Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)/Archive 1

contradiction
This right here seems like a contridiction -

"he Germans blamed it on three suspected Communists who had infiltrated the division, and downplayed the whole affair, stating that only some 14 soldiers participated in it. The captured mutineers were subsequently executed by the Germans.

Nevertheless, the 13th was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, and this was the first armed revolt against the Germans within the main Nazi system. A few of the mutineers escaped and helped form the French resistance in the area."

So which was it? Executed or defected? Someone else know?

TheKarasu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.37.195 (talk • contribs).

Hello. I've been trying to find out, but no luck yet. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39

Revert war
Hi, User:Asim Led and User:Nikola Smolenski seem to be engaging in a revert war as to whether to label the soldiers Muslim or Bosniak, and their language Bosnian or Croatian. Please try and discuss this matter on the talk page in order to achieve a consensus. A suggestion might be to take this case to the mediation cabal before it becomes necessary to protect the page. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Though absolutely all attempts to reason with user Nikola Smolenski have proven utterly futile to almost every non-Serb user who has encountered him, I do appreciate you coming here. I'll try to explain things the best I can, so I'm sorry if my language is at all confusing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.


 * The central issue here is that during World War II, Bosniaks (aka Bosnian Muslims) had not yet completely gone through the process of nationalization that other European peoples (such as the Serbs and Croats) had underwent in the 19th century. They were still very much a unique ethnic group, essentially identical to the modern Bosniaks, defined by their islamic faith and connection to the Bosnian historical region, but they were not officially recognised as a seperate nationality by the state.


 * Furthermore (and here's the key) the term "Bosniaks" (Bosnjaci) was not officially recognised as a seperate nationality and (because they hadn't fully gone through the process of nationalization yet) the Bosnian Muslims themselves didn't have one single designated name for themselves. They called themselves "Muslimani" in an ethno-religious sense, and "Bosnjaci/Bosanci" in an ethno-geographic sense. Whatever the precise name used in that period of history, the Bosnian Muslims made it clear that they were not Serbs, Croats, or anything else than something seperate and unique. Following the dissolution of communism and rise of nationalism, in the early 1990s, the Bosnian Muslims decided that the correct name to describe them as the unique nationality they were was "Bosniaks".


 * User Nikola, based on his Serb nationalist POV and objections to the national awakening of Bosniaks is trying to erase any mention of "Bosniaks" prior to the early 1990s because "they didn't exist yet" which is just trying to cloud the issue. For instance, technically, "African Americans" didn't exist under that name in the 19th century either - but that doesn't stop us from labeling black civil war regiments as being made up of "African American voulenteers". Its the exact same situation here.


 * The men in this division were primarily Bosniaks. They were also "Muslims" as Smolenski is trying to write, but more specifically they were a certain type of Muslims: Bosniaks. This is not historical revisionism, this is simple fact. The soldiers from this division are still alive to this day - in fact, I've met them and know numerous others who have as well. I can quite safely say that they consider themselves Bosniaks, and that if user Smolenski tried to explain to them that they were something else 60 years ago they'd be pretty damn offended. Labeling them as Bosniaks is not only the logical thing to do, it would be in line with their own wishes - and I believe they know far better what they are and were than Mr. Smolenski.


 * As for the Bosnian or Croatian language of Handzar, Handzar is an orientalism for scimitar. The Croatian language is highly based on linguistic purity and has thrown out pretty much all baggage orientalism, whereas the Bosnian language is rich in them due to the general positive attitude among Bosniaks to the bulk of the Ottoman period. In fact, if you search the biggest Croatian dictionary for "Handzar" today, you find no entry. Asim Led 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution
Thanks for the attempted explanation. I have a possible suggestion...


 * It was composed of recruits from the Independent State of Croatia, primarily Muslims from
 * It was composed of recruits from the Independent State of Croatia, primarily Bosniaks from


 * non-German recruits). Named Handschar (Handžar in Croatian language) after
 * non-German recruits). Named Handschar (Handžar in Bosnian language) after


 * Croat/Bosnian Muslim soldiers
 * Bosniak/Croat soldiers

These seem to be the areas in dispute (from the edit war). If we constructively add them together, we can get something like this:


 * 1) "It was composed of recruits from the Independent State of Croatia, primarily Muslims, who are now known as Bosniaks"
 * 2) "non-German recruits). Named Handschar (Bosnian: Handžar, Croatian: Handžar)"
 * 3) "Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) and Croat soldiers"

What are your thoughts? Feel free to play around, its just an idea. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Bosniak and Croat soldiers" --HarisM 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What Asim wrote is mostly wrong, but I agree with your suggestions. Nikola 10:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
There are contradictory statements in the Service section: it seems that an anonymous user tried to downplay the significance of the alleged atrocities committed by this division. I see that there were other disputes about this issue and others and I'm not really informed of the situation so I don't think that just reverting the edits would be the best solution, I hope that someone more informed can review that section and the rest of the page. By the way, these considerations are valid for almost all of the "Divisions of the Waffen-SS" pages, it is a sensitive argument and a general clean-up is auspicable. GhePeU 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Most important would be the addition after the first sentence: "The SS was a criminal entity ; the Handschar was was part of that criminal entity." If none has an objection, this will be put in. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that is a very neutral POV by starting off stating that "The SS was a criminal entity." It definitely caught my eye. The article on the SS in general does not say this either so I'm not sure if a unit that was composed of SS should be defined as that. 108.85.210.238 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry this is me. Thought I was logged in. Cartras (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The SS definitely was a criminal entity. We shall begin the debate on this issue at once. I shall quote paragraphs in favor of the notion "The SS was a criminal entity." You shall then refute those twenty with your own, and so on and so forth until a reasonable conclusion is reached. My quoted paragraphs will come from the Nuremburg trials. You may choose yours as you wish. Below is the first argument on my part:

19 Dec. 45

Afternoon Session

MAJOR WARREN F. FARR (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the next organization to be dealt with is the SS. The document books in this case are lettered "Z." For convenience in handling the book because of the number of documents, we have divided them into two volumes. I shall in referring to a document number refer to the volume in which that document appears.

About a week or 10 days ago there appeared in a newspaper circulated in Nuremberg, an account of a visit by that paper's correspondent to a camp in which SS prisoners of war were confined. The thing which particularly struck the correspondent was the one question asked by the SS prisoners. Why are we charged as war criminals? What have we done except our normal duty?

The evidence now to be presented to the Tribunal will, we expect, answer that question. It will show that just as the Nazi Party was the very heart-the core-of the conspiracy, so the SS was the very essence of Nazism. For the SS was the elite group of the Party, composed of the most thorough-going adherents of the Nazi cause, pledged to blind devotion to Nazi principles, and prepared to carry them out without any question and-at any cost-a group in which every ordinary value has been so subverted that its Members can ask, "What is there unlawful about the things we have done?"

During the past weeks the Tribunal has heard evidence of the conspirators' criminal program for aggressive war, for concentration camps, for the extermination of the Jews, for enslavement of foreign labor and illegal use of prisoners of war, for deportation and Germanization of inhabitants of conquered territories. Through all this evidence the name of the SS ran like a thread. Again and again that organization and its components were referred to. It is my purpose to show why it performed a responsible role in every one of these criminal activities, why it was-and, indeed, had to be-a criminal organization;

The creation and development of such an organization was, indeed, essential for the execution of the conspirators' plans. Their sweeping program and the measures they were prepared to use, and did use, could be fully accomplished neither through the machinery of the Government nor of the Party. Things had to be done for which no agency of Government and no political party, even the Nazi Party, would openly take full responsibility. A specialized type of apparatus was needed, an apparatus which was to some extent connected with the Government and given official support but which, at the same time, could maintain a quasi-independent

161

19 Dec. 45

status, so that all its acts could be attributed neither to the Government nor to the Party as a whole. The SS was that apparatus.

Like the SA, it was one of the seven components or formations of the Nazi Party referred to in the "Decree on the Enforcement of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State" of 29 March 1935, published in the Reichsgesetzblatt for that year, Part I, Page 503. That decree will found in our Document 1725-PS. I shall not read it. I assume that the Court will take judicial notice of it. The status of the SS, however, was above that of the other formations. As the plans of the conspirators progressed, it acquired new functions, new responsibilities, and an increasingly more important place in the regime. It developed during the course of the conspiracy into a highly complex machine, the most powerful in the Nazi State, spreading its tentacles into every field of Nazi activity.

The evidence which I shall present will be directed, first, towards showing very briefly the origin and early development of the SS; second, how it was organized, that is, its structure and its component parts; third, the basic principles governing the selection of its members and the obligations they undertook; and finally, its aims and the means used to accomplish them, the manner in which it carried out the purposes of the conspirators, and thus is a responsible participant in the crimes alleged in the Indictment.

The history, organization, and publicly announced functions of the SS are not controversial matters. They are not matters 'to be learned only from secret files and captured documents. They were recounted in many publications circulated widely throughout Germany and the world, official books of the Nazi Party itself and books, pamphlets, and speeches by SS and State officials published with SS and Party approval. Throughout the presentation of the case I shall frequently refer to five or six such publications, translations of which-in whole or in part-appear in the document books. Although I shall quote portions of them, I shall not attempt to read them all in full, since I assume that the contents of such authoritative publications may be judicially noticed by the Tribunal.

Now to take up the origin of the SS. The first aim of the conspirators-as the evidence already presented to the Court has shown- was to gain a foothold in politically hostile territory, to acquire mastery of the streets, and to combat any and all opponents with force. For that purpose they needed their own private, personal police organization. Evidence has just been introduced in the case against the SA, showing how that organization was created to fill such a role. But the SA was outlawed in 1923. When Nazi Party activity was again resumed in 1925, the SA remained outlawed. To fill its place and to play the part of Hitler's own personal police, small mobile groups known as protective squadrons (Schutzstaffeln) were created. This was the origin of the SS in 1925. With the reinstatement of the SA in 1926, the SS for the next few years ceased to play a major role. But it continued to exist as an organization within the SA, under its own leader, however, the Reichsfuehrer SS. This early history of the SS is related in two of the authoritative publications to which I have referred: The first is a book by SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen, entitled Die SS. This book, a pamphlet of some 30 pages, is an authoritative account of the history, mission, and organization of the SS, published in 1939. As indicated on its frontispiece, it was written at the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Its author, SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d'Alquen was the editor of the official SS publication Das Schwarze Korps. This book is our Document Number 2284-PS. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-438. The passage to which I refer will be found on Pages 6 and 7 of the original and on Page 1 of the translation.

I shall not now read that passage.

The second publication is an article by Himmler entitled, "Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police." It was published in 1937 in a booklet containing a series of speeches or essays by important officials of the Party and the State-known as National Political Course for the Armed Forces from 15 to 23 January 1937. The article by Himmler, to which I refer, appears on Pages 137-161 of that pamphlet. Large extracts from it make up our Document Number 1992(a)-PS. I offer the essay by Himmler as Exhibit Number USA-439. The passage to which I referred appears on Page 137 of the original and Page 1 of the translation, our Document 1992(a)-PS. I shall have occasion to quote from both these publications, but with respect to this matter of history, I assume that these references to the pertinent passages in them are enough.

As early as 1929 the conspirators recognized that their plans required an organization in which the main principles of the Nazi system, specifically the racial principles, would not only be jealously guarded but would be carried to such extreme as to inspire or intimidate the rest of the population-an organization in which, also, there would be assured complete freedom on the part of the leaders and blind obedience on the part of the members. The SS was built up to meet this need. I quote from D'Alquen's book, Die SS, at Page 7; this passage appears in our Document Number 2284-PS at Page 4 of the translation, Paragraph 4:

"On the 6th of January 1929 Adolf Hitler appointed his tested comrade of long standing, Heinrich Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer SS. Heinrich Himmler assumed charge therewith of the entire Schutzstaffel totalling at that time 280 men with the express and particular order of the Fuehrer to form this organization into an elite troop of the Party, a troop dependable in every circumstance.

"With this day the real history of the SS begins as it stands before us today in all its deeper essential features, firmly anchored in the National Socialist movement. For the SS and its Reichsfuehrer, Heinrich Himmler, its first SS man, have both become inseparable in the course of these battle-filled years."

Carrying out Hitler's directive, Himmler proceeded to build up out of this small force of men an elite organization-to use D'Alquen's words-composed of "the best physically . . . the most dependable, and the most faithful . . . men" in the Nazi movement. I read another passage from D'Alquen at Page 12 of the original, Page 6 of the translation, Paragraph 5:

"When the day of seizure of power had finally come, there were 52,000 SS men, who in this spirit bore the revolution in the van, marched into the new state which they began helping to form everywhere, in their stations and positions, in profession and in service, and in all their essential tasks."

The conspirators now had the machinery of government in their hands. The initial function of the SS-that of acting as private army and personal police force-was thus completed. But its mission had in fact really just begun. That mission is described in the Organization Book of the NSDAP for 1943. The pages from that book dealing with the SS-Pages 417 to 428-are translated in our Document Number 2640-PS. The organization's book has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-323. The passage to which I refer appears on Page 417 of the original and on Page 1, Paragraph 2, of the translation:

"Missions. The original and most eminent duty of the SS is to serve as the protectors of the Fuehrer. By decree of the Fuehrer the sphere of duties has been enlarged to include the internal security of the Reich."

This new mission-protecting the internal security of the regime- was somewhat more colorfully defined by Himmler in his pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization, published in 1936. It is our Document Number 1851-PS. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-440. The definition to which I refer appears in the original at the bottom of Page 29 of the original, on the third page of the translation, middle of the paragraph:

"We shall unremittingly fulfill our task, the guaranty of the security of Germany from the interior, just as the Wehrmacht guarantees the safety of the honor, the greatness, and the peace of the Reich from the exterior. We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish Bolshevistic revolution of sub-humans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without. Without pity we shall be a merciless sword of justice for all those forces whose existence and activity we know, on the day of the slightest attempt, may it be today, may it be in decades or may it be in centuries."

____________

The Grand Mufti wanted not only to remove the Jewish Bolsheviks, but to kill every Jew in the Middle East. It is your responsibility to refute the above. After you respond, I'll add another argument. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-write
I've re-jigged the article (no actual deletions made). The article still doesn't read as well as I'd like, and citations have still not been found for most claims, although I've tried to back any claims up that I could, even if I didn't make them. At any rate, I hope that this is the beginning of a better article.

I feel that some parts still need expanding out with more background/references, so I haven't touched the articles' expansion or NPOV flags.

Please feel free to discuss attempts and mistakes, since I'm a bit new to editing. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39 & 18:39

I've finished for now, replaced/rewrote the intro, which I had accidently removed! (I watch myself too - but please say if you notice such a ridiculous mistake in the future!). The links in the intro do need improving, I think, but that's enough for now. Sorry about the sandbox effect (is that right?) I re-discovered the preview button. Apologies. User:invisibleplanet Thu 21:16

Battalions: where did that information come from, since there does't appear to be a reference cited. Invisibleplanet 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Believe comes from Lepre's book.

Should a new section 'Role in Serbian persecution' be added? Invisibleplanet 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I've added a new section 'Atrocities against civilians' with sub-sections 'Role in persecution of Jews' and 'Role in persecution of Muslim and Serbian partisans'. Invisibleplanet 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've finished tinkering about with the contents section for now, and hope that you'll all forgive my ineptness, and any POV bias that's been left in, or which I've added, even though I've tried to be neutral. Invisibleplanet 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More re-reading and re-ordering. Some rephrasing. Invisibleplanet 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed expansion tag. Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations required
There are still a large number of uncited claims made about the Handschar division.Invisibleplanet 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phelps or Phleps
I do believe that the proper name is SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phelps --Jinxs 19:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The name is Phleps - conf. Dienstaltersliste der Waffen-SS vom 20. Juli 1944 #10 --Dodo19 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lepre confirms Phleps. Zerotalk 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Crimes
It turns out that this unit under the command of Himmler did not committed crimes in general, and that would be the same as the Nazis were the good guys in World War 2.Vladimir Dedijer is well-known historian of that time,he record  their crimes The Massacre at Koritska Gorge, Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941 by Vladimir Dedijer--Boksi  (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Web sites like you are copying from do not satisfy Wikipedia rules for sources. You won't get far copying lurid eye-witness accounts from persons of unknown credibility either (even your web site notes a doubt about it).  You can use summary material from a respected historian published in a book or journal, but you have to get it directly from the book or journal not from an intermediate place.  Zerotalk 14:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is why sources like your web page should never be used: "Along with with the Ustashe, the SS Handschar divsion took part in the massacre in the Koritska Jama Gorge in Herzegovina during May/June 1941." However, the SS Handschar did not exist until late in 1943. Zerotalk 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1941 Bosnian Muslim volunteered into a Nazi unit after a call by their Imam who, as a historian says, knew no bounds of hatred for Jews and Serbs. --Boksi (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Handschar division, which was formed in 1943. Zerotalk 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanjar div Himmler Sauberzw.jpg
The following text is in the "Recruitment" section of this article. Unfortunately, the picture seems to have been deleted, but the caption of the picture still exists. I feel this should be removed from the article since it has an invalid picture source and does not contribute to the article in anyway, unless the picture can be reasonably explained who and where the picture came from. Adamdaley (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Hanjar div Himmler Sauberzw.jpg SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler and SS Brigadefuhrer Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig during an inspection of Waffen SS Division Handschar (Handzar) aka. Scimitar, Sarajevo, 1943. This file has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.


 * Agreed. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Chetniks were Nazi Collaborators
Chetniks were Nazi collaborators. Why not include them in the article too? 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 Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko 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) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do the chetniks have to do with this article? There is already an article on wiki about the chetniks so mentioning them is very pointless. It would be like mentioning that Jamaica is a democratic county in the U.S.A article, simply because the USA is a democracy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.165.129 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Assignments Section
This section is overly long and there is almost nothing of note in it. This is particularly puzzling when the internationally renowned military historian, John Keegan states in 'The Waffen SS' (1970) pp. 104-105 that the 13th SS 'behaved unsatisfactorily wherever it was sent', and 'it steadfastly refused on its return to Yugoslavia to operate outside its own area, where it confined itself chiefly to massacring and pillaging the defenceless Christians.' He also states that 'In late 1944, Himmler ordered its disbandment.', which is also not properly reflected in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

help with formatting
could someone with more skills please fix whatever is going on with the edits I did on Operation Maibaum? Thanks Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. That happens when you begin a line with a space. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 09:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks PRODUCER! Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

copyedit
Mostly shorter sentences and reduced duplicative context.

Comments:


 * FYI, there is an easier way to handle the refs than the syntax. Check out Template:harv. Given that so many of the refs point to a small number of works, you might consider using . The result would be a single ref per work, with page #'s inline. E.g., the first ref for Lepre would be . The other refs would be , producing [2]:123.
 * I'd replace the repetitive wordy occurrences of "the divisional reconnaisance battalion" with "DRB".
 * I pulled the single quotes from security zone. Once is enough. Also, explaining the quotes would help.


 * Is this complete? E.g., I'd appreciate an assessment of the leadership and treatment of non-combatants.


 * Thanks very much. And great suggestions re the leadership and non-combatant issues. Is there anything else you think should be covered that isn't? I am working on an additional map to illustrate Operation Maibaum, but once that's done (along with implementing your suggested additions), I'm planning to put it up for GA. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

lack of maps
The operations sections need specific maps. Moving my comments from FA review:
 * It's hard even for myself, who has some knowledge of Bosnian toponymy, to make sense of all this without a map. The real readability problem in the 1944 sections about Bosnia is the lack of geographical illustrations. The map File:Handzar.PNG is overly detailed because it shows not only the relevant area but all those other counties in NDH, and the color coding and captioning on that picture is fairly confusing for this article. I would recommend adding some illustrations, even very simple ones, such as those on 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing or Bleiburg repatriations. You can superimpose the dots of the various mentioned locations on a map of Bosnia. Even if an anachronistic (modern-day) border is shown, it'll still be more informative than the present lack of illustration.

--Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing Location map NDH (east) will be used. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Joy, next thing on my list. And thanks for doing the cats on the new maps and templates, I keep forgetting that stuff. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Question reliability of source
This book is used as the sole source for the word "Jewish" in "atrocities committed against Serb and Jewish civilians":

I question this for the following reasons: In conclusion, a single word in a source devoted to a different topic is not enough. If the claim is true there will be details in specialist sources. Zerotalk 03:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The book has only a single paragraph (p.180) about the Handschar and nothing about the topic of the Handschar and Jews except for a single word: "The division, which was viewed with great suspicion by the Ustasha military command, was responsible for several atrocities against Serbian and Jewish civilians." It also has a bizarre statement "Himmler, encouraged by the grand mufti, was attempting to find a link between Islam and Nazism." which is a stupid thing to write about Himmler.  There are no sources at all given for the Handschar.  A footnote on this text, also without sources, mentions only the mutiny in France but claims it was because the Germans tried to send them to the Russian front (a claim missing from more detailed accounts).
 * 2) One should suspect the claim because at the time there were no Jewish civilians.  Apart from a handful in hiding, they were either dead, in camps, or fighting with the partisans.  It demands a reply to the question "which Jewish civilians, and when?".  In fact Velikonja documents the annihilation of the Jews before the Handschar was mobilized, just a few pages later.
 * It certainly seems some more research would be worthwhile. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check of Google Books indicates that Goldsworthy's Valhalla's Warriors records the killing of 22 Hungarian Jewish forced labourers in Tuzla in summer 1944, and states the Handschar and Kama divisions committed regular atrocities in the persecution of the Jews. So, Velikonja looks ok to me. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts Velikonja and Goldsworthy? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have added Goldsworthy detail. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but Goldsworthy's book was published by Dog Ear Publishing, which is a vanity press. It is ineligible according to policy, see WP:SELFPUB.  I also note that the author has little in the way of academic credentials as a historian. However, I managed to find Goldsworthy's source "Birn 1991", which is actually Birn 1992. It is a fine article in an academic journal that supports the two incidents mentioned.  I'm out of time for today but tomorrow I will cite this point to Birn directly. Zerotalk 14:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I hadn't come across Dog Ear before. Good pick up on Birn. Thanks for chasing this. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Verification required
"The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše."This is sourced to Lepre 1997 pp.31-35. I've read it twice, and still cannot find anything warranting such a synthesis, which, given the length of the pagination cited, also looks like WP:OR. Please attend to this, and preemptive apologies if my eyes are at fault. Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, your eyes are not deceiving you, that statement is not supported by the pages in question. Not quite sure how that happened (as I keep quite a close watch on this article), but I will investigate and remove if I am unable to reliably source it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I checked and saw you'd done most of the work here, and so naturally thought it best to leave this to your judgement, rather than delete.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if source does support quoted sentence, but I don't think that resolution of Sarajevo Muslims directly forbade anybody from collaborating with Ustaše. Just to clarify, if somebody would fail to assume good faith here: I believe that this resolution was act of great bravery of its signatories and I don't intend to undermine its significance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for the resolution, so I'm sure I will be able to nail down whether that is true or not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about other resolutions, besides Sarajevo. But in case of Sarajevo resolution, here is its text (link) which does not even mention Ustaše nor forbid anybody to cooperate with them. If I mistakenly overlooked something I sincerely apologize.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unless one can get a specific source paralleling the claim in our text, it looks like WP:OR. One needs a source that attributes to al-Husseini a direct intervention to overturn the collective ulama decision (Bosnian Muslims had several distinct positions: most looked to Germany for salvation, and positions changed from October 1941 to early 1943. One of the most notable things in many declarations was that the imams called their coreligionists who cooperated with the Ustasha 'scum' (ološ) (against the Serbs, thereby admitting the internal complexity of the Muslim population). Between the declaration and the Mufti's intervention, Croatia took several measures (March 42, September 42) to win back the Bosnian Muslims. The overall picture at that specific period is well represented in Jozo Tomasevich's, [War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945,] Stanford University Press, 2001 pp.487-500. The rule is, never ignore the complexity of events, and be wary of generalizations. One should write with an academic RS always at one's elbow, and paraphrase neutrally.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology/meaning of word "handschar"
Don't know why the the etymology discussion got lost over time. Handschar is just the German spelling of a Balkan version of Arabic khanjar (as seen from the emblem showing a sword), so this article needs to link to khanjar... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, the etymology needs sourcing and adding to the body. It can't just be added to the lead without sourcing. I've moved the text here for if you can source it.

The name "handschar" is the German spelling of a Balkan word for a sword or knife, ultimately from Arabic khanjar (خنجر).


 * Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could offer some constructive advice or insight, instead of just doing an unhelpful automatic knee-jerk 100% deletion concerning something which is very meaningful and relevant to this article. I know plenty about Arabic, and can give sources on the Arabic word خنجر, but I do not have the expertise in the Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Bosniak, or whatever language(s) to be able to document the form or meaning of the relevant word(s) in those languages. However the truth of this is adequately indicated by the fact that the German interwiki on article Khanjar is de:Handschar, and that the emblem of the military unit showed a form of sword.  It would be greatly appreciated if you could help ease the way for something which is factually true and that would significantly improve the article (because otherwise readers are left wondering what the heck "Handschar" means), rather than just leaning on the delete button.  Thank you... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, that great chief, but a drive-by unsourced add on the lead of a controversial Waffen-SS unit FA about to go on the front page isn't exactly a star effort either. I'm all for collaborating with people, but just have a look at the article class before adding stuff with no sourcing? Etymology almost always gets people hot under the collar on Balkans articles, and this is definitely no exception. Quoting de:WP is WP:CIRCULAR. I might think what you are saying sounds right, but that's far from enough to get it into the article. So, while I'm happy to look for some reliable etymological sources to explain the name a little better, just punching it in to the lead isn't helpful. I will look into it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course I wasn't offering those as formal citations, but as easily accessible and understandable indications that what I'm saying is factually true. But anyway, thanks a lot for not helping too much -- and seemingly not caring too much -- about something which is relevant and moderately important for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do care about the information and agree it is relevant. My objection was to the way you did it, not the information itself. I will attempt to add it (using reliable sources) when I get a chance. I don't agree that it is all that important in the overall scheme of things, it's not like there isn't any explanation of the origin of the term, as there is already an explanation, in the lead no less, of its general origin. Thanks for your interest. I'll get to it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Massacre in Srem in March 1944
This article needs a paragraph on the massacre in Bosut and Sremska Rača in mid March 1944. But, of course, it is a delicate subject, and sources are conflicting. It is mentioned in Davidson's book, and in a number of bhs books, with varying accounts on both course of events and number of victims. Zija Sulejmanpašić in his (by the way biased) book from 2000 admits that Division sources indicate that villages were on the route of combat group "J" from 27th SS Rgt. 1964 census of war losses gives 403 dead for Bosut and 480 for Sremska Rača, but these are numbers for the whole war.--Gorran (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll use Hoare, he says "hundreds of Serb civilians". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no need to attribute assertion you added to Hoare. The wording you chose implies that only Hoare believes they killed civilians in Bosut and SR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It clearly contrasts with the Partisan casualty figures claimed by the Germans, and inline attribution means nothing of the sort in this case. And frankly, I'm sick of you telling me about meanings of sentences and words in English, particularly as you have demonstrated repeatedly that your comprehension isn't very good. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation style
I am proposing to change the citation style to shortened footnotes to make it easier for everyone. This is my only FA that still has the old ref tag style, and it is very clunky. Objections? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Partisan losses in Vollmond
, this is what the source (Grujić, Periša (1959). S̆esnaesta Vojvod̆anska divizija: borbena dejstva od formiranja do oslobođenja zemlje) says on p. 175: "U borbama na Zajednicama, na Brezovači i za s. Lopare 16-ta divizija je postigla svoj dotada najveći uspeh. Neprijatelju je zadat težak udarac. Samo u toku tri dana borbi imao je oko 400 mrtvih, ranjenih i zarobljenih, a izgubio je i velike količine oružja i ratne spreme. Ukupni gubici naših jedinica iznosili su 58 mrtvih, 198 ranjenih i 29 nestalih. Od oružja smo izgubili 3 puškomitraljeza, 2 automata i 12 pušaka." I.e: 58 dead, 198 wounded, 29 missing. I can not find this data you entered here (200 dead, 557 wounded and 84 missing).--Gorran (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I just added them up? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to correct this?--Gorran (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I must have misunderstood. I've fixed it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegiance to the Independent State of Croatia
The division is a military formation, and it was integrated into German military structure, subordinated to the 5th SS Corps, 9th SS Corps, 68th Corps, etc. It was never in any chain of command under some ISC official. I suggest to remove the claim.--Gorran (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a claim, the 13th SS formally swore an oath of allegiance to Pavelic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True, it certainly provides the sufficient grounds.--Gorran (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Grujić 1983
G'day The Grujić 1983 citation doesn't point anywhere. Is that the right year, or is there an error between the citation and the year of the 1959 book? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's 1959, I've corrected it.--Gorran (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

About the name
Hi there Peacemaker67. This division is composed of Bosnians and Croatians but mainly Bosnians. So why did you reinstate (1st Croatian) to the name ?
 * G'day. Because that was its name. Simple. The reason it was called that was that it was created in the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia (which included all of Bosnia and Herzegovina), and it was done as a sop to the Croatian govt. It is an important part of the title because it reflects how Himmler and his mates had double standards about the untermensch. Nearly all the non-Germanic Waffen SS divisions had this type of clarification in parentheses. This is one of four non-Germanic Waffen SS division articles I've taken to FA, three have this dealio. We don't decide it, the Germans did. See my comment on the 14th SS RM. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh i see. So it is about the country not the ethnicity. Thanks for enlightening me. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 21:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes. That isn't necessarily the case with all the non-Germanic Waffen SS divisions. It really depends on what the Germans called it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Region of Bosnia" or Bosniaks
Hello,

since we all know who have read the article and know what happened we also know about the Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) who were seeking for their semi-independent "Region of Bosnia" why wouldn't we just add in the under the "Allegiance" part "Region of Bosnia" and the flag of the Handschar this would give a better and quicker overview to what most Bosniaks wanted and also those Bosniaks who where in the Handschar.

It would look something like this: (Example):

I didn't include the whole infobox, i just want to focus on this part. So what do you guys think about this? Remember the Handschar was made and requested to be made also for the protection of Bosniaks so why wouldn't "Bosniaks" be listed in the Allegiance part of the infobox. We know that the region never got their autonomy but this is a very special case.

All comments and opinions are welcome.

Thanks in advance. Hazbulator (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think reflects what the sources say. Hoare's most recent work, for example, goes to some lengths to explain that "Muslim autonomy" meant different things to different people. Muslims (and Croats) joined the 13th SS Division for a range of reasons. Their formal oath of allegiance was to Hitler and Pavelic. The division itself did not swear allegiance to "Bosnia" per se, in fact the Ustase would definitely have baulked at that. Infoboxes have their uses, but trying to encapsulate something as complex as what you are trying to achieve isn't one of them, IMO. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox edit-warring
There have been a couple of recent edits to the infobox where the piping of Gebirgsjager to Mountain infantry has been removed, and the italics on Waffen have been removed. No edit summary has been provided. please explain the basis for these changes here on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Consistency with other German divisional articles, both Heer and Waffen-SS. There is no need to italicize "Waffen", and this italicization is not used on the main Waffen-SS page, either. As for the removal of the piping to "Mountain infantry", consistency is also the order of the day, namely, with the Wehrmacht's other mountain infantry divisions, which have the type as Gebirgsjäger, not "Mountain infantry." The same is true for the divisional articles of the Luftwaffe's parachute divisions, whose infoboxes have "Fallschirmjäger" as the type, not parachute or airborne. If there is an existing article to both types as they were specialized in the German military, and the German term or phrase is well known, piping is unnecessary. Italia2006 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally, this isn't an edit war. Italia2006 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is there no need to italicise Waffen? The rule of thumb for italicisation of foreign terms is MOS:FOREIGN ie whether the term is current in English, or appears in an English dictionary of note. Waffen-SS does not appear in any dictionary of note that I am aware of. The piping of Mountain Infantry instead of using Gebirgsjäger is because, again, few will know what that means. Finally, how many of those divisional articles, Heer or Waffen-SS, have gone through FAC, or even GAN? This has, and this article is consistent with WP policies on foreign terms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not any of those articles has FAC or GAN status is a moot point, and indeed irrelevant to a discussion of the infobox. This article is not a featured article because of its infobox, it is a featured article because of its excellent content. Additionally, the word "Waffen" is so well known to English speakers that I would argue it does not apply with regards to the "MOS:FOREIGN" guidelines. Finally, I could understand the desire to have "mountain infantry" instead of "gebirgsjäger" were it not for the fact that both have their own articles. Any reader could easily click on the hyperlink Gebirgsjäger and read right there in the introduction that they are specialized mountain infantry in the German and Austrian armies. In conclusion, I see nothing wrong with any of the edits I've made, and they help to keep German divisional articles consistent with each other. Italia2006 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The whole article is reviewed when an article goes through FAC or GAN, including the infobox, so it is not irrelevant. The text of the article itself was consistent with the infobox, but you have now made the infobox inconsistent. The lead refers to mountain infantry and Waffen-SS. Essentially, you appear to think that "making an infobox consistent with the infoboxes of a bunch of mediocre articles is better than maintaining consistency within the article". Please revert your changes, they are opposed on the basis I've outlined. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, I've run into the Wikipedia élite. Excuse me. I think my favorite part of that diatribe was how quick you were to completely bash other articles, even ones you may not have even looked at. Not to mention the abject failure to address any of the points I made. Italia2006 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There you go, all fixed. I don't have time to argue with an entrenched Wikipedia noble. Italia2006 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with most of those articles, they are on my watchlist, and all of them need a lot of work, although a couple of editors have recently been taking out most of the fanboi dross. Thanks for reverting. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationality of members
They were not Bosniaks as there were no Bosniak nation at the time. They expressed Croatian nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

POV
"In an effort to secure the loyalty of the Bosnian Muslims, Pavelić ordered that a property in Zagreb be converted into a mosque that he named the "Poglavnik's Mosque".[5] Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule. A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Fierce fighting broke out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans in NDH territory. Some Ustaše militia units became convinced that the Muslims were communist sympathizers, and burned their villages and murdered many civilians.[6] The Chetniks accused the Muslims of taking part in the Ustaše violence against Serbs and perpetrated similar atrocities against the Muslim population. The Muslims received little protection from the Croatian Home Guard, the regular army of the NDH, whom the Germans described as "of minimal combat value"." Who wrote this? Some Serbian apologist? Muslims were members of Croatian home guard same as catholics were. Why every sentence about ustashe and Ante Pavelić has to start with killings of Serbs? Ustashe were created as resistance to Great Serbian hegemony. Chetnics did not kill Catholics and muslims as a revenge but as a plan to create ethnically clean Greater Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.120 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM. If you have reliable sources for your contentions, bring them here for discussion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Peacemaker67. Nothing can be done with the article unless you bring reliable sources to support your case, or you bring evidence that the article doesn't properly report the sources it contains already. Zerotalk 09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822004913/http://isi.co.rs/pages/pictures/casopis/Istorija%2020.%20veka%202009-1.pdf to http://www.isi.co.rs/pages/pictures/casopis/Istorija%2020.%20veka%202009-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Prominent Muslims in the NDH
Džafer Kulenović was one of many prominent Muslims in the NDH, and also served as Vice Governor of the NDH.Džafer Kulenović See Wikipedia entry for Džafer Kulenović
 * Then we add that information to compare and contrast with the other statement, but you will need to properly cite it to a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't use a link to a WP article as a citation, per WP:CIRCULAR. You need to cite it to a reliable source added to this article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added statistics from Lepre p. 15 that give the proportion of Muslims in NDH governmental positions, and observed that this was an overstatement. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s a start, thank you. I’m trying to be historically accurate here, I’m sure that you feel the same way. Although I don’t have a cite at the mom., for Džafer Kulenović being Vice Governor, that is like asking for a cite that George Washington was the first President of the USA. On the flip side you still maintain ‘A Muslim leader reported that not one Muslim occupied an influential post in the administration. Although this was an overstatement, Muslims were underrepresented in government positions, comprising only two of 20 ministerial positions’ without citation. Who was this Muslim leader who said this? A town dog catcher? Or maybe the ‘leader’ was a local imam? To make a sweeping statement like that, when clearly Džafer Kulenović was a prominent Muslim, exposes the statement as slander or inaccuracy at best. Muslims were an integral part of the NDH, and there was more support for the NDH, per capita, on the territory of today’s Bosnia and Hercegovina, than in any part of the NDH, uncited up to this point, I get it.

It is pretty well common knowledge that Mr. Kulenović was VP, and a Muslim. And he wasn’t the only Muslim leader by far. Furthermore, the Bleiburg memorial stone dedicated to the masssacred Croatian civilians, inscribed since 1953, there is a Muslim crescent side by side with a cross. It is reads ‘to all Croat victims’ Surely you can see that the Muslims were considered to be an integral part of the NDH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel77019 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Book of Bosnia
I don't yet have a mature opinion on Santasa99's edits, except on one point. The "Black Book of Bosnia" should not be used as a source for this article. The part cited is not even by the editor Mousavizadeh, here incorrectly cited as author. Actually it is from an article of Aleksa Djilas, the son of Bosnian communist activist Milovan Djilas, which has only one short paragraph on the Handschar. We shouldn't be using sources that mention the topic only in passing when we have several sources that contain in-depth studies. Zerotalk 01:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me make it easy for you:: my edits are based on research by Hoare, a scholar who may very well be the ultimate expert on WWII Bosnia and engagements of all Bosnia ethnic and religious/non-religious identity groups - by the way I agree with your above input - I think that Raphael Israeli, on the other hand, is controversial author because he is an Islamophobe and author whose entire opus is dedicated in painting Islam, all Muslims, Arabs in general, Palestinians in particular, and Iranians passionately as irrational nefarious barbarians and mindless haters of Jews, Israel and the West, hell-bent on committing senseless genocide against Jews and on committing senseless destruction of Israel, thus distinguishing himself as yet another chauvinist with a strong voice and influence in a world of Trump-Putin post-truth axis of alt-rightism, and renaissance of European white-ethno-religious tribal racism, i.e. chauvinism.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I won’t be able to look at this properly for a couple of days because I’m travelling, but regardless, Santasa99 has been reverted, and the appropriate form of action for them is to BR’’’D’’’iscuss, not edit war and communicate via edit summaries. If it continues, it will go to the drama boards. All they need to do is lay out what their concerns are, and suggested rewording, then we can discuss a way forward. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it will not come to that? Will it? It shouldn't come to that. It can't be that you are so afraid to lose couple of lines of text?! Why do yo think that those three sentences are worth fighting and even edit-warring, especially if you know that my edits are really an improvements based on credible research by a scholar who may very well be the ultimate expert on WWII Bosnia and engagements of all ethnic and religious/non-religious identity groups there at the time?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Controversial author(s) and two (let's make it three) sentences of sheer nonsense
Those few sentences - two, three? - you are steadfastly want to keep are product of Raphael Israeli's imagination (as well as Mousavizadeh's), the author whose cited book is mishmash of established facts and his own imagined ones, from where he draws his conclusions and establish narrative. Meanwhile, his legitimacy is of a controversial sort, to put it mildly, and here's why: the guy takes a quite an interesting and firm stance on Islam and Muslims, and particularly on Arabs and Palestinians (which he in various ways tries to link to Bosnians and their own tragic history, to further his own shaky arguments and narrative, mainly concerning Israel), which is why his books, and in this case this book and its parts concerning Bosnia and its Muslims (e.g. after establishing Mufti's ultimate influence over Bosnian Muslim agendas and life affairs in chapter on him in Bosnia, Israeli immediately turns to elaborate on nature of Islam), are filled with characteristic claims about Islam and Muslims - after all, guy extremely strongly suggest that all Muslims are anti-Semites and potential terrorists, which he supports with his perceived nature of that religion, which he literally describes as being conceived as inherently ant-Semitic. This is a kind of source material which you are trying to keep (at all costs?) as reference for the following sentence (taken out of his book, reformulated I believe): “The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše” - first, "declarations" are extremely important historical issue, and there were nine of these documents (namely Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka, Tuzla, Bjeljina, along with Prijedor, Bihać, Jajce and Travnik - all main Islamic parishes(?)(territorial units in Islam)) if not more important than "Unit" certainly not less, but we don't have opportunity to read about it more, instead we have article of a "Good" class on military unit most successful and most famous for extermination of, well, Nazi officers and soldiers in sleepy French village. Well, as far as Israeli is concerned, he must be a mind-reader, and one that reads minds through space and time, at that. Besides, here's the author's prejudice-based attitude in full display: "Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations" - however, let's brush aside, for the moment, all of his characteristic moral and intellectual shortcomings, as I perceive them, and let's brush aside the fact that he himself can't provide reference to his readers for such horridly stereotypical, suggestive generalization (unworthy and uncharacteristic of serious and unbiased historian), and practically nothing short of Islamophobic, expression, and let's ask obvious questions: which "the Muslims", who "the Muslims", how many, why would Mufti do that, most importantly how he knows that Mufti "successfully convinced" these "the Muslims" and what makes Israeli himself so convinced, what is the result, what are the consequences, and so on, and so forth... - maybe we are going to, somehow, connect the dots, then following this suggestive narrative of his, in the back of our minds, conclude that, after all, this perfectly fit Israeli's own proposition: must be all the Muslims are ant-Semitic, genocidal, bunch, and of course potential terrorists?

Another author, Mousavizadeh, is referenced for the next two sentence, which goes ae follows: “The Germans emphasised that al-Husayni had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo in order to bless and inspect the division. - no, he flew in to help in failed conscription ! - During his visit to Bosnia, al-Husayni also convinced some important Muslim leaders that the formation of the division was in the interests of Islam.” - another mind-reader, reading peoples minds across the time-space precipice, not one, ever, left any (written) clue from which such conclusion could be drawn, after all he is Muslim cleric, there is no doubt that he said such thing on numerous occasions, but we don’t know that he “convinced” any of Bosnian Muslims (to anything, anyway), not to mention that there were numerous "!important Muslims“ outside the group he met with, with existence of number of different groups of Muslims divided on political and ideological basis. This makes these two sentences redundant, if not completely inaccurate, or at least in conflict with encyclopedic norms.

My short edit is within historical parameters concerning the events at hand, as I used historian Marko Attila Hoare as my source, since he is really an expert on Bosnia's modern history, and Bosnia in WWII in particular. Anyway, lot of text to discuss a couple of lines - losing interest - can't believe this is what it takes to make constructive contrib.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have a comment about the above quoted statement: “The Mufti successfully convinced the Muslims to ignore the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka Ulama (Islamic clerics), who in 1941 forbade them from collaborating with the Ustaše” - The second part of this sentence is factually incorrect. I am author of the article about the Resolution of Sarajevo Muslims which I thoroughly researched at the time when I wrote it. This resolution was most important resolution which was basically parroted in resolutions of Muslims from other towns in Bosnia and also in Herzegovina. The Muslim resolutions did not forbid Muslims to collaborate with Ustaše. Here on this link is the text of Sarajevo resolution for anybody who wants to see it. On this link is text of Banja Luka resolution. None of them forbid Muslims to collaborate with Ustaše.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What this discussion lacks at present is anyone actually providing reliable sources that challenge what is in the article. There is a lot of opinion, but we are short on sources. Also, we don’t use Wikipedia as a source, Antidiskriminator, and on past experience, I’ll take your assertions with a grain of salt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The second of the two links that Antidiskriminator brought is probably a reliable source. (The first is a type of source that we can't use.) But anyway, you are mistaken in your analysis of the situation. There are some things in the article based on weak sources and you are claiming they need to be disproven before being removed. But that's not how it works. Actually, the onus is on those wishing to retain the material to provide better sources for it. As I wrote above the book edited by Mousavizadeh has exactly one tiny, unsourced, paragraph related to this page, and there is simply no way to consider this a reliable source. Israeli has a better case for acceptance, but I believe we should try to avoid sources by authors with extremist reputations. Zerotalk 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , the first of two links I presented is archived version of this source with the text of the Sarajevo Muslim resolution, published in the book Ferid Dautović, Kasim ef. Dobrača - život i djelo, El-Kalem i MIZ Sarajevo, Sarajevo, 2005, str.215-223. The original of this resolution is kept in the archive of Gazi Husrevbeg Library in Sarajevo.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , with this comment Antidiskriminator, and on past experience, I’ll take your assertions with a grain of salt you wrote just last of probably more than thousand snide comments you wrote against me on various article talkpages. I can not see any other reason for your behavior except to make me feel threatened or intimidated, with the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine, frighten, or discourage me from editing wikipedia. If you again write snide comments against me I might consider reporting you. Please understand this as a warning.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Antidiskriminator. You and I have a long history, going right back to my first FA, and you have often made it unpleasant for me to edit with your tendentious behaviour. I hardly think anything other than a WP:BOOMERANG is coming your way if you report me, but feel free, I'm ready whenever you are. Now, if we can get back to the matter at hand, it is not necessary to provide better sources for material that is in the article, unless someone can show why the source is unreliable, or someone challenges the information. So, the assertion that the three listed resolutions forbade Muslims from collaborating with the Ustasha is cited to Israeli, who is an academic, and Transaction are a reputable publisher, so I don't see how this source is unreliable, or even weak, on face value, despite Israeli being described as having an "extremist reputation", having a "prejudice-based attitude", and other pejoratives. If you are aware of negative reviews of Israeli's work in reliable sources along the lines you suggest, please produce them. If not, on the basis that Israeli is still alive according to his article, then I suggest you read WP:BLPTALK and redact all your disparaging comments about Israeli. The second issue with this piece of material is whether it is, in fact, accurate. Now, the first weblink Antidiskriminator provided is of no use to us, as we do not know if it is an accurate transcription of the Sarajevo resolution, let alone the other two. We need a reliably published transcript, which Dautović may provide, for the Sarajevo resolution at least. Perhaps if we stick to the Sarajevo one for now, as a source for the text of the resolution has been suggested. So, the first questions we must ask are, is Dautović an academic or otherwise reputable author, and is the book reliably published? I do not know the answer to this, but I did search for Ferid Dautović on Worldcat and found one book (not this one) published in 2009, "Vjera je nada i sigurnost" which I translate as "Faith is Hope and Security", apparently a religious text? El-Kalem is a publisher of Islamic literature in B-H, and MIZ is the same. I have no idea if they are reliable publishers or if they have biases. For the purposes of discussion, if we assume good faith regarding both the author and publishers, then first we need to establish that the web text that Antidiskriminator says is what is published in the book, is in fact published in the book. How do you know that, Antidiskriminator? Have you viewed the book and the website and compared them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressing both of you: please take your personal disputes somewhere else. Meanwhile, PM67, you need to read WP:ONUS. I removed "Mousavizadeh" (not actually the author) for the perfectly adequate reasons I stated, and I'll add the extra reason that you have no consensus to include it. Zerotalk 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Queries

 * Please check: and
 * Checked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What is M43 ? The uniform was regular SS M43 field-jacket issue
 * It is the model number (ie the 1943 version of the field-jacket and fez). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * NCO undefined ...
 * Defined. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Assume that "NCO" stands for "non-commissioned officer", which is an extremely common abbreviation in English-language military contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, all addressed . Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards Section Removal
Since the alleged "Knight's Cross" awards to the Division's members is disputed and "cannot be verified at the German National Archive" - why is that retained on this page? It adds no value to the article and could just be nothing more than glorification propaganda from former Nazis. My recommendation is that this entire section be removed. Any objections and/or justifications otherwise? Seems like fanboy stuff to me.--Obenritter (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I don't understand the point trying to be made here. Why should pages about Nazi formations and units be treated any different from those about other country's armed forces? A summary of the major awards presented to members of a military unit is an absolutely standard thing on Wikipedia, with even minor awards being listed. Look at the penultimate para of the Western Front section of 10th Battalion (Australia) for one example of thousands of articles. The information about the awards to members of this division is from a reliable source (Lepre), not from "hearsay", and there is no reliable source provided that says it is "glorification propaganda from former Nazis". There is no aspect of "glorification" about the awards included in the article, only the bare facts as expressed in Lepre. The awards are contested given the very late stage of the war at which they allegedly occurred, and the uncertain nature of them is clearly noted. I oppose the removal of the section because it would detract from comprehensiveness, which is a FA criteria, and because of the rather odd double standard that is being applied to an article about a Nazi formation (see WP:NOTCENSORED), when no such complaint is being made about those of other nations to my knowledge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peacemaker67. If the text is properly aligned to the sources, it is reasonable to have it. Zerotalk 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the article itself, the awards "cannot be verified at the German National Archive." Any statement otherwise is then in fact "hearsay" from the author, who may have heard it when interviewing prior members of the unit itself (former Nazis--constituting perhaps nothing but glorification). Not everything in a source is beyond scrutiny. Keeping it because such content is included for other units in different countries, which probably have official verifiable records attesting their conveyance, is specious justification in this case. If these awards were listed in German archives somewhere, I would have no reason to challenge the material. Imagine if we had an article that stated, "XX unit from Canada received England's highest awards for combat service, but there is no record of it anywhere in the UK's archives." Would that not get challenged? Anyway--I am not going to drag this out as so far, you have consensus and maybe I am viewing this through a jaded lens.--Obenritter (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW folks, I respect both of your opinions, even if I disagree in this instance. Since I had never read this article and was enjoying it...when I got to that little segment, I was taken aback. If I am wrong about this, that's fine but please consider my points as to why this struck me (an academic historian) as not especially up to snuff.--Obenritter (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am with on this. I think the current presentation of "awards" and "divisional song" sections is frankly ahistorical. If the awards are  significant, they should be addressed in the body of the text where it is appropriate to do so. Anything else is likely to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For the same reason, the full transcription of the "divisional song" seems to be WP:TRIVIA and is potentially contrary to WP:NOFULLTEXT. Unless its lyrics are being used to make a point, I do not see why it should be included. Also, what is the basis for including conversions of all ranks to the modern-day American army? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Obenritter and Brigade Piron, if the awards aren't in the official archives how do we know that they were actually awarded?
 * Full transcription of the song is obviously excessive per WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOFULLTEXT. In fact many military unit pages never mention their song, since it's not terribly important usually. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point about this is that, given the poor communication and confusion at the end of the war and the destruction/capture of many units' records by diverse forces, including irregulars, the Bundesarchiv is not the be all and end all in this context, especially as what it holds isn't close to being complete. There was/is an association for recipients of the Knight's Cross, and for many years, in the absence of being able to do checks in the Bundesarchiv, their committee accepted that the awards had been made, no doubt based on statements made by other German officers, and perhaps even their possession of the award and/or the certificate that accompanied it. Recipients of high military awards generally do not easily accept dubious claims among their ranks regardless of whether they are Nazis or not, so this acceptance (as documented by Von Seemen) is, in my view quite reasonable to include. It is not "hearsay" from Lepre at all, the acceptance by the KC committee documented by Von Seemen was obviously based on some evidence, just not on documentary evidence held at the Bundesarchiv, research about the existence of which was was not conducted fulsomely until Scherzer did so and published it in 2007. It is all very well to make an ambit claim that other countries have official records for all their awards, but this is actually not correct. Even in Australia, a victor in both world wars that didn't suffer any of the documentary challenges that Germany did as a vanquished and divided country at the end of WWII, I know from my own research that some awards, even high ones, have less than fulsome documentation in the National Archives in relation to when they were awarded and by whom, or what for. The British National Archives has huge gaps in its records. Lepre mentions no dubious aspect to the awards of the German Cross in Gold or Silver.
 * Happy to lose the song lyrics, they really don't add anything. The rank notes have been used in many of my FAs, and are conversions from WWII US Army ranks because that is what is available in solid source on the Waffen-SS (Stein), and provides a clear equivalent in a major English-speaking army, which helps the English-speaking reader who is likely to be more familiar with colonel than SS-Oberführer, for example, which would otherwise require clicking on the link (and with some ranks not even that gives you the information easily). The US rank links had either dropped off or I forgot to add them, so that it fixed now. There is also the confusion about the lack of equivalence between generalmajor and major general to contend with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing the song, . In terms of the awards, I think there is a bigger issue than the verifiability alone. It seems to me to illustrate that the awards themselves were not particularly important. I do accept that this is not always the case, but it does illustrate the fact that including this particular fact in this particular case verges on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not to say that this will always be true - the award of Knight's Cross to Léon Degrelle, for example, was politically significant in its own right and certainly justifies its inclusion at Walloon Legion. —Brigade Piron (talk)
 * I am glad to see the song lyrics were removed as that was trivial, to say the least. I also don’t believe Waffen-SS needs to be put in italics at this point, it is used extensively in English publications and should not be considered a foreign loan word anymore. I also see that is not consistently put in italics in the article. As far as including the claimed Knight’s cross winners, it would be better if they were officially confirmed. Since they cannot be officially confirmed, if kept, I believe that information should be included in a footnote. Further, when putting ranks in italics, SS does not need to be put in italics because that is not a foreign loan word, it is just an abbreviation-acronym of initials for identification of an organization. Kierzek (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think putting the awards in a footnote is a reasonable compromise, especially if in shortened form.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the awards are entirely a normal part of a unit or formation article. I have deitalicised Waffen, as I accept that while it isn't in any dictionaries I can find per the rule-of-thumb in MOS:FOREIGNITALICS, I think it is borderline recognisable to the general reader. In terms of the Waffen-SS ranks, I have kept them italicised because it will look odd to have part of the rank italicised and part not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's helpful to think of whether something is "normal" to a certain kind of article. I can see a much better rationale for a modern military unit to include such information as part of a section on its regimental traditions, but that's not the case here. In this particular article, I think it would be WP:UNDUE because it has no obvious relevance to any of the "meaningful" history of the unit - either in a narrowly military sense (we don't know why or how they were awarded!) or in a broader political sense. This touches on what I was talking about before with Degrelle's award. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My view is what is being proposed here reflects a blatant double standard. One rule for articles about German WWII units (where such information is apparently UNDUE), and one rule for every other country’s units (where it isn’t). This is not the first time I have seen this double standard being applied. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true at all. WP:NOTCENSORED is entirely irrelevant - for one thing, I've explicitly agreed with you that some Nazi awards are certainly worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and of historical significance. However, the ones you have listed are so unconnected to the historical context (and potentially even fictional!) that they are WP:UNDUE and reaching WP:OR territory. And why would the identity of the person who handed them out be anything more than trivial? I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could say the same of your responses, frankly. If you agree that some Nazi awards are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, which ones exactly? If not the Knight's Cross, then what? Although there were several levels of it, there was no higher award. On an article about an Australian infantry battalion like 10th Battalion (Australia) you will see a list of virtually all medallic decorations awarded to members of the unit, including the lowly Meritorious Service Medal (Australia). Some even include the number of mentions in despatches, which is a device placed on a medal ribbon, and not even a medallic award. I have only included the two top bravery awards and the highest meritorious service award here. The basic Knight's Cross was the entry-level of the highest German bravery award, and the German Cross in Gold was immediately below the Knight's Cross. I could see an argument that the mention of the German Cross in Silver awards could be removed, but I fail to see any consistency or merit in removing the mentions of the Knight's Cross and German Cross in Gold (the two top bravery awards available) when there is a reliable source that highlights these awards (the article is crystal clear that there is some dispute about them, but as I have tried to make clear here, documentation at the end of the war was chaotic), and there is no dispute about the German Cross in Gold/Silver awards whatsoever. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could say the same of your responses, frankly. If you agree that some Nazi awards are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, which ones exactly? If not the Knight's Cross, then what? Although there were several levels of it, there was no higher award. On an article about an Australian infantry battalion like 10th Battalion (Australia) you will see a list of virtually all medallic decorations awarded to members of the unit, including the lowly Meritorious Service Medal (Australia). Some even include the number of mentions in despatches, which is a device placed on a medal ribbon, and not even a medallic award. I have only included the two top bravery awards and the highest meritorious service award here. The basic Knight's Cross was the entry-level of the highest German bravery award, and the German Cross in Gold was immediately below the Knight's Cross. I could see an argument that the mention of the German Cross in Silver awards could be removed, but I fail to see any consistency or merit in removing the mentions of the Knight's Cross and German Cross in Gold (the two top bravery awards available) when there is a reliable source that highlights these awards (the article is crystal clear that there is some dispute about them, but as I have tried to make clear here, documentation at the end of the war was chaotic), and there is no dispute about the German Cross in Gold/Silver awards whatsoever. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Denunciations and request for protection
Hi all! I have read about the matter concerning November 1942 Memorandum referenced in the final sentence of the "Denunciations and request for protection" section. While the source offered in this article clearly supports the claim of requested annexation, Hoare claims on pp. 51-53 of the 2013 book referenced in this article that the request was limited to some form of autonomy under some form of German protection (possibly a formal protectorate). Another source - Adnan Jahić, Ideja Autonomije Bosne i Hercegovine p. 158 (reference details here) - seems to support Hoare's claims, cites a number of interpretations (including Lepre, although dismissing him) and indicates that the level of autonomy sought was similar to the one afforded by Yugoslavia to Banovina Croatia in 1939 - although under some form of German protection. Should the final sentence of the mentioned section be modified by adding something like "or grant it some sort of protection and autonomy." or should Lepre be given extra weight, or should something be done differently?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, Hoare is a better source. I have used Hoare to rewrite the last sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unit being disbanded not even mentioned?
"The East Came West", Antonio J. Muñoz, page 272 notes that it was officially disbanded in October 1944, and remnants sent into Battlegroup "Handschar" built around the 6,000 ethnic Germans left, a rather small number of Bosnians being left. Why is this omitted in the article? It was not even a Division anymore by Fall 1944! Instead it is stated as if it was simply "re-organized". Will Tyson for real (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Muñoz isn't a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How is he not a reliable source? Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He is published by Axis Europa, and they do not have a reliable publication process ie a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well regardless his is hardly the only source that notes that. Will Tyson for real (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, you will see that while it was not "disbanded" at that time, it began to disintegrate at that time, and many Bosnians were disarmed in October and November, but that the division continued to exist, as a 50/50 unit, although plans to re-organise it were abandoned, and elements of it were split up, but reunited in December at Barcs, by which time most of its Bosnian character had been lost, as various other units were attached. But it continued fighting as a division until mid-March 1945, when it began withdrawing towards Austria, and many of the last Bosnians left to return home. Lepre is quite clear about this, his book is an in-depth study of this division only, is footnoted and won an award. I give it far greater weight than an unreliably published and unfootnoted generalist book on Muslim volunteers in the German armed forces and Waffen-SS. If you have other sources, I'm happy to discuss further. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021
Change "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 180." to "128. Velikonja 2003, p. 181." (page 181 discusses the annihilation of Jews) On that subject, the above reference discusses the annihilation of Jews, but doesn't indicate that these actions were directly perpetrated by the 13th Waffen Mountain Division. I think a better reference should be found to justify accusing the division of such atrocities. NadavNahari (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the article says "the division earned a reputation for brutality and savagery, not only during combat operations,[34] but also through atrocities committed against Serb[127] and Jewish civilians[128] in the security zone". fn 128 is Velikonja 2003 p. 180. On that page (at the top) it says "The division... was responsible for several atrocities against Serbian and Jewish civilians". So it does state that the division directly perpetrated atrocities against Jews, and is thereby verified. Velikonja is Professor of Cultural Studies and Head of the Centre for Cultural and Religious Studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, and is published by Texas A&M University Press = reliable source. Change not made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

SS HANDZAR DELETION the entire section is false and pure communist propoganda. There was no Četnik involvement in the mentioned battle between the SS Handzar and German forces on one side, and the Communist Partisans on the other - especially not on the side of the Germans and the SS Handzar. The supposed battalion from Majevica/Romanija (do you realise how large a battalion is?) of Četniks were one of three fighting forces in the area, the SS Handzar and Germans were the second, and the Communist Partisans were the third. There was no joint attack on the Partisans by the Germans/SS Handzar and the Romanija Četniks. All three sides were fighting one another. The Četniks are being falsely represented in this article. Infact, they arent even represented through facts or references. Who were these Četniks? What was the name of the division involved? How many in their battalion? Who was their commander? Nothing is sourced, no evidence or references are given. The section states that 'Četniks' were involved. However, it doesnt state which Četniks and under whose command. Nothing. One sentence claims 'oh yeah the same Četniks that attacked the Partisans with the Germans at the last made-up battle in this article (which also has no evidence of Četnik involvement). And oh yeah btw it was an entire battalion....more than 1000 armed soldiers apparently. But of course we dont know their commanders name, nor the name of the battalion. Keep the section in the article if you like. But be honest and remove any mention of the involvement of an imaginary NAZI-allied 1000 strong battalion of Četniks in the battle. Pure communist propoganda 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

EVIDENCE OF CETNIK AND SS HANDZAR ALLEGIANCE
This article reads stalinistic. The Cetniks are mentioned more than the SS Divison that the article is supposedly supposed to be about. There is no evidence of SS Handzar and Cetnik cooperation in Bosnia. Infact, such a claim defies all basic common sence and knowledge, and could only be accepted by communist ideologues for propoganda purposes. If the Cetniks are fighting the Communists all over Yugoslavia since 1941, then that doesnt mean that they are suddenly allies of the SS Handzar when the SS Unit and Communists finally start to fight eachother in 1944 (before the mass crossover of former fascists and concentration camp guards from the SS into Partisan units).

If one side is fighting the other in one area, that doesnt mean that if a third side joins the conflict and attacks one of the parties that they are now allies. Keserovic and the Cetniks of the area did not have any dealings with the Muslim fascists. Protecting the local Serb civilian population from the genocide being committed by the Muslim Ustase in Eastern Bosnia was the major reason Cetnik formations were created in the first place. Absolutely disgusting. Lenin would be proud 2405:6E00:2651:B5B4:AFA2:1BB9:2A1B:A812 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously, produce the high quality academic sources that support your argument. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)