Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive6

Sources related to Mihailovic and charges of collaboration

Discussion

I've put together some quotes from various sources charging or refuting Mihailovic's collaboration, since that comes up often. Please feel free to add material to the page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the compilation will be most useful in informing the discussion. Thank you for doing that. Sunray (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Check this source - [1] page 35 - it says that some chetniks collaborated while others did not, adding more complexity. (LAz17 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)).

Not a bad idea, but it has a flaw : the issue is not black-and-white, and the fact that Chetnik groups collaborated, and that Mihailovic himself took advantage of it on several occasions, is not disputed by the majority of authors. The issue is to see if Mihailovic must be considered, above everything, an Axis collaborator. As it has been said above, to make such a statement is caricatural at best. Walter R. Roberts, for example, should not be listed as an author supporting the image of Mihailovic as collaborator, even though he does go into detail about Chetnik collaboration and/or accomodation. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges. The issue is legal in nature and therefore most certainly black and white, however "evil" that may sound. One is either "guilty" (black) or "not guilty" (white), a "traitor" or "not a traitor". However "profound" your approach may sound at a glance, there is unfortunately no "gray area" when discussing such categories.

Here's some new material for you guys to oppose heartily. I copy pasted the four quotes from above and added others. These are only the reports and primary documents that exclusively deal with Draža Mihailović personally, i.e. those on the general collaboration of the Chetnik movement are not included (my hand hurts :). Please note also that these sources are in addition to the ones quoted in the Draža Mihailović article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, so what ? Nobody here denies that contacts were made, and that many acts of collaboration were committed by Mihailovic's "troops", which means the Chetniks as a whole. May I add that I find your insistence on keeping a "black-and-white" approach to the matter to be, at best, counter-productive ? As for the argument about the issue being "legal".... well, what can I say, do you really believe that he had a fair trial ? The problem we are facing is to find a way to make a decent and complete article, in order to replace the current version, which is beneath contempt. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are portraying my "black and white approach" as unwillingness to compromise. This is not so, I have nothing against cooperation and compromise. These are word games - you call it "black and white" with negative connotations, I call it a "legal approach" (if it is an "approach" at all). It is simply a fact that trying to find a "gray area" in legal issues is utterly absurd. When I say "legal", I am not referring to his trial, I am describing the obvious nature of this dispute, i.e. one is either "guilty" (black) or "not guilty" (white), a "traitor" or "not a traitor". Or are you suggesting we describe him as a "well-meaning half-traitor of the good kind"?

The sources do not merely describe contacts. Word games again. Please read them all and address them all if you seriously wish to discuss. Furthermore, "making contacts" or even trying to make contacts alone is collaboration, fraternization with the enemy, i.e. high treason in legal terms. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The quotes which you painstakingly present into pretty little boxes in order to give them more formal weight describe "alleged" contacts made by M. himself, mention the fact that it is "According to a trustworthy source", that M. never openly compromised himself (and indeed, that shall be adressed later in the draft), that cease-fire agreements were made (indeed they were) and that Chetnik groups cooperated with the Germans and had liaison officers (which is true). One of the quotes states that "We are striving to dissuade him [Mihailovic] from actions against German", which means that such actions existed. Another that "The question is if these, under the circumstances, can be won over for our side." (i.e., they were not, or at least not all of them). The quotes actually mean nothing, besides the fact that the Germans were striving to find a modus vivendi with the polycephalous Chetnik movement (and indeed they were, no one here is denying this). Tito also made contacts with the enemy, such as the truce during the third offensive, which gave him more time to fight the Chetniks. Does that make him a traitor ? I must say that I am increasingly doubtful over your approach, which seems motivated less by the desire to favor historical truth than by the apparent desire to make a point. Interpreting sources and carefully selecting them (or misquoting them) so they fit one's personal opinion is not the right way to improve the current article which is, I repeat myself, utterly worthless. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was eagerly awaiting the arrival of your standard offhand dismissal of essentially "damning" sources, not to mention your ignoring of the crucial segments of both the sources and my post above. It would seem you have no choice but to discuss in this manner.

In addition to seeking and having contacts with the Germans as you admitted (Note: this is collaboration), the sources (as primary quotes from historical documents quoted in secondary scholarly publications) can be used on this project as 100% proof positive that Draža Mihailović has indeed, among other things:

• "allowed" his commanders to collaborate with the Axis (Note: this is collaboration). (Or even "ordered" them to do so, according to a source considered by Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs to be "trustworthy" during battle in the Second World War. It seems this source isn't "trustworthy" enough for Wikipedia User:Jean-Jacques Georges. :) This point is moot however.)
• authorized a series of cease-fire agreements after meetings with the German envoy Dr. Neubacher (in late 1943) (Note: this is collaboration),
• had a meeting with collaborationist General Milan Nedić (Note: this is collaboration) during which he authorized General Nedić to offer the Germans the inclusion of his Chetnik units in the "unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom" (Note: this is collaboration). The Germans accepted,
• disobeyed orders from the King and government to submit his forces to the command of the newly appointed commander-in-chief of all Allied Yugoslav forces Marshal Josip Broz Tito, and instead approached the Germans (Note: this is collaboration),

...etc, read the quotes for more info. The man has, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, engaged in "collaboration" with the Axis forces. He is hence, a "collaborator" and "traitor". As emotional and "negative" as this sounds, it is a fact, and I am merely stating it plainly (and without word games). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Traitor to whom ? As for his meeting with Nedic, ahem... could I mention that by late 1944, Nedic was himself considering switching to Allied side ? In may 1945, Nedic actually wrote to Eisenhower, pleading that he had always been on Allied side, and that he had been a secret ally of Mihailovic. Nedic's attempt, of course, was pathetic, and did not take into account the fact that the Allies had dumped Mihailovic, but would he have said that if Mihailovic had been an all-out collaborator ? Would the British also have proposed to evacuate Mihailovic ?

I am not dismissive of sources, I am just dismissive of your treatment of them, which seems far too biased to me. May I also add that you are being needlessly agressive ? Regardless of what you seem to think, sarcasm is generally not funny. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Traitor to whom?" :) To the Allied state of Yugoslavia, represented by King Peter II and the royal government in London and later by the joint coalition government headed by PM Josip Broz Tito. The same state in who's military he was serving at the time. The same state which was at war with the Axis Powers at the time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Mihailovic was initially considered by the Allies to be representing them in Yugoslavia. The fact that King Peter II was gradually forced to accept Tito's de facto dominance over Yugoslavia does not detract from the fact that in 1941 (and even most of 1942) Tito was a complete unknown and that the Allies initially had no idea who he was. Actually Mihailovic's side considered that Tito was a traitor to the King. That Tito ultimately proved the most efficient commander cannot be doubted. But laying down the situation in such simplistic terms as you do seems to come from a comic-booky vision of history. Sorry, but in any exam, you'd get at least a "D" for writing this. Now I'd like to end this conversation. If anyone else wants to comment, I'd be more than willing to have a meaningful exchange on this matter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Utter nonsense? LoL... Draža Mihailović was subordinate to the Yugoslav government (1941-1943), which alone represented Yugoslavia 1941-1943. After the recognition of the Partisans in late 1943 there were essentially two Yugoslav government which agreed to merge and did so in 1944. Draža Mihailović's actions were treasonous towards both.

Furthermore, what the Allies thought about Draža Mihailović is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing actual events in Yugoslavia, not their perception 60 years ago. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's keep the discussion civil. Direktor, I'm glad to see that you are still following the discussion, and I hope you will participate in the discussions as we work on the wording of the article. JJG, I do not think the issue is whether we should or should not consider Mihailovic "above everything, an Axis collaborator". The question is how do we merge information from various sources. For what it's worth, if we had to say (and we don't) what Mihailovic was, I'd suggest he was anti-Partisan first and foremost, and secondly, pro-Serbian to the point of supporting/condoning ethnic cleansing, and that both his resistance and collaborative activities were subordinate to his desire to maintain Serbian hegemony. Traitor to whom is, I think, a valid question, since it appears to me his loyalties were solely to Serbs and the King, and the latter eventually withdrew support. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you say : we do not have to decide between ourselves if Mihailovic was, above all, this or that, but to lay down what he did, when he did it and - as far as that is known - why he did it. The problem is that Direktor's sole concern is apparently to make a point, not to build a credible article.

The current version is not only propaganda : it's bad and ineffectual propaganda, and has to be taken down.

Indeed, to make a long story shorter, Mihailovic was one of those for whom "Yugoslavia" actually meant "Serbia", or a least "Serbia and other subordinate states". But considering him as a traitor to the King is absurd. Anyway, the Allies initially played him up as one of them (grossly inflating his actual deeds) and even after he fell from favor, never openly condemned him as a traitor (at least, as far as the western allies were concerned) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This person was certainly not "above everything, an Axis collaborator". I want to be clear that I do not claim anything of the sort. He was, first and foremost, a royalist Serbian general and leader of the Serbian nationalist faction during the WWII Yugoslav front. He is, however without a shadow of a doubt, a collaborator as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You do claim such a thing, for you keep supporting a version of the article starting with "an Axis collaborator..." (this claim being supposedly supported by a myriad of sources... only most of them are being grossly misquoted). And, without a shadow of a doubt, he also founded a resistance movement which was, for a time, considered a very valuable asset by the Allies. Hence, the current version is biased and inadequate. The new version should present all aspects of the character, whithout looking like a shrine (which it used to be, I think) or like a clumsy smear campaign (which it is now) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not, and I furthermore do not think you should go around defining people's positions for them. I am completely flexible on the issue of the lead (which you would know had you read the discussion on the talkpage), I merely do not support the removal of the statement that this person was a collaborator as that is textbook Balkans nationalist whitewashing. I did not support your edits because they were 1) completely undiscussed and without consensus, and 2) because the discussion is on here and we do not need another edit-war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I furthermore think that you should not start openly doubting the honesty of other users, like you did for me, if you do not want them to doubt yours. Agressivity is not the best way to build good cooperative behaviour. "I merely do not support the removal of the statement that this person was a collaborator " : hence you support an intro which would include a controversial - and simplistic - opinion. By the way, had you read the draft on which I am currently working (and Indeed I should be doing that instead of discussing here) you would have seen that the collaboration issue is mentioned in the intro. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt your honestly in the slightest, you are merely an apt debater very well versed in word games. Calling a plain and simple fact "simplistic" is another word game. This man was a collaborator, plain and simple - the lead should state that, plain and simple. ALL variations on the theme are acceptable as far as I'm concerned (e.g. "he collaborated in this way, that way", etc.). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's keep to the topic at hand. Also, I see some consensus in these last paragraphs, can we work on refining that? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've had another crack at the lead above, could everyone take a look and see if it's closer to something we can all accept? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmh.... Yes and no. Being a lazy bastard, I'm afraid that before we do anything, I'll have to go against my nature and get back to work on the draft and, if possible, finish it tomorrow (or thursday, at worst). This way, we'll be able to work on a "complete Mihailovic story" (that is, with a beginning, a middle and an end). I might give a hand myself to rephrase the lead. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both these initiatives seem to be a good way to move forward. Nuujinn, you would like comments on your re-draft of the lead. I will take a look. Then we can put it into a new section and ask other participants to comment. JJG, I applaud your initiative in carrying out a re-draft. I think we should get participants to comment on that once you are done. Sunray (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR has said that since Mihailovic was engaged in "collaboration" with the Axis forces he must therefore be, a "collaborator" and "traitor".

I would like some discussion of this. We will decide on the wording by consensus. Let me pose the problem with an example: Let's say that a subject of a WP article stole some goods at one time; this might have been done out of necessity (like the character Jean Val Jean in Les Miserables. The individual, like Jean Val Jean, may have done many other things in life that were more notable. Is that person properly labelled "a thief"?

Words like "collaborator" and "traitor" are in the eye of the beholder. They are also loaded. How would a Serbian anti-communist nationalist, have seen Mihailovic? Not likely as a traitor. The complication of this article is that there was a internal struggle going on at the same time as the World War. So it seems that there are no blacks and whites—only shades of grey. We need to reflect the sources accurately. From what I have seen the majority of sources do not make simplistic assertions such as "M was a collaborator," or "M was a traitor." On the other hand, most sources seem to agree that there was collaboration and participants generally seem to accept that. Have I reflected the problem accurately? Would participants please give their views on this? Sunray (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) e

Sunray, whether or not the word "collaborator" is used is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. I do not suggest that we use such POV labels in the article, I was merely illustrating his status in the most blunt manner to make a point (after all in the strictest sense a person who commits treason is a "traitor", and a person who steals is a "thief", circumstances be damned). In the end, I believe we're here to discuss facts, not quibble over the most PC wording. This person was a soldier in the Yugoslav army. The question is: did this person "collaborate" with the enemy military or not? I believe the many sources brought forth have established this conclusively as far as fraternization is concerned.

In other words, essentially stating that "Draža Mihailović collaborated with out of necessity" is perfectly fine by me, as long as we do indeed mention that he collaborated. I am aware that he was more-or-less "forced" to do so strategically (I say "more-or-less" since nobody really put a gun to his head, and the Partisans managed rather fine without Axis aid). However, excluding the term "collaboration" is I think a step too far towards sacrificing factuality to "feel-good" wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarity on this. I am in agreement with your statement about not using POV labels in the article. I don't think we are trying to find a "PC wording," though. In a civil war, one side will often declare members of the other side as "traitors." Thus one side's "hero" can be the other side's "traitor." Words like hero and traitor rarely belong in an encyclopedia, IMO. The convention is: Describe what the the individual did. Let the reader decide.

That being said, I am confident that we can find the best wording. And Wikipedia will be well-served if we do. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One quote that struck me from Cohen work, from Major Peta Martinovic-Bajica, officer of the Serbian State Guard and intelligence office for Mihailovic: "Milan Nedic collaborated with the occupier, the Serbian State Guard collaborated; the Serbian Volunteer Corps collaborated; the Chetniks--with a few exceptions--collaborated; I, myself, collaborated, too--[however,]not one of us did it for the sake of himself but for the sake of the Serbian people." I do not think the simple statement "Mihailović was a collaborator" is appropriate anywhere in the article, and I agree it is a loaded term, so we should be very careful with how we phrase things. As for traitor, I do not think the sources support use of that term. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @Sunray. Ok this has to be clarified. This is not about two sides in a civil war calling each-other "traitors" (i.e. "Those people are traitors because they're opposed to us, the rightful side"). This is about collaboration with the Axis occupation (i.e. "Those people are traitors because they collaborated with the military occupying our country"). Both sides of the "civil war" (though that term is disputed) were at war with the Axis, only one faction's commander collaborated with the enemy. The term "collaborator(s)" is just not mutually applicable.

Lets move forward. I think we've by now agreed that the label "collaborator" is not NPOV? I'm willing to grant that this may paint a slightly too "negative" picture. However, labels aside, the general statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia" is simply correct and very much accurate, and I think this is where we should draw the line. (The sentence in the lead need not of course necessarily be the one above, but the essential statement of fact should remain.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy that about "who is collaborating against who". The Partizans have stated that their main enemy is the Chetniks, in 1943. They were in negotiations with germans. And they stated this. Therefore I certainly see nothing wrong in any way with the chetnik actions - I think that does not automatically reduce them to being Axis.

Quoting German commanders might not be a good idea. In 1944 or 1945 a german commander said that the croats had killed 1.5 million serbs er so, some insanely huge figure. Germans commanders hence are not always the most reliable source, considering the the furherer would probably have their head if he news that he did not like.

The chetniks have had tied with the english and americans well into 1944. Therefore I hope we could at least agree that they were not on the side of the nazi's until after the Treaty of Vis - since which their legitimacy to exist was no more. Does that automatically make them Nazi's though? I would say that it's enough to say that they were with the Nazi's - reluctantly, but they were so, out of necessity to survive - and they were against the partizans whom they did not see to be allied.

This is the problem that we have with Direktor- that he feels that the Chetniks were Axis since day one. He goes off saying "they did not send any big forces to attack germans" while I fail to see how that matters whatsoever. (LAz17 (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)).

LAz, your views are somewhat "archaic" as far as this issue is concerned. Virtually ALL that you stated has been conclusively refuted by now.

• First and foremost: this is about Draža Mihailović himself, not the Chetniks. That large elements of the Chetnik movement were collaborating by late 1941 and early 1942 (while the remainder remained inactive) has been effectively established beyond the point of contention. This is not a debatable issue, certainly not here.

"In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans."
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

• Please understand: the perception of Chetnik activities 60 years ago is completely and utterly irrelevant to this issue. It is their actual actions we are concerned with, not what people may or may not have thought about them in 1944 or something. This is crucial, you must understand this or we can't really discuss.
• Its not up to you or any of us to determine the validity of primary sources, its up to scholars. These primary sources were published in scholarly secondary sources and therefore cannot be dismissed on the grounds of your opinion. In addition, these are not crazy post-war statements, but official OKW reports.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying that they collaborated, nor have I every denied that. However, you refuse to acknowledge that they were a resistance army, and label them as collaborators since day one pretty much. I feel that you are biased against the Chetniks - I don't like any of the groups there during that time, but I honestly feel that you are pushing to equate them with the occupiers. (LAz17 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)).

It would be much better if we could focus entirely on the content, and leave aside personal views of other editors. Also, please understand that it is not necessary that we agree completely, a teacher of mine described consensus as the moment when everyone is equally dissatisfied. I hope we can do better than that, but it's a illustrative view.

LAz17, I think you raise an interesting point in that the British did criticize Mihailović and the Chetniks for not engaging Axis forces, and in turn, the British have been criticized for holding them to a different standard than other European resistance forces. Roberts treats this on pp. 72-73, noting that the Yugoslavian government in exile promoted the notion that 'the Cetniks had risen against the occupier'. By their nature, resistance forces generally do not engage in direct conflict, and I think the issue in this case is further muddied by the confusion as to whether a given act of resistance or conflict was committed by the Chetniks or the Partisans--some of the sources assert that the Yugoslavian government in exile claimed Partisan actions to be those of the Chetniks, and other sources assert that the Soviets claimed Chetniks action to be those of the Partisans. But I think the sources do support the notion that opportunistic collaboration began in the fall of 1941. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I "miswrote" when I said "views", I was in fact addressing LAz's "stance" in this discussion. Some of these facts had to have been cleared-up if productive discussion was to ensue, I think. Though I appreciate your keeping everything in focus, Nuujin. :) As for the British and their opinions about Draža Mihailović, I don't see how this is relevant. "He did not collaborate because sixty years ago the British thought he did not collaborate"?

To keep the discussion on track, I'll copy-paste part of my earlier statement: I think we've by now agreed that the label "collaborator" is not NPOV? I'm willing to grant that this may paint a slightly too "negative" picture. However, labels aside, the general statement "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia" is simply correct and very much accurate, and I think this is where we should draw the line. (The sentence in the lead need not of course necessarily be the one above, but the essential statement of fact should remain.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, participants are not in agreement that we should use the word "collaborator." In reviewing the discussion in light of policy on the matter, how can you say that use of the term meets WP:NPOV? Sunray (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we state that Mihailovic "collaborated" with the Axis, it will confuse many readers of the Wikipedia. The word "collaboration" has 2 meanings:

1. work jointly on an activity or project

2. cooperate traitorously with an enemy

Many readers may well conclude that in this context the word "collaboration" has the second meaning as shown above (number 2). I think we should state that Mihailovic approved "controversial arrangements" with the Axis. BoDu (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... BoDu, if you were to write "this person collaborated with the occupation forces" only a total imbecile would conclude they "worked jointly on an activity or project" :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Several participants do agree that the wording should talk about the collaboration in the proper context. Sunray (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, as do I. The above post has me a little confused, what is the purpose of the dictionary quote? The meaning we are referring to in this discussion is obviously the second one, which refers especially to this type of situation.

On to the context. The question is what is the "proper" context? Claims that Draža Mihailović was "forced to collaborate" by his strategic situation need to be sourced in some way before they can be seriously considered, don't you think Sunray? Otherwise they're plain speculation and personal user estimates of the (highly complex, varying, obscure) strategic situation. Collaboration brings significant, tangible benefits. It is just as plausible that Mihailović intended to do so, after all, we have his envoys approaching the Germans in 1941 not vice versa. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything must be sourced. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, according to the Oxford Dictionary the second meaning of the word "collaboration" is: "cooperate traitorously with an enemy". If Mihailovic's collaboration with the Axis was not a treason, than we are talking here about the first meaning: "work jointly on an activity". BoDu (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bodu, I do not believe we are bound by a single dictionary's definition, see others, such as here, here, here and here. Collaboration has a very wide range of meanings, and I think at this point there is no question that Mihailovic collaborated, but rather how do we present that aspect balanced against others, such as his creation of a resistance force. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, these actions do constitute high treason under any legal system. Collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a way to commit treason, i.e. collaboration with the enemy during wartime is a form of treason.

In other words, Draža Mihailović did most certainly "cooperate traitorously with an enemy". Thank you for proving that treason is naturally implied when stating that someone collaborated with the enemy during wartime. I can agree that the term itself is not NPOV enough for encyclopedic use, but certainly not that it isn't factual and correct. Why in the world are you bringing up dictionaries? Everybody knows what "collaboration" means in this context, i.e. everybody knows its not "publishing a paper together" or something. "Draža Mihailović collaborated with the Germans in publishing an article in Nature"? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, we are not bound by a single dictionary's definition. My point is(I am repeating myself) if we state that Mihailovic "collaborated" with the Axis it will confuse the readers. Are you against my proposal that we state "Mihailovic approved controversial arrangements with the Axis"? In case you do not agree, can you tell me why not? DIREKTOR, can you say how many scholars claim that Mihailovic's actions constitute high treason? And you have not explained how I proved that treason is naturally implied when stating that someone collaborated with the enemy during wartime when I quoted the Oxford Dictionary?BoDu (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, I would prefer to think if we phrase things correctly we will be illuminating readers, but we are obligated to follow sources in any case. I honestly think you would do better to leave aside dictionaries and encyclopedias and find some reliable secondary sources to bolster your claims, since the latter have precedence over the former by policy. I would also point out that your logic is backwards--since we have sources that say he collaborated, if we accepted you view that collaboration means "cooperate traitorously", then we'd be obligated to use the word traitor as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, statements "Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis" and "Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis" do not contradict. If Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis, then he logically collaborated with the Axis. Regarding the meaning of collaboration, "cooperate traitorously" is not the only meaning of this word according to the Oxford Dictionary, so we'd not be obligated to use the word traitor as well. BoDu (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the statements you listed do not contradict one another, and sources do say that Mihailovic did, in fact, approve cooperation with Axis forces. You are, I think, incorrect in your assertion that because the Oxford dictionary uses the phrase "cooperate traitorously" we must use the word "traitor" in characterizing Mihailovic. Indeed, unless reliable sources use that word, for us to do so would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not understand what I am saying. I am strongly opposed that we use the word "traitor" in characterizing Mihailovic. I am saying that we do not have to use word "collaboration" to describe Mihailovic's actions (approval of arrangements with the Axis). The statement "Mihailovic approved some arrangements with the Axis" is enough. BoDu (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to follow what the sources say, and most of the source say that he collaborated to one degree or another, so I say we say "collaborated", although we have a responsibility to phrase that appropriately. I agree that we should not use the word traitor, as it is not sourced. But if, as you say "...Mihailovic approved arrangements with the Axis, then he logically collaborated with the Axis", and we know from sources that he approved arrangements with the Axis, why do you object to using the word collaboration? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to using the word collaboration, because this word is sometimes used to describe traitorous acts during the Nazi occupation. If use this word it will confuse many readers. On other hand, I do not object to state that some historians claim Mihailovic cooperated traitorously if such scholars exist. BoDu (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the word "traitor" is much more problematic than "collaboration." When you use it, it begs the question: "Traitor to whom?" As far as I know he was loyal to the King and the exiled Yugoslavian government. When his enemy Tito came to power, he was executed. I would be suspicious of sources that refer to him as a "traitor." Sunray (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, its a lot more complex - you're getting the wrong impression entirely. He was, in fact, a traitor to the King as well. (This is all sourced, if necessary I can back it up.)

• Throughout 1943 increasing reports of Chetnik idleness and even collaboration with the Italians were received by Churchill, the main backer of the King and his government in London. At the same time, the Partisans had just successfully evaded two massive attacks, each by Axis forces numbering around 120,000 men, and had managed to actually gain influence and territory in occupied Yugoslavia. This was also noted by Churchill.
• In November 1943 at the Tehran Conference, Tito's government (AVNOJ) received Churchill's backing and official recognition by the Allies. The royal government in London reluctantly consented to this (under pressure from all sides), and agreed to form a coalition government with Tito's People's Liberation Front in the near future.
• In early 1944, the Treaty of Vis was signed formalizing the coalition government, with Tito as the official prime minister of Yugoslavia and the commander-in-chief of its military. Both sides agreed that the new name of the state is "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", and the question of "republic vs. kingdom" was deliberately left open - to be decided in the post-war elections. (The King was not deposed at that time, but in November 1945.)
• Following these developments, Draža Mihailović was ordered by the King and the royal government-in-exile in London to submit his forces to Tito's command. He did not do so, but instead approached the Germans.

In short, Tito was the universally recognized Allied prime minister & commander-in-chief of Yugoslavia as early as 1944 - with the (albeit unwilling) support of the King and government. At this time, Draža Mihailović was a "traitor" to all Yugoslav authorities, and was, as such, permanently abandoned by the Allied powers. Its a lot more one-sided than you think, Sunray. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is months shortly before the war ended (1941-1945). FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we need to clear this up first: having collaborated since 1941 he was, in fact, a "traitor" from then on - his actions were simply unknown. It is only in 1943/44 that they became widely known and had cost him dearly. My above post simply refers to the fact that the King and Tito had come to an understanding later on, with Mihailović refusing to accept that - thus finally even coming into conflict with Peter II, as well as Tito. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What "traitorous" acts have been documented by reliable sources after Tito came to be the universally recognized prime minister in 1944? Sunray (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise Sunray for interfering, but I hope that you allow me to also ask direktor what sources claim they collaborated as early as 1941? FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sunray. Oh that's easy. As of 1944, the military of Yugoslavia were "the Partisans", i.e. the NOVJ (again, they were universally recognized by the Allies as such, even by the King in London). (This is why Draža Mihailović was instructed to join them.) Any military action against them was effectively "traitorous", and especially so if in coordination with the enemy. Draža Mihailović and the Chetniks most certainly continued to fight against them, as is easily verifiable (most notably in the Raid on Drvar). These were the last stages of the Yugoslav Front theater, and Chetnik movement was increasingly "forced" (by their refusal to join the Partisans) to collaborate with the Germans. They had no source of supplies and munitions other than the Axis, and were increasingly dependent on them. The Red Army was also fast approaching, pushing them further towards the Axis.

Thank you for your detailed response. As I read it, it strikes me just how incredible a story it is. The more we can work together to tell this story, the better it will be for WP readers. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 10 Ju ne 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Yugoslav Front is a very complex, but also very dramatic and interesting theatre of WWII (albeit relatively small in scale). Despite Jean's objections to "comic-bookyness" it was rather one-sided in terms of "good guys"/"bad guys". In addition to all this, the Serbian Chetniks had proclaimed an ethnic cleansing campaign and carried out as much of it as they could - much like the Croatian Ustaše state. The Partisans were the only faction to promote pan-Yugoslav tolerance. Though a communist-run movement, they represented a a large coalition of republican, federalist parties and prominent individuals from every Yugoslav nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It may look one-sided to some, but from what I have read thus far, I don't see it that way. Mihailović, like many resistance fighters, played a dangerous (and deceptive) game. Clearly, though his arch enemy was the communist Tito. In hindsight, we might say that he underestimated Tito, but realistically, he probably couldn't have known that Tito would win. And so he wound up on the wrong side of history. Black and white? Only to those who share that perspective. As to ethnic cleansing. I note the use of the term "ethnically clean" (or rather, the translation of the term from Serbian). I doubt very much that the term he used had the connotations of the term as it is now. And that is the difficulty with history, I think. Just as (you argue) Tomasevich's skill was his ability to reflect events in the context of the time, so must that be our task. Sunray (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, but in the course of his game Mihailović benefited significantly from bargaining with the Axis. Something Tito had not done. In the end this not only lost him much of the support of the populace who suffered terribly under fascist occupation, but also the recognition of the Allied powers. Crucially, he was hoping that the British would be in Yugoslavia and defeat Tito for him, and that his force should remain intact until such time as they can be used - and if they can help the Germans knock-out Tito before that time, all the better. This is a good strategy, but it assumes to much - for example it underestimates the MI6 and the Ultra intercepts. The British caught on and consequently left him to his own devices long before anyone could even speculate whether they or the Red Army were to arrive in Yugoslavia first.

Churchill, a stauch royalist and traditionalist, paradoxically backed the left-wing Tito movement. Why? is an interesting question. Churchill considered Tito not to be a pawn of Stalin's or an easily controllable man. It turns out this move was very clever and could not've been better for the western Allies. Had Churchill backed Mihailović throughout, its still unlikely the Partisans would've been wiped out (the worst attacks were over by 1944). Either way, the Red Army would've been in Yugoslavia first and would've installed whom they pleased - leaving the British with no influence in Yugoslavia. As it actually turned out, a British-friendly Tito broke completely with Stalin after a couple of years (in 1948, the Tito-Stalin split) with Tito's Yugoslavia becoming a neutral country well outside (and actually threatened by) the Warsaw Pact - the Soviet Bloc was left with no exit in the Meiterranean Sea. My home city, Split (the former HQ of the Yugoslav navy), would've no doubt been used as a large Mediterranean Soviet military port. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some points I would like to adreess and clarify. The veracity of the "Instrukcije" is disputed (I´ll try to provide further on this). Even in the document, the ethnic cleansing is not tha clear, specially having in mind that the consideration of what were Serbs was much wider back then (Macedonians or Bosniaks, Bosnian Muslims, were considered Muslim Serbs, by the Monarchists), and if you read the document, the "cleansing of all national minorities" comes in same point along with the anti-state elements, by that meaning, the national minorities that welcomed the Axis occupiers, that unfortunatelly were many (Bulgarians, Hungarians, Italians, Albanians, Turks...) having as target, the "collaborationist minorities", far from "all" as wanted to be given understand. For exemple, the Jewish part of family was never in danger from the Monarchists neither the Chetniks, right the oposite, they were even protected! FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Instrukcije are a document produced by one of Mihailović's commanders, and are very damning in terms of ethnic cleansing. The defense claimed it was forged, but then the defense claimed many things we now know are false. Whether the commander who produced them at Mihailović's trial was "lying" or not is a matter of meaningless speculation.

Monarchists are not at all necessarily opposed to Jews and do not advocate their extermination. The Chetniks were not Nazis. The "national minorities" referred to in the document were Albanians, Muslims ("Turks"), Hungarians, Germans, and Croats. "Ethnic cleansing" refers to "cleaning" out regions populated by non-Serbian populations. Its debateable whether the term can apply to the Jews at all, which were a rather small minority and did not claim any areas of the country as their own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But even here, we can see how the "collaborationist" apologists enter in contradictions relatively to Chetniks. It is a fact that those mentioned minorities did welcomed the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. The Croatians made their puppet state, many Bosniaks fought along the Germans or Croatians (the terrible Handzar SS units), the Hungarians welcomed the Hungarian invasion of Bačka, Baranja and Prekmurje, Italians and Albanians welcomed Italian Mussolini troops that invaded almost 1/3 of the country, Germans and Austrians mostly welcomed the invasion, Bulgarians supported the invasion and anexation of Vardar Macedonia, etc. All those "targeted" minorities had within them strong collaborationist movements and, as said, "anti-state elements". By that, you can see that M-Chetniks kept anti-collaborationist policies, by fighting collaborationist state elements/national minorities. When Partisans fought the same minorities, you´ll certainly defend, direktor, that they fought the enemy. See my point Sunray? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Two points: 1) all assertions should be sourced. If you make a claim and don't provide a source, you're really just talkin' 2) We have some questions for resolution below, my thought is there's not much point in bringing up new issues until we resolve the ones we have. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Fkp. Yes, and the Serbs had their own puppet Serbia so they must've "welcomed the Germans" too... You will find collaborators in every country and among every nationality [2][3][4]. The Croats and Muslims were particularly opposed to the occupation with hundreds of thousands joining the Partisans. The Ustaše were a tiny party with no political support, their Home Guard was a joke, and the Handschar was just a unit, no larger than the Serbian Volunteer Corps. Such generalizations are very strange... what puppet states or military units the occupying powers choose to establish do not reflect the position of the nationalities they target with such acts.

(Thugh admittedly sources do describe the Yugoslav Germans as "highly organized" and almost exclusively controlled by the Nazis, this is certainly not true with Albanians and Italians.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, yes, here we are just talking. I already contributed "below", thanx for reminding.

Direkor (and Sunray), the difference is that in Serbia most (not to say all) population was terribly frightened with the German invasion because WWI was still very fresh in their memories, and I think is well known how Serbs regarded Austro-Hungary as "Germans", so for many it was like a continuation of same (Germany helped A-H in WWI). That is why Serbs had less disposition for collaboration in first place. It´s unrealistic to compare Serbs with Yugoslav minorities of Hungarians, Germans, Albanians, Italians and Bulgarians, that saw in the invasion a chance of "liberation", just as Croatians (most were, by then, oposing to the idea of Yugoslavia, anyway) saw an oportunity for their aspirations, as well. I´m not saying that ones are right, or others wrong, just that the situation was different for each ones, and that was influential in the resulting alliencies during the war. FkpCascais (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

convenience break

@Fkp.

In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans. [etc...]
Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

OK, now, do you have any other that is not Tomasevic? FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 9June 2010 (UTC)

I refuse on principle to lift a finger. Do you have any relevant reason why I need someone other than Tomasevich? (By "relevant" I mean anything other than personal opinions.)

Sunray notice: the above source by Tomasevich is beyond question. Few authors have covered this specific issue in such meticulous detail. The author does NOT state his own opinions, but merely describes events based on concrete primary sources. As an example of the Nedić-Mihailović collaboration he explains in great detail the system of transferring Mihailović's detachments to Nedić and back, in order for them to be suplied by the Axis and used by them against the Partisans. Every word is sourced with in-line citations, mostly from US archives. This publication is Stanford peer-review and critically acclaimed.

Do you consider this source unreliable in any way? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed this at length. No one has brought forward credible peer-reviewed evidence to dislodge Tomasevich as a reliable source. Fkp raises an interesting point though: We should not rely on only one source. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. This issue keeps getting reopened for some reason, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, lets avoid precipitated conclusions, it was a simple yes or no question. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rushing things"?? :) We've been talking about this for almost two months [5]. Sunray, despite that being obvious I'll still make a point of stating that I was certainly not trying to force you into a "yes or no question". I'm merely asking your opinion on the reliability of the source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is to my question that you need to answer with yes, or no. Do you have any other source that claims that collaboration happend as early as 1941? FkpCascais (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one:

• Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253346568, 9780253346568.

p. 8 "Moreoever, as already suggested, Draza Mihailovic entered into open collaboration with fascist Italy and cooperated with the Germans on certain occaisions as well. Mihailovic was quite open about the fact that he regarded the anti-Axis Partisans, rather than the Axis occupation forces, as his principal foe."

p. 133 Sept 1941, M. enters secret negotiations with Nedic's gov. On or about 15 oct, Col Popovic on behalf of Nedic brought Mihailovic 500K dinar in addition to a similar sum paid 4 oct. On 26 Oct, Popovic delivered another 2.5M dianr. "Acting in the name of the Nedic government, Acimovic served as the key liaison between teh Germans and Mihailovic. By mid-November 1941, M had placed 2,000 of his men under the direct command of General Nedic, and a few days later these Chetniks joined the Germans in a military operation against the Partisans."

And another:

• Cohen, Philip J. (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 0890967601, 9780890967607.

p, 41 "In fact, Mihailovic's efforts to establish cooperation with the Germans had so favorably impressed Capt. Josef Matl of Abwehr (German Military Intelligence) that, in October of 1941, Matl reported that the Chetnik detachment of the Yugoslav army under the command of Col. Draza Mihailovic had placed themselves at the disposal of the German Wehrmacht."

p. 42 "Prior to the November meeting, Mihailovic also had attempted to forge cooperative relationships with committed Axis collaborators. As early as May, 1941, a little more than one month after the German's had invaded Yugoslavia, Mihailovic sent his second lieutenant, Vladimir Lenac, to Belgrade to meet with Ljotic. Lenac, who had headed the Zbor youth movement at Zagreb University, informed Ljotic of Mihailovic's interest in collaboration...."

p. 43 "Nevertheless, even as Mihailovic offered to cooperate with Tito against the Germans, he promised to join the Nazis in fighting the Partisans. It appears that Mihailovic kept his word only to the Nazis. During November, 1941, Partisan-held territory near the Serbian town of Pozarevac was attacked jointly by one German battalion, the Hungarian Danube Flottila, and four Serbian formations; Ljotic's 6th Volunteer Detachment, two of Nedic's detachmets, six Chetnik detachments led by Pecanac, and Mihailovic's Chetniks"

--Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nuujinn. I´ll study the sources you provided. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They were listed in the article for nine months, complete with Google Books links. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an easy question then. Please don´t forget Sunray´s question that I unfortunatelly interropted. FkpCascais (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

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 (Source: Peter Broucek, Ein General in Zwielicht; Errinerungen Edmund Glaises von Horstenau, Wien-Koeln-Graz, 1988; p.421)

According to a trustworthy source, Mihailović has ordered his commanders to co-operate with Germans. He himself can not step forward in such a fashion because of the impact such move could have on the disposition of the populace.

— Report to the OKW (German High Command) of 23 November 1943 (translated), Frhr. Maximilian von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall; Commander, Army Group F (Balkans) (Source: Janusz Piekalkiewicz, Krieg auf dem Balkan 1940-1945; München - Gütersloh o. J.)

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...

— Frhr. Maximilian von Weichs Generalfeldmarschall; Commander, Army Group F (Balkans) (Source: Werner Roehr (zusammengestellt), Europa unterm Hakenkreuz-Okkupation und Kollaboration (1938-1945), 1994, p.358)

As in fall of 1943 Tito´s movement grew stronger, supported by Russian and English help and as Mihailović movement was being pushed into Serbia (and additionally weakened by non-existence of Italian support), Mihailović realized that the time has come to re-examine his attitude to the Germans. As the German leadership in the same time was striving to unite and activate all of the anti-communist forces in the South-east (for which a Sp. envoy for South-east, Dr. Neubacher, has been appointed in October 1943),the contacts were made and in the next two months a series of cease-fire agreements was made between German military posts and Mihailović's commanders. He refrained from personal involvement, mostly because he didn't want to lose the Anglo-American arms shipments, which he still received, no matter how smaller than before. Anyway the actions by Mihailović's organization against the Germans stopped. This lead to a marked improvement of situation.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, p.632-732

On August 17th (OB message of August 20th) Nedić [Prime Minister of the Serbian collaborationist state, "Nedić's Serbia"] offered [the Germans] the unification of all Serbian forces for the defense of communist-endangered Serbdom. He emphasized that he was officially speaking for Mihailović too, after the meeting they had. He asked for a immediate shipment of 3 million small-arms rounds and a approval for creating of a 50,000 strong Serbian army made mostly of Mihailovic's units. OB South-east,after consulting with Mil. Bef. Suedsot, quickly reached a conclusion that a turning down this offer meant antagonising all of the Serbs,new Tito's succeses, cuting all the comunications (especially to Greece) and to the stopping of economical exploitation.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b, 7/I, p.706

Serbia: Mihailović strives for a national-Serbian army. He waits for an outside impulse to take action. Because there is still no such impulse, his movement faces crisis. Opposite to him, communism steadily gains influence; it pushed Mihailović out of Croatia [Note:this is the Independent State of Croatia and includes Bosnia]. Because of this, he seeks contact with German posts. We are striving to dissuade him from actions against Germans; still, precaution has to be taken against blackmailing methods. Apart from that communist action aimed at the dissolution of his forces has far advanced.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW b.6/II, p.1252-1253

...Possibly under impression made by these German counter-measures, Mihailović - this time personally - tries to make contact with German posts at the end of March/begging of April. According to the information the Sp.envoy had, Mihailović was faced with an ultimatum by the [Royal Yugoslav] government-in-exile and the Soviets, in which his subordination to Tito was demanded.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW, b.7/I, p.640-641

From the German point of view it is desirable that Tito switches [to] the coast as his main objective. So far he has pushed back the Serbian Chetniks. The question is if these, under the circumstances, can be won over for our side. Sp. envoy Neubacher is authorized for the negotiations.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW b.6/II, p.1261

During the defense against the incursion of the [Soviet] Red divisions in March, April, and May, Serbian units proved themselves well, notably the Serbisches Freiwilligen Korps but also more-or-less illegal groups of Chetniks, allegedly under the personal command of Mihailović.

— Report to the OKW. Extracts from a draft titled Die Entwicklung im Südosten vom 1. April-31. Dezember 1944 which was compiled in November 1944 using the documents of the Wehrmacht Führungstab and the KTB; to be found in the KTB OKW, KTB OKW,b,7/I,p.706

In October and November 1941, the first signs of the rather involved but flexible system of collaboration between the Nedić regime [the Serbian Axis puppet state] and Mihailović occurred during the large German offensive against the Partisans and Chetniks in western Serbia. As we described earlier, a number of Mihailović's detachments legalized themselves with the Nedić forces to continue their fight against the Partisans.

— Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001, p.214 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9

I´m sorry, but are these the sources that I was asking for? Because all they speak is just meatings, altearnatives, possibilities... It even sources the open strugle between Mihailovic Chetniks and the Germans, specially when speaks about "cease-fires"... Cease-fires mean what? That there was fighting going on between them. Fighting, not collaboration. Of course, we end with Tomasevic... FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Personal comments removed) this is ALL collaboration and fraternization with the enemy. ALL of it. Discussion is above, please. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Personal comments removed) Would you like me to analise the sources one by one? FkpCascais (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, could you please do something to avoid comments like this: [6]? Can you? Me asking to other user to avoid such statements are treated by you as same as direktors trolling and attacks to other users. But you strategically decide to act allways when I respond... FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that comment and considered it inbounds (acceptable), though barely. I have to call things the way I see them. That is my role and I do the best I can. Your task is to avoid commenting on other participants. You seem to be having difficulty with that. How many times must I repeat this: PLEASE STICK TO CONTENT. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoah hold on, I did NOT mean to imply anything about BoDu with that, and it was a comment on "content". I think that's pretty much obvious from the sentence. I was making a point (though perhaps too "vividly") that there is no chance of confusion on the meaning of the word collaboration. I am allowed to write the word "imbecile" on this project, am I not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, thanks for answering my question. Yes, I do have difficulty to cope with some sort of provocative attitude, and I ask other users to behave adequatly, as I did, when nobody else (like you) does. It also looks that you have difficulties to act, but when it comes to me, you sudently don´t. I know that only imbecils could think that, right? (See, other users know to indirectly insult using 3rd person, as well. How productive if we all engadge in this!). Wanna answer my question, direktor, the "real" one, about the sources? FkpCascais (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Sunray, can we remove D.Mihailovic and its movement from the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. Everyone has it clear that he wasn´t a "notable collaborator". His inclusion there is insulting! FkpCascais (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this section for "Sources"?? Why are we discussing here?

Prehaps the entry should be reworded into "Collaborating persons"? Thus removing any "labels" and removing the word "notable" ((Personal attack removed) the word "notable" in that context distinguishes from "ordinary" people that collaborated, i.e. the rank & file.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now just wait a second, that was NOT a "personal attack"! As noted by a number of editors besides myself, Fkp's English skills are realistically less than perfect and have in the past led to similar misunderstandings, as bad faith is generally assumed. "Notable" in this context most accurately means "not an ordinary soldier or ordinary person, but someone in charge", but I imagine Fkp might've construed it as "especially collaborationist person". How did I "attack" him by trying to clear up another (possible) language misunderstanding, Sunray?? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I will assume good faith and accept your statement that it was not a personal attack. However, it was a personal comment and I have asked you repeatedly to stick to content. By making such personal comments, you do not advance the progress of this mediation and, on the other hand, open the door to a rejoinder from the other party. We do not need observations on other participant's abilities. I had understood you to say you would cease making personal remarks. Would you be willing to do that from now on? Sunray (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how we can avoid linguistic misunderstandings if nobody is allowed to say he/she thinks someone made a mistake in interpreting wording? To my understanding I have been sticking exclusively to content, and I certainly intent to continue doing so. In my response to BoDu I was perhaps a bit too "illustrative" but I did not comment on him in any way, and here I was trying to clear up a possible misunderstanding. Fkp stated he was "offended" by the wording so I thought he may have misconstrued the meaning of the word in that context. I admit it was a "nuance" so I corrected it to a more unambiguous wording. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"To my understanding I have been sticking exclusively to content". No, you have been selectively using content when it fits your personal vision. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is disappointing to see (Personal attack removed) having to be used here. Mediators are facilitators of compromise, not enforcers of conduct policy. The parties to this case should bear in mind that should this mediation fail because one or more editors could not contribute to the discussions in a productive way, the next stage will doubtless be something unpleasant like arbitration. Please think through your comments before you post them. Good work otherwise, everybody. Regards, AGK 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sunray accepted that my comments were not personal attacks - they were not. And if this simple & straightforward issue actually winds up at ARBCOM I will have lost all faith in Wiki process. All this dispute is founded on is refusal to agree to what the sources very clearly state - incredibly, without any sources of one's own. By this definition of a "problem issue", any single dispute can be turned into a Wiki bloodbath lasting six months, simply if someone keeps disagreeing out of his own opinion. The silliest dispute I've ever been in. And most depressingly, in six months another guy will come who's whole world is shaken up by what the sources say and we'll have to go through all this again - since nobody really cares enough to simply say "so this guy is edit-warring and removing sourced information... that's bad... I should probably tell him that's wrong, instead of just assuming this is some complicated ethnic issue that requires the attentions of ARBCOM..." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Am I seing another comment on me? There, on 2nd line, disguised as "is" instead of "his". Cleaver trick! Should I also mention why have we been loosing 6 months on this? Who was the only one not signing mediation for months? Who was the one completely missinforming about what the sources actually say? Btw, who is being acused of removing sources? I even insisted in analising them further, because I find out that some users manipulated them so much that their meaning was in ocasions closer to the oposite, that what they claimed. And, who is the "guy edit-warring"? The user? Anyway, why are you direktor explaining all this to AGK? He intervened so we continue discussing civily, he is not going to change WP because of you. I agree fully with him, and I want be responding you anymore whatever your next excuse is, but you should really stop missinforming, because that is also uncivil in my opinion.
    • I apologise for my comment, but if this direktors comment is acceptable, so should be my honest response to it. Anyway, what I really support is that neither should be tolerated here, and I´ll refrain from making any of them anymore, but equal treatment should be considered, and what I really expect is that no further comments of this kind should be tolerated. Anyway, I do feel in minus here, because I was insulted, and I was recomended to stick with it. I will forget this but I want tolerate any further behavior of this kind. I don´t take indicency in life, and I had already tolerated too much here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective

@User:Jean-Jacques Georges. Look I've had enough of this "selective" sources nonsense. We need to get that straight. The sources are out there, available on Google Books, and I'm certainly not going to write-up whole chapters by hand here, so I only copy down the more significant quotes directly and obviously relating to collaboration. The idea that this is "selective" is another word game:

Yes, I'm "selecting" the quotations relevant to the issue. Yes, my position in this dispute is based on those sources since I spent months on researching them (or if you like the poetic version, the sources "fit my personal vision" :)). But that does not make it "selectively using content when it fits your personal vision". Nice one.

In short, the statements that are 1) published in peer review secondary sources, 2) that are written by acclaimed experts on the specific subject, 3) that are directly quoted from primary sources - blow everything else out of the water, esp personal "estimates" of scholars if they don't cite strong primary sources in support of them. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One year ago, I didn't know much about the subject. Discussion with you arose my interest, and I have been reading quite a bit about World War II in Yugoslavia. Now that I am somewhat informed, and to be absolutely honest, I must admit that I am very unimpressed by your knowledge and treatment of the matter and, so far, have no evidence that you have been doing anything but reading a few pages on google books and looking for the info which you deemed convenient for your personal opinion. I wouldn't have said this if you hadn't been complaining that I was "biased on ideological grounds" (I'd really like to know which ideology).

Whatever your methods and motivations, I find the end result to be lamentable and the way you select and read the sources to be objectionable. The comic-booky version of history which you apparently want to impose is woefully inadequate to the complexity of the subject. As I said before, I myself find Mihailovic a deplorable leader and the Chetniks a reprehensible bunch (at least for a good deal of them). I just find that your vision of the subject is wholly subjective and entirely inadequate. I really have no interest in Balkan sensitivities, and am just interested in achieving more fair articles : hence, I am currently adding more info to the draft (using Tomasevich et. al. whenever possible). This is the only matter that interests me and I'd prefer if we could avoid any more personal attacks for the time being. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is this: I am NOT selectively representing sources. If you think I am, prove me wrong: show me a source that says Mihailović did not collaborate. We can easily see who's the one representing the minority view and choosing to "select those sources that fit his personal vision", while disregarding others. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)