Talk:Draža Mihailović

Mediation request

The issue for the mediation request was filed as:
"Even though there is no proof of academic consensus, some parties insist that the article's introduction should have statement 'Mihailovic was a collaborator' rather then 'the issue is disputed among historians'. Britannica says it is disputed among historians."
Nobody is about to agree to your request with such a biased description of the issue. You do not seem to know how to file for mediation.

• User:BoDu is unable to understand that there are four scholarly sources currently listed in the article each listing several acts of collaboration between Draža Mihailović and the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia during WWII. There are an additional two or three sources listed in the Chetniks article, but the ones listed here are:
  • Tomasevich, Jozo; War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Volume 1; Stanford University Press, 1975 ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9
  • Cohen, Philip J., Riesman, David; Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history; Texas A&M University Press, 1996 ISBN 0-89096-760-1
  • Ramet, Sabrina P.; The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005; Indiana University Press, 2006 ISBN 0-253-34656-8
  • Tomasevich, Jozo; War and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: occupation and collaboration, Volume 2; Stanford University Press, 2001 ISBN 0-80473-615-4
• User:BoDu does not understand that with four sources in the article, the burden of evidence is on him, not somebody who does not share his personal opinion. He has been asked several times to provide evidence for his claim that there is "no consensus among historians" on the issue. He has not done so, i.e. he has not provided a single source that opposes the sources listed in the article on the issue of the collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks.
• Finally, User:BoDu does not seem to be able to understand that the tertiary source claiming that there is "no consensus" (Britannica) is copied from a blog (namely vojska.net) by somebody called Kanchan Gupta. It has been discredited as a copy of a text from a blog. (Even if this were not the case, and sadly it is, there is no reason to accept that claim on Wiki without a reference in the tertiary source, and/or at least one scholarly publication contradicting the ones in the article.)

In short, there is no evidence of an imaginary "lack of consensus among historians", there is only the large number of scholarly sources in the article. So far, this "lack of consensus" exists only as the personal position and opinion of User:BoDu. One that he insists on boring people with incessantly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I´ll be short, and I wan´t respond to any more provocations. You are messing up one thing: The fact that he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated (with one purpose only, in fighting the Partisans, not, and never, the "Allies"), doesn´t make him a Nazy Germany allied, neither makes him less important as a resistence moviment leader. We must make a difference between that. NONE of the sources claims he (neither the moviment) was a "Nazy Germany allied", as "your" lead sentence (and other text) "WWII collaborator" and "Chetniks and collaboration" clearly indicates. The words here are very important, and we all understand that.

The request should be extended to the article Chetniks and to the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism since the issue (level and importance of their collaboration) and the sources (the editors mostly too) are the same. FkpCascais (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.)

Ok, let me get this straight: you admit "the fact that he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated (with one purpose only, in fighting the Partisans, not, and never the Allies)", and yet you are contesting the use of the word "collaborator"? I'll just point out that after the Tehran Conference (late November 1943), and particularly after the Tito-Šubašić Agreement (June 17 1944), the Partisans were the Allies (he just refused to accept it, even when the King ordered him to join them, read up on that). The People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia (NOV i POJ) were the Allied military forces of the (recognized) Allied state of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY) for half the war in WWII Yu. So the point you're making is that (I quote): "he occasionally collaborated" and "(he only fought the Partisans [the Allies], not, and never, the Allies)".

That sentence betrays the absurdity of this discussion. Faced with undeniable evidence presented by professional sources, even you are "forced" to admit he "occasionally and on certain levels" collaborated. FpkCascais, it takes oly ONE act of collaboration to hang someone for high treason during wartime, and only ONE act of collaboration to call someone a collaborator.

P.S. I repeat: this mediation request will most probably be ignored since nobody is about to agree to a mediation request filed with such a biased issue description. User:BoDu, is most likely inexperienced in requesting mediation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you again, User:FpkCascais, if you feel the text of the lead is biased, can you post a lead here that is neutral from your point of view, but does not remove top quality sources and the info they support from this Wiki article? The sources are TOP quality, and they describe collaboration in the most direct and unbiased way imaginable - by listing actualy acts of collaboration between Mihailović (i.e. the Chetnik high command) and the German and Italian occupation authorities in WWII Yugoslavia.

Can you post a lead here on talk that would not remove sourced info? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR must provide proof that there is academic concensus if he insists the article must have statement that Mihailovic was a collaborator. User:DIREKTOR is lying that the Britannica source "is copied from a blog (vojska.net) by somebody called Kanchan Gupta". And, Britannica is a reliable source which supports my claim that there is no consensus among historians. BoDu (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

@User:BoDu, this is utter nonsense, and a childish play on words. I have sources in the article. You have NONE. Therefore, if somebody is supposed to believe you that there is "no consensus" you are the one who is supposed to bring up at least some proper, published, scholarly sources that oppose the ones in the article. The burden of evidence is on you, not on me.

I do not have to prove anything at all, since I've already supported the text with TOP quality scholarly sources.

The silly Britannica quote (your single ref) is utterly worthless. It is 1) a tertiary source, with NO reference in it to any scholarly secondary sources that would support that "no consensus" claim, 2) User:AlasadirGreen27 has researched the source of the text - it is from Vojska.net, a blog. (and ffs man, use WP:INDENT) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Its no use discussing with User:BoDu, there's no point at all in replying to the same nonsense over and over again. "There's no consensus", "no consensus", "prove to me that there is consensus". My good fellow, the sources are there, where are yours? And please, stop with the comical Britannica quote already. You are not making any contribution to this discussion whatsoever.

@User:FkpCascais. Would you agree to a lead that added more emphasis on the fact that Mihailović's Chetniks were initially a resistance movement? I propose also that we change the wording. Instead of "WWII collaborator" would it be more acceptable if the text stated that "he collaborated" (I'm quoting you here)?
Please, I'm trying to meet you half way, do not take advantage of good will by insisting once more that the sources be removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::P.S.: About your statemnt to me: (Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.) Well, only in your posts directed to me on this page (from "POV...again" on, without counting the previous discussion) you´ve refered to me as: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time) , without the times you have clearly misslead the mening of my words or when you purposly missinformed other editors about the reasons of my block. So, these are really kind words, and I am being paranoid (you just indirectly called me that too) without any reason, right? Please avoid using all this unpleasent words any more, and please try to find some other ways of expression that don´t include this rude terms, and this constant confrontational attitute. Me, and the "community", will be thankfull. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you can clearly understand from my comments that I do want to let the sources in. What I am saying is that you are manipulating, exagerating and distorcing the meaning of the same sources. The same sources "cover" my proposed lead and most of my edits. Those same sources DO NOT cover "your" simplicist "collaboration" theory, they just "source" an ocasional collaboration, very distant from "your" claims.

About the lead, no, the Chetniks were not "initially" a resistence moviment, that statement is false. The "Chetniks" WERE a resistence moviment.

I see plenty of space for exploring the "collaboration claims" in a separate chapter (as it already is), but the lead would be much better if it is made something like the way I proposed. Why don´t you accept my lead? Reasons?

About you trying to "meet you half way", well, having you being somewhat of "reasonable" (after 2 months) is really something!

The situation here is clear. An attempt was made on this and other articles by Direktor that, by "sourcing" occasional collaboration, an entire moviment (Chetniks) and its leaders are to be considered "collaborators" and their resistence role is to be ignored. The same sources (having in mind that are the most accusational on the Chetniks that exist) still fail to demonstrate that, and even explain that the collaboration between them and Germany was indirect and oportunistic. A revision of the use and interpretation of the sources in these articles are to be checked. Anyway, independently of this, the role of the moviment and Mihailovic as resistance was also deminished and in cases removed from the articles, and it should be recovered, so a NPOV is reached. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to illustrate what Direktor is doing with the sources and with other editors words is found right in his las comment: He says:

"...would it be more acceptable if the text stated that "he collaborated" (I'm quoting you here)?" Meaning, quoting me.

Well, this is a clear exemple because what I said is: "...he occasionally and on certain levels collaborated..." quite different from "he collaborated", being the two very much different. That is exactly what Direktor constantly does with the sources, and that is manipulation and missinterpretation, worste off all, on purpose (I know, I know, WP:AGF, but it is hard when that becomes a constant on his behalve). Isn´t that sanctioned on WP? FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ANALIZING THE SOURCES DIREKTOR USES FOR HIS TOTAL COLLABORATION THEORY:

So, the most important: the "collaboration" on the lede has 4 sources:

• 1 - The first, (J.Tomasevic),1 "Major Dangic efforts to arrive at a modus vivendi with the Germans in Eastern Bosnia at the beginnings of 1942 failed...". Afterwords speaks how "Chetniks were in fundamental disagreement with Croatian authorities on practically all problems, but they did faced a common enemy in Partisans and this was an overiding reason for the collaboration that ensued between the Croatian authorities and MANY Chetnik detachments". Many, not all, and on that moment, not trough the war. And it is with the Croatian authorities, German allies, but not the Germans themselfs.
• 2 - Here (P.Cohen),2 well, we can even find the sentence that the agreement between the Germans and Mihailovic wasn´t archived because "Kogard stated that he could not troust the Chetniks because unlike Nedic, Ljotic, Pecanac and many others, who had openly sided with the Germans from the beginning, Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht." Are we reading the same? It even says they fought the Germans, right the oposite of the collaboration claims! Later speaks about how Chetniks mutilated German soldiers! Afterwords, what Nedic explains at the trial in 1946 is that Mihailovic gave a list of goals and conditions for collaboration. It even sounds as an ultimatum, and not a surrendering under German command. And, the conditions were not even accepted... The rest of "collaboration" is mostly refered to Pecanac and Nedic.
• 3 - Here (S.Rament),3 it starts speaking about the Chetniks-Italians collaboration, in Montenegro (only), and continues refering that in the NDH (Nazy Croatia) "the Italians accepted these demands beleaving that such measures would win the Chetniks over to a collaborative arrangement and take the wind out of the communist insurrection..." Then says, "while some Chetnik leaders entered into collaborative relations with the Italians and with the Nedic governament, others...avoided any cooperation with the occupation regime." What clearer than this sentence? But becomes clearer!, "Moreover, even where local Chetniks did collaborate, they did so on their own terms." Continues, "Given the disunity and pervasive opportunism of the Chetnik movement..." Also, and refering to Mihailovic, "Mihailovic was aware of and condoned the collaborationist arrangements into wich Jevdjevic and Trifunovic-Bircanin entered." Condoned? We all know its meaning, don´t we? Afterwords speaks of specific Chetnik detachments that collaborated with the Italians (the Nevesinje Chetniks), bur anyway, that "alliance" was vetoed by the Germans, as cited right after.
• 4 - (Tomasevic, again),4 this is the most eficient source, but again, it doesn´t make never a connection between Mihailovic and collaboration, and speaks about the collaboration that existed in Croatia between the Chetniks there, and the Italians first, and Germans latter. Anyway, Tomasevic as an ethnic Croat (involved in the dispute) may definitelly not be the most NPOV, so, as per WP:V Exeptional claims an additional sources are needed.

After analizing the sources used, Mihailovic can´t definitelly be considered a "notable collaborator" (as included by Direktor at the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, and its role as a resistance movement leader is not to be questioned (specially after a post-mortum trial at USA released him of all collaborationist charges, and awarded him). The collaboration did existed, but is hugely exagerated in the Direktor edits. Even these sources explain how the collaboration between the Mihailovic Chetniks and the Axis powers was weak, sporadic, indirect and oportunistic. Even here is mentioned how Mihailovic condemned when some detachments collaborated. Also is refered how the Germans kept considering them as enemies troughout the war, thus imposibilitating any claim that their collaboration was superior than their resistence efforts. And please don´t forget we are analizing here the sources that were most incriminating for Mihailovic, leaving aside all the ones that speak how great were the efforts of him and the movement in fighting the Axis...

P.S.:I apologise for my massive comment, but it was necessary to help understanding most of the reasons for this discussion.FkpCascais (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, FkpCascais. No point trying to respond to this essay, I'd have to quit college. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can´t see how would you respond, since I completely exposed the sources, and demonstrated that they don´t indicate "collaboration" as you wrongly claimed. You were completely exagerating and manipulating their content, even using them in oposite way in certain cases. Anyway, my coment was directed to everybody, not specifically you. FkpCascais (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

lols. :P While I am honestly shocked that after weeks and months of discussion you finally opened up the sources, I do not see how it helped your case. Listing any and all positive sentences about the Chetniks has nothing to do with the issue. The sources are listed there because they describe acts of collaboration between Mihailović and the occupation authorities. They still do, and are still very much valid (in spite of the amazing fact that you read parts of them). The sources are professional works describing all or most of the Yugoslav Front (1941-1945), therefore they do naturally mention all sorts of things, Chetniks that collaborated at one time, Chetniks that did not collaborate at another time, etc. Lol, they were not falsely quoted. Please remember that not many people will care what you do or do not personally proclaim to be an "exceptional claim".

The bottom line is: no you quite obviously did not "expose" anything, the acts of collaboration that support the text in the article are still very much there. I frankly cannot believe you are still trying to discredit these TOP quality sources, first the author, now this nonsense. (Also, thank you for pointing out that Draža Mihailović knowingly condoned the widespread collaboration among his subordinates, that is high treason as well as I'm sure you know. I should probably insert that as well.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to have to work during the weekend so I am most likely not going to be available saturday and sunday. I'll be able to respond tommorow and then on monday. Apologies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR, you say that you provided top quality sources. True, but these sources are not proof that there is academic consensus. Not a single source, you provided, says that all or most historians claim that Mihailovic was a collaborator. Brittanica? Well, according to the rules a tertiary source is a reliable source which may be used to give overview, and the lead section of a Wikipedia article is overview. Also, it should be said that Brittanica is the best quality tertiary source in the world. PS It is ridiculous to claim that Mihailovic biography on Brittanica site is copied from a blog because the same text is found there. It is nonsense. LOL, I can now copy a article from Wikipedia, paste it on my blog, and than say I am the author of the text. BoDu (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mihailovic "condoned" meaning, allowing an "unusual alliance". He wouldn´t be needing to "condone" if that was an everyday action.

I just posted parts that contradict "your theory" and coraborate that collaboration was occasional.

You can´t insert decontextualised parts of text. Your simplicist "he was a collaborator" isn´t said anywhere, and that and other claims like that he, and the Chetniks are "notable collaborators" are completelly unsourced. You just can´t exagerate and interpretate the sources the way you want!

I already asked you to be civil an avoid using, when refering to me, desrespecftfull and insultuous words such as "nonsence", is it that hard? FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Brittanica source, are you (direktor) sure wasn´t Vojska the one that coppied the text from Brittanica? Do you have proof Brittanica copied it from Vojska? And even if did, isn´t the fact that they accepted it as Mihailovic biography a fact that becomes accepted, including that becomes "Brittanica´s" source, as well? FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

REASONS BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR MEDIATION:

• Also, there has been proposed a more NPOV lede, but user:DIREKTOR insists in the inclusion of "he was a World War II" collaborator". He uses four sources: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Please have in mind that these are the most incriminatory sources that Direktor could find, so are most probably the most incriminatory that exist. The sources, as you can obviously see, describe the collaboration that existed, but is inevitable to see from the texts that the collaboration is described as oportunistic, ocasional and partial (never claims that the entire movement collaborated). It also completely fails to demonstrate that Mihailovic himself collaborated, being the only reference in that sence the one found in the fourth source when is said that Mihailovic was aware and condoned the collaboration of two of his detachments. But, in oposition to this, the sources clearly say, specially the second one, that any collaboration between the Germans and the Mihailovic Chetniks was impossible because, citing source, "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". The second (Cohen) and third (Rament) are definitelly more reliable and NPOV, since the first and fourth are from the same author (Tomasevic) who is an Croatian, thus possibly not free of POV since the Croats fought the Mihailovic Chetniks, and had an important role in this same war. There must be also held in consideration the fact that this was a three side war, and that Mihailovic ended up executed by his major rival, the victorious Tito, that in the period after the war, did his best efforts to demonstrate how he was the only resistance leader in Yugoslavia, and made a enormous campaign to declare Mihailovic and the Chetniks guilty. The United States discharged Mihailovic of all accusations and highly condecorated him for his efforts in fighting the Axis during the WWII. France highly condecorated him too.

The editing of the article by User:DIREKTOR has extremely biased the article with a total manipulation of the meaning of the sources. An enormous exageration has been edited about his collaboration, and his awards and his role as a leader of one of the major resistance movements in the Balkans has been completely ignored. This article, and the ones related, desperately need to be revisioned and the POV parts need to be excluded. Despite needing to act accordingly to WP:AGF, it is very much obvious that User:DIREKTOR purpose in these articles is to totally monopolize these articles so they should contain only his POV (that by having in mind that he is Croatian, and until recently, an assumed Titoist, is very much disfavourable regarding a Serbian monarchic movement and its leader Mihailovic). DIREKTOR has exclusively been active on this articles on the collaboration and related issues. Resumingly:

• Considering Mihailovic and the Chetniks simply as collaborators is being challenged, and a change that would have in consideration the throu meaning of the sources, and an NPOV is needed.
• The inclusion of Mihailovic and the Chetniks in the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism is also being challenged. The level of collaboration of Mihailovic just can´t be compared with those found in the template, that in their vast majority openly collaborated directly with Germany from the beginning to the end.
• The article Chetniks and all related must be edited in a more NPOV, and in accordance to what is going to be decided here.
• User:DIREKTOR has been warned by some admins to behave regarding this articles in accordance to WP:OWN, and there is a constant complain regarding his abusive monopolization of them. His attitude and kind of language that uses has not been correct, and has shown plenty of desrespect towards opinions different than his own. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that we look at the definition of the word "collaborator" itself to settle this? If Mihailovic's actions conform to the definition found here, then he definitely is one. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Lets supose that Mihailovic is a "black&white cat". Black is his collaboration part, and white his resistance.

• 1 - Most sources confirm that he is "black&white".
• 2 - There are no sources saying he is a "black" cat.
• 3 - Within all the sources, even the ones that state that he is quite a dark cat, clearly state that is "black&white".
• 4 - There are plenty of sources and facts that say that he is quite a "white" cat. (USA&other allied nations cleared him of the charges and condecorated him). White cats definitelly accepted him.
• 5 - A "black&white" cat can´t definitelly be included in the list of "notable black cats".

This is a simplicist exemple that can very much clarify the situation. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy is productive, since the cat can't change its coat. If I collaborate with an armed force for my own purposes and with good intentions for a limited period of time, I have been a collaborator. If I resist those same armed forces at a different time, I'm a member of the resistance. Many people have been both.--Nuujinn (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, the coat can´t be changed. I´m not saying the cat is "white", I´m am just saying that some editors insist in having him considered a "black" cat, and that is POV. If he was "black&white" he was "black&whaite", not just "black" or "white". Any atempt to make an article in that sence would be POV. By the way, Mihailovic, and the Chetniks were mostly resistence movement, the cases of collaboration were occasional and never "full", so he can´t possibly be considered both "awarded resistance hero" and "collaborator". And, only one source (Tomasevic) makes a link between Mihailovic and collaboration... Such accusation needs more than just one, and if possible, more NPOV sources (Tomasevic is Croatian). FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the black cat-white cat analogy is the most sense I've ever come across. I get the feeling my little troll will be starving from now on. Brutal Deluxe (talk)

FkpCascais, no offense, but I don't agree that a person cannot be considered both an "awarded resistance hero" and "collaborator". In fact, from what I've read thus far, it seems very clear to me that that's exactly the case here. Clearly, Mihailovic was in a difficult situation, but the assertion that he did collaborate with the axis and also the assertion that his forces fought against the axis are both well sourced. In terms of establishing that he did collaborate, I would point to the following three quotations from the four sources you all have been discussing (emphasis mine):

• pages 40 of Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History By Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman: "By late 1941, Mihailovic Chetniks effectively had abadoned resistance to the Axis in favor of the struggle against Tito's Partisan, and thereafter maintained a pattern of collaboration with both Germans and Italians against the Partisans, notwithstanding sporadic acts of anti-Axis sabotage."
• page 231 of The Chetniks: war and revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 By Jozo Tomasevich: "...from the end of December 1942 on, the British government, both indirectly through the Yugoslave government-in-exile and directly through its own missions with Mihailovic, made strenuous and sustained efforts to persuade Mihailovic to stop collaborating with the enemy and fighting the Partisans, and to start fighting the Axis forces, but in vain."
• page 148 of The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005 By Sabrina P. Ramet: "Mihailovic himself was drawn into this collaborative web, and by late August, he was sanctioning use of his units in an anti-Partisan campaign with Ustasa and Italian troops."

So in this case, to use your analogy, the cat is both black and white. But we are not just talking about simple patterns of tone in fur, we are talking about individuals under extreme conditions with limited resources and knowledge, whose actions or inaction led to many deaths. I think the lead, as it stands now, is pretty fair and neutral in underscoring both his collaboration and resistance, and I'm speaking as someone who does not care one whit whether Mihailovic was or was not an axis collaborator. I'm certainly open to reconsidering this, if you can present some sources that state that Mihailovic did not collaborate with the axis. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just analised the content of this same sources few comments back... I am not claiming that he didn´t collaborate, I just agree that the article needs to be "toned out a bit", as already other editors asked. His awards are hardly even mentioned in the article, and his "Axis collaborator" is in the lede. I am not asking nothing unusual. The problem arised when User:DIREKTOR blocked and started reverting any attempt to do that. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@brutaldelux - If you are here to contribute, that is fine, but your last post very much belongs to Troll, so plese don´t make personal attacks or other sort of provocations. Your point is clear, respect others. FkpCascais (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read all of this, twice now. You have been claiming that there's not consensus amoung scholars that Mihailovic collaborated with the axis. There are good sources that say that he did, and (so far as I can see) none that state that he did not collaborate, so I think the consesus is that he did collaborate. Do you disagree, and if you do, what sources can you point to? And what exactly do you think is wrong with the lead as it stands now? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven´t been claiming that (it is another editor), so you obviously didn´t read or understood my points. Lets wait for the mediatio, ok? It is after all the version that I disagree with that is currently on the article, so we don´t have to repeat aurselfs, neither you need to warry for now. If you read the discussion you´ll have your answers. FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. So you agree that while Mihailovic did operate as a resistance fighter against the axis, he did also act as a collaborator? If that is the case, what exactly is wrong with the lead, and how would you suggest the lead be reworded? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where FkpCascais' "black and white" I'm-neutral-direktor-is-a-propagandist show falls apart. He is pushing for the complete removal of sourced material referring to Mihailović as a collaborating resistance leader (which would leave the lead in contradiction to an entire article section). I have previously stated on numerous occasions that I am perfectly fine with a different lead, one that others may find more neutral. I have, however, insisted that the lead make it clear that this person was, without a shadow of a doubt (and FkpCascais hs admitted it on several occasions), engaged in collaboration with the occupation of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This where DIREKTOR's show falls apart. These are the rules:

"For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player in the world" expresess an opinion; in can not be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact."

The statement that "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis" as if it were a fact - is against the rules. BoDu (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, no offense intended, but I believe you are misinterpreting the rule. Were we to say that Mihailović was the best resistance fighter or the most horrific colaborator of WWII, we would be in the realm of opinion. To say that "John Doe played baseball" is not opinion, it is rather an assertion of fact that can be verified. Now, I quoted three reliable sources which in effect assert that "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis". Clearly, he also engaged in some level of resistance, and the reasons for his collaboration or the degree of his collaboration can surely be debated. But absent any reliable and verifiable sources stating that Mihailović did not collaborate, I think the statement "Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis" stands undisputed. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I may offer an additional source, Winston Churchill, in his book Closing the Ring, Volume 5, p.415: "Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received show that he [Mihailović] had been in active collaboration with the Germans". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, Britannica says that this issue is disputed. Can you provide a reliable source which claims that this issue is undisputed? BoDu (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

xD Its no use, Nuujinn, that's about it: you're not going to get any further with User:BoDu. Yes, BoDu, Prof. Peoplefox has decided to write a book entitled, List of Undisputed Historical Issues, where he explicitly states "Even though nobody seems to be able to find any sources disputing this fact, and even though there are very many reliable sources that confirm it, I thought it might be a good idea to make it clear: Draža Mihailović was a collaborator, indisputably." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if you source some collaboration between them, and use it to put in the lede "WWII collaboreator" (as if that was really NPOV), I could also add to Tito and the Partisans, because they fough the Chetniks that were considered Allies, that they were collaborators, as well, so I can go to Tito page and add in the lede, "Tito, WWII collaboprator, fought the Allied forces despite recomendations to reach an agreement". OK, so lets do that? That would really be usufull (its called "Reciprocity", and equal treatment)... FkpCascais (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, to be a collaborator you are supposed to collaborate with the Axis. Josip Broz Tito and his forces did not, in fact, collaborate with the Axis military at any point. They were engaged in combat with the Chetniks at the time when they were still Allied forces and the Partisans were not (November 1941-November 1943), but that does not make them collaborators with the Germans and Italians.

You may feel free to write that the Partisans were enemies of the Chetniks while the latter were recognized as an Allied resistance movement, however, you should also mention that the Chetniks (having just received Allied recognition) were the first to attack and betray the Partisans during an Axis offensive. While the attack was taking place, the Chetnik command had already dispatched to Belgrade Colonel Branislav Pantić and Captain Nenad Mitrović, two of Mihailović's aides, where they contacted German intelligence officer Captain Josef Matl on October 28. They informed the Abwehr that they have been empowered by Colonel Mihailović to establish contact with Prime Minister Milan Nedić and the appropriate Wehrmacht command posts to inform them that the Colonel was willing to "place himself and his men at their disposal for fighting communism", etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, fighting Allied forces will make him (Tito) Axis in person, worste than collaborator... FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

lol fail. Not really, FkpCascais. One can either 1) fight Allied forces, or 2) fight Allied forces in collaboration with the Axis.

• The Partisans defended themselves from a Chetnik attack. An attack that failed miserably in spite of its trecharous nature, being a breach of an alliance agreement within the resistance and set at the time when the Partisans were defending from a German offensive (and while Mihailović was negotiating to "place himself at the disposal of the Wehrmacht"). Hostilities naturally continued afterwards, but the Partisan forces never collaborated with the Germans. Indeed, as they were socialists, the Axis wanted nothing to do with them.
• The Chetniks (an Allied force, 1941-1943) attacked the Partisans in 1941. After 1943 they lost Allied recognition to the Partisans. The Partisans became the Allied Yugoslav force 1943-1945. During that period, Mihailović and his Chetniks fought Allied forces (the Partisans) in collaboration with the Axis.

You do not seem to know muc about this war. I keep advising you to learn more on this subject before engaging in these complex discussions.

You stated that "fighting Allied forces makes someone Axis, worse than a collaborator". Mihailović not only fought Allied forces, but also collaborated. So he's a collaborator and "Axis in person" ("worse than collaborator"), according to you that is. xD

(Of course, everyone knows that fighting Allies does not somehow make you "Axis by default". That's one of the most obvious and basic facts in these sort of discussions. The Axis is a military Alliance - you have to be in agreement (allied) with the Axis to be "Axis". To put it simply, collaboration with the Axis makes you Axis.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nujjinn,

1. Annyone can edit Britannica? Try to do that, and tell me what happened
2. Your version of what Britannica says is that some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent
3. According to the rules, a tertiary source is a reliable source. On other hand, you are still unable to provide ONLY ONE reliable source which claims that most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, so your secondary sources are not counterexamples. --BoDu (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, regarding your points above (although I think you've jumped sections):

1. Ok, I'll let you know how it comes out.

2. Not exactly, but close enough I think. That is not, however, equivalent to saying that "some historians assert that Mihailovic is innocent." The U.S. commission may have found him innocent of collaboration, and if you want that added to the article, I have no objection.

3. I respectfully disagree that I need to provide any sources that directly assert that "most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis". We have at this time some secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, and no secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not engage in collaboration with the Axis. This is a really very simple issue to me--if some scholars do dispute that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, we should be able to find them, and use those references. I've looked, and haven't found any yet, and I assume (in good faith) that you have search for those as well, and also failed to find them. ----Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I am waiting...
2. Well, in any case, Brittanica says some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent. It does not use word most
3. If most scholars consider that Mihailovic engaged in collaboration with the Axis, we should be able to find at least one reliable source that makes such claim. So far, the only reliable source found which gives summary of the academic opinion says that some historians dispute Mihailovic is innocent. --BoDu (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannica

Bodu, please do not accuse other editors of lying. If you visit the Britannica page on Mihailović [1], and click on the tab at the top of the page marked 'Article History', you will see that it is copied from vojska.net. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On the tab marked "Article History" you can see that person named Kanchan Gupta just added web site vojska.net. The text is not copied. By the way, the text on vojska.net is different compared to the text on Britannica. BoDu (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BoDu, it does not matter. The source of the Britannica text is a blog (lOl :), its worthless. There's nothing to talk about at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It does matter that the text on the blog(vojska.net) is different compared to the text on Britannica. It is proof you are lying. BoDu (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The text is based on Vojska.net. So says the guy who wrote it. Is he lying too? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere on Britannica site nor on vojska.net site can be found statement that the text is based on vojska.net. You are lying. BoDu (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Heheh, this is really starting to get interesting. xD) The text is based on Vojska.net. So says the guy who wrote it. You can easily check that by following this link and clicking the tab at the top of the page marked 'Article History'. Again, is the man lying too? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave it BoDu. They have a goal and they will do everything. Just like "Eatern block" did. They use the same methods (manipulation), and they act allways together (see edit history of them all) so all of them really count as one. Neutral opinions are needed, and lets wait for mediation. BTW, Alasdagreen, you could provide the link at least (Churchill), without it, its just "your" words. FkpCascais (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the powers of the world have united against you... either that or you have not a single source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fkp. I'm delighted to provide the link. I'm sure you're not suggesting I just made it up, after all. It's here [2], although I'm sure you could have found it for yourself. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"powers of the world" (hahahha...) you, and "your allies" really consider yourselfs that? Hahahahaha... I´m saying exactly the oposite, (it looks more like a annoying minor terrorist organisation, not even one full vote), you´re manipulating again my words.

About sources, I even accept using "your" sources, quite a favour for you. I even asked you to provide me a list of your "best" sources. I don´t mind playing in your field, you are just so wrong that I can affort it. "power of world" hahahahaha...

How quick are you both responding... It looks like you were expecting me...

Thanx Alasgreen. FkpCascais (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW "world superpower", it looks like you dislike mediation, or fear it... what´s the problem? FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I consider myself Emperor Ming. FkpCascais: you have no ear for irony, that's all I'm going to say. :) That and I'm going to report you for the above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It´s up to you, but the mediation request has nothing to do with it. So please be kind and tell BuDu or me what is wrong with the request. You are showing very little (well, to be precise, none) good faith in REALLY Wanting to solve this case. BTW, it is not me who is constantly ironising and trolling on this discussion... P.S.:You are the one constantly insulting me, you are the one blocking all the attempts to get mediation, since you don´t want to sign and you are the one who keeps using this kind of provocative attitude (you just colled me "paranoid" twice in your two last comments) despite I have counted all the words you have directed towards me here, and asked you several times specifically to stop, and to concentrate on the article. I´ll repeat:

About your statemnts to me: (Nobody is "provoking" you, FpkCascais. You're imagining hostility yet again.) Well, only in your posts directed to me on this page (from "POV...again" on, without counting the previous discussion) you´ve refered to me as: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly (1 time) , without the times you have clearly misslead the mening of my words or when you purposly missinformed other editors about the reasons of my block. So, these are really kind words, and I am being paranoid (you just indirectly called me that too) without any reason, right? Please avoid using all this unpleasent words any more, and please try to find some other ways of expression that don´t include this rude terms, and this constant confrontational attitute. Me, and the "community", will be thankfull. I think you can really feel proud and speak about irony and reporting... FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The silly quotes up there do not refer to you. Nice try, but nobody is likely to fall for out-of-context quotes. Simply listing words in my vocabulary is not very useful.

Hm, my graphics card just started failing for some reason. Probably collapsed under the weight of my lies and deceit. ;) Looks like I'll be too busy to write huge reports. My terrorist college Al might not be that busy, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I supose when you tell me that my opinion is irrelevant and my edits sylly, you are really not talking to me, but with Donald Duck, or perhaps someone else... Again, stop speaking on name of some immaginary "community":"Nobody this or that". Speak for yourself (unless you think that "only you" is not enough), or otherwise, say exactly "who".

Anyway, I don´t understand... Please stop being obstructive and sign (or say the reasons why not) the mediation request. It really looks like you are not wanting it for some reason. Point why. If not, is really bad faith. Lets solve this once for all! FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see what there is to mediate. You have not a single argument. There is no reason whatsoever why the sourced statement that "Draža Mihailović collaborated/was a collaborator" should not be included. Its nonsense. All we have is the typical extremely stubborn opposition that is met when perceived national interests are being "defended" by users. The sources are there, the facts are there, deal with it already. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you affraid of then? All other editors agreed. Who is being "nonsence" now? (I am fed up of your unpolite vocabulary, learn some education, I already told you). The only one having "typical extremely stubborn opposition" is you. And what is with that "deal with it already"? Is that how you usually deal with discussions. This and all the rest of your vocabullary? I will, deal with it, after mediation.

P.S.:"You have not a single argument". Oh, yes? Why is that other editors consider my version more NPOV? And who are you to consider it? The person that speaks bad words and doesn´t respect nobody that desagrees with? Grow up. (Be good will and sign) FkpCascais (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that everyone draw back just a bit and catch their breath? We need to remain civil, however difficult that might be in the heat of debate.

BoDu, in regard to the Britannica article, I'd like to make the following three points:

1. I do not personally think that it is a good source, since it appears to be editable.
2. Leaving aside the issue of whether it is reliable, I do not think it supports your argument. The text reads "He was captured by the Partisans on March 13, 1946, and charged by the Yugoslav government with treason and collaboration with the Germans. Mihailović was sentenced to death and was executed in Belgrade in 1946. Although a U.S. commission of inquiry cleared Mihailović and those under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians." I believe your position is that this suggests that whether he was a collaborator is disputed by historians. I do not read it that way--"Although a U.S. commission of inquiry cleared Mihailović and those under his immediate command of the charge of collaboration, the issue is still disputed by some historians" can also be read as "even though the U.S. commission cleared Mihailović, historian dispute his innocence".
3. It is clearly a tertiary source, and does not contain citations of sources for the statements in the article, so it cannot be verified. Given a choice between using secondary sources from historians and a tertiary source that does not contain proper citations, I must go with the former. This is I think the most significant point--there is a lot of historical documentation of this period, we are not wanting for sources, and do not need to rely on a short encyclopedia entry for data.

Finally, I will ask again, does anyone have any verifiable and reliable source that asserts that Mihailović did not collaborate? If the Britannica article is accurate, such must exist, yes? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For the past several weeks, that was the sentence I ended my posts with. Aside from the useless Britannica link, User:FkpCascais and User:BoDu have not brought forth a single solitary source. All I get is their opinions on Draža Mihailović, me, Josip Broz Tito, the weather, etc. Can we see a source that claims Mihailović's forces did not collaborate? User:BoDu is probably about to ask you to "prove there is consensus" as we speak. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, the part of "even though the U.S. commission cleared Mihailović" is less important? Nobody is saying he didn´t collaborate, but "the article need to be tonned up", because Mihailovic Chetniks, as said in the Second source (Cohen): "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht. Why you want to emphisize his collaboration, and ignore his resistance role? (Nuujinn, please read the discussion and the sources, so you can know who claims what, and who insists in what. Also, neither this sources found here are enough for such accusation). And by the way, reading Nuujinn´s point 2, this means that we have to treat him as innocent, saying that some historians dispute it. P.S.:@Direkrot: The only one that mentioned weather is you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC) ATENTION: (since here seems to be some confusion) You can all be sure that I, as a Portuguese/Serb of Jewish origin, wouldn´t surely be defending here a nazy movement or a nazy leader. This is not about deniyal of anything. Right the oposite, this is an attempt to stop an "Nazification" of a resistance leader and its movement. Some editors have an obvious "mission" to do this "historical crime" by editing exclusively this issue regarding this articles. This editor has presented himself as "neutral" and some sort of "experts", but I don´t see any other edits on these articles made by him that not the "nazyfication". In some countries, this is a serious offense and a crime. And by the way, I even had Partisans in my family, and I simpatize generally with Titoism, so I really am not taking sides here, just ending this "nazification" nonsence. Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history. Diretkor even insisted in having a photo of the Chetniks posing with Germans as a Infobox Chetnik photo! How NPOV?! And when confronted with that provocation, he just said that was the best shot! Outragious! His nature makes him become completely unable to be NPOV. This wan´t end good for him, he was already blocked many times for loosing his head here, so please, all other editors involved, be reasonable and try to see this case as objectively as possible. Thanx. FkpCascais (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC) So, we are analising here the most incriminatory sources of his most "collaborative" period, don´t forget that. And USA cleared him of the Tito imposed charges, so who should we beleve, USA corts or Tito (Mihailovic worste enemy)? Some Chetnik detachments did collaborate, Mihailovic sanctioned it (that is why there are the separate Chetniks of Kosta Pećanac, they collaborated). If he did collaborate (sources are contradicting about his personal involvement), it was occasional and oportunistic, this way not giving the right to anybody to start an article with "WWII collaborator" and shadowing his resistance efforts. It is very controversial to go against the USA corts and say that his resistance efforts were less significant that his collaboration. Again, in the lede the collaboration can only be mentioned after his condecorations, and in a realistic way (unclear and polemic). He must definitely be excluded from the Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, specially not under "Notable collaborators". The changes I propose are more precise quite different from the current version, wich seems nothing more than intentional nazification. FkpCascais (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• FkpCascais, to be clear regarding your bolded "quote" from Cohen above, he does not say "Mihailovic Chetniks were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht". He absolutely does not say that. This is nonsense. The passage in question, describing a meeting between Mihailović and the German military command in November 1941, is as follows: "During the meeting, Kogard [assistant to the chief of staff of the German military command] and Mihailovic agreed that their common enemy was the Partisans. Kogard, however, stated that he could not trust the Chetniks because, unlike “Nedic, Ljotic, Pecanac, and many others, who had openly sided with us from the beginning,” Mihailovic’s Chetniks “were waging an open struggle against the German Wehrmacht.” According to Pantic’s eyewitness account, Mihailovic protested that “he had never issued any order to attack the German forces. Just the opposite. All of his orders were directed to avoid that struggle, except when his forces are attacked by the Germans". See [3]. In other words, you are quoting Kogard, not Cohen. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it is not up to us to "believe" anything or anyone. We are writing an encyclopedia article, and our beliefs have nothing to do with this. The Britannica article does not say a U.S court, it says a U.S. commission of inquiry, which is a much different thing. Yes, that fact does need discussion in the article. If you have sources that assert that his collaboration was "occasional and oportunistic" [sic], please cite them. The quotes I provided do not indicate that at all. And I must say, AlasdairGreen27 is correct in his reading of the Cohen work, that too indicates a serious level of collaboration. Now, I certainly do not think that any of the source indicate that Mihailovic was a nazi, and agree that we should take care not to give that impression--it seems from what I've read that the purpose of his collaboration was to reduce civilian deaths (since the Nazi reprisals were exceptionly severe) and because it supported his attempts to overcome Tito. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Nuujin. The collaboration of Mihailović's Chetniks was "opportunistic" as a whole, but it was certainly not "sporadic". Details can be found in the fully sourced "Axis collaboration" section of the Chetniks article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you still didn't find any sources. What are we discussing here? Please do not further clutter the talkpage with your "thoughts and opinions". Removing sourced information, whether from this article or the template, will be immediately reported. When you do get some sources, we can discuss what they say - not what you say. Find your sources, stop trying to falsify, discredit, and/or misinterpret my sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, stop lying. After clicking the tab at the top of the page marked "Article History", you can see that person named Kanchan Gupta just added link to the web site vojska.net. This person Kanchan Gupta did the same thing what you do when you are placing external links to Wikipedia. --BoDu (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LoL... From this point on, I will not be responding to posts by User:BoDu. Its a waste of type and kilobytes. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, yes, you´re right, that is the citation of Kogard, but I disagree about your interpretation. What he says is (simplifiying) that the Germans excluded the option to collaborate with Mihailovic Chetniks because they were fighting them all the way. Kogard was very obvious in saying that Mihailovic Chetniks were fighting the Germans. And AlasdairGreen27, please don´t use personal attacks such as considering an oposing opinion as "nonsense". We all know that we don´t agree, but attacking eachother using that sort of language want help. It can only eventually show the lack of culture of the ones using that expressions.

@Nuujinn, thanx for understanding some reasons behind the discussion. Direktors edits are only one way sided, and they completelly dislocated the article from the NPOV. His inclusion as a "Notable collaborator", for exemple, or the lede "WWII collaborator" is very much similar to "Nazy". Specially if decontextualised as the way it is. Encyclopedic would be to give all information (say who says what) and leave the readers to decide. Not having somebody calling himself "DIREKTOR" starting the article with "Collaborator!!!".

@Nuujinn, and @Direktor in this case, about sources, well, I dont want to bring more and more sources here. It is already hard with the ones we have to analise the subject and ask to someone to offer himself to read them and mediate the case. I will provide some sources if they are clear and simple. But otherwise, I am more in favour to demonstrate that neither the sources presented allow Direktor´s edits. We have this sources (I will ask again to please present all sources), becouse by what I see, the 4 sources presented as sources for "WWII collaborator" are just not enough. Tomasevic, the author of the 1 and 4 can´t be considered neutral because he is an ethnic Croat and wrote it in the 1950s in Tito Yugoslavia, period in that country clearly well known for the lack of freedom of speach regarding political enemies such were the Chetniks and Mihailovic. And Cohen and Ramet, having in mind that these are the most incriminatory parts of their published work on the subject, clearly demonstrate the complexity of the situation, and doesn´t allow such a simplicist conclusion.

@BoDu, please be kind with direktor. He seems to have not too many kilobites to spend. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@direktor:We are discussing your sources, so don´t unilateraly make conclusions. You are a simple editor, and if you really think that there is nothing to be discussed about the interpretation of the sources and the edits, why don´t you accept mediation, and quietly wait and don´t waiste your kilobites (this is not personal attack, this is what you just said. An insult is to call a discussion with someone that disagrees with you a "waiste of type and kilobites". If you don´t want to discuss, that is your option, but respect other editors and don´t insult nobody). FkpCascais (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another HUGE WP:TLDR post. *Sigh*... still no sources, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it would help if we could all keep the exchanges short. Perhaps we can break this discussion up into smaller topics?

Your assertion that regarding a point I made is "we have to treat him as innocent, saying that some historians dispute it" is simply not accurate. I've yet seen no evidence that any historian disputes Mihailovic's collaboration.

In regard to your statement "Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history", that's pretty extreme, and I think it is not good practice to characterize editors based on ethnic or political backgrounds. Clearly this has been a heated discussion, and many of us need to take extreme care to maintain civility and to assume good faith. A number of participants have overstepped these boundaries (and if I have, please accept my apologies) at times, so it's not just you, but that statement stands out a bit more to me than the generally snarkiness pervading this discussion. Everyone needs to keep their cool.

As for "who should we beleve, USA corts or Tito (Mihailovic worste enemy) I think the answer is neither, although both views are important. Again, according the Britannica, it was not a U.S court, but rather a commission, and there is a significant difference. Both are arguably biased--the U.S government was not very fond of communism at the time, and (speaking as a U.S. citizen), my government has a long history of supporting nationalists who are in conflict with communists. But even that is irrelevent, I think, since our focus by mandate is to focus on reliable and verifiable secondary sources.

In regard to "Kogard was very obvious in saying that Mihailovic Chetniks were fighting the Germans," that might have relevance in the article on the chetniks, but not here--we're not talking about chetniks in general, but rather Mihailovic in particular.

FWIW, I do agree that we need to be careful in characterizing the nature of Mihailovic's collaboration--he was clearly not a nazi in any sense, but at this point, I think all of the sources indicated significant and real collaboration.

But most imporantly I really think the fundamental issue we are circling around is that of sources. I cannot find any secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not collaborate, and the Britannica article is pretty slender evidence (if for no other reason than it cites no sources). Am I correct in assuming that you haven't found any secondary sources that assert that Mihailovic did not collaborate? ----Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais is again crossing the line, his ethnic hatred and prejudice have already manifested in his demand that all non-Serbian authors from the Balkans be disregarded, and he has already made it clear he has a problem with those same ethnic groups which suffered persecution by nationalist Serbs in the '90s. Cascais, you are pushing me with your constant disgusting insults, you have already been blocked for such behavior. If this sort of primitive backwater nonsense accumulates I will be sure to write a report and mention your previous incivility. Take this as the absolute final warning. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, with all due respect, phrases such as "primitive backwater nonsense" and "absolute final warning" aren't very civil and do not help us reach consensus. Let us all please focus on the task at hand and let personal conflict and past issues behind us. Myself, I intend to have a glass of white wine as I persue AFD, and I wish a good evening/morning to all of you. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, please, understand something: I don´t want to search for sources saying that Mihailovic didn´t collaborated because I am not defending that. I really don´t know if he collaborated or not, so I am not going to defend that POV. I am not his, neither Chetnik enthusiast! I am just saying that the meaning of the sources has been exagerated by direktor, and defend that the article needs to be "tonned up", following other previous demand made by another user. Since many things has been edited by direktor regarding collaboration, I am questioning some exagerated and non-encyclopedic parts. I would be perhaps more interested in finding sources that tell us about the outcome of the USA commision of inquiry, so that part want be missing in the article. Also, the article needs much work, but it was maynly direktors blocking that lead us to this situation. This was why I wanted you to really know who defends what. Btw, I reported direktor. It is enough of this constant provocation and this kind of language. It has been a constant from the beginning and it is the worste possible experience you can have here on WP. I don´t mind discussing, I don´t even mind loosing this discussion, but his attitude is completelly different and very unhealthy. I have been WP:AGF with him for 2 months now, getting this kind of attitude constantly. Anyway, lucky you drinking wine (you would like it here in Portugal). I can just tell you "cheers" and thank you for having patiente for dealing with this historical issue. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it is not a personal attack to describe an assertion (which is a very different thing from an opinion) as nonsense. It was your claim that was palpable nonsense. If, albeit inadvertently, I have nonetheless managed to offend your sensitivities I sincerely apologise. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, you don´t have to apologise to me. I just think we are civil enough to discuss without steping on eachother. I can (as I did) analise critically each others arguments without using those kind of uncivil words. Maybe using "nonsence" from time to time isn´t much, but when becomes common in every comment it becomes rude. Sorry, but direktor has been like that since his first comment here. I have only seen worste here when comments are made by vandals. It has nothing to do with you or anybody else but him. I really hope we can discuss this issue in a healthy way, but this discussion has lasted because each one of us has its arguments and its supporters. Even admins called direktors attention to it, as here [4]. So, it is quite immature and wrong to call each others things like "childish" or "nonsence". Any educated person can argue without using those expressions. And from the experience I have, if somebody behaves like that in a discussion, it is usually because it is in a "loosing" side, and needs some backing from the "rude" side. FkpCascais (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for those sources, User:FkpCascais. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor stop being obstructive and read my comments. What sources? Do you even know what are we talking about here? We are analizing "your" sources. It looks like you wanting to escape from further analisis of their real meaning. You would really like me to bring more sources so we could "loose" another month or two discussing them. I already told everybody: I have enough for my claims with the sources already present. Anyway, we are still waiting for your acceptance of the mediation request so we can have a final word about the interpretation of "your" sources so we can go on. From now on, any further ignorance of an already commented issue (like this one about me bringing more sources, as I already lost time explaining about it) will be considered lack of interess and seriousness from your side, so please read carefully the previous posts and don´t make any more deliberate confusion. Please sign the request, so a neutral party can intervene and a conclusion of this is archived. FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I appreciate what you are trying to say. Perhaps your comments on civility might, however, be better directed at BoDu; whose every contribution seems to be a gross abuse of the obligation to be civil, with incorrect accusations of lying. Now, on with the matters in hand. Regarding your comments about Cohen. We can summarise the source as follows. Mihailović or one of his colleagues on the Chetnik side asked to have a meeting with the Germans, where they asked for significant quantities of weaponry. The Germans said "We don't trust you. Your forces attack ours". Mihailović said "I've never ordered them to do that. Quite the opposite. We don't attack you except when we are attacked first". The Germans said "We have evidence to the contrary". Mihailović said "I didn't authorise that. It was my subordinates". The Germans said "You must control your subordinates properly". Obviously I'm paraphrasing for brevity, but that's the essence of the exchange. So what it is you think we should take from this source? What part or parts would you like to highlight here? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27, Regarding civility, I do defend equal rights to everyone, of course, but since I am nothing more than just a simple editor with autoreviewer rights, I feel that it would be too pretentious from my side to add opinions on comments of other user that are not directed to me. If you feel that way about some comments that he directed towards you, you can obviously ask him whatever you feel apropriate. Just have in mind that BoDu was polite, and it was an other editor that started provoking him in first place, using highly innacurate and provocative accusations towards him (beginning on April 4th). Unfortunatelly, such behaviour from another editor makes that, in many occasions, the general level of debate falls to low levels, so it is up to us to censore those attitutes, and to not tolarate them.

Regarding your correct summary of the source (P. Cohen), I would like to highlight two important facts:

• 1 - No agreement was reached between them.
• 2 - The reason of that was because the Germans (Kogard) accused Mihailovic Chetninks of attacking them.

This two facts just make impossible for this source to be used in a sense "Mihailovic, WWII collaborator" or any other simplifiying accusational expression in that sense. FkpCascais (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely "impossible". Negotiating with the Nazis isn't that important for the collaboration topic. Offering one's services to the Axis occupation has nothing to do with collaboration. Trying to convince the Germans that he's someone they can "rely on" is totally insignificant - we should remove the source immediately! oh lols xP

(For the record, FkpCascais, that's sarcasm above.) Simply extracting sentences you like does not mean we can forget about the whole thing. Or are we pretending that is the only reference to Mihailović in the source? A most fascinating post, that.

I don't quite see the point of this. Lets go crazy for a moment: even if you did somehow manage to discredit this one source, how would you discredit the others? Maybe you'd like to share with us some more of your ethnic prejudice and explain for the third time how Tomasevich must be "lying because he's a Croat"? Discrediting scholars is something you cannot do with your own opinions and feelings, FkpCascais. To put it another way: User:FkpCascais is no match for Tomasevich and Cohen.

I assume User:FkpCascais is about to post his first source of this discussion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be correct to accuse him of trying to reach an agreement with the Germans (and saying about what, fighting the Partisans, not the allies, since we are in 1941). But, that just wouldn´t be enough for using in the lede... in the "collaboration chapter", yes. About the reasons of questioning Tomasevic as source for Mihailovic collaboration, I want be repeting myself. Please go back and read it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, FkpCascais - it would be correct to accuse him of being a collaborator. What is this post about? This is one part of one source, and as far as collaboration is concerned - its absolutely damning. You'd remove all the sources and text on the basis of this? I think you know too that's not an argument. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just explained it already too many times. I doubt that your bolding of the words is going to make me suddently change my mind. We agree that we disagree. If you are so sure about your claims, I see no reasons for you not accepting mediation, other than fear of being wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I'm paralyzed by fear. There's nothing to mediate. The simple fact that you refuse to accept the sources and edit-war to remove them does not create an actual content dispute. Paradoxically, there's really nothing to discuss: you have no sources, and your opinions alone are not going to help you at all no matter how many times you voice them. (Bold+italic is for sentence emphasis, do not get the wrong impression that they represent "shouting".)

The difference between me talking and you talking here is that you should write "I think... this or that" before everything you write, and I should (and often do) write "The sources say... this or that". So when I say something, its not me, its a number of university professors of history with books published on this subject. When you say something - its you. Neither of us are professionals, our opinions are irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Filip, the mediation is already underway. That is why Nuujinn is with us. S/he is our mediator. Now, what can we extract from Cohen? How can we possibly take anything from this source but the fact that Mihailović knowingly and consciously collaborated with the German occupiers as early as the autumn of 1941? He went to the meeting at Divci on 11 November 1941 - which he must have thought was a good idea - willing to "parley" with the occupier, because he wanted to get weaponry, arms, ammunition, however you want to phrase it, from them. He wanted a co-operational, collaborative (in its truest sense) relationship with the occupier. Otherwise, what was he doing there? The Wehrmacht knew their business, and Mihailović knew they knew their business. They would not have considered dealing with any party that was not seriously committed to their side. So Mihailović's intention at the meeting was clearly to demonstrate to the Germans that he was on their side. Otherwise, no guns. When the Germans rebuffed Mihailović's approach to them at that meeting because they felt he was untrustworthy, do you really think it is credible to try to only take from this source that, to quote you from above, "No agreement was reached between them; the reason of that was because the Germans (Kogard) accused Mihailovic Chetninks of attacking them"? It's not credible. Please, let's be serious. The question here is whether Mihailović himself collaborated, proposed collaboration, tried to set up collaboration. That question is not for us to answer: we can only reflect the sources, but I think you already know what they say. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Direktor- I could, and I will, correct the text in order to be in accordance of the exact meaning of the sources. I am really just wanting to reach an agreement with other editors that are being reasonable here. Your continuos incorrect and precipitated conclusions will really only be perjudicial for you. You are isolating yourself and making all attempts to obstruct any serious analisis only because it is your version that is now on the article. I am being quite clear, I am offering myself to reasonably discuss every mather on the issue, but I will not be avaliable no more to cope with bad faith and your ridicolous pretentious behaviour. Please give room for other editors to express themselfs (or accept mediation, so we can finish with this). I still see on your behalve unfounded accusations, precipitated conclusions and an incredible fear of someone neutral making an analisis. I will ignore from now on any of your comments that follow this pattern that you have chousen.

@AlasdairGreen27- I don´t see that in the mediation request. Nuujinn is welcomed in this discussion, but how did you conclude that he was the mediator? Did you privately got that information? If so, why didn´t were we informed in time?

Rearding your comments, an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration. And since it wasn´t accepted, there are even less reasons to be considered collaboration. From all I know, they fighted eachother (as refered), an meating occured (fact), no collaboration was archived (fact), fighting, at least anymosity, continued... Far from, "Mihailovic and Germans collaborated, Mihailovic, a WWII collaborator...". FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27- About your statement in your last comment "Please, let's be serious.", I have been very serious, haven´t you been? FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not your mediator, I'm just guy trying to help out.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifiying that Nuujinn. See the kind of lies and manipulation I am facing here? After this last comment of AlasdairGreen27, it has been clear to me that no real interess in discussion exists on behalve of these two users. I am not here to be insulted and abused. Would you be able to further help me discussing here Nuujinn? FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All this lies, manipulation, personal attacks and bad behaviour just indicate how insecure they are regarding their own position, and they just don´t want to acknolledge that they are wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in regard to my role, I see no lies, only a simple misunderstanding. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, AlasdairGreen27 affirmation in his post, citing: "Filip, the mediation is already underway. That is why Nuujinn is with us. S/he is our mediator." is a lie. And a bad intentioned one. I can clearly dismiss WP:AGF giving the fact that he is a "senior wikipedian". Giving your last comment, I would advise you to distanciate yourself from such behaviour. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what AlasdairGreen27 said, and it was a simple mistake, and to my thinking an easy one to make since I'm not even sure why I am here. (;

I do not think that dismissing WP:AGF is a good idea, is a substantial part of one of the five pillars. I'm not really interested in characterizing editors. What I am interested in is working on the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Given your relationship with the other editors, and giving the fact that you insist in excusing one of them, quite compromises your alledged neutrality here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to talk about unless FkpCascais can bring something other than his opinions to counter the half a dozen publications in the article. This is all just jabber. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alasdiregren27 just gave me his support. He said:

• "::Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk."

What better support should I ask? He finally understood my points: "an offer to collaboration is not the same as collaboration" and "approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate". Btw, you are still affraid of having someone else like mediation deciding, direktor? Jabber, really? interesting... Don´t you see you are continuously having a monolog? Even AG27 doesn´t know how to defend your highly unprecisse POV no more. I am not going to answer to any of these out of context comments of yours. You could confront me with the many arguments I did, but you just choose not to, and you prefer to stay isolated making your monological statements that only make sense to you. Sign the mediation request if you dare having someone neutral analising your claims. FkpCascais (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope the above is a joke. If not, than not only is this discussion pointless because of your lack of sources, we also have a serious problem with communication due to your lack of English skills.

I'll repeat: I don't see what there is to talk about unless FkpCascais can bring something other than his opinions to counter the half a dozen publications in the article. The issue of collaboration is not an issue at all as things stand now. If FpkCascais is willing to present a suggestion with regard to a more "neutral" wording of the lead, we can try to reach an agreement. But FpkCascais, na vrbi će rodit grožđe as they say, before you remove the sources from the lead in this way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I think working on the lead is a good ideam, I'll throw out a suggestion later today, unless someone beats me to it. FkpCascais, I believe DIREKTOR is correct in his assessment that you have misunderstood AlasdairGreen27--in your quote of him, you neglect to include some text, what AlasdairGreen27 said was:

So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration".
The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he
didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk.

I believe he or she is quoting and questioning something you said (and AlasdairGreen27, please correct us if that interpretation is not valid). I'm assuming that english isn't your first language and that this is a simple misunderstanding. But you also said:

You are contradicting yourself. Given your relationship with the other editors, and giving
the fact that you insist in excusing one of them, quite compromises your alledged neutrality here.

Could you elaborate on this? I am not aware of any contradiction, nor have I any idea what you mean by "my relationship with the other editors". --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the Serbo-Croatian part above, "na vrbi će rodit grožđe" means something like "hell will freeze over" but in a much less aggressive way, lit. "the willow tree will bear grapes" :P. Its an expression, sounds pretty silly when translated. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nuujinn, the mediation really looks like the only solution to this (it´s enough of this "I didn´t said what I said..."). Please be kind and convince the users that didn´t signed it, to do so. Everything else looks pointless. If you have further interess on the discussion, please read the previous ones as well (archive of this talk page). I have explained in detail too many times all my points, and many other POV´s are found there as well. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, first, I have politely asked you to elaborate upon a statement that you made about me which might be taken as an accusation, please consider this a second request.

Second, regarding mediation, if my understanding of the process is correct, it won't work unless all the parties are willing and interested. Personally, I don't think we are there yet, anyway. There are a few other venues we can explore, and I'll go ahead with those in the mean time.

Please do understand, and I mean this as a general statement not intended to reflect upon any particular editor, from my point of view the best path is to put aside the past, forget personal affronts, assume good faith and move forward in a cooperative manner. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don´t have to explain you anything because I haven´t accused you of anything (the ANI report I made was directed towards AG27, you are just mentioned, neither you are, neither I think you should, be included as "reported", I hope I am not wrong). But I will explain to you anyway beside finding impossible that you don´t understand the contradiction in saying "I'm not really interested in characterizing editors. What I am interested in is working on the article.", while insisting in excusing another editor (two comments on that issue), or continuing to discuss issues that are not the content of the article. About "your relationship with other editors", I am meaning previous conversations that you had with direktor and AG27 regarding this issue without being donne on this discussion page (nothing illegal). So, resumingly, you really don´t have to consider yourself accused of anything, and I have allways been polite with you.

Regarding mediation, the only user not interested and uncooperative is User:DIREKTOR, so if you find yourself as a NPOV on this issue, it would be normal for you to adress this issue to him. Please don´t bother me on that subject (mediation) anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragoljub Mihailovic

There is absolutely no proof of him collaborating with the enemy. What would he have to gain if he did collaborate? Why did he stay on in Serbia when the late Col. Nick Lalic, a friend of mine, offered Mihailovic safe passage aboard a U.S. transport plane to Bari, Italy. Why did Eisenhower and deGaulle made a recipient of their country's medals? After defying Hitler, calling Mihailovic a collaborator makes little sense. On this stub, for sure, your reputation and Wikipedia's are on the line..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.113.200 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring sources that back up your statements, and we'll surely consider them, but without reliable and verifiable sources, I'm afraid your assertions carry little weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Churchill

Filip, if you can spare a moment to break away from penning frivolous time-wasting posts at AN/I trying to get me blocked, what do you think we should make of Winston Churchill, who wrote in his book Closing the Ring, Volume 5, p.415: "Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received show that he [Mihailović] had been in active collaboration with the Germans". [5]. Do you think this is a source we can use, and if so, how? Thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just add it as a sourced quote... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"penning frivolous time-wasting posts at AN/I trying to get me blocked", sorry, no real good faith on your side. Also, excellent moment for apologies was just wasted by you, and you prefered to insult a report I have rightfully donne on you. I have been allways very polite with you, allways respected you, and discussed with you all the way. You behaviour is some ocasions, specially in your last post directed to me, citing you

:"::Filip, this debate is beyond pointless. So, according to you, "an offer for collaboration is definitelly not the same as collaboration". The fact that Mihailović's overtures and approaches to the Germans were rejected means that he didn't collaborate? My God, now I know how low Wikipedia has sunk. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)"

just tells me it would be a waste of time. If you want to show some good will, make an effort to convince the user that is boycoting the mediation request. Good edits! FkpCascais (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead Revision

Ok, let us see if we can come to some consensus. I've taken a stab as a rewrite, trying to take into account some of the concerns expressed while sticking to the secondary sources we have.

One suggested version of a new lead from User:FkpCascais:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A Balkan Wars and World War I veteran, he lead the Chetnik movement during the Second World War. Despite being highly condecorated for his efforts in fighting the Axis powers, his role is still regarded as controversial and is disputed by some historians.

Current lead:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) was a Yugoslav Serbian general. A World War II Axis collaborator, he lead the Chetnik movement which, though founded as a resistance force itself, increasingly aided the Axis powers in their effort to maintain the occupation and eliminate the Yugoslav resistance, the Partisans led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito.

The Chetnik organization, officially named the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" (JVUO, ЈВУО), was founded as a royalist/nationalist Serbian resistance movement, but by late 1941 and early 1942 began collaborating and assisted the Germans and the Axis occupation as an auxiliary militia for most of the war in Yugoslavia. The Chetniks' main adversaries were the Allied Yugoslav resistance forces, the Partisans.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad.

My suggested version, please discuss below, but let's keep it civil, short and on topic, please--when these sections get too long it's tough to keep everything straght:

Dragoljub "Draža" Mihailović (Cyrillic script: Драгољуб "Дража" Михаиловић; also known as "Чича Дража" or "Čiča Draža", meaning "uncle Draža"; April 27, 1893 - July 17, 1946) served as Yugoslav general during World War II. A veteran of the Balkan wars and World War I, Mihailović led the Chetnik movement, initially founded as a royalist resistance force in 1941 opposing the Axis occupation. The Chetniks, however, soon found themselves in civil armed conflict with the communist Partisan resistance force led by Marshal Josip Broz Tito, and by late 1941, Mihailović and many of the Chetniks were collaborating with the Axis, operating as an auxiliary militia for most of the war.

After the war, Mihailović was tried and convicted of high treason and war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and was consequently executed by firing squad. He was also posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit by the United States government for his part in the rescue of American airmen.

Thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when mediation request is signed by the User:DIREKTOR, trouth good will will be demonstrated, and further discussion can take place. Anyway, your efforts Nuujinn are much apreciated. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)