Talk:Operation Weiss

Bias?

Is this statement "The Germans, characteristically, quickly caught on," showing some pro-Nazi bias? Specifically, the word characteristically? Otherwise, I don't understand it. T-bonham (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and edit it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

History of move target

Although the redirect currently at Battle of Neretva does have a non-trivial history, its entire contents at their high point as an article were The Battle of Neretva (1944) was a major battle between Tito's partisans and nazis during the Second World War. IMO the history of this stub does not need preserving, which makes the move a little easier. Andrewa 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The bridge

I think that the downed bridge in this article is not he original one. I tthink that is is replica from the movie. -- Bojan  19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks participation

If Chetnik units defected and joined the collaborationist forces (here, the Anti-Communist Volunteer Militia), could they still be considered as Chetniks, i.e. members of Mihajlovic's Yugoslav army in the fatherland ? De facto, this chetnik unit had imho become another organization. Remember that Chetnik is actually a generic term, meaning member of a military unit, and used to mean in that context armed guerrilla/militia. I am not actually convinced that the Chetniks could be considered a belligerent here, unless we buy completely into the titist version of history. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Titist"? What is "Titism" LoL... :) The Chetniks, and I mean Chetniks, are well known to have held the opposite bank of the Neretva (unsuccessfully). 20,000 of them in fact, mostly southern Serbian formations. Those are not to be confused with members of the Bande VAC which were on the other side of the river incorporated into Italian units (comprising mostly Dalmatian Serbs). Even if we disregard this, the Chetniks troops you're referring to were only nominally "Italian" and were, in fact, Chetniks beyond a shadow of a doubt. Name does not change substance. Italian forces, and indeed Mihailović, could hardly be seen openly dealing with each-other. It was a rather shallow disguise for Axis-aided Chetnik formations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Titist means pro-Tito, or at least officially sponsored by yugoslav communists. Sorry if I used a word that doesn't exist in english (it does exist in other languages, though) ;) I see what you mean, but if Chetniks defected to Axis, could they still be considered Chetniks, in the sense of "members of Mihajlovic's forces" ? Remember that Mihajlovic himself was rehabilitated in the USA and that several political parties in Serbia support his rehabilitation, so this is a controversial issue (I'm not taking sides, just raising a methodological point). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Titism"? :) Sry, that's a rather artificial term coined by Italian "anti-Yugoslav" circles ("Titini", "Titisti" etc..). There's only "Titoism", which refers to the special form of liberal market socialist economy in Yugoslavia, it does not specifically mean personal "support for Tito" any more than "Marxism" refers to support for Karl Marx personally.

• "If Chetniks defected to Axis, could they still be considered Chetniks, in the sense of 'members of Mihajlovic's forces' "?

"Defected"? By no means. These units were under Mihailović's indirect command, a part of the Chetnik movement before, after, and during the Battle. If I'm not mistaken, Mihailović was found guilty of high treason and executed in the post-war trials. Now there are critics of the process, but I'm not prepared to start revising post-war Allied tribunals and their fairness here (Yamashita?). There can be little doubt that, towards the end of the war, forces under direct Mihailović's command engaged the Partisans in conjuncture with Axis forces, at the time when the latter were the recognized Allied military of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (even by the King himself). Put simply, Mihailović's policy was that if the Axis wins, they're done for anyway (correct btw), and that if the Allies win, the Partisans present the greatest threat to Yugoslavia, i.e. the kind of monarchist, Serb-dominated Yugoslavia he wanted to establish (this turned out to be perfectly correct as well).

The Chetnik troops were simply incorporated into an Italian volunteer organization, that much is pretty obvious. Calling this "defection" is hardly accurate since they still considered themselves Chetniks, still answered to Mihailović, and still remained Chetniks after the disbandment of the Bande VAC. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is actually controversy about Mihajlovic's own guilt, although there are no doubt that some units of his guerrilla force later joined the Axis. While he was indeed found guilty of treason (by Tito's communist regime), he has been rehabilitated in the US for 20 years and several books and documentaries (not "deniers" of any kind) have vehemently defended his historical role, considering for example that he was the victim of a smear campaign by communist sympathizers, who were influential in making the Allies switching their support from the Chetniks to the Partisans. Remember that yugoslav history, post-1945, has been written under a communist regime (until 1990, that is) who was also friendly with the west, and could therefore see its version accepted there. So I have some doubts about this (yes, even about the "Allies"' was tribunals), not that I have a definitive opinion on the matter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is controversy about the guilt of many defendants of post-war tribunals, and still more about the severity of their punishments. However, I am not about to start questioning the findings of these institutions here. If we're going to discuss this, I must affirm that the man must be guilty of high treason, at least by command responsibility. One may be able to convince me that he himself did not collaborate or officially condone collaboration, but I don't think it is possible to convince any objective person that he remained blissfully oblivious to the years of very widespread collaboration (almost universal at the end of the war) of his, ever-decreasing troops.

"Communist sympathizers"? Ultra was communist? Fitzroy MacLean a "communist sympathizer"? Churchill was hardly to be swayed by anything short of hard cold facts. Which were: Chetniks - barely fighting, not fighting, or collaborating against the Partisans. Partisans (a three times larger military force) - drawing literally hundreds of thousands of Axis troops away from the Eastern, Southern, and (later) the Western fronts. Not to mention fighting bitterly against the occupying forces at all times... What's there to embellish?

"Tito's communist regime"? How unbiased of you :), you must mean the FPR Yugoslavia? The legal system in the second Yugoslavia was incomparably more professional and unbiased than the one in the open dictatorship that was the (capitalist) authoritarian Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In fact, its quality (probably) surpasses even the modern legal systems in most successor states of Yugoslavia (with the exception of Slovenia). (I can vouch that the court system in modern Croatia, for example, is a complete joke :) The second Yugoslavia is not to be compared to Stalin's USSR, but the phrase "communist regime", accomplishes that brilliantly :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Tito's regime was communist (i.e. : dominated by the People's Front) is hardly debatable, even though I am well aware that it was the most west-friendly (and less totalitarian) communist country in Europe (take note : I know that communist does not equal stalinist ;) ) and would never dream of comparing it with, say, the Socialist People's Republic of Albania. Hence, the fact that the West would accept its version of history, or some counterfeited documents. It can be argued that Mihailovic was less effective than Tito as a political and (at least in a guerrilla context) military leader. The matter of his own guilt is, however, strongly debated now. He was certainly aware that his troops were disintegrating/defecting to the partisans/defecting to the Axis, but was he happy about it ? Did he approve it ? That's the whole point. IMHO, we should be extra careful about not swallowing any communist/pro-Tito/pro-Stalin/name it as you choose propaganda. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been raised again by a deletion by User:Knightserbia of material sourced from Tomasevich Vol 1 which incorporates information that the Partisans apparently captured from the Chetniks and which was produced at DM's trial. However, p115 of Milazzo clearly states that the Italians and Germans had intercepted Chetnik radio transmissions by this time, and Milazzo provides the reference (Italian military records). I will edit this section to reincorporate the detail of Chetnik involvement in Fall Weiss and add additional references including Milazzo and the source being radio intercepts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Neretva

Since this information is from RS it is very valuable information. Few people in the world know that information and it is tied to the battle itself. Mikola22 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This information is not relevant and unbalanced. In the middle of the description of the fighting, you suddenly insert data on ethnic composition of only one brigade of three dozen (). And why not social? How many workers were there and how many peasants? Not all information from RS is appropriate. This information could be appropriate, for example, in the Order of Battle section, along with data on other brigades.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to make a point about the makeup of the Partisans which isn't relevant to this article. Just drop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Fall Weiss" is the codename for the German invasion of Poland

I read through the various discussions and the rationale behind the name of this article seems to be to use the German codename. Whatever one may think of this rationale, one thing is clear: Fall Weiss, translated as Case White is the codename for the German invasion of Poland 1939. That's not ambiguous. The German codename for the military operation described in this article was "Weiß". Cf. the relevant German source is called Operationsbefehl für das Unternehmen „Weiss“. (see, e.g., Shepherd, Terror in the Balkans, p. 325) Therefore, German historians have either spoken of Unternehmen „Weiß“ or Operation „Weiß“. In fact, this was a cycle of offensive operations including „Weiß II“ and „Weiß III“. (Schmider, Partisanenkrieg, 2002, pp. 206ff.) The term „Fall“ is reserved for operational plans devised by the German General Staff like „Fall Gelb“ and so forth. So, if this article is supposed to be named after the German codename, which I find questionable btw, it should be at least the correct German codename and not the codename for the German invasion of Poland.-- Assayer (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, as I noted along time ago (up there ↑) the principal sources all use "Operation" not "Case", and "Unternehmen" is generally translated as "Operation". So, fully translated, "Operation White". However, there is a British operation with that name in 1940 with an article, but neither is probably primary, so they should probably both be disambiguated by year, ie Operation White (1940) and this one as Operation White (1943). While using German operation names might be questionable, they are often more commonly used in sources, and they can be less loaded than the various names the other participants use. Fourth Enemy Offensive is obviously the Partisan version, and I don't think that is a great option. I suggest a move to Operation White (1943). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

To point out the importance: A number of books have taken over the "Fall Weiss" from here already (all were written after the article), so cleaning this up is important. I am fine with Operation White (1943). --KnightMove (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 I see that argument above, but weren't you the one, who moved the article to Case White (1943) in the first place? Anyway, I find it most interesting that prior to 2004, i.e. when this article came into existence, there is no reference in the literature to a Fall Weiß meaning an anti-partisan warfare operation in Yugoslavia. I would argue that this is a case of citogenesis.

Two things: One, Fall „Schwarz“ was the codename for German plans to militarily take over Italy in 1943. So the Wikipedian Case Black is another case in point and should be moved as well. Two, the actual codename is the name put in quotation marks, in this case just „Weiß“. Literature often adds Operation and Unternehmen to it, and there are actually historians disputing whether Unternehmen or Operation is the militarily more correct term for these kinds of German military plans. This should not be of too much concern to us, though, since literature is sufficiently consistent with Operation. Assayer (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve learned a few things over time. Happy to change my mind if I think the argument is superior. I don’t think there is any real doubt about “Operation” being the appropriate noun in English, and it is what is most common in the reliable sources for this specific event. The same argument applies to Operation Black, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I have announced the pending move at Talk:Operation_White#Disambiguation_needed, if any discussion is needed. --KnightMove (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

On German nomenclature, if Unternehmen is to be translated to Operation, then the name should be translated too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course, that's an integral part of the suggestion. --KnightMove (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely it should be determined by whether or not that is what the reliable sources in English do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hum, hum, good point. It seems that Operation Weiss is indeed much more frequent in English literature than Operation White. In general, the article titles are mixed on whether they translate: Operation Northwind (1944) vs. Operation Rösselsprung (1944). Has this already been discussed more generally? --KnightMove (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a fan of Google for this, so I will have a look at the principal reliable sources that talk about this operation and list them here and there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

OK:

• Tomasevich 1975 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 231), he also used "Operation Weiss" in his 2001 book (eg p. 143)
• Hoare 2006 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 329), and in a chapter of Ramet and Listhaug's 2011 book, he again uses "Operation Weiss" on p. 211
• Roberts 1987 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 100)
• Redžić 2005 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 36) despite the fact that he was a Partisan and might be expected to use the "Fourth Enemy Offensive" title
• Ramet 2006 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 149)
• Pavlowitch 2008 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 152)
• Trifković 2020 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 136)
• Burgwyn 2012 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 246)
• Milazzo 1975 uses "Operation Weiss" (eg p. 115)
• I haven't got it to hand, but Google Books confirms that the 2000 Clarendon Press Germany and the Second World War series edited by Kroener, Müller and Umbreit also uses "Operation Weiss" on p. 174 of volume 5 titled "Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power: Wartime administration, economy, and manpower resources, 1942-1944". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That all confirms the Google results above that "Operation Weiss" is the common name in reliable sources on the subject, so I consider this article should be at Operation Weiss (with a hatnote link to the invasion of Poland), and Case White should be a redirect to Fall Weiss (1939) (I'm not sure what the common name is there, but that is not our issue here). I imagine the same will apply to Case Black, but will start a thread there and check the sources for that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, still sticking with Google (because this is the best I can do), the exceptions using "Operation White" all look like either not books specialized on the topic and/or as translations from originally other languages. I think we can close the discussion with consensus that the right title for the article is Operation Weiss. Any more objections? --KnightMove (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to hear what Assayer thinks, given they were the OP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

No objections from my side. Assayer (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, moved. I then deleted Case White and redirected it to Fall Weiss (1939). I wasn't sure whether to redirect it to Invasion of Poland instead, but considered Case White was probably more used for the plan rather than the actual invasion. If someone disagrees, I won't object to a change in redirect, Poland is not really my area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The article Fall Weiss (1939) is bad shape. But I am not in the mood to work on it. Maybe we can do away with the bracketed 1939. Assayer (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have already requested speedy deletion of Fall Weiss to get rid of the bracket, but for hours, nothing has happened... @Peacemaker67: can you help please? --KnightMove (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: It's done. --KnightMove (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, no, it wasn't all exactly "done". Y'all left behind a mess, which has taken me considerable time to clean up. I just traced the problem back to its root: this 28-June-2012 technical request. No apparent need for disambiguation brackets?! No, no, no... there is a need! You were conflating something that happened in 1939 with another thing that happened in 1943! – wbm1058 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What exactly happened in 1943 that makes a diambiguation necessary?-- Assayer (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing, but that's not the right question. What happened on Wikipedia in 2012 and 2025 that makes disambiguation necessary? Why was Case White (1943) the primary topic for Case White in 2012, and what happened in 2025 to change the primary topic overnight? Was there some transformative, revolutionary academic or news publication that changed everyone's perception of the past? Instantaneously?! With no transition period where the term became ambiguous and more slowly transitioned to a new meaning? wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, did you take your time to read this thread? It seems not, because otherwise you might have realized that the year in question is 2003, when someone, who seemingly does not speak German, deemed it fit to create a Wikipedia disambiguation claiming that „Fall Weiß“ was [a] combined Axis counter-partisan operation launched in late January, 1942 throughout Croatia. [...] Operation Weiss II followed in February; Operation Weiss III was launched in March. The next major operation in Yugoslavia was Operation Schwarz. Fall Weiss translates as Case White following the German military's naming convention at the time. That's plain wrong, and a closer reading shows, that it did not make sense at the time, either, because Operation Weiss II and III and Operation Schwarz are mentioned, but that's when the new meaning made the first appearance that I know of. Anything else happening on Wikipedia (disambiguation and stuff) evovlved from there. It might be interesting to study, why other Wikipedians did not care to delve further into the issue. But that's not my concern. Unfortunately the invented meaning has started to creep into the academic world ever since, because there are scholars who are careless enough to rely on Wikipedia instead of scholarship. It's nevertheless about time to stop the futher transition of a term with a clear cut meaning in sources and reliable historical scholarship into a ficticious ambiguity through Wikipedia. It's because the misconception began to make inroads into the German Wikipedia, that it came to my attention and I started this thread. Assayer (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Assayer: the year in question is 2003?! I just scanned the page for "2003" and your reply is the first and only mention here. I don't see "2003" in any of the discussions above. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In any event, I've sorted out Fall Weiss (disambiguation) from this tangled web, and that page should be deleted per WP:G14 soon – just keeping it a bit longer for purposes of clarity in this discussion. However my issue is still focused on Case White, which I've separated from Fall Weiss. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is my relevant edit history, hopefully that helps clarify what I've been on about here. My self-selected niche on Wikipedia is an administrator-gnome, who cleans up after the edits of other administrators that throw flags that I patrol for. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

No one bothered to look up, when exactly the meaning was wrongly attributed. The only thing which became clear soon enough was, that prior to 2004, i.e. when this article came into existence, there is no reference in the literature to a Fall Weiß meaning an anti-partisan warfare operation in Yugoslavia, which points to citogenesis. Only checking it again today I found out that there is an even earlier edit from 2003. Anyway, the important issue to take home from this thread is, that Fall „Weiß“ unambigously refers to the invasion of Poland. As mentioned above, Case Black is similiarly problematic and needs to be moved to Operation Schwarz (see Tomasevich and other literature) at some point soon. Assayer (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Assayer: @Peacemaker67: I have requested deletion of the four related redirects here and here. Support to get a consensus & bring this to an end would be nice. --KnightMove (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

"Fall Weiss (1942)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fall Weiss (1942) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 15 § Fall Weiss (1942) until a consensus is reached.

Also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 15#Fall Weiß (1943). Jay 💬 11:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)