This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The following is a quote from Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history By Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman (Texas A&M University Press, 1996) page 48 [1]. It will be used as a source for a text that will be included in the "Operation Halyard" subsection of the article. The work is has been published by the Texas A&M University. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
For example, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots including 343 Americans from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 [note: this is Operation Halyard] has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. Indeed, with the Allied Support shifted from Mihailović to Tito, Mihailović's Chetniks were courting renewed Allied support and made great efforts to demonstrate their willingness to assist the Allies. However, none of these sources mentiones that the Chetniks rescued German aviators as well as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944, and still, on other occasions, Mihailović's men hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Germans. [primary sources listed by author(s)]
Despite claims that the Chetniks were devoted to a common cause with the Allies, the Chetniks were neither genuinely anti-Axis nor pro-Axis in orientation, but primarily opportunists for Greater Serbia, for which cause they solicited both Axis and Allied support.
wow, what a source from the peak-time of anti-serb propaganda in the us... now this source is stored where it belongs: goerge bush library ! btw: croats should take care of ustashe, and serb should take care of tchetniks... THATS how it works... otherwise your just another croat trying to blame the other side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.103.46 ( talk) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I really can't understand how can someone speak like this without evidence.This page was probably written by Croat or Muslim nationalist.First of all ,there is no proof that Draza Mihajlovic was found guilty because of high treason and war crimes.He was sentenced to death because he fought against partisans(which was found as treason), but of course is not,and he didn't commit war crimes either.Those crimes were commited by Milan Nedic and Kosta Pecanac,and all people know that both of those weren't under command of Draza Mihajlovic.Even if you find proof that he got sentenced to death because of high treason and war crimes , you will not find proof that he commited those things , because he didnt.Stop spreading anti-serb propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miodragristic ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the etymology of the word četnik as it was incorrect. The source of the etymology is http://hjp.srce.hr/index.php?show=search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.16.68 ( talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
what happened you couldn't handle the truth so you erased it like croats muslims and albanians erase their history. Croatia was built on serbian childrens blood and you have the nerve to write what you write, i and countless others from the evangelical church here in america will continue to write wikipedia to get you to shut down your disgusting twist of the truth. No matter how you croats, albanians or muslims try the world knows the truth about how Serbs won WWI, how Serbs won WWII with Chetniks, and how the 90's wars was started by the croats, muslims, slovenians. These are historical facts, you have interpretations not facts. You have no eyewitness accounts, that is why you like every croat uses false accusation assualts against the truth. You throw accusations to divert against the truth. But we will be relentless in writing wikipedia to take you down and also to take the truth to world, we are preparing we have the money, can you hear the truth coming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorusa ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw a change made to the "See Also" section a day or two ago and this morning that change was reverted. Before tempers flare I might suggest that the section be made alphabetical. This is suggested by WP:MOS but not required. This is just a suggestion. JodyB talk 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Chetniks collaborated with Germans (Nazi), Italians (Fascist) and NDH (Ustaše) in order to defeat Yugoslav Partisans. Yes or No? Kebeta ( talk) 22:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Kebeta, but neither your question, neither this images demonstrate that Chetniks are to be considered more "collaborators" than "resistance". You are putting the things in a too simplistic manner. It is like considering "Bosnian Muslims" a "Serbian allies" because they fought "Croats" in Herzegovina in the 1990s. So by your logic, Izetbegovic was a Milosevic best friend? Please, try to be objective. A three side situation is not necesarilly 2 side situation. And the Partisans were not the ONLY resistence group in Yugoslavia, as wrongly is wished to be demonstrated. FkpCascais ( talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
User:FkpCascais, you stated on Talk:Draža Mihailović that "...fighting Allied forces will make him (Tito) Axis in person, worste than collaborator...".
In late 1943, the Partisans became the recognized Allied military of Yugoslavia (fact). The Chetniks under the direct command of Draža Mihailović continued to launch attacks against Allied forces (coordinated with German efforts). See Raid on Drvar, for just one most notable example, when the Chetniks aided German efforts to kidnap the Prime Minister of the Allied state of Yugoslavia.
Draža Mihailović fought Allied forces, worse still: he fought Allied forces to help Axis forces. The question is: is Draža Mihailović also "Axis in person, worste than collaborator..."??
Sure, just please clarify your position to me by answering the above question? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 23:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't think you'd answer. Its not just the sources that contradict you, you contradict yourself (this would be the fourth time so far, I think). -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article was admitted in evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Gotovina trial. -- Harac ( talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Why was my edit reverted?
I am new to this wikipedia debate and my apologies to administrators if this project page is reserved only for them. I wanted to say that Yad Vashem clearly states that Serbian Chetniks collaborated with Nazis http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205916.pdf . "The Chetnicks turned on the partisans. They even collaborated with their former enemies, the Germans and Italians, against the partisans. When the Chetnicks began cooperating with the occupying forces, any Jews among their ranks left. There were even instances where the Chetnicks killed Jews or surrendered them to the Germans." Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully this helps: General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnikcollaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Bratnko Latas organized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents, you can look bottom of theis page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate. Yahalom Kashny ( talk) 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why was removed the section with the massacres commited by the chetniks? I hope a reply soon. -- 190.172.232.231 ( talk) 05:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, not that I want to take part in the dispute between FkpCascais and Direktor, but I think the article should be more balanced. I plan to write a new version of it in the following weeks - God willing and time permitting. I do think that the Chetniks deserve censure and not praise for many of their deeds, but the article should be more neutral and factual, not look like a ham-fisted hatchet job presenting them only as collaborators (which is completely misleading to say the least). I'll start a draft for a new version ASAP.
Also, I think the article should be split in two for clarity's sake, with one version concerning specifically the Mihailovic movement, and one (called something like "Chetniks (historical)") addressing all the other various movements which called themselves "Chetniks". Cheers. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 17:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is nothing but Communist propaganda, I cant believe this is allowed to remain online considering all the lies and misinformation. Wikipedia needs to remove this crap immediately to retain even the slightest of integrity. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.136.163.55 (
talk)
00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This is just another exemple of how some users simply can´t stand to have fair information from all perspectives inserted on the article. FkpCascais ( talk) 13:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was written in great confusion, and there are lot mistakes about Chetniks. 1.Chetniks were not an uniform movement, similar to Cossacks, so Dragoljub Mihajlovic could not been leader of Chetniks in WW2, inn same manner that there was no leader of all Cossacks in WW2.
2.There were several indipendent (and mutually hostile) Chetnik movements during WW2.
3.All these Chetnik forces had similar uniforms and insignia.
4.5.Some independent Chetnik formations had a loose alliance with Mihajlovic, and later abandoned him.
5.Forces of general Mihajlovic were not collaborators of Germans, but chetniks of Kosta Pecanac and several other indipendent Chetnik militias.
6.Dragoljub Mihajlovic executed Pecenac because of the collaboration.
7.Serbian pro-German puppet government of Nedic also had their own Chetnik units.
8.While Great Britain and Soviet Union abandoned Mihajlovic, United States continued to send military envoys to Mihajlovic up until middle of 1944 (colonel MacDowell).
9.Mihajlovic's Chetniks were Yugoslav royal movement, which included Slovenes (Blue guard), Muslims and Croats (Mihajlovic's right hand was Zvonimir Vuckovic-an ethnic Croat).
10.Mihajlovic was officer in royal Yugoslav army, and he was not member of pre-WW2 Chetnik movement, nor a member of Chetnik units of Yugoslav royal army (which also had Chetnik units).
11.Mihajlovic movement fought for restoration of Yugoslav monarchy, and was not Serbian nationalist movement (existence of Slovenian, Croat and Muslim Chetniks denies this).
12.Flag of "Chetnik movent" posted in article is confusing, since "Jolly Roger" flag was flag of pre-WW2 Chetnik movent ,units of Kosta Pecanac and others created from original Chetnik organization. Flag used by Mihajlovic's Chetniks was Yugoslav royal flag.
13.All non-communist forces in Serbia regardless of pro-allied and pro-axis politics wore former royal Yugoslav uniforms (which in turn originate in Serbian uniform), and had similar markings (Mihajlovic's forces wore Yugoslav, instead solely Yugoslav ones). This confusion helped greatly communist to attribute all these units to Mihajlovic, and to accuse him of collaboration.
14.Mihajlovic was not founder of WW2 Chetniks. Most of Chetnik units in WW2 were organized by local commanders separately from Mihajlovic, who was officer of regular army.
15."Chetnik" in Serbian means something like "brigadier", and meaning of term was identical to "guerilla". Chetnik warfare was term in royal Yugopslavia with guerilla warfare.
16.Pictures of Chetniks with Germans or Ustasa are no evidence of either collaboration, nor that these units belonged to Mihajlovic.
17.Mihajlovic was no collaborator, and both Germans and Nedic regime continued to issue pamflets against him up until 1944.
18.Few Chetnik commanders betrayed Mihajlovic, and joined axis,which was attributed as "evidence" of Mihajlovic collaboration with axis.
19.Many photographs after WW2, that show "collaboration" of Chetniks with Germans, were proven communist forgeries in order to destroy Mihajlovic credibility so that Tito may remain sole leader of resistance in Yugoslavia. Similar accusations were made by Greek communists against monarchist resistance movement in Greece.
20.Unfortunately, most Croats identify WW2 Chetniks with Serbs, and serbian nationalism, so their activists on Wikipedia try to do best to degrade them and to simplify to truth as much as possible.
21.There is confusion about Mihajlovic's Chetniks and other (like Pecanac's), and forces of Nedic and Ljotic, which some people try to atribute all to Mihajlovic.
22.Documents and orders attributed to Mihajlovic after WW2 are most likely forgeries of Communist regime, in order to totally destroy credibility.
23.Crimes committed by Chetnik units should be carefully examined, since Chetniks were not one movement but umbrella term for various groups. Reprisals made by Mihajlovic forces, together with Tito's belongs to "allied war crimes".
P.S There should be made also an article about Slovene Chetniks, since, after all last Chetnik veteran officer is Uros Susteric, Slovene and Catholic. Article must also make distinction between various Chetnik groups. For Mihajlovic's Chetniks Yugoslav royal flag should be put as their flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly? According to your superb insight? -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 21:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Reverting
recent whitewash, or maybe my previous cleanup last week or so? --
94.246.150.68 (
talk)
21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added articles regarding Croat and Slovene Chetnik units and commanders, which I will expand further. Constant mention of WW2 Chetniks as purely "Serbian" movement is greatly misleading, and I think is result of confusing modern Serbian nationalist "Chetnik" organizations, with WW2 Chetnik organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Why there is date May 8, 1945. as the marking of the end of Chetnik operations, when Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, while Chetniks controlled various regions of Serbia, eastern Bosnia and west Montenegro up until 1947? Last Chetnik commander (Vladimir Šipčić) was killed in 1957, so how it is possible that the end of WW2 marks the end of Chetnik activity? Person who put this information clearly lacks information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I did put informations, with links to published sources, but unfortunately someone is deleting them. Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for information. However article already mentioned that Mihajlovic was captured in 1946, so this contradicts with claim that (Mihajlovic)Chetnik movement ceased with activities in May 8, 1945.[[User:Ganderoleg|Ganderoleg] —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
There are several vague and non-precise claims about Chetniks. There are several pictures of Chetniks with Germans and documents of Chetnik cooperation with Axis. The question is-what Chetniks? Mihajlovic's, Pecanac's, those created by fascist Italy in Dalmatia or Nedic's regime in Serbia? There were several separate Chetnik organizations under different commanders, with different goals. Why someone try to claim all Chetniks and their deeds to Mihajlovic? "Chetnik" as term is not about single and unified ideological movement like Ustashas, Partisans, but is similar in meaning and existence to term "Cossack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several problematic claims mentioned in article, that defy common sense and reason...
Article admits that Mihajlovic (and his movement)fought against Germans during 1941-1942 (when Germany was at peak of power), but then he joined Germans in 1943-1944 when it was clear that Germany is loosing the war, and when German allies like Italy, Finland, Bulgaria and other started to flee from it. Does this make any sense? Why would he fought Germany when it was strongest, and then join it when Germany was weakest?
Then there are claims of Chetniks (without any specification who's Chetniks) in alliance with Croat Ustashe,and at the same time making ethnic cleaning of Croats with whom they are allied to. Does this make any sense?
They claimed "Greater Serbia", but at the same time were in alliance with Ustashas who were against Greater Serbia, and for Greater Croatia (ethnically cleansed from Serbs). Does this make any sense?
If they were allies of Ustashas, why the last big battle of Chetniks was not against Partisans, but against Ustashas in 1945 in Lijevce field (Lijevce polje)? There is even Wikipedia article about it.Ustashas killed Pavle Djurisic, Chetnik commander (their and German alleged "ally"). Does this make any sense?
If Mihajlovic was German collaborator, why was he hiding in the countryside all the time of war, when he could live in city mansion, protected by Germans, like Kosta Pecanac, known pro-axis Chetnik commander?
Why would Mihajlovic saved US airmen up until the end of war, and at the same time collaborate with loosing Germans?
Why is fact that some of Nedic's puppet Serbia regime units joined Mihajlovic's movement evidence of "collaboration", when almost half of Tito's partisan commanders and heroes were former members of fascist puppet Croatia's armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This claim is totally illogical, since cowards join the winning side, not loosing one. Lets not forget that Italy was major Axis partner, and they joined the allies as soon as it became clear that Axis would loose the war. Remember Finland, Bulgaria and Romania as well. On other, as article claims, Chetniks fought against Germans when Germany was at peak of power, and then suddenly joined Axis when it was clear that Germany would loose the war. Claim that they were cowards, combined with the claims in article further proves illogicality of that claims. It is also interesting to see that Chetniks lost allied (mostly British) support in 1943, after Churchill-Stalin agreement over the sphere of influences, in which Yugoslavia was given to communist camp. Quite the opposite happened in Greece (which also had two resistance groups), where monarchist resistance prevailed(with help of Britain), however they were accused by communists to be "fascist" as well. Also bear in mind that allies sent military envoys to Mihajlovic, until 1944. Michael Lees, British liaison officer to Mihajlovic (1943-1944),during the time when Mihajlovic allegedly "cooperated with Axis", stated clearly in his book "The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power 1943-1944" http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Serbia-British-Titos-1943-1944/dp/0151959102 that Mihajlovic was in no way Axis collaborator(on contrary), and that he was victim of political game of western allies and Stalin. Same fate that Polish nationalist resistance movement suffered. It also interesting to see that most "evidences" of Mihajlovic collaboration came from Yugoslav communist sources, which included proven faked photographs (real originals exist) and documents (bad forgeries, written in Croatian, not Serbian dialect), and western sources that mostly quote these same communist sources. Also the fact that some Chetnik commanders that were not under command of Mihajlovic collaborated with Axis, helped communists to attribute their deeds to Mihajlovic, since after all he was "Chetnik" too.
Also the claim that Chetniks didn't fought the Axis is nonsense, since there are several dozen German declarations from 1941,1942,1943 and 1944 about executions of "Mihajlovics fighters" because of attacks on German military. Germans carefully made distinctions between Mihajlovic's men who fought them and other Chetnik groups who were their allies. Germans executed both Communists and Mihajlovic's Chetniks without any problem. Tito's partisans didn't controlled any larger city in Yugoslavia up until 1944, when red army entered Yugolavia. What were major operations of French, Polish, Dutch or Belgian resistance before 1944? There were none. But no one accuse them of "collaboration" because of that. Several Chetnik commanders died in fighting against Germans, like Veselin Misita, Aleksandar Misic, Ivan Fregl (Slovene). Pavle Djurisic, leader of Montenegrin Chetnik, and alleged "Axis collaborator, that got Iron Cross" was killed by Croat Ustashas (his alleged "allies") in 1945, in last big Chetnik battle, which was against Axis. -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Reliable source to whom? Michael Lees was British military envoy to Mihajlovic in those crucial years of 1943-1944. As such, he is clearly more reliable witness, then some historians who quote post WW2 Yugoslav sources. Are sources from Tito's court reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganderoleg ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Under the picture of the 1941 German wanted poster for Mihajlovic, there is claim: "Draža Mihailović was to start collaborating with the Axis occupation, placing his Chetniks fully in their command." Then how is possible that Germans issued proclamations of executions of Mihajlovic's Chetniks later in war? Examples- German proclamation from 29.10.1943, on both German and Serbian ( http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7026/46voo9.jpg ),where there is clearly stated "DM Chetniks", and and their execution. Then there is another German proclamation from 15.11.1943 about execution of Mihajlovic's sympathizers ( http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2006/s201012817536.jpg). And there is German proclamation against Mihajlovic and "his resistance to legal goverment of Nedic" from 25.1.1943 ( http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/768/s2010128172334.jpg). Proclamation of German execution of Mihajlovic's Chetniks from november 1942: ( http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7338/s2010126141339.jpg). This is German proclamation from 21. november 1943, accusing both Mihajlovic and communists for uprising: ( http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9198/38636471.jpg). German proclamation of execution of "Draza Mihajlovic's followers" from 25. may. 1943: ( http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1000/52vk.jpg). All those who are able to read German, may understand what is written. German pamphlets clearly make distinctions between Mihajlovic Chetniks and the other Chetnik groups.
Then there is this Croat pamphlet against both Partisans and Chetniks: ( http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2361/zjymq0.jpg), which states: "Serbian Chetniks and Partisans are unanimous against Indipendent State of Croatia and in theor brutality against her population. Does this sound like collaboration? -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 23:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Amongst references, there are several highly problematic authors who either don't have any credibility as historians, or have clear ethnic and ideological bias on subject. Examples: Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history. Texas A&M University Press. As we can see from his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz1PW_wnHYMC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false , author Philip Cohen is an medical doctor, not a historian. Not only that, but most of his references are from Yugoslav communist sources.
We have: Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The three Yugoslavias: state-building and legitimation, 1918-2005. Indiana University Press. p. 147.. Sabrina Ramet is not a historian, but left-wing professor of political science. Here is info: http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Sabrina.Ramet/card/ . Her opinion about Chetnik issue (which is historical) is absolute irrelevant in this context. She was quoted, as valid reference for "Chetnik collaboration".
Then we have: Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. 1. Stanford University Press. Jozo Tomasevic was both a Tito's sympathizer, and ethnic Croat. In his book we can clearly see his ethnic motivation against Chetniks, where he mention on page 471. how Chetnik defeat marks the end of Serbian domination in Yugoslavia, destruction of Serbian ruling groups and end "end of power of Serbian Orthodox Church as bulwark of Serbian ruling groups". Now, he as (nationally aware)Croat clearly shows his motivation for denying the credibility of Mihajlovic. This ethnic problem will be discussed later on.
We also have: "Dr. Marko Hoare, "The Chetniks and the Jews", Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada". Marko Attila Hoare is son of Croat historian (and communist) Branka Magas, who wrote books on Croatian history, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Croatia-Through-History-Branka-Magas/dp/0863567754 . He was also an activist on behalf on Bosnian government during Bosnia war. He is clearly strongly biased, both ideologically and ethnically.
Then we have: "Zdravko Dizdar, Chetnik Genocidal Crimes against Croatians and Muslims during World War II (1941-1945)", which according to link is another modern Croat author from Zagreb: http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/013e-dizdar.htm
And we have another Croat author: Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107.
So if we eliminate all biased and main sources posted here, that may say something against Chetniks of Mihajlovic, we have left with only one valid reference which is this: Martin, David (1946). Ally Betrayed: The Uncensored Story of Tito and Mihailovich. New York: Prentice Hall.
As for the rest we have either works of amateur historians, highly problematic documents and photographs given by Tito's (Mihajlovic's rival) regime, or works by Croats as primary sources of "Chetnik collaboration" and "Ethnic cleansing". Now would someone consider books made by Serbian authors about Croat Ustase or about Albanians as unbiased, specially if these authors simply quote another Serbian authors? Croat encyclopedia, 2009. mention "Chetnik" term as synonymous with "greater Serbian nationalist", and this is perception of Chetniks in most of Croat population. Now imagine Croat and a communist author and his motivations? And with the fact that Croats were at war with "Chetniks" not so long ago, we can imagine motivations of Croats in realms of both literature and wikipedia to degrade what they perceive as "enemy". The main joke is that in here all these links were posted by Croat, who aggressively edit every post about Chetniks and Chetnik commanders in one sided manner. So we have Croat, posting Croatian authors about Chetniks, whom most Croatians consider as identical with "Greater Serbian nationalists". Clearly such people are unable to be impartial to this issue. Their references are highly questionable, their motives are questionable, and spamming problematic or biased references does not make the case against Mihajlovic. We have primary sources from Tito's government, which was major rival and ideological opponent to Mihajlovic, and we have later authors who simply quote them. Then other members quote these later authors as evidence of "impartiality". Therefore we have case of circular reasoning in here.-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 06:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It's also interesting to see that in Tomasevic's book "Chetniks": http://books.google.com/books?id=yoCaAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tomasevich,+Jozo&source=bl&ots=9eimVZ50OD&sig=ain_8c2tEo2o1jzX98I4Zg0czQ4&hl=en&ei=6c1OTcGMCMeSOtif_NMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false , Croat Tomasevic stated (page 471.) claim of importance that Tito was ethnic Croat, and historical importance of Yugoslavia been dominated by Croat, not Serb. For him, and other Croats, this is clearly a moment of national triumph, and replacing Serbian elites with Croat ones. Clearly Croats have clear ethnic motivation to downplay Mihajlovic's movement, since it was "too Serbian" for their taste. Most claims of collaboration of Mihajlovic with axis came from Croat sources, or from Tito's government, which was largely dominated by Croats (Tito himself, Bakaric, Nazor, Ivan Ribar). Most of these Croat communists fought against Yugoslav monarchy, before the war, and had clear ideological/ethnic motives to fight both Yugoslav monarchy (of Serbian origin) and movement that fought for restoration of that monarchy (Chetniks of Mihajlovic). Bias can be clearly seen in Tomasevic's book in constant referring to Chetniks as "Serbian Chetniks", ignoring existence of Slovene, Croat and Muslim Chetnik units, which again show Croat nationalist interpretation of events.
- Also it should be noted, that in Tomasevic's book (mentioned above), regarding evidences for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" with axis, Tomasevic confessed that allied envoys to Mihajlovic held Mihajlovic in highest regards, and that US colonel McDowell stayed in Mihajlovic's HQ up until November 1. 1944, after Red Army and Tito's forces captured Belgrade and most of Serbia. Now a Axis "quisling" that had US colonel in his staff, and allied envoys throughout the war? All "evidences" quoted about Mihajlovic's collaboration with Axis, mostly came from sources from political trial of Mihajlovic in 1946, and Yugoslav communist authors. German sources never mentioned Mihajlovic's men as their allies, but "Chetniks" in general. Most active pro-German Serbian fighting force against partisans in Serbia were Serbian Volunteer Corps, who had similar uniforms with Mihajlovic's Chetniks, and were colloquially known as "Ljotic's Chetniks" or more famously "Ljoticevci". "Chetnik" was term used amongst Serbs in WW2 of all armed militias who were not partisans. Partisans were military term introduced by communist party in Yugoslavia, inspired by Spanish civil war. If they didn't accept that specific term, Partisans would most likely been called "Tito's Chetniks". Majority reports of Mihajlovic "collaboration" came after the war, and political trial.
- And there is interesting fact, that lots of Tito's Partisan commanders were former members of Axis Croatia's military forces, who joined Partisans later in war. Examples:
- Rudi Čajavec, founder of partisan air force, former member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 21 1942. Partisan air force was mainly created from axis Croat airplanes.
- Franjo Kluz, another partisan airman, and partisan war hero was also member of Axis Croat air force and Croat home guard member, joined partisans in May 1942 (like Cajevec).
- Velimir Škorpik, was founder of partisan navy and officer in axis Croatia navy. He joined partisans in December 1942.
- Most interesting case is Marko Mesić, who was commander of axis Croatian legion in Stalingrad, and after being captured by Soviets in 1943. he changed sides, and later he became Yugoslav partisan officer! Here is picture of Marko Mesic on eastern front (as Axis officer): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg . He died in Zagreb, in 1982 as retired Yugoslav officer and antifascist. "Croatian legion" was renamed "First Yugoslav volunteer brigade",and later participated in operations in Yugoslavia.
- Then there was Husein Miljković, Bosnian Muslim and member of communist party before the war. He formed his own pro-Axis Muslim militia, and later he became member of Ustasa's. Later in war he joined Partisans, and died in battle as partisan commander later in war (1944) fighting Chetniks. His biography (in Polish): http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husein_Miljkovi%C4%87 , and in Croatian: http://domovina.110mb.com/zivotopisi/miljkovic-huska.htm . Here is picture of Miljkovic in partisan uniform, shaking hands with Croat Ustasa, in Western Bosnia: http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/223/huskamiljkovic11116lz.jpg
Croat Partisan in Slavonia, 1943, wearing Croat axis uniform, with all axis markings: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/956/vrazjapartizanor1wy2.jpg , comparing with uniform of Marko Mesic (leader of Croat volunteers at Stalingrad): http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/book/photo/mesic.jpg , Croat axis soldier: http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3241/238ae.jpg
Partisan with SS soldiers, Sutjeska battle 1943: http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/8414/untitled28jj4qq.jpg , Partisans with German soldier, Serbia 1941: http://i35.tinypic.com/34ep5ic.jpg, Partisans with German officer: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7397/1943bo.jpg , Partisans with German officier: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9439/36dbe69d.jpg Last, but not least-British and German officers: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7200/jackchurchillcommandonr.jpg
Lets bear in mind that similar photographs were used as "evidence" of Chetnik collaboration with Axis on this wikipedia article. Using similar propaganda logic and distortion, we can conclude that partisans and British were "Axis collaborators". This is just small example how meaning of photographs can be manipulated.
As we can see, some people have clear motivation to hide their dirty laundry by aggressive accusations of others, by using biased sources and using circular reasoning.-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
-On what basis and evidence do you claim that my sources are unpublished sources? As a matter of fact, as soon I posted my article about Non- Serbian Chetniks, I expected your reaction. -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 23:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Fainites barley scribs 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Tomasevic again.Those books are "rubbish" to you, since they are not from Tomasevic and other Croat sources. This is becoming ridiculous. Tomasevic had made just a small reference of Slovenian Chetniks, which is not enough.Tomasevic, as author is clearly biased and motivated by ethnic and ideological reasons. The fact that biased Croat author published book about Chetniks, does not make him the final word in this issue.While Slovenian sources posted by me mentioned names of units, commanders and number of fighters. Most importantly there are no page references to links provided by you. Claims that my authors are "irellevant" is simply an decoy , to avoid the fact that most of authors mentioned by you are either pure amateurs, or Croat activists, like yourself. -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
-As for Sabrina Remet, I have every reason to doubt her credibility, since she graduated philosophy, and got P.h.D in Political science. Claims by her,that you mentioned, belong to realm of history, not political science. As such, she is no expert on WW2 Yugoslavian history, nor a participant in WW2, so I doubt her credibility on historic facts in WW2 Yugoslavia. As for calling her "left wing",I didn't mean that she is communist, but "left winged" in modern sense. Which we can see from this work of hers: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87232 . She wrote mostly in subject of politics in former Yugoslavia: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/News/NewsItem/?oid=87122 . She also wrote on liberal and feminist issues, which raises doubts about her bias on conservative and monarchist movement, like Chetniks of Mihajlovic. To further prove my claim, this is her article about emancipation of women, and feminism in former Yugoslavia: http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01801-1.html , where she praises former communist Yugoslav government for being progressive. She is clearly ideologically biased and motivated for being selective. As for her statement about communits liquidated people, she "discovered" well known fact, that even partisan veterans admitted, nothing new or original in that claim.
- As for Croat Axis units, that joined Partisans later in war I think that's important. Most of them joined Partisans, after Germany started to loose war, which doubts their motives. This is Croat reaction towards Germans in 1941-German documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0P2YLYKSnM . Most Croats that were in Croat Axis forces had amti-Serbian sentiments, (unlike those who joined Chetniks) and joined communists mostly for pragmatic reasons (to avoid being on loosing side). Since lots of Partisan commanders were former Axis officers, that casts doubt even more on their bias towards Chetniks that represented old monarchy, which both Ustasa's and Communists hated. This also cast doubt on ideological bias of communists, in comparing the case of Chetnik commander Jezdimir Dangić, who was captured by Germans in 1942, during his fight with Ustasa's in Eastern Bosnia. He spent most of the war in prison camp in Poland, when in 1944 he was liberated by Polish resistance fighters, and he joined them. After that Soviets captured him and extradited him to Tito's government. He was executed for collaboration. This is simple, because he had some contacts with Nedic's government during the war. On other hand we have case of Croat Axis commander at Stalingrad Marko Mesić, who was captured by Soviets as Axis officer. After the imprisonment, he and his soldiers joined Soviets (how convenient) and later became part of Partisan army. Axis commander Mesic died as retired and decorated communist Yugoslav officer, and antifascist. Dangic, fighter against Ustasa (Mesic's fellow soldiers) and fighter of Polish resistance was executed for "treason" (i.e not joining communists). This show biased and Machiavellian nature of Tito's regime.
- And as for Chetniks joined partisans, I have already posted names (with links) of Partisan high ranking officers that were members of Axis Croat troops. On other hand, there are almost none partisan officers who were Chetnik members. Entire First Yugoslav Volunteer Brigade, was made of former Axis Croat legionaires. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_Reinforced_Infantry_Regiment . -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have stated all that I have in the case of Tomasevic and Ramet (and provided evidences for other unbiased people to see). They are "top quality" for you for obvious reasons.
- Are you main moderator in here? You behave if this article is your private property and monopoly.
- I not only demand removal of your references but you as well as contributor to this article. You are only person in here unable for any rational discussion. Normal Croats, with non-propagandist agenda are free to join the contribution.
- While I have indeed provided page numbers in references on Croat Chetniks, your references were provided without any page numbers. References about Tomasevic, Hoare, Cohen and others are without any page numbers. As matter of fact most references don't have any page numbers. Please don't ask from me something, that yourself are unable to provide.
- Your understanding of "scholars" is deeply problematic. Quoting biased political scientist for historic references, quoting medical doctor about historical events, quoting opinions of Croat nationalist clearly show your qualifications in this debate. Your entire argument on this issue is generally based on one man alone - Tomasevic. Quoting Tomasevic on Chetnik issue, is like quoting opinions of Soviet NKVD officers about Polish Armija Krajowa.
- "People" don't tell my that "my resources stink" - you do. You do this to hide fact that all your references and quoted authors are either biased to the bone, or are made by useless authors (like Cohen M.D or Remet).
- I'm clearly not an nationalist, but you are. If I am nationalist (Serbian for example), I would certainly denied Yugoslav and multinational nature of Mihajlovic's Chetnik movement, nor I would admit existence of pro-Axis Chetniks that certainly existed. I have done quite the opposite. You are the one that constantly use term "Serbian Chetniks", not me. Both Serbian and Croat nationalists consider Chetniks as Serbian only thing, which shows us who you are. Majority of both Chetnik and Partisan soldiers were Serbs. Why don't you use term "Serbian Partisans"? Croats (in general) are unable to be impartial on Chetnik issue in same manner as Serbs are unable to be impartial on Ustasa issue.By your arrogant and monopolist behavior on this article, you clearly show immature attitude. I have stated several reasons against your references (with external links), but you haven't give any coherent argument on your behalf, only claim "Tomasevic and Ramet are top quality", and attacked my own references who are not main issue in this topic, but yours.
- Last, but not least... There was demand for me to translate my references. Then what should we do with these references?: 53. # ^ Omrcanin, Ivo (1957). Istina o Drazi Mihailovicu. "Logos"-Verlag. p. 100 and 107. , 64. # ^ RADIO TELEVIZIJA CRNE GORE... Nacionalni javni servis Crne Gore, 68. Predsjednik Mesiæ O Odgodi Posjeta Scg-U , 74. Bora Čorba kod Hrge: Ponosan sam četnik - Dnevnik.hr, 71. # ^ Rehabilitovan Dragiša Vasić, Blic ... etc, etc? -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 04:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot the enter ISBN links to my references, here are they:
Unfortunately, article is closed for the time. I will enter them later.
-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Ganderoleg - what you really need is a decent secondary source that has looked at all the primary material. It's not surprising that the Slovenes should be part of the original Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland. You people could be arguing about nothing. Fainites barley scribs 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is quite strange that this topic started as questioning of several references provided, mentioned in the beginning of article. I have supported my claims with external links, and further supported my claims about authors, like Remet. I have also shown, supported by links, that most of authors provided in references are highly problematic.n I didn't get any serious arguments against my claims, but in return got remarks about my references on Slovenian and Croat Chetniks, which should be discussed in different topic. So it would be nice that we discuss first these problematic authors. 3/4 of references for alleged Mihajlovic's "collaboration" came from these sources. Most of them are modern sources, inspired by recent wars in Yugoslavia and have political agenda, written by persons without any expertise about topic they discuss.
- I shall remove reference, which is undergraduate thesis. As for the rest, publishers are clearly stated, both by me, and by links.
- Direktor, first you demanded page links for references, something that you didn't done yourself in lots of cases. Now, you claim that in work, in which I provided page numbers (Dinko Šuljak, I looked for Radić's Croatia, Croatian Review Library, Barcelona, 1988, ISBN 84-599-9079-6.)is not scholarly work. Provide some evidence for your claim (like I did). Dinko Suljak was member of partisans and veteran of WW2.
- As for the book "Metod M. Milač, Resistance, imprisonment & forced labor : a slovene student in World War II˝,New York : P. Lang, 2002 COBISS 1369204", it can be found in here: http://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Imprisonment-Forced-Labor-European/dp/0820457817 . Metod M. Milač was veteran of WW2, and concentration camp survivor. As witness of these events, he is clearly more reliable source, then modern medical doctors, political scientists and political activists.-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 20:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Direktor, First of all, you shall remove references by Cohen (medical doctor), Hoare (political activist), Remet (expertise in wrong field, political activist), Tomasevic and Dizdar (nationalist and ideological bias), and Omricanin (no IMDB, pro-fascist and ultra-nationalist Croat author, evidence for that:
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Omrcanin,%20Ivo).Pro-fascist ultra-nationalist Omricanin was also quoted as reference (without page numbers) for numbers of civilians killed by Chetniks. He is also an historic revisionist:
http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral53.html (English article) under "Black Chronicle of Croatian History: Methods Used to Rehabilitate Ustashe and Stigmatize Antifascists". You haven't provided any argumentative response on your behalf. After that you may demand something from me.
- Link to Amazon was provided for those who are interested in reading the book, not as source.This is your interpretation.
- Since half of references don't have page numbers in article, it is ridiculous to demand that from me.
- Metod Milac was witness of events which article discuss. As such he is much more reliable than modern historians, which most of them are clearly motivated by reasons that goes beyond historic research. He is reliable witness about Croat Chetniks.
- What is "scholarly" does not depend on personal opinion.
- Most references and accusations of "collaboration" of Mihajlovic with Axis came from former Yugoslav sources (mainly Croatian authors), and modern western authors who quote these same sources, and this same pattern we have in here. All accusations for Mihajlovic's "collaboration" must be changed into "alleged" or "accusation for collaboration". For my questioning of validity these references see beginning of this topic. 2/3 of article about Chetniks is about "collaboration", and 3/4 of references for this "collaboration" are from Croatian sources. This was all illustrated by photos of mostly anonymous Chetniks with Axis forces, and without knowing real context context of photos (which was cunningly implicated by article). -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fainites, Remet is indeed an scholar, but in wrong field of expertise (political science, irrelevant for validity of historic claims and data). I claimed that she is biased not because she wrote on emancipation of women, but because her praise of former Yugoslav regime and pro-Liberal activism. Besides Remet, I have mentioned other references as well, what about them?
- You have wrongly attributed Milac as reference to Slovene Chetniks, since Milac is reference to Croat Chetniks.
- For most of data about Chetnik massacres and numbers of killed persons, Ivo Omricanin has been quoted. Such claims are "quite a claim", but they were presented without any page numbers,as valid source. If such things was accepted as valid, why there is demand for me for page numbers? Similar (almost identical data and references) about Slovene Chetniks exist in Slovene and Croatian Wikipedia article about them. Since they were accepted, they are according Wikipedia policy. -- Ganderoleg ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fainites yes, you are right, Milac is indeed quoted in reference on Slovene Chetniks, my mistake, I was thinking about Suljak when I wrote that. Sorry, my mistake.
- On what basis you claim that Ramet is is not in the wrong field and irrelevant? She is expert in political science, not history, while she was referenced to back contraversial historic data.
- On Omricanin, I have given several external links to my claims. He is problematic reference (pro-fascist historical revisionist and ultra-nationalist), quoted without any page number. This is clearly accepted by moderation. His claims make larger part of article.
- The fact that some references about highly problematic and important claims (ethnic cleansing) were based upon opinion of strongly biased author, and without any page numbers. The fact that this is accepted by moderators, makes precedent for all future edits. There can not be double standards in posting references.
- However, I will provide page numbers for my references, later on. In think that will resolve this problem. -- 212.124.173.238 Ganderoleg) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Direktor, Ramet is political scientist, quoted as authority on historic data, Cohen is medical doctor. They are scholars and experts in wrong fields of expertise. It's like quoting dentist as authority in the field of nuclear physics.
- Claiming that Tomasevic is "'GOD incarnate on the subject of the Chetniks (a published world-renowned expert, completely neutral, with universally positive peer reviews)". This only proves that you are unable to give any reasonable argument versus my claims. As for his "neutrality" I have quoted Tomasevic himself (with page number), and as we see he is clearly ethnically motivated and have ideological bias. You're quoting him simply because he is Croat author translated to English. Besides that half of Tomasevic's references are without any page numbers.
- My links are toward external sources which include online versions of quoted books, official biographies and bibliography of contested authors.
- Links for modern Chetniks in articles are mostly newspaper articles from Serbian tabloids, and are useless to persons who don't speak Serbian. Ganderoleg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.173.238 ( talk) 00:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
-Direktor, for historic claims, historical expertise is needed, specially if they accuse somebody for "collaboration". Medical doctor and political scientist are not related, nor important in the field of historic science.
You basically don't have any historians who are not Croats as sources and references for very serious accusations.
- First you demanded page numbers for my references (which can be seen in your above statements), and now, after I decided to provide them,I "don't have to bother" posting them and "they are not important". What do exactly do you want?
- Omricanin, is contested in Croatia as revisionist and pro-fascist historian. Together with his bibliography (provided by links) we can see his ultra-nationalist and greater-Croatian activism. Therefore, I didn't invented nothing about him. He is quoted as main reference to Chetnik war crimes, which is quite serious.
- On other hands claims like "Tomasevic is GOD" and so on, just proves my point. Ganderoleg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.173.238 ( talk) 01:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Now here are page numbers, since I didn't knew that's so important, since most of references don't have any page numbers.
In original languages, IMDB, page numbers:
I must note that besides Milac's book about information of Slovene Chetnik officers, agents of SOE, later CIA, more information is given by Slobodan Kljakić's i Marijan F. Kranjc's, Slovenački četnici, p.240. This shall be added as another reference to text.
I shall remove Katja Zupancic's work as irrelevant.
English language:
Are we talking about the Blue Guards here? Which of the above do you claim are a) scholarly and b) secondary sources please. c) Are you able to produce any reviews by other relevant academics on them? Is there nothing on the subject in East European Politics & Societies? (A peer reviewed journal). Fainites barley scribs 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
These references were accepted as sources for serious accusations for massacres and ethnic cleansing. You haven't answered on Cohen (M.D), and his relevant academic and scholarly credentials on this topic? Why are references for modern Chetniks tabloid newspapers articles from Serbia (in Serbian)? What are their scholarly values?
Ganderoleg - I did not write this article or add any of the sources and am unlikely to do so. Under no circumstances is the argument that "there are other inaapropriate, un-page-numbered sources in the article so yours must be OK too" going to be acceptable. I am quite happy to assist editors in working their way through all the sources, removing those that are not acceptable. However, currently we are discussing the new sources you have added or propose to add. Either support your proposed references or they will be removed. We can then look at other references to see if they are supported. Fainites barley scribs 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is plaque in both English and Serbian: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=8702709&PIpi=904088 , here is entire monument: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=8702709 . This monument to Mihajlovic was built before the one in Serbia (since Serbia was under communist rule). Why would US veterans and Serbian immigrants built monument to "Axis collaborator" and person "under full Axis command" on US soil?
I am not interested in bargaining, filibustering or mind games. I protected this page because there was an edit war over your additions on non-serbian chetniks. I am trying to assist editors to resolve that matter, otherwise the material will simply be removed and we will be back to an edit war and further page protection. Please deal with the sources you are proposing in the material you added. I am perfectly willing to moderate whilst editors go through all the sources one at a time - including various newspaper articles and the like which I have already noted. I have also been hunting for academic reviews of Omrcanin's books - without success so far - and looking to see what other sources say about chetnik massacres. However - as stated above - this is not "my" article and have never edited it other than to protect it from edit-warring. I am not going to be put off dealing with edit warring by silly claims that I have tacitly approved all existing sources. Fainites barley scribs 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 04:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wired! When Croat writes a Serbian topics, motive must be sick and result is full of lies and manipulations. And moderator….what is moderator doing? He is just holding a candle. Part Recent history is pure propaganda, references are spacious selection of articles from yelow press, state propaganda and “selected” internet links. No scholar approach. Shame! And moderator… what is moderator doing? He is just holding a candle in a arranged show-window wich is locked that no one can change mounted image. Krek2011 ( talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"This is a magnificent work of superb scholarship. No other book in any language so clearly presents and analyzes the aims and policies of the Axis in occupied Yugoslavia, as well as those of the various collaborators. . . . The need for such a book is greater than ever, as controversies over the past rage in the post-Yugoslav states."
-Ivo Banac, Yale University
"There is plenty of significance in this truly monumental work of scholarship. Tomasevich's exhaustive mining of German and Italian government documents opens a fascinating window on the wartime exploitation of Yugoslavia’s economic and human resources."
- Choice Magazine
"The present work is the long-awaited sequel to [Tomasevich's] equally monumental War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks. . . . War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration aims at an academic audience, but it would be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the Yugoslav past and present. It is a must for any college library and desirable for larger public ones."
-History: Reviews of New Books
"All the distinguishing features Tomasevich showed in writing the first volume are also expressed in this book, which describes how the occupying forces ruled some parts of Yugoslavia, and how their collaborators adapted under such circumstances. . . . This book, together with its predecessor, is an invaluable foundation that no new research into World War II on the territory of former Yugoslavia will be able to bypass. It promises to remain for a long time to come."
- American Historical Review
"War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945 will almost certainly be considered the definitive work on the . . . .controversial topic of occupation and collaboration regimes in wartime Yugoslavia . . . .Tomasevich covered in meticulous and awe-inspiring detail the activities and experiences of those parts of Yugoslavia occupied by or in active collaboration with the various axis regimes during te Second World War . . . .What Tomasevich has done is certainly deserving of our highest praise. This volume, like his first, is an indispensable addition in the library of every serious scholar of Yugoslavia or the Second World War."
-Canadian Slavonic Papers
"The scholarly standard achieved by Jozo Tomasevich in his two volumes of 'War and Revolution in Yugoslavia' and the thought of what he would have made of volume three of the series make his death a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him."
-Klaus Schmider, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
"There is much to praise about Tomasevich's contribution. His ability to make exhaustive use of the military and diplomatic archives of the major forces involved in this region is no small feat, considering the variety of languages required and the way in which these archives have been dispersed and destroyed. He offers the fullest and most objective account available of the activities of the occupiers and collaborators, together with an extensive account of the economic consequences of the occupation..."
- Eric Gordy, Clark University
"Tomasevich succeeds again, in his final major work, in making solidly supported and reasonable claims in an environment that has long been defined by the instrumentalization and manipulation of historical claims. He restores faith in the enterprise of history by reviving a long-absent figure—the modest professional researcher hard at work."
- Eric Gordy, Clark University
"One cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable command of research materials demonstrated throughout this study. . . . Tomasevich never shirks the need to tackle honestly the most sensitive and contentious areas of historical debate, and in this respect he has done a particular service to scholarship through his meticulous and balanced attempts to marshal the available evidence concerning Yugoslavia’s losses between 1941 and 1945."
- Slavic Review
Fainites barley scribs 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Ganderoleg ( talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)