Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vojislav Lukačević


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vojislav Lukačević

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for ACR because it has recently (Jan 13) undergone GAN review and has had further checks and tweaks. Not much is known of his early life, but this is common among Chetnik commanders who were often company-grade officers (captain or major at best) in 1941 when Yugoslavia was invaded, but rose to command the equivalent of a brigade or more of insurgents during the ensuing four years. Given history is written by the "winners" and they "lost" it is not surprising that more detailed records of their early lives are not available. I consider it is now ready for ACR. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Nothing else is known of his early life.", "The location of his remains is unknown." – These seem to be claims that should require a citation.
 * A good point. Of course, no source actually says that, it's just that the available sources don't talk about it. I included those sentences because I have found that some reviewers insist that such information be provided, and this was a way of explaining that there just isn't anything available. I have deleted them both.
 * What is the relationship between the sections "Massacres of Muslims", "Case White", and "Collaboration with the Germans"?
 * They are appropriate headings for the main theme of the section content which (now) follows the chronology. Can you clarify?
 * Looking at it again, the "Massacres of Muslims" section seems to totally separate from the other two, but isn't "Case White" a single case of general "Collaboration with the Germans"? Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's wider than that and goes to general collaboration with the Axis in general. At Konjic, which was the most significant engagement his Chetniks were involved in during Case White, he collaborated with the Italians, NDH forces and the Germans (in their case, for the first time). His collaboration with the Germans only really consolidated after the Italian capitulation in September 1943, which is what the next section focuses on.
 * OK. Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The section "Collaboration with the Germans" talks about November 1943, September 1943, and December 1943 – Shouldn't it go in chronological order?
 * Too right. Fixed.
 * Even in the period between 1941 and 1945 we are missing info: What happened between April 1941 and February 1943? Between September 1944 and July 1944 1945?
 * To the first part of the question, not much according to the sources. I did add in a mention of fighting with the Partisans in Herzegovina in summer 1942. For the second part can you clarify the month/year period you mean?
 * Sorry, I meant 1945 – i.e. do we know what happened between his capture by the partisans and his trial? Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Inkbug (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The short answer is no. It would have been ugly but nothing reliable has been recorded in sources I've read.


 * More comments:
 * The links to Google Books can shortened by a lot (just the id of the book is necessary).
 * I'm not familiar with that, could you point me to how to do it?
 * User:PRODUCER fixed it. Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote 2 – the link doesn't work.
 * Good pick-up. Somehow I missed it when I converted to sfn.
 * Footnote 3 – the pages cited don't deal with the coup.
 * Again, good pick-up, missed it by one page...
 * Footnotes 10 and 11 – where do these citations say that in Case White the Chetniks were legalised auxiliary forces under Italian control?
 * Good point, not sure where that came from, I have reworded the sentence, rm the Pavlowitch cite and corrected the Tomasevich one.
 * Inkbug (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnote 11 – can you give a more exact page number for the numbers of troops?
 * Added.
 * Footnote 12 – the source doesn't mention Lukačević or the 1st Proletarian division. However, the source does detail what dates the offensive was on – "held the town for seven days" should probably detail which seven days they were. In addition, from the current article it sounds like they were defeated after seven days – is this true? Inkbug (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "weak attack of two battalions of the 1st Division" mentioned in Tomasevich is a reference to battalions of the 1st Proletarian Division. Tomasevich introduces the 1st Proletarian as being involved in Case White/Weiss on p.236 and he is merely using shorthand here. Lukacevic is identified as being the commander of the Chetnik troops in Konjic in the footnote at the bottom of p.239. The battle of Konjic started with the two battalion assault of the 1st Proletarian on 19 Feb and the last Partisan assault by the 3rd Assault/Shock Division was on 26 Feb. The Partisans were unable to capture the town and withdrew. I have added this detail per the citations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot better now. Inkbug (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnote 19 seems to be covering only the sentence before it. What is the reference for the sentences "In mid-November 1943... Hans Felber"?
 * Added.
 * Sorry, but I don't see anything related in the ref you added. Inkbug (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm losing it. I now have the book in front of me, it's pp321-323. Fixed.
 * I'm trusting you – I can't access those pages in the Google Books preview. Inkbug (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a Roberts cite to it as well which covers similar ground.
 * Bajina Bašta (by footnote 19) is mentioned twice, which is in the source also, but I think is redundant.
 * It's 50/50, but I've taken it out.
 * How does footnote 20 support the claims about Operation Kugelblitz?
 * Good question, it didn't. But it does now. I have no idea what went on with these citations.
 * Footnotes 22 and 23 don't work. Inkbug (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the year of publication. I have a copy of the 1973 1st ed, but I think someone else substituted the 1987 3rd ed details in the ref section... I've now made all the Roberts citations and the book the 1987 version.


 * Footnote 26 – not there either.
 * It works now. Or did you mean something else?
 * I don't see the content that is being referenced in the source cited. Inkbug (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His attendance at Peter's wedding, you mean? I have added addition pages from Roberts citing travel to Cairo and corrected Peter's wedding day.
 * Footnote 30 – probably can give exact date of October 19. Inkbug (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * Comment: All of my concerns have been addressed. However, since out of 20 refs I checked (I don't have access to the other sources), there were problems with 5 of them, I won't support the nomination until all other refs (notes #1,4,8,9,15,17,27,28,29,31,33 from ) are checked by someone else. Inkbug (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There certainly have been some gremlins on this one. I will check them all myself again to try to eliminate any remaining ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now checked every citation and added several so that most individual sentences are now cited. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: since my last comments, a lot of references have been added. I still have not checked all the references, and it would be nice if another user would look at the citations (especially the ones not available on Google Books), but I think the article is a lot better now. Inkbug (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose/structure/referencing/supporting materials -- I can't pretend this is my area of expertise so my copyedit and review concentrate more on prose and readability, with some good faith assumed re. content given Peacemaker's track record in the area. Generally it reads well, image is licensed appropriately, referencing seems sound, and while one could wish for some more detail here and there, I think that's adequate. My only query is re. "legalised auxiliary forces under Italian control" -- what exactly do we mean by "legalised" here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. Interested in areas where you think more detail could be useful. The term "legalised" refers to their relationship with the Axis, in this case the Italians. Essentially some Chetnik leaders agreed to act on behalf of, or in cooperation with Axis forces. Some basically continued to be local warlords, and didn't align themselves with anyone. The ones who did align themselves with the Axis are the ones that Tomasevich refers to as "legalised". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I understand the explanation but in the context of the article I think it'd read better if you just dropped "legalised" -- not a big enough deal to affect my support though. In terms of more detail, I'm primarily thinking of the early life section, but you probably guessed that -- we only have a couple of lines on the first 30 years of his life. As military bios are my stock in trade, I understand the information may simply not be available from reliable sources. Given this is MilHist ACR, the focus is his military career and I think that's covered in reasonable detail, but if it were my article I might not take it to FAC unless I could flesh out the early life a bit. The other thing I'd liked to have seen would be a quote or two by or about him, that might give a bit of insight into the personality. Again, that may not be available and it doesn't affect my support of a well-presented article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, I sussed that might be it. I have scoured everything I could find with the veritable fine-tooth comb, and PRODUCER has looked into the sh sources and so far, bugger all that is reliable (some self-serving rot of course, but I've studiously ignored that). Ultimately, some of these guys were less-than-notable CAPT/MAJ at the outbreak, became notable as Chetnik commanders, then ran for their lives or died ignominiously and alone at the end, so there is no-one to write about (or know/care) what school they went to or what their old man did for a job. It just isn't available. For what it's worth, as a mid-level Chetnik commander he won't go to FAC on my watch. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not and ACR requirement though - suggestion only).
 * Added anyway.
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool doesn't seem to be working at the moment - google searches reveal no obvious issues with copyright violation (no action required).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
 * "They engaged in cooperation with the Axis powers to one degree or another by establishing modus vivendi...", should this be "a modus vivendi..."?
 * Strangely, modi vivendi actually. I have amended it.
 * "where he became aware of the activities of Mihailović...", full name fo Mihailovic should be used at first use to formally introduce subject per WP:SURNAME.
 * He is introduced in the lead, but I have added the full name in the body as suggested.
 * "In the summer of 1942, Lukačević and his Chetniks fought the Partisans in Herzegovina." Do we know his motivations for this (and for collaborating with the Axis / attacking muslims etc)? I'm assuming they were political (anticommunist, retention of monarch?) and racial or something like that (I'm not very familar with Balkan history so the politics of selective collaboration / fighting the partisans / limited resistance etc are a little unclear and I feel could probably add to context of the article).
 * A combination of Great Serbianism, monarchism, anti-communism and ethnic chauvinism. But in the case of the fighting against the Partisans in Herzegovina in 1942, the source does not ascribe motivation.
 * Incorrect presentation of names in a number of places per WP:SURNAME, for instance "Colonel Bailey", "Brigadier Armstrong", should just be "Bailey" and "Armstrong" removing rank after formal introduction with rank and full name at first instance.
 * Good point, done.
 * "Lukačević attempted to independently contact the Allies in Italy." Do we know why (I can assume the motives but I'm wondering if they are articulated in the literature)?
 * Have added a quote from Tomasevich that explains he was trying to change sides.
 * Otherwises seems quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "in part of the Pljevlja county": Pljevlja is a town, I think, so I don't know what this means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bit complicated. I linked to the town because Pljevlja used to be a district and is now a opština of Montenegro. But prior to that it was a bit on/off as the name of an administrative division in Yugoslavia right back to 1918. Even before that it was a district of the Kingdom of Montenegro. So it is associated with the area around the town in general. Looking at the source (Tomasevich) it isn't clear what timeframe he is using for the names, as they appear to be a mix. Do you think I should just use the "modern-day ..." approach for clarity? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I might say "near Pljevlja" or "around Pljevlja", and the same for Čajniče and Foča.
 * wording adjusted. Thanks for the review Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.