Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic/Archive20

Life without mediation
I'm curious as to what the editors who have stepped away from the mediation in whole or in part imagine what will happen if the mediation closes unsuccessfully. Any comments on that issue? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did my best to keep the mediation alive, and in several ocasions I explained to other participants the benefits of it. What can I say? I somehow got the feeling from what I could read between lines of alasdairgreen and direktor recent words, that they are abscent because they feel quite "safe" that you (Nuujinn) are going to do the best to defend their (direktor&alasgreen) POV. On the other hand, I want be surprised if JJG has come to a point of saturation, but anyway, he did expresed the will to work more on this. But perhaps he also shares some of the criticism I have expressed recently... I don´t know... better ask individually everyone. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's not what I'm asking. What I am asking is, what do folks think will happen if the mediation closes unsuccessfully? Is the expectation that those involved will walk away from the article? Will they be able to work together outside the mediation? Or will we return to the old status quo in which there's edit warring and regular trips to ANI? I foresee the latter, and am not looking forward to it. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I completely agree with you over this. The only way to get stable articles on this issue is to go trough this mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nuujinn. Maybe you missed my latest statement above. I am very willing to provide sources for any segments which may miss citations in your last editions to date. However, I do not want to reread everything on the various pages and subpages, for reasons of time and, indeed, saturation : could you please point to me the passages in the text which need citations, footnotes, etc ? I will provide them ASAP if I do have the sources at my disposal (however, this needs to be done this week, for next week I'll be on the move and unable to reach my personal library).
 * As for what I wish to do, that's very simple : erase the current article (not a word of it deserves to remain in existence) and replace it with my draft, which may not be perfect, but is a much better starting point.
 * However, I think replacing the article with a revised draft, done in common, would be much better. But I'd really like this to be done ASAP, so if you agree, just let me know and let's try to finish this bloody article. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one thing: some of the Swift´s edits were donne in the current text, and, at least I, support them because they deal with several things that were missing, and specially good because they are mostly non-controversial. Perhaps after some grammar corrections we could use them, whatever the decision ends up being... FkpCascais (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

JJG, the method of this mediation has been to try to edit your draft, done in common. There's a section just above, ready for editing. I'm willing to continue at whatever pace we can manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the section above, written by -Свифт ? Ok, I'll try to take a look at it this week-end. But, in the sections you have previously edited, do you have some sections that need references ? If so, please let me know and I'll try to provide them ASAP. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're ok on references in those sections, although there may be some page numbers missing. But yet, I think taking a crack at Свифт's contribution above would be a fine thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do best my to improve the english in the next few days. However, I won't be at my place until next week-end, so I won't have access to my personal library until then. After this, I'll be able to provide sources and citations if they are needed on other passages. However, I'd like to see the edited versions of my original draft so I can see if I want to change/add stuff and/or add sources. Could we possibly hope to end this mediation and finish an acceptable article before christmas ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of setting an end time, though I think that before Christmas may be overly ambitious unless several editors get on it right away. I took a look at the first paragraph, above, and realized that it needs a lot of work on grammar and syntax. I found it rather difficult to edit using colours due to the number of changes needed. Would a native English-speaker volunteer to copyedit (i.e., fixing grammar and syntax) whole paragraphs (just adding the edited paragraph below and then crossing out the draft paragraph)? I'm talking copyedit here rather than editing for content. The content edit should follow, according to our agreed on method. What do participants think? Sunray (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. I can get to some of the copy editing in the next few days. JJG, there's a link to the edited versions of your drafts up top, but I'd suggest we work from other sections first until we complete a first draft, and see how things go. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with your changes in the Section "After the World War II". Can you finish this section today?--Свифт (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Nuujinn. FkpCascais (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, many thanks Svift. You should have definitely been here from the begining. :) FkpCascais (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

}It looks like there is agreement on the above text. Nice work, team. N: Would you be able to add it to the completed draft version: and select the next section for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by sunray (talk • contribs)
 * Well, it's had a copy edit run, but I think it needs some additional work. In particular, I'd like to strike "The court was is not independent and free but having a political and biased as in all communist countries". We have no source for that statement, and it's very non-neutral. We also need some citations, and I think we need to take Direktor's concerns into account. Direketor, can you please be specific regarding factual errors you believe are in the text? --Nuujinn (talk)
 * Perhaps swifts version where he just says that the Srs of the court were communist party members is more easy to source. Maybe he knows. Anyway, then it is just a constatation, and that way we let the reader to judge weather the court was biased, or not. I defend some solution in that perspective. FkpCascais (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I earlier stated that it may be deleted part of which states that the court is not independent. But the part that states that the judge and prosecutor were communists and partisans should remain. Let readers bring their own conclusion.--Свифт (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

New section
My last several posts (from "please stop :)" to "all with the greatest authority and confidence") were in response to the currently latest post by Svift. Again please accept my apologies - iphone technical difficulties, I know it's annoying :(. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Svift, it is demonstrably true - ALL of it. Not only that, but being unaware of such basic facts effectively disqualifies one from a discussion on the Yugoslav liberation war. the fact that you do not know e.g. that King Peter II Karageorgevich appointed Tito the commander in chief of all Yugoslav forces on August 29 1944 etc., or that the Chetnik collaboration with the Germans became extensive indeed after the capitulation of italy, quite shocks me in light of your new assumed role as the mediation's expert on relevant military history. Please read just for a start the top-quality sources from the nearly literally copied "collaboration with the Germans" section of the Chetniks article.

The facts you question are not only accurate - they are far beyond any debate or discussion. I dare say, if you'll pardon, that whichever means you used to gain information on this obscure and complex war were seriously and deeply flawed and possibly quite biased indeed, esp. In light of your continuous use of political labels such as "the communists" and their plots and takeovers.. "-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice map but is not correct. Through it turns out that all Serbian peasants were partisans.  That in all the mountains in Serbia and Bosnia were partisans. Even the town of Valjevo put on the map that was controlled by the partisans. This map does not constitute proof of your claims by partisans liberated  80 percent Yugoslavia of the before arrival of the Red Army.--Свифт (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man. The map is, of course, not a source. It merely accurately depicts the situation as described by sources. It also does NOT depict the dispositions of the yugoslav peasantry in any way.
 * The map, however, is indeed very nice and corresponds entirely with the professional sources, none of which, it is now certain, you've ever used or read. You have thus far demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the relevant period which, insight of the confidence with which it was displayed, is just staggering. I assure you, and invite(ed) you to check, that everything i stated comes from published scholarly sources listing primary references. Your references are ridiculously biased local Serbian magazine articles. I would truly appreciate it if you took the time to read and explore non-yugoslav professional history, and return once you have equipped yourself for a discussion this deep into a period as complex as it is obscure. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the straw man? Is this a attack on my personality?--Свифт (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "If I only had a brain"? :P No, Svift. I was referring to a "straw man argument". :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is ambiguous!--Свифт (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We work in sections, and join in the section that the priorit "The court process".--Свифт (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is followed by a description of your straw man argument. If you feel you've been insulted, please feel free to report me. I was also here from the start and do not currently need descriptions and explanations regarding the rfm, thank you.
 * On a related note, I would also like to thank you for providing a link to the king's speech. It confirms the facts about tito's status prior to the arrival of the red army very nicely ("I call on all Yugoslavs to join Marshal Tito...", referring to the partisans as "our army" etc.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've already written the article. It reads: "When is the become an adult, King Peter II, 12 September 1944 under pressure from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill gave a speech over the radio in London, which is called the Chetniks to stand under the command of partisans, a rival resistance movement led by Josip Broz Tito".--Свифт (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Svift, I beg you please stop. :) Naturally neither Tito nor the allied powers themselves could have won the war without the massive red army, that is not the point. The point is that you are completely unaware of the course of the war in late 1943 and 1944/45, and are continuously proving it. I really cannot explain the complex situation here, but I shall try to be brief.

The situation on arrival of the soviet red army in late 1944: the partisans control some 70-80% of the country outside the major towns and road/rail links. For more than a year, partisans have been the only recipient of huge amounts of western allied assistance. The partisan hq on vis holds a small partisan airforce of British planes and Winston churchill's own son Randolph Churchill. Since late 1943 the partisans were recognized as allied troops, in mid 1944 the king had appointed Tito the Yugoslav prime minister and commander of all armed forces, ordering all Yugoslavs to join and cooperate with the partisans - an order Mihailovic disobeyed. He himself and the Chetniks were reduced by late 1943 to a small militia force entirely dependent on axis aid and supply. The only territory they hold is a small area in eastern Serbia where the Germans are organizing them in merged corps with medic troops to be used as cannon fodder against the soviets. The soviet union, an ally of Yugoslavia, is being granted access on Yugoslav territory by the king's prime minister - Tito. The only military action they will play a part in will be the Belgrade Offensive Operation, which they will undertake jointly with the Yugoslav army - the partisans. the Chetniks, for months now renegades renounced by the king and particularly the western allies, actively fighting against allied forces, now flee south...

These are the facts. While you are right that Yugoslavia did not win WWII by itself :), you fail to realize that the role of the red army in a partisan victory over the long-beaten chetniks is non-existent. You do not understand that Yugoslav territory was already virtually under partisan control by the time the Red army arrived. As early as 1943 Churchill told Maclean in Cairo that the partisans would form the post-war government regardless of what they did. Aside from red army assistance in the liberation of Belgrade, the partisans had already won for their part, or in other words "Yugoslavia largely liberated itself". Which is why Tito was the only eastern European leader to successfully break with Stalin, etc. Most importantly: BY THE TIME THE SOVIETS ARRIVED HE WAS ALREADY THE PRIME MINISTER RECOGNIZED BY THE KING, and you're saying he was placed in power by the red army and the soviets helped him take-over when they arrived months later??? He undertook a soviet-sponsored coup against himself apparently... :P

There was NO hostile soviet takeover in yugoslavia. The sheer amount of uninformed nonsense being unloaded here is staggering - and all with the greatest authority and confidence :D -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The situation on arrival of the soviet red army in late 1944: the partisans control some 70-80% of the country outside the major towns and road/rail links.

This is not true! According to you they are more liberated all of Yugoslavia in 1944. What cities are partisans freed before the arrival of the Red Army? This is proof that you do not know the basic history.

Since late 1943 the partisans were recognized as allied troops, in mid 1944 the king had appointed Tito the Yugoslav prime minister and commander of all armed forces, ordering all Yugoslavs to join and cooperate with the partisans - an order Mihailovic disobeyed.

This is not true! King Peter II was never set a Tita for prime minister and military commander. Partisans were not recognized by the Allies, but their assistance was conditioned by Stalin at a conference in Tehran in the autumn of 1943. King's speech of 12 September 1944. ''

He himself and the Chetniks were reduced by late 1943 to a small militia force entirely dependent on axis aid and supply. The only territory they hold is a small area in eastern Serbia where the Germans are organizing them in merged corps with medic troops to be used as cannon fodder against the soviets. The soviet union, an ally of Yugoslavia, is being granted access on Yugoslav territory by the king's prime minister - Tito.''

This is not true! Chetniks were never collaborated with the Germans. At the time is rescued American pilots throughout the 1944th. The Chetniks in Serbia was  provided military assistance to the Red Army, especially in the battle for Cacak, Kraljevo and Krusevac. Tito never was a king's prime minister.--Свифт (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only is the proposed text by swift merely factually wrong, it displays a serious lack of understanding of the subject matter, ie the war. There are a large number of blatant factual inaccuracies which go beyond dispute even here. The fact that it could possibly be considered let alone "agreed upon" is quite descriptive of the incredible lack of knowledge of the most basic historical context that permeates this page, all the more unbelievable in light of the huge duration of this rfm. Editors are compromising the source-based NPOV for the sake of countering an ABSURD perceived communist pov - creating a subjective "middle-ground" which is completely removed from, not just the sources, but even the most basic historical facts, so much so it is turning comical to anyone with any deeper knowledge of the course of the war. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the course of this mediation, which is being hijacked by serbian nationalism and folk-hero worship, i shall certainly include in the article a collaboration section in which I will present the thoroughly high-quality sourced information on draza mihailovic's relations with the kingdom of yugoslavia's enemies. I will not object to the section's material being distributed in the article (rather than concentrated) but I shall certainly not suffer any of the sourced information to be removed under any circumstances.-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I shall return around Christmas. Suffices to say I am thoroughly appalled and do advise everyone to take a break and read-up on this damned war, cuz this is getting silly. I am now thoroughly convinced that Svift, alongside JJG who also posted his share of indisputably absurd statements regarding this period, has not been educated on the subject matter in any way. (please feel free to copy-paste my posts to the bottom, I would if I could and shall when I can) --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will further add, as an example of the errors displayed here, that Mihailovic e.g. was NOT "the western allies' choice" in any way except for the first year and a half of the war. The main backer of Mihailovic's enemies the partisans was not the ussr - but Winston Churchill(!). The partisans received far greater amounts of aid and supplies from the Western Allies - the Red Army only reached yugoslavia six months before the end of the war - and by that time the Chetniks were long-neutralized by the partisans, while the vast majority of yugoslavia's territory was in partisan hands, with only the cities and rail links protected by the Germans with united Mihailovic/nedic support in eastern serbia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * General Mihailovic has lost support from its allies in June 1944, when a dismissed the government in which he was minister. In the previous section I mentioned, but I'll do it again. Mihailovic was a minister and member of the Yugoslav government in exile in London. This government was had legitimacy. She was acknowledged of all the allies and even the Soviet Union. Mihailovic was a minister from January 1942 to June 1944. In this period he was legitimate and recognized as an ally. During the entire war in his Headquarters were the Allied mission. The first mission was came in October 1941. Last Allied Mission was left the Headquarters in February 1945. Tito not was won in the war but the Red Army occupied Serbia in October 1944 which determined the fate of postwar Yugoslavia and bringing Tito to power. On the eve of the invasion the Red Army in the summer of 1944 Mihailovic was dismissed from his position as Minister. Then was began the negotiations between the new Prime Minister Ivan Subasic and Tito. These negotiations was began under the most pressure from allies of Great Britain and the USSR. These negotiations have given permit to the Red Army entered in Yugoslavia in October 1944. Previous Yugoslav government of Prime Minister Bozidar Purić whose minister army was Mihailovic was not for solution that the Red Army occupy Yugoslavia. That is why this government is replaced. They were the Western allies to occupy Yugoslavia. Also, your are acknowledge the fact that he had the support of allies, but only a year and a half.  During this time the partisans did not have the support of allies. So that they were, of  your the versions  the partisan was illegal organization in this time. In the second phase of the war they received the support of allies when they already knew for the outcome of the war.--Свифт (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The only possibility of the Communist Party with Tito at the helm during the war to come to power and carry out a revolution and victory in war is a invasion of the Red Army . Are the Partisan they able to achieve otherwise? Red Army at the end of September 1944. entered into Yugoslavia, on the Soviet sources about  450,000  troops and  in less than a month came to the River Drina and Šid. Bulgarian army, which was over the night of fascist occupying army became the Allied and Soviet "occupied" is Macedonia, a territory where they were throughout the war, but that is another issue. Tito was before the invasion in the Headquarters of the Red Army at Timisoara, and before that was in Moscow with Stalin, so the story that  led the Russians to power in Belgrade is correct. When the Red Army captured Belgrade and Tito established the government post-war fate Yugoslav was sealed. Without the help of the Red Army and the Bulgarians in Srem front was would not be broken and that happened only April 1945. too late. What date is liberated  Zagreb? In the picture you can see a map of Europe and the territories that the Germans were held after 1 May 1945. According to this you can conclude only one thing and that is that the Germans were not defeated on other fronts, the question is whether they would be forced out of Yugoslavia.  The myth that we have freed ourselves created only after the conflict with the USSR, 1948th--Свифт (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This thread begins with Direktor saying: "Svift please stop..." It then proceeds with an argument between Direktor and Свифт. It is not clear to me what Direktor is initially reacting to. Please clarify. Sunray (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion does not relate to the work that is ongoing at the moment. As such, it seems to represent part of the problem of this mediation: participants who push their points of view with minimal reference to reliable sources. The reason we have chosen to work on actual text examples is to minimize this sort of thing. By working through examples we ensure that participants are referring to sources and avoiding opinion. Sunray (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet role
This has to be cleared up. I invite everyone to have a look, in spite of the length of the post :). I tried to keep it as brief as I could.

The point I'm making is: the Partisans were not installed by the Soviet Union. I am once again forced to call attention to the consequences of the Tehran Conference (November 28 - December 1 1943) and the Treaty of Vis (June 17 1944). Nota bene, the Red Army only arrived in Yugoslavia in late September 1944. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Soviet Union negotiated with Tito (the PM) for rights to enter Yugoslavia in September 1944, with Tito only agreeing due to the need for Soviet heavy weaponry and experienced urban warfare troops for the Belgrade Offensive (the liberation of Belgrade), which would've been a prolonged and bloody siege without Red Army assistance. Red Army operations within Yugoslavia were limited to assistance in the retaking of Belgrade, which they jointly entered with the Partisans on October 20 1944. By November 24, Soviet Troops were leaving Yugoslavia and moving through Hungary towards Austria.
 * The Tehran Conference (November 28 - December 1 1943) recognized Tito as a legitimate Yugoslav head-of-government alongside Božidar Purić of the government-in-exile in London, with the intention to unite the two governments as soon as possible. Tito was recognized as the legal authority for matters within occupied Yugoslavia itself. The Partisans themselves were recognized as an Allied resistance force. Noting that they were doing the vast majority of the fighting against the Axis (notably due to the large battles of the Neretva and Sutjeska), it was decided to shift official support from the Chetniks to the Partisans. Most importantly, in the aftermath, Winston Churchill instructed King Peter II to select a more Partisan-friendly prime minister whom Tito might agree to treat with, in order to facilitate the merge of the two recognized governments. Hence out went the pro-Chetnik government of Božidar Purić (Serb), and in goes Ivan Šubašić of the Croatian Peasant Party (with Draža Mihailović of course being dismissed from the government).
 * The Treaty of Vis (or the "Tito-Šubašić Agreement", June 17 1944) between the two PMs, Tito of the AVNOJ and Šubašić of the government-in-exile, finally brought an understanding between the King and his government and Tito, with Tito receiving the full support of the King. Details about the merge of the two governments were discussed, and it was also agreed that the prime minister of the joint government, once established, would be Tito. Additionally, Tito required that the King make public his renouncement of the Chetniks, which he did indirectly in his speech, as I will point out later. Finally, the Partisans were recognized as the sole legal military of Yugoslavia.

It should therefore be noted that: 1) the Partisans were, when supplied at all, chiefly supplied by the British - not the Soviets. British assistance was both larger and more critical in time and scope. 2) By the time the Soviets arrived in late September 1944, Tito was the universally recognized prime minister of Yugoslavia (alongside Šubašić), with the full support of all the Allied powers and even the King himself, and was to hold the post of the prime minister when the two governments united. The Partisans were also, for months, the only legal military of Yugoslavia. The King himself called on all Yugoslavs to join the Partisan military ("Our army") - prior to the arrival of the Reds. 3) By September 1944 the Chetniks were already defeated. They were entirely marginalized in both the political/diplomatic sense and the military sense. Mihailović was dismissed from the government, the Partisans were the Yugoslav army supported by the King, and the Chetnik military forces (never actually superior to the Partisans) had been thoroughly defeated for almost a year (after the battles of the Neretva and Sutjeska). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally you have accepted the fact that are the Chetniks Allies.--Свифт (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? De iure, yes. De facto - no. And that is all I've been saying from the start. I've "accepted" nothing with the above post. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the fall of the 1943rd at a conference in Tehran Allies a acknowledged partisans but did not stop supporting the Chetniks. Churchill and Roosevelt at the conference did so at the request of Stalin. Red Army at the time a carried the main of the fight against the Germans. On the Eastern Front was decided the war. After the battle of Kursk the Germans began to retreat. In Tehran it was agreed that the Red Army advance to Berlin. This meant that Eastern Europe to Stalin becomes the booty of war . Yugoslavia also was came under that threat. President of the Yugoslav government in exile, Bozidar Puric, whose military Minister Mihailovic, is opposed to such intentions. The Polish government headed by General Sikorski is also opposed such a decision. Therefore was the Yugoslav government replaced in June 1944. A president of the Polish government Władysław Sikorski mysteriously died in a plane crash on 4 July 1944.


 * On the Battle of Neretva partisans were not fighting the Germans in the spring of 1943. They then reached a truce. Operation Schwarz is a German offensive against the Chetniks and partisans in May and June 1943. You say that a the Chetniks defeated in September 1944. Who a fought against the Ustasha April 1945 on Lijevče field? Who a fought against partisans on Zelengora 13 May 1945? In this battle that killed about 10,000 troops. This is the last major battle in Europe in World War II with so many casualties.--Свифт (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your first point is partially correct. They did continue to supply (not "support") the Chetniks after Tehran, secretly and in much lesser measure which only decreased in time. The significance of this is lost on me however. They were publicly renounced (very necessary, since the goal was to reach an agreement with Tito).

In the end, as we all know, the Partisans broke through the Axis encirclement in quite an impressive way, suffered heavy casualties at the hands of the 7th SS and the 389th, advanced into southern Serbia and Montenegro in turn surrounding and destroying three Chetnik corps and the main staging areas of the movement. The Chetniks never fully recovered afterwards.
 * Purić was replaced by Šubašić in June 1944 because he opposed the Allied decisions in Tehran. In Tehran it was decided that the NKOJ and the government-in-exile are both legal and that they would be merged as soon as possible. Purić was also removed because Tito refused outright to have anything to do with him. This is well known. (Most of the remainder of your first paragraph is completely meaningless with regard to the subject at hand.)
 * The second paragraph is just nonsense. Very demonstrative of the serious lack of even the most basic indisputable information on the course of the war. The Partisans suffered some 8,000 casualties at the Battle of Neretva ("truce"??!). The following is not even remotely debatable:
 * The Partisans are alleged to have attempted to reach an agreement with the Germans once they were surrounded, but nothing came of it. The event, if factual, is a minor affair with no consequences on the further course of the war. It is also a very well documented fact that the Axis forces at the Neretva included some 20,000 Chetniks guarding the eastern bank of the Neretva under Italian command.
 * The Battle of the Sutjeska was NOT directed against the Chetniks. Nothing more to say there.
 * This is generally a good example of why I ask you to please stop. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope we can agree that was the turning point in June 1944 for Mihailović--Свифт (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is not at all necessary that we "agree" on my above post. Those are just the very basic unquestionable facts, they are not in dispute and are generally beyond dispute.


 * Secondly: the turning point of the war is also well known to have occurred after the Partisan strategic successes in the battles of the Sutjeska and Neretva, and the subsequent simultaneous Tehran Conference/2nd Session of the AVNOJ - second half of 1943. During those events, the Chetniks movement which fought on the Axis side during Neretva, was thoroughly eliminated as a strategically significant fighting force. This is exactly why they were marginalized by Churchill and Stalin at Tehran. Not so significant but still influential was the revelation by the ULTRA intercepts that Chetnik units were of serious use to the Axis (e.g. 20,000 Chetniks guarding the eastern bank of the Neretva during Fall Weiss in coordination with the Germans and Italians and within the command structure of the Italian army).


 * As if the above was not enough, suggesting June 1944 as some kind of "turning point" also makes no sense whatsoever. The reason why in June 1944 the King and Churchill disbanded the pro-Chetnik government was that the turning point had already occured just under a year ago. In fact, it was already been decided for months that that had to be done. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This theory a very well known, that was the official history of Communist Yugoslavia. But unfortunately it is not correct. I have already given an explanation why the partisans get support and supply of the Allies. So I do not want to repeat myself, but I will mention one name that you are persistently avoided and that  Stalin. British supply partisans from the island of Vis was minimal and was not crucial in the war. I will give you an example it is Drvar Landing that occurred during the British supply partisans. The partisans even then were very weak in order to provide strong resistance to the Germans. The turning point for them was the arrival of the Red Army and its supply. Yugoslavia in October 1944. become part of the Eastern Front.   . From then until the end of war in May 1945, Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Front.
 * The Yugoslav government fell in June 1944 and it is a historical turning point. Prime Minister Bozidar Purića led its policy, which is that he did not want the Red Army in Yugoslavia, but the Western allies . The government dismissed on 1 June 1944, then fell and Mihailovic. This was the official end of Mihailovich. You can not say that this has happened before, because they fell in June. I said to you why the government dismissed. Before that was a political struggle. Government policy had suffered defeat. Thus a everywhere in the world and even today.  When a government is replaced by other, then a changes and government policies. The new prime minister Ivan Subasic did not oppose the entry of the Red Army in Yugoslavia, even reached an agreement with Tito. Do you now understand the difference in the politics of these two governments ? It is so normal that there are two different policies.


 * Also, I notice that you make mistakes on some battles in 1943. Operation Weiss took place January and February 1943 in western Bosnia in the Independent State of Croatia. The Battle of Neretva occurred in March and April 1943 in east Herzegovina in the Italian occupation zone. Struggles were fought between the partisans and the Chetniks, and most of them for the city Nevesinje which is 6 times passed from one hand to the other. The Germans were not allowed to commit their forces in the Italian zone without the approval of Rome. The Germans did not participate in these fights. During these struggles between the partisans and the Germans prevailed truce.  Operation Schwarz occurred in May and June 1943 and was planned against the Chetniks.  Then there was the actual invasion of the Western allies on the Adriatic coast.  The Germans defeated the Chetniks and then focused on Partisans.  Partisans are not expected German attack because they believed on the truce. Then occurred the battle of Sutjeska in which the partisans had great sacrifices because they were  Germans deceived and close the ring.--Свифт (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What can I do? I refuse to teach you history here, historians have written books about this stuff - and I invite you to read them. The fact that you consider the above questionable or a "communist conspiracy" clearly shows you have not the slightest inkling on the actual course of the war. If you doubt any of the above, please, I invite you again - see the sources. However if I hear accusations of "communist history" once more I shall discontinue any further communication with you (fruitless as it is) and report you immediately. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what this ridiculous mediation is all about. One faces deep-set Serbian nationalist preconceptions about their folk-heroes - the Chetniks, which automatically dismiss facts, even the most demonstrable and indisputable, as "communist history". This is why I'm so annoyed with this whole thing - on the one hand we have actual, printed, professional sources, and on the other apologetic nationalist hero-worship. This is why I'm so annoyed: I actually studied this damn war - I KNOW all the facts, and yet because of "folk-heroism", and because other uninformed users do not personally find the facts "neutral", an open-and-shut business turned into a year-long grind.

I have other interests on Wikipedia, and I have the hospital: if I were to continue writing memoirs here in vain attempts to educate biased users I would get nothing done anywhere else. I will review the article when you fellas are done, but please, keep in mind that User:Свифт's posts have absolutely nothing to do with World War II, and that, though a nice guy I'm sure, he unfortunately got his info from very low-quality, strongly pro-nationalist Serbian "sources". Take everything he says, not cum grano salis, but cum sale sacco. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you were offended for my first sentence accept my apology. For all that I cite allegations of scientific books and original documents. Also, I think your statement "is just nonsense" is not correct. Happy you New Year and will I return, after 7 January -) --Свифт (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Swift. Happy new year to all! FkpCascais (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Independent judiciary?
There seems to be a discussion about the effectiveness of the Yugoslav judiciary. I'd just like to point out that Mihailović was free to pick his own defence attorneys. One of his attorneys, Dragić Joksimović, was a former Democratic representative in the National Assembly. However, it appears Tito made some very disparaging comments about him over the course of the trial - not an especially heartening sign for the existence of an independent judiciary. Joksimović was later imprisonned himself and died in jail. This info needs to be in any rewrite of the article. If you can't find references to verify the above, you are simply not looking hard enough.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I want to thank you for your proposal to the section specified Mihailović Lawyer. You wrote an article on Dragić Joksimovic once again blurb. I accept your proposal. I think you should first complete nuujin changes in this section. I have already agreed that the part that mentions an "not independent judiciary" should be deleted. After that you should give their opinions. My opinion is that in this section should be only included basic information. Only in this way we write the objective and neutral section. And that means:

--Свифт (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The duration of the trial
 * The names of participants
 * Part of the closing argument
 * Part of the indictment
 * Information on the execution and grave.


 * The procedure and independence of the judiciary may be debatable, but the fact is we now know from historiography he was certainly guilty of what he was in the end convicted, by both Kingdom of Yugoslavia and FPR Yugoslavia's laws. His personal involvement with the Nedić regime, e.g., condemns him especially. And even if he personally forbade the collaboration, and had nothing to do with the Axis (mind you, a purely hypothetical scenario in contradiction with the facts), a commander with tens of thousands of troops under his command actually fighting within the enemy command structure during wartime (the MVAC, for example) also legally warrants the death penalty. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The trial process requires special analysis. Evidence that the prosecutor Milos Minic gave on the trial process require separate analysis. Whether  the accused applied humane treatment also requires a separate analysis. Since this is a very complex issue I therefore proposed to be listed here only the basic information.  Criminal Code of the new Yugoslavia was passed only next in 1947. What is the law then in use? In this process have been convicted two former Prime Minister Slobodan Jovanovic and Bozidar  Puric. They spent the entire war in London. Ivan Subasic returned to the new Yugoslavia, where he lived as a free citizen until his death. He was the premier the government, if you remember,  wich a approved the entry of the Red Army in Yugoslavia.  But during the entire war was a minister in previous governments in London.--Свифт (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

{talkarchive}}