Talk:Battle of Dražgoše

Untitled

Are you sure this incident may be called "a battle"? Surely this is too grand a name for this village skirmish? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It lasted for 3 days and was significant for the war (first armed anti-fascist appearance in Slovenia). Also, that's what this is usually refered to as. --dcabrilo 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral stand, both of you are right. i suggest to use "The battle(Resistance)of Dražgoše.--Quek157 10:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a battle but not the first: the German forces/occupation already tried to fight the Cankar Battalion some weeks before (24.-27.12.1941) following an attack on a police platoon on 12.12.1941 with heavy losses for the police. At that time there was no Wehrmacht stationed in the region, only Police Reserve Battalions. It was a fight between one battalion of partisans (motivated and well trained younger men) and five police Battalions (44,193, 171, 181, 325)and it was a victory for the partisans because they could retreat into the woods again, had only moderate losses. The inhabitants of the village were left behind on the "mercy" of the Germans which killed the remaining men and sent the women to a German prison camp near Ljubljana. --Aschland (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Strength and deaths

The numbers in the article do not match the numbers in the chart. I suggest that this be resolved by finding which are the true statistics and applying them uniformly. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

The Slovene WP article characterizes the result of the battle as "Partisan withdrawal, German tactical victory," but the English WP article states "victory of the Slovene Partisans." The characterization in Slovene WP appears more accurate; somebody should reassess this. Doremo (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, see the Slovenian talk page. A source is needed to characterise this as a German victory. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A possible source would be [1]. It contains the sentence "To je bil velik uspeh partizanov, ki pa so že med 9. in 11. januarjem 1942 na Dražgošah doživeli popoln poraz.", but I can't verify who stated this, because I don't have access. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to know what some of the period sources are claiming, unless it's just propaganda; for example, Jan (1961): "... smo v Dražgošah izbojevali veliko zmago, dosegli smo velik uspeh! Naš bataljon je ostal dejansko cel, mi smo Nemcem zadali hujše udarce, kakor oni nam." ("... we fought our way to a great victory in Dražgoše, we achieved a great success! Our battalion remained completely intact, and we hit the Germans harder than they hit us.") It's difficult to see it as a Partisan victory when it was the Partisans that retreated and the Germans that stayed and massacred the civilian population. Doremo (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dražgoše is also sometimes referred to as a "Slovene Thermopylae"; with the analogy Greeks:Persians = Slovenes:Germans, the implication is that it was a German victory (the Battle of Thermopylae is considered a Persian victory). Doremo (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This would be a valuable addition to the article, but for the infobox, we need a source that directly states that the Germans/Partisans won or were defeated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Otherwise it's "original research." Doremo (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Historic account

This diploma thesis (Gašper Ločnikar] contains some information about how the battle proceeded, although I'm not sure Ivan Jan is a good source. It seems like everybody has opinion on what was the significance of the battle, but there are relatively few articles written about it by neutral authors. --Eleassar ^{my talk}

In any case, it's important to contextualize what Boštjan Turk was referring to; otherwise it sounds like "they fought the Germans ... and this was a disgrace"—which, of course, isn't what he meant at all. Probably even more development of the story is needed: how the communist Bertot came to the village before the war, how Benedik was assassinated, how the Partisans arrived and were asked by the villagers to leave, how the Germans attacked and took revenge after the Partisans withdrew, how the villagers rejected the postwar development plans, how the local church was oppressed, and how the "cult" (in the ethnographic sense) of the Battle of Dražgoše was finally established. This would clarify Turk's narrative—namely, that the Partisans sought to create an "event" without regard for the safety or wishes of the villagers. It's a complicated story. Doremo (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the narration, just don't repeat the same text in both paragraphs. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd overlooked that the text had been moved to another paragraph. Doremo (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not really my area of specialty; hopefully another editor will be motivated to work on it. Franc Kavčič's account is very informative, not only for the Battle of Dražgoše article, but also for the history section in the Dražgoše article as well. Doremo (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a scholar secondary source that has picked it up should be cited instead of Reporter. I'll see what I can find. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a weightier source is always preferable. But, until one is found, I don't see a problem with the Reporter source. Doremo (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Boštjan M. Turk

I don't think the opinion of Boštjan M. Turk should be included (or it should be at least put in a proper context). He's not a historian and has a dubious reputation as a political analyst. I mean, his view is most surely held also by some expert for Slovenia during World War II, like Tamara Griesser-Pečar or someone else. I'll try to find a proper source and will remove Turk from the article, if there are not some objections. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Turk could be replaced with a more prominent source. Turk's comments are the same as what I've heard orally from individuals from the area, so Turk is a better source than oral conversations, but something more authoritative would be better than Turk. But until a more authoritative source is found, I think it's better to keep Turk because otherwise we're left without a reference for something that's clearly not limited only to his individual opinion. Doremo (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The historian Tamara Griesser Pečar in Razdvojeni narod tells a similar story, despite not directly characterising it as "the biggest shame" etc. Another work that tells what happened in detailed, although from a different but probably not incompatible point of view, is the historian Martin Premk in Poljanska vstaja (I currently don't have it at home; COBISS 259521280). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It has not been replaced with a prominent view in almost 5 years, so I removed it. --Sporti (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the material. It is better-sourced than the paragraph that was retained. I've also added another source to the paragraph. Doremo (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think Turk's opinion is really relevant at all as he is a political analyst, not a historian. --Sporti (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's probably equally as relevant as the opinion of Danilo Türk (cited in the previous paragraph), who also has no credentials as a historian. Doremo (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That is if you look at him purely as a person, but at his position of the time (President) this was also official position of the country. --Sporti (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Being elected president doesn't make him a more reliable source on a topic that he has no background in. At the same time, I do appreciate your drawing attention to the second paragraph so that the references could be further improved. Doremo (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Both views belong to the article because they illustrate the diametrically opposite opinions of two political poles on the event. However, an assessment by a reputed historian is a must for its credibility. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon an interview that was held by the historian Stane Granda at Nova24TV only a few days ago. He describes the Dražgoše Battle as a catastrophic mistake, the devastation of the village of Dražgoše, and an ideological-political construction.[2] It is worthy to add this material to the article. It's still not the best, because Granda specialises in the 19th-century history; nonetheless, it is a significant improvement. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that is a good improvement. Doremo (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Best I could find on dlib.si is [3]. --Sporti (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unlike Granda, Ivan Jan was not an academic historian; he was primarily a Partisan, a Yugoslav Army officer, and an amateur history writer. I don't think that his contribution belongs to the article, unless it is used to illustrate the ideological stance of the communists in the 1970s. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well here is a view by B. Repe [4], also in the text he mentions a recently published book, which could be a good source. --Sporti (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. This book has been mentioned already above. It is the most authoritative source. An excerpt from it would be a very welcome addition. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 01:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a video lecture by Martin Premk. --Sporti (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Dražgoše. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324022222/http://www.up-rs.si:80/up-rs/uprs.nsf/dokumentiweb/457D60EA49100857C12573CF00325B80?OpenDocument to http://www.up-rs.si/up-rs/uprs.nsf/dokumentiweb/457D60EA49100857C12573CF00325B80?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127120417/http://www.reporter.si:80/sites/default/files/files/RESNICA_SKOZI_OCI_DOMACINA_Dra%C5%BEgo%C5%A1e.doc to http://www.reporter.si/sites/default/files/files/RESNICA_SKOZI_OCI_DOMACINA_Dra%C5%BEgo%C5%A1e.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.demokracija.si/v-fokusu/slovenija/5570-drnovek-je-vedel-da-jana-ni-kriv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources

Hey.

A significant portion of the article is based on sources with a well established ideological tilt. Demokracija and Nova24TV are party publications controlled by the Slovenian Democratic Party, and Revija Reporter is essentially a Slovene equivalent of Breitbart. The historians/experts cited in the article are also known to be of a particular political/ideological persuasion. Wikipedia has been known to exclude certain publications from being cited as sources (e.g., recently, the Daily Mail) because of their history of poor reliability and bias. I think it's improper to include the aforementioned sources if the claims are not grossly backed up by neutral scholarly sources or possible bias is not explicitly pointed out in the Wiki article. Anyone familiar with the political atmosphere of Slovenia knows that the political right has a vested interest, and has for some time been attempting to sway political and cultural discourse regarding the recent history of Slovenia to fit its ideological narrative, so claims coming from publications associated with said political right should be considered with utmost diligence. Kind regards, --Jay Hodec 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with this article. The lede and following two sections (battle, aftermath) are simply descriptive facts. Ideology is only a factor in the "Intepretations" section, which is exactly where one would expect to find ideology. There, first pro-Partisan historiography is presented, and then non-Partisan historiography. The tag added today seems unnecessary. Doremo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"The historians/experts cited in the article are also known to be of a particular political/ideological persuasion." I'd like to see a source for this claim. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, sorry for the belated reply. I seem to have made an error while combing through the references. The references in the "The battle" sections seem to have kept referring me to the opinion pieces cited in the "Interpretation" section, possibly due to a slow browser. I'm sincerely sorry for the overly hasty critique of the article. However, I still find the inclusion of the "Interpretation" section a bit superfluous/problematic, as contemporary political discussion regarding WWII events (including this one) often amounts to partisan/ideological bickering, often intended to rally the base, and less to a historical analysis and interpretation (which I don't really find to be clear reading the article). Kind regards, --Jay Hodec 19:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the neutrality problem. Also according to Turk's and similar views, clearly then the Polish Resistance is to be primarily blamed for the Nazi reprisals following the Warsaw uprising of 1944. - i.e. the Nazi executions of 150.000 to 200.000 Warsaw civilians following the uprising, plus the sending of 700.000 additional Warsaw civilians to concentration camps, the razing to the ground of practically all of Warsaw, etc. Obviously, the Polish resistance "cynically used the city", even more so, since the Polish Resistance, much more than the Slovene, had ample prior warning of how the Nazis would respond, based on the previous Warsaw Ghetto uprising, while Drazgose was the first time the Nazis executed reprisals against an entire village, rendering even more ridiculous the claims that somehow the Partisans knew in advance the Nazis would do this. Thus to follow the lead of this article, the vast majority of the Warsaw uprising article should consist of a much greater discussion of the Polish Resistance's responsibility for the massive Nazi reprisals Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Corselli, whose book is quoted, is described as a refugee aid worker in post-war Austria. Thus his sources were likely Slovenes who fled to Austria, the majority of them Home Guards and other collaborators. This is hardly a reliable source - like trying to get the truth about the 1990s wars in Croatia and Bosnia by talking only to Serb soldiers and Serb refugees who fled to Serbia after these wars. Thus he makes dubious claims, e.g. that the Partisans supposedly targeted Drazgose because it was a Catholic village, and because they believed German reprisals would turn the populace against the Germans. Does he present any evidence of his knowledge of Partisan strategy, other than 2nd- or 3rd-hand claims by Nazi collaborators? Slovenia was then probably 95% Catholic (including a majority of Partisans were Catholics, had Catholic chaplains), so this is like claiming the Polish Resistance purposefully targeted Catholic Warsaw for their uprising, in 95% Catholic Poland. The claims that Partisans sought to create reprisals are similar to Chetnik propaganda, and I have seen no proof of this. In fact, historians like Tomasevich and Gregor Kranjc write that Partisans, their families and supporters were the main targets of Nazi and fascist reprisals, they constituted the large majority of some 16,000 Slovenes killed in Nazi-fascists concentration camps and executed as hostages, and the first shot by the Nazis for the Drazgose-related uprising, were 37 Partisans and Partisan supporters at Gestapo headquarters in Begunje. The Western Allies recognized the Partisans, precisely because they were willing to fight the Nazi-fascists, despite such massive reprisals, many of the reprisals carried out with the assistance of Slovene collaborators (e.g. Gregor Kranjc notes that Slovene collaborators turned over to the Nazis and fascist many Partisan supporters, who were then shipped to concentration camps and shot as hostages) Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an attempt to discredit all but pro-communist sources and an effort to violate WP:NPOV ("representing ... all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources"). Doremo (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral to be reliable, but sources like this need to be used with care, and probable bias needs to be addressed through in-text attribution to explain who the author(s) are and what their connections are to the events and people being discussed. From what I can tell, Corsellis' sympathies clearly lie with the collaborators he helped, just as post-war communist writers were largely sympathetic towards the Partisans. We should not be giving a lot of weight to accounts from people too close to the subject, which is why I tend to use non-local sources in the main when dealing with controversial events. This is not always possible, depending on how obscure the event or person is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to address a point that I too hastily relinquished the last time around when I realised that the bulk of my argument appeared not to hold up ...

In the "The Battle" section (very much the implicitly objective "meat" of the article), a 2010 self-published first-hand account is included as a sufficiently reliable source to cite its content as fact without further qualifiers. In the original text, the author ends the text by going off on an emotionally charged rant, ending the text with "P.S. As author of the article I affirm that all described events and data are veracious."

I think the reference and its corresponding content should be purged from the article. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guidelines strongly discourage/outright reject inclusion of primary and/or self-published sources. And while the text was republished in excerpts by Reporter, its veracity was in no way assessed or the report built upon. Furthermore, Reporter rejects any obligation to adhere to journalistic professional standards.[5]

By referring to "more recent publications", the paragraph also implicitly suggests that the historical revisionist perspectives are more accurate, since newer historical publications generally are. However, as mentioned by the previous commenter, discrepancies in narratives may largely depend upon the particular ideological persuasions of the authors. As earlier accounts are likely to have been more inclined to favour the Partisan-positive narrative, and the more Partisan-negative assessments are more likely to have been published since the rise of the right-wing opposition during the late Yugoslav and contemporary independent Slovene periods, this may simply reflect the ideological drift of the authors taking interest in the subject, and not necessarily the veracity of the takes per se. Conversely, the paragraph also cites a source published in 1961, which I would not describe as "more recent". I thus recommend that the paragraph avoids referring to the trend regarding publication date of the references altogether, instead focusing on the contrast of dissenting narratives.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Selectively "purging" sources that do not support a particular ideology is not a good path to take. Eyewitness accounts are valuable sources, and they often provide information that other accounts lack. The eyewitness, Franc Kavčič, is an elderly farmer, not a polished historian with second-hand information, and his account has also been carried by RTV SLO, among other media. I'll add that as a mainstream source. Doremo (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading into/misrepresenting my statement. I do not object to reliable scholarly sources as defined by Wikipedia standards. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. This is not to impugn the veracity of the account, which is entirely irrelevant in this case. I may have again added too much supportive argumentation and buried the main point. Even if first-hand accounts are retained, these should at a minimum be clearly designated as such (I intended to add this further elaboration in my previous comment, but left it out in part for brevity, and in part because I could not actually find any guidelines that allow for inclusion of self-published material even in such cases (please, also see: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary)).

Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added "According to witnesses" to the text to mark the source material as a first-hand account. Doremo (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually not the section I was talking about; in fact, I missed the fact that this portion was also derived from the same essay ...

Look - as I said - all content based off of first-hand accounts or self-published sources should be clearly delineated as such at a minimum. As I understand, it is actually against Wikipedia policy to include any content based solely on such a personal account at all. By the way, I can't seem to access the video; have you confirmed that all the content based off of the written essay is also corroborated in the interview (which is at least not self-published)?

I tend to tilt towards the position that all primary or self-published sources should be purged from the objective part of the article as this cannot be justified by Wikipedia guidelines, but would tentatively be willing to embrace their inclusion in e.g. the "Interpretations" section if warranted. Any and all such content would have to be clearly delineated as e.g. "according to a later first-hand account by one witness" to make clear that the content is not actually based on a secondary source (just alluding to a witness account could be ambiguous here). However, I would like to hear from at least a couple other editors on this and the other point to see what their take is and to see if we can reach consensus.

Kind regards, -J (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the RTV SLO interview content, clicking on the video link provides instructions to register for access to the content. The RTV SLO site's printed summary also says "Po vojni so jih hoteli kot primer socialistične izgradnje naseliti v dva stanovanjska bloka s skupnim hlevom, a Dražgošani so se ogorčeno uprli." Doremo (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to register for this reason previously, but kept getting stuck (I think I kept getting redirected to a page saying that new registrations were temporarily not possible due to website changes so I assumed such content was simply inaccessible). I managed to get through this time. I'll try cross-check the data at some point.

Thanks, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I read Franc Kavcic’s first-hand account and the author clearly has an anti-partisan and anti-post-war authorities view, which is fine, except when he seems to be saying things just to fit his views. For example, I do not see how he would’ve had first-hand knowledge of his claims that the Partisans were in the nearby forest observing when the Nazis began their executions, and also his accounts of events on Jelovica do not appear first-hand, instead are most likely based on hearsay, or his interpretations of hearsay. His claim that after the war, the executed villagers were not commemorated, instead only the Partisans, is contradicted by his own facts that a memorial grave was built for all the shot villagers and the partisans (the Partisan veteran’s association in the 70’s also built a separate memorial to the 18 villagers shot in the first group of Nazi executions)

Kavcic goes on to state that there are villagers who have very different views of the Drazgose battle from his. One villager he mentions, Ludvik Jelenc, is himself quoted elsewhere, as having worked on a petition in the village, to create a joint memorial grave for both Partisans and villagers, something Kavcic opposed. To me the most interesting part of Kavcic's testimony, is he confirms other reports that the Partisans permitted the villagers to report the Partisan presence to the Germans, so that the villagers would not be held responsible. This directly contradicts the claims that the Partisans selected Drzagose to create reprisals, and also contradicts Kavcic’s “quote” of unnamed partisans, supposedly saying in front of unnamed people that “Such a parochial village would not be a big loss“ (this also does not ring true since the Partisans would've known that in any German attack they'd also suffer casualties, as the Cankar brigade suffered many, even before the Winter uprising)

In fact I've not seen any authoritative, reliable sources that indicate that the Partisan's purposefully selected Drazgose to generate reprisals. The only “evidence” appear to be claims, such as Corsellis, based on second- or third-hand say-so from sworn enemies of the Partisans. Since I do not have access to Corsellis’ book, I’d be interested to hear if any further proof is provided for these claims. And if not, why would unsubstantiated claims, based on clearly very biased sources, be considered “reliable sources”, and thus included in the article Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You should read Corsellis' book. It's available in most libraries. Doremo (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the below excerpt appears to be the only part of the book directly addressing the topic (I think sharing these two paragraphs won't constitute a copyright violation, as per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text).

The Catholics were convinced the Communists deliberately staged attacks near Catholic villages so that the Catholics bore the brunt of the reprisals. One celebrated occasion was a three-day Partisan uprising against the Germans in the village of Dražgoše in 1942, which the Slovene Communists proclaimed as unique in Europe at that time. The locals suffered 41 dead in reprisals once the uprising was put down.
The Partisan bands were hunted down and killed by the Germans. For the anti-Communist Catholics, it was a harmful waste of effort. The Communists felt such attacks helped them win the war for opinion. They calculated that reprisals turned the population against the enemy rather than themselves. Moreover, the upsurge in belligerence caught the attention of appreciative Western Allies.

— John Corsellis, Marcus Ferrar, Slovenia 1945: Memories of Death and Survival after World War II (2005)

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds entirely like conjecture, based on unnamed sources, almost certainly the anti-Partisan refugees he was dealing with, and most likely a rehash of collaborationist propaganda, which also included claims of the “worldwide Jewish conspiracy” as the cause of the war, etc. Furthermore it’s disingenuous, since except for a few Protestant villages in distant Prekmurje, probably 100% of all other villages in Slovenia were heavily Catholic, so any attack in or near any village could be claimed to be an “attack on Catholics”, and as mentioned, the majority of Partisans were also no doubt Catholics. Btw it was the Nazis - per Tomasevich and Kranjc later allies of the Slovene Catholic church - who actually attacked Catholic Drazogose, shot 41 Catholics, and later came back to blow up the village's Catholic church. These occupiers plus their Catholic collaborators also killed 70.000 Slovenes, i.e. 90% of all intra-war victims, more than likely 90% of them Catholics - so in terms of carnage the occupiers-collaborators were obviously by far the most anti-Catholic force

In any case, would a book by a Quaker refugee aid worker, based on conversations with unnamed Germans in post-war POW camps, or Nazi and other German refugees in South America, be deemed an “authoritative source” about Allied military strategy? Also many false claims appear in books, no doubt Ivan Jay's Drazgose book can be found in many well-stocked Western libraries, but that does not mean all his claims, or all claims from other books, can be taken at face value, or considered authoritative Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears to me too that Corsellis & Ferrar are a poor scholarly source on this subject. The book deals with the topic very tangentially, dedicating merely a paragraph to it.

Furthermore, the paragraph is given to bolster the ostensible view of "The Catholics and their non-Communist allies" (this characterisation is obviously problematic for the reasons you yourself have pointed out; even more - as written elsewhere on Wikipedia - the Catholic clergy were often the first to be persecuted by the occupiers in multiple regions as they were viewed as a (potential) source of insurrection (the Church was however more supportive of the occupiers in the Lower/Inner Carolina regions, if I remember correctly)) that armed resistance was futile given the conditions, and that it was more sensible to limit resistance to the non-violent kind. "One of the biggest disputes was how violent the opposition to the occupiers should be. [...] The Catholics and their non-Communist allies preached caution and mounted little significant military action. [...] they saw little point in provoking an enemy who for the time being could not be defeated. It just led to pointless casualties, in their view." Leaving aside the merit of this claim, as it would apparently preclude any and all armed resistance in occupied Europe on ethical grounds, the mention of the Battle of Dražgoše appears in this context only as a prominent example of an ostensible general rule. It is unclear what the quality of evidence for this claim was; it may as well have been just banter and hearsay.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it’s true that in Stajerska and Primorska the Church was either neutral or even pro-partisan, while in Dolenjska and Gorenjska the majority of the the Church under Bishop Rozman placed itself on the collaborationist side, even before there was a Partisan uprising. Tomasevich and Kranjc describe bishop Rozman as the “de facto leader of collaboration”, aligning with Nazi-fascist forces, to drive a holy civil war against the Partisans, with churches serving as recruiting grounds for collaboration, etc. Rozman even wrote a detailed memorandum to general Robotti, on how the Fascists need to establish a Slovene Quisling army and police, so they could find and kill Partisan supporters for the Italians, even describes the size and weapons the Quisling police should have, etc. Gauleiter Friedrich Rainer, the Nazi in charge of Slovenia, later described a conversation with bishop Rozman, where he called him akin to militaristic Middle Ages priests, since Rozman stood in front of a map and enthusiastically, in great detail described to him all the battles the collaborators were then fighting against the Partisans (here's more on Rozman)

So while the collaborators and a large part of the church supported and even directly fought and killed other Slovenes for the Nazi-fascists, they were also making the claims we see from Corsellis, that it was useless or non-ethical to fight against the Nazis. Kranjc describes this well, in essence the initial plan was to non-militarily collaborate with the Nazi-fascists, while American and British boys died for Slovenia, and then at the end when the Western allies liberate Slovenia, they’d switch sides, and declare themselves “liberators”. In fact, Kranjc describes how they tried to do that with the “Tabor Declaration” when a few days before Ljubljana was liberated by the Partisans, the collaborating parties and Rozman met to declare the SS-commanded Slovene Home Gaurd as the “liberators”, changed their name, and commanded these “liberators” to temporarily withdraw to Austria, since they were already fleeing there with their Nazi allies. And then we have a quote in the article from collaboration-apologists about the “cynicism” of the Partisans! Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

C & R quote excerpts from a 12.1941. pastoral letter by Rožman where he appears to adopt this position (however, I seem to be unable to find the full text on the internet to ascertain the overall timbre of the proclamation). The Gregorij Rožman article reiterates this position based on a source by Griesser Pečar. It is interesting that both are 21th century sources on the matter. It may also be worth noting that C & R relied on testimony from including e.g. Franc Rode, who is clearly not an impartial source, however, it is unclear where claims like the above ones are derived. It would be interesting to ascertain whether/to what degree this narrative has been synthetically contrived during the last decades by cherry-picking of/reinterpreting historical data. Just from a contemporaneous historical perspective; throughout 1941 - at least to my knowledge - the Axis still appeared triumphant; the war did not start to turn in the Allies' favour at least until 1942-43. In fact, the US did not join the war until December, and its entry into the war was pivotal. It is worth remembering how close the war was; slight Axis tactical variation at the time could have easily resulted in victory over the UK and/or USSR. The "hey, man, don't worry, it's all good, it's gonna work itself out just fine" attitude portrayed in these sources would thus by necessity have been either highly misguided or entirely malicious/mendacious. Furthermore, the contemporary political establishment was willing to settle for/lobbying for an Ustashe-like arrangement after which they would accept the Nazi occupation, so it is unclear to me to what degree the resistance by such factions would have had actual liberation as a goal.

... But I think we're digressing.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kranjc and Tomasevich show the collaborationist myth is bunk. I.e. Rozman and others claim they just sought to sit out the war to save Slovene lives, and then the Partisans started their bloody, totalitarian revolution, so they had to collaborate. But even months before the Partisans fired the first bullet, in May 1941, Rozman, Natlacen and other Slovene politicians wrote a letter to Mussolini praising him for annexing the Ljubljana Province to Italy, and pledged cooperation with the fascist, totalitarian occupation. With their blessing 1.000 police went to work immediately for the Fascists, as did many old politicians. In France and elsewhere this was called collaboration. In fact had Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine, and then French bishops and politicians wrote letters to Hitler praising the annexation, they would’ve most likely been tried as traitors, perhaps even shot for this alone

The myth of a partisan revolution as the main cause of bloodshed is also negated by victim numbers. Thus Dezelak-Baric showed that the Nazi-fascists, whom the collaborators supported from the start, killed nearly 100% of all Slovene victims in 1941, and 93% of all Slovene victims in 1942, plus other figures show that the Nazi-fascist-Catholic side was responsible for 90%, or more, of all Slovene victims during the war.

As Kranjc writes, when at the urging of Rozman and others, they switched to military collaboration with the fascists in 1942, the “Catholic side” then also directly helped the Nazi war effort against the Allies, since the “Catholics” guarded rail lines which carried Romanian oil and other war supplies for the Nazis, and fought the Partisans, so Nazis could redirect some of their own troops from Slovenia to fight the Allied forces in Italy and France. In 1943 Churchill stated that the Partisans were greatly helping the Allied effort by holding down some 200.000 German troops in Yugoslavia, the same number the Germans had fighting the Allies in Italy. Without this, many German troops in Yugoslavia would've been redirected against the Allies in Italy. Furthermore, the Partisans saved hundreds of Allied pilots, while Slovene “Catholic” troops turned over shot down Allied pilots to their Nazi overlords

I’m pretty sure Corsellis “Catholic” sources neglected to mention these “trivial details”, extensively discussed by Kranjc and Tomasevich Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That the domestic armed opposition to the liberation movements indirectly aided the Axis is a tautology. The Allies - as you note - acknowledged and welcomed the Yugoslav Partisan insurrection which was one of the most successful in frustrating the Axis in Europe, and would no doubt have been more so were it not for the significant armed opposition of the collaborating factions (all of which negates "the Catholics'" alleged position that resistance was pointless because it was largely ineffective). In fact, the internal conflict was obviously largely predicated on armed opposition to the liberation movement, and not the other way around. Furthermore, Slovene men were forcibly conscripted into the Wehrmacht if I recall correctly; if people would not have joined the de facto auxiliary forces voluntarily to ostensibly oppose the Partisan insurrection, both eventual Partisans and SHG etc. may have been mobilised to fight on behalf of German forces. The Italian occupiers on the other hand advocated mass ethnic cleansing of the Slovene population, meaning that there may have been noone to have waited out the war left.

It is also obvious that the fact that Slovene and Yugoslav pre-war institutions failed to provide an outlet for armed resistance in contrast to e.g. Free France (save for the minor early activity of the Chetniks) made the leftist/communist monopoly on armed liberation inevitable, thus making the whole thing a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Of course it is difficult to ascertain the actual thoughts and beliefs of the actors at the time, but this means that their statements should not be presented as fact and contextualised with their actual actions.

The bottom line is that the collaborating factions chose to regard the Axis occupation as the lesser evil compared to the possibility of an eventual communist supremacy (which would not even have been an issue if any effective opportunity at unified opposition were established, as noted before). However, this was an argument also advanced by the Vichy collaborators, and even Churchill[6] and US politicians[7] who often viewed fascism as a beneficial way to cleanse the body politic of communist tendencies in the pre-war era. By this reasoning, one may even have rooted for the Axis invasion of the USSR to succeed since it would no doubt have resulted in the elimination of the Soviet state. However, at such a point, the UK would likely also fall, resulting in complete Axis domination of the Old World (also immensely strengthening their strategic position due to unobstructed access to materials needed for the war effort). At the time, an Axis victory must have seemed as a very real possibility. Thus, at best, the Slovene establishment were content for the dice to fall as they may and presumably make peace with the Nazis in case of an Axis victory. It should also be noted that at the time a real and not insignificant contingent of pro-Germanic/Germanophilic Slovenes existed who viewed a return to rule by the refined German elite as favourable (likely especially among the ruling elite, though I can't think of any concrete sources for this claim at the moment).

Arguing against opposition due to the fear of reprisals also implies that the more brutal one's enemy is, the less one should resist. Reprisals against civilians were also a feature of Axis anti-partisan operations in other countries, and were finally also carried out by collaborating forces against their own civilian population (e.g. Chetnik_war_crimes_in_World_War_II#Suspected_partisan_collaborators).

Of course - just to get back to the actual topic of discussion from which we have strayed significantly - this is not at all to say that the Partisans were above committing war crimes/atrocities during the interwar period. This was even notably acknowledged by the Titoist regime and some degree of atonement was attempted (Leftist_errors_(Yugoslavia)). So e.g. using Axis reprisals to win moral support is not by itself implausible. However, such accusations have also often been levied on ideological grounds and with poor substantiation. This is especially relevant in this particular case, since the even carries particular historical significance and discrediting it would have particular impact on the perceptions/ideological narratives. But of course the assessment may be biased in either direction. Care should thus be taken to present as objective only data that are not contentious and are agreed upon by all sources. Disputed and dubious claims should be clearly presented as such, and questionable/unreliable sources either eliminated or used with extreme caution.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that data should only be presented from reliable sources, and in my view second-hand claims drawing only on anti-partisan and collaborationist sources, as in the case of the Corsellis book, without confirmation from any independent sources or facts, does not meet reliable source criteria. Related to this, I remembered reading this NYt reviewof a book on WW2 area bombing. Regardless of what one thinks of the practice, the author presents authoritative evidence from Churchill and air force leaders, who indicate that the goal was to cause large-scale civilian casualties, to break German morale and perhaps even get the Germans to rise up in revolution against Hitler. This has echoes of the claims against the Partisans that they were also trying to generate civilian casualties, with similar goals. Yet in the case of Allied bombing the author presents authoritative Allied sources, not a Quaker aid worker’s views, based on conversations only with Nazis and other Germans in post-war POW camps or in South America, and their claims about Allied military objectives and strategy

I also think there should be some “common sense and perspective rule”, although I have no idea how to do this. For example, much is made of the fact that some villagers requested the Partisans to leave the village. I am certain that there were many French villagers and townspeople who would've preferred their villages not be attacked in the Allied liberation, since this often meant destruction and civilian deaths, yet I am sure that they were never consulted. Or in the Battle of the Bulge, had the townspeople of Bastogne preferred their town not be used as a defensive position, and requested the Allies go into the fields and woods to fight the German counter-offensive, would the Allied forces have complied? Also claims that the post-war authorities offered to provide the villagers with multi-unit “socialist housing”. The vast majority of Western European city-dwellers, and even many in smaller towns, live in multi-unit “socialist housing”. Plus offering to build such free housing is not anywhere a crime against humanity, certainly not comparable to the execution of villagers and the destruction of an entire village, including the Church, carried out by the Nazi allies of “the Catholics” Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Conversely, just for the record, one should also by wary of sources depending solely on e.g. the official party line, or Partisan retrospectives. It could probably be argued that targeting enemy civilians is qualitatively different from purposefully endangering one's own (nonetheless I don't really see how either could actually be morally justified).

It sounds entirely plausible that some villagers requested the Partisans depart. The current phrasing makes it appear as if the request was formal, and not made by individuals. I sadly don't have access to the cited sources to evaluate whether this is the case, however, the phrase "some" may be an important caveat/qualifier in this case. Otherwise I do not see a problem with including this.

As regards to the post-war goings-on, these specific claims in question are based on the primary source (essay by Mr. Kavčič) and are therefore not suited to be included as an objective, reliable source. As mentioned before, I recommend these either be removed, or otherwise at least moved to e.g. the "Interpretations" section with a clear designation (e.g. "According to a later personal account by one resident ..."). I also take issue with the summation of what Kavčič actually said in the article; he does not explicitly state that the townsmen rejected the plan, or what their expectations were, nor does he explicitly state that the subsequent neglect was a purposeful punishment (in any case, such a claim could not have been substantiated by the author, anyway). The statements are therefore just conjecture in the second degree.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. I've changed "rejected" to "reacted negatively" (a reasonable way to cover spitting in Construction Minister Miha Kambič's face), "because" to "and then" (to show mere sequentiality rather than cause and effect), and "further punished" to "also left" to show mere sequentiality (although Kavčič's account strongly implies that it was a consequence of the events described in the previous paragraph.) Doremo (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree, books relying solely on partisan sources would not be a reliable source, that's why I quote western historians, like Kranjc and Tomasevich.

Regarding Franc Kavcic’s account, as you and Peacemaker say there are problems with first-hand accounts, and from info he provides, it’s clear he was 11 or 12 years old in 1942, clearly could not have witnessed many of the things he describes in the midst of a raging battle. His account is no doubt based on retelling, plus 50 or so years of fitting things into his views, which is typical, human. And as he himself says, there are others in the village who look at the events very differently.

One interesting note, in setting the scene, Kavcic states that above the village there is a rocky outcrop, called “Bickova skala, or “Bicek’s Rock”. As those who read Slovene can see here, Franc Bicek was one of the Partisan commanders, his unit was the rearguard who fought off the Germans, when they were moving from Drazgose to Jelovica. Bicek’s brother, also a partisan in the Cankar Battalion, was killed a few days later, along with 13 other partisans, when they were encircled by the Germans. He was also a character, seems like one of those great company commanders, whom the regular soldiers love, but can’t get along with army brass, so he got into conflicts with his superiors both during and after the war. Still he rose through the ranks, but finally after the war he had enough, quit the army, went back to being a bus driver, which was his calling, while also thrilling local schoolkids with tales of his Partisan exploits. In any case it’s clear that the battle passed into local legend, since names like “Bicek’s rock” come into use on their own, through local lore, not by some party boss coming in and proclaiming “henceforth this shall be known as Bicek’s rock”

As to post-war events, I do not see any attempt to punish Drzagose specifically, just a tug-of-war between the authorities and the villagers, because they had very different priorities. Nearly all public housing built in the West post-war, tended to be large-scale apartment buildings, since these are most cost-efficient, thus a case can be made for that solely on rational, cost-benefit grounds. But humans are not rational animals, they are creatures of habit. As Kavcic notes, even the government construction minister knew that multi-unit, city-style housing would be a tough sell to these mountain people, so he gathered just the men to tell them, and Kavcic says one of the villagers spit on the minister. So these were tough mountain people, not afraid of any communist ministers. They created their own cooperative sawmill, to sell lumber and finance reconstruction. At first some local official interfered with the permits, saying they don’t allow private enterprises, even though this was a cooperative. Soon this official was shipped off to Goli Island prison, as a Stalinist, perhaps because when the split came with the Soviets in 1948, he may have been deemed too enthusiastic for Soviet-style solutions. In any case they then build their cooperative, and with the proceeds financed free housing for everyone in the village (which btw sounds pretty “socialistic”). Later in the 1960’s there was another tug-of-war with officials, when they wanted to rebuild the church, and an official said they could have the church or a planned road but not both. They went ahead to self-finance and build the Church, and the government still completed their road a year later.

Thus I see a tug-of-war because of different priorities and policies, which were applied the same across Slovenia, not a “punishment” of Drazgose. In the end the villagers always seemed to win and get what they wanted. I vacationed in the nearby mountains, and after a few drinks the locals will tell you about some present-day politicians who are doing idiotic things, seemingly trying to ruin their way of life. Definitely democracy is much better, but some things have not changed. Btw, Joze Dezman, who used to be a left-wing ideologue, and is now a right wing ideologue, criticized the Church leadership, because they have to this date not held a memorial for the Dragose victims, seemingly punishing the villagers for their perceived association with the Partisans. Yet while seemingly incapable of honoring the 90% of Slovene intra-war victims, killed by Bishop Rozman's Nazi-fascists-collaborators, the current Bishop heads up ceremonies for members of the genocidal Ustashe Croatian army, killed in post-war reprisals Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think Partisan accounts are ok for their version of bare facts about purely military aspects, relative strengths, where the defensive positions were, casualties etc, as would German accounts for the same info, even if they differ (which they probably do). They should be attributed in-text though, so it is clear where the info comes from. It is where accounts that are close to the subject stray into controversial areas like the intentions/motives of the Partisans and the attitude of the villagers that we need to be very careful. This type of material is easily coloured by ideology etc. For this type of material, it would be far better to use sources that are not in any way close to the subject, like historians such as Tomasevich and Kranjc, rather than the "memories" of a child that have been reprocessed and retold over 70+ years, which shouldn't be given significant weight. Historians experienced at taking and analysing oral history are the appropriate ones to rely on to give us a take on such material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Btw, regarding stopping the road at Rudno – I looked it up on Google maps, and while Rudno is perhaps 700 meters away as the crow flies, it is more than 4km of hairpin switchbacks, so perhaps they stopped there, because it would be a big additional investment for a village of just 200 people, when there probably were lots of reconstruction needs throughout the country. And nowhere does Kavcic say the villagers themselves built the road to Jamnik, he only talks of the village raising money and building the Church, so it looks like the government built the road. I think the government should've done more for these people, e.g. listened to what kind housing they want, but governments not listening to people is a common affliction. Kavcic doesn't say they withdrew housing financing, rather it looks like they offered only the public housing option, since almost certainly they were not financing private housing anywhere. As I mentioned about his other complaints, whoever was in charge at the time, was probably not giving approvals for private enterprises in all villages, and the authorities then were not keen on new churches elsewhere, so none of this sounds like any punishment of Drazgose specifically, but instead standard policy at the time (I do like where he says that Comrade So-and-so was at the planning meeting and he was thoroughly opposed to building the Church. Next sentence: “At the same meeting we approved building the Church”. It’s like. thank you for your advice Mr. Big Wig, but we’ll do what we want to do) Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that secondary scholarly sources that may be favourable to the Partisan POV aren't that problematic as long as the data have no reason to be contentious/of questionable veracity, but vigilance is always warranted.

The debate regarding Kavčič's account is probably moot, anyway, as relying on it at all is apparently against Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, and should therefore be stricken from the article regardless of opinion. (... But it may be best to hold a vote on whether to retain it, just for the sake of consensus/conciliation. An administrator can always remove it if it is against policy, or the issue can be raised by subsequent editors taking interest in the article.)

Regarding Bicek's Rock, your interpretation seems reasonable, however (as is the issue generally), we have no way to authenticate this (notoriety may conceivably also be the reason for the name). But as you note yourself, even Kavčič notes that the inhabitants hold varying views regarding the history. "It's sad that even some people whose grandfathers had fallen in Dražgoše support this [the annual commemorations]. Even Dražgošans are divided into two camps about this." (own translation)

Kavčič does note that the villagers expected (apparently monetary) funds for the reconstruction of the houses. However - though this is pure conjecture on my part - the newly founded SFRY was likely strapped for hard currency (note that the negotiations were taking place in August 1945). It is also telling that POW labour was used for road construction. Note that Youth Work Actions were a commonplace way to construct infrastructure for much of SFRY's existence, suggesting a difficulty in compensating work in infrastructure development. Furthermore, Kavčič never explains in his account what the actual details of the talks were; if there was an actual ultimatum or, if the villagers' complete rejection of all compromises/further discussion resulted in help simply never being appropriated. The difficulties surrounding the reconstruction of a church appears as a combination of boilerplate intransigence of the communist machine to anything sacral along with the general bureaucratic nightmare likewise characteristic of the aforementioned. The opposition to church construction by the district party boss along with like-minded locals also seems more like local political squabbles instead of punishment from on up (and, as mentioned before, the road was nonetheless constructed within 3 years despite admonitions from the mayor). This seems to me less like punishment than disagreement as to how much privileges the village should receive. I'm sure there were thousands upon thousands of towns across SFRY in need of such repair, and it is not at all clear to me that Dražgoše received any less attention than any other such village would have. I also don't know when the commemoration of the Dražgoše battle actually began; if the contemporary communists did not regard the village as historically any more significant than any other, there is no reason why anyone should have demanded or expected superior treatment, making present-day denouncements based on the lack thereof inconsistent.

I'd just like to add that Kavčič's suggestion that the Partisans were cowardly because they "tucked their tail between their legs and ran for Jelovica" is a bit internally inconsistent. It's only reasonable that the village would not have remained a defensible position for ever since this was an insurrection against an overpowering occupying force. It also could not have been foreseen that the German forces would have persecuted the civilian population with such brutality. It is more likely that the Partisans anticipated a brief scuffle that would have inflicted disproportionate casualties on the German infantry, followed by a tactical retreat (German casualties were, even according to Kavčič's account, which is apparently conservative, 1:4, most surely a tactical success for an ill-equipped asymmetric insurgency force going against an artillery barrage). It is also suggested by Kavčič that the Partisans had a very limited amount of ammunition, which was presumably exhausted during the early hostilities, leaving them powerless to engage in further armed confrontation.

P.S.: I can't seem to make sense of Kavčič's testimony regarding road construction. He first states the road was reconstructed and finished first, before any reconstruction of houses was begun (therefore presumably immediately after the war). Then he says that in 1963, the mayor issued an ultimatum that the villagers must choose between a church (apparently constructed from private funds by villagers) or road (which he said was already constructed) (apparently financed by the state/local government). The church is finished in 1966, and the road a year later.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two roads to Dražgoše. The road from Rudno to Dražgoše (southwest connection) was completed in 1949, and the road from Jamnik to Dražgoše (northeast connection) was completed in 1966/67. The church was built in 1967. Kavčič's narrative is clear regarding the chronology: in 1945/46 there was no road to the village. From 1947 to 1949 the villagers sold their wood and used the money to build the road to Rudno (i.e., apparently built it at their expense). In 1963 the villagers were offered the choice between building either the new church or the road to Jamnik (he does not state whether this means they were offered funding for only one project, or were told that the road would not be funded if they chose to build the church). They chose to build the church, borrowing funds to do so (i.e., apparently built it at their expense). The narrative does not say whether the state later provided funding for the road to Jamnik or whether the villagers funded it themselves. Doremo (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The post-war period was very hard. In the winter of 1946/47 hundreds of thousands are thought to have starved to death. in Germany, in 1953 Germany almost went bankrupt. On top of all the massive war death and destruction, in Yugoslavia in 1948 the split with Stalin happened, causing major turmoil, the purging of Stalinists, and probably resources diverted to defense, since a Soviet attack was expected. In such an atmosphere, I doubt the authorities were focused on purposefully screwing with someone’s road to a tiny mountain village. Today, in much less challenging times, a large part of the news is about governments not fulfilling their promises – to veterans, to natural disaster victims, not building/completing/fixing promised roads, etc. – and in the vast majority of cases this has nothing to do with punishmentThhhommmasss (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

All this not to say that the Communists were above such political shenanigans, just that there is no way to actually verify (confirm/deny) this to any satisfactory degree. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, just like in today’s democracies sometimes roads and projects don’t get completed because the locals voted for the “wrong” guys in the last elections. Without further proof, we just don’t know why some things happened in those very tumultuous post-war years

On the claim of Partisan’s wanting to produce reprisals, the record shows that they had the greatest influx of followers, when they killed many Germans, while suffering few casualties and reprisals, like just after Rovte. In spring 1942, after Partisans liberated much of Ljubljana Province, Tomasevich writes that the Italians threw some 80,000 well-armed troops into a counter-offensive against just 3,000 poorly-armed, total Partisans in the Province, ordered everyone caught with weapons to be immediately shot, Partisans’ homes to be confiscated and burned, and their families sent to concentration camps. Tomasevich says more than 40,000 people, or more than 10% of the population of Ljubljana Province, mostly partisan supporters and their families, ended up in Italian concentration camps, and 50% or more of the Partisans were killed, with many survivors abandoning the fight, so that via these massive reprisals the Italians managed to nearly wipe out the resistance, and it was not until the next Winter that substantial resistance resumed. Thus reprisals were by no means just a “benefit”, aside from the fact that the primary victims of reprisals were partisans, their families and supporters

The only “proof” I’ve seen of claims that Partisans intended to cause reprisals, are “quotations” from Mosa Pijade, where he supposedly said that the Partisans plan is to attack and then withdraw, so the Germans will burn down villages, and the more homeless people they thus create, the more people will join them. This quote was “discovered” by a Slovene priest in Italy, and is supposedly kept in the Chetnik part of the Military Archives in Belgrade. After widespread reprints of the claim in right-wing media in Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia, a Serb historian responded that no such document exists in the archives. So this appears to be an invention, and it's probably no coincidence that the words were attributed to Mosa Pijade, a Partisan leader of Jewish origin, since collaborationist propaganda throughout former Yugoslavia made claims the partisans were led by Jews. Thus the oft-repeated Chetnik version, was that the Partisan leaders were Jews, Communists and Croats, whose main goal was to destroy the Serbs, while Slovene Home Guard leader, Leon Rupnik proclaimed “we must calmly and with all fanaticism lead the battle against Jewish global supremacy serving Stalin’s and Tito’s bandits and their assistants, Anglo-American gangsters”, among many other vile antisemitic statements. Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss: "add info from Franc Kavcic account" "updated civilians killed by Germans from Kavcic and fact that 21 are listed in second execution" I thought we agreed that the Kavčič account is not a reliable source and should be completely avoided in the "objective", historical portion of the article. You also seem to have added the additional details unattributed. [8]

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to the last prior version pending discussion and consensus on further changes. Doremo (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jay Hodec:- Peacemakers said that even partisans and Germans can be reliable sources when it comes to facts of battle. Here we have very obvious, very searing facts that would have been known to entire village, not someone saying what one person supposedly somewhere said. Here is the quote from Kavcic: "Vse hiše v vasi so obkolili in vse moške, ki so jih dobili po hišah, nagnali v Pikcovo hišo, med njimi tudi mojega očeta in strica, in jih nato odgnali v župnišče in prosvetni dom ter jih žive zažgali. Vseh žrtev je bilo 18. Takrat sem svojega očeta zadnjič videl" He is talking abut his own father, and the villagers no doubt buried the charred remains, many very likely even witnessed the event. I see no way to misinterpret this. He says he and his mother were among the 60 women and children the Germans tried to burn alive, thus again a direct personal eyewitness, with 60 other witnesses, who would have no doubt remembered these facts, retold them many times, not just one person claiming something. The source is this article by Kavcic.. On the other hand, Peacemaker said where we have to be careful and where people can be very unreliable, is when they are imputing motivation to others, such as Kavcic's claims of why the Partisans supposedly came to the village, or without any evidence trying to impute the reasons for stopping a road, where all sorts of biases can enter Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the Kavčič account is a primary source, and primary sources are largely not appropriate on Wikipedia on such matters, at least as far as I understand. I think we shouldn't be cherry-picking (or are in fact precluded from by the guidelines) which historical information we trust and which we do not from inherently unreliable sources. I think what Peacekeeper67 was referring to were official sources (e.g. military documents) and secondary sources that may have had a certain tilt.

I think the standard here should be would we trust any of this information were it not made plausible by information we already know from secondary sources on the subject.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, then I guess this info can then go under Interpretations, in the paragraph based on Kavcic's account Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dubious quote

I checked the quote “For decades after the war, Slovene accounts of the battle were inflated, claiming that the Germans had suffered up to 1,200 losses at Dražgoše[10] . In the Florjancic source, he quotes someone saying: “people talked of even 1.200 killed”, but without saying who said this, when or where – was it someone at the local bar? I do not think we should include such vague, unattributed claims of what "people said". In any case "people talked" sounds like local legend. Also by whom, where and when exactly were the claims of "hundreds killed" made, since I can't find it in the second, Zupanc source. I see that the quote of 100 dead on the German side, is from Tone Ferenc, a legitimate historian, although he also notes that "we still do not have German documents on this", so this was his estimate, before the same Tone Ferenc discovered German documents that showed 27 dead on the German side. It is not unusual for the historical record to be revised, as new information is discovered (btw overestimates of casualties on the other side are also very common, and there is a long history of that, in many places around the world) Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I did find in the 1977 Zupanc source where he claims the Germans “did not get a single partisan”. He clearly did not know what he was writing, since had he visited the large Drazgose Memorial, completed a year earlier, in 1976, he would have seen this on the memorial plaque “During the battle, nine Partisans were killed, while 11 of them were wounded. Germans killed 41 villagers and afterwards burnt the village”. In fact the first Drazgose memorial, build in 1947, says the following: "in these heroic battles the following [Partisans] were killed: ZAJC IVAN, KRMELJ MAKS, DOLINAR MAKS, KOVAČIČ JANEZ, ERŽEN MAKS, ŽAKELJ VINKO, BOŽIČ GREGOR" So quoting someone who is saying the opposite of what at that time already stood for 3 decades on official memorials, and thus seemingly trying to claim he represented some broader attempt to misrepresent history, does not seem appropriate. Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Florjancic's claim is referenced in the provided source and checks out; see [9]:4(/24), and [10]:12(/44). However, the larger claim appears to be unscholarly and based on a statement by a single Loški razgledi contributor which was in turn based on hearsay:

"Nemcev je padlo v dražgoških borbah okrog tisoč dve sto. Tako so nam izjavili vojalki, ki so nas stražili v St. Vidu. Pri operacijah v Dražgošah jih je bilo po mojem mnenju okrog dvajset tisoč. Pozneje sem slišal, da So njihovi avtomobili stali na cesti od Dolenje vasi do Cešnjice. [...]"

— France Planina, Usodni dogodki v Dražgošah, Loški razgledi (1955)

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like regular soldiers’ claims soon after the battle, plus a local's opinion of “20.000 German" taking part in the battle. Just goes to prove the unreliability of first-person accounts, if not confirmed by other sources. In any case, these specific quotes do not appear to be part of a concerted government effort, but just “the fog of war”, associated with innumerable battles. If we were to try to document all the false claims following all the battles in the world, I suspect Wikipedia would double in size. If one wants to make the point, I think an appropriate phrasing might be “After the war some soldiers and villagers made exaggerated claims of Germans killed and participating in the action, and only with the discovery of German documents in the 1980s were the true numbers known”

Zupanc claim of “they did not get a single partisan” seems a screw-up on his part, the opposite of the well-known facts at the time, engraved in stone on 2 official memorials. So I suggest we drop this. Ferenc’s estimate of 100 dead, with his warning that no German documents have been found to confirm this, and then his changing the figure to 27, when he discovered the documents, is just what good historians do Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, the wording "For decades after the war, Slovene accounts of the battle were inflated, claiming that the Germans had suffered up to 1,200 losses at Dražgoše ..." is misleading, as it suggests that this were official/scholarly, widely accepted figures. Furthermore, the 1,200 number was mentioned exactly one(!) decade after the war (most generous interpretation), but in fact originated during the war. I'm guessing that this was anything but a widely accepted figure, and that other more accurate figures existed at the time of publication.

I don't have a problem with retaining the less exaggerated figures as long as it is more clearly suggested that these are more akin to speculation and lore than proper historical scholarship. But let's hear what other editors think.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it revealing that while the authorities wrote down in stone the names and number of partisan dead, neither the 1947 nor 1976 memorial makes claims that the Partisans killed during the battle hundreds or even 1.200 Germans, just that they fought far superior forces, which was true. I'm sure they were aware that they did not have the facts about German dead, since the Germans no doubt carried away all their dead, and there was no one on the other side to count them. So until the documents were found in the 80s, people were making all sorts of guesstimates, and I bet that around the world in 99% of the cases where they do not have solid proof, they overestimate casualties

Thus for decades after the Bosnian War of the 90's, UN and other sources consistently estimated the casualties at 200.000 to over 300.000, when the numbers proved to be around 100.000 after subsequent research, and this was at a time when there were UN observers and the international media in the field throughout the war, much better technology, and when they had indeed already counted quit a few of the victims. So saying people overestimated German casualties, is saying that something very typical happened. It certainly was not a case where they had the later documents in hand, proving 27 victims, while proclaiming that 1.200 Germans were killed. Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The inflated numbers are well-referenced and important historical material as presented to the Slovenian public for decades after the war, and thus had an impact on public perception for at least a generation. It would be inappropriate to censor the information. Doremo (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone's claims that not one partisan was killed, when 30-year old memorials listed names of partisans killed in the battle, is just proof that person wrote something completely ridiculous, contradicted by the official record at the time. Are we going to document every completely ridiculous statement? The consistently inflated estimates of Bosnian War dead had impact on public perceptions for decades, yet I do not perceive a conspiracy there. Also after Tone Ferenc discovered the documents with the true count, I do not see anyone claiming hundreds of Germans dead. I also do not think he was purposefully inventing stuff when before that he estimated 100 dead, instead he was going on claims of participants and villagers, claims which in the case of many battles tend to be exaggerated Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing this well-documented information about the debunked propaganda would be like removing coverage of the Russian propaganda about the Katyn massacre or removing coverage of the German propaganda about the Gleiwitz incident. It is important to cover historical propaganda that had an impact on public perceptions. Doremo (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree these myths should be discussed in the article, so long as they are couched in terms of having been debunked. This is like the 700K Jasenovac figure, it has to be addressed in the article, but by way of explaining that it is not what current scholarship says the figure is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If claiming not one partisan was killed was propaganda, then it was almost certainly the stupidest propaganda in the world, since right at Drazgose there was then the largest monument in the region, prominently mentioning the 9 dead partisans. Also where is the proof that Tone Ferenc was engaging in propaganda when he claimed 100 dead, and then why did he contradict his own propaganda by publishing the German documents to prove the true number of dead? Were the consistently inflated Bosnian War casualty estimates propaganda? The Soviets at Katyn knew exactly how many they killed. Where is the proof that before Ferenc published the Germnan documents, people knew the true number of German dead and were therefore lying with their figures?

Btw I agree there was mythologizing, as there was with Custard's Last Stand and infinite other battles, from the Battle of Troy onward, but I see no proof Ferenc did it, and Zupanc's claim is just so ridiculous, that in my view, it is not worth mention. I also believe where there was mythologizing, some of the participants, including apparently the villagers, played a major role, and as noted, a lot of the exaggeration seems comparable to many other battles. And with respect to mythologizing, Kavcic's own myth of an entire village opposed to the partisans, does not seem to hold water, when one looks at the 16 Drazgose villagers killed as partisans, which on a per capita is almost twice the Slovene average, despite the fact that the Nazis shot many of the military-age men in their reprisal Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to address some sources, two of which Doremo just provided to fortify the claims. Slovenski poročevalec is clearly a Liberation Front interwar propaganda rag, and thus contradicts the "after the war" part, and is also not an official estimate, which is implied by "Slovene accounts" (though this may be a matter of debate). Moreover, the source does not even - as far as I can see - mention a number of casualties, but instead states "... niso [...] nič opravili proti Partizanom ...", which can much sooner be taken to mean that they did not accomplish any tactical or strategic goals, or that Partisan casualties were relatively negligible, rather than that there were none.

Enakopravnost was also published during the war (as was Nova doba; in fact, all three were published in 1942), and I can't seem to find the part that actually discusses casualty statistics. Moreover, I also cannot find the part discussing casualties in the 1982 Listi reference. It's also problematic that a Nova24TV article by Ivan Šokić is included as a reliable historic source; I'm sure the original sources of the claims are sufficient.

I'm sorry if I missed the mentions in the references due to an overhasty overview (direct excerpts would be much appreciated). Otherwise, I think that both sides make a reasonable argument, so, my previous reservations notwithstanding, I'd like to pull a Switzerland and sit this one out.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the "after the war" phrase to read "after the battle"; I don't think it's unreasonable to equate nič with 'none' ('negligible' ought to have a qualifier, like skoraj nič or prav za prav nič). I agree that Slovenski poročevalec was a propaganda rag, but it was an important propaganda vehicle, which of course is what the sentence is all about. Doremo (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Enakopravnost is cited for the concentration camps and news spreading to the United States and heroism/defiance, and Nova doba is also cited for the news spreading to the United States and heroism/defiance. Neither is cited for casualty statistics. Doremo (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The relevant material from Listi is already provided in the template's "quote" parameter. Doremo (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Nova doba is also cited after "... or at least 100 dead and another 200 wounded", but Enakopravnost is in fact not, as you have said. I also overlooked the German casualties figures in Listi; it checks out, sorry about that (... overhasty after all).

I still don't think it makes sense to include Slovenski poročevalec as reference, since the passage is highly ambiguous and could be construed any which way; it at best implies no casualties (and such a passage should not be used as proof when it is so open to interpretation).

Anyway, the Nova24TV source reduces credibility instead of conferring it, the 1,200 figure and 0 figures are questionable due to aforementioned reasons variously listed by Thhhommmasss and I, and the "Slovene accounts" is somewhat misleading. I also believe the section should also note that these estimates were unofficial estimates promulgated due to the fact that official German figures remained unavailable until the '80s.

... But I don't really have any major objections regarding the article at this point, so I'll just leave you guys to it.

Take care, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I overlooked that Nova doba citation; it says "Ubili in ranili so okrog sto Nemcev" (They killed and wounded about one hundred Germans). I think the Slovenski poročevalec text is really interesting from a historical perspective, but you're right that the text is already well enough supported without it and the Nova24TV source. I've also reduced the prominence of the 1,200 claim because it was extreme even as far as propaganda goes. Doremo (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Listi text (and others, here) present the hundreds of German deaths not as an estimate, but as a fact that the Germans were conspiring to conceal. Doremo (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

... Ah, right, much to hasty ... Also seemed to be having some trouble with finding excerpts in source text with search due to multiple spacing formatting of archived publications. Alright, I've made some edits to the paragraph, and I think this is pretty much as close to objectivity as we will get. I hope we can reach consensus around something like this version (so I can finally stop compulsively checking this talk page).

P.S.: Just on an off-note, the 1,200 figure doesn't seem to necessarily be propaganda, instead just a gravely exaggerated claim based on a retelling of a 10-year old rumour by an negligent writer.

P.P.S.: The confidence and certainty with which the sources proclaimed the figures do not make these any less estimates at the meta level. Based on Thhhommmasss's claim that the actual casualty tolls could only be ascertained when the German archives became available (and I pray to whatever deity is out there that he has a reference to back that up so we can finally put this whole thing to rest) these could have been anything but.

Kind regards, and a pleasant week-end. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I’d still take out the Zupanc claim of not one partisan killed, since it contradicts probably 99,9% of the sources at the time – the monuments, almost certainly the Ivan Jan book, probably many others – thus trying to present it as some example of a concerted propaganda campaign is just plain wrong. Also instead of seeking extreme or obscure sources, and sources contradicted by 99% of other writers, for the casualty estimates, I’d probably quote just the Jan book, whatever he has to say on the subject, since his appears to have been the most popular and influential. It does not seem appropriate to include the extreme end-point claim of 1.200, based on a 10 year old rumor, in a negligible writer's book.

The Nova doba estimate of 100 German dead and wounded sounds about right, even a bit on the low side, since sources say 1:4 was the typical WW2 killed:wounded ratio. I am curious though, who were the soldiers who told the villager about the 1.200 supposed casualties? Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Since the paragraph is in the "Interpretations" section, it is implied that these were not necessarily objective historic sources and can so be taken to mean the extent of the myth and lore that developed around the event rather than the inaccuracy of the scholarly consensus. I tried to word the passage so that it suggests that these are fanciful figures, but we could add e.g. "... (even though the actual Partisan casualties had long been known and were in fact displayed on the memorial erected at Dražgoše)." The 1,200 figure can be interpreted not as a relevant figure in the historiographic sense, but an illustration of the fact that even 10 years after the event, an apparently respected intellectual could give such an absurd figure with a straight face.

By the way, could you provide the reference regarding the German casualties figures only becoming available in the 1980s after the opening of the German archives?

Thanks. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

These unreliable, obscure outliers were apparently added as evidence of a propaganda campaign. While I’m certain there was propaganda, these are certainly not evidence of that. Even if we accept that everything written at the time was propaganda, Zupanc goes counter to 99,9% of the propaganda, including “propaganda” of 9 killed partisans on the main monument, and probably in every other book then written. Zupanc's article also deals with property losses (pages and pages of itemized furniture, clothing, pigs, chickens, etc. destroyed or looted by Germans), with exactly one and a half sentences on battle, stating only that battle lasted 3 days, and Germans did not get one partisan – that’s it. For further battle info he refers readers to Tone Ferenc and Ivan Jan books, which I’m certain contain info on actual partisans killed. The article is also from a small-town museum society publication, with probably a few hundred readers - I see no evidence of same claims in mass media or other sources. Thus an article contradicted by 99,9% of other “propaganda”, with barely a few words on the battle, contradicted by the very sources he cites, in an obscure publication, is certainly not evidence of a propaganda campaign. Instead it seems like a brain-fart on author’s part (if you’ll pardon my French), and I do not think latter is worth including in Wikipedia

Claim of 1.200 German casualties is based on old rumor (one villager heard it from German soldier), thus unauthoritative and unconvincing. If someone were intent on propaganda, they’d certainly come up with something better, like claim they found German documents with this proof (e.g. like the falsehoods propagated about Mosa Pijade, by a Slovene priest and slew of right-wing media, including the herein quoted Reporter.si). At least German docs sound convincing and given supposed total government control, they’d have no fear of being contradicted. But I see no evidence of government media or other authors picking up this claim, instead the large majority of sources seem to quote 200 German casualties, based on partisan participants and local villagers. As noted, such claims are very often exaggerated in many battles, and it appears Tone Ferenc was arguing for a lower figure of 100, even before the discovery of the German documents, when it looks like most everyone accepted the correct figures. Thus I see here normal arguments in the face of uncertainty, with a general tendency to overestimate such things, later resolved by facts. With practically all the other sources saying something very different, trying to present Florjancic book as part of some concerted campaign is, in my view, very misleading

Regarding Tone Ferenc discovery of German doc with 27 German casualties, I believe I saw where this came out in the 80s, but can’t find it now. The 1982 Ferenc article, quoted under Interpretations, still has him citing 100 German dead, while he explicitly warns that no German documents have been found to date to confirm this, so he definitely discovered the documents after 1982. Maybe Premk book has a citation to original source and date for 27 casualties

I think the correct phrasing here should be something like “based on partisan participants’ and villagers’ accounts, most sources claimed 200 German casualties, which later discovered German documents proved was too high”. If one were to add something more, it should probably be whatever numbers Ivan Jan used, since he was most broadly cited and representative. If the 1,200 non-representative outlier is included, it should say something like “although one 1955 source, quoting what one villager heard, had 1,200 casualties”. Like I said Zupanc’s “no partisans gotten” quote is so ridiculous, as to be totally unworthy of inclusion. I can’t think of a single Wikipedia rule as to why it should be included, unless there’s some rule which states “please feel free to use obscure sources, contradicted by everyone at the time and since, even by the very sources the article prominently mentions, if that helps make some point you are trying to make” Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The 1,200 material should remain as is. It is well-sourced, it is properly contextualized, and it was deemed interesting enough to be cited in multiple sources. It is one of the most interesting parts of the section. Doremo (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think one must necessarily assume this is propaganda, or that editors were attempting to suggest it was. Propaganda is purposeful misinformation. As said, this could be illustrative of the myth that developed around the event to such a degree that apparently actual academics (though I'll admit that the word doesn't mean that much) could make such a preposterous claim, rather than a random dude in the letters to the editor section.

But, as said before, I don't feel strongly either way on this point. Sadly, it appears we're the only 3 editors taking regular interest. Maybe we could do one of those calls for outside opinion thingies if we can't reach consensus (Wikipedia:Third_opinion, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment) ...

I'll just leave the passage about the official German figures with the citation needed tag for now ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully Peacemaker or someone else will chime in with their views, My point is that a key minimum hurdle for inclusion is that the information be significant. Evidence of propaganda can definitely be significant - e.g. every article on the Katyn Massacre should include references to Soviet propaganda denials. These had 2 key elements of propaganda – (1) stating a known falsehood, and (2) broadcasting it widely. For example, the falsehood about Mose Pijade, being widely picked up by the right-wing press, including Reporter, meets condition (2) of propaganda. Similarly, the falsehoods by the convicted forger, Jasenovac-denier and Holocaust-denier, Roman Leljak, widely broadcast by the right-wing press, assisted, as some Croatian media have noted, by the Catholic church and Croatian state media, has the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign. On the other hand, Zukpanc’s false, ridiculous half-sentence, apparently quoted by no one else, and in fact contradicted by nearly all the other sources at the time, is totally insignificant, thus in my view does not meet any criteria for inclusion. If the Florjancic quote was mentioned by other sources at the time, and a significant part of the conversation at the time, then it would merit inclusion, with the note that it was an extreme outlier even at the time, and it’d help to note its source – a rumor heard by a villager Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, just to the very last point, do we know the sources of the other enemy casualty claims? I'm guessing it were also rumours told by soldiers, so I don't know this is necessarily qualitatively that much different ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it appears they were based on claims made by soldiers and villagers, and previously I noted this clarification should be included. No one knew the correct numbers so they were just making guesstimates, similar to UN and other guesstimates of Bosnian War dead, before more solid info became available (btw I’ve seen, and could probably dig up quotes, that even AFTER the more reliable, still-appalling 100.000 casualty figures became available, major local news media continued to make claims of 400.000 Bosnian War dead - how relevant is that for inclusion in Bosnia War article?) For Drazgose, most older guesstimates seem to cluster at 200 (seems to be accepted wisdom then, worth mentioning solely for that reason, with no evidence of purposeful inflation). One extreme outlier said 1,200 (as I said, I do not know how widely this was mentioned at the time), while Ferenc appears to have argued for a lower figure of 100, even before the German documents were discovered. I think that is a fair summary of what happened

Here we have an article from Loski razgledi, from the same 1977 year that mentions multiple times the partisans killed at Dražgoše - e.g." Na strani partizanov je bilo devet mrtvih in dvanajst ranjenih, izgube nemških fašistov pa so ostale neznane" So here the "propaganda" also states that the German casualties are in fact unknown, not 1,200 as someone claimed. Why not quote this well documented fact? Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And here's a 1974 article from Ivan Jan (whose account, per Premk, was the closest to an “official version" at the time), stating 9 partisans killed, and that precise German losses are unknown (“natančnih podatkov o tem še ni, kajti svoje izgube zlasti v tem času so prikrivali vse doslej”). So I'm starting to seriously doubt that exaggerated German losses were a key part of the story then Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The exaggerated German losses are a key part of the story because that is what was repeatedly presented to the public for decades. There were also accounts that gave more honest information. Doremo (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide examples where these were broadly publicized numbers (mass media, textbooks, speeches by leading politicians, monument inscriptions, etc.)? Peacemaker said we should focus on authoritative sources. All the sources state that the most influential, widely read account was Ivan Jan’s, most likely read more than everything else put together. He says the German causalities were unknown. The most authoritative historian at the time, Tone Ferenc, estimated 100 possible casualties, and like Jan warns that we do not have German documents, so we do not know for sure. So if this is relevant, per requirement to quote authoritative sources, I think something like this would reflect facts fairly: “The most popular and widely read accounts of the battle, by Ivan Jan, state precise German causalities were unknown, while others estimated 200 casualties, based on partisan and villager sources, with one extreme estimate of 1,200, based on a rumor heard by a villager. The most authoritative historian at the time, Tone Ferenc, estimated 100 German dead, while warning true figures were unknown, due to lack of German documents. Later he discovered German documents with the 27 killed figure, and this then became the widely accepted number” Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to find historical circulation/subscription and readership figures for the periodicals and/or borrowing statistics from libraries, you're welcome to engage in that speculative research. Doremo (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried, but haven’t found any evidence that inflated German casualty figures were broadly spread in mass media, etc. Dlib has old issues of Delo, so I may check a few random ones around anniversary dates, to see if there’s any mention of German dead. We know the monuments make no claim of German casualties, only partisan and villager casualties, and just the fact that Jan specifically states that German ones are unknown, in my view, substantially contradicts claims that inflated enemy casualties were a key part of the “official story”. In fact, since his was the most widely distributed, read, quoted and “official” version of the story, it could be said that the most “official story” was that enemy casualties are unknown.

Btw, even Kavcic mentions Jan’s book, and the only quibble he has with it from a factual point of view, is that he says one villager told Jan that he escaped the German execution, while Kavcic claims that person was too short for execution. Thus Kavcic’s and other detractors’ main differences with the “official story” are over interpretations – e.g. is a 3-day conflict with 2.000 attacking soldiers, employing heavy artillery, plus 27 killed on one side, and 9 killed on the other, a “battle” (per Jan) or a “scuffle” (per Kavcic and detractors). I believe Jan is closer to the truth, since I know of no other comparably-sized “scuffles” (btw I was not able to find one French Resistance battle with even 10 Germans killed, so per Kavcic and similar claims, they were not capable even of a scuffle)

Claims by Kavcic and other commentators that this was an insignificant battle, is also belied by the facts of the appalling retribution by the Germans – burning scores of villagers alive and shooting them, coming back multiple times to burn and raze the village, etc. It’s crystal clear that they considered this very significant, per Jan, greatly feared it would become a potent symbol, igniting further resistance. Even Joze Dezman says the Germans were motivated by large losses they took at Rovte and elsewhere, losses that were at that time probably among the highest in all occupied Europe. So again, I see Jan as much more representative of the truth, and published detractors as seeking to misrepresent facts. Jan and Ferenc also show much more care with the facts - e.g. stating no German documents have been found, so we do not know casualties - compared to sources like Reporter printing obvious fake news about Mosa Pijade, without checking their sources – thus the latter smacks much more of propaganda Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Btw is there any reason why we should include Zupanc’s false, ridiculous claim of no partisan casualties, contradicted by everyone before, during and after, including the very sources he mentions as authoritative on the matter? Are there any Wiikpedia rules which would call for its inclusion? Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

... Well, I wouldn't think there are any prohibiting it ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a Reliable Sources requirement for Wikipedia. I cannot see how a clearly false claim, contradicted by everything else written, even the sources it clearly refers to as authoritative, can be a Reliable Source. If that is allowed, then it sounds like Wikipedia allows all sorts of clearly false info - e.g. someone claiming sky is Green, while referencing sources that say sky is Blue. I suspect even author knew his claim was wrong, clearly some type of lapse - is it Ok to quote total lapses, typos, and all sorts of other false info in Wikipedia? 00:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But it's self-referential. You could e.g. write "Charlie Sheen claimed the sky was green before collapsing in a cocaine-induced stupor" which would be internally consistent and could be included if there was a reliable source that he indeed said that (not that it was actually true) and if it was noteworthy (for the record; made up example). Likewise, in our case, it is explicitly noted that these were exaggerated overestimates. So what we're debating is whether it's noteworthy.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If the purpose of Wikipedia is to construct formal-logically consistent statements, which are 100% wrong on the subject matter, then definitely the Charlie Sheen statement belongs in the Wikipedia article about the sky. But that is not the purpose of Wikipedia

I'd definitely even consider the 100% false Zupanc claim noteworthy, if 50 other sources were making the same false claim - then it indeed would be evidence of some propaganda campaign (like Reporter and 50 other right-wing media all selling the same, fake Mosa Pijade news). But here everyone else, including the sources he quotes, say the complete opposite (if he seriously made the claim, did he think no one would notice his quoted sources talk about killed partisans, most likely even have short bios on each?) If the reason for quoting this is to present evidence of propaganda, then there should be a quote to the effect that "nearly all the propaganda at the time - books, monuments, etc - claimed that 8 or 9 partisans were killed in the battle". There's the consistent, repeatedly-drummed "propaganda", although it just happens to be the truth. Since Zupanc is contradicted by every other source, even the sources he references, I can't believe this is anything other than a brain-fart on his part (pardon my French again), and Wikipedia should not consist of such things Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to reiterate two things ... First, I do not necessarily oppose the removal of the content in question as the noteworthiness of the content is definitely up for debate (on the other hand, I do find the detail personally interesting and, as said, wouldn't have a big problem with it staying, either). And second, you seem to predicate your argument against inclusion, in large part, on the assumption that it is included with the sole purpose of proving a concerted propaganda campaign. But one would have to read between the lines to deduce such an interpretation. As said, one could much sooner take the passage to be illustrative of the lore surrounding the event following the war.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the content is interesting and I feel that it should stay, also because it has been cited in multiple sources. It is certainly illustrative of the lore surrounding the event, just a more extreme example than the other false numbers. Doremo (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

On the 1,200 German causalities claim, I left it as an extreme, but the first obligation is to note what the most authoritative, most widely distributed source said, if the goal is to be representative of what most people heard at the time, not just seek out extremes, which no one else took seriously. Thus I recommended this sentence: “The most popular and widely read accounts of the battle, by Ivan Jan, state precise German causalities were unknown, while others estimated 200 casualties, based on partisan and villager sources, with one extreme estimate of 1,200, based on a rumor heard by a villager. The most authoritative historian at the time, Tone Ferenc, estimated 100 German dead, while warning true figures were unknown, due to lack of German documents. Later he discovered German documents with the 27 killed figure, and this then became the widely accepted number” Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

On Zupanc’s 'not one Partisan killed" - who quoted this source and when? (btw many right-wing media quoted the Jasenovac book of the Holocaust-denier, Roman Leljak, so just being quoted doesn’t make it authoritative). What is the purpose of including clearly false, ridiculous information, contradicted by everyone at the time and since? In almost every NYT book review, particularly historical books, there is some mention of errata, i.e. things the author got wrong, some are whoppers. Does that mean we should dig up all these errata, and start populating associated Wikipedia articles with them? Adding this would require some note, like – “all the other sources at the time – monuments, books (including the books he quotes), etc – state the exact opposite, that 8 or 9 partisans were killed”. If something like this is not added, then it seems like an attempt to misrepresent – i.e. try to make something sound significant and representative, when clearly it was not. At the very least it seems ridiculous, like going out of one’s way to find and put a “sky is green” quote in the Wikipedia Sky article, even if one qualifies it with “but all the other sources say the sky is blue”. So I would like to hear an answer as to why include a clearly false, ridiculous statement, contradicted by everyone before, during and since, including the sources he mentions, and why would similar false, ridiculous, totally-contradicted statements merit inclusion in other Wikipedia articles? Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)