Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:21, 31 December 2007

There's a lot of stuff about the Partisans to be gleaned from Ustase#History and Chetniks#World War II. Someone just needs to go through those histories/timelines and extract the facts relevant for this article. --Joy 10:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This artical have many false fact and it must be changed. Even first sentence was wrong.You should say Partisans were comunist leading guerilla during II world war.(If you said Chetnicks are serbian nazionalist guerilla in Chetnick article) They made rebelion after Nazi's attacked Soviet Union in July 1941.Until then they sitted to their homes.Serbian Chetnicks made first rebelion at Ravna Gora at 13.May 1941.You didnt wrote that they negotiate with Nazi's abaout join attack on British forces if they land in Yugoslavia in Zagreb 1943.You didn't write that they ofen attack Chetnicks together with Ustashi (like in eastern Bosnia).And finaly you should write how western allies hellped them (a lot of hevy weapons) to defeat Chetnicks in Civil War and to established so called Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under comunist rule.You didnt write anything about their war crimes against people in Belgrade after they conquered it. So this artical is pure comunist anti-serb propaganda.

Extremely biased

In the communist takeovers that followed the liberation of Yugoslavia, tens of thousands of people were massacred. This was justified by the myth of a partisan resistance against the occupying Axis forces. In reality, partisans offered little effective resistance, and survived by stealing food and supplies from local farmers, who, in turn organized local "home guard" patrols to deter these raids. In the years that followed the war, the new regime engaged in a propaganda campaign to discredit the anti-communists as fascist colloborators.

The article, as it stands right now, seriously downplays the extent of atrocities, and propagates the myth of a brave resistance against the occupying forces. I'm currently gathering sources about the mass-murders that took place, but in the meantime I've added the POV tag to bring the bias to the attention of[REDACTED] readers. --Jonovision 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonovision, the post-war atrocities, commited by Communist Party, are a fact that certainly deserves the chapter dedicated to it in the article. - But to say that "In reality, partisans offered little effective resistance, and survived by stealing food and supplies from local farmers, who, in turn organized local "home guard" patrols to deter these raids." is indeed eytremely biased. It's sounds like you are saying that ordinary Yugoslavians practially welcomed the Nazi-Fascist occupation (killing hundreds of innocent civilias on daily basis, sending them to concentration camps etc.), and even formed the home-guards to protect themselves from liberation. If this is what your revision of historical facts is aiming at - why don't you simply call the Partisans by the name the Nazis and their lackeys used - DIE BANDITEN? Home-guards pledged an explicit allegiance to Hitler, were supported by, organized by and supplied with weapons by the Nazi ocupying force, they paraded the streets side by side with the German army - and were, generally, not recognized by the local population as "protectors" of any sort - and they most certainly were NOT organized by local farmers, though it is true, that most of the people that joined the home-guards did come from a farming backgrounds. - 193.77.250.157 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right that I am biased to some extent. I realize now that I probably came across as sounding like I want to rewrite the whole article from my point of view, which isn't the case. There's already a lot of good information in there. However, I do strongly believe that the other side of the story needs to get more attention than it currently does.

Moreover, I haven't seen any strong evidence that the partisans recieved the wide support that this article claims they did. Yugoslavian nations hadn't been independant in hundreds of years before the second world war, and I imagine the populations had grown accustomed to being part of a larger empire. Is a man a collobrator if he doesn't show his hatred of the Nazis publicly? What if he refuses to fight an absolutely futile war of resistance against a superior power? Can he not wait patiently like his ancestors did?

It seems pretty clear to me that the partisans labeled anyone who opposed communism as a collaborator. According to this article (link), the partisan leadership was already deeply committed to communism before the war ended; they put a death sentence on any fighters who did not support the same ideology.

My point here is that I don't see a big difference between the partisans during the war, and the communists afterwards. The writers of the article, make them out to basically good people who were fighting to free their homeland. Do the facts support that view, or are the writers still living in the haze of the propganda put out by communist governments which are still very influential in former Yugoslavia?

--Jonovision 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment on the "home guard" Domobrans...aren't YOU the one gleefully ignoring that these supposedly peaceful defenders of their homes just so happened to be under the command of a SS General and on Hitler's birthday, April 20, 1944, pledged allegiance to the Führer?

---

Jonovision, I guess you really do need to "gather some more information", as you put it. Try Misplaced Pages (it is a very nice online, 💕), and type "serbia" or "history of serbia" or "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" - so you will never have to write such bizzare comments as "Yugoslavian nations hadn't been independent in hundreds of years before the second world war".

Moreover - even if what you say would be true, I can see no reason why this would make any difference. For instance, when Americans fought a revolutionary war against the British monarchy, they certainly "hadn't been independent in hundreds of wears before" that - and so what? Why would this be of any significance? --(195.210.247.154 10:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

ORGANISED KILLINGS

First of all, I would like to say that it is inevitable that soldiers, especially guerillas in the troubled Yugoslavia region, comit atrocities, as they are relatively badly disciplined and their command structure is quite shaky. However, let us not forget that the Partisan movement in Yugoslavia was the only movement that didn't comitt large scale ORGANISED eradication of the populations of any ethnic group(which is logical since they drew their strength from all the 6 nations in the country) attempted to establish a country where these peoples would live in their own relatively independent countries united in the Yugoslavian Federation. This is something that the nationalist chetnics were bitterly opposed to since they were ultimatly interested only in the formation of a larger Serbian state within the boundaries of Yugoslavia (the so called "Greater Serbia"). They did, in fact, organise the slaughtering of innocent civilians just because they happened to be Catholic or Muslims, and, far from the alleged partisan negotiations with the Axis authorities, actually participated in battles on the side of the occupating German and even the ultra-natoionalist Croatian ustasha forces (to which they were supposed to be bitterly opposed) to eradicate the hard-pressed Partisans. In fact the partisans were, as it is well known, the only force that actually dared to oppose the Germans and their collaborators. At the end of the war, it is understandable that the victorious Partisans wished to annihilate the germans and their colaborators. This is criminal activity though (since the war did end), and it can not be justified. But weighed against the crimes of the other movements (usually fueled by ethnic hatred) these crimes are allmost insignificant and can perhaps even be forgiven. DIREKTOR

These crimes that happened after the war CAN NOT be forgiven, as thousands of young men who were forced to join the Home Guard and thus join the Hitler's army were brutally killed after the war was over. Keep in mind that the young men had no choice, they could either join the communist movement that was already killing innocent people and robbing villages or the side that would fight against them which was the Home Guard that pleged alliance to Hitler. Most of the men in the army did not want to fight with Hitler, but they didn't have any choice. However because this movement was under Hitler control they also did some unforgivable crimes to the other side. But after the end of the war, these men who were looking forward to come back home, were captured, shot and thrown into mass graves by the communists. And if one is to really look through all the horrific things that the communists did, one will discover they were no worse than Hitler.--lenko 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To say something like that says much about your lack of understanding for the historic context. You don't seem to understand how difficult it is to seperate the criminals from their lackeys or how absolutely unthinkable it was for the (in the aerea mostly serbian) partisans to let these people, who have been fighting for 4 years against the People's Liberation Army, just go free. Besides, most units of the'domobran'conscripted NDH army have indeed been allowed to do just that. It escapes you that the majority of these executed soldiers most probably WERE indeed traitors and collaborators with the occupying axis forces(mostly Ustasha)since they decided to leave their own land (and property) rather than attempt to surrender to the victorious forces. It is allso very important to bear in mind that the Partisans never engaged in organised mass killing and ethnic cleansing wich is sadly a rarity among the factions of the time, they did kill, but only out of necessity and for good reason, while the other factions killed because of their own warped ideas of racial purity or just pure ethnic hatred. Finally you are forgetting, Lenko, that the Chetniks and the Ustashe killed INCOMPERABLY FAR MORE CIVILIANS and that the Partisans at least concentrated on killing the enemy SOLDIERS. Besides, the war was over for just a few days and the ustashe were still fighting. Try telling the enraged ,war-torn army that they can't kill the genocidal traitors because of a judicial formality. DIREKTOR

POV tag reversion

216.232.14.145, is there a reason you're removing the POV tag? Just to restate my reason for putting it in there in the first place, I feel that the article is in need of some work to make it more balanced. Before making changes, I would like to gather some more information, rather than make unsourced, possibly controversial edits. I think it is fair to keep the POV tag to highlight the difference of opinion for the time being. --Jonovision 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonovision, I think you just answered you own question - you have no evidence for your opinions. Usually a person who is not biased would do research and then form his opinions based on the results of the research. You, on the other hand, already have an opinion even though you admit that you lack evidence for it.

In addition, you have not specified what exactly is disputed so that we can start debating and revising the article. So to try to make things clearer I will ask a few questions. 1. Are you disputing that Partisans resisted Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia? 2. Are you disputing the extent of their resistance? 3. Are you disputing the extent and number of their atrocities? The atrocities are mentioned in the article so are the some that are missing according to you.

To summarize – in the future when placing a POV tag please do the research on the subject and please be more specific about what is disputed.

Titles and organization

Some of the pages related to Yugoslav partisans have wrong titles - there's a confusion of "people" and "nation" which are called the same in BCMSxyz, but not in other ex-Yugoslav languages. We also seem to lack a clear plan on what we want to put on which page. Since this seems to be the most used and linked partisan-related page, we might as well start the planning here. Here's a general outline, following the usual naming in Yugoslav history, and using "national" where "narodni" is used in Slovenian:

National Liberation Struggle

(NOB) Should be the general history article about the Tito-led resistance in WWII Yugoslavia, including military but mainly concentration on the political aspects, like the government of liberated territories, people's councils, AVNOJ and regional anti-fascist councils, internal politics of the movement as well as relations with other pre-war parties, etc.

National Liberation War

(NOR) Should be the article about military operations, with subarticles about the 1941 uprising, axis offensives, the internal Yugoslav conflict, liberation etc.

National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia

(NOViPOJ) Should be the article about partisans as a military organization with links to units, lists of ranks, etc.

Partisans (Yugoslavia)

Should redirect to one of the above, probably the NOViPOJ article.

Any thoughts? Zocky | picture popups 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A Civil War

213.191.138.54 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)When condeming Partisan crimes we must remember to put thing in a historic and demographic cotext of the time. It is beyond discussion wether or not crimes against humanity were commited by the partisans, however they are drowned in the sea of atrocities that occured during those 4 bloody years. It is redicculous to compare the crimes of the Partisan movement with those of Germany's collaborators and Chetniks. The Ustashas (Croatian ultra-nationalists) and the Chetniks (Serb royalist radicals, but allso Axis collaborators) performed ETHNIC CLEANSING, and were both NATIONALIST movements. Thus they were, de facto, opposed to the Yugoslav idea and strived to create Great Croatia and Great Serbia respectively. Both chose massacre as their favorite tool regardless of wether they had Germany's support(Ustasha) or not. Ustashas massacred countless civilians in a Hitler-style annihilation of Serbs and Jews, while the Chetniks attepted to purify large aereas of territory by murdering the Croatian inhabitants. The Partisans, however, did kill civilians during the war, but it was very rarely or never out of ethnic hatred but out of necessity, nor was there any organised ethnic cleansing organised by the partisans. If mureders did occur, it was mostly becouse villagers objected to having their chickens confiscated in the name of communism, or something like that. After the war most of the fleeing army heading for Bleiburg was indeed fleeing for a very good reason: most were probably collaborators and had good cause to fear the Partisans. But nevertheless the killig of these people was a horrible stain on the Partisans but it is perhaps understadable once we take into consideration that in the eyes of the victors (both Croatian and Serb Partisans), these were the people that massacred their friends and destroyed thier homeland they weren't just gonna let them go free eventually. We have to remember that war in Yugoslavia was extremely 'personal' and that it surpassed in severity a great many other battlefield, it took on a large number of characteristics of a CIVIL WAR(!) a reason perhaps for the victors to especially despise and detest their enemies as they considered them, in essence, traitors to their own country. And a reason perhaps for them to consider dealing with these enemies their own personal and private matter. dIRECTOR

Partisan movement collaboration issue

First of all, I would like to see some references (links) from your acclaimed historians (no more biased radical Serb sites, please) stateing that Partisans actively fought for the Axis at any time. I would like you also to know that the claims you support have been brought forth here before and were promptly rejected by Admins, because they are usually supported by fascists and/or revisionists supporting the criminalisation of the formation of the SFRY. However, if you have new sources, I will keep an open mind. I am from Croatia, but I am also no nationalist in any way whatsoever. DIREKTOR 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find the links you want. However,a German memorandum states that the German-Partisan conversation took place in Gornji Gornji Vakuf (west of Sarajevo) on March 11, 1943, from 9:30 to 11 A.M. It records that the Partisan delegation stressed that the Partisans saw no reason for fighting the German Army and they would fight the British should the latter land in Yugoslavia. This is the proof that the Partisans collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not men to sound arrogant, but have you considered the possiblity that it is difficult to find these links because this is not a widely accepted historical theory, but a mere allegation? I'm not saying it is impossible for the Partisans to have made attempts at ceasefire negotiations, I am saying this does not mean anything, since they obviously failed. It is certianly not enough to call them collaborators.
As for the Yugoslavia landing resistance, it is pointless to speculate thusly, even if they did make such an agreement (and that really requires irrefutable proof, since they were a recognised Allied movement by 1943), no fighting took place so they in effect did not collaborate with the Axis in any capacity (instead they drew off by far more German resources than any other resistance movement).
Let us concentrate on the fighting. Can you find a (reliable) source that states Partisans fought for the Axis in any way? DIREKTOR 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Germans refused the Partisan's proposal. But you do not have to be a genius to understand that proposal not to fight Germans but instead fight British is collaboration. As for the fact that the Partisans were a recognised Allied movement by 1943 have you considered the possiblity that British did not know about the Partisan's offer to fight against British? And anyway, I do not know any acclaimed historian who claims that the document I mentioned is a forgery BoDu 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Technically, that is a proposal for military collaboration, not collaboration.
2) Do you have accepted unbiased reliable (non-Axis/Chetnik) sources (like Britannica, or something) confirming the allegations that such a meeting took place, and if it did, did it have that exact tone?
3) Bear in mind that even if the latter is all true, it still does not prove that the Partisans actually intended to fight the British (even if they "promised" the Nazis they would), or that the emissary had the backing of the Partisan High Command.

Like I said, since there was no real alliance (actual fighting alongside one-another) between the Germans and the Partisans (like the one with the Chetniks), there is no real backing to the claim that the Partisan movement was a collaborator movement (that is why this is not generally accepted by historians). In other words, what the Partisans would or would not do is open to speculation and cannot be considered evidence of collaboration. DIREKTOR 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. You would also do good to remember that the son of Winston Churchill (Major Randolph Spencer-Churchill, MBE) was saved by the Partisans during the Raid on Drvar, and that the Partisans (also Allies) fighting the Western Allies would probably mean war between the USSR and the latter, a most unlikely turn of events in 1943. DIREKTOR 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

March negotiations (Martovski pregovori) between Germans and Partisans are more then well documented by communist historians although considered totally insignificant they are constantly dug up by Chetnik revisionist since nothing better can be found, some authors are making things up with such stupidity that even a child would laugh . At that time Partisans were hard pressed in narrow pocket around Nerteva river and another Axis assault would eliminate his force completely, but since both sides were exhausted by months of combat Tito grabbed opportunity to buy himself some time especially since he had large number of German and Italian POW including colonel Strecker - in the end nothing besides prisoner exchange (which were occurring constantly during entire war since alternatively both sides would simply execute them) come out of negotiations besides buying Tito few days of peace. Considering state of Partisans force I have no doubt Tito would have strike a deal with a Devil if he had showed up - maybe he did? :-) --Ivan Bajlo 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, Chetnik propaganda. Please refrain from ridiculous collaboration charges against the first, the strongest and most numerous resistance movement in occupied Europe. Only the Chetniks (of the resistance movements) collaborated extensively with the Axis. DIREKTOR 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do is not Chetnik propaganda. After all, you admited that the Partisans collaborated with the Axis in some capacity. There is difference between tactical collaboration and quisling collaboration. Tactical collaboration was adopted by some resistance movements in Europe including Partisans and Chetniks. Though, it should be noted that Chetniks never made proposal to fight British or any other Alled Powers except Yugoslav communists. The unbiased reliable source that does not doubt that such a meeting took place and had exact tone is historian Walter R. Roberts. BoDu 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this book was written during Cold war already bring its bias in question , I would have to read it first and I hope it isn't a junk like David Martin The Web of Disinformation which sounds like best Stalinist style witch hunt by twisting historical events to prove his theory. As for difference between tactical and quisling collaboration it sounds like being little pregnant - you either are pregnant or not. :-p

For alleged offer from Tito to fight British together with Germans we can hardly use German documents as unbiased sources, after failure of his agreement with major Dangic, Chetnik commander in eastern Bosnia, in part because of strong Ustasha regime opposition, general Paul Bader sent report to German Command that Ustasha Black Legion give munition to Tito's Proletarian brigade which at that time were made up almost exclusive of Serbs and Montenegrins!! So any German report should also be taken with grain of salt. Also Greek communist didn't offer Germans alliance but have openly fought British and other Greek forces (including former collaborators) in Athens while Chetnik commanders even collaborated with Ustashe regime so the fact that they never offered to fight Allies is hardly worth anything to help their image.

Yugoslav leadership wasn't ashamed of March negotiations as possible collaboration but because of the fact that while they thought they were buying breathing space from Germans, Germans pulled fast one on them by moving 70,000 troops into Italian zone and launching operation Schwarz which was complete surprise to Tito and his staff who thought that Germans would leave them alone while negotiations last. --Ivan Bajlo 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I qoute part of the text from your link:

"It is difficult to agree with the Yugoslav reviewers concerning Roberts alleged one-sidedness in presenting wartime events in Yugoslavia. On the contrary, his book is actually one of the rare works in this field in which the author really attempts to be an historian rather than a propagandist"

As for difference between tactical and quisling collaboration, German documents show that Nazis regarded Mihailović as enemy until the end of the war. It suggests that there are different forms of collaboration(not every collaboration is quisling collaboration). As for the German documents as unbiased sources,I can tell you that acclaimed historians take German documents as credible evidence when it comes to the role of the Partisan and Chetnik movements. Both Greek and Yugoslav communists used resistance movement as a way to establish communism in their countries. Greek communists were not lucky as the Yugoslav communists because British in second half of 1943 switched their support to the Partisans. If British continued to support the Chetniks for the rest of the war, it is likely that Yugoslav communists would have fought British too. Chetniks did not fight even Russians when latter entered Yugoslav soil in 1944. The fact that Yugoslav leadership did not speak about the March negotiations for 30 years, strongly suggests that they were ashamed. BoDu 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous! BoDu, they did not collaborate, they never fought together (we are talking about movements). You did not read a word I wrote! read this again and discuss with real arguments and by refuting other peoples' opposed statements (if you can):

"...there was no real alliance (actual fighting alongside one-another) between the Germans and the Partisans (like the one with the Chetniks), there is no real backing to the claim that the Partisan movement was a collaborator movement (that is why this is not generally accepted by historians). In other words, what the Partisans would or would not do is open to speculation and cannot be considered evidence of collaboration. DIREKTOR 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. You would also do good to remember that the son of Winston Churchill (Major Randolph Spencer-Churchill, MBE) was saved by the Partisans during the Raid on Drvar, and that the Partisans (also Allies) fighting the Western Allies would probably mean war between the USSR and the latter, a most unlikely turn of events in 1943. DIREKTOR 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)"

What I'm saying is that even if you had reliable sources (doubtful), this would still not prove nothing (for all we know Tito just wanted a ceasefire to save his wounded troops!, read up on the actual period), the Partisans probably would not have supported any German troops in any capacity, because of the danger of losing their powerful public support. Not to mention the facts that it was obvious they (Germany) would lose the war and that the Partisans were an accepted member of the Allies. Stop this. No offence, but it is becoming quite comical... DIREKTOR 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this disussion is becoming comical but you are making it such. Anyway, I wrote enough arguments for my claim but I do not find problematic to produce more arguments. Here it is:

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Lucien Karchmar's Draza Mihajlović and the Rise of the Četnik Movement, 1941–1942 is the best scholarly work in Serbia's Part in World War II. I quote part of the conclusion in this work:

"Certainly, Mihajlović did approach the Germans in November 1941 and offer cooperation against the Communists. He was in a desperate situation surrounded, attacked on both sides by foreign and domestic foes, and short of ammunition. In precisely the same situation, on March 11, 1943, during the battle of the Neretva, the Partisans did exactly the same thing: they sent emissaries to the Germans and offered cooperation against the Četniks. Like Mihajlović, they were rejected.

Certainly,Mihajlović's forces attacked the Partisans alongside Axis troops during German and Italian offensives. In April 1942, the East Bosnian Četniks under attack by the Ustaša Black Legion, were also assaulted by the Partisans. To the astonishment of the Germans, Communists and Ustaše ignored each other as they concentrated on liquidating the Četniks. If fighting alongside fascists makes for treason, where does that leave the First Proletarian Brigade?

Certainly, the nationalists negotiated truces with the enemy, which left the former the hills and villages, and the latter, the cities and the communication lines. In 1944, the Slovenian Partisans engaged in long negotiations with Germans to obtain just such an agreement. They were ultimately turned down. But the refusal was German, not Partisan. The conclusion is that it ill behooves the present masters of Jugoslavia to fling charges of treason at Mihajlović. What he tried or did, they also attempted, and for the same reason: expediency, and the desire to scotch the domestic enemy. The actual events prove only that the Partisans were less acceptable as partners to the Axis; not that they were morally purer. BoDu 20:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, read this carefully: the Partisans attacked the Chetniks because the Chetniks betrayed them first, the Chetniks recieved active support from ALL Axis forces (especially the Germans and Italians) except from the Ustaše, and they fraternised with them as well. They were proclaimed a collaborator movement by the Allied forces during the Casablanca conference.

The Partisans, on the other hand, were officially the first, the most powerful and the most militarily significant of all the resistance movements. The Chetniks are genocidal traitors who performed ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs. The Partsans recieved support exclusively from the Allies and never fought a single battle in active cooperation with their sworn enemies, the Ustaše.

Your sources are a book on the Chetnik movement and an unconfirmed report on some kind of (rejected) cooperation that might or may not have actually happened, had the Allies landed on Yugoslav soil. I repeat: it will take MUCH more than that to brand one of the most famous Allied forces as a "collaborator" movement.

Do you even realise how riddiculous your accusations sound? I mean, the Axis executed Partisan POWs without question (including the injured and sick). As for Britannica, I ask you this: where does that encyclopedia state that the Partsians are a collaborator movement? It merely accepts that Karchmar is the leading authority on the Chetniks (and possibly on the Nedichevci), NOT on the Partisans! DIREKTOR 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The leading authority on the Chetnik movement (Lucien Karchmar) is logically the leading authority on the batles that the Chetniks fought. One of these batles took place in April 1942 in East Bosnia. Karchmar claims that in this batle the Partisans fought alongside the Axis (Ustashas) against the Chetniks.

Encyclopædia Britannica does not claim that the Partisans NEVER collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica also does not claim that the Republic of Ragusa NEVER invaded the United Kingdom, does it? What an encyclopedia does not say is not important (obviously!), but that wich it actually does say. And Britannica does not support your claim anywhere.

I read some of Karchmar's work, he is an author famous for being biased towards the Chetniks. Also, he does not state that the Partisans fought in cooperation with the Axis, he merely says they attacked their pro-fascist enemies at approximately the same time as the Ustaše. The Chetniks had a collaboration agreement already at that time with Fascist Italy and had betrayed the Partisans some time before. It will take more than Karchmar, I'm afraid... DIREKTOR 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I wanted to say that Britannica does not support your claim anywhere. Not the opposite

2. I will strees again what I already said: Lucien Karchmar is according to Britannica the most reliable historian in this issue

3. Karchmar claims that in the batle the Partisans fought alongside the Axis against the Chetniks. It is collaboration

4. Karchmar's opinion is proof that it is not established fact that the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. Therefore, this article should not make such claim

End of the discussion. BoDu 10:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is comical, Britannica does not support either claim, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP MENTIONING IT?
• Karchmar is not a historian on the Partisans.
• If Partisans fought agains collaborators, how can that make them collaborators? (Or maybe you think the Chetniks were not a traitorous, opportunistic movement?)
• The article will absolutely NOT state that the Partisans Chetniks fought You will have to dig up more than one Chetnik-expert to prove that riddiculous claim.
  

I suggest we leave the article without both claims, but remember that Logical disussion functions this way: you have to first find proof of something before I have to find sources to counter your claim. Otherwise, how can you disprove my claim that there is an untouchable, invisible pink elephant standing two meters behind you?

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It is important to say that Britannica does not support your claim

2. As I said, Karchmar is the leading authority on the Chetnik movement so logically he is the leading authority on the batles that the Chetniks fought. In one of the batles that Chetniks fought, Karchmar states that the Partisans fought alongside the Axis

3. Fighting alongside the Axis is collaboration

4. You claimed that it is established fact that the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. I proved you wrong.

End of the discussion. BoDu 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Does your (famously pro-Chetnik) author clearly state that the Partisans attacked the Chetniks in active cooperation with the Ustaše, or only at (approximately) the same time?
2) If so, does he mention any historic sources (proof) of such a claim.

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. He does clearly state that there was active cooperation between the Partisans and the Ustashas

2. He mentions some Axis documents which record that there was active cooperation

End of the discussion. BoDu 11:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see these documents. Can you post a link? Also, another link to Karchmar's exact statement would be nice.

End of the discussion. DIREKTOR 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Karchmar states in his book that these documents are unpublished and are held in Washington National Arhives (T-501, Reel 247, 1030-4, 1067-60, 1120)

End of the discussion. BoDu 10:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that convenient, now. Well then I guess you don't have real evidence after all. Just unprovable claims. How do we know these alleged documents actually exist? DIREKTOR 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages's content policy it is enough if a editor just quotes a reliable source. So this article can state that this issue is controversial and than mention reliable sources such as Lucien Karchmar.

End of the discussion BoDu 12:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of what I've been saying is that this is not a reliable source on the collaboration matter. While he may be a respected authot on the Chetniks, in this exact instance, he makes claims he cannot prove. Thereby his claim is unreliable. Or do you believe that Misplaced Pages supports your views on the infailability of people? I want evidence, not unsupported claims. As far as I'm concerned, Josip Broz Tito himself could come out of his grave and claim Partisans collaborated with the Axis and I would still say: give me proof! DIREKTOR 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Karchmar's book is a a reliable source on the collaboration matter. I suggest we finally terminate this discussion. You can choose:

a) This article does not mention Partisan movement collaboration issue

b) This article claims that Partisan movement collaboration issue is controversial and quotes Karchmar's book + possibly other sources

For me, it is unaccetable that this article claims the Partisans never collaborated with the Axis. BoDu 11:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your respected personal oppinion, or that of Karchmar, does not concern me. Like I said, give me proof! Personal oppinions and unprovable claims are not proof by Misplaced Pages policy. DIREKTOR 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No need for me to repeat all over again my arguments. I ask you what is your decision? BoDu 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the overall lack of any real evidence aside from claims we are unable to confirm or deny, as a compromise I propose we do not confirm or deny Partisan collaboration. DIREKTOR 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian National Liberation Army merge

That unsourced stub shouldn't really exist and should be merged here, as it was part of this.

• Support--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The Macedonian National Liberation Army is an integral part of the Yugoslav Partisans, its as simple as that. There is really no need for seperate articles on each nations wartime organisations. DIREKTOR 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

There is a lot information on this page which have no references including the following which are extremely biased and little more then opinion:

The numbers of dead due to Italian, German and collaborationist organised killings, however, far outstrip even the most lavish estimates of the Partisan crimes' death toll.

Indeed, the Partisans didn't have an official genocidal agendas (unlike the Ustaše, the Italians and the Germans), as that would be fundamentally opposed to their cardinal ideal of "brotherhood and unity" (the phrase became the motto for the new Yugoslavia).

To put the extent of the actual genocide occurring in Yugoslavia during the War, it suffices to say the country suffered about one and a half million dead during the fascist occupation, civilian and military. Only a small fraction constitute civilians actually killed by the Partisans.

I suggest they be removed.