Winston Churchill on Draza Mihailovic
Zeljko Jericevic
as anti-fascist, abounded. Looks like it is a time to give some attention
to the words of Sir Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister during the
World War II.
Closing the Ring, p468
The British Ambassador to the Royal Yugoslav Government, Mr. Stevenson,
was equally convinced. He telegraphed to the Foreign Office on December 25
(1943):
Our policy must be based on three new factors:
The Partisans will be the rulers of Yugoslavia. They are of such value
to us militarily that we must back them to the full, subordinating political
considerations to military. It is extremely doubtful whether we can any longer
regard the Monarchy as a unifying element in Yugoslavia.
p469
Prime Minister to Foreign Secretary, 30 Dec. 43
... Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received showed
that he (Mihailovic) had been in active collaboration with the Germans.
p471
Churchill to Tito, January 8, 1944
... I am resolved that the British Government shall give no further
military support to Mihailovic and will only give help to you, and we should
be glad if the Royal Yugoslav Government would dismiss him from their councils.
(Mihailovic was dismissed on May 17, 1944. Churchill commented:)
We do not know what will happen in the Serbian part of Yugoslavia. Mihailovic
certainly holds a powerful position locally as Commander-in-Chief, and it
does not follow that his ceasing to be Minister of War will rob him of his
influence.
Triumph and Tragedy, p91
Prime Minister to Marshal Tito, 12. Aug. 44
The desire of His Majesty Government is to see a united Yugoslav Government,
in which all Yugoslavs resisting the enemy are represented, and a reconcilation
between the Serbian people and the National Liberation Movement.
Few comments:
Draza Mihailovic was obedient servant of Hitler and Mussolini, regardless the
fact that he may hated them because they dismantled the Serbian colonial
empire, so called Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This serving/hating relationship
was nothing new in Serbian history. They also hated the Turks, but served
them well anyway. The Nicopolis battle may be the good example of this.
Second, the Churchill's observation about "reconcilation between the Serbian
people and the National Liberation Movement" (Tito's Partisans) was based on
the fact that among the Partisans, Serbs were a minority until the very end of
the war.
I will let the readers to figure out why.
Zeljko Jericevic
Branko Jelicic
>Second, the Churchill's observation about "reconcilation between the Serbian
>people and the National Liberation Movement" (Tito's Partisans) was based on
>the fact that among the Partisans, Serbs were a minority until the very end of
>the war.
>I will let the readers to figure out why.
>
>Zeljko Jericevic
I haven't seen fudging like this for a long time. Serb were majority
among partisans, a big majority. Before Italy colapsed in 1943 partisans
were almost ethnicaly "pure". More then 90% Serbs. After 1943 people from
Dalmatia joined in, and that precentege dropped to somewhere around 80%.
More correctly 80%-85%.
And, one more thing. Both partisans and chetniks were Serbian armies.
When Serbian people in NDH realized what Cros. were preparing for them, they
took the guns and went into fight on their own. Soon some of this freedom
fighters joined partisans, some joined chetniks, depending who had better
organization in a given area.
In Dinara region, as well as in Mtg. Chetniks. In Kozara region and eastern
Bosnia parisans. etc.
End of story. Sapienti sat.
Branko D. Jelicic
Milan Stojanovic
I have recently posted few testimonies from the American
officers witnessing how Royalist forces "collaborated" with
Germans by destroying the garrison of 800 Germans in Visegrad.
To this Zelko Jericevic has to say:
>Lately, some creative writings about Draza Mihailovic, portraying him
>as anti-fascist, abounded.
To call these testimonies "creative writings" is rather brave.
Croatian Television banned showing movies that could offend
Germans by representing them as the occupiers in WWII.
However, this type of disrespect for Americans in WWII might
prove premature and backfire, so I hope for the sake of
honest Croats, that this is not the general attitude.
>Looks like it is a time to give some attention
>to the words of Sir Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister during the
>World War II.
I would ask you to read those testimonies again. They were
given the title by me "Ally Betrayed." Thus, you might actually
help me in what I am trying to prove. Every interpretation of the WWII
in Yugoslavia has to take into account these testimonies, and
this is applicable to your sources. Otherwise they are incomplete
and biased.
Now, let me go quote for quote. From American or English
sources.
>Closing the Ring, p468
>The British Ambassador to the Royal Yugoslav Government, Mr. Stevenson,
>was equally convinced. He telegraphed to the Foreign Office on December 25
>(1943):
>
>Our policy must be based on three new factors:
>The Partisans will be the rulers of Yugoslavia. They are of such value
>to us militarily that we must back them to the full, subordinating political
>considerations to military. It is extremely doubtful whether we can any longer
>regard the Monarchy as a unifying element in Yugoslavia.
>
"...But after the Teheran Conference of the Big Three,
Mihailovic's star began to wane....On Premier Stalin's
advice, Winston Churchill decided to change the leadership
of Yugoslavia and accepted the service of the little known
Partisan commander Tito....
From that time, Mihailovic and his 70,000 or 80,000
Chetniks were described as collaborationists and "traitors."
The trickle of supplies ended. His purchase of war materials
from the corrupt Italian generals was described as proof of
his collaboration, although it was the British High Command
which provided the Chetnik leader with the necessary dollar
and pound sterling currency which Mussolini's favourites demanded."
from "This Changing World"
by Constantine Brown, "The Evening Star," March 26th, 1946
"...Churchill is one of the few great men of our time who, having
committed a blunder , can admit that he has blundered. Concerning his
handling of the Yugoslav situation, Churchill has already informed
the Press that he considers it his greatest mistake. Churchill
is reported to have said, " I was deceived and badly informed."
from "The Case of Drazha Mihailovich"
by David Martin, "The New Leader," April 13th, 1946
Naturally, official British line is that they still did nothing
wrong, and Dragisa Vasic correctly noted:
"Were it not for Germans, British would be our worst enemies."
>p469
>Prime Minister to Foreign Secretary, 30 Dec. 43
> ... Everything Deakin and Maclean said and all the reports received showed
>that he (Mihailovic) had been in active collaboration with the Germans.
>
No, they have just seen that Chetniks and Partisans were
fighting, which no-one denies. See the "Ally Betrayed, Part 2."
As I promised, quote, this time from British press:
"...The conclusion ( see quote I am responding to - MNS )
was unjust, but it was supported by the curious fact that the
mission to Mihailovic, composed of the men knowing Yugoslavia
intimately, were critical to the claims put forward to them
and reported only those they believed true. This was not so
of the mission to Tito, which reported home virtually all that
Tito claimed to have achieved, without being allowed to
verify these reports of the spot. Tito never allowed them
to see very much. And when individual officers grew to know the
country too well, or learned to speak the language too fluently,
their recall was asked for...."
from "General Mihailovich,"
by Patrick Maitland, "The Scotsman," June 14th, 1946
>p471
>Churchill to Tito, January 8, 1944
> ... I am resolved that the British Government shall give no further
>military support to Mihailovic and will only give help to you, and we should
>be glad if the Royal Yugoslav Government would dismiss him from their councils.
>
"...Major Kenneth Greenlees, who for eighteen months
served with general Mihailovich as British liason officer
until our Military Mission was withdrawn in 1944. What the
soldier said is evidence in this case....
...In the opinion of Major Greenlees there is no mystery
about Mihailovich, who was the great Serbian patriot and
no traitor....
...Imagine, in conclusion, what were the feeling of Major
Greenlees and his brother officers when, living under the
faithful care and protection of the Chetniks, they heard the
B.B.C daily attacking those same Chetniks and their leader!"
from "The Mystery of Mihailovich,"
by Donovan Touche, "Truth," December 27th, 1946.
>(Mihailovic was dismissed on May 17, 1944. Churchill commented:)
>We do not know what will happen in the Serbian part of Yugoslavia. Mihailovic
>certainly holds a powerful position locally as Commander-in-Chief, and it
>does not follow that his ceasing to be Minister of War will rob him of his
>influence.
So what? There is nothing wrong here, so no quotes.
>
>Triumph and Tragedy, p91
>Prime Minister to Marshal Tito, 12. Aug. 44
>The desire of His Majesty Government is to see a united Yugoslav Government,
>in which all Yugoslavs resisting the enemy are represented, and a reconcilation
>between the Serbian people and the National Liberation Movement.
>
Well, this is true. Most Serbs did join Chetniks, who
initally outnumbered Partisans 10:1. But both were mostly
Serbian movements until late during the WWII. So Churchill
seemed to have understood that he betrayed his ally - Serbian
nation by putting them into the communist hands. Let
me quote Croatian pres. Tudjman:
"The Wastelands of Historical Truth"
(translation mine)
p.442
[Tudjman first explains why people in Serbia decided
to join Chetniks mostly. Then he goes]
It was different with Serbs in Independent State of Croatia
[Croatian State in WWII - MNS], and that is why the rebellion
started and people were joining both partisans and Chetniks.
Because the position of Croats after the formation of ISCroatia
was deeply different from the position of the Serbs, in Croatia
there were no existential reasons for rebellion.[for Croats - MNS]
.....
[Tudjman goes on to conclude that partisans gained support of
Croats only after Croats realised that ISCroatia would share its
fate with Nazi Germany].
>
>Few comments:
>
Completely worthless comments deleted. They did not deserve
answers. Next time I'll punish you for lying, also.
Lack of time saved you, for now. Branko correctly said
everything. He missed that Croats did participate in rebellion in
Dalmatia to the greater extent then in Croatia proper.
>
>Zeljko Jericevic
Zeljko Jericevic
Whom to believe?
Churchill:
Triumph and Tragedy, p91
Prime Minister to Marshal Tito, 12. Aug. 44
The desire of His Majesty Government is to see a united Yugoslav Government,
in which all Yugoslavs resisting the enemy are represented, and a reconcilation
between the Serbian people and the National Liberation Movement.
Jelicic:
>Serb were majority
>among partisans, a big majority. Before Italy colapsed in 1943 partisans
>were almost ethnicaly "pure". More then 90% Serbs. After 1943 people from
>Dalmatia joined in, and that precentege dropped to somewhere around 80%.
>More correctly 80%-85%.
>And, one more thing. Both partisans and chetniks were Serbian armies.
Obviously, Churchill was stupid. Or somebody else. But if Parisan were all
Serbs, why the Soviet Red Army had to free the Serbia? And why were not any
Partisans in Serbia until the very end of the war? (With exception of a
very brief and small Uzice Republic).
As for Croats from Dalamtia going into partizans only after 1943, I happen
to have some people from my family going in as early as 1941. And they
were not exceptions nor alone.
But let us do the numbers:
In 1943 Partizans were 300,000 or 26 divisions strong.
13 Croatian divisions, 5(or 6) B&H divisions, 4(or 5) Slovenian divisions,
2 Serbian divisions, 1 Montenegrian division
Ivo Banac, Daedalus (Spring 1992), p154
In the second half of 1944 the Partisan movement of Croatia counted some
150,000 combatants under arms - 100,070 in operative units made up of
Croats (60,703 or 60.66 percent), Serbs (24,528 or 24.51 percent, ....
Zeljko Jericevic
Zeljko Jericevic
It looks like we have to deal with the Serbian mythology about Draza
Mihailovic some more. Problem for the apologist of Serbian Fascists
is that the Prime Minister of Britain, Sir Winston Churchill is a credible
witness, who also had the access to all privileged information.
So it is in vain to pull out some obscure references in trying to prove how
Churchill was wrong. Whatever his faults may be, Churchill was not for sale,
and his goal was clear: fighting against Hitler; And in that fight Mihailovic
was on a wrong side despite of what the historically creative Serbian patriots
prefer to believe.
We simply do not know that much about those nobodys' who as soon as they pop up
from a magical hat of Serbian propaganda scream to know better then Churchill.
Despite the claim that British liaison officers were supporting
Mihailovic, the obstinate facts are somehow different:
Brigadier Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Bt. C.B.E., Commander of Allied
Mission to Tito, 1943-45 in [1]:
"How was it then that for about two years the biggest and by far the most
effective resistance movement of World War II was to remain practically
unheard of and quite certainly unhelped, while such help as we did give
went to the Cetniks, many of whom were actively collaborating with the
enemy and very few, if any, of whom had done any fighting against the
enemy since November 1941?"
S. W. Bailey, O.B.E., a senior Liaison Officer with Mihailovic; 1942-44,
in [2] that on 28 February 1943, after consuming a good deal of plum
brandy at a social occasion, Mihailovic made it
"... absolutely plain that he considered
it imperative for military reasons to concentrate first on liquidating his
internal enemies, whom he named as the Partisans, the Croats, the Moslems
and the Ustasi - in that order - before turning his attention to the Axis
forces."
1. F. Maclean, in British Policy towards Wartime Resistance in Yugoslavia &
Greece, Phyllis Auty & Richard Clogg (editors), Macmillan, London, 1975,
p. 227.
2. S. W. Bailey, ibid. p.75.
As for Mihailovic's pal Dragisa Vasic who said:
>"Were it not for Germans, British would be our worst enemies."
We may add here that Vasic also decided that after the war, he would
establish the chair at Belgrade University for scientific promotion of
hate against next to the worst enemies, the British. Dragisa Vasic and
Vasa Cubrilovic at the Belgrade University: what a team that would have been!
But when the Soviet Red Army started to liberate Serbia, Vasic still
tried to flee to the West, despite that his worst two enemies were just
there. One more of those unexplainable Serbian contradictions, I guess.
Some other questions may be posed. For example, the claim that
>Most Serbs did join Chetniks, who
>initally outnumbered Partisans 10:1. But both were mostly
>Serbian movements until late during the WWII.
Well, if both were Serbian movements, and Chetniks have the initial advantage,
why and how the Partisans did outgrown the Chetniks?
If Mihailovic was so successful in fighting the Germans, why was at all another
resistance movement needed?
And why the Soviet Red Army had to liberate Serbia?
>Next time I'll punish you
Ts, ts, ...
Zeljko Jericevic
Zeljko Jericevic
Milan Stojanovic
In article <C56CL...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> zel...@rd01.wg2.waii.com (Zeljko Jericevic) writes:
>Winston Churchill or Branko D. Jelicic:
>Whom to believe?
>
You are posing a rhetorical questin to confuse uncareful readers.
This choice is false.
There is no inconsistency in their words.
>Churchill:
>Triumph and Tragedy, p91
>Prime Minister to Marshal Tito, 12. Aug. 44
>The desire of His Majesty Government is to see a united Yugoslav Government,
>in which all Yugoslavs resisting the enemy are represented, and a reconcilation
>between the Serbian people and the National Liberation Movement.
>
Once again, Serbs constituted majority in both movements,
but overwhelmingly supported Mihailovic's movement.
>
>Jelicic:
>>Serb were majority
>>among partisans, a big majority. Before Italy collapsed in 1943 partisans
>>were almost ethnically "pure". More then 90% Serbs. After 1943 people from
>>Dalmatia joined in, and that percentage dropped to somewhere around 80%.
>>More correctly 80%-85%.
>>And, one more thing. Both partisans and chetniks were Serbian armies.
>
>Obviously, Churchill was stupid. Or somebody else.
The only one uncapable to understand what Churchill words
actually meant and what was the historical context of his
decisions is you. I already posted some quotes by Americans
on this, but you have chosen to disregard them.
>But if Parisan were all
most, not all!
>Serbs, why the Soviet Red Army had to free the Serbia?
Because, Red Army did not liberate Serbia only from Germans, they
delivered Serbia into the Tito's hands.
And for your information, there were many Serbs living on the
territory of the Independent State of Croatia ( Bosnia and
Croatia ). Contrary to what you believe, they are not
Orthodox Croats.
And Mr. Jericevic, why don't you tell us about number of Croats
in Ustashas, Domobrans? And why don't you tell us when
was Zagreb captured by Partisans ( after Berlin's fall!).
5~
>And why were not any
>Partisans in Serbia until the very end of the war? (With exception of a
>very brief and small Uzice Republic).
>
They, unlike Royalist movement did not manage to survive
winter 1941/1942 German offensive on both Royalist and
Communist movements. Unlike Royalists, Communists ( Partisans)
did not have strong backing in Serbian peasentry. Also Royalist
forces managed to infiltrate Nedic's state police, so in the
key German offensive on Ravna Gora ( Mihailovic's headquarters )
in January 1942, he managed to slip away with help of his people
in Nedic's police and among Ljotic volunteers.
For your information, according to Gleise von Horstenau, and
his diaries, "Schwartz" or "5th Offensive" had primary goal
to capture Draza Mihailovic and his headquarters. This was
going on in March of 1943. It is only with help of some
symphatetic Italians, ( this caused great rage among Germans),
that Mihailovic managed to escape. Pavle Djurisic was caught
and deported into concentration camp. What happened later,
you could find in "Sonderauftrag Sued-Suedost," by Neubacher.
>As for Croats from Dalamtia going into partizans only after 1943, I happen
>to have some people from my family going in as early as 1941. And they
>were not exceptions nor alone.
>
I would not believe otherwise a single word by you, however I
would have to partially yield here. Catholic inhabitants in
Dalmatia did join the resistance movements to the greater extent
then in Croatia, from the very beginning. Italians were unable
to satisfy their national asppirations, unlike the Criminal
Croatian state formed during WWII.
>But let us do the numbers:
Let us do the numbers. In different posting I'll
address the inconsistency in this numbers.
>In 1943 Partizans were 300,000 or 26 divisions strong.
>13 Croatian divisions, 5(or 6) B&H divisions, 4(or 5) Slovenian divisions,
>2 Serbian divisions, 1 Montenegrian division
Where do this numbers come from? you did put reference in the
middle of two passages!? Also this numbers are highly inflated.
According to the British - at most 80.000 ( not BBC propaganda)
according to Germans 30.000. Tito claimed in 1945 800.000
strong army, but no one believed in that.
Also, while Slovenian divisions were indeed Slovenians,
Croatian divisions included people from the territory of
Ustasha Croatian state ( Bosnia and Croatia ), mostly Serbs
again.
Kashe in document from ADAP claimed ( this document was posted by
me already once ) that in Northern Croatia ( Ustasha Croatia )
Orthodox population comprised 3/4 of the Partisan movement in
1943. Again, Zeljko might be surprised that there are not so
many Orthodox Croats.
>Ivo Banac, Daedalus (Spring 1992), p154
Banac. Note for everyone,. This man was praised in
his interview in "Slobodna Dalamtia" as successful lobbiest
for the Croatian cause. Thus, do not try to sell him as objective
historian.
>In the second half of 1944 the Partisan movement of Croatia counted some
>150,000 combatants under arms - 100,070 in operative units made up of
>Croats (60,703 or 60.66 percent), Serbs (24,528 or 24.51 percent, ....
>
Here we are talking about the end of 1944, and only about the
territory of the Republic of Croatia, ( Fascist Croatia less Bosnia ).
This data are from Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, and are probably
only slightly inflated. One more important thing, which is a matter
of simple logic, but Zeljko and Ivo are missing ( on purpose,
of course ) it. These data are not cumulative national participation
data, but participation data at that moment. Naturally those who
started earlier to fight had much greater losses.
>Zeljko Jericevic
I also hate to do this, but I have to quote, otherwise completely
stupid book by Dr. Ivo Omrcanin, "The Truth about Drazha Mihailovic."
He gives a list of partisan generals, ambassadors. Logic is that
those who started earlier would have to be better off in ranks
immediately after the war. His list proves that majority of names
are Serbian ( Montenegro ). Though many of them are from Croatia
and Bosnia. Also, on his lecture on Harvard Institute for
MIddle East Studies, Ivo Banac admitted that there were two
periods in post WWII Bosnia. First of Serbian domination, until
1966, and this domination was result of the predominant
participation of Serbs in Partisan movement, and second of the
Bosnia authonomists domination ( Pozderci, Dizdarevici, he
forgets Mikulic ).
Milan N. Stojanovic
Milan Stojanovic
In article <1993Apr11.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> stoj...@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>
>
>>
>
>
Arguing that Partisans were not predominantly Serbs, Zelko asked:
>>Serbs, why the Soviet Red Army had to free the Serbia?
To show fallacy of this (non)argument (Partisans were
simply too weak for Germans and had no foothold in Serbia),
I counter-questioned, with an equally bad argument:
> in Ustashas, Domobrans? And why don't you tell us when
> was Zagreb captured by Partisans ( after Berlin's fall!).
>
After re-reading it I was less sure about this. Berlin has fallen
on May 1. Zagreb might have fallen at the time of the battle of
Berlin, somewhere in April. Zeljko would be more than glad to share
that with us, I am sure.
But large chunks of Croatia have indeed fallen after the fall of
Berlin ( Gospic, for example ).
Milan N. Stojanovic.
Milan Stojanovic
>> was Zagreb captured by Partisans ( after Berlin's fall!).
>>
>
> After re-reading it I was less sure about this. Berlin has fallen
> on May 1. Zagreb might have fallen at the time of the battle of
> Berlin, somewhere in April. Zeljko would be more than glad to share
> that with us, I am sure.
>
> Milan N. Stojanovic.
>
>
I've just got an information that the takeover of Zagreb
happened on May 8, 1945, seven days after the fall of Berlin.
Thus, Ustashe seemed to be extremely well organised, and had
strong backing to the very end.
Also, from an eyewitness, there were troubles in getting
people to greet "liberators." They had to stop Serbian
unit that was to enter the city, and bring semi-Croatian one,
not to "scare people." The official declaration was that
"Croatian unit led by Serbian General - a symbol of
brotherhood and unity - liberated our dear city." I'll do
some more checking on this sad event for Croatia.
Milan N. Stojanovic
Zeljko Jericevic
>Dalmatia did join the resistance movements to the greater extent
>then in Croatia, from the very beginning.
Looks like you have the problem in using the name Croats, do you?
>>Ivo Banac, Daedalus (Spring 1992), p154
>Banac. Note for everyone,. This man was praised in
>his interview in "Slobodna Dalamtia" as successful lobbiest
>for the Croatian cause. Thus, do not try to sell him as objective
>historian.
>Milan N. Stojanovic
Lobbyist for the Croatian cause was also Albert Einstein, and most recently
104 Nobel laureates. Contrary to what you believe, that do not disqualify
any of them as objective scientists.
Coming back to Dr. Banac, he is a Professor at Yale and Master of Pierson
College. I believe that we can trust objectivity of institution like that,
but if you have any proofs about Prof. Banac nonobjectivity in his work,
why you do not present them here or even better publish in some respectable
journal? Maybe you will become a history professor at Yale instead of him.
Your unhappiness about Prof. Banac's scientific work, highly regarded by
academic community and in which Serbian colonialism is exposed, is easy
to understand.
>After re-reading it I was less sure about this.
>Milan N. Stojanovic
In other words, you come in without knowing relevant facts, just working
for a good cause of spreading the Srbian propaganda.
Interesting methodology, but do you know where it puts you?
Zeljko Jericevic
Milan Stojanovic
In article <73434508...@his.com> Zeljko.J...@f716.n109.z1.his.com (Zeljko Jericevic) writes:
>Organization: n/a
>
>Churchil versus Chetniks: Whom to believe?
Once again. False choice and purely rhetorical question.
I have posted qoutes that clearly showed that even Churchill
himslef admitted that he made a mistake in backing Tito,
yet you have decided to delete them and simply continue.
Here is one more, from British press.
"The Western Morning News and Daily Gazette" ( Plymouth)
June 12th, 1946
****************
A Blunder
...
Nothing has happened since Mr. Churchill in Brussels described
his support of Tito as one of the greatest errors of war to
suggest any modification of that verdict [Mihailovich' trial
organised by Tito - MNS]. Few will now question that political
blunder was made. ...
The picture presented in some quarters of General Mihailovich
ceasing to be interested in fighting the Germans and devoting
all his attention to Partisans, who for their part were anxious
only to expell the invader, can not be reconciled with a good
deal of first hand and apparently reliable evidence form British
and American quarters. ...
*************
>
>It looks like we have to deal with the Serbian mythology about Draza
>Mihailovic some more. Problem for the apologist of Serbian Fascists
>is that the Prime Minister of Britain, Sir Winston Churchill is a credible
>witness, who also had the access to all privileged information.
He had an access to negotiating with Stalin about the
future of Yugoslavia, also. No one denies that Churchill
did what he thought is the best for overall allied cause.
That he sacrified his ally in doing that is beyond any doubt
to anyone having any honesty.
>So it is in vain to pull out some obscure references in trying to prove how
>Churchill was wrong.
These nobodys' are American and British representatives
that were eyewitnesses of the Chetnick's fighting against
Germans.
>Whatever his faults may be, Churchill was not for sale,
>and his goal was clear: fighting against Hitler;
True.
And in that fight Mihailovic
>was on a wrong side despite of what the historically creative Serbian
>patriots
>prefer to believe.
False.
>Despite the claim that British liaison officers were supporting
>Mihailovic, the obstinate facts are somehow different:
>
>Brigadier Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Bt. C.B.E., Commander of Allied
>Mission to Tito, 1943-45 in [1]:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
British liason officers with Mihailovich, not with Tito,
\ was the claim made. Thus another lie by Zeljko?
> "How was it then that for about two years the biggest and by far the most
>effective resistance movement of World War II was to remain practically
>unheard of and quite certainly unhelped, while such help as we did give
>went to the Cetniks, many of whom were actively collaborating with the
>enemy and very few, if any, of whom had done any fighting against the
>enemy since November 1941?"
>
First, Maclean was never in Serbia proper. He was sitting
with Tito and being fed with information.
The following quotes are from "The Web of Disinformation"
by David Martin. I have qouted always the original
source, as it is quoted by Martin.
SOE stands for Special Operation Executive. They have been
in charge of the missions in Yugoslavia.
******************
p. 157.
War Office 202/140 - Available in the British Public Record Office,
Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England
"If you want to get the best out of Mihailovic you must give
him fairer press and broadcasts. Bailey was with Mihailovic
forces when [they] took Priboj and Prijepolje and Berane. I
saw capture of Visegrad, destruction of bridges, and know
Ostojic took Rogatica. Mihailovic never credited with any
[of] these, although reported to you. In the other hand, when
Partisans drove his forces out, Partisans credited on BBC
[with capture of these places from enemy]. Show this to
comrade Fitz [Fitzroy Maclean]."
Message to SOE Cairo, November 18, 1943, By Brigadier Armstrong,
chief of British mission to Mihailovich.
***********
We can see that Maclean participated in these events. Willingly
or not? I think that he was overwhelmed by Tito's personality.
Last time I have posted something to this effect, bu Zelkjko
deleted that. Let me try whether he would spend some more
time on this one:
***********
p.160
OSS Documentation on Mihailovic, "Operation Balkan,"
Washington D.C., National Archives
"We do not know whether Partisan reports about actions are
accurate, exaggerated or utterly untrue. This is because for
the most part we have taken the Partisan word for what went
on since we seldom had our own observer with them. ..."
Major Richard Weil, OSS operational officer with Tito Forces
*************
Now, compare those two!
>S. W. Bailey, O.B.E., a senior Liaison Officer with Mihailovic; 1942-44,
>in [2] that on 28 February 1943, after consuming a good deal of plum
>brandy at a social occasion, Mihailovic made it
> "... absolutely plain that he considered
>it imperative for military reasons to concentrate first on liquidating his
>internal enemies, whom he named as the Partisans, the Croats, the Moslems
>and the Ustasi - in that order - before turning his attention to the Axis
>forces."
>
This is correct, however, taken badly out of context.
I have already qouted what Bailey had witnesssed. Bailey
offered to testify on Mihailovich's behalf on trial,
however was refused, and accused by communist court for
instigating civil war in Yugoslavia!
And Zeljko should know that Muslims and Croats were
predominantly part of the Axis forces. About evils that
Tito brought to everyone in Yugoslavia I have no need
to write now.
Bailey's words from "The Times" Friday, August 6, 1971,
London
*************
Letters to the Editor
GENERAL MIHAILOVIC
From Colonel S.W.Bailey
Sir. Circumstances regretabley prevented me from appending my
signature to Brigadier Armstrong's letter ( July 17). As the
Brigadier's predecessor, and political adviser for some months
after his arrival at General Mihailovic's headquarters, I warmly
endorsethe feelings expressed thereein, and with to add my
tribute to the memory of Draza Mihailovic.
....
...I do believe that everything must now be done to give
Mihailovic his rightful, honourable place in history. He and
his Cetniks did more that is generally appreciated for the
Allied cause.
Yours faitfully,
S.W.Bailey,
Lou Castelas,
13-Maussane-les-Alpilles,
France, July 31.
*****************************
Any more questiones?
>Zeljko Jericevic
Milan N. Stojanovic
Milan Stojanovic
This is taken from the previous article. It is condensed, and easier
for reading.
Milan Stojanovic
>>Catholic inhabitants in
>>Dalmatia did join the resistance movements to the greater extent
>>then in Croatia, from the very beginning.
>
>Looks like you have the problem in using the name Croats, do you?
>
Nope, but many of them were not Croats. Some were.
>
>>>Ivo Banac, Daedalus (Spring 1992), p154
>
>>Banac. Note for everyone,. This man was praised in
>>his interview in "Slobodna Dalamtia" as successful lobbiest
>>for the Croatian cause. Thus, do not try to sell him as objective
>>historian.
>>Milan N. Stojanovic
>
>Lobbyist for the Croatian cause was also Albert Einstein, and most recently
>104 Nobel laureates. Contrary to what you believe, that do not disqualify
>any of them as objective scientists.
No it is different to sign a letter, together with others,
then to devote carrier ( last few years actually) to defending
Croatian cause and explaining it through distorting history.
Non-argument by Zeljko.
>Coming back to Dr. Banac, he is a Professor at Yale and Master of Pierson
>College. I believe that we can trust objectivity of institution like that,
>but if you have any proofs about Prof. Banac nonobjectivity in his work,
>why you do not present them here or even better publish in some respectable
>journal? Maybe you will become a history professor at Yale instead of him.
>Your unhappiness about Prof. Banac's scientific work, highly regarded by
>academic community and in which Serbian colonialism is exposed, is easy
>to understand.
>
Blah, blah, blah. Examples are numerous. I have heard him
giving lecture here, and very unfortunately they did not
allow any questions.
And, you have already exposed him. By qouting his numbers as
a proof that Croatians were anti-Nazi. Numbers from 1944.
And should I start qouting Dedijer or Djuretic?
Now, here Zelkjo does something unprecedented
on the network. He takes sentence from completely different
posting, that was in the meantime explained, ie. I was correct
that Zagreb was liberated after Berlin. He makes a chimera
posting to make certain claims.
>>After re-reading it I was less sure about this.
>>Milan N. Stojanovic
>
>In other words, you come in without knowing relevant facts, just working
>for a good cause of spreading the Srbian propaganda.
>Interesting methodology, but do you know where it puts you?
>
>Zeljko Jericevic
>
Well, I could not expect anything better from you, could I?
Interesttingly, I am not even angry with this. Just sad
that such personalities exist and have an access to network.