Talk:Operation Uzice

Name
Is this an appropriate name for the article? Might there be a better name? - FrancisTyers 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do some research as soon as I finish my current engagements, but I think there's none. 3rd, 4th and 5th offensives do have german codenames, but I couldn't find any for first two. But, as I said, I'll do some more research... --Dijxtra 08:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As said elsewhere, the common name for this stage of the war was "Užička republika", and when offensives are given names, the first one goes under that name. We should probably merge the two articles. Zocky | picture popups 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mihailović's meeting
The speculative account on the Mihailović-German meeting is biased, in that it sports the Chetnik point of view. "Mihailović demanded control of the forests of Serbia"? In other accounts, based on more professional German reports, things seem different. Namely, with the catastrophic effect of the failure of his massed attack on the Partisans in Užice, the Chetnik numbers were severely mauled by both the advancing 342nd and the Partisan counter-attack towards Požega. Barely getting out, Mihailović arranged a meeting with the German officials in an effort to save his troops (via an associate in the Serbian collaborationist forces). His offer of a truce was rejected by the rapidly advancing Germans, who then tried to capture him, but were unable to do so since he managed to leave his troops and hide to the south. The details of the meeting itself are unknown and the details presented herein are speculative and "clouded in legend" with conflicting reports. I must repeat my stance: facts only. 1) Miahilović asks to meet with the Germans to arrange a truce. 2) Germans reject his proposals at the meeting. 3) No truce. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this must be developed (not too much here, though : it is to be developed in the Mihailovic article, I think), though several sources are needed on this relatively complicated and controversial fact. It has also written that it was the Germans who asked for a meeting with Mihailovic, but each side was ultimately at cross-purpose with the other. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we seem to have two versions in sources. Though you have to admit that it seems somewhat unlikely that the victorious Germans begged a resistance leader to meet them after having nearly eradicated his forces in the region. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Details have been uncovered. Mihailović was indeed the one to request a meeting. In fact it is known exactly how, when, and where he did so, and via which intermediaries on both the German and Chetnik sides (apparently they met this guy, Josef Matl, there's an article about him on the German Wiki). It would seem that I was wrong: Mihailović did not ask for a meeting with the occupation authorities (and "place himself at their disposal") in desperation following the decimation of his force. He asked for a meeting on October 28 in Belgrade, in a calculated move to attempt to join forces with the Axis occupation against the Partisans. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The humanitarian
"Mihailović wanted to avoid the Germans killing civilians so he did not want to join the Partisans in full rebellion." Writing this "thesis" out in an encyclopedia is highly biased and simplistic. Authors have speculated on this but none of the speculation can be followed up by any concrete evidence or primary source. As Georges likes to point out, the matter is far more complex. Thoughts and opinions on Mihailović's motivation to avoid the fight abound and are a subject of debate. For example, many publications state that Mihailović was keen on preserving his forces, not the civilians in particular, so that he could concentrate on the Partisans and have a large military force when the Allies land in the Balkans (which he firmly believed was going to happen, and based his strategies on that eventuality). Furthermore, it is also noted that the Chetniks were nowhere near as mobile and disciplined as the Partisans and would most likely end up destroyed should the Axis concentrate its efforts on them - a most direct and natural reason for Mihailović to avoid a direct confrontation, etc. All of these seem to me less poetic and more realistic in the grim context of WWII Yugoslavia than the "Humanitarian thesis", but my opinion of course, is not noteworthy.

Lets simply write that Mihailović avoided confrontation with the Germans, if someone wants to speculate or list a reason, fine and good, but I suggest simply naming the author who supports that view in the text (i.e. "according to prof. XY..."). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are given for this. I'll try to get back to these articles in about late april. IMHO it is pointless to try and mount an "anti-Mihailovic thesis", quite simply because I think nobody is trying to make a pro-Mihailovic point so far. Pro-Tito bias should be avoided too. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As unbelievable as it may seem, I am NOT "pro Tito biased". This will also seem biased, but I don't know what else to say except that when you list the facts (in a completely neutral and objective manner) they're so much in favor of him it look like bias - but again it is NOT. He pulled the right moves and turned out the "good guy". Mihailović did not.


 * I'm not saying you should not write what the sources say. I'm saying 1) other sources list several different other speculations, and 2) since this is speculation write up the name of the source who's opinions the text represents. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be speculation. I don't see, however, how this would be contradictory, and why he wouldn't want to spare his troops and the civilians. Any insurgent leader not trying to spare the civilians a little bit in the early stages of a rebellion would be an idiot, for he would risk to become quickly unpopular among the population he purports to defend.
 * As for Tito being the "good guy", well I would certainly agree that he turned out to be the most efficient. However, I don't think there are any "good guys" or "bad guys" in that story. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The infobox currently represents exactly what the sourced text we both wrote says. The previous infobox you introduced is just plain wrong, since after November 1 Partisans and Chetniks were in combat against each other. It is certainly not "uselessly complicated", I direct you to the Yugoslav Wars infobox for some real complication. :)

I'm not saying Tito is the "goody guy", certainly not, there is no such thing in fact. I'm saying he turns out the "good guy", being very careful about his image and that of the Partisans as well as significantly more skilled in diplomacy. For example, having Churchill back a communist movement is I think a unique occurrence in history. But this is vague discussion, my point is that while I do have a positive opinion of Tito as a military commander and a diplomat, I do not in any way let this influence my edits. I do strive to be highly "professional", objective, and neutral whenever I can. What more can I say?

It most certainly is speculation since we are talking about "reading the mind" of a person, and since the "mind reading" appears to be different in different sources. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely, Mihailovic wanted to avoid premature action in order to avoid massive reprisals, period. If good sources say that, and if they point out the fact that it was to avoid reprisals against his men and/or the civilians (both, it seems) then we have to write that. I'm afraid don't really see the point in discussing this.
 * As for Tito being demonstrably more efficient than Mihailovic in the occupation's context, I don't think history has waited for us to make that point. :)
 * As for the infobox, I still find this uselessly complicated to have basically two infoboxes (on a subjective basis, I find this ugly to the reader's eye). Putting an hr between Partisans and Chetniks clearly states that they were separate and non-coordinated whilst pursuing some common goals, and the precision "in conflict from November 1" is clear enough. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Reprisals" aren't conducted against military units, an offensive is hardly "reprisal", so if we say he wanted to "avoid reprisals" this obviously implies he "only cared for the little people" or whatnot. You yourself said there are no "good guys" here. Like I said, good sources do say that, and other good sources say otherwise. Lets just list the author(s) in the text next to what they say, and I'll list the other authors and list what they say. Sounds good? Remember, I am not for excluding the information, all I'm saying is that since we're talking about opinions and speculation on personal thoughts and motivations, we need to mention those who gave voiced them.


 * "Uselessly complex"? I can't understand that... this is how things happened, and infoboxes use these parameters for just such situations where sides change. Its very standard. See Yugoslav Wars, Bosnian War, and many other similar infoboxes featuring a fraction changing sides or turning on former allies. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that it's bloody ugly and messy, and that the previous onewas clear enough. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we certainly can't have the one with the downright wrong information can we...? The Partisans and the Chetniks were certainly not on the same side "September 27 – November 29 1941". Its a case of aesthetic considerations vs. factuality.
 * On a personal note, I'll be frank: I can't help but feel rising tension and hostility in your manner, User:Jean-Jacques Georges. My eeevil psychiatric skills are picking up on bad vibes from France. :) I get the feeling you are convinced I'm a biased communist or whatnot. Am I off the mark? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for assessment

 * (below copied from milhist assessment page)


 * First anti-Partisan Offensive: old article currently assessed as start-class - now expanded. Kebeta (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My 5 cents:
 * citations need attention, particularly style and format
 * coverage seems fine to me, but I'd need to do some more digging before I can be sure
 * structure looks good to me
 * copyediting is an issue
 * info-box and map will do for the moment. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Move and reorganize article into the Uzice Uprising
Thoughts? -- Director  ( talk )  11:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure as yet. I'm doing some reading to try to get a better handle on it. I think one of the issues with this whole 'seven enemy offensives' thing is that it is still just one sides perspective, is too black and white and leaves quite a bit out, especially regarding the uprising in Montenegro, the Chetniks across the board and other forces involved in what was essentially a civil war. I think we should be considering if there is a different way to cover the conflict. However, as far as this particular one is concerned, I think it makes sense to describe it from the beginning, as an uprising and then the Axis response and Chetnik involvement. But should the title then focus on the uprising? Still not sure. Give me a couple more days to read up? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not so certain myself. I just proposed this to see what folks think.. It hit me that the Uzice Uprising should probably not be covered separately from the offensive that brought it down. As far as "Enemy Offensives" are concerned, I did present an alternative possibility over at Talk:Battle of the Neretva.. but apart from German codenames and Yugoslav terms we really have very little choice. And you gotta remember, if they're numbered - its Yugoslav terminology (regardless of whether the word "Enemy" is used). -- Director  ( talk )  12:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to 'Operation Uzice'
Following agreement here (Talk:Battle_of_Kozara), I am moving this article to 'Operation Uzice' (without diacritic) per the German operation name. Please read the discussion for reasoning. The scope of the article will include the Užice Uprising, Republic of Užice and Operation Uzice. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor points ...
1. Beckett (ed., 1988) mentioned that the German Orbat included 'armour and light bombers'. However, there are no panzer or Luftwaffe formations mentioned in the Orbats as they stand. Any ideas? Or was Beckett wrong? (I don't think Germany had tanks or bombers to spare at the time ...)

2. There appear to be two British liaison officers with surname Hudson mentioned, but with different initials. Is this genuine (it's possible) or a typo? I'm not an expert in this area, so reluctant to wade in and change. --Wally Tharg (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * G'day Wally, good point re: panzers. I know the accounts of the operation from the Partisan side mention tanks. I'm pretty sure an independent Panzer company was sent to help out with this operation, I'll try to dig up a source. Air support I haven't a clue about where to look. There was only one Duane Hudson, I'll fix that. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for edits, Peacemaker. As for the tanks, an independent company sounds feasible – possibly of obsolete French types? Beckett (1988) has a photo of what look like Hotchkiss 39s, the nearest of which bears the turret callsign '234', said to be in Dalmatia in 1943. Unfortunately the photo doesn't show any unit markings ... and it's 2 years later anyway. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article
The scope of this article is wider than the title. According to Shepherd (2012) p. 143, Operation Uzice commenced on 25 November 1941 and concluded on 4 December. Either the scope of this article should be reduced to just Operation Uzice, or it should be retitled. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Operacija Užice.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Operacija Užice.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SDK CoA.gif