Talk:Chetniks/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Odd quote?

"Professor David MacDonald, however, posited, in his Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia, that it is "highly misleading to suggest that Četniks throughout the war collaborated with the Germans and Italians to carry out genocide of Croats and Muslems."[14]"

This quote is not talk about or validated in the article. Is it saying there was no genocidal intent? Or that there was not collaboration during the entire war? Seems like an attempt to rehabilitate the Chetnik image. Rest of article disproves the quote. Quote should be removed. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is saying the Chetniks didn't collaborate with the Italians and Germans specifically to commit genocide against Muslims and Croats, which is true, considering that for the most part collaboration agreements were reached to gain an upper hand in their fratricidal struggle against the Partisans, have the Ustaše stop mauling Chetnik bands and to ensure the Axis provided ammunition, food and supplies. 23 editor (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"which is true" But the sentence before it says it isn't? They contradict each other. Unless what is being said is that Chetniks aimed at genocide without the help of the Germans and Italians. There should be a sentence explaining the quote for it gives the impression Chetniks never had intentions of an ethnically pure state. There is also concern with tthis in the intro "The terror tactics used by the Chetniks against the Croats was largely a reaction against the mass terror perpetrated by the Ustaše, " which is misleading considerin this "During Axis occupation the notion of clearing or "ethnically cleansing" these territories was introduced largely in response to the massacres of Serbs by the Ustaše in the Independent State of Croatia.[100] However, the largest Chetnik massacres took place in eastern Bosnia where they preceded any significant Ustaša operations.[47]" Which is mention in this page. Should be included in the intro. To say Muslem populations were being terrorized only due to non-Serb removal policies makes no sense since Croats are "non-Serb" also. To say violence towards Croats was due to Ustase activities is grossly misleading.Maxforige77 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. It points out that Chetnik violence against Croats (and Bosniaks for that matter), was largely a reaction against the massacres and expulsions the Ustase perpetrated against them. But it goes on to say that the largest massacres by the Chetniks were in areas where these massacres had not occurred, ie the Sandzak and eastern Bosnia. What exactly is it that you are complaining about? That the lead lacks balance in this respect? Or something else? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My previous problem was the single quote claiming Chetniks had no genocidal intent on Croat and Muslem populations in a see of facts stating otherwise. My second concern is that the intro is saying that violence against Croats was mainly due to Ustase activities and that violence against Muslems was due to mainly non-Serb policies. Implying that had it not been for Ustase activities, Croat civilians would have not been effected by Chetnik activities. Even though from an ideological standpoint, to achieve a pure state, Croats would have had to been removed despite Ustase activities. Indeed, Ustase atrocities motivated Chetnik massacres, but ethnic cleansing policies were in place for them already. Yes it appears to lack balance in that respect. Unless those Croat populations would have remained safely untouched by Chetniks had Ustase never enganded in their killings, then I am in the wrong. Croats should be mentioned in the final sentnce along with Muslems as being undesirable in an ethnically pure Serbian states free of non-Serbs. Am I looking at this incorrectly? Maxforige77 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure you are, although I am struggling to follow what you're writing. Those statements in the lead accurately reflect the sources they are drawn from. You need to reliable source material that states what you think should be in the lead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here. According to the intro, Chetniks only waged violence on Croatian populations as revenge for what Ustase were doing. This implies that Chetniks would have never ethnically cleansed Croatian populations from the region had the Ustase not committed their atrocities. Then the intro goes on to say that Muslems were ethnically cleansed due to the policy of removing non-Serb populations from the region. Would Croats not have fallen in that category? Plus, the source for that part of the intro clearly states that atrocities by Chetnik forces were a response to Muslem agression, yet only Croats are said to have revenge waged upon them. The source linked to the sentence in question also mentions that "one of the worst Chetnik outburst against Croatian population in Dalmatia took place" on behalf of the Italians. Not a response to the Ustase.(Tomasevich 259)Maxforige77 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, got you now. That is true, the Greater Serbia idea of Moljevic including cleansing areas of various groups, not just Muslims. But I think the current formulation uses words such as "largely" etc for a reason. These are the main reasons, although there were exceptions. Some areas the Chetniks wanted to cleanse didn't have much in the way of Croat population. Chetnik massacres/cleansing of Croats were also less common because the NDH had an army (as poor as it was) that protected some urban areas at least. The Muslims, particularly in the Drina valley, were in close proximity to a large Serb population in the German-occupied territory of Serbia (and thus to Chetniks), which made them more vulnerable. What massacres/cleansing of Croats are you referring to? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, seems we were typing at the same time. I posted an example above to my previous entry. Yes it says largely (though I'm not sure how we determined it was largely), but the other bit is not included. Someone new to this subject would not know that when reading this page. The sentence wording should state that the Chetniks intended to ethnically cleanse the region regardless of what the Ustase did, as stated in the source. Chetniks wanted an ethnically pure Serbia that spanned over main parts of Croatia as well, so the idea that their intentions were largely revenge is misleading. Not to mention the MacDonal quote contradicts that Chetniks ever planned on removing non-Serb entities. Which is simply untrue and never supported in the wiki article. I just sourced proof that Chetniks on behalf of Italian forces destroyed a Croatian village, for example. Seems unbalanced is all. Maxforige77 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The MacDonald quote says nothing of the sort. It explains that the reason for collaborating wasn't to carry out genocide. The factors behind the collaboration were pretty complex, and creating a Greater Serbia was only one of the Chetniks aims. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So it isn't exonerating Chetniks from their intended cleansing policies? In that case okay. Although establish Greater Serbia was a major reason for collaboration. But the other part of my comment is still stands in regards to reducing terror practices on Croat populations down to "response to Ustase activities" as I shown with the example in my previous response. The wording should also make it clear that these tactics, like on the Muslems was to for an ethnically pure Greater Serbia free of non-Serbs. Wouldn't you agree? According to the very text the intro was derived from, it states Chetniks wanted revenge in response to Muslem aggression but that is left out here?Maxforige77 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this. Are you saying Chetnik terror against Croats wasn't largely a reaction to Ustase terror? Because the reliable sources say it was. According to all the sources I've read, Chetnik terror against Croats was much more a reaction to Ustase terror than in pursuance of Greater Serbia. The sequence of events shows this clearly, and you'll need some pretty impressive sources to convince me otherwise. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

GOD NO! Ustase activities undeniably were a major factor. But that short sentence in the intro should include in words that those Croatian populations were to be cleansed in accordance with establishment of a Greater Serbia just like with the Muslems and other non-Serbs also. Unless sources state that Croats would have been safe in Greater Serbia. If not, it should be made clear that both Muslems and Croats were both deemed as unwelcome in the new ethnically pure state from an ideological standpoint from the beginning AND that Ustase activities increased these feelings and lead to revenge killings. Though the example with Chetniks carrying out one of the biggest massacres in Croatia Dalmatia on behalf of Italian forces is an example that violence happened regardless. That is what the sentence should say in order to be as neutral a possible. Which is factual when looking at the list of policies by the Chetnik command.Maxforige77 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Still not clear what you are saying. Moljevic didn't come up with his ideas in isolation. He knew about Ustase crimes when he developed his tract on Greater Serbia. Surely part of his motive was to make a safe place for Serbs to live? The Chetniks didn't adopt his ideas formally until September 1941, by which time the Ustase cleansing of Serbs from huge swathes of the NDH was already well underway. The order of December was when the policy was first operationalised, and this was closely followed by massacres of Muslims in the Drina valley, not Croats elsewhere. That didn't really start happening until the Croats were able to operate with Italian protection, in mid to late 1942. Unless you are referring to something else? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Many Muslems were part of the Ustase order, yet targeting of Muslems is not stated as revenge for Ustase activities which Tomasevich stated in his book that massacres of Muslems was related to Muslems siding with the Ustase. "due to the traditional animosity between Serbs and Muslims"..... Both Muslems and Croats have a problematic history with Serbs, not just Moslems. The sentence of response to Ustase implies the problem between Croats would begin with WWII. Also there were massacres that occurred not for revenge purposes, For example with Chetniks carrying out one of the biggest massacres in Croatia Dalmatia on behalf of Italian forces.

My point is this, I understand that massacring of Croat populations was LARGELY for revenge for what Ustase did, but why aren't the other reasons listed (Like Chetniks using this as an opportunity to establish a GreaterSerbian State) like they are for Muslems? Also Why aren't the massacres of Muslems also described as largely revenge like it says in the source by Tomasevich? Why is it not mentioned that Chetniks " used terror practices on Croatian populations mainly in response to Ustase activities and also to create an ethnically pure Greater Serbia" a better sentence to include. Would that not be a more accurate sentence? It addresses both sides of the issue. And it is accurate to what Tomasevich wrote about in the source used in the intro.

Should be "this action was also undertaken to 'cleanse' these areas of Muslims and Croats in order to create a 'Greater Serbia' free of non-Serbs." For the last sentence in the intro.. There were revenge massacres on Muslims also but cleansing were still mentioned. Before WWII there had been traditional animosity between Croats and Serbs as well. Ustase did not begin this trend as the intro sentence implies (this is the problem). Looking at sourced talkiang about times during the kingdom of Yugoslavia and the formation of the Ustase in the first place support that fact. So why is that not included ads it is for Muslems in the intro? It seems pretty simple see. Maxforige77 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think the lead is unbalanced, I suggest you formulate new sentences (with citations to reliable sources) for discussion here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Side note, " Surely part of his motive was to make a safe place for Serbs to live?" Bit surprised to see you write that. Chetnik command wa sopen about WWII being the perfect oportuinity to expan Serbian borders and to force convert Croats to the Orthodox church or get rid off them and control further territory. While some Chetniks factions believed in that (For not all were genocidal).Some use this to partly rehabilitate the Chetnik movement. Grotesque excuse for the mass killings. All non-Serbs were targeted, not just Ustase. [ Stevan Moljević believed that Serbs should not repeat the mistakes of World War I by failing to define the borders of Serbia, and proposed that at the end of World War II Serbs should take control of all territories to which they laid claim, and from that position negotiate the form of a federally organized Yugoslavia. This plan required the relocation of non-Serbs from Serb-controlled territories and other shifts of populations."] So that reasoning stands no ground. Create a safe place was the said motive of Pavelic and the Ustase. Both used this rhetoric as a excuse to dehumanize ethnic groups so as to remove them for territorial gains and stability. Mass-murder of Muslems and Croats who weren't Ustase associated (Many were not Ustase) and murder of Partisans(Many who were in fact Serbian an also Muslem and Croat) seems odd if it was partly done for creating a safe place.... Maxforige77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I will look into Tomasevich more and other sources and formulate a sentence. It wont't be that much different than in intro. Maxforige77 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Many Muslems were part of the Ustase order", who says so? FkpCascais (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"The militia consisted mostly of volunteers, and only 25% of the officer corps were professionally trained. It was indoctrinated in Ustaše ideology and was committed to defending Pavelić and the Ustaša regime. Whilst Pavelić was its titular commander-in-chief, he exercised no practical control over its military operations, as Ustaše formations and units in the field were placed under command of Home Guard or Axis forces.[2] The militia included a significant number of Muslims, although this reduced after mid 1943, and there were no Muslim militia leaders and few promoted to higher rank.[5] " Although Džafer Kulenović Was Vice President of the Ustase Regime.

[5] Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. p.490

Example "In late 1941, an Ustaše militia unit known as the Black Legion (Crna Legija) was formed mostly from Muslim and Croatian refugees from villages in eastern Bosnia, where the Chetniks and Partisans had already committed large-scale massacres." This taken from the Ustase Militia Wiki. The fact that Chetnik massacres are responsible for a growth in Ustase militia and activities should be mentioned. But the Chetniks Wiki article fails to do so also.Maxforige77 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[8] Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4. p.422

Could someone explain this part to me in the article? Aren't these sentences contradicting?

"Except for the Ustaše, Croats were not seen as the enemies of the Serbs, and a goal was set for the incorporation of Croatian forces under Chetnik leadership. Ustaše, on the other hand, were to be summarily executed.[53] The question of shifting populations and religious conversion of the Croats was to be left aside until the Serbs had assumed power in Yugoslavia.[49] Revenge was incorporated into the Chetnik manual as a "... sacred duty of the Serbian people against those who had wronged them during the war and occupation".[54]"

So are "those who wronged" referring to Ustase or all Croats? Because that would conflict with the previous sentence differentiating Ustase and non-Fascist Croats. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Max, you can't use WP as a reference (even though I created that article). You need a book, journal, magazine article etc, and it needs to be reliable. Now, having written it, I'd say the source used for that is reliable, but you need to indicate what source you are using for you contentions here. Sorry, this must seem like drawing teeth, but if you want to edit, you need to learn the rules. I also make it a policy not to do anyone else's work for them... :-) Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph you just responded to is talking about a new issue. It is me asking about sentences which are in the Chetnik WP. I was asking what they mean. Was not stating them as sources. I was asking do they not conflict each other? This is separate from our other discussion. For the other discussion I have not written the sentence you asked me to write yet. If you meant my response to FkpCascais, then I apologize, still learning protocol. I added the sources in now.Maxforige77 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you answer about the, what seem to be contradicting sentences. Seems the later one about "Revenge was incorporated..." should be better explained? Maxforige77 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for not having been clearer in the formulation of my question. It is undisputed that there were some Muslims in certain specific units of the Ustaše (there were some Muslims within Chetnik detachments as well), the issue is that you were impliying there that the participation of those Muslims in Ustaše units could make Chetniks make decitions regarding Muslims as a nation, as if their participation in those Ustaše units would be representative of the stand of Muslim nation. That is why I believe your reasoning there was wrong, cause the numbers of Muslims which were members of the Ustaše although not neglectable, was not enough significant in respect to Muslims as a whole. Like sugesting Ustaše would make decitions over Muslims because of the participation of some Muslims in Chetnik units. See my point? FkpCascais (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Though Tomasevich did say a "significant number" were. Precise numbers are not stated. Some of Ustase high command were Muslems. There make of been some Muslems in Chetnik melitia, but so were there Croats. But there were less in Chetnik betalions than in Ustase order. To equate both is incorrect. Infact Chetniks had a popicey of ethnic cleansing non-Serbs, Muslems in particular. Where as Ustase were very welcoming of Muslems and Islam in general as a religion. Also in his literature it says Chetnik atrocitues were driven in response to Muslem atrocities towards Serb populations (unless these atrocities were carried independent of Ustatse?). To say "some" seems like an understatement according to his works. Ustase were also very close with Muslems and considered them as part of the Croatian Nation. Also could you answer the inquiry I had above about the "Revenge was incorporated" sentence? Maxforige77 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Max, I really am struggling to understand what you are saying, but even more, what you are trying to get at with these posts. Clearly English is not your first language, and I am having quite a bit of trouble following your line of argument as a result. Muslims were not quite second-class citizens in the NDH, but Muslim civil society throughout the NDH did complain about Ustase massacres of the Serbs, and while Muslims were involved in the Ustase Militia, none of them reached high positions within it so far as I am aware. Kulenovic was a politician, not a military man. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just passing buy, must point out, there was the Hanjar that were Muslems that collaborated with Ustase and Nazis. (20,000) Muslim volunteers for the Nazi SS - out of total population of 700,000 Stariradio (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"all of these posts" Well there lies the problem. "what you are trying to get at with these posts" If you hadn't notcied, another user has askem me a question so now we are talking about it. Not all of these posts are aimed at you. So far you have responded to a couple of my posts that are meant for FkpCascais, not you. Hence your confusion. My English is fine...... Why do I get the feeling that was meant to be an insult? I have never had a problem communicating ideas on here before... Though the second part of your post tells me you do understand what I am talking about....I am talking about a different subject with him/her. Read FkpCascais' question directed to me and that should tell you what the subject of conversation is. Here, lets make this simple....

So right now lets stick with the topic at hand: Muslem involvement with Ustase and whether it played a role in Chetnick atrocities towards Muslem populations. You said "Muslim civil society throughout the NDH did complain about Ustase massacres of the Serbs". And there were Croats who did as well. There was still involvement though. Why in Tomesevich's book (p. 251-261) did he say that Chetnik massacres of Muslems was a response to Muslem atrocities of Serb populations? What atrocities is he referring to? These were not by Muslem outfits supported by Ustase? For example

"Reprisals followed, as in the case of Nevesinje, where Serb peasants staged an uprising in response to the persecution, drove out the Ustaše militia, but then engaged in reprisals killing hundreds of Croats and Muslims." Malcolm, Noel (1994). Bosnia: A Short History. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5520-4. p. 175 Which means Chetniks targeted Muslems as well as revenge against Ustase activities. Chetniks even branded Muslims as "Ustase cronies" Velkonija 2003, p. 167. Doesn't get more clear than that. Maxforige77 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No insult intended, just an observation. FWIW, if you decide to change the topic of the conversation, please start a new thread. It is exhausting read all this, and there are buckets of spelling errors. I'm going to leave you to edit the article to change what you think needs to be changed. I'll pipe up soon enough if I think you've got it wrong. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am guilty of spelling errors for sure, hah. Many times I am in a rush to type things up. Sorry about that. I really didn't mean to flood this section with all this talk. I do not have the ability to edit the article due to it being locked. Could I possibly talk to you through email or some other communication so as to not flood this thread any further? I just have a question about a different matter that I don't want to change/edit, just wanted your input on. Also I wanted say I appreciate you having patience with me in this discussion. The subject matter is complicated enough so thanks for taking the time. Maxforige77 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, still won't let me. My account is still fairly new so perhaps I have to wait a bit? Maxforige77 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

By now, if I am getting correctly the editing intentions of Max, it would be usefull to express immediatelly my objection to them so we wouldnt loose unecessary time. Here: Max suggests joining Croats along Muslims at the sentence saying they were targets of ethnic cleansing and in danger of genocide. The problem is that this entire issue of Chetniks and their ethnic-cleansing plan is full of missinformation and missconcentions along it. Lets see, Chetniks fought for restoring Yugoslavia as a monarchy, and then within it, creating a Greater Serbia. Serbs tend to treat Chetniks as much allies as Partisans, while Croats tend to treat Chetniks as equals as Ustaša, just in a Serbian version. Neither of them are right, the Chetniks I would say are somewhere preciselly in between. When Max asked the question regarding if Croat population would be safe with Chetniks around if there were no Ustaša (he asked the question wanting to demonstrate that "no" is the answer), immediatelly the wrong missconception about Chetniks killing all non-Serbs everywhere appears. The answer to Max question is: depends of the place. What do I mean? I mean that the Chetnik cleansing actions were directed to the areas of Greater Serbia, not everywhere within Yugoslavia. Just think for a second: if Chetniks would have exited the war as winners and restored the Karađorđević dinasty-ruled Yugoslavia, does anyone actually think Chetniks would have killed half of the country? Max, you really believe Chetniks would have entered Zagreb and killed all its population? I dont think so, and from what I know there isnt any scholar claiming so. Lets not forget the lead wording is mostly a balanced text having in mind the overall story sources tell us, and in this case changing it towards the idea of Max would turn it certainly unbalanced. The case is simple: Chetniks never had an agenda of killing all Croats simply because many Croats lived outside of what was the Greater Serbia Chetniks were planning to create. However, the case is different in regard to Muslims which had most of its people livig within the territory of the planned Chetnik actions. That is why the wording on respect to Muslims and on respect to Croats is different. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, he/she is saying that most of the Croatian territory was within the borders of Greater Serbia in which most Croats were targeted. Not referring to all Croats existing. Stariradio (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets not forget that the entire lead section (exception only the first sentence) is dedicated to their WWII collaboration with Axis and their ethnic cleansing plan. This already just by itself seems quite unbalanced towards the negative aspects, charging even more the lead with claims of some sort of genocidal intention towards Croats would further streach the gap. Max, your observation how that sentence is a sort of rehabilitation of them as you claim in your opening comment seems very subjective in my view considering everything. FkpCascais (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the current lead is pretty well balanced regarding the Chetniks, and that it reflects the academic consensus. Beyond that, I really can't distill Max's point from the WP:TLDR swathes of text and changing topics, but if it is what you are suggesting, Fkp, then I agree with you, the two cannot be equated. The Croats (not Muslims) held (often tenuous) power in the NDH, even though some Muslims joined the Ustase Militia and were even in the government, they were never in the driving seat. The Muslims were the main victims of Chetnik atrocities, not Croats (although there were some examples, they pale into comparison with the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Drina valley etc). To treat them as equivalent would not be NPOV, it would be highly POV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am curious what Peacemaker has to say about this sentence: "Serbs tend to treat Chetniks as much allies as Partisans, while Croats tend to treat Chetniks as equals as Ustaša, just in a Serbian version. Neither of them are right....Chetniks are in between" Historical record seem to say Ustase and CHetniks both wanted to create "ethnically pure states" which were to be done through ethnic cleansing and religious conversions. Difference being Chetniks were anti-Fascists and fought Axis and Ustase were Fascists and sided with Axis. Ustase also committed FAR worse atrocities. Fkp, this sentence seems to me a more wishful view than neutral. To say otherwise seems POV and conflicts with historical sources and the Chetniks WP. But I'm not sure what is the point of bringing that up as that is not what my discussion is about. Maxforige77 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You say "Just think for a second: if Chetniks would have exited the war as winners and restored the Karađorđević dinasty-ruled Yugoslavia, does anyone actually think Chetniks would have killed half of the country? Max, you really believe Chetniks would have entered Zagreb and killed all its population?" Of course not. Chetniks had no intention to cleanse Zagreb same way Ustase had no intention to cleanse Belgrade. Both wanted to create "pure" states. (I'm not saying both are equal, mind you). Greater Serbia and Greater Yugoslavia are different things. A Croatia would still existe in Grater Yugoslavia but much much smaller as most of it would be incorporated into Greater Serbia. Fkp, why are you talking about Zagreb when I clearly said Greater Serbia? Also half of the country? Are you denying that Greater Serbia was to be ethnicly pure Serbs only? Really? Chetniks wanted a pure state. How big population wise, nowhere does it say they cared about. Your reasoning makes no sense. What you think doesn't change what Chetniks high command literally stated their plan was. I was talking about all croats within the borders of Greater Serbia.

Directive 5 literally states "the creation of contiguous frontiers between Serbia and Montenegro, as well as between Serbia and Slovenia (Croatia is between) by cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina."So why in the intro is Muslim cleansing mentioned but not Croat?

Again, I am not saying both are equal in terms of suffering but that a significant amount of Croats did suffer that fate (Croats that lived within Greater Serbia borders). I know that Ustase atrocities mostly fueled Chetnik terror over Croatian populations but also should it not at least be mentioned that a portion of the Croatian population was destined to be cleanses due to their location within a part of the Greater Serbia based on non-Serb policies as well? Why not mention both as both are partly true? Of course Croats living outside the planned Greater Serbia borders are not to be included. A significant populations of Croats within Greater Serbia (Dalmatia and Western Bosnia) were to be cleansed just as the Muslims there were. Seems accurate based on what you two just said.I hope I am clearer now.

"However, the case is different in regard to Muslims which had most of its people living within the territory of the planned Chetnik actions. That is why the wording on respect to Muslims and on respect to Croats is different." So you agree that the Croats that lived in the region destined to be Greater Serbia did face the same fate as the Muslem that lived there? So why is that not mentioned in the intro? More than half of the Croat population lived in what was deemed to be part of Greater Serbia.That is simply what I ask. Not all Croats mind you. But the many that did live in Bosnia and Dalmatia and Slavonia? Your posts supports this. Also, Why is it not mentioned that ethnic tensions existed between Croats and Serbs before WWII like it was mentioned between Serbs and Muslems? As for my texts being TLDR, that would explain why you didn't get my point. Sorry, just wanted to be detailed with my reasoning. Again I refuse to edit the article myself without support from you. Maxforige77 (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker, do you not agree with the last paragraph of my previous post? To keep it TLDR: A majority of territorial Croatia (Slavonia and Dalmatia) a Western Bosnia, both containing large Croatian populations, were within the borders of Greater Serbia. Therefore those same large populations of Croats were destined to be cleansed just like Muslems (Who were the main target) in accordance of making Greater Serbia an ethnically pure state free of non-Serbs. I feel that should be mentioned in the intro. The intro only states that Croats were targeted as revenge for Ustase activities, but the overall end goal was to rid all non-Serbs (not Croats outside of Greater Serbia) in that Greater territory. So why is that not mentioned? (Also Happy Holidays and best wishes. I won't be back for a few days) Maxforige77 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

________________

Due to lack of response and upon Peacemaker's request, I made the edit of the section I had concern over. I have cited the edits appropriately.

"The Chetniks" by Jozo Tomasevich pg 259

My edit is in accordance with this source which was in fact used for part of the intro originally. Maxforige77 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Hanjar in intro?

The bad blood between Serbs and Moslems is also due to the Moslem Hanjar regiment that collaborated with Ustase and Nazis against Serbs.

Lying peace of Serbian shit. How many muslims did chetnics kill in Montenegro, Sandžak, herzegovina and Bosnia? Also how many Croats in Croatia and Bosnia?

"Altogether, it is estimated that some 20,000 Muslims fought in the Hanjar (Sword) SS Division, which fought against Yugoslav partisans led by General Tito, and carried out police and security details in fascist Hungary. The Nazi's recruited two SS divisions from Yugoslavia's Muslim population: the infamous Bosnian 13th Waffen Hanjar (or Handschar) SS division, and the Albanian Skanderbeg 21st Waffen SS division. SS conscription in Yugoslavia during the war produced 42,000 Waffen SS and police troops

The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states:

They participated in the massacre of civilians in Bosnia and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia . . . The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises." Stariradio (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Handschar division didn't go into action until March 1944. The Skanderbeg division even later. While they both committed atrocities against Serbs and others, they are hardly an excuse for the massacres of Bosnian Muslims by Chetniks in January and February 1943, for example. Chetnik massacres of Bosnian Muslims were chief among the reasons that large numbers of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims were willing to collaborate with the Ustase and Nazis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of Chetnik

Chetnik obviously doesn't come from Turkish. It's probably a Slavic word, please see my explanation on the discussion page of the German wikipedia. For example, the Polish word for chetnik is ochotnik and means a volunteer...--Carski (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevance to Civic War in Yugoslavia

"Milošević and Radovan Karadžić, the president of the self-proclaimed Republika Srpska, used the subordinate Chetnik forces of Šešelj and Ražnatović ..."

Aside for using Chetnik flags and insignia by mixed paramilitary forces, there is NO REAL CONNNECTION with Chetnik immigration. Djujic even withdraw recognition of Seselj as "Chetniks Duke". Looking at separate history of mentioned units - Volunteers of Serbian Radical Party and Arkans Tigers shows that clearly.

What people would like to be alike and what they are are two different things.

If you would like to go into that, Serbian mercenaries currently fighting in Ukraine also try to abuse Chetniks iconography.

The last section is so poorly written and POV.

Rastavox (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Geiger

Does anyone feel that Vladimir Geiger is a reliable source? Based on his own Wikipedia article (translated above), I believe he may be a biased source based on his body of work. Quis separabit? 01:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone think he's an unreliable source would be a better question. What is it exactly about his body of work that supports your contention he's unreliable? BTW, I don't see references to him in any of those links. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Any of those links"? I was referring to the above translation of his own article in Croatian to English, which seems to me to indicate that he has his own parochial interests, unlike, say, Sabrina Ramet or Slavenka Drakulić. Quis separabit? 02:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Which article? What is its title and where was it published? Strike that. Now I get what you're on about. We don't use WP as a reference for anything per WP:CIRCULAR. What reliable sources do you have that state he has a bias? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

His entire body of work and research which indicate parochial interests and a de Zayas-esque bias, unlike Sabrina Ramet and Slavko Goldstein. Quis separabit? 04:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A historian that specialises? Whoever heard of such a thing? Give me a break. Find an academic source that says he's biased and we'll talk about it then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorization

Why, why are they presented here as some freedom fighters and anti-axis? Even if they didn`t collaborate with Axis (they did) their ideology is pure fascism. (Then and now) They want ethnically clean greater Serbia. How more fascist can you get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.250.176 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chetniks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113051349/http://www.24sata.hr:80/news/cetnici-bili-u-srebrenici-ali-policija-nije-reagirala/23230/ to http://www.24sata.hr/news/cetnici-bili-u-srebrenici-ali-policija-nije-reagirala/23230/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Velkonija 2003 reference?

There are two references to "Velkonija 2003". I assume that's supposed to be "Velikonja 2003", but I wanted to make sure. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine you're right. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it now. There are also footnotes referencing "Tanner 2001" and "Popović, Lolić & Latas 1988", but the works aren't listed in the references. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Churchill's own words

Can someone ppplease check what Churchill says about Chetniks in his book "The Second World War: The One-Volume Abridgement" it is on chapter IX. FkpCascais (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede needs work . . .

The English is a little clumsy. It also tries to put forward an "anti-Axis" notion that is a muddy interpretation of the truth, at best. I know there are several Balkan editors with their own nationalist POV at work on these articles . . . IMO they shouldn't be allowed to edit the article, it just results in battleground arguments on the TP. I strongly suggest non-involved editors from elsewhere rewrite this particular lede to give it the proper slant on what historians have agreed was the most representative description of this group.

@HammerFilmFan: And what would the proper slant be? State sources, and formulate the stance. I agree though that parts of the intro try to downplay collaboration. The MacDonald quote is oddly out of place and seems alone in it's stance. But it is important to be neutral.108.54.93.183 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The MacDonald quote is selective and gives the impression he is saying something he is not. Cherrypicked quotes are always a problem on these articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it allowed to remain if it is misleading? 108.54.93.183 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this has been a highly contested article in the past, so it has got a bit coatracky. Just look at the archives of this talk page. I haven't touched it in years because editing it inevitably piques the interest of the POV warriors, and the lead at least currently reflects the general thrust of the academic literature. I've moved that sentence within the lead, because it is really there in contrast to Ramet's views on the issue of why the Chetniks collaborated with the Axis. Apologies for the oversimplification, but Ramet basically says they collaborated to create a Greater Serbia, and MacDonald says it is misleading to state they collaborated in order to carry out genocide against non-Serbs. Those things are not mutually exclusive, and are related to some extent. They are about the purpose of Chetnik collaboration rather than whether it occurred, if you know what I mean. It probably needs to be there for balance, although MacDonald's might be a minority opinion on the subject. There should probably also be some representation of the "anti-communist" justification for collaboration too, but we have to be careful to get the balance right and not have the article come across as a coatrack of apologies for Chetnik collaboration. What is really needed is a rewrite of the whole article using quality academic sources, then rewrite the lead as a proper summary of the article. But my aversion to drama is too strong for that at present. I'll also say that I have argued for a split of this article, with the DM Chetniks being the primary topic (and the subject of this article) and all the other types of Chetniks being listed on a dab page with their own articles linked from there. There has been opposition to that in the past, and until we get to that point, I'm not sure I would be interested in tackling it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh, so basically, the MacDonal quote, from how I interpret it, is not actually saying that the Chetniks weren't collaborators, nor is it saying the Chetniks didn't commit genocide against the Croats and the Muslims, but rather that the reasoning for collaboration was not on behalf of comitting enocide but for other reasons. Such a weird way to put it, as at first it makes one think neither genocide nor collaboration happened. Perhaps the motive of whoever shoehorned the quote in was to whitewash that then? Then again I learn to take articles like this with a grain of salt and look deaper into the sources. Though most readers will take the articles as absolute testament as Wikipedia is the go to for quick learning. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverted to before anonymous IP edits

@Peacemaker67:, I reverted the edits of IP 178.222.71.1 who made numerous unexplained edits that didn't really make sense. As you know, you had to revert of them yourself but the person would return and edit again. SO I deemed it safe to revert back to the person's edit before IP 178.222.71.1 stepped in, as no other person's edits are effected by the rollback. 108.30.128.7 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was a bit reflexive of me. Self-reverted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, given it was a sizable amount of characters, it probably looked as if I was vandalizing. Thanks for looking into it 108.30.128.7 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to infobox

I've started this thread so the IP editor can explain their recent edits to the infobox. I would just observe that the infobox is too heavily dominated by WWII Chetnik leaders given the long history of the Chetniks, so adding more isn't helpful. It is not a list of every notable Chetnik leader, just the most significant ones. The infobox in general is too big, and some of the content isn't sourced in the body of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Chetniks displayed as Nazi Collaborators

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

Would you mind SOURCING your fantasy 500 saved american airmen. Other than chetnik propaganda machine in US and Canada. What was the extent of american bombing raids on Rumanian oilfields?

And at 500 "saved" airmen, how many downed american bombers is that?

What were the losses of american airforce on those bombing runs?

It is a historical Fact chetniks were Serb version of SS, and the only thing they engaged in -- was collaboration with the enemy, attacks on communist-led yugoslav partisans, and genocidal slaughter of everything non-serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.152.170 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest you read reliable sources and whatever you want to discuss, do it using reliable sources and not your opinions. Goes for both of you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still no sources. The state of the article was the result of years long mediation. Propose your changes here and obtain consensus first. FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here, for you, New York Times: The word was proudly used by the forces of Gen. Draza Mihailovic, the first anti-Nazi guerrilla commander in occupied Europe, Chetniks saved more than 500 American pilots shot down by the Germans over occupied Yugoslavia. Alas, some Chetnik units in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then a part of the Nazi-installed Independent State of Croatia, responded to the genocidal slaughter of the Serbs of Eastern Bosnia with retaliatory killings of Muslims of the same area. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disabled Veterans and Their Families recognized the Serbian Chetniks as antifascist freedom fighters and granted them the same social entitlements that partisan veterans had enjoyed since 1945. FkpCascais (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So, this matter seems to be far more complex than your simplistic view. I will certainly revert any attempt of removing sourced material and replacing it with unilateral personal bias, either being to demonize them or glorify them. It is you altering a long-standing text result from a consensus, not me. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Background section

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to lead cited to Cohen

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

Milazzo (1975) and Cohen (1996) state that the Chetniks were not a homogeneous force. The opening paragraphs of this page are extremely biased with the introduction devoting 95% of the the text to describe the Chetniks as a homogeneous Axis force. The Chetniks did not have a united command structure and operated under their own accord depending on who was their commander in the region. Each Chetnik group developed their own alliance depending on the region. However, the Chetniks did have a common enemy which was the Yugoslav Partisans and this was in essence a civil war. I have tried to make the introduction more neutral in a civil manner however a crusade of editors are rejecting my edits in an attempt to protect the pro-Axis orientated introduction. This is one of many crusades this group has conducted including promoting pro-Daesh/KLA material across Wikipedia. This Chetnik movement page should be treated as a neutral page while Chetnik sub pages such as groups under the command of Đurišić and say Đujić can have the pro-Axis content that applies to them. Protecting this page by reverting legitimate posts will be considered vandalism. TryDeletingMe (talk) 10:06, 01 Sepetember 2018 (UTC)

You can consider it whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so. You have been adding material that is not supported by the source being used. That fails one of the basic principles of WP, verifiability. So, perhaps you would like to post here what you wish to add to the article, with appropriate citations, and we can discuss it? I have copies of Ramet, Milazzo and Cohen, as well as other references on the Chetniks, so we should be on solid ground discussing it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that addition made by TryDeletingMe (diff) has serious source issue. The text they added is cited with work of Cohen. There were two attempts at RSN to gain consensus that that Cohen's work is RS. Both failed. In the meantime it was officially confirmed by ICTY that the only award Cohen received for this work was given by Franjo Tuđman, a founder and a member of an joint criminal enterprise during Yugoslav wars. Every day I thank God for allowing me to see trough this source the moment I saw it and never used it on wikipedia. Cohen's work is disgraceful for editors who use it and wikipedia itself.

On the other hand TryDeletingMe was correct with their observation that this article is extremely biased with the introduction devoting 95% of the the text to describe the Chetniks as a homogeneous Axis force. The Chetniks did not have a united command structure and operated under their own accord depending on who was their commander in the region. Each Chetnik group developed their own alliance depending on the region. However, the Chetniks did have a common enemy which was the Yugoslav Partisans and this was in essence a civil war. I completely agree with Peacemaker67 that issue with addition in question should be resolved by using RS as citation for this text. Thank you Peacemaker67 for such constructive approach. I am sure that Peacemaker67 (preferrably with assistance of TryDeletingMe) will manage to select appropriate reliable sources for this addition. Until then this addition should be restored, and tagged with "better source" tag to invite other editors to assist in selection of RS to be used as citations. Good luck!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• That is a very odd reading of my post above. I am concerned about the failure of verification of the content of the edit, therefore it should not be restored. So far as I am concerned Cohen is a reliable source, he just doesn't say what TryDeletingMe added. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Petrovic (2011) provides an accurate depiction of the Chetnik movement in a neutral fashion. If Cohen is of concern then the previous content can be removed and a more neutral introduction can be formulated that accurately reflects what the Chetnik movement really was TryDeletingMe (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• The current lead reflects hard-won consensus among editors and also reflects the academic consensus on the Chetniks from uninvolved (ie non-Serb) scholars used in the article. Petrovic's work is a PhD thesis, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP such theses "can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties". I haven't conducted a review of the literature to see if he is being cited by historians as yet. It is pretty clear from a reading of the Preface that Petrovic is supplementing the existing historiography, with a particular slant towards the ethno-religious aspects of the conflict and how that impacted on the development of the Chetnik movement. I see this source being used carefully to add material about the development of the Chetnik movement due to the ethno-religious aspects of the conflict, not supplanting what is already there. I suggest you state here what conclusions Petrovic makes that you believe should be included, and we discuss it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• A valid point you make. I guess what can be extracted and applied in the introduction is that the Chetnik movement was heterogeneous in that each detachment operated under its own authority. Mihailovic's Chetniks were formed from Royal Yugoslav Army soldiers who refused to surrender and swore allegiance to the Yugoslav government in exile, a group that was an Allied fighting force but also engaged in collaboration due to the German reactions of murdering 100 civilians for every 1 German soldier killed. Chetnik divisions in the Dinara and Montenegro region such as those under the command of Đurišić, Đujić and Pećanac were predominately set up by armed civilians, with Pećanac's units being denounced by the Yugoslav government in exile due to their ties with the Axis. This is an important point to make as the current reference to the Chetniks is that they were a homogeneous group that were under the same command structure in a pro-Axis fashion. This is misleading as Chetnik units operated under their own accord. I will do my best to find reliable sources to add to the literature. TryDeletingMe (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• It does already say that the Mihailović Chetniks were not a homogeneous movement. Which is the same thing as saying that it was heterogeneous. DM did have some influence over many Chetnik groups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Anti-Yugoslavism etc

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

Please provide exact quotes. The ones you cited don´t appear in the page. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

One person describing one Chetnik as such certainly open questions if one entire movement should be described as such. I found the quote on another totally different book. I asked you to bring it to talk for a reason. A person description doesn´t make way to describe an entire army in an infobox. FkpCascais (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only one. For example James Sadkovich claims that: Chetnik ideology was anti-Croat, anti-Muslim, and anti-Yugoslav. Stevan Moljevic called for a "homogeneous Serbia" to avoid "the great sufferings which the Serbs' neighbors inflict upon them whenever they have the opportunity to do so. For more: The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998, ISBN 0275950468, p. 148. Jingiby (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jingiby, good to know. Are you accusing me of lying about what is on page 175, Fkp? Tomasevich, an internationally-acknowledged expert on the Chetniks, chose to quote Topalović's observations about the Chetniks and then specifically endorsed them regarding the Chetnik movement as a whole. This isn't a matter of interpretation, he just couldn't have been any clearer. What is gob-smacking about this is that you apparently haven't even seen the page in question, yet have deleted reliably sourced material which is completely supported by the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Jingiby, I have now added citations to Sadkovich alongside the ones to Tomasevich. This matter is beyond dispute, and Fkp should just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Peacemaker67. There is nothing to discuss about here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying something like "there is nothing to discuss about here" is a sure sign of corrosion of intellect, in my book. Claiming that Chetniks ( a generalisation, no united command existed) were anti-Yugoslav is dubious. It is an agenda, to portray them not as Yugoslav army (and I am making a difference regarding their action in 1941-1943 and later on!) but as Greater Serbia genocidal plotters. Moljevic's work is not that notable, it is just his dream. The reason to push it (and this is happening on several pages on Wiki) steems from a clear agenda. Chetniks had a Muslim division, Slovenian divisions, Jewish fighters and so and so on. I have personally met several old Chetniks and all of them told me that they were fighting for Yugoslavia, their king and people (some highlighted Serb people, to be frank). Sadko (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The only agenda here is to reflect what the reliable sources say. This is not about Moljevic specifically, or even the motivations of individual Chetnik troops, it is about what reliable sources say about the movement as a whole, and it was being deleted by Fkp without having even read the source. It is that action that Fkp was undertaking that is beyond dispute, we have two reliable and unbiased sources saying the same thing, and no reliable sources contradicting them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Fkp should be given an opportunity to present sources which can give more credibility to his edits and the article should be altered accordingly (with NPOV in mind). Sadko (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

More credibility to his actions of deleting reliably sourced material when he hasn't even read the source? Such actions are disruptive and need to stop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

1) As far as I can see from the p. History, you broke 3RR. You, an admin... FkP did no such thing. 2) Why is this in the lead? A direct quote? A single source... Is Sabrina Ramet that notable (there is a strict policy regarding quotes, which we all know of)? Sabrina Ramet, a historian, has observed, "Both the Chetniks' political program and the extent of their collaboration have been amply, even voluminously, documented; it is more than a bit disappointing, thus, that people can still be found who believe that the Chetniks were doing anything besides attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces". This is a good way/example of how to destroy an article, starting with the lead. Sadko (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not break 3RR, the reverts were about two separate issues, one about piping of the terms by IPs, another about deleting ideologies by Fkp. The lead of this article is a compromise to avoid interminable discussions on the talk page, and while it is not perfect, I believe it provides a balanced view based on reliable academic sources, of which Ramet is one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not balanced, not even a bit - Attempting to realize a vision of an ethnically homogeneous Greater Serbian state, which they intended to advance, in the short run, by a policy of collaboration with the Axis forces. If you in fact did researct Yugoslav army that is Chetniks, as you claim you did, you would know so. It is neither that notable to be in the lead (not one of authorities on the matter). The mentioned quote presents the complete WW2 dynamic in Yugoslavia in black and white, while most of WW2 anti-Nazi forces (both Chetniks and Partisans) were in various shades of gray, so to say. Only Ustaše and Ljotić's guys were black as it comes. Sadko (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this view reveals the evolution of the Chentic's agenda and change of their opinion towards Yugoslavism, respectively anti-Yugoslavism. As Aleksandar Petrovic has maintained in his dissertation with which he held a Doctor of philosophy: "Mihailović’s Chetnik Movement: From Royalist Yugoslav Forces to Serb Nationalist Guerrillas", Simon Fraser University, 2011: As a result of various wartime processes, the Chetnik movement transformed from being a direct extension of the Yugoslav Royal Army into a Serb nationalist force that focused on the survival of Yugoslav Serbs and was devoted to Serb post-war territorial unification within a restored Yugoslavia – or even without the restoration of Yugoslavia, for that matter. This meant abandoning Yugoslavism as an ideological platform, something that contributed to the Allies’ abandonment of the Chetniks in favour of the communist Partisans. Jingiby (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This can be seen as an extension of the inter-war Chetnik movement's latter adherence to the People's Radical Party focus on a Greater Serbian ideology under Puniša Račić, which rejected the prior Yugoslavism of the movement. It was only at Ba that any attempt was made to water this down, and that wasn't even very successful, as there was still a strong Greater Serbia thread to the decisions of the Ba Congress. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby:, do not forget to sign your comment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

WWII Chetniks, officially named Yugoslav Army in Fatherland (Yugoslav army is anti-Yugoslav... wait what?), the side Allies backed for most conflict as official army of the king and the Yugoslav government-in-exile, all way till December 1943, when again, didn´t named them enemies, but just switched prefferences to Yugoslav Partisans. WWII Chetniks never changed their official name and at the end of the war stayed in Yugoslavia waiting for the king to return and for the government-in-exile to take power. Their leader, Mihailovic, was named Minister of Defense of the Yugoslav government-in-exile. In Yalta Conference it was agreed Tito was to share power with them in the end of the war, but Tito betrayed the agreement, captured and executed Chetniks, and proclaimed a communist totalitartian regime. Claiming this makes somehow monarchists "anti-Yugoslav" is rather a reinterpretation of what "Yugoslav" means, rather then something else. Until then, only one Yugoslavia existed, the one which was a monarchy, and communists created a new one, less centralised, with more regional powers to distinct nationalities. As during war both Chetniks and Partisans were majoritarly formed by Serbs, communists commitment to fullfill non-Serbian Yugoslav nationalities aspirations of a less centralised and less Serbian-dominated state was their major flag in order to win other nationalities support, since they already had the Serbian ideological basis guaranteed. But again, this communist Yugoslavia was again ruled from Serbian capital Belgrade, located in Serbia which was the larger unit, and with Serbs as majority in its ethnical composition, and territorial ethnical majority. The attempt here is to claim not only that a more Serbian Yugoslavia is not so much Yugoslavia, but to turn it into "anti-Yugoslavia". Not even the first claim is correct, much less the second. To say Chetniks were anti-Yugoslav because they backed a more Serbian Yugoslavia in opposition to Partisans who backed a more descentralised Yugoslavia, would be as correct as saying Partisans were anti-Serbian for those same reasons, and we know no historians claim that, maybe just a few Serbian nationalistic ones believing Yugoslavia was an anti-Serb conspiracy. We can say that because Chetniks backed the monarchic more pro-Serbian Yugoslavia while Partisans backed a more descentralised Yugoslavia, that both were pro-Yugoslav, while Chetniks can be added pro-Serbian, as well. None was either anti-Yugoslav or anti-Serbian. Their concept of Yugoslavia was simply different.

I had been limited with my time because of real-life duties. I will try to see in detail all the sources regarding ideology. We had a 2-years long mediation where sources were presented and the anti-Chetnik narrative was found to be not shared by majority of world scholars. The ideology of Chetniks has suffered immenselly from communist propaganda which insisted in Serbian antionalism and anti-Yugoslavism which can be understood for its reasons. Some Western historians agree that Chetnik Great Serbian plans are possibly a communist forgery. Maybe the best is to avoid adding controversial extraordinary claims and try to gather as much scholar sources as possible on the matter and see the result. I am against local Yugoslav sources because they tend to be biased and partisan. Tomasevic was a Yugoslav historian who, writting in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, clearly had no freedom to come up with any other conclusions that not the official Tito-regime ones. Believing otherwise and that Tito communist regime was free on this crucial matters is naive as least. Thus I favor foreign historians specialists on WWII. From what I said in my earlier paragraph I believe we all agree on most, sources for Chetniks being named officially Yugoslav Army in Fatherland are plenty, just as Mihailovic having been Minister of Defense of Yugoslav government-in-exile, Chetniks fighting for monarchy, Partisans for a more descentralised Yugoslavia, etc. I would also like to know if there are editors willing to find some way of dispute resolution, because we have plenty of problems with Chetniks, such as the articles being disproportionally more focused on the collaboration problem than usually ones found in sources. FkpCascais (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You make all sorts of claims about what the sources say, Fkp, but you don't produce any. That "mediation" was years ago, and involved editors who are no longer editing. Things move on, even assuming the outcome was as you say, and I find it hard to AGF with you given your track record. We have two highly respected reliable sources saying the Chetnik movement was anti-Yugoslav, one also quoting a man that was the leader of the political wing of the Chetniks after Ba. On the other hand, you have produced none that say the opposite, and just make broad sweeping generalisations that the formal name adopted by the Chetniks means that they couldn't be anti-Yugoslav. That is patent nonsense, and doesn't take into account the self-serving nature of the name, along with its propaganda and legitimising functions. I'll discuss it when you produce reliable sources that say the Chetniks (prior to Ba) were Yugoslavist. Even then, only some sources support their Yugoslavism, and the consensus is that they were still pushing the Greater Serbia line and paying lip service to Yugoslavism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I make many claims which are common knolledge and are not controversial (Chetniks being monarchists, Partisans goal being the taking of power, etc.), it only becomes a problem when gathered in context end up opposing your claims. You accuse me of not providing sources, I understand that you are not obligated to know everything that happened on this and other related articles in the past, but I was in the group of editors that brought large ammounts of sources that helped this article to exist. The problem is that the issue is controversial and requires a neutral and objective understanding to properly include all aspects and avoid taking sides. There are enough sources with different views that by cherry-picking it would be possible to make two totally opposite articles. The issue was never sources, but the Wikipedia:UNDUE problem. This requires a much more carefull approach that would rather indicate the complexity, if necessary, as in this case, than including content that is clearly biased. With so much literature written about Chetniks, finding only two instances where is claimed that they were "anti-Yugoslav" seems more like a proof that historiography fails to describe them in such way. Here, for instance, on BBC, we can see the effort the author has done to describe the main ideological characteristics of the Chetniks, on 7th paragraph of Chetniks section, and he identified two elements as most important: loyalty to the royalist regime and care to ensure the survival of Serbian nation from what seemed to be a genocidal intent of Croats and Germans, and hostility from Muslims and communists. Loyalty to Yugoslav government is described as their main characteristic, that by itself contradicts claims of anti-Yugoslavism. Their name was Yugoslav army, they fight for Yugoslav government, claiming they were anti-Yugoslav is like claiming Australian basketball team is anti-Australian. Even if Australia one day changes the constitution and becomes a republic, you can´t claim that the Australian team that played as Australia and represeted Australia during the 2000 Olympics was "anti-Australian". Same with Yugoslav Army in Fatherland. I strongly believe "anti-Yugoslavism" has no scholar consensus as Chetnik ideology at all, and should be removed. FkpCascais (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, you bring no sources, only your opinion and an extremely broadbrush BBC summary from which you extrapolate things. I see no point in continuing this discussion until you produce reliable sources for your contention. There is nothing stopping the Chetniks from being adherents to both a type of Yugoslavism (one that rested on Serbian domination of the country) and anti-Yugoslavism (one that denied the rights of other peoples of Yugoslavia to equal treatment). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My BBC source is an excellent way to see how a reliable and respectable news agency summarizes a topic we are discussing here. Since we are discussing if "anti-Yugoslavism" is an ideology relevant enough to be included in the infobox of Chetniks, we end up finding usefull exemples of choices of inclusion made in other reliable sources on this matter. Our infobox should include only the ideoloogiies which are agreed by most scholars. The ones partially accepted, pr controversial, should not be included as their main ideologies in the infobox, but instead should be left out of the infobox and discused properly in the article body. The infobox should mention the main ideologies and should not be a list of every ideology someone somewhere atributed to them.

I think it is unfair on your behalve to accuse me of not bringing sources when you admited that whatever the ammount of sources saying otherwise, you will insist that "nothing" will stop you from adding both. It is not even clear what sources you ask for. We already have established Yugoslavism was one of their main ideologies. Asking for sources that will say that they weren´t anti-Yugoslav is useless because no one would defend them of something they were not accused of. All ever existed was a tendency that communist regime adopted to promote the idea that everything related to second, communist, Yugoslavia, was more "Yugoslav" than from first, royalist, Yugoslavia. Including the issue of Partisans and Chetniks. However, the idea of Chetniks being anti-Yugoslav never gained popularity. It may have been at most part of a wider attempt to label all monarchic, or, representative of previous Yugoslavia, as anti-Yugoslav. Since the two refimes were so different in so many aspects and with the need of the communists to justify and legitimize the abolishion of the monarchy and instauration of a dictatorial regime, they progressivelly imposed more and less successfully this appropriation of Yugoslavism and the Yugoslav idea as their own. However, Yugoslavism as ideology based itself in a notion that was much wider and unrelated to the type of regime. Monarchism and communism were clearly two different models of Yugoslavism. Chetniks and Partisans fought each one for their own model from the start to the end of the war. Yugoslav Partisans strugled for the abolishment of the monarchy and instauration of a communist regime in Yugoslavia, while Yugoslav Army in Fatherland fought for the restauration of the monarchy and the Yugoslav government-in-exile. Because of the nature of the two, a compromise was impossible, so a scenario with a winner and a looser was inevitable. However, regardless of the winner, Yugoslavism was not exclusive of either one.

So lets see sources. Without any importance in its order, lets see, first one:

• "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction", by Adam Jones, "The Serbs themselves were divided between Chetniks, who supported the deposed royalist regime, and a partisan movement led by Josip Broz, known as Tito. ... Troughout 1945–46, Tito´s forces killed tens of thousands Chetniks and other political opponents" This source confirms that Chetniks main characteristic was to fight to restore the deposed regime which was the king and Yugoslav government-in-exile. If someone main goal is to fight to restore the deposed Yugoslav government, they automatically can´t be "anti-Yugoslav".
• "Political Cohesion In A Fragile Mosaic: The Yugoslav Experience" by Lenard J Cohen, Paul V Warwick: "The Chetniks who supported a return to the prewar unitary state and social structure, were predominantly Serbs from within "Old Serbia" i.e. Serbia proper)." Again, a source confirming the main goal of Chetniks was the restauration of Yugoslavia. There is overwelming consensus that Chetniks fought to restore Yugoslavia. I can go on and on. I am making a pause, but I think we have here a clear explanation of the reasons why Yugoslavism is an ideology of Chetniks worth mention in the infovox, while a couple of citations of anti-Yugoslavism shoudn´t be placed along. FkpCascais (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why is it that you cannot accept that the Chetniks were in some ways pro-Yugoslav and in other ways anti-Yugoslav? For those that viewed Yugoslavism as the peoples of Yugoslavia having equal status in Yugoslavia, they certainly were anti-Yugoslav, as throughout the war they sought a state that returned to the Serb domination of the interwar period. Even at Ba the resolutions were decidedly Great Serbian. The citations regarding them being anti-Yugoslav are not from some fringe sources, they are mainstream academic views from outside of the former Yugoslavia, reflect a legitimate view of the Chetniks political ideology, and should be in the infobox. Instead of quibbling over this, why don't you actually contribute to the article text? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My viewpoint is that the Anti-Yugoslavism was (in a way) more strongly supported since the second half of 1943 and early 1944 (Ba). I think that this info. should be included in the infobox encolsed in brackets or explained with a note. An average reader will get confused easily with the current version. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't think that Stevan Moljević's Homogeneous Serbia and related Chetnik Great Serbia ideology was an expression of this sort of anti-Yugoslavism? It dates from the creation of DM's Chetnik movement, and as Tomasevich observes, it can be assumed that DM endorsed most if not all of the Great Serbia ideology from the beginning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Moljević is given more credit than he deserves. No documents or statements (official one) confirm that his megalomanic ideas were widely accepted. It just happened that he held several important posts in the movement. Moljević also advocated Greater Slovenia (a quick glance at his drawings can confirm this). He is not that relevant, generally speaking. But, truth be told, Moljević's plans achieved somewhat stronger support since the 1943, which is one of the reason why I think that it would be correct to add them brackets. 2) No, it was not necceceraly. A number of Serbs including the PM Nikola Pašić taught that Serbs/Serbia should have their own borders before making a joint state (back in the 1918). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to back that up with reliable sources. Tomasevich is very clear. I disagree with placing brackets around or time-limiting the anti-Yugoslavism of the Chetniks, Tomasevich makes it clear that the Great Serbia agenda was in place from the very beginning of the DM movement, and that agenda is by its very basis anti-Yugoslav in the sense that Tomasevich and Sadkovich are using the term. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• @FkpCascais: I don't think Jones' statement about the Chetniks supporting the restoration of "the deposed royalist regime" is enough to support the claim that the Chetniks were Yugoslavist. His statement about them doesn't say anything about the nature of that regime they supported other than the monarchy. Too much is left to chance by his vagueness. Cohen & Warwick's explicit mention of the "unitary state" is more promising though. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cohen? I thought that we should use sources over which the majority of community agrees to be RS. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no majority community view that Cohen is unreliable (including in that thread), it has been tested several times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, yes, this and other related articles were the ones I used to contribute regularly at my begining. In Chetniks case I was a participant of a mediation that meant to create a balanced version, however, you, Director and some other editors decided to ignore the conclusions and you highjacked the article imposing Tomasevic as sort of Holy Bible on the issue despite all problems and contradictions with the findings of the mediation. Ever since I refuse to edit the articles and limit myself to point out to the problems it has.

@Sadko, indeed, Cohen was agreed long time ago to be a biased non-reliable source, it was my mistake to use it as exemple, but ultimatelly, even he agrees with the basics here discussed.

@Indy beetle, greatings, yes, Chetniks indeed were adherents of monarchist ideology, but there is overwelming consensus they fought for the king and government-in-exile. After all, that was the only Yugoslavia that existed until then. No one ever said they would not support a solution that would include the government-in-exile without the king, for exemple. By your logic, Partisans were then even more anti-Yugoslav since they only supported a communist Yugoslavia and no other. The issue here are clearly political ideologies, not Yugoslavism, both were pro-Yugoslav and not anti-Yugoslav in any way.

The main issue here is do we have any source at all claiming Chetniks were anti-Yugoslav that doesn´t come from sme local author? Is there any world-wide scholar claiming that? FkpCascais (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The "main issue" here is that there is only one clearly biased local source (published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts right in the middle of the Balkan wars) specifically claiming Yugoslavism for the Chetniks in the infobox. The quote itself is demonstrably biased towards a Serb point of view. We have two neutral (and non-local) academic sources, Tomasevich (written and published in the US) and Sadkovich (written in the US and published in the UK and US), both of which say the Chetniks had an anti-Yugoslavism ideology. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have some news folks, it seems that rastko.rs is not a RS, but, alas, controversial war propagandist medical doctor/historian Cohen is! [2] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This issue is not with rastko hosting otherwise reliable material, which is the case with some of what is on rastko, but with blog entries on rastko and where some of the material comes from, including whether the original source is reliable. As I have pointed out elsewhere with regards to the journal Dialogue. Feel free to establish the bonafides of that journal at WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

I think that they constitute Christian terrorism in Europe because of their support of Orthodoxy, if one's to consider Russian Orthodox Army as such, then put the Chetniks here, too! Patchman123 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable source for that. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)