Talk:Axis occupation of Greece/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I have created this article.

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. Someone should contribute about the partisan movement and also about the Jewish holocaust of Thessaloniki, since I am not really ane expert in these two fields. The article needs it because because of my specialisation in Greek collaborationism the article is now way too focused on collaborationism and is unjust to partisanry, resistance and the Jewish question. Also the Kalavryta massacre should be mentioned too.

This is a very good first start. I have made some edits and will continue to do so.Argos'Dad 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

rename title

Since this article apparently deals with the entire Occupation period in Greece, should it not be renamed to something like "WW2 occupation of Greece"? After all, Greece was jointly occupied by Germany, Bulgaria and Italy (until 1943), and although the Germans were pretty much in overall control, factual accuracy necessitates a clarification, unless separate articles are to be created for the other two occupying powers.Cplakidas 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe "Occupation of Greece by the Axis" would be more suitable? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree. How about "Axis'Occupation of Greece"?Argos'Dad 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Axis Occupation of Greece during WWII" Mitsos 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Axis Occupation of Greece", since WW2 is obviously implied by the term "Axis". Since noone has expressed disagreement with the renaming, I proceed to rename the page.Cplakidas 10:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Greece

The fall of Greece section should incorporate material from the Battle of Greece article or the Greco-Italian War article. Battle of Greece by the way has been nominated for "A-class." Perhaps some of you would like to go and comment. Periklis* 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the Bulgarian occupation zone

I recently expanded the "Bulgarian occupation zone" stub. Thank you (to whoever edited and corrected my contribution) for your help.
Parrisia 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone, apparently a Bulgarian writer, has made some strange changes. A qualifier of "Bulgarian inhabited" has been strangely added and needs to be deleted. Seems to be from hard core Bulgarian nationalist writings since Greece and Bulgaria exchanged populations in the area decades before. Really this is about trying to gain greater Bulgaria. It comes from trying to replicated San stefano which was also strangely removed?

Even the fact that the German army had crushed the Greek army in the North firs tis left out, and this is strange since it is relevant that the Bulgarians had no military victories against the Greeks.

There also seems to be no mention of the fate of the Jews in the Bulgarian occupation zone when this is a very serious matter.R.abravanel 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are newly declassified intercepts of Bulgarian German discussions on the murder of Jews in the Bulgarian zones. Notes can be found here at NSA's site. Not sure how to note them. http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00044.cfm#C425 R.abravanel 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarisation - a hatred-laden term

Bulgarisation is painted in black while Hellenization is painted in white. The problem is in those two colors. There is no problem in the color grey. History is driven by people with good intentions but the results are mixed. Happy contemplation. Lantonov 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the verifiability of one of the sources (Mazower), the book is mentioned in the "sources" section, complete with its ISBN and all, as "Mark Mazower (1995). Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation, 1941-44. United States: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300089236". Maybe a trip to your local library is enough to verify? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The ISBN # is enough. I will try to find it. Lantonov 11:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Checked. Mazower's book is ok. Lantonov 11:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

changing recent edits

I am changing the following recent edits: "[The Occupation] began in April 1941 after the German and Italian invasion of Greece, and was done together with Bulgarian forces" to "[The Occupation] began in April 1941 after the German invasion and conquest of Greece", because it is factually incorrect. The Bulgarians entered Greek territory after the Greek army had capitulated. In Western Thrace, the "Evros Brigade" had already withdrawn to Turkey and the territory was effectively in German control. The Bulgarians did not fire a single shot on Greeks. Plus, the Italian invasion had already occurred in October 1940 and been repulsed, and the fall and occupation of Greece was to the Germans and the Germans alone. Even after surrender to the Germans, Italian attacks on the Greek positions in Albania were repulsed. I removed "in a war situation similar to those of WWI in the Alps" because it is rather irrelevant. It is too vague and without any direct relation to the subject of the Occupation. If you wish to elaborate in this relation, do it in the relevant article on the Greco-Italian War. On the Italian Spring Offensive, it failed to make any headway at all in the decisive sector, Klissura. Himare was reoccupied only in April, when the Greek army retreated because of the German attack. Changed "The remaining 2/3 of Greece was occupied by Italy, with the Ionian islands directly administered as Italian territories." to "The remaining 2/3 of Greece was occupied by Italy" since the Ionian islands are mentioned later on with more details. The same goes for "The Italian army occupied most of the territory of Greece from the Pindus mountains (where was promoted the creation of an aromanian Principality of Pindus) to eastern Crete." It is all mentioned later, so they are redundant. Similarly, the "Aromanian Principality of Pindus of Alchiviad Diamandi di Samarina." was changed to the simple "Aromanian Principality of Pindus", because the proper subject is the "Principality" itself, and not its first "Prince". Anyone who visits the Principality page will also see about Alchiviad. For any changes and proposals on these please respond here. Regards Cplakidas 11:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cplakidas, you wrote that "The Bulgarians entered Greek territory after the Greek army had capitulated".

Sorry, but the Bulgarian army invaded Trace in the morning of april 20, while the Greek capitulation happened April 24 (when the Greek King went into exile, General Papagos gave his dimissions after the Allies defeat at the Termophiles, and the British toops received the order to withdraw from continental Greece). That is history registered in every serious book, as you know. The surrender of a group of Greek divisions in the Metaxas Line and in the Albanian front was not the real capitulation of the Greek army, but only a partial episode of surrender.

You wrote that "the Italian invasion had already occurred in October 1940 and been repulsed, and the fall and occupation of Greece was to the Germans and the Germans alone"

This is not correct, Cplakidas. The Italians did in Epirus/Albania the same offensives/retreat/counteroffensives they did in WWI against the Austrian Empire. At the end they won the Battle of Piave in 1918 and won the war (with the help of the Allies): the same happened in Epirus. On march 19 the Italians started the final push to defeat Greece (even if it happened after one month with the fundamental German help) and slowly initially occupied Himare (even if with small gains and great losses, with their offensive in "Valley Deshnicës"). By the first days of April the area around Korca was occupied and in april 14 finally Korca fell again in Italian hands. The Italian counteroffensive reached the greek-albanian border at Perati on April 19 and the next day the Italian army re-entered into Greek territory. On April 20 Corfu/Kerkyra was invaded and on April 23 there was the Greek capitulation (re-enacted by orders of Mussolini) with Italy.

So, as you know, the fall and occupation of Greece was NOT to the Germans alone. You should have written "mainly", not "alone", don't you believe? The english historian Dennis M. Smith wondered what would have happened if the Greeks (with the fundamental British help) could have placed on the Metaxas Line ALL their 21 divisions against the Germans, instead of having been forced to battle for nearly six months the Italians with their best 15 divisions. May be they could have done to the Germans what the Finnish did to the Russians (Let's remember that the german blitzkrieg worked perfectly in plains, not in mountaneous terrain, like Greece).

You wrote: "Even after surrender to the Germans, Italian attacks on the Greek positions in Albania were repulsed".

As said before, when the Greek initially surrendered to the Germans alone in the afternoon of April 20, the Italians were already in Epirus and Corfu/Kerkyra, and all Albania was back in Italian hands. There are plenty of books about, that can validate this fact.

I disagree with your removal of some phrases because "redundant", because many other phrases are redundant in the article and we could end in a personal fight with every section of the article. Anyway, as a sign of "wikipedian friendship" I will only rewrite "The remaining 2/3 of Greece was occupied by Italy, with the Ionian islands directly administered as Italian territories". Regards.Le. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.207.162 (talk) 04:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Well, the histories I've read are Greek, British and German ones, and they don't mention much about the Albanian front after the German invasion, except that the Greeks started a slow retreat southwards on April 13 because of the threat of being cut off, as indeed happened (you can also check out the very good Battle of Greece article). I must emphasise that nowhere is this attributed to Italian attacks. And the capture of Corfu on April 20 is news to me, according to the Greek history, Italian troops landed on Corfu on April 28. You wrote "On march 19 the Italians started the final push to defeat Greece". In 9-25 March, the Italians did indeed launch their counter-offensive against Klissura and Trebeshina, but that was an utter failure. So this can't have been this "final push" you write about. If you could provide me with sources on all this, I'd be grateful. And please include this and any other info you may have in the article on the war itself, which severely lacks in Italian perspective.

As far as the Bulgarians are concerned: by April 20, there was no Greek force operating in Macedonia or Thrace, and on the very same day Gen. Tsolakoglou offered the surrender of the Epirus divisions (that is, the bulk of the Greek Army) to the Germans. The surrender did not include the Italians, and had to be repeated on April 23 and 24 to include them (officially, the Greek government never capitulated, only the Army). In effect, on April 20, the great majority of the Greek Army had been neutralized by the Germans. Which is why although the Bulgarians may have invaded in the territorial sense, they did not actually contribute to any fighting, hence my edits (in short, the Bulgarians were not an active contributing factor in the fall of Greece). This is also mentioned in any "serious" history (you can even ask some of our Bulgarian editors). Plus, the first section of the lead section concerns the time limits of the Occupation. The second how it came about, and the third its effects. Please adhere to that scheme.

As for the Italians, I did understand your aim at including the reference to the Alps, but I do think it would be best if mentioned in the relevant page. The drain of the Italian front was certainly one reason why Greek defences against the Germans were weak, but to claim that it contributed to German victory is very misleading. There would not have been a German invasion or a need for German victory if there had been no failed Italian attack in the first place! The truth is (as all histories point out) that the Italians messed up badly, and the Germans came to the rescue. So yes, Italy did "contribute" by tying up Greek forces, but for all intents and purposes the victory was a German one, and seen so by contemporaries and historians alike. As for the redundancy, I do agree that it may be subjective in places, but mentioning the administration of the Ionian islands in the beginning and then the same thing again in the subsequent paragraph is certainly not good in terms of thematic structure. It should remain in its proper place, i.e. the paragraph detailing Italian territorial ambitions in Greece. Regards, Cplakidas 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cplakidas. I see there it is a kind of "wars of words" here. I wanted to write before to you about your corrections, but only now I find some time from my work. Allow me to notify you that I appreciate your writings in wikipedia.

The article is named "Axis occupation of Greece during WWII" and not "Operation Marita" or "German conquest of Greece". So, this means that the article must refer to the Axis countries that occupied Greece: Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. And this fact means that (in my opinion and in that of User|4.231.207.162") the right introduction to the article is: "[The Occupation] began in April 1941 after the German and Italian invasion of Greece, and was done together with Bulgarian forces". This because:1) the occupation was done (by Germany and Italy) together with Bulgarian forces. And all historians agree on this, even if Bulgaria "did not fire a shot".2)The occupation began in April 1941 after the German and Italian invasion of Greece. And Italy invaded (or better: reinvaded) Greece on April 20 in Epirus and Corfu (where there was an initial landing of italian "marines" of the "Regia Marina", followed by the complete occupation of the island on April 28), with the surrender to the Italians on April 23. If you can read Italian, go to [1] for a detailed cronology.

To write that the invasion and conquest was done only by the Germans is misleading, mainly in consideration of the 15 Greek divisions (the best and the bulk of the Greek army) on the Albanian sector, and seems to repeat the usual "Propaganda War" against the Italians "only good to surrender and play the mandolin". I even rewrite my original "Principality of Pindus of Alchiviad Diamandi di Samarina", because it is similar to "Nazi Germany of Hitler" or "Fascist Italy of Mussolini": the names of the dictators are not erased in many articles of wikipedia, why erase the name of Diamandi?

BTW, the war in the Albanian/Epirus border was done 1)with an Italian offensive inside Epirus; 2)a greek advance inside Albania; 3)an Italian counteroffensive that started in "Valley Deshnicës", was stalled because of the Italian attack on Yugoslavia, and finally entered inside Greece again (slowly but steady because there were bridge sabotages on the mountains and no strong opposition from the Greek troops retreating to forestall encirclement by the Germans). The three actions are connected: to write that the Italians were nearly defeated and won thanks to the Germans is equivalent to write that the French were nearly defeated by the Germans in 1917 and won thanks to the arrival of the Americans in WWI. Regards.--Brunodam 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not that the triple occupation is not mentioned. It is, but in the second paragraph. The first one primarily details the duration of the Occupation, i.e. from the German invasion in April 1941 to their withdrawal in October 1944. As for Diamandi, I only removed him because, according to the article of the Principality, he was not the only "Prince", and it seemed more proper to leave only the Principality as a link. It was certainly not done out of any desire to "remove him from history" or anything... But this is indeed a war of words over trivialities, so I rest my case...

As for the Italians, although by rights this belongs to the Greco-Italian War article, I'll post it here. Yes, they have received a lot of bad press, but in light of their performance, that is not surprising. While the individual soldier was often brave, their army as a whole was hopeless. You might want to read MacGregor Knox's "Hitler's Italian Allies" on this, it is quite revealing. Now, according to the page you linked, and the Italian I can make out, they too agree that the Italian counteroffensive in March (in "Deshnicës") failed completely ("senza aver conseguito alcun successo rilevante, ... Mussolini ordinò la sospensione dell'offensiva"). This was not due to any attack on Yugoslavia, but because of good Greek defensive positions. The attack was meant to resume on the 31, but was canceled because of events in Yugoslavia. The advance began again only after the Greeks started to withdraw of their own account, because of the German advance in their rear. Again according to this page, Corfu was indeed occupied on the 28, Cefalonia, Zakynthos and Ithaca two days later. No mention (as far as I can see) of an attack on Corfu on the 20th. Anyway, it is clear that the Italians advanced because the German attack forced the Greeks to withdraw. They did indeed tie down the largest and best part of the Greek army, but the actual killer blow was delivered by the Germans. And, as I said, the Italian invasion per se had actually failed, and the Germans did indeed intervene to save them. How would the Italians have fared if, in absence of the Germans, and in addition to the Greek army, the British Expeditionary Corps had been thrown against them? The situation is very similar to Libya, where the Italians were defeated and again saved by the Germans. Sorry, but most people, including most historians, see it this way. P.S., as for the French in WWI, did Petain not quell the mutiny of 1917 by (among other things) saying that they would wait for "the Americans and the tanks"? The Americans and their huge industrial potential did indeed make Allied victory inevitable in WWI, just as in WWII. Regards, Cplakidas 09:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of bad press?...a "lynching" is the right word! Since the eighties many historians (mainly from the British Commonwealth) have increased their criticism of the Italian performance during WWII to the limit of the grotesque. The MacGregor Knox's "Hitler's Italian Allies" book is famous in Italy about this "lynching". They arrive to write that Rommel and his Afrika Korp did "all" the war in Libya/Egypt and the Italians are cited in their writings only when there it is a surrender or a retreat. If you read the writings of Churchill (and other British scholars in the fifties) about the Battle of El Alamein, for example, you'll see the difference with those writers after the eighties. As a little example, these contemporary historians usually "forget" the sacrifice of the "Folgore" division (only 306 survivors out of 5000) in that crucial battle, while Churchill wrote words of respect and esteem.....Anyway, Roman Vae Victis is about the "lynching" of the defeated, don't you remember?.....now let's go back to our article.

There it is the book "L’Esercito Italiano nella campagna di Grecia (3ª edizione)" (published by the official "Ufficio Storico - Esercito Italiano" and written by Montanari Mario) that precisely states about the initial landing of some Italian "marines" in Corfu on April 20. Anyway, I agree with you that most historians write that the italians were "rescued" by the Germans. What I mean is that the initial attack of the Italians was successfully defeated by the Greeks alone, but this was only an "episode" of the italo-greek war. A war that had two other "episodes" (as I wrote before to you) and was finally won by the Italians, thanks mainly to the German "Operation Marita". But this is indeed a war of words over trivialities, so I rest my case... (as you wrote). Regards.--Brunodam 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kalavryta massacre.jpg

Image:Kalavryta massacre.jpg 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Nazi occupation of Greece - A Greek colonel and German governor Sepp Dietrich.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nazi occupation of Greece - A Greek colonel and German governor Sepp Dietrich.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nazi occupation of Greece - A Greek colonel and German governor Sepp Dietrich.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the part that says many Cham Albanians collaborated and the entire Cham population left northern Greece after the war ended. This is a horrible factual error, and is not backed up by your citation (in fact Mazower purports that there was ethnic cleansing and massacres by Greek nationalists of EDES and later National Guard). The Cham population was forcibly expelled from northern Greece, and leaves scattered in Albania and around the world. As many as 5,000 people were killed in the process, and Cham population's property was seized. To this day, Chams are not allowed back in Greece, because some of them have papers claiming their property and could file in courts. The issue is in the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.242.27.33 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretext of occupation

Something needs to be said of the pretext of the occupation. I mean this didn't simply happen. --41.150.7.15 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You have read the lead section, or not? It clearly says how the country was attacked and occupied by Italy and Germany, and in the linked articles you can find why and how these operations took place. Constantine ✍ 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We need some more neutral POV on the three occupying powers

I just wanted to point out some POV problems I noticed when reading the section about the triple occupation:

- The economic exploitation and the great famine were obviously not just limited to the one third of Greece which was initially occupied by the Germans. Therefore, we should move this from the „German occupation zone“ section up into the „Triple Occupation“ section.

- What looks just totally slanted is that we have a subsection called „The Italian occupation zone“, another called „The Bulgarian occupation zone“ but none called „The German occupation zone“. Instead, we just have just a section called „German atrocities“. Even if you think it’s even-handed not to deal with a German occupation zone but only with „German atrocities“, why does this section than state that „the Germans executed some 21,000 Greeks, the Bulgarians 40,000 and the Italians 9,000“? Because that seem to be the facts. Okay, but that in turn begs the question why we start the sentence with 21.000 executed by Germans, followed by almost twice that many - 40.000 executed by Bulgarians (and 9.000 by Italians)? So, this deals with some 70.000 civilians executed out of which the mayority, 49.000, was executed by others than the Germans. So, once again, we have a misleading and slanted section title.

Also, it is inconstistent to state 9.000 civilians killed by Italian troops (in just half the occupation span as the Germans had) and then to claim: „Compared to the other two zones, the Italian occupation regime was relatively mild. Unlike the Germans, and aside from some local commanders, the Italian military never implemented a policy of mass reprisals“. That seems to be manifestly wrong. Counter-examples are e.g. the Domenikon Massacre of February 16-17, 1943 with 150 civilians killed. These followed a general order given by General Carlo Geloso, commander of the Italian forces of occupation, whereby anti-rebel action would result in collective punishment.[1] The order was based on the notion that in order to crush the Greek partisan movement, whole local communities had to be wiped out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenikon_Massacre

Also note that the legal term „reprisal“ is used here with the Italians for the very first time in this article. It should be used from the start.

And once we actually start using the term reprisal, wouldn't it make sense to actually state that reprisals of occupying forces for attacks by irregular belligerents were back then a legal thing under customary international war? I learned that myself a few years ago - basically shooting 10 civilians for every soldier killed by partisans was internationally accepted practice. I wonder why this is practically never mentioned. What do you folks think?

Lookoo (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Lookoo

Occupation forces in numbers

It would be helpful if a credible source can be found regarding how many of the occupation forces of Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Albania were left stationed in Greece after the end of the Battle of Crete. Another interesting figure would be the rate of withdrawal/retreat of those forces before the start of the Greek Civil war. 193.166.53.253 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No article in German

I would like to point out the irony, if one could call it like that, that a related article exists in Gallician and Chinese, but not in German. I would call that mildly disturbing. Could someone help me with that - e.g. translating the article ? I don't know if that is acceptable in Wikipedia terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenianepirote (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This comment is uninformed to say the least, and comes from someone who has obviously no knowledge of what and how modern Germans think about their past. There is a category about this very subject on dewiki, including some articles we lack here on enwiki, e.g. de:Schießstand von Kesariani. Yes, an article about the topic would obviously be desirable, but that it should be "disturbing" or even "ironic" that it has not been written yet is utter nonsense. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case one could translate the German articles about Kesariani etc. into English and vice versa. I saw your links in the dewiki, and I still have to say that there is no article on the Axis occupation of Greece - there are extensive ones about the Greek civil war and the Junta, though. I guess that they put all of their attention there. Maybe it's not ironic and not disturbing, and I obviously have no knowledge of what and how modern Germans think about their past, but it shows what their priorities are. Athenianepirote (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is simply absurd to judge a whole project (or a whole people) by what articles they have or have not in their edition of Wikipedia. It is always up to individual users to create or not create articles on specific issues, and not the priorities of the project, country or nation, because there are no "priorities" and no-one to set them in any edition of Wikipedia. For instance, the French WP has some really good articles on modern Greek history far beyond anything in English or Greek because there are a couple of users there who are into this stuff. The English WP has more coverage of the Byzantine period and medieval Greece than any other version because of myself and a handful of other users, and the Greek WP has an abnormally high proportion of Russian or German-related articles in relation to its overall size because of a few users there whose area of interest this is. So yes, an article is lacking, but no, this does not mean that the Germans are conspiring to hide the truth about what they did during the war in Greece. Perhaps the prospect of writing a decent and comprehensive article is too daunting, and I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking so, or perhaps it is simply the German equivalent of WP:BIAS. I don't know, but I am pretty sure there is nothing sinister behind it. In the meantime, it would be better, if you cannot translate this one into German, to help improve the present one further because it sure needs more eyes and more work. Constantine ✍ 11:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong map removed

Hallo, I removed the map about the greatest extent of Italian occupation in the Mediterranean. In fact, southwest France, Tunisia and Corsica were occupied by Italy only in mid November 1942, after the American landings in north Africa. But by that time, the Italian were already withdrawing from Egypt after the El Alamein battle. Alex2006 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Axis occupation of Greece. 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/20070629161504/http://www.afjmg.org/resources/jewingreece.pdf to http://www.afjmg.org/resources/jewingreece.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004183338/http://historicalresources.org:80/2008/10/02/memorandum-to-the-note-to-the-grek-government-april-6-1941/ to http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/memorandum-to-the-note-to-the-grek-government-april-6-1941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004183350/http://historicalresources.org:80/2008/10/02/note-of-the-reich-government-to-the-greek-government-april-6-1941/ to http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/note-of-the-reich-government-to-the-greek-government-april-6-1941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212210001/http://www.ethniko.net:80/wehrmacht-griechenland/ga-wehrmacht-griechenland.html to http://www.ethniko.net/wehrmacht-griechenland/ga-wehrmacht-griechenland.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Axis occupation of Greece. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kkjsm.org/holocaust/holocaust_intro.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kkjsm.org/archives/Deportation%20of%20Jews%20of%20Ioannina.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629161504/http://www.afjmg.org/resources/jewingreece.pdf to http://www.afjmg.org/resources/jewingreece.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004183338/http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/memorandum-to-the-note-to-the-grek-government-april-6-1941/ to http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/memorandum-to-the-note-to-the-grek-government-april-6-1941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004183350/http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/note-of-the-reich-government-to-the-greek-government-april-6-1941/ to http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/02/note-of-the-reich-government-to-the-greek-government-april-6-1941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212210001/http://www.ethniko.net/wehrmacht-griechenland/ga-wehrmacht-griechenland.html to http://www.ethniko.net/wehrmacht-griechenland/ga-wehrmacht-griechenland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration by minorities

The addition by Ktrimi991 with edit summary Other collaboration by minorities is grossly inaccurate, to put it mildly. With two short sentences two minority groups are being collectively labelled as collaborators. That is about as precise as saying that the Norwegians collaborated with the German occupiers because of Quisling and his Nasjonal Samling.

The source about the Vlachs does not support the claim that The Vlachs, due to Romania being part of Axis alliance, collaborated. The text talks about "the Romanizing elements of Greece", "pro-Romanian Vlachs" "the Romanizing Vlachs", which is the group of Vlachs that had a Romanian ethnic identity. They had never been many, and most of those that were, emigrated to Romania from the Balkan war period up through the 20's. The huge majority of Vlachs did not have a Romanian identity, as the source actually indicates: In Fourka, "one of the major centres of the Vlach population", the population does not use the Romanian school ("without pupils"), but the Greek ("operated smoothly for the whole year"). Of course some Vlachs collaborated, but as a group they did not collaborate any more than other Greeks.

I do not have access to the source about the Slavs, but I would challenge Ktrimi to find inline citations that support the claim that Slav populations also collaborated. The Slavs in Greece consisted of several different groups, but the only group that could conceivably have an interest in collaboration with the Bulgarians would be Slavs of Western Thrace with a Bulgarian identity. They were even fewer than the pro-Romanian Vlachs, since most, if not all, fled the area when Bulgaria ceded it to Greece in 1920. That many of them came back during the occupation is another story. As for the Slavs of Greek Macedonia, they were over-represented in the resistance movement, especially in ELAS/EAM (something that became highly visible during the Civil war). Of course some Slavs collaborated, but as a group they did not collaborate any more than other Greeks. Probably quite the opposite.

I will remove the two sentences. Please do not re-add such claims unless you can support them with inline citations. --T*U (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You can reword the sentences if you think you should do so, but do not remove them entirely. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor while I don't have Ktrimi991's sources and I do see the ethical issues in saying statements like "Vlachs/Slavs collaborated", there are plenty of sources discussing the complex phenomenon attempting to rise above the 20th century Cold War therapeutic historiography. Here are a few.

Greece: The Modern Sequel, from 1831 to the Present, by Kolioupolis and Veremis (2002) [[2]] : as copy paste doesn't work for me from Google books, I'll just note here that pages 73 to 77 discuss Slav Macedonian collaboration with the Axis, as well as their role in KKE and ELAS, and the connections and implicaitons between both (i.e. the "recruiting" campaign by the leftists was also a "disarmament" campaign, etc etc).

Ioannis Kolioupolis has Macedonia in the Maelstrom of World War II, which covers a lot of this too and specifically deals with the "role of the Macedonian question" [[3]]. Pages 304-305:

The Bulgarian occupation of parts of Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia... increased the ambitions of many pro-Bulgarian SlavMacedonians and further fuelled the passions and the suspicions and the fears of everyone in those regions... created a climate of insecurity among the population that emboldened opportunists of all sorts, not least the Slav-Macedonians and Vlachs. The appearance of Italian occupation forces in the Vlach villages of Pindus and Western Macedonia in general was welcomed by many Vlachs, who hastened to offer their services as guides and interpreters in exchange for various benefits, which the Italians, in the interests of facilitating their work, had no reason to refuse. One of the most active of these renegade Vlach adventurers was Alcibiades Diamantis of Samarina (Pindus), an erstwhile pro-Romanian now turned pro-Italian. Diamantis undertook to promote among the Vlachs of the Pindus massif the cause of an Italian-inspired Vlach autonomy under the aegis of mighty Rome, in the form of the stillborn “Principality of Pindus”. This vision did not win many converts: most Vlachs failed to be moved by the promises of the adventurer from Samarina, on the one hand because they knew him as an opportunist and on the other, and more decisively, because they were not disposed to reject the Greek homeland they had played such an important part in creating during the age of the Modern Greek Enlightenment. Some 2000 Vlachs were, however, persuaded to form the notorious “Roman Legion”, a political organisation led by Diamantis (and following him another Vlach adventurer, Nikolaos Manousis, a lawyer with his own band of armed followers) and a sort of militia at the service of the Italian military detachments that carried out raids on the villages in search of food and arms2.

The action of the Legion, and particularly of its armed members, created serious problems... for the Vlachs themselves, because it sowed suspicion and hatred within the Vlach communities, and because in the traditional world of that age the actions of some members of a community exposed the entire community as jointly responsible. Old passions, dating from the time of the activity of Romanian agents seeking to rally the Vlachs of Macedonia to their side, combined with displeasure at certain measures taken by the Greek Government and the military authorities during the active phase of the war against the Italians and the Germans, such as the requisitioning of draught animals and feed for the requirements of the war, predisposed some Vlachs to ally themselves with the Italians, whose objectives were twofold: to use these collaborators for their own purposes and to disunite the local population and render its subjugation an easier task. The autonomist action of the Vlachs of the Legion was confined to the Italian zone of occupation, a clear indication of its non-indigenous nature, and was moreover short-lived: the Legion was dissolved in 1942, and the following year, with the capitulation of Italy, its most active members sought refuge in the cities, in Greece or in Romania, where many of them later joined the communist regime imposed with Soviet assistance after the war. After the liberation of Greece, the most active members of the autonomist movement were tried as war criminals in Larisa, mostly in absentia, and given heavy sentences. The treacherous actions of many of these Vlach autonomists were largely forgotten, however, in the Civil War that followed; and some of them, indeed, actively sided with the government in its fight against the communist guerrillas.

He goes on to explain how indeed most Slav Macedonians sided with the resistance forces and indeed contributed disproportionately to the resistance effort … but at the same time there were pockets with strong support for Bulgarian forces, including Florina and Pella. --Calthinus (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Calthinus, for your sources. I have access to "The modern sequel", and I see that those two sources could be a foundation for a balanced presentation, which I hope someone will be able to make. I have now removed another sentence in the same section (cn-tagged since 2014) that gave an equally unbalanced picture of the Slav collaboration. --T*U (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

In general not all minorities contributed to the Nazi occupation the same range. For example among the Vlachs only a tiny minority was willing to support the Nazis, on the other hand Cham Albanian partitipation in Nazi operations was "in large parts".Alexikoua (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

People from all groups collabarated. They surely were a small minority in all cases. I have made considerable contribution to articles of Yugoslavia and Albania during the said period, but do not know much about the case of Greece. I also do not know much about minorities of Greece amd their identity. The scale of collaboration depended on many factors, including how much certain groups were oppressed before WWII. I think that since Chams were Muslim, they were under oppression by Greece much more than other groups. The reverting of my edit (at least some parts of it were rewording for NPOV) without desire to expand the section is (undeliberate) POV pushing. Some elaboration on Slavs, Vlachs etc should be added in line with WP:NPOV. Reasons of why Chams are not in Greece today are more complicated than just "they collaborated with AXIS powers", hence the last sentence on them needs to be removed or expanded with Greek policies towards minorities before and during WWII. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with Ktrimi that it looks pretty bad to have the page elaborating on collaboration by Chams and not by other minorities -- indeed also by ethnic Greeks -- is POV. A balance between sources can do hte job of assessing how much there was etc etc not us arguing on talk pages.--Calthinus (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991: As I have already said, I think that collaboration by other minorities should be included in a balanced way. But your comment People from all groups collabarated. They surely were a small minority in all cases is obviously true for Vlachs and Slavs, which is why "The Vlachs ... collaborated. Slav populations also collaborated." is not an acceptable presentation. I also wonder what parts of the edit I reverted that were rewording for NPOV. --T*U (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair the page literally says " the Cham Albanian community in Thesprotia actively collaborated in large parts" (of course due to the order of the words this is semantically ambiguous because it could mean "large parts of the community"... "or large parts of the war") -- so that it was POV is a fairly accurate assessment, but I lack the time to think of a better way to word that in consultation with the sources used. Anyhow, I have added the material on the Vlachs from Kolioupolis. I'll leave the Slavs to someone else. --Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Meyer states that they collaborated in "large parts" and Manda makes a similar statement. It doesn't appear to be POV.Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The reasons why there aren't more Chams in Greece are similar to the reasons that resulted in the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). However, Greek post-WWII policies were not oppressive compared to the Soviet army.Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

the Cham Albanian community in Thesprotia actively collaborated in large parts can have two meanings: (1) large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated or (2) the totality of the Cham community collaborated for large parts of the war. We know the correct one is the first, but does the reader?--Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

significant / insignificant

Calthinus: I am not so sure about your edit here and especially your edit summary. Nobody has suggested that the number was insignificant. Not saying that it is significant is not the same as calling it insignificant. The text "an Albanian minority" is not stating anything about the significance of the number, and therefore neutral. To call it "significant" begs the question: "Significant in relation to what?". Fischer is comparing the number of Albanians in Chameria to the number in Kosovo, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro and talks about "smaller number" and "even smaller", so it is quite clear that the source does not support the use of the word "significant". Your statement The existence of 20,000 or so individuals as per Greek stats is not "insignificant" in the edit summary is your opinion and therefore WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor my revert was hasty and based on Alexi's edit summary which I misunderstood to be Alexi using Fischer to remove "significant" which I thought was there from some other source. Obviously they are "significant" because of the role their presence played in the political drama. Do I really care that much if the page says it? No. --Calthinus (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fisher states that there was a "smaller number" in Greece. Generally speaking a 20k isn't a significant community for a 350k population of Epirus. Not to mention that Thesprotia makes only 18% of the region of Epirus. On the other hand Chams were a significant part of the population in Thepsrotia a much smaller region. In general Cham presence & activity out of Thesprotia "was" insignificant.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether 20k of people are "significant" is not a thing it's useful to discuss -- and Alexikoua I'm not sure you're aware but the word "significant" has somewhat different connotations in English than simantikos or spudaios. Anyhow, I forgot to mention that I'm sincerely sorry for misunderstanding earlier. --Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Participation in the resistance

It appears reasonable to move a part about the decree of participation in the resistance next to the sympathies which part of the same community displayed towards the resistance.Alexikoua (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a rather unimportant detail. The thing is that the flow might be damaged, and might be kind of WP:Undue to place the bit about resistance in the middle of content on collaboration. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

you mean that participation in the resistance is an unimportant detail? Yes, in fact only a small number joined at the end of the war without contribution against the Nazis. I wont object a full removal of those unimportant EAM sympathies.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not put words on my mouth. I said that wherever that bit is placed, it does not change the meaning of the paragraph. It is very good where it is, do not move it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And do not add more on Cham collaborators, as the topic of the article is broader, per WP:UNDUE. I agree Cham stuff is of high importance to Greek modern history and national identity, but undue weight is not good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The specific move "fixes" the broken flow and offers a compact description about the EAM support of the community [[4]] There is no reason to have the one part (EAM participation) separated from the other part (EAM support) i.e. the same subject. Even chronologically this occurred at the end of the war thus it can't stay at the beginning of the paragraph. Also care to explain what the "rather unimportant detail"?Alexikoua (talk)

I explained the lack of importance on my previous comments. The important detail is that I oppose your proposal. It is a too small detail to continue this discussion. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears you have run out of arguments before starting this conversation. Maybe you can still find something about why you oppose this proposal before I fix this broken flow and put together those parts about the EAM-Cham relation.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This section has gotten overly long and a lot of the details being added aren't important. Like the name of Mazar Dino and how he and one other individual fled across the border.--Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume this objection that the EAM-Cham links shoudn't be located in deferent parts of the section is finally understood.Alexikoua (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

M. Dino was the leader of the Cham militia, similar to Matousis and Diamandi of the Vlachs, while the later collaboration was of limited scale. Thus, according to this rationale the Vlach leaders should be also removed.Alexikoua (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua I did not comment on the EAM-Cham thing and I can't be bothered to read the spat above and tbh I don't know (and don't care) what it's about. I came here totally independently of that. Anyhow I don't think there is a double standard. The Vlach collaboration was to a significant level organized by those two personalities (one of whom having been a "Vlach nationalist" activist beforehand). The Cham collaboration wasn't quite as centralized. Additionally, the Vlach collaboration is like, a quarter the size of the Cham collaboration on the page, while the latter is an enormous wall of text.--Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus: I'm ok with this specific removal since Dino's collaboration is already mention in another paragraph. I feel also that Stockerts report can go too. What's weird is Ktrimis insistence to put participation in the resistance in the beginning of the paragraph though the event occurred at the end of the war.Alexikoua (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you read what you write? Is that kind of text "A smaller number (compared to those who collaborated)" encyclopedic language? The placement of that bit is trivial, and does change nothing in the meaning of the paragraph. The way you want to write it is "weird". Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(ignore persistent NPA breaches). A event that occurred at the end of the war should have a place in the correct place of the paragraph. I'm going to add it with some more detail per reference. This part is of great significance and is the conclusion of Kretsi's paper.Alexikoua (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Any further addition will be reverted. As Calthinus rightly said, the Cham content is too long compared with other collabiration cases. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not an addition but a move of an already existing part to the correct place (if you check the blind reverts you performed you can easily realize this fact).Alexikoua (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice try. Your edits added 73 bytes of content, I guess you are aware of what you did. Furthermore, in the beggining, Cham collaborators had mixed positions of what side to take. That happened before collaboration. Hence, if we follow your logic, the part "Among the minority populations of Greece, large parts of the Cham Albanian community in Thesprotia actively collaborated with the local Axis occupation" should be removed from the beggining of the paragraph and placed in a later position. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

73 bytes (?) of text is virtually nothing as an addition. I assume you need to support your "before collaboration" argument with a decent reference. For future reference Cham collaboration occurred even before occupation started (participation in the Italian army during the failed invasion in Greece).Alexikoua (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the 73 bytes addition is a lot, it damages the flow and tries to persause readers that Chams were the big bad guys via repetition of already told content. The sources are in the article "In the beginning, at least, collaboration was not a one-shot choice; Muslim communities followed different politics as per circumstances, alternating between collaboration, neutrality and, more seldom, resistance. Albanian and Greek communities changed sides by allying with the stronger available patron and shifting their allegiances when a more suitable one appeared." This part says that Cham collaborators in the beginning had mixed positions, and both Chams and Greeks collaborated during the entire war. If we respect your suggestion to strictly follow timing of events, this should be the first sentence of the paragraph. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears weird by saying about "before Cham collaboration", because there wasn't such time period, collaboration begun by the first day of the occupation (Manta, J. of Muslim Affairs, p. 6): The first signs of some Çams’ collaborating with the Italian forces date from the very first days of the Italian attack against Greece, in 1940. Quite a relevant addition for a section labeled "collaboration". By the way what do you mean the "big bad guys"? They are among many WWII communities that their leadership chose the wrong side (the Nazis).Alexikoua (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What my source and Manta say do not counter with each other. The quote I placed above says that since the beginning collaboration was an one-shot thing, i.e. some collabotated and some not, and everybody was not sure for what was doing. Every community collaborated. Both Greeks and Chams collaborated. After the war, Greece punished Communists harshly, and collaborators mildly. Read the article. Every community had collaborators. Everyone gained sth from Axis powers. Non-desired minorities were ethnic cleansed in all places in Europe, and later were labeled in nationalist mythologies as "Nazi collaborators". This practice is old and continues to this day. Turkey removed Greek populations in Anatolia (which was the majority of Greek lands) and Northern Cyprus, and those victims are now considered "terrorists", "criminals", "refugees" etc. Chams in Greece, Greeks in Turkey, Serbs in Croatia, Poles in Germany etc were all victims of nationalist extremists. I think we should not label as bad guys only those whom we do not like, right? Everyone tried to use Axis occupations for benefits, in the case of Greece, it removed non-desired minorities from its territory. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I am not participating in this low quality discussion but I feel obliged to step in, for something you have stated immediatelly above: you have said that Greece "removed non-desired minorities from its territory" which is not true. Be careful because while you are commenting on nationalist Greek propaganda, your very own statement stinks of nationalist Albanian propaganda. I shall remind you that the Expulsion of Cham Albanians cannot be compared to the Greek Genocide in Turkey or to the case of Northern Cyprus.

First of all, the Chams in large numbers chose to side with Greece's enemies both in 1900s and 1940s, while the Greeks in Turkey did not. The Greek minority of the Ottoman Empire did not collaborate with the Russians against the Ottomans, unlike the Cham minority of Greece which did so in Greece's own wars. The only time the local Greek populaces of the Ottoman Empire did collaborate with enemies, was during the Greco-Turkish war of 1919 and that was long after the Greek Genocide was initiated in 1913. A big difference if you ask me.

Secondly, the expulsion of Cham Albanians wasn't organized by Greece's authorities nor was planned from before. It was unexpected and happened only because their side unexpectedly lost in the war and they fled to Albania in fear of retaliation by the Greeks. The death toll of it was barely 1.500 or 2.000 victims, depending the sources. As you can see, this is very unlike the Greek Genocide which was orchestrated at the highest level of the Ottoman administration; it was conducted in organized manner by the Turkish authorities and local chieftains, in the forms of forced marches, mass-shootings and mass tombs. The death toll ranges between 450,000 and 750,000 victims depending the sources.

While you seem to know alot about this sensitive area of the Balkans, I am saddened to hear you saying such controversial things. If you are a reasonable editor, then I expect that you correct your above statement. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident I am not an Albanian nationalist, and my comments do not reflect any sort of Albanian nationalism. You have been criticized by an admin for calling me a nationalist without evidence. I have been threatened on my talk page by an Albanian editor, and have reported several Albanian editors, including one named "Greater Albania" in Albanian. I thanked Alexikoua when he made an edit adding details about Cham collaborationists. Hence, making personal attacks on me for at least the second time does not help your claims. Some Greeks collaborated with Ottoman authorities to prevent education in Albanian language (an information that is well-sourced and present on some Wikipedia articles) and collaborated with Greek forces during their attacks on Albanian soil. However, that is not a reason to persecute Greek people in Albania. Some Greeks in Turkey and Northern Cyprus collaborated with Greek forces when they tried to remove Turkish population and merge those territories with Greece. Before the genocide happened, millions of Turks and other Muslims were killed and removed from Greek territories. However, that does not justify what happened to millions of Greeks in Turkey and Northern Cyprus. In nationalist mythologies, Zerva, Deva, Pavelic, Milosevic etc are considered "heroes". All of them were criminals, as all of them did bad things to women, children and other unprotected people. The consensus on Yugoslavia articles is that all sides made bad things, that is an outcome of long discussions between editors and help by some good willing admins. The Cham case is complicated, as the reasons and outcome of what happened are mixed (some Chams and some Greeks made bad things), we know for sure only that Greece nowadays does not recognize minorities. This speaks a lot. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand why you feel the need to tell me whether you are Albanian or not, as this is none of my business. My business here is to highlight the controversial words in your statements in these discussions on Wikipedia talkpages, which offend whole countries and nations for no apparent reason, which is very low of your part. You havent provided an adequate answer to my pleas to correct your problematic statement. Instead, your response to me now simply shows arrogance and ignorance of why do your statements are perceived as nationalist. You say that I have been criticized by an admin for "calling you a nationalist without evidence". But the evidence is quite right in front of your eyes all the time. Do you not remember that you have been criticized by numerous editors such as me, Calthinus, Alexikoua, and even Khirurg and Resnjari for your past nationalist statements? From my part, however I do not remember any admins backing your position at all, nor criticizing me for complaining about your controversial and nationalist statements. However I do remember that it is not the first time you have shown anti-Greek bias in Wikipedia, and this month alone, we had two such cases from you. If I am correct, this is the second time in less than 30 days; earlier this month, you have accused again the same country (Greece) and its nation of exterminating and killing minorities, including Jews. Right? And once more, the editors criticized you for these remarks. I kindly am asking you for the last time that you correct your statement. Otherwise I will have no option but present your biased statements against particular nations and countries to an administrator. Be aware, Wikipedia does not take lightly upon political racism. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi: Unfortunately you are out of arguments and continuously divert the discussion in topics irrelevant with WWII. "Before the genocide happened, millions of Turks and other Muslims were killed and removed from Greek territories." I assume you need some decent citation about such statement. Generally speaking a large part of Chams collaborated with Fascist-Nazis, on the other hand participation in the resistance was limited and occurred only at the end, while they didn't shot a single Germman (Kretsi). What's also weird about Albanian nationalist ideologies is that they obscure the fact that Cham battalions perpetrated crimes against Albanian citizens too (see Nuri Dino battalion and the battle of Konispol). I assume the people of Konispol should built a monument about the 500 ethnic Albanians killed during operation Horridoh in Januray 1944 by the Cham battalion N.Dino.Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Did I say I am an Albanian????? Yeah, if you wish to have an admin check our discussion, make a comment in the right noticeboard. So you were told by an admin during a vote discussion on Albanian Kingdom/Italian occupation of Albania thing. @Alexikoua Yes, I agree. Cham nationalists tend to not accept that parts of Cham communities collaborated with Axis powers, and Greek nationlists tend to not accept that some Greeks collaborated with Axis powers. The discussion was very good and in the context of connection of nationalism with collaboration before SilentResident inserted personal attacks here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

While I wouldn't want to use WP:FORUM to abort discussions that could (possibly) lead to a greater sense of understanding between users of different backgrounds, I do feel a slight need to reiterate what I said before that I'm not sure talking about WWII in ways other than as pertains to how wiki should cover it is a safe idea for maintaining good collegial relationships and all. Especially when all three of you are using a second language -- ripe opportunity for misunderstandings, et cetera. --Calthinus (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

For this to happen, for good relationship between editors to be established, one could expect some minimal respect towards the countries of origin of the other editors. How can there be room to build good relationship when I am not lambasting at Ktrimi's country, yet he is lambasting at my own country? Please do not reply to my question, Calthinus, it is rhetorical. I have had it enough with extreme nationalist users of this kind who show no respect for foreign countries and nations and are here only to defame them, and even go as far as to promote their political views in the Talk Pages instead of commenting strictly on how to improve the article content? In Wikipedia, for cooperation to be possible, such vitriolic attacks against nations and countries should be AVOIDED, as much as could the editor's personal political views, which are unrelated to the content of the article and have no place here anyways per WP:FORUM. Period. The administrators will have to step in and remind Ktrimi about this if he keeps failing to heel to editor's warnings. I can not tolerate this happening any longer, and please do not misunderstand me for my strict attitude on such behaviors, because I am asking Ktrimi to do what we already do: Like how I have never been criticizing Albania as whole, I expect the same sensitivity and political politeness from Ktrimi's part regarding our countries, because Wikipedia is not a personal blogspot but a site where editors of multiple ethnic backgrounds can participate, discuss and cooperate for the needs for the Wiki Project. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident Since you do not want to refrain from making assumptions about me, I am going to ingore your comments. I do not mind your words, it seems Chameria is a sort of trauma for you. One wonders why. @Calthinus: I closed this discussion long ago, but the insistence of one editor to not get the point made me return here. I have never seen such long discussions on articles of Yugoslavia conflicts or non-Balkan topics. Long discussions are not constructive. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Your move of the bit on Cham resistance to the "Resistence" section is a good idea. After all, mentioning an entire community only on the "Collaboration" section is WP:Undue. It respects my concerns with the firat proposal by Alexikoua. That paragraph now needs to be expanded. Although I do not know a lot on Cham and Greek stuff, I will consider making some research, time permitting. You might be able to help with details how parts of the Cham community organised resiatence. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There were also Greek collaborators, however Zervas was not one of them. What's erroneous is that if he wasn't involved in the liberation of the Epirote coast, Albanian nationalists would have call him a compatriot and hero (not a collaborator), due to his Souliotic origin.Alexikoua (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The far-left won out in Albania at the end of the war, and extinguished the right and the centre and even some rivals on the left. In Greece, the right won out. The side that won in each country wrote the history that millions of kids read in school. Zervas belonged to the right, and the right persecuted the left. I really doubt it. --Calthinus (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is very balanced now, before it was POV. Large parts of Chams communities collaborated, both Albanians and Greeks changed sides frequently in line with their interests, and ethnic cleansing of the Chams was connected with Greece's policies towards minorities. Many people from minorities collaborated and many did not. Many Greeks were part of resistance forces, and as very well Calthinus says, the right persecuted the left after the war, the latter were punished more harshly than Nazi collaborators. I think that we have done a very good job, adn the article is now very informative, very balanced. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice job SR! What's also interesting is that both the pro-Soviet left and the pro-western right had a common enemy (Nazis & their collaborators). In our case the Chams were persecuted by the far left regime of the P.R of Albania because their elites were traditionally rich landlords, collaborators with the Axis and anti-communists. Too bad that Albanian historiography largely ignores this kind of ethnic cleansing (see Kretsi).Alexikoua (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

On the number of Cham resistance fighters Kretsi refers to a single mixed battalion, while Tsoutsoumbis is more precise (less than 30 & many of them deserted).Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also cases of cooperation with the allies, temporary gentlemen's agreements with the occupying forces or what certain leftists claimed are not collaboration Though I won't object a neutral source such as this one:

Shepherd, Ben H. (2016). Hitler's Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich. Yale University Press. p. 89. ISBN 0300219520. A short-lived attempt to coopt EDES forces, and use them against ELAS partisans, also failed, and by July 1944, EDES was attacking the Germans again. Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. My content is well-sourced. If you have additional content add it, but do not remove content due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your editing needs to be checked by an admin, you only edit Epirus articles with a patent POV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 is right. Jingiby (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope you need concensus for such extraordinary facts. As I've provided a University of Yale publication there was no collaboration of that kind. You need to be careful when calling someone a collaborator in general. By the way Stavrionos doesn't say a word about EDES collaboration, though he makes some comments about a short-term cease fire. Nevertheless the specific additiion is pure wp:UNDUE and POV, and presents a very specific POV (see Yale publication above about the general EDES relations with the Germans). Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I added Yale publication that actually supports the content I added. Zervas' main goal was to fight Greek leftists, not the Axis forces, and to advance his own fortunes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added sentence on EDES collaboration with the pro-Nazi “Security Battalions” established to hunt the EAM, backed by D. Michael Shafer, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy, Princeton University Press, 2014, ISBN 140086058X, p. 169.Jingiby (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

All reliable sources should be reflected on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

On this point I agree with Ktrimi and Jingiby. We do not choose one source over another, and Jingiby has indeed presented a clear RS.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I highly respect Alexikoua for his deep knowledge of the historical period from interwar to postwar Greece. Zervas has saved the lives of so many Greeks from the hands of the Chams, and this cannot be disputed. However I am afraid Zervas isn't an angel nor has stood firm to his ideals, at least not like other Greek heroes such as Pavlos Melas, who fell in combat fighting for their ideals. Zervas, unlike Melas, indeed had, (due to his limited manpower, he couldn't affort maintaining multiple open fronts in the war simultaneously) used opportunities in given situations in order to focuse on attacking his other enemies, be them foreign or Greek opponents, unlike Melas. The sources that Ktrimi has added, can stay, BUT UNDER ONE CONDITION: they should be worded carefully so as to avoid giving the false impression that Zervas is a Nazi affiliate or his allegiance was with Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, because it clearly was not. Opportunism and Loyalty are two opposite things and I vehemently oppose blurring the line between these two. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident Unfortunately, although it would be much simpler and easier to live in if it did, the world doesn't work like that -- there are not good people and bad people, there are people who have done more good things than bad things, and those who have done more bad things than good things, and on Wikipedia we aren't in the business of judging people, we are merely in the business of reporting the facts. Zervas saved people but that has no bearing on the argument of whether he collaborated or not (and yes, by the way, "gentlemen's agreements" remain worthy of discussion). Hitler was a vegetarian and sincerely opposed the killing of animals. He couldn't stand to watch them suffer or get hurt. Why he felt differently about some humans with certain "ethnicities" beats me. Does me acknowledging this make me a Nazi apologist? No it doesn't, I'm Jewish for crying out loud. --Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I nearly agree with SilentResident. There is a difference between open collaborationists as “Security Battalions” and "operators" as Zervas. Jingiby (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, mate. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought that jumping into an ongoing edit war without previously making the slightest talkpage comment is the epitomy of disruption. As for the supposed EDES-Security Battalions collaboration that's the case of Stylianos Gonatas, initially a political leader of EDES in Athens, became esntrangled from the EDES guerillas of Zervas & won the peculiar enmity of EDES because he supported the collaborationist Security Battalions. The article should precisely portray the historical facts and not be based on simplistic comments. Also the accusation of collaboration ist unfounded, at least concerning EDES' guerilla branch..Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Among the Greek personalities that openly collaborated (apart from Gonatas who was virtually ousted by EDES) we need to mention Pangalos.Alexikoua (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have said that every reliable source needs to be reflected on the article. The American Congress raport for 1947 says Napolean Zervas, a notorious Greek quisling who collaborated with the Germans throughout a greater part of the occupation. I have other sources for Zeravs being a quisling if you wish to go down that road. The article needs some more content on Cham, Bulgarian, Vlach etc resistence, and the Cham collaboration might need some trimming as it is larger than the other whole part of the "Collaboration" section. The Cham matter is of great importance to Greek national identity though. Nationalism is not good. Due to the Cham issue, Greeks in Albania are sometimes treated in an unjust way, and most of them have left Albania. Many Chams have been given land that belonged to Greeks, such as in Butrint and Sarande. Greeks of Albania (Himara, Gjirokaster etc) are paying what Zervas did. Zervas and other bands of southern parts of Epirus catalyzed what is practically ethnic cleansing of Greeks in Albania, an almost extinct minority. It is a pity that the supporters of Zervas do not have the guts to help Greeks of Himara, Gjiroaster, Dropull. Nationalism exchanged Chameria with Northern Epirus. Nationalism is very unfair to those who are not capable of murdering for own profit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Someone (without name) who claimed in the American Congress something about Zervas means nothing. I don't know how you can claim that such a claim is RS. Accusations of collaboration were plenty against all sides, for example the British accused the EAM. Actucally the article should NOT have any other addition about Chams. Chameria constituted less than 1,5% 0.87% of the total Greek territory. According to this rationale the correspondent article about Albania should be about 1/4 dedicated to Northern Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That person has a name. I will tell you. Other sources say Zervas was a quisling too. The part on Cham resistence will be expanded. Otherwise the that bit will go back where it was, on the "Collaboration" section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't thing so. Half a battalion (actually less than 30 that almost immediately deserted, see Toutsoumpis) deserves only one line of text.

Greeks in Albania, an almost extinct minority. I assume that everyone needs to abstain from such out off topic & trolling comments.21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Alexikoua (talk)

There were twp battalions. I might add two sentences later, though even as it now is very good for me. My only concern was the article did not say the both Greeks and Chams changed sides in line with their interests and that the removal of Chams happened due to Greek nationalist policy and Christian violence. I mentioned the suffering of Greeks in Albania because it is linked to Zervas' crimes and the Cham issue. Me trolling? No. There are trolls who make nationalist comments online, expressing their sadness for not having the guts to help their patriots who are being mistreated. Check Youtube video trolls, example "Last speech of Emperor". Cheers to all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't thing so, Kretsi's research in Albania states there was only one a mixed one, and Tsoutsoumpis is clear about the exact number. 30? I assume even 1 line is too much for such a small number. AGF has its limits.Alexikoua (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense, Ktrimi. I am sorry but if you want to make the Collaborators of the Nazis less of perpetrators and more of victims, then you are at the wrong place. To justify the modern-day suffering of the Greeks by linking it to a WWII event of the past, is just pure nonsense. Sorry mate, but fringe theories do not belong here. If you insert such content here, your changes will be reverted. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I am not justifying anyone. Those Chams who collaborated should have been punished. Dino etc were criminals. So was Zervas as well. Tell me. What did Cham children and women who were removed from their homes? I do not like those people who say that Chameria should join Albania or Northern Epirus should join Greece. All people should live peacefully at their homes, be in Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria or Croatia. If you have sources great, as I have sources that elaborate on the link between the Chameria issue and mistreatment of overall Greek minority in Albania. It is matter of nationalism, Chameria has been exchanged with Himara. Tell me, why does not Greek gov request Albania to recognise Himara, Gjirokastra and Saranda as "minority areas"? It is secret stuff, Chameria for Himara. I think that due to things that happened in the past in Epirus, it is a good deal for both countries. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"What did Cham children and women who were removed from their homes?" you say, yet you ignore that it is not only the Cham children and women who were punished in the war. Were all the German children and women who left their homes anywhere in Europe and expelled to Germany as well. Same goes for Italian and Japanese families. Yet I am not hearing any German editors here in Wikipedia that the Germans shall today return to the territories and properties they had before losing the war. Only the Cham Albanians do complaint about the war's outcome nowadays. I am sorry for that but war is war. I am not happy with the outcome of the war either, but to see an Albanian trying to find an excuse to an war that happened 70 years ago to justify (or link it at least with) the hardships of the Greek minority in modern Albania, during peaceful times, is just shameful. Get over with it. The Chams sided with the wrong side in the war and they paid the price for that, just like the Germans and Italians did. Period. Your attempts to link the hardships of the Greek minority in Albania with the WW2 which happened 70 years ago, only is bound to raise eyebrows. Just imagine if Merkel's Germany today was discriminating Polish communities living on German soil, just because of an event 70 years ago, where Germans were expelled from Poland! Just uninmaginable, laughable and shameful. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Zervas asked the Chams to change sides. By the way the Cham communities of two villages accepted the offer and they remained in their homes. Those villages offered fighters in EDES service (the number maybe is higher from those joined EAM).Alexikoua (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys I'm going to be really transparent here -- do I think Chams should all go back to the houses they had in 1940? No, I really don't. I don't think that would be productive without bilateral reconciliation beforehand. In a hypothetical future where more reconciliation has happened -- perhaps. There are indeed German editors who are focused on what happened to millions of Germans at the hands of Soviet and allied officers -- same for the expulsions of Poles from Belarus/Ukraine (Kresy) and so on. But why on earth are we talking about this? It is nothing but divisive. We need to focus on the page (our common interest), and quit throwing around accusations of so-and-so supports this or that. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If Ktrimi has any Zervas traumas, and I have any Cham traumas, is none's business here. We should FOCUSE ON CONTENT. Something which Ktrimi should finally do instead of complaining about the outcome of WWII. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Expanded the paragraph in the Resistance section. Give it a look. There is now more information for the readers about the situation in the organizations. Enjoy! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any "Zervas trauma" as I am not a Tosk or Cham. If you have any "Cham trauma", I can't help. It is you who started everything non related exclusively to this article, by saying that "Zervas has saved the lives of so many Greeks from the hands of the Chams". My response was he saved many people in Greece, and indirectly murdered an entire Greek identity in Albania. Crimes always produce hate and further victims. Same happened in Yugoslavia, all sides had fault and all sides suffered, sadly. No, I do not think that Chams should return to live in Greece, they are safe in Albania. It is political stuff, Chameria for Himara. I think that due to things that happened in the past in Epirus, it is a good deal for both countries. For that matter, I think that North Kosovo should join Serbia, that would be good for both nations. Cheers,

Frankly I don't have any Cham trauma. My grandmother does. But of course this is not your business. Now, if you don't mind, I am not in mood to trade more political theories and talks with you. Lets focuse on the article content. Thank you. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to know about your family's traumas. If you don't mind, do not say what you said a hour ago and everything will be fine. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe some trimming is needed about Cham collaboration. Thesprotia makes less than 1,2% 0.8% of Greece. Thus, from "large parts ... more suitable one appeared". Nothing more & the rest can go to the correspondent article about Cham collaboration.Alexikoua (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by SilentResident have been good and based on good sources. Thanks for putting in the time.--Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to have the right man in the right moment. By the way I fail to understand why a 1950 election of Zervas as minister in post war Greece is relevant to this article. Obviously it doesn't offer additional light in the WWII events.Alexikoua (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That bit gives insight on who Zervas was. Both Zervas and Cham stuff are in a very good shape, do not need removal of content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I though you found the Cham collaboration part somewhat big but it can stay since it offers insight on who they were.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Your addition about the famous Bridge of Gorgopotamos was much-needed, Alexikoua. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 10:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SR: The section in general needs large scale improvements in order to understand the dynamics of resistance. Your addition fixed some serious POV issues.Alexikoua (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Also if you noticed, the edit was single and was not followed by further modifications. I owe it thanks to Ktrimi reminding me the nuisance it is to modify the same text multiple times [5] that I used Word instead of Edit Preview for errors. That works at least until I find why the heck my browser freezes and slow downs when on Edit Preview. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Zervas redux

Oversimplifications and repetition of general statements should be avoided: Zervas' connection with British, Germans and his royal background is presented in detail and there is no need to repeat such generalisation. Panourgia (in addition to other more in-depth bibliography) as an inlined reference is cited 3 times in this section. Thus we already have in the text: "1. Meanwhile, on 9 March, 1943, Zervas repudiated EDES's earlier republicanism of loyalty to the exiled King George. Thus he managed to achieve closer links with the British mission, 2. As a result EDES was confined in Epirus, Zerva's birthlplace, and managed to survive due to Britsh support, 3. During October 1943-October 1944 Zervas consistently rejected active collaboration though he favored a temporary coexistence. According to German records a conspiracy of German-Ralli's collaborationist government-British can't be sustained. This policy of coexistence enabled the Germans to concentrate their operations against ELAS." And that already covers a general statement that Zervas being initially republican became royalist and had connections with both WWII main opponent: Germans and British.Alexikoua (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: If you repeat any removal of content after the discussion here, you will be reported. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've contributed to the article by adding 8kbites of essential to the subject infomartion. This was important in order to offer an adequate description about the dynamics and the developments of the resistance and to avoid POV statemenents. Nothing was removed, some general statements about specific WWII connections were explained in-depth.Alexikoua (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that we have the very same text twice now ("For Zervas the first priority was EAM/ELAS" though in deferrent paraphs) @Ktrimi, this obsession by repeating the same text needs to stop. You need to calm down since this offers nowthing to the article especially when you accuse editors at the same time.Alexikoua (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove repeated content from where you added it and leave it where I added it (where it was originally). Yeah you removed content, check your diffs of yesterday and the first one today. You are now alerted on Balkan sanctions, and I am not going to explain you things explained above. The matter was discussed, was agreed upon and you are trying to disrespect it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has been considerably improved and several POVs have been fixed due to additions by SR and myself. Panourgia's general statement has received in-depth analysis, as explained above, yet you insist to add info that's already part of the section. You need to explain the reason of this sterile wp:OWN pattern. Also don't send "alerts" as part of your wp:OWN it reveals an aggressive nature.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, Alexikoua's additions seem fine to me, and I agree with his position that generic statement should not be repeated as there is more specific info on when exactly Zerva's ineractions with the British Mission and the Germans did happen, unlike Panourgia's source which is generic and without the necessary clarifications that could avoid any possible POV issues in the future. Like said further above (and other editors agreed with me), we should be careful as to not give false impressions about Zervas when there is not the case. As it stands now, Panourgia's source only does that: allows the readers to assume that he was loyal (and gives the impression he might been enspoused by or where sympathetic) to the Nazi causes, an argument which is often heard by nationalist circles in Albania but which is not attested by the scholars, who agree that Zervas was not a Nazi loyal but an opportunist who later (again) turned against the Nazis when opportuniy showed up, without a hestitation. I know Zervas is a sensitive issue for the Albanian side, but edits like these, can not be accepted, at least not without the much-needed clarifications on his contacts with the Germans. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Resistance was largely led by the ELAS, in fact 90% of the Greek resistance was part of this organization. It's obvious that an article about the occupation can't be focused on Zervas, but an analysis of the dynamic nature of the WWII developments in occupied Greece should be offered. Simply saying, stating that someone was closely collaborating with the major players of WWII is POV and the necessary context is neededAlexikoua (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@SR I had added next to the quote a part that said sth kind of Zervas saw EDES as a tool against the Axis powers and to advance his own forunes. That part gave context and balanced the section. I do not know what Alexikoua did with that part. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't removed that part (you placed twice that text by accident). Panourgias' generic statement and the quote you selectively chose are POV and have to go. There is already enough context to explain the dynamics of resistance either Zervas side or not: "1. Meanwhile, on 9 March, 1943, Zervas repudiated EDES's earlier republicanism of loyalty to the exiled King George. Thus he managed to achieve closer links with the British mission, 2. As a result EDES was confined in Epirus, Zerva's birthlplace, and managed to survive due to Britsh support, 3. During October 1943-October 1944 Zervas consistently rejected active collaboration though he favored a temporary coexistence. According to German records a conspiracy of German-Ralli's collaborationist government-British can't be sustained. This policy of coexistence enabled the Germans to concentrate their operations against ELAS.". No need to generally state that Zervas was in contact with both WWII opponents, Mazower, Iatrides, Shrader offer the necessary context above.Alexikoua (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, I do not care to know how many times you removed and moved content. Any removal of content will be reported. The matter was discussed and agreed upon. After two days, you made changes to the article. If you see repetitions, revert the changes you made the last two days. The paragraph that was result of an agreement will not be changed. I may not respond to any further comment here. An agreement is agreement. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved the sentence on Zervas' vision of EDES where it was. Nobody was "loyal" to the Nazis. Everything was opportunism or protection from hostile establishements. The reasons why Zervas, his Greek opponents, Chams, Bulgarians, Vlachs collaborated are explained on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see a paragraph as a result of an agreement, actually the last stable version did not contain anything about Zervas assumed collaboration.Alexikoua (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So far, the content about Zervas that Ktrimi insisted in restoring, has not been agreed upon. Instead of edit warring on the article I highly recommend to Ktrimi that he seeks consensus with the other editors by tackling any possible POV concerns this entails. I am not against this content, but I am against with Ktrimi's emphasis on a particular quote from a German official, which presents a war opportunist into a Nazi loyalist; someone who fought the Nazis as being loyal to the Nazi cause which is not true and no scholar ever claims so, yet Ktrimi is insisting so much on adding this. My proposal is either: 1) the quote be removed completely, or 2) be presented in an way that the impressions of a German official do not reflect upon facts. This way we can avoid giving the readers the same false impression the Germans had about Zervas. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't know what "the facts" are though, and we don't know what is "false". We only "know" (in capacity as editors) what RS say.--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we do. The German official considered Zervas loyal to the German cause but Zervas attacked the German forces again when opportunity rose. Even if it was not about facts but about RS, still, it is important to make clear to the readers that the loyalty thing here is merely the impression of the Germans for Zervas, not a fact. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 18:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We just know that German officials considered him loyal (to the German cause? I doubt that), and that he attacked them. Nothing else. Info should be presented in a balanced way, readers can come to their own conclusions (I doubt anyone would seriously believe he was "loyal to the German cause" presented with these together). I recommend a side by side comparison of versions here. --Calthinus (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to offer a neutral POV: one report says he was loyal, another German report says he must be destroyed. We also need to take into consideration that Zervas' controlled less than 10% of mainland Greece and he was not the main protagonist among Greek resistance fighters. The article isn't about Chameria but about Greece, unfortunately Ktrimi fails to understand this fact.Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be best to bulk then cut here (in general my philosophy anyways). Imo "neutral POV" is not an aspiration, zero synthesis is better on issues like this, just present all the facts, no analysis except in labeled analysis sections if they are necessary. We can gather all the facts and then trim out the less relevant ones -- perhaps by moving some to a subsection on Napoleon Zervas.--Calthinus (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal to move some of the content that is more about Zervas himself and less about the overall resistance to more appropriate articles, will have me supporting it. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All interested editors can prepare a draft on content they think must stay here. After I see that I say whether I agree. Beware that I will not accept any proposal that may make the content on Zervas not neutral. The possibility I accept to remove stuff from the article is virtually zero. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Content that has been added recently by you but you have yet to achieve consensus for it to stay, will be removed too and no consensus is required for its removal. The last stable version didn't include your additions. So even if you could not consent to the removal of your own additions, they may eventually be removed if you do fail to acknowledge the POV concerns of the other editors here. For the sake of WP:NPOV, all information presenting RS in a neutral manner and tone without giving false Albanian POV impression to the readers (such as Zerbas being a Nazi loyalist), can stay and you won't find me objecting this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The content added by me does not have consensus and content added by does have? Yeah, remove content without consensus, and I will make sure an admin checks this discussion. Since it is pretty clear after your comment that any initiative to trim content is not due to good faith, I oppose any removal of content. I will not consider any draft at all. Everything will be solved with admin atenttion if content is removed. False Albanian POV? Nope, the article does not contain any Albanian source whatsoever. The article does not say Zervas was loyal to Nazis, but that he collaborated with them against his fellow Greeks and for his own interest. Isn't this true? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Some trimming is needed, though per Ktrimi it isn't much. Let's say 2 sentences. As I've said Zervas controlled a tiny part of mainland Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing can be trimmed. After SR's latest comment, how do I know that after some time she does not change her mind on the agreement? She agreed on the current version, now she is saying she did not. Hence, I oppose any removal of content. Everything will be solved with admin atenttion if content is removed. If Chameria/Epirus is a small part of Greece, why did you add a lot of content on Chams? I am satisfied with that content on Chams, and I do not support trimming it, just asking out of curiosity. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I am sorry but WP:FORUMSHOPing for Administrators undermines WP:CON which will very likely backfire at your goal of keeping the disputed edits of yours on the article. If you feel you can't reach a consensus with fellow editors, then go check WP:DR on possible and ideal ways of resolving your dispute with them. But know that your current behavior of acting as if you WP:OWN the page, will only get you into troubles. Don't say you haven't been warned. Now, like I said, your edits are not the last stable version and they will either have to be re-phrased to be neutrally worded or removed. Period. @Alexikoua:, you have said you have problem with Ktrimi's additions to the article, but seeing you two editwarring with each other is not the solution. Can you propose here how could Ktrimi's edits be accepted for you? I recommend we do as Calthinus proposed: gather here all the facts and see what can be done about it, what can stay on this article and what can be sent on Zervas' article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, remove that content if you are sure that is in line with relevant policy. Just be sure you can justify your actions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A balanced version would be this one [[6]] with partial addition of Ktrimi's [[7]], without the German army quote about Zerva's loyalty/hostility (both of '43 and '44). The generic comment about "close collaboration" with both WWII opponents is useless since the proposed version offers a decent description of the dynamic nature of the resistance.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That is. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No way. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We're not arguing over much here. If the report by the German chief of staff needs to be included, perhaps a more acceptable wording would be something along the lines of "In 1943, reports sent by the German Chief of Staff in Giannina suggested that he believed Zervas was 'loyal' to their operations"-- makes it clear it is the guy's view, not something the page is endorsing -- and it is indeed contradicted by other info on the page including stuff also added by Ktrimi. If anything it shows his deceptiveness more than his loyalty to anyone. SilentResident -- you said that your issue was the way it was worded -- is this wording less POV, since saying the German c.o.s. "believed" it does not imply it was an accurate report?--Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, I find your proposal very well-balanced, has minimal to zero POV, and does not turn a blind eye to the historical facts. Your proposal has my full support. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, I do not mind rewording the sentence. Every sentence can be reworded freely for that matter. The article does not say or imply that Zervas was loyal to the Nazis, he was just a mountain rebel who wanted to gain from the situation and eleminate his fellow Greek opponents. He destroyed EDES' democratic nature, he hated Greek commies, and saw EDES as a tool for personal profit. That is the important thing, not his collaboration with Nazis as some Greek nationalists might think. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume there is an agreement for the removal about Panourgias' generic statement.Alexikoua (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus' proposal is fine. It appears there isn't much to disagree.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not mind rewording the quote, not removing Panourgias. Out of curiosity, why isn't this content on Zervas' collaboration on the Collaboration section? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't active collaboration, but was part of the dynamics of resistance. Panourgia's detailed analysis given by Shrader, Mazower Iatrides can stay, but this generic statement means nothing.Alexikoua (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. To claim otherwise (or worse, imply the other kind of collaboration) only shows complete ignorance about the currents of the Greek resistance. And sorry to say that - the readers are not some telepathic beings who could automatically get enlightened on what kind collaboration this was, they are uneducated/uninformed on this matter and will usually assume the active one. And if we let this happen, then we editors failed utterly to prevent this kind of assumption in the first place. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Do sources differentiate between this active and passive(?) collaboration? As far as I can tell in English, if you cut deals to obtain mutual benefit with an occupying power, there is a word for that. And sources use that word [[8]] ("... not surprisingly, Zervas ended up secretely *******ing with the Germans"). We don't say that the stage of collaboration for Balli Kombetar, which was originally fighting against the occupiers, was "resistance". Nor for the analogous stage when the Chetniks were concerned, who had a similar trajectory. As for "how bad" collaboration it was, well, that is what details described in the section are presented to readers for, for them to decide on their own based on the available sources.--Calthinus (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Another notable fact that might be worth discussing -- Brits also backed other groups that were collaborating (see page 5)  : [[9]] --Calthinus (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, the sources so far confirm that Zervas shared common enemy targets with the British, and cooperated with British forces to get them defeated. And he did share common enemy targets with other Greeks and cooperated to get them eliminated. And the same goes for the Germans too, since he shared some common enemies with the Germans and he cooperated to get them done. This is the difference we are talking about. The active collaboration with Nazis is a very politically sensitive issue nowadays, I can understand. Zervas' personal agenda clearly was not to promote Nazism and the only shared thing they had were common enemies, but we speak about two groups with totally different ideologies. Thing is, the readers here are most likely not going to get this impression if we say just "closely cooperated with the Nazis". They will likely assume Zervas had adopted Nazi policies and pursued Nazi goals, among others, and this is not the case here and this has to be made clear to the readers that Zervas isn't merely a loyal collaborator as some recent edits have attempted to portray him as such, actually a mercenary who pursued his own goals. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Zervas isn't merely a loyal collaborator as some recent edits have attempted to portray him as such Nope. I added the part that says Zervas among other things saw EDES as a tool to fight the Nazis. All what interests me is WP:NPOV, and as the article very well says, Zervas was a mountain fighter whose main priority was not the Nazis but some of his fellow Greeks. Hence, it is understandable why he murdered Greek commies, Chams, and other percieved opponents. It is understanable why he destroyed EDES' democratic and republican nature. Anyways, these are on the article and we do not have why to discuss them here. @Calthinus, can you provide a quote from the Google Books link? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's about other nationalist groups backed by the Brits which collaborated (first link was the one for EDES): At the same time as they were shoring up EDES, the British also retained more informal links with officers of the Greek gendarmerie and other nationalist units, and were prepared to overlook the fact that they were collaborating with the Germans -- there it is Ktrimi991. SR: I am not suggesting making a section titled "Collaboration by Zervas" -- it is to be in the "Collaboration" section with all the relevant details, which do not suggest he was personally a holder of Nazi ideology. If they choose to misread it, they are clumsy and that is not something we can control.--Calthinus (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote Calthinus. Yes, I agree with your proposal. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration section is clearly wp:UNDUE. I assume there is no objection to move most of the info (apart from the first 2 sentences from Cham paragraph) to the correspondent article. @Calthinus: the British-Greek gendarmerie understandings etc. concerns the period after the German withdrawal.Alexikoua (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As for the resistance version, as per Ktrimi's statement there is virtually nothing to remove/move. Apart from Panourgias' generic statement I assume we are ok. By the way Panourgia also states in the same line that Zervas became a royalist, I can't understant why Ktrimi neglected this by providing extra focus on the possible collaboration features.Alexikoua (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source. It claims exactly that: Fordham University Press is reliable source. I have readded the info. Jingiby (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that some specific editors overemmphsize in Zervas and collaboration, even Panourgias; statement is written with a certain POV and the royalist tendencies have been hidden (Jingiby I doubt if you have read the specific line).Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You did good you added the royalist bit, it reinforces the source. Cham paragraph? Nothing will be removed there and anywhere else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: You might add a bit from the Google Books link do other proposals you made. I will try to keep an eye here but can't be sure I will be part of the discussion. The most important stuff has been done though. Any addittion/change that serves the article has my endorsment. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's ok Ktrimi, though I would appreciate to further explain what you mean by saying that any addittion/change that serves the article has your endrosement. So far the article is focused on one personality of the resistance who wasn't the major guerilla leader in Greece. Some reasonable additions will be that of Sarafis etc., Psaros etc., and expansion in aftermatch. You assume that Chameria with less than 1% of Greek territory should be the main subject of 1/3 of the collaboration section right?Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we add more info on Safaris, Pangalos and others, to the article? Having this important article of modern Greek history focusing too much on Albanian-interest figures and people such as Zervas and the Cham Albanians, gives the impression that Zervas and the Chams were playing decisive role to the history of the resistance, and that the Greek Resistance is emphasizing more on matters that interest the Albanian readers rather than everyone as it was supposed to be. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Triple occupation, Civil administration, Collaboration and Resistance sections should be merged together in a History section. Placing content on collaboration by minorities on a Collaboration section and content on collaboration by Greek mountain militants such as Zervas on a Resistance section does not make sense. Adding more content to the article without solving this issue is not acceptable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to deal with this outrigh WP:UNDUE. @Ktrimi care to explain what makes you believe that the Chameria paragraph in collaboration section isn't UNDUE? Imagine the Northern Epirus question covering 1/4 of Albanian WWII history, which by the way isn't exaggeration in terms of geography.Alexikoua (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, why did you add a lot of content on Chameria if you believed it was UNDUE? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph already covered more than 10k of text and had severe POV issues before my addition. POV is largely fixed, though we have wp:UNDUE issues as I've stated. We can carefully trim a paragraph but NPOV should be respected.Alexikoua (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Content on Chams and Zervas is very good and gives insight on everything. Out of curiosity, what sentences would you wish to remove? Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@SR: Sarafis and the major protagonists should have a place in this section, who controlled 90% of mainland Greece @Ktrimi: I don't disagree that they are very good and offer a good insight, the problem here is WP:UNDUE the section is completely unbalaced by giving too much weight in what happened in a tiny 1% part of Greece (Chameria).Alexikoua (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

When I read about "Triple Occupation" here in the talk page, I realized how the article completely missed info on who the fourth occupation force was in the country. This has been corrected now. [10]. Not intending to make Cham issue get more weight, but since this article is about Axis Occupation, mentioning all occupation forces is a must. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As it has already been said, there will not be any further content on Chams. No further additions will be on the article without adressing this issue: Why should collab. by Greek militants be on the Resistance section and collab. by minorities on the Collaboration section? Adding your content SR is Undue, that is an extraordinary claim by one author. That way the article also should contain content on Zervas being referred as "notorious quisling" by the US Congress and other sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How is undue that the Chams were the 4th occupation force in Axis occupied Greece? They even established administration and had their own authorities and rule in the region. Some sense from you for once, could be welcomed. The fieldwork of a German scholar about Axis occupation, cannot be compared to political comments of the American congress about a person. If the American congress comments have to be added, this article here isn't the proper place, since here we add information only about the Axis occupation of Greece, not about Zervas himself and what political opinions others may have for him. Don't confuse thigns to make a point. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Chams were not foreign people in Greece. Right? It is not only the American Congress that considers Zervas a "quisling". Academics as well if you wish to go down that road. Either both these facts will be added or both of them will be kept away from the artcicle. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from further reversions of other people's edits. If you don't like the fact that the Chams are regarded as an occupation force, then I am sorry but I can't help you. It is RS and is a fact. That people originated from a region, does not make their occupation of the region more legit.

I do not ever want hear again that the administration and Keshilla the Cham collaborators established in Thesprotia were legit. You are keep saying to us that you are not a nationalist editor, but your favorable views on the Axis occupation and the Cham administration in the region, can not help but worry me that you are not here to make improvements to the article. The information that has been added is about the occupation forces in Greece, and this article is about the Occupation of Greece. I fail to see why this information should be in Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis and not here which is far more relevant article for it, if not equally. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: please revert [11] or move it to Napoleon Zervas which is more fit for this kind of information. Opinions about people should go to their respective articles (i.e. article about these people). Νot here. Τhe article here is about the Axis occupation of a whole country and as per Wikipedia:Relevance, only information relating to the country's occupation should be present here. I could appreciate if Jiginby, Alexikoua or Calthinus revert this disruptive move by Ktrimi. This goes too far. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@SilentResident: The xontent I added is not about one person, but for a group pf people. Hence, it is relevant here. I have made many edit warring reports, and I know very well I am not even near edit warring. Other RS say that Zervas was a quisling. I did not add them since the beginning, because this is a delicate issue, and people should not go to extreme views. Sincerely, I have participated in more difficult discussions, in discussions on ongoing comflicts in Western Balkans, and I have never seen someone with your attitude. Honestly. I do not mind one sentence more or less, it will change nothing. Chameria is an international issue, and foreign newspapers elaborating on it do not blame Chams for being Nazis at all [12], [13], [14], [15]. Indeed, it is very sad to see people who have so much tension inside themselves. If you think that this will help you, do whatever you wish with that sentence. What concerns me is not one sentence SR, it is your attempts to give weight to Cham collab. as much as possible while desparately trying to erase Zevas' crimes. I thanked Alexikoua for one edit of him where he added details about Cham collab. Many Chams did bad things, same did many Kosovars, Greeks, Serbs, Croats, Germans etc. But desparately trying to give weight only to one community's collab. is hipocrisy and self-damage. Whatever you add, the article already explains that both Chams and Greeks of Epirus collaborated and everything was part of Greek governments' nationalist policies. Keep all the Cham collab. stuff SR, only make sure you will feel "better" after you realize you were honest towards "Cham Nazis". Maybe then you will feel the sufferings of Cham and Greek children killed by Dino, Zervas and other extremists. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi whats makes you believe that a contemporary communist leader Svetozar_Vukmanović is RS? (there is already the EAM accusation) To be precise he is a typical example to be avoided as RS, like memoirs of various resistance leaders: Sarafis, Zervas etc. @SR: I moved the Frei part though I feel a trimming is needed: "this large parts..." is already in another section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Now I am dismayed that Ktrimi is saying the actions of the Chams in establishing their own illegal administration in Thesprotia did not constitute occupation "because the people of the administration originated from that region". Imagine if we hear far-right editors and supportives of Nazism saying that the puppet government established in Athens by the Axis occupators did not constitute an illegal occupation because "the government's people where from Greece". Just imagine that! Scandalous.

As for Ktrimi citing newspapers which say the Chams couldn't be blamed for their collaboration with the Nazis in the war, is nothing new, I have been hearing the same about the Nazi Germans couldn't be blamed for Hitler's policies. Extreme POV nonsense. People who try to deny the collective responsibilities of the past, are capable of repeating the crimes in the future under new leaderships, and we saw how this was the case with Turkey's genocide denial and how this lack of collective acknowledgement of the past allowed that country to repeat its ethnic cleansing policies in Cyprus and Syria today, against Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians, Georgians, Kurds and Syrians, and Albania's harsh discrimination of its Greek minority nowadays. I want to pretend I never read Ktrimi's comments. We have to focuse on the article instead of Ktrimi's opinions. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 13:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The activities in Chameria/Thesprotia covered 1% of Greece' territory. We are deep into wp:UNDUE and giving too much weight to info about Cham collaboration, resistance, relations with other communities. On the other hand other regions, such as Crete were much more important in WWII terms.Alexikoua (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Alexikoua: I agree but know that: we can't mention of Axis occupations such as the Bulgarian administration, German administration and Italian administration but exclude the Cham administration. If the other occupators are mentioned explicitly as such, then so could the Chams as well. I am vehemently against double standards when it comes to occupation forces. Sure, we absolutely have to trim the Cham content from this article, but the Cham administration of Thesprotia was no less of an very occupation of Greek territories by Axis forces, and if this has to be removed from the article, then the other should as well. We need stay clear on such things, by mentioning them due to their notability while at same time the addressing WP:UNDUE issues. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are to follow that wrong logic, Turks did very well they removed Greek populations from Turkey and N. Cyprus, and Albanians are doing very well with removing Greek population from Albania. This sort of way of thinking is of course wrong, and Greek victims of persecution will not be able to live in the lands. This is injustice. You have to answer this: Why should collab. by minorities be on a Collaboration section, and collab. by Greek mountain fighters be on a Resistance section? Either some sections are merged into a big History section or all content on Greek collaborators should be on Collaboration section. Should we open a RfC? @Alexikoua Nothing will be removed from Cham content. You just added content on them and still say content on them should be removed? No way. The content on Chams is very well, and gives proper insight. If you wish to trim content, start with what you added some minutes ago. I am satisfied with all options on the table. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, collaborators who lived in the mountains, will have to be moved to the collab section, obviously. I never found myself objecting to this. Or anyone else here. Or did I miss something? EDIT: If you are however referring to EDES as being a collaborationist organization, then this is out of the question: it won't be moved. EDES is a resistance organization, Ktrimi, despite collaboration with several players. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I absolutely udnerstand why you are worried about the "Cham Albanication" of the article but this is more about notability and less about percentage of area the collaborators held. To be frank, the Chams were very notable as collaborators due to the extensive ammount of collaboration in the minority, compared to other minorities in Greece. So i propose that we focus now on adding the other forms of collaborations and resistances to the article instead of trimming the Cham section. And once everything else is addded to the article, then we can see if the Cham section is still unproportionally bigger and still needs trimming. My proposal is that we add the other (non-Cham) content because we still don't know for sure how much there is yet to be added on the article. WP:UNDUE could make more sense to work on, if we had a final picture of the article's size. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Gonatas, Pangalos etc. can go to collaboration section, but Zervas was a resistance leader. EAM was also accused for collaboration, EKKA also, but we can not split the resistance section by creating more severe wp:POV. Ceasefires, temporary gentlemen agreements, coexistent agreements/Allied intervention etc were part of the dynamics of the resistance/not collaboration and should stay in the correct section. Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing from Cham content will be removed, no matter how much UNDUE you see. Both Cham and Zervas content is very well. If EDES's collab. should not be on the Collaboration section, collab. by minorities should not be there too. What is your issue with merging those sections together into a History section? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It is very important that we don't allow for the purpose for which EDES existed to be altered here. If Ktrimi asks to move EDES which was founded to advance resistancve goals in Greece, to the collaboration section to be along with collaborationist forces which were founded with the aim of advancing collaborationist goals in the occupied country, then it will generate more POV and issues than it can solve. This ain't happening for obvious reasons. Sorry but the minority had collaborationist goals, and their aim was to take the occupied lands of Epirus and annex them to Italian protectorate of Albania (1939–1943), while EDES's goals were to liberate the country from the occupied forces. This article is about occupators VS liberators. If we start dividing content using new criteria, none of the existing issues is going to be resolved, but extended. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

More POV issues? Do you think that currently the article has POV issues? Tell us which are them. I am saying that the Collaboration section should not exist at all, the all relevant content should be part of a History section. Sorry but the minority had collaborationist goals, and their aim was to take the occupied lands of Epirus and annex them to Germany, while EDES's goals were to liberate the country from the occupied forces. This article is about occupators VS liberators Nope, this article is not about "occupators VS liberators", and this discussion is not only about minorities in Epirus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Corrected Germany -> Albania. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify this for you in case you are not getting it: this article is about the Occupation of a country, and it well does to mention the occupation and the resistance against that occupation. I am afraid you know that already. Otherwise you could have been revamping it already. If the article wasn't about resistance against occupation but something else, then we couldn't mind your proposed changes at all. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That the article should not keep cases of minorities collab. and cases of Greek collab. in different section is not only my opinion. Calthinus said some thing similar? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no open collaboration of EDES. The so-called "quisling theories" stated by some partisan rivals and are not RS.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, I am afraid you can't be more wrong than ever. A friend once mentioned how complicated and messed the wars (and the people) can get, and to avoid getting this article more messy than it is, we need keep a clear distinction between the organizations based on their purposes, aims and goals, not on what tactics they have used to achieve these goals. Tactics, include interactions they had with other organizations in a bid of advancing their goals where their limited manpower couldn't allow for that. A resistance organization that had multiple fronts and wants to have ceasefire and cooperate temporarily in order to better deal with its other fronts, is not less of a resistance, and certainly not active collaborationism. This is not a reason to have a resistance organization be classified as Nazi or whatever. Still it was a resistance organization to the very end. Everyone knows that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, every case of collab. is collab. Some minorities collaborated due to hostile state policies, as showed on the article, and some groups collaborated to advance their own fortunes and destroy their opponents, as showed on the article. Where is the difference here? Do not redirect the discussion. I am not saying to place all collab. cases in the same paragraph, every case should be in a chronological order in a History section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, every case of collab. is collab. Omg.... then we should start adding the Nazi Germans to the Resistance section due to their cooperation with resistance groups against common enemies, if we are to add resistance groups to the Collaborations section for cooperating with the Axis against common enemies. I am baffled. Wow. I never thought things this way. First time. I am really ashtonished with your rationale. A big part of Wikipedia's historical articles will have to be drastically re-written if we go by this rationale. EDIT: You better not bring up such arguments ever again, the editors are going to laugh. I am sure you know history was never a case of white VS black, or pure light VS pure dark. The human history is full of such gray examples of ceasefires and cooperations against mutual enemies despite their diametrically opposing goals. The recent human history, and especially WWII is not exception to this, I am afraid. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Zervas was always attached to the British mission, if for a period he secretly communicated with Germans it's impossible to split the information in different sections. There is also disagreement among wp:RS if this can be called collaboration (he never left the allied side). Alexikoua (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

SR, spare me your personal attacks. If the article is not structured properly, not only new content might not be accepted, but even what you added today will be reverted. This may last till all concerns are respected, not only yours. You should not theorize that you will construct the article in line with your vision alone. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest each editor needs to read the current version and address in bullets what needs to be done. A good approach is to compare this one with Occupation of Poland (1939–1945).Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, you have been accusing others of WP:BADFAITH, WP:POV, and many more things which I don't bother ever listing here, you have WP:3RR warred, and have insisted to the inclusion of non-WP:RS about Zervas to be added on an article that isn't WP:RELEVANT about Zervas. All this, because of your obsession about Zervas. If that isn't enough, when I very kindly asked you to revert your problematic edits, you didn't comply to my pleas. And not only that, you went as low as to propose bringing EDES to the same section as the Nazis(!) and in your discussions with me, you defended the Cham albanians for their collaboration with the Nazi side, citing newspapers that are attempting to whitewash the Nazi Chams of their collective historical responsibilities in WWII. With problematic attitudes and extreme POV such as this, dear Ktrimi, the prospects of others finding a common ground to work with you on politically sensitive articles relating to Nazi Germany and WWIII, are very difficult. Especially for me. No matter what you think, denial of the Nazi crimes is not welcomed, is very controversial even 70 years after the end of the war, and let me warn you: you won't find many friends supporting your attempts of re-writing WWII history. I thought I was dealing with a competent editor, but I am not sure anymore what to think by reading again and again this poor quality of talk page discussion. You are welcome to continue the discussion with Calthinus and Alexikoua however, if they can. Do not expect from me such lengthy talks again in the future, I am not in mood. Sorry. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, Alexikoua. I am up for your and Calthinus' suggestions. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Where does the Polish article separates some cases of collaboration from others? In no way there will be such a thing allowed, either all cases should be placed on the Collaboaration section or the entire material should be placed on a History section. Double standarts per WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look, I didn't create the article, nor its individual sections. The article has been stable for a very long time and had minimal POV issues before you came, and I could like it to stay this way, even after you leave it. Trying to impose your pro-Cham and anti-Zervas POV on it ain't going to work just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT the way it is now. I understand you want to move the section about the mountain fighters to the Collaboration section, but I don't understand why it has to be moved. The Collaborations section is about those who affiliate with the Axis and advance the Axis goals. If you want to move one of Greece's largest resistance groups to that section, then you will require not just convince the others (not me, since I am not changing attitude), but also present very strong RS proving that EDES indeed carried out Nazi operations and adopted Nazi ideology. Thus far, I am sorry but you have failed to win my consent for a such drastic alteration of history and article changes to happen. You can still however reach a consents with Alexikoua and Calthinus and go ahead with them if not with me if they are more sympathetic to your POV flagging of the resistance organizations as collaborationist. Good luck convincing the other editors! --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm busy for a bit, but let me say a couple things. (1) It isn't productive to discuss whether Zervas collabbed, and the Chams at the same time. The question of whether Zervas collabbed is independent of this. Furthermore a lot of the discussion and yes personal attacks have not been productive here, so please let's stop conflating the two issues. (2) Collaboration does not imply Nazi views and if readers think this I am sorry but they are just stupid, and that is out of our control. Collaborators ranged from people like Liliana Panitza (considered a hero and a savior of Jews by some despite being Belev's lover and secretary) to Codreanu (a Christian anti-Semite who played a major role in Axis Romania). (3) If anything I am in agreement with Jingiby-- sources are clearly saying "collaboration" and this should be reflected. It is not just this one source but also others. (4) For NPOV, the British role in backing groups that ended up collaborating has to be mentioned -- blame does not solely belong to men like Zervas but also the Brits. (5) EDES was primarily a resistance movement and should still be discussed as such. The episodes of collaboration are specifically what should be mentioned in the collaboration section, nothing else. (6) The section about the deterioration leading into conflict between EAM-ELAS and EDES needs to be brought back into line with its primary topic, and in particular the role of Zervas' (unpopular) monarchist views needs to be discussed. Thanks all. Also, SR, I got your email-- it's one I want to reply to but I simply don't have time right now as I have a life too -- I will get to it, my apologies.--Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I second @Calthinus:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's impossible to move information about those resistance leaders who might had some short-term understandings with the Axis in a completely different section and put them together with the collaborationist government (the quisling-claim isn't provided by RS and Shrader, Mazower, Iatrides, Sheperd, Hondros, Meyer and the rest of the WWII bibliography avoids to use the word collaboration). Such contacts were part of the dynamic developments of the resistance. What's problematic in the current structure are the two Cham paragraphs which are located in different sections each. @Clathinus may I ask why developments in Chameria, a region that makes c.1% of Greece shouldn't be trimmed according to your rationale?17:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the only one who supports moving the entire content on collab. to the Collaboration section. The other alternative as I have already said is to not have a Collaboration and a Resistance section at all. The entire content can be placed on a History section, and readers can judge events as they wish. If this concern of mine and Calthinus is not respected, no addition can be made to the article. The content added today lacks consensus and should be removed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua I never disputed that the Cham section was too long. Actually, I was the first person to say it was too long. However, I don't think discussion of Chams and Zervas at the same time can lead to anything productive. This discussion is about Zervas. The Cham section will be trimmed when the time is right. Regarding the quisling source I am not referencing that-- there are at least two separate sources saying he collabbed with Germans, both of which are already presented on this talk page, one by Jingiby, one by myself. --Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus Do you agree that having a History section instead of Collaboration, Resistance etc would help? The entire article in only one section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Last comment -- no more pings after this please. On the one hand the Collaboration/Resistance dichotomy makes it easier to navigate. On the other hand, this seems like a compromise proposal that would remove a lot of the misgivings Alexi and SR seem to have about having sentences about Zervas in teh Collabo section -- if you guys quit fighting the page will improve much more than offsetting that navigational benefit, so I would support it if it has bilateral support.--Calthinus (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand what Calthinus is trying to say here, but unless we make a clear distinction between active Cham collaboration with the Axis and non-active collaboration of EDES, then I fail how can I endorse any changes to the article if they don't reflect the much-required difference between active collaboration and cooperation. The Germans had a goal in Greece: to ethnically cleanse it of Jews, as well as use Greece's own resources to fuel the German imperial machine in its conquests of other areas of Europe. Period. Thing is, the EDES was the complete opposite of this: they didn't share Hitler's views nor helped the Nazis carry out their goals in Greece, nor had they ethnically cleansed Jews or whatever. The EDES didn't helped the Axis establish their hold in Greece and only cooperated with the Axis as long as this cooperation served EDES's goals. This limited cooperation with Axis against mutual enemies is something reciprocial, and is not as simple as moving it to Collaboration section without generating POV issues. EDES was one of Greece's largest resistance groups, to add EDES to the Collaborations section (preserved for the enemies of Greece), or even add the Germans to the Resistance section for cooperating with Resistance groups, is like using the cooperation as means of flagging groups for purposes other than they really served/pursued. Such as portraying EDES as a collaborationist movement even though this is not true. I am sure this is not Calthinus' intention. But the readers may very well see it like this and this is what is finding me vehemently opposed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you wish to make it "clear". Editors are not supposed to make things clear. The sources are. So use sources to make all you wish clear and that is the end of this discussion. The current structure of the article is not acceptable and this discussion will last for months and years, till a solution is given to all concerns raised. Another option could be having the entire content on minorities on a Minorities section and the other content of the Collaboration section on a Collaborationist government section. The current structure of the article is unacceptable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those 2 sources is specialized on WWII, for example Panourgia mentions EDES only once in her work. To sum up: Shrader, Mazower, Iatrides, Sheperd, Hondros, Close, Meyer all of them experts in WWII and especially the resistance should be respected and can't be neglected. I assume it needs something more than that to place the specific case next to collaboration. By the way I can't understand why the Cham stuff isn't significant rigt now. As I remember you added a wall of 8kb of text there right?Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem of collaboration can be fixed if the Cham stuff is reduce in that section. Thus I doubt if there is a meaning to discuss about the contribution of various resistance leaders instead of dealing with severe UNDUE like this one.Alexikoua (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No trimming can be done without restructuring the article. An option could be having the entire content on minorities on a Minorities section and the other content of the Collaboration section on a Collaborationist government section. The current structure of the article is unacceptable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, the problem is not the article, it was fine before you come. The problem is exactly your obsession to equalize the EDES militaristic cooperation with Cham Albanian active Axis collaboration. In your comments, you always speak of both EDES and Chams as if they are related to each other even though they are not. Two completely different things, so whatever is the case for the one, cannot be the case or solution for the other. The article's structure was not problem for anyone, only for you. Your POV is pretty clear: you want the Cham Albanians be portrayed as less collaborationist by removing them out of the Collaborations section, and add EDES in their place, since you hate Zervas. I can't help, but this is how I see it. I can't consent to such POV-driven changes. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Look, stop with personal attacks. You have said on this talk page that you have reasons to be sensitive when Chams are concerned. Such issues, are usually solved with topic bans. You will not be able to add content without giving a proper solution to concerns of Calthinus and mine. Having a section dedicated to Minorities would be good for me. If you do not wish an agreement at all, great. This discussion will continue, and more and more editors will come here. A solution will be found, you can not push that kind of vision of the events. you want the Cham Albanians be portrayed as less collaborationist by removing them out of the Collaborations section, and add EDES in their place, since you hate Zervas Can you provide diffs where I say that? Zervas is explained very well on the article, I do not have any concerns with him specifically. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit speaks for itself: [16] None could have added political content about Zervas to an article that isn't about him. The non-WP:RS source you have used to back this edit, could fail hard in the RS Noticeboard. You know this? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I added a lot of content that gives insight on who Zervas was. Tell me, why did I add among other things the bit that says Zervas saw EDES as a tool to fight the Nazis? Yeah, the content you added today will not stay if an agreement is not reached. I am here, you are here, we seem to have time, we can discuss this slowly for months. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi: I kindly suggest you stop NPA breaches threatening with topic bans, posting false warnings and pointing to irrelevant to the article discussions and topics (for example irrelevant youtube videos). This needs to stop.Alexikoua (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not against having an admin check our comments here. With your responses should I conclude that you do not accept creating a Minorities section? Any not clear response should be treated as "No"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't bother. There is no consensus for creating a Minority section, to keep the content added today and add or trim any other content. The version as yesterday is the stable one, all changes will be reverted and this might continue for a long time. Other editors of course will come in the future and show interest in this article, any change will be rv. Do not bother. Calthinus and I made good proposals, you did not accept them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean a minority section in the "Italian zone"? Chameria was located in that zone and there is already one paragraph about the specific subject.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually both Cham paragraphs should be next to eathother, the question is in which section should they stay. Ideas?Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not bother. It was a good option but it failed. The idea was to place the entire content of the article that is about minorities (Chams, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Muslims) on a separate section. The idea did not gather enough support, I do not mind it. The content is on the article and is very balanced. Any addition or trimming will be reverted now, in September, in October, in November, next year. The issue of the article's structure is not solved, hence any change could be UNDUE. Do not bother about that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid your proposals are something like war declarations with very strict time limit. In which section should the minority subsections belong? is it ok for you to move that Cham paragraph from collaboration section to "italian zone"? Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"all changes will be reverted and this might continue for a long time.", "the content you added today will not stay if an agreement is not reached." Be careful, Ktrimi. If I understood well, first you have conditioned my content with that of the American Congress, and now you are conditioning it with the structural changes you are requesting about a separate Minority section within the article. What you are doing now basically is to blackmail with removal of unrelated edits in the event your own edits about the Minority section are not accepted. The article does not belong to one person, and certainly not to you, or me. Bear this in mind so don't act as if you are its owner. And, mind you, this article is covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, and any editors who have been caught using this approach for making them to accept their demands, are frown by the admins. If my memory does not fail me, there was an editor who had attempted in the recent past to coerce against improvements made on a Featured Article related to the Greek history in a bid of making his own edits accepted to it, only to be warned by other editors that a report against him on the AE was imminent and a ban on him more than certain. I am sure this is not what you want.

Now, regarding the Minority section: this entails drastic structural changes to the article and is unlikely that your request will be carried right away, and especially without the consent of Calthinus and Alexikoua. Discuss your requests with them, I will be watching the discussion and wait and see what others say about this, and I will give my own input where and if it is deemed necessary. But you can absolutely not blackmail me or the others into accepting your proposals for such drastic changes. Threats never worked. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua In case you did not understand my previous post, that proposal is not on the table anymore. You rejected it once, I do not see reasons to discuss it again. FYI, it would be a section (not a sub-section) named Minorities and would contain the entire content of the aricle concerning minorities (Chams, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Muslims). On your proposal on Cham stuff being moved to the Italian zone, where should the content on Vlachs, Bulgarians, Muslims go? If the Cham content is moved, the content on the other minorites should be moved as well. The Bulgarian content could go to the Bulgarian zone? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi: Slav speakers in German zone (if they were in w. Macedonia), Muslims in Bulgarian, Vlachs in Italian.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, @Ktrimi: Occupied Greece was divided into 3 zones, but minorities did not act the same in every occupation zone. The Slavs of Western Macedonia (under German occupation) behaved differently than the Slavs of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (under Bulgarian occupation). If we are to iclude minorities, shouldn't the best to list them in their respective occupation zones rather than mention them as whole? --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If the Vlach and Cham content is moved to the Italian zone, that sub-section would have almost only content on Chams and Vlachs. Hence to make the transfer, the content on the Chams and Vlachs should be trimmed. Three of four sentences for each comnunity would be enough. The Muslim content is only one sentence so there is no need for trimming. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There will for sure be in need for trimming, but to maintain equal sizes for all minorities will be an impossible task; it is not like as if the Muslims had formed any administrations and forces during the occupation. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The goal is not to have the same amount of content on all minorities. All the article needs is balance. A quick summary (who collaborated, their leaders, the most famous action of them, why did they collaborate, who did take part in the resistance), without going into details. The sub-sections might have links to relevant articles where readers can read more info if they wish. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The transfer should start with the easiest: the content on Muslims. The transfer should be done in that way that everybody is satisfied, otherwise the article goes back to the stable version. Someone should move the content on Muslims to the proper zone. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The only stable version I can see is the one before you ever come here. If this is how you want to have things done. Either you respect everyone's edits, or revert your own additions as well and the article returns back to how it was before you ever come here. Your take. I suggest you give up on coerching others for their edits, and rather focus on what can be done between yours, Calthinus's and Alexikoua's proposals that could leave everyone satisfied. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

My previous comment was a good faith one. I want to see everyone happy. After your latest comment I do not support moving content at all. The agreement in not useful anymore. No additions, no removals, no trimming, nothing. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest SR to let me, Calthinus and Alexikoua solve this. She seems to be too sensitive on this issue. With assumptions about my intentions we can not solve this content dispute. Some times we are too sensitive on some issues, there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise discussing here is of little to no value. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this initiative will fix several problems both structural and UNDUE.:[[17]]. We should concentrate our effort on how to make those trimmed paragraphs look as netural as possible.Alexikoua (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi, I am saddened with your act as if you WP:OWN this page and removal of my edits: [18]. This has left me no option but oppose your additions as well: [19]. You can't get everything done your preferred way, by calling EDES and Zervas as collaborationists and Nazi loyalists, and yet expect that nothing is said about the Cham Albanians being regarded as an occupation force. Sorry. Either the article will present all views on the matter per WP:NPOV and citing WP:RS (and ONLY citing WP:RS, not sources that fall sort of RS like you did there:[20]), either no one of your recent additions which are the fruit of discord, are going to make their way into the article. Also, to preserve a preferred version of the article only with your own edits in it, but exclude other people's edits, and baptise that version as a "stable version", is not the way to go. Stable is the version of the article PRIOR to any of your debatable edits that have caused issues and disagreements among editors. Good day.

Edit: Alexikoua, Calthinus, I propose we revert the article to the last stable version, which was before all this mess caused by Ktrimi's arrival and his disruptive POV edits. I believe any additions by that user should be scrutinized here in the Talk Page for POV before they are being added to the article. This will help avoid further edit wars between that editor and the others due to POV issues and disruptions in the future, and most importantly: this will help prevent the article overemphasizing too much on some fields (Zervas) and less on other (Chams), which suits the particular user's POV. The article Axis Occupation of Greece is far too important to let it fall victim of editorial bias and POV, and we have to be fair and make sure that the article meets WP:NPOV criteria, which is to present all views towards both sides of the war, both the Cham side and the Zervas side. And this means to include both the views of the German scholar about Chams and the of a German general about Zervas, Either that, or nothing of the new additions will make their way into the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that UNDUE, POV and structural issues emerged after this nearly 40k expansion and there is no agreement. However, there is one strong point here and we almost agree to move the relevant paragraphs next to each other: Cham, Vlach, Slav-information is scaterred in two diferrent sections & to trim the existing text.Alexikoua (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, it seems you have ignored the Talk page and went on with the restoration of the RS about Zervas: [21]. I don't know what to do with you. This leaves me no option but to restore the RS about Chams as well: [22]. Please don't ignore the talk and refrain from selective picking of RS for the article. I will repeat here what our options are: 1) weither have both RSs for both sides of the war as per WP:NPOV for the readers to access all opinions (which means both [23] and [24]), either 2) none of them stays into the article. I am not going to repeat myself on this. The next time you revert the RS again about the one side of the war, I will take this to the RS noticeboard for the admins to decide on the RS. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:. I am pinging you again just in case the first ping on the previous comment (which had wrong name) didn't work. I hope you read this and avoid removing the RS. You know very well the past outcomes in the RS noticeboard and how it had ruled that all RS shall be present in an article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You can take this to "RS", though that place you are referring to (and where I participate as a volunteer) is for evaluating the reliability of a source based on its context, not for discussing whether a sentence should be added or moved from an article. I urge you to take courage and open such a discussion there. Regarding the sentence I added (only one of the two sentences you deleted was originally added by me), it was discussed here and worded in line with your concerns. Remember? On the other hand, the senctence you added has not been scrutinized here, nor have I been asked by you how should it be worded. You even have not provided the page of the book where the claim is found. Anyways, after the discussion we had on my talk page, I am going to accept that sentence you added, although it is dishonest to add a label (it is NOT a fact) on this article that has a broader topic. Yes, the sentence you added will not be removed. A sentence more or less is not a thing to keep arguing about. Alexikoua and I were discussing trimming the content concerning minorities, and regarding the Chams we were saying that 3-5 sentences were enough. However, the label you added needs balance, hence trimming is not an option anymore. I think we are happy with keeping all the content that is currently on the article. We just need to move the content on minorities to the proper occupation zones. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason I proposed noticeboards is to cast aside any doubts about the reliability of the Norbert Frei source as well as whether does it meets NPOV criteria. My thoughts were to crutinize the source on RS first and then on NPOV noticeboard, just to make sure that no one can challenge the source. For me it is very important that none can challenge the sources added to a such sensitive topic.

However, I am reconsidering my position about keeping Norbert Frei's source at all costs to the article, because your and Alexikoua's proposal to trim the whole Cham section to merely 3-5 sentences, will turn the Norbert Frei source into an obstacle to the effective trimming of the section. Also, if we trim the Cham section without removing this Norbert Frei citation, then the WP:UNDUE problems won't be solved as well, will only become bigger. You got a point about Norbert Frei's opinion not being a fact; having over 20% of the sentences about the Cham minority dedicated to just what a German scholar thinks about that minority (an opinion which is not fact by no means), I admit, is very unrealistic and a blatant UNDUE case and this cannot be ignored. Therefore I came now to the conclusion that the Norbert Frei source will have to be removed, even if I don't want that, for NPOV reasons relating to the German general's opinions about Zervas.

Edit: It has been removed now: [25]. However, I shall make it clear to everyone: if Ktrimi's and Alexikoua's trimming of the Cham section is not realized and the section stays much bigger than a few sentences, then the Norbert Frei source couldn't have a reason to be excepted from inclusion and therefore will be restored to the article. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied with all options on the table. I do not mind keeping the entire content, I do not mind trimming it. Some ideas are on my talk page, the section above that created by you yesterday. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Move & trim

To sum up information about various communities during this period is better to be located in "one" section and become part of the correspondent occupation zone they geographically belonged (Italian, German etc.). This fixes several problems: of structural nature, POV etc.. I was working for a new trimmed (as neutral as possible) paragraph about Chameria & I believe this is good one:

Italian policy promised that Chameria (Thesprotia) in northwestern Greece, would be awarded to Albania (then in personal union with Italy) after the end of the war.(Meyer p. 151, 464) As such a local administration (Këshilla) was installed and armed groups were formed among members of the local Cham Albanian community (Kretsi p. 177). In the beginning, at least, collaboration was not a one-shot choice; Muslim communities followed different politics as per circumstances, alternating between collaboration, neutrality and, more seldom, resistance. Albanian and Greek communities changed sides by allying with the stronger available patron and shifting their allegiances when a more suitable one appeared.(Tsoutosumpis) Some numbers of the Cham Albanians, though the majority of their elites collaborated with the Axis, became part of a mixed battalion in the resistance (EAM) at the end of the war, without having opportunity to give any significant contribution against the Germans.(Kretsi) At the end of the war most members of the community fled to nearby Albania.

The paragraph doesn't begin straight with "large parts collaborated" instead "the majority of the elites collaborated" appears more neutral and doesn't point to the civilian population. The reasons for collaboration, expulsion, killing civilians, executions can be explained in more specialized articles else this will be inflated with additional 30k of text. I'll look at the Vlach, Slav info too.Alexikoua (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Mixed feelings about this, need time to make up my mind. For now, Alexi, you should fix "more seldom" to "less frequently" or "more rarely". "More seldom" is bad sounding English (adjective/adverb issues).--Calthinus (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The sentence The events were part of a cycle of blood revenge between local communities over issues related to land ownership, state policies, sectarian hostilities, personal vendettas and the need to take a side in a chaotic situation, which only became nationalized during the war. is needed, otherwise the text gives the idea that the conflict between Albanians and Greeks was only due to Italian promises. The expulsion is not needed, otherwise all its reasons need to be mentioned (collab. by large parts of the community, Greek nationalist policies etc). Instead we can place a link "See also: Exp. of Cham Albanians article". The part of (then in personal union with Italy) is redundant. The status of Albania recently caused debate on Wiki and better to avoid further disagreements. On the Vlach minority, IMO the same way should the info be presented. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning. Another issue I'd like to raise is with the sentence discussing how the Chams "fled". Something else happened too, that is not the whole story, but it is presented like it is. I don't want to reopen discussion on this-- we should sidestep the issue instead. I recommend for now "as a result of the intercommunal tensions that were aggravated by Cham collaboration, the entire Cham community ended up relocated to Albania". This way we can have a neutral description of what happened that doesn't cause us to reopen that wound which is what caused the paragraph to turn into a coatrack to begin with.--Calthinus (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The only way to not cause issues with that sentence is perhaps to remove it. We might just place a link to Expulsion of Cham Albanians on the See also section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either its removal or my previous suggestion--whatever gets support. --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The term relocation does not fit in the case of the Cham Albanian population's flight and expulsion. Relocation can imply an organized or a planned population transfer, either by the people themselves or the state authorities in the home country, and this is not the case here at all about the Cham people and Greece. The Chams didn't plan this event beforehand, nor were assisted by the Greek authorities, so we can't use a term that could imply such a thing. A solution could be terms such "flight", "flight and expulsion", or "disorganised flight" among others, those are coming to my mind right now but feel free to find a better term than this if there is any.

And, for your information, if you give the articles Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) or Expulsion of Cham Albanians a look, you can clearly notice how the term "relocation" is completely absent from them, and there is a reason for this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 21:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Relocation is a catch-all that I suggested to sidestep the issue. But sidestepping is a thing that requires consent from both sides... which it doesn't look like there is.--Calthinus (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively a see also link at the end in paranthesis is fine, similar to Ktrimi's suggestion (.. for developments at the end of the war see: .....).Alexikoua (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why not. With this idea, we direct the readers to the article of the Expusion, without us having to phrase or re-phrase the expulsion event. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well done, the text is good for me so far, except an additional but minor clarification was necessary, I hope you don't mind: [26]. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 14:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Support handling it with just having a "see also : Expulsion of Cham Albanians". Good that we can reach an agreement on something.--Calthinus (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

On the Vlach community, what parts should be trimmed? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Imo the text is fine as it is. It is concise but informative, it describes what collaboration did occur while also making clear that the majority of the community did collaborate. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. A part of the Vlach population in the Pindus mountains and Western Macedonia also collaborated for a variety of reasons. Italian occupation forces were welcomed in some Vlach villages as liberators, and Vlachs offered their services as guides or interpreters in exchange for favors. Under Alcibiades Diamandi, the pro-Italian Principality of the Pindus was declared, and 2000 locals joined Diamantis' Roman Legion, while Nicolaos Matussis had his own band of Vlach followers which carried out raids at the service of Italian service departments. Most local Vlachs were not converted to Diamantis' vision of a Vlach state in the Pindus and most remained loyal to the Greek nation, but some collaborated nevertheless because of latent pro-Romanian feelings, or anger toward the Greek government or its military authorities. The Legion collapsed in 1942 with the departure of the Italians, and most of its leaders fled into Romania or Greek cities. Most active members were convicted as war criminals in absentia, but in the course of the Greek Civil War in many cases their actions were forgotten, and many actively fought for the government against the communist guerrillas. Right? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Yeah-- the section is concise and informative, and balanced as it shows what collabo did happen but makes clear it was only a minority. There's nothing wrong with it.--Calthinus (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it either. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 17:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything's fine. I will check the rest of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. You did not have consent to do all the things you did, like erasing the Vlach paragraph that was universally supported above. --Calthinus (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears you still agree with Ktrimi's proposal. Good for you. There is no place for 2 similar paragraphs in different sections like the Chan case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth that I haven't said. However, if Ktrimi has an agreement with you I won't interfere. --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Calthinus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This move&trim initiative fixed several issues as I've mentioned above. I have to thank Ktrimi & SR for their time & effort. Though I might be wrong but Calthinus structural proposal would make this article much too complicated for the reader (inflated Cham info in collaboration etc. etc).Alexikoua (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth, again (seriously there has got to be a policy against this...). Great that you have an agreement with Ktrimi.--Calthinus (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume you have no reason to blame me of that [[27]] (...that I've did "things" without consent) everything was part of a agreed move&trim process and most important I'd already agreed about Ktrimi's proposed Vlach paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't realize that the paragraph Ktrimi had that we all agreed on was actually the one you "trimmed" out (AKA deleted entirely) [[28]]. It's okay, we all make mistakes. Have a nice day Alexi.--Calthinus (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cal.: In general it was imposible to realise that I've deleted something which was proposed c. four hours "later" in this talkpage.07:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to add some detail in collaboration section. I believe that one or even two paragraphs about the puppet administration and civil authorities of that time are a good addition. The section looks too small.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This. When I checked the article for the first time, about 5-6 years ago, I was looking for info on occupation administrations in Athens and Thesprotia, the article was completely lacking. Some info on them, and especially the Athens one, is something the article needs very much. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As part of the re-structurethe "Bulgarian activities in German-occupied Macedonia" part should move to the appropriate subsections (Bulgarian & German zones).Alexikoua (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Also I did the same for the "Bulgarian Withdrawal" section which too is moved as a subsection of the Bulgarian Occupation. If there is anything else I can do, let me know. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your initiative. I've just realised there is something weird with the Bulgarian section: no word about the Holocaust, though the Bulgarian authorities eliminated +90% of the local community. An increased percentage compared to the Greek-Jew community in general.Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Alexikoua I have sources on the Holocaust in Greece, can add where necessary, especially where Salonica is concerned -- though more about the German role than the Bulgarian role.--Calthinus (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Any info about Holocaust is much-needed. Greece ranks second in Europe in terms of Nazi-caused civilian deaths per % of total population (including both Jews and non-Jews), behind Poland only, which is at Europe's top. To have that little info about Holocaust in Greece (like we currently do), even though Greece is the 2nd most "genocided" European country of WWII, is, if I may be allowed to say, a "disgrace" for the article's scope which is to bring awareness to the readers of what happened back then, at this time period that resulted in the loss of the country's 11% of total population, including 90% of its Jewish population. Edit: Not 2nd in Europe, but 4th, behind Lithuania and Latvia, according to this: [29]. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'll add some stuff from Glenny and others in a day or so perhaps then. Bit busy atm--Calthinus (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

On a side note -- imo the famine is also undercovered. In particular, the British role in (not) providing aid during it is totally omitted even though this was extremely controversial afterwards. I have sources on this. Can add there too.--Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Anything helps. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've created some years ago the article about the Famine. The allied blockade was largely responsible for this situation among several other reasons (Nazi, Bulgarians took the harvest to their own countries etc.). Mazower claims that this was " the worst scenes of starvation seen in occupied Europe outside the concentration camps."Alexikoua (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If not already on the page that's useful. I've also read as much with regards to the Nazis. --Calthinus (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)