Talk:Serbian Volunteer Corps (World War II)

Retreat and Demise

Retreat and demise section is bery long, can it be split up?Sam Hayes 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC) This article is obviously based on postwar propaganda. The Volunteers were not collaborators with Nazis de facto. Whatever the Reich or the double crossing Brits decided to deem them during and after the war does not change the reality on the ground. Perhaps prisoners of war are considered collaborators with the enemy that had captured them? That would be consistent with Partisan delusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.153.160 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

what is your reliable published source for that? The Serbian Volunteer Corps were German auxiliaries. It was formed as a Zbor party army in Sep 41, it's detachments were initially subordinated to German divisions, had German liaison officers attached to them and could not move out of their allocated areas without German permission. Then they were placed under the direct command of the German commander in Serbia and received arms and ammunition from the Germans. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sdk.gif

Image:Sdk.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

71.194.187.81 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Retreat and Demise section looks false as the Chetniks fought against the axis, many communists and Croatian Facists used this kind of propaganda after the war to puff up the Partizans contributions..... Im sure the 500+ American airmen rescued by the Chetniks would probably not find this article's references to the Chetniks to be honest & fair.71.194.187.81 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sdk-logo.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nigel and Littlejohn

Can full citations be provided for these short citations please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideology of Zbor and the SDK

Many sources state that Ljotic and Zbor were fascist. Just a small sample:

• Karl-Heinz Frieser & Klaus Schmider (eds) The Eastern Front 1943-1944: The War in the East and on the Neighbouring Fronts, Oxford University Press, p. 1087 "the fascist Zbor movement"
• John K. Cox The History of Serbia, Greenwood Publishing, p. 84 "Ljotić's small Serbian fascist movement"
• Robert Thomas Serbia Under Milošević: Politics in the 1990s, C. Hurst & Co., p. 20 "Ljotić's fascist movement"
• Jozo Tomasevich Yugoslavia During The Second World War in Wayne Vuchinich's Contemporary Yugoslavia: Twenty Years of Socialist Experiment, University of California Press, p. 80 "the Serbian fascist Dimitrije Ljotić"
• Jeanne M. Haskin Bosnia and Beyond: The "quiet" Revolution that Wouldn't Go Quietly, Algora Publishing, p. 28 "the Serbian fascist movement Zbor"
• John R. Lampe Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country, Cambridge University Press, p. 227 "the fascist Dimitrije Ljotić"
• Marko Attila Hoare The Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War, Oxford University Press, p. 110 ""the Serbian fascist leader Dimitrije Ljotić"

This is the overwhelming academic consensus. The SDK was the party army of the fascist Zbor organisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Never ONCE in the ZBOR/SDK documents are they labeled/declared as "fascists", in fact, they in several occasions DELIBERATELY say that their ideology isn't fascist. What you are basically doing is you're telling someone what they are, like you know better than they themselves do. Notice how all of the "sources" you provided are from completely unimportant people that haven't stepped into ex-yu. ZBOR was a far right monarchist-nationalist party, not a fascist one. Ljotic didn't like fascism as a ideology which he said multiple times. I don't support him or his actions, I just hate false accusations, this one being blatantly obvious.

Sources :

• Šta hoće ZBOR (Written by Velibor Jonić), ltr. "What ZBOR wants", listing the party goals, notice fascism is NEVER mentioned.
• Official newspapers of ZBOR "Otadžbina" no. 48, 2nd February 1935, titled "Not fascism nor hitlerism" where Ljotic specifically mentions difference between ZBOR and fascism.
• In May of 1937. Stojadinovic was going to Rome and Berlin to study nazism and fascism ideologies, Ljotic wrote : "We are not fascists, nor is our thought fascist. 100 hundred times we said it and proved it. Stojadinovic might go to Rome to copy Fascism, or Berlin to copy Hitlerism, but he doesn't take our thought." Kosmar6314(click to talk to me)

If you are planning to edit Wikipedia, you need to read and understand WP:RS. Articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Statements by Zbor members about themselves are NOT independent of the subject. Scholarship always trumps self-serving propaganda. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Picture of the soldier of the Serbian Volunteer Command

@Necrohrv I'm taking this to the talk page to resolve this. Firstly I added image back with my IP address, I forgot to log in to the Wikipedia. All these added images on this page are added by me, from my private archive that I was collecting for 6 years from various sources. You could actually see these images already on my YouTube channel.
1. I didn't say that image is from Piroćanac's album, I said you can check that members of the SDK wore that uniform during 1941/42.
2. If you don't like colorization of my photo I will upload it as original, also I don't really understand why do you see my colorization as propaganda? I tried to color it historically as possible.
3. Your statement "also wouldn't it be better to use and actually picture of their actual uniforms other than a picture of their older uniforms" doesn't make any sense.
You can see the same badge on the Milos Vojinovic's uniform in 1942.

MilosHaran (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. On the original upload of the file the source was cited as from Private archive of Trifun Drakulić and when you undid my edit you directly said that it was from Piroćanac's album.

2. That colorisation is obviously flawed, as you tried to make him match the so called "Aryan" standards with blue eyes and blond hair.

3. The actual SDK uniforms look something like this

And the volunteer detachment was separate from the SDK.

While looking at your channel I see your a far right propagandist I see no reason why you should be editing wikis Necrohrv (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

After taking a detailed look at your channel it seems very clear to me the stance your trying to push, since the flawed colorisations are a re accuring theme

[1]http://youtube.com/post/UgkxX6Rr5_DWdmaUUNamuMH1KP40a7gXegD2?si=GAoQrYlRrHyCgqgZ Necrohrv (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I said: You can see the badge on the right which was worn by the Serbian Volunteer Command. You can check that in Stevan Piroćanac's album. Sorry maybe I wasn't specific enough. I thought you could check that the soldiers wore that badge based on the pictures from that album.

2. What are you talking about? In the black and white picture his eyes are light, so it's logical to assume they were blue. I also want to point out now that I added image of the SDK soldiers and the Romani people. What kind of "Aryan" and "far right propagandist" would put that? You are just talking nonsense.

3. That uniform started to be worn only from the beginning of 1943.

4. The volunteer detachments were reorganized to the battalions in January of 1943, when the Serbian Volunteer Command changed its name to the Serbian Volunteer Corps. You don't know what you are talking about.

5. You can see that Vojinovic has light eyes in the black and white image? Is it logical to assume they were blue? I can not believe you are really bringing this. You could see that I colorized some soldiers with brown eyes and hair. Like this and this. If you now ask "why are their hair brown?" because it LOOKED LIKE THAT IN THE BLACK AND WHITE PICTURE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN ARYAN PROPAGANDA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I uploaded once this picture. I got lots of racist comments. You could see that I answered to one of them with "Веома нам је жао што Вас је увредила историјска фотографија добровољца који по Вашем мишљењу личи на „цигу”. Ако Вам смета историја, онда овај канал није место за Вас. / We are very sorry that you were offended by the historical photo of a volunteer who, in your opinion, looks like a "Gypsy". If history bothers you, then this channel is not the place for you.".
Same goes for you my friend, if history bothers you, then this is not the place for you. You are trying to defend Wikipedia from my "Aryan" propaganda that doesn't exist, just because I colorized someone's eyes blue, this is just crazy. MilosHaran (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1.The Serbian Volunteer detachment and the Serbian volunteer corps aren't the same thing they're predecessors of eachother.

2.I did AI coloring never did it show his eyes blue only light brown, or light green, also no you didn't add that image I did lol.

3. So? It was used way more than the one your showing and again the one you showed with the badge represents the volunteer detachment that came before the Serbian voulnteer corps.

4.It wasn't just a name change it changed it's structure as well lheres various types of light eyes that aren't blue, also you getting racist comments shouldn't be a suprise when your representing a fascist milita that helped kill its own, I have seen your channel I have seen the propaganda you push it is blantly obvious.l. Necrohrv (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. They are the same formation that was just reorganized. I don't understand your point.

2. You can see that uploader of that image is MilosHaran, which is me.

3. THEY ARE THE SAME FORMATION.

4. You are really doing this because of the way I colored eyes? Really?

Just absurd over what we are arguing. MilosHaran (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@MilosHaran

1. No they're not lol, it's clearly different, the Serbian volunteer corps is the predecessor of the volunteer detachment this is like saying the imperial german army and the Wehrmacht are the same lol.

2. Yes I can clearly see that, and I have no problem with it but your colouring is flawed, and it's pretty obvious lol.

3. Literally 1.

4. Wikipedia should contain real unflawed information, that's it's purpose. Necrohrv (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@MilosHaran I'm willing to make a compromise and look behind on your questionable views however, I think just posting the original un colourised image would be best in my honest and fair opinion. Necrohrv (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's a deal. MilosHaran (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@MilosHaran

Have you uploaded it? Necrohrv (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's black and white now. MilosHaran (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You state that you collected the private archive of photos "from various sources". For copyright reasons, you must cite those original sources when uploading the picture, rather than labeling them as "own work" or "unknown author", which is misleading. As the photos date from the 1940s, they might actually still be copyrighted – if you do not know the specific terms of the license, they might be deleted, as copyrighted works are not accepted except under very specific "fair use" cases (not met here).

Some of the pictures are claimed to be in the public domain using the "70 years following the death of the author" rule. As you state that the author is unknown, there is presently no way to verify this, and these licenses are also misleading. If the pictures were explicitly published anonymously, this should be stated, as the law may differ in that situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The photograph cannot be used unless its copyright status can be established. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)