoslav government-in-exile, and even King Peter II recognized the Partisans as the official Yugoslav armed force, and the Chetniks (Draža Mihailović) not only refused to cooperate and assist the Partisans (on orders from the King), but actually continued to fight against the Allied military forces in close conjunction with the Axis. If you know of some Chetnik battalion that did not actually fight Allied forces, that is completely irrelevant, what exactly was on the mind of the Chetniks, what were their actual goals, this is also completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the proven fact that the Chetnik movement as a whole(!) fought against Allied forces, with the Axis forces. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point further, the Chetnik movement was one organization, not a collection of factions (with the exception of the Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac, which collaborated even more). It had one commander, and a coherent command structure (brigades organized in corps). The Chetnik movement cannot be discussed as a disparate entity. And we know, beyond doubt, that the Chetnik movement as a whole did indeed fight on the side of the Axis powers (despite some of its ideals). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chetniks of WWII were not a single organization, but a loose alliance of factions at least nominally loyal to Mihailovic but with virtually complete autonomy among its regional elements (Dalmatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin). While Dalmatian Chetniks were loyal to JVuO at times, they were also separately allied with Italian forces. Montenegrin Chetniks cooperated with Axis forces without direct involvement of JVuO headquarters.

I'm obviously not interested in defending the Chetniks, but they were a recognized Allied force in Yugoslavia for at least a part of the war (until the Treaty of Vis, after which they were officially recognized by no one, but de facto in alliance with elements of the Axis forces).--Thewanderer (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just way too funny. Let's see few facts that will show this is a total POV. When Chetnik units were created there were hundreds of thousands of Chetniks under command of General Dragan Mihajlovic. Chetniks were officially fighters who wanted to return Kingdom of Yugoslavia as it was before Nazi invasion. Chetniks were never officially part of Allies or Axis, they were officially fighting only for one goal. No one can prove that they were officially part of Axis for one. Chetniks were unofficially part of Allies (all-time) and never part of Axis (officially or unofficially). Direktor shows that he has very little knowledge of what happened between Chetniks and Partisans, that's obvious. Give one single prove for what you say, instead of Partisan movies (Partisan movies were pathetic attempt to turn whole Yugoslavia to Tito's communists, they were basically like this, one partisan kills 10,000 Nazi and dies in heroic fights :) ). I will tell you a few facts, first of all DIREKTOR, you are wrong in almost everything you said. Chetnik forces made a deal that they will attack Nazi forces together with Partisans, they had same goal to destroy the occupying forces, but they didn't agree on what should happen to Yugoslavia after Nazi occupation forces retreat, that's why Partisans betrayed the deal. The way you say it I could say that Partisan forces were officially part of Nazis, but at least try being intellectual. There were few Chetnik leaders including Kosta Pecanac and others who betrayed the Chetnik ideology and joined Nazi forces, they were NOT referred as Chetniks any more, and General Draza Mihajlovic ordered that they should be killed (it's a fact, see articles). The main fact is Chetnik General and Leader Mihajlovic never in any way cooperated with Nazis, which is very important to note. Let me remind you that there were some Partisan leaders who betrayed Tito's ideology and joined Nazi forces, for example in Neretva etc. So in this way if you say Chetniks were part of Axis, I can say Partisans were part of Axis too. I think the guys who made this should stop watching Partisan movies and turn to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.197.11 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the sources and try not to insult people. We're all serious editors here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chetniks

I suggest you go to the "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article for all sources. But there are very many, very reliable sources that the Chetniks as a whole fought the Allied forces. Pećanac's boys were an insignificant force. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I never insulted you I just say, it's obvious that you don't know anything about the conflicts. Let me repeat what I said (you seem like you haven't read what I wrought), Chetniks were NEVER officially part of Axis or Allies, their goal wasn't the same goal as Allies had, their goal was to return Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the position as it was before the Nazi invasion, that's a fact we all know and shows that "officially part of Axis 1943-1945" isn't only a POV but a pure lie too. Chetniks haven't fought Allied forces they fought Partisans who had a different view on future of Yugoslavia, and later they fought those who were helping Partisans (Soviet Union) but they were NEVER Nazi collaborators as a whole force. Chetnik forces that joined Axis to fight Partisans (like Kosta Pecanac's Chetniks) were not referred as Chetniks any more, they were independent and had not been controlled by General Dragoljub Mihajlovic (who ordered that they must be killed because of betrayal and so they were killed). I see that you're a Titoist, and I understand your goal here, but you have no right to put such things like "officially part of Nazis" when it's a POV and a lie. Sources you listed confirm what I was saying. Until you give me proof that Chetniks (not few Chetnik units, but all Chetniks who were under control of General Dragoljub Mihajlovic) were officially part of Axis forces, I will remove this lie.

Actually, they were "officially" part of the Allied forces, since Yugoslavia was "officially" part of the Allied forces and they were its "official" army. They were never "officially" (or de jure, if you will) part of the Axis, but they were de facto Axis forces. Since 1943, the official Yugoslav army were the Yugoslav Partisans. Are you seriously trying to prove that the Chetnik forces did not engage these recognized Allied troops in combat (after their recognition) with the extensive assistance of and in cooperation with the Axis powers? Are you trying to prove the Chetnik commanders in such engagements acted without the approval of Draža Mihailović? If so, provide sources that prove that the Chetnik commanders engaged the Partisans after 1943 against Draža's orders (specifically that, do not beat about the bush). That's something you have to prove, not me.

Do not edit the article until this matter is concluded, that can lead only to edit-warring and a report. Finally, I seriously suggest you do actually read the sources. ("I see that you're a Chetnik sympathizer, and I understand your goal here...") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you didn't read what I wrote, General Dragoljub Mihajlovic did continue to fight Partisans and he didn't see them as Allied or Axis, but as enemies of Yugoslavia. Partisans also continued attacking Chetniks even though they were never part of Axis or in any way collaborated with Axis (Kosta Pecanac's forces were not referred as Chetniks and functioned independently, the best source is the fact that General Dragoljub Mihajlovic ordered the murders of Kosta Pecanac and other Nazi collaborators). You wrote on the main page that Chetniks were officially part of Axis and now you say they are not. De facto they still continued fighting both Axis and Partisans. It's a very important fact that proves that they couldn't have possibly been de facto Axis force just because they fought Partisans (who were Allies too) on one side, and Axis on the other. I just proved it. Chetniks continued fighting Partisans, they didn't recognize them as Allies. How could General Dragoljub Mihajlovic give them orders when they were independent commanders? He murdered them, that proves they didn't have connections with him and that he was against those Nazi collaborators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.222.72 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem: nobody cares how he "saw" the Partisans. The only thing that matters is that he odered units under his command to engage troops recgnized as members of the Allied powers, while receiving assistance from the Axis powers to achieve the destruction of these same Allied forces. That, along with the many many sources we have here and in the Chetniks article proves beyond doubt that the Chetnik movement was collaborating with the Axis. Was that against its original ideology? Who cares. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute: The Article appears to be promoting the Yugoslav Partisans as heroes

This article appears very slanted in promoting the Yugoslav Partisans as heroes of Yugoslavia. The article has unnecessary large numbers of pictures of Tito and the Partisans, including one that definately appears to be being used for propaganda purposes which shows a Partisan about to be hung who shouts out a chant "Death to fascism, freedom to the people!". Is this picture with its caption really serving any purpose other than showing the Partisans in a heroic pose? For me, I don't think so. Also there remains a serious dispute on this page as to whether the Serbian Chetniks should be considered Allies, Axis, or a third party in the war. Some editors here appear to show heated passion in claiming that all the Chetniks were Axis. This is seriously debated, and thus multiple scholarly sources must be provided to demonstrate whatever the case may be regarding the Chetniks.--R-41 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The article merely states facts about the Partisans. If that makes you believe they are "heroes", that's your personal perspective. There is no real dispute about the Chetniks. The matter is pretty simple. We have a contemporary statement of a neutral German General that "Draža Mihailović's people" were the best formation for the Wehrmacht to use against the Partisans. We even have the name of the Axis liaison to Draža Mihailović. Not to mention the numerous other quotations from OKW reports on Yugoslavia. We also have published sources, and encyclopedia references.

If you believe the Partisans are being referred to in a "heroic" manner, i.e. with unencyclopedic woeding, by all means improve the artile by making it more neutral. Just do not try to disguise an attempt to "redeem" the Chetniks as a strive for neutrality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, let's be realistic, DIREKTOR did all he could to promote Partisans as "heroes" he also posted "sources" from well known anti-Chetniks, and article says that Chetniks collaborated with Axis which is absolutely untrue. Some Chetnik leaders have collaborated with them (but some Yugoslav Partisans have also started collaborating in Battle of Neretva, I will post proves and pictures), and most of the Serbs call them traitors instead of Chetniks, those Chetniks were not under command of General Dragoljub Mihajlovic which is the most important fact. All Chetniks find General Draza their leader and he was an allied leader. Two of the most important Chetnik leaders - General Dragoljub Mihajlovic and Vojvoda Momcilo Djujic were well known allied leaders. The leaders who have collaborated were not under their command and therefore Chetniks were allies. --79.101.224.217 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I recommend that you please do not edit the article without first achieving a consensus on the talkpage. The veracity of the info you'll introduce is likely to be challenged, so please try to keep this friendly by achieving consensus first.
2) I also recommend that you address the arguments during the discussion, and do not ignore problems mentioned by your "opponent(s)".
3) While I'm not suggesting you're new to Wikipedia, I'd like to also ask you to familiarize with what Wikipedia considers a WP:SOURCE.
Now then. "Let's be realistic", Fall Weiss was a huge combined Axis operation intended solely to destroy the Partisans. When I say "Axis", I mean 20,000 Chetniks as well which played a vital strategic role assigned to them by the Axis commander, General Löhr: the defense of the eastern bank of the Neretva (which they performed very badly). Now you are saying that the Chetniks did not collaborate, but the Partisans, which were the intended target of this massive offensive, were actually the ones collaborating? I hope youintend to elaborate on that... (btw your statement that "most Serbs view the Partisans as collaborators" is plain ridiculous. Do you have a poll source, or is that your opinion?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion based on opinion

User:Forsena, your own opinion on a published source by a professional historian does not really count for much, particularly since the book's in English and written by a third party (non-ex-Yugoslav). Nationalists often tend to label published works as "anti-Croatian" or "anti-Serbian" (or whatever) when they personally disagree with them, therefore when someone comes along and states something like that experienced Wikipedians do not take them seriously. I'm warning you that removing info supported by published sources (that are in accordance with Wikipedia policy) is not allowed. You may well be reported to Wikipedia administrators if you choose to engage in edit-warring over this issue (see wikilinks for clarifications).
Furthermore, even were the information you removed not supported by a reliable source, since your removal was contested and the issue controversial you would even then be strongly encouraged to discuss and wait until consensus is reached. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, please take the time to go about this properly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask you, in addition, to please take into consideration the fact (1) that you made the edit first, (2) that this is a controversial issue, (3) that your edit was immediately contested, and most importantly (4) that you are removing content supported by a reliable source. What you may think about a book you probably never even saw, is completely irrelevant on Wikipedia. This source is fully in accordance with policy. Furthermore, it is written by a third-party (non-ex-Yugoslav) scholar and published in New York, which automatically increases its credibility in comparison to more-than-frequently biased local sources.
It is because of these significant facts that I must ask you to please stop forcing your edit until we've had a chance to reach a consensus here on the talkpage. The alternative is an edit-warring report to administrators. You cannot simply remove properly sourced information on Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

People's/National

The results of the Google test are plain enough. 400 : 5 for "People's" cannot be ignored. Besides, the whole reason you've started this quite obviously wrong translation campaign is flawed. The word "narodno" is the only term translatable into "people's", and is used primarily for that purpose. The adjective "nacionalno" can only mean "national" and is used in that capacity primarily. In terms of Yugoslav communist (or communist-led) organizations, "narodno" is almost always translated into "people's". Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska Narodna Armija), just for example. It is simply wrong to translate it into "national". Your argument on the Slovene term is fine, and please do make a note of it, but from where I stand it looks like you're trying to use the wrong translation just to make the one in your language make more sense. The Yugoslav People's Liberation army is just one of the many communist (or communist-led) People's Liberation Armies all over history. It makes no sense and sounds completely wrong, I can assure you that it is public knowledge that the term "narodno" refers in this context only to "people's". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Yugoslav Communist Party did not support the idea of a Yugoslav "nation", certainly not at the time. Such a nation did not exist as far as the CKKPJ was concerned. This was proclaimed with much pomp all throughout the war by the Partisan war propaganda, and was one of the reasons behind their success. It makes absolutely no sense at all to call this a "national war", or the Partisans a "national movement". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NOT AXIS

While the Chetniks did cooperate with the Nazis in some occasions, it does not mean that they were with the Nazis. Furthermore, the US continued supplying them after 1943 as is seen here, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chetniks#cite_note-autogenerated2-10 (LAz17 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)).

Do you realize how many times this issue came up? Please take this to Talk:Chetniks, and please read the previous discussions on the subject that people might be spared repeating the same facts for the 15th time. Nobody is claiming that Chetniks were "Nazis" (Axis ≠ Nazis), the fact is is that their entire movement ended up "cooperating" (the term is collaborating) with the Axis by 1945, and fighting Allied forces. By "Allied forces", I mean the Partisans (recognized as Allies in Tehran), and the Red Army (the most significant Allied force of WWII). The idea that "some Chetniks collaborated" only makes sense in the middle phase of the conflict, before they were cut off from nearly 90% of their supplies (not completely, of course, as you pointed out, but they were cut off from the vast majority of their supplies), becoming increasingly dependent on the Axis support and finding a common foe with the Germans. At the end of the war we find them retreating side-by-side with Axis forces, even the Ustaše, with their a part of their remnant finding its way all the way to Nazi Germany (Austria) (see Bleiburg massacre). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The soviet union wanted to support communist factions over other factins. Regardless, the chetniks continued to save allies fighter pilots who were hit over yugoslavia. They continued to cooperate and were against the germans. Now, if they collaborated with germans in some instances, it does not mean that they were on the side of the germans. They did not want to be ruled by germany but their resistance was not as big as they did not want to have thousands of their civilians being slaughtered as has happened in kragujevac and elsewhere. German reprisals were harsh, so the chetniks did not fight as hard against the germans, in aiming to avoid these civilian losses. However, they were NOT ALLIES of the germans, which is why they should be in the category of "Allies/Axis:". (LAz17 (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).

• sigh* I'll respond on Talk:Chetniks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say qualifying Chetniks as being (at times) co-belligerent with the Axis forces would be closer to truth than just adding them as Axis forces. NDH, Italy, Germany were definitely Axis forces, but the situation is more complicated with Chetniks who - as the article admits - opposed Axis occupants until 1942, sometimes avoiding struggle in order to avoid reprisals and later collaborated with Germans and Italians in fighting against the Communist partisans. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many images

Well, the title says it all: the article now has too many images. The recent additions have sandwiched text on both sides, which is discouraged. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on your viewpoint. Many find the innovative use of light armour by the Axis forces a fascinating part of their campaign on the Yugoslav Front. German forces used their own as well as captured French vehicles (The Volksdeutsche 7th SS "Prinz Eugen" Division was the main user of French tanks). The Italian Army also used its own until the capitulation in 1943, whereupon German, Croatian and Partisan armoured units were formed to incorporate the sudden booty of captured armoured vehicles. Finally, these photos are so rare as to be useful to the context of that section of the article, military rather than political.

As far as lack of text is concerned, now there's a challenge to do some research......!! Oz Cro (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... it sounds a little silly to write up text so that the images don't mess-up the article? Images are added depending on the amount of text, not vice versa. Aside from a few unnecessary ones, I've nothing against any particular image, its just that there's too many, and that they need to be better organized. Images should be in support of the adjacent text. The aircraft pics do not concern the Yugoslav Front and are completely redundant. If you have an image of a Dornier operating in the Balkans, that would be great, but don't just add a pic of any one Dornier. Also, there's a HUGE bunch of Yugoslav Front images in the Commons under "Yugoslav Partisans". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: separate article on air power?

I'd add to the foregoing (#Too many images) that, along with too many pictures, the Yugoslav Front#Axis response section now contains a disproportionately detailed amount of information about aerial operations. The information is certainly significant, but IMO this article should provide a balanced and informative historical overview of the conflict, with details delegated to special topic articles. Spending 18 out of 24 or so paragraphs of "Axis response" on air war strikes me as disproportionate by all reasonable standards. It would be more informative to condense the information about the air war into one paragraph or so, and take the detailed information into an article of its own, say, Air power on the Yugoslav Front, or simply direct the reader who wants more details to the ZNDH article, which contains much of this info already. A separate article on the use of air power (or one on use of light armor, for that matter), would also represent opportunity to explain the significance of the specific tactics for military history. Miranche (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a good idea. The air war in this theatre is not very significant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia a belligerent ?

Did Jozef Tiso's Slovak Republic send troops in Yugoslavia ? The article reports 1000 slovak casualties, which would qualify them (if they were troops) as a minor belligerent, but the country is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox. Do these casualties only concern Yugoslavia's slovak minority ? The French article's infobox listed Slovakia as a belligerent but offered no specification (I've reverted that for now, as I found no source on this; the French article also currently sucks balls, but that's another matter). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Too many images #2

There's too many images in the article again... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Did chetniks fight Axis or their puppets/collaborators too?

Just wondering, if they count as on Axis side from 1942, would they also count as on allies side for 1941-1942?--Staberinde (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A very common misconception, especially in Serbia. They were a collaborator movement themselves (even though they weren't founded as such). Their anti-Axis effort amounted to relatively few scattered acts of sabotage (and airmen rescue, though they rescued Axis airmen as well). Beyond doubt their only relevant contribution to the conflict was in the form of huge Axis auxiliary militias (tens of thousands of men strong), that assisted the Axis in their efforts to destroy the resistance, and actually maintained the occupation in many areas (the Italian occupation zone in particular was, according to General Roatta, "unsustainable" without Chetnik support). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Chetniks were supported by the Western Allies and the government in exile (officially part of the Allies) until 1943-44 and antagonized the Axis on several occasions. The Oxford Companion to the Second World War (1995, p.749-750) mentions several cases of clashes between the Chetniks and the Axis:

[Chetniks and Partisans] fought uneasily side by side until brutal German repression exploded the bubble of popular optimism, relations between them turned to civil war, and, by the end of [1941], the revolt had been quelled ... [Mihailovic] had been engaged in only limited direct action against the Germans since the end of 1941 ... [The summer of 1944] marked the nadir of Mihailovic's military action against the Germans, left as he was without supplies and facing the increasing onslaught of Tito's partisans who were intent on returning to Serbia to link up with the advancing Red Army. Yet he organized the saving of shot-down Allied airmen, hunted down acknowledged collaborators, and continued rail sabotage. At the beginning of September he proclaimed a general mobilization to rid Serbia of its occupation forces.

These efforts are overshadowed by the Chetniks' collaboration with Germany and Italy, but placing them under either tag - Axis or Ally - seems misleading to me. The infobox should list them as a third party. 96T (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done some (relatively) extensive research into the subject, studying several publications. Chetnik leader Draža Mihailović approached the Germans as early as 1941 (the meeting in Divce), and Chetniks aided the German destruction of the "Užice Republic" (the First Offensive) in 1941. I won't write up a whole essay here. Suffices to say that upon study of far more detailed scholarly university publications, its clear that it is completely inappropriate to invent some "third party" in WWII merely because some Chetniks at the very start of the War fought the Germans in a minor skirmish or two. A separate column in the infobox suggests they fought the Axis. When viewing the conflict as a whole, the idea is simply laughable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've read much more about this than I have. I've read/skimmed through the Chetnik article and sections on the Chetniks in several books, and I'm not denying that they first and foremost were Italy's and Germany's allies against the Partsans, but I've still got a problem with the infobox describing them as Axis. Do the books refered to after the "Axis 1942 on" specifically refer to the Chetniks as part of the Axis powers, or as allies or associates of them? Because if the latter is the case, they should at least be separated from the Axis states by a line, like the one between the Axis powers and the puppet states.

The reason I moved the Chetniks to a separate side in the infobox is by the way that someone had moved them to the Allies section. 96T (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wanton infobox revision

User:96T, please review the sources presented before misrepresenting them in the infobox. For a brief summary I recommend you see the Chetniks article, which is mostly based on them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied above, no need to discuss the same thing two places. 96T (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

IMHO, this article has several issues. First, the chronology could be more precise. Second, it reads in several places as a love letter to the Partisans and a hatchet job against the Chetniks. Not that the Partisans don't deserve recognition (if only, for proving the most efficient movement and for winning the war) and that the Chetniks do not deserve censure for many of their deeds (not to mention their abysmal organization, or lack thereof) but it should be more nuanced and balanced. Also, I think the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be added as a belligerent, if only for 1941 (initial invasion). If by "Yugoslav front" we mean "everything happening in Yugoslavia during World War II", the article has issues : IMHO, the current version is more about the "Yugoslav people's liberation war", if you see what I mean.

I plan in the following weeks to write a draft of a new version of the article. Any suggestions will be welcome.

Also, I think the article could be renamed something like "Yugoslav Front (World War II)". After all, the 1990s civil wars were also a "Yugoslav Front", unfortunately. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1990s wars were certainly not a "Yugoslav Front". Find a source regarding that.

While the level of Draža Mihailović's personal involvement is under mediation, the fact that the primary role of the Chetnik movement in WWII was that of assisting the Axis is simply indisputable at this point. Excluding the (quote:) "few and sporadic" acts of symbolic sabotage, the various corps of the Chetniks were either 1) actively assisting the Axis as militia support, or 2) idle. Their nominal allegiance to the Allies was just that - nominal. This is all completely and utterly sourced, I'll go so far as to say that debate on this obvious point can be easily dismissed. READ the sources listed in support of the statement before removing it.

Listing them as "Allies" is one of the most POV edits this article has seen - it will be reverted without fail. If you seriously wish to contest this then I suggest you focus your energy on the main Chetniks article and concentrate on refuting the "Collaboration" section. We're not going to pretend it isn't there... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is, to put it mildly, a half-truth. You seem to forget that the Allies' propaganda was initially raving about the Chetniks. The fact that it was inaccurate and that the Chetniks' actions were grossly exxagerated does not detract from the fact that they were initially formed as a resistance movement and that the Germans kept regarding part of the various Chetnik groups as rebellious. Pretending that they were only Axis is misleading to the reader, to say the least. I do find them awful, but they should be listed, at least for now, under "Axis/Allies". As for the Chetniks article, well, it is also severely in need of a rewriting, so quoting a wikipedia article as a source for another wikipedia article is not a good method. I'd really like this discussion to remain rational and civil, while new versions of the articles are being prepared. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All right. Name one major Chetnik military action against the Axis. Just one that involved at least 2,000-3,000 men (an average Chetnik corps). Because I can name you six or seven where several thousand or even tens of thousands of Chetniks troops assisted the Axis. I keep hearing about these glorious Chetnik ant-Axis actios yet I could never find one.

Jean, in Yugoslavia "resistance" did not mean blowing up trains, or killing a few Nazi officials, or spying. That was an utterly insignificant side show. These were armies of tens of thousands of men and massive Axis military forces, (relatively) huge battles, whole regions held out of the control of the occupation, etc.

I'm not using a Wikipedia article as a source and you know it full well. I'm saying that any issue concerning the Chetniks should be resolved there, and that we shan't pretend the sources there do not exist because we're on another article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see the main point direktor, that the Chetniks were the FIRST resistance group to the Germans, before the Partizans. They might not have engaged huge battles against the Germans, but I fail to see how that is relevant. They faced a continual German onslaught for many months - the Germans were going after them moreso than they after anyone else. It is a fact that Momcilo Djujic liberated much of the Dinaric region - and went on to terrorize croatian civilians too though... but this is the point, they fought against the Germans and against the Ustashe. You complete disregard for them is amazing. Heck, they continued to receive aid from the allies even in 1944! (LAz17 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

The partizans were just like the chetniks actually, willing to cooperate with the germans... page 108 [2] - as it shows, they opposed the anglo's. And this was in 1943. (LAz17 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).