# Talk:Vojislav Lukačević

I noticed that information about early life, non-massacring or non-collaborationist activities of Lukačević are neglected. There are several information or events that I believe deserve to be added to the article.


### Travel to Montenegro in the Summer of 1941
According to one source I found, Lukačević traveled to Montenegro in the Summer of 1941 two times because he was ordered by Mihailović to establish connection with officers from Montenegro.
Zainteresovan za događaje u Crnoj Gori, D. Mihalović je u leto 1941, u više navrata, pokušavao da uspostavi vezu sa tamošnjim oficirima. Sa tim zadatkom je rez. kapetan Vojislav Lukačević, po nalogu beogradske četničke organizacije, dva puta bezuspešno putovao u Crnu Goru. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

translation please, and what is the publication? Peacemaker67  (send... over) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the publication
Fabijan Trgo, ed. (1983). "Dokumenti četničkog pokreta Draže Mihailovića 1941-1942". Vojno-istorijski glasnik. Belgrade: Vojno-istorijski institut.
"D. Mihajlovic was interested in events in Montenegro, and several times tried to establish a connection with the local officers in the summer of 1941. That task was given to Reserve Captain Vojislav Lukačević who, by order of the Belgrade Chetnik organization, twice unsuccessfully traveled to Montenegro" - rough translation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify, that appears to be an original document with notes by the author. As you understand it, is the notation based on Fabijan Trgo's work, or is he just noting what Pajovic said? Peacemaker67  (send... over) 23:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The text I presented is a note below the text based on the copy of original document. I think that the author of this note can only be the editor, Fabijan Trigo, the only editor of this work. Pajovic is pointed as source for further reading about Chetniks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough then. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Pajović (already used in the article) also supports this and gives more details. He says (page 25) that Lukačević traveled to Montenegro three times because Mihailović sent him to establish contact with Yugoslav officers in Montenegro. First time in June 1941. Pajović explains that all three attempts of Lukačević failed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Pajović wrote in more details about Lukačevićs travel to Montenegro in another work of his:
Pajović, Radoje (1977). Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori: četnički i federalistički pokret 1941-1945.
There he explains (page 131 and 132) that Lukačević went to Montenegro in June to establish connection with Lašić, Stanišić and Miličko Janković. Lukačević carried written instructions for organization of Chetniks and their command structure in Montenegro and recommended relations toward other armed forces and political groups. Soon after Lukačevićs arrival to Montenegro the Uprising in Montenegro broke out so Lukačević was blocked in Podgorica for 10-15 days, where he stayed at his relatives. During those turbulent days he was unable to establish contact with former Yugoslav officers he was looking for, so he returned from Podgorica to Belgrade, via Skadar and Priština. In Autumn 1941 Mihailović (his subordinated officer Žarko Todorović) again dispatched Lukačević to Montenegro, and again he failed to perform his duty and returned via Priština and Raška to Belgrade. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


### Information about Lukačević's profession and employer
According to numerous sources prior the war Lukačević worked in railways business, at company named Батињол (probably Société de Construction des Batignolles) and was engaged on the railway near river Una in todays Bosnia.Y

Karabegović, Osman (1988). Bosanska krajina nepresušivi izvor revolucionarnih snaga. Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar. p. 33. U vezi sa ovim, početkom jeseni 1941. u Banjoj Luci je boravio Vojo Lukačević, bivši činovnik firme »Batinjol« na Unskoj pruzi, tada već oficir u Dražinom štabu na Ravnoj gori, kasnije ađutant Kralja Petra II, ličnost koja je trebalo da odigra--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are additional sources for Batinjol:

Minić, Miloš (1993). Oslobodilački ili građanski rat u Jugoslaviji 1941-1945. Agencija "Mir". p. 581. Лукачевић Војислав ... Чиновник француског граћевинског друштва „Батињол",
Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 439. Vojislav Lukačević (1908, Beograd - 1945, Beograd), privatni činovnik građevinskog društva »Batinjol«, rez. kapetan vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
translations please. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically, all above presented sources directly support the information about Lukačević working for French company named Батињол (probably Société de Construction des Batignolles). The first source explains that he was engaged on the building of the railway near river Una in todays Bosnia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think my request for translations is reasonable. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is (my best) the translation:
* Karabegović, Osman (1988). Bosanska krajina nepresušivi izvor revolucionarnih snaga. Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar. p. 33. U vezi sa ovim, početkom jeseni 1941. u Banjoj Luci je boravio Vojo Lukačević, bivši činovnik firme »Batinjol« na Unskoj pruzi, tada već oficir u Dražinom štabu na Ravnoj gori, kasnije ađutant Kralja Petra II, ličnost koja je trebalo da odigra [In connection with this Vojo Lukačević ,ex official of "Batinjol" company on Una railway, was in Banja Luka at the beginning of Autumn 1941. He was already an officer in the Ravna Gora headquarter of Draža Mihailović and later an aide of King Peter II, a person who was to play.... ]
* Minić, Miloš (1993). Oslobodilački ili građanski rat u Jugoslaviji 1941-1945. Agencija "Mir". p. 581. Лукачевић Војислав ... Чиновник француског граћевинског друштва „Батињол",...[Lukačević Vojislav.... official of the French civil company "Batinjol"....]
* Dedijer, Vladimir; Miletić, Antun (1990). Genocid nad Muslimanima, 1941-1945. Svjetlost. p. 439. Vojislav Lukačević (1908, Beograd - 1945, Beograd), privatni činovnik građevinskog društva »Batinjol«, rez. kapetan vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije. [Vojislav Lukačević (1908 Belgrade - 1945 Belgrade), a private official of the civil company "Batinjol", a reserve captain of the Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.]--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
it certainly appears that he worked for Batignolles. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
No. He worked at Société de Construction des Batignolles. The company you linked here (Spie Batignolles) is its successor, established in 1968 by merging Société de Construction des Batignolles and Société Parisienne pour l’Industrie Electrique (SPIE).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I get that. I think it is a reasonable assumption that he worked for Société de Construction des Batignolles, it isn't absolutely ironclad based on the source, but it will do as far as I am concerned. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is not absolutely ironclad. Nothing is absolutely ironclad in real life. It is possible that in the same time there was some other French company, with the same name (Batignolles), also involved in railways. But this possibility is quite small because companies that are involved in the same business in the same time in the same country usually don't have the same name. Similar like military units in Sandžak 1943.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said, good enough for me. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 12:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


### France student
According to the below source Lukačević studied in France:

Glasnik Srpskog istorijsko-kulturnog društva "Njegoš". Njegoš. 1993. p. 52. Лукачевић, Војислав (1908-1945), резервни капетан; студирао у Француској--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
translation please. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 Taking in consideration your extensive use of complex Serbo-Croatian sources someone, not me of course, might interpret this request for translation as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors. To avoid it please be so kind to limit your translation requests to reasonable level. Translation requested: "Lukačević, Vojislav (1908-1945), reserve captain; studied in France)". All the best!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


### Đurišić's successor after capture of Chetniks in Case Black operation
 (according to User:Antidiskriminator, who edited the article to add this information, but also added information that had not been discussed here and for which no consensus had been achieved, and was therefore reverted. Since then, Antidiskriminator has not attempted to add just the material that was discussed)
When many Chetniks were captured in the initial phase of the Case Black, together with commander of Montenegrin Chetniks Pavle Đurišić, Lukačević was his successor as commander of the Lim-Sandzak Chetnik Detachment. He gathered remaining Chetniks in Sandžak and came to Berane on 14 July 1943. Here is the source:

Redžić, Vučeta (2002). Građanski rat u Crnoj Gori: Dešavanja od sredine 1942. godine do sredine 1945. godine. Stupovi. p. 300. После заробљавања капетана Ђуришића, за рад на територији ЛСЧО, закључно са бјелопољским срезом, задужен је мајор Војислав Лукачевић. Он је окупио четнике растурене по Санџаку и дошао у Беране 14. јула са ...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
translation please. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Here you are: "After captain Đurišić was captured, major Lukačević was appointed to work on the territory of Lim Sandzak Chetnik Detachment, including Bijelo Polje district. He gathered Chetniks dispersed over Sandžak and came to Berane on 14 July"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 23:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My edit (diff) was undone (diff), so I corrected resolved to unresolved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Although I read many sources about Chetniks and Djurisic in the last couple of years, the text of the article about Djurisic mislead me regarding the relations between Chetniks and Italians. I thought that they collaborated happily ever after (at least till Italy's capitulation) but this is far from what actually happened. Pajović (1977 work, page 361) gives more details about this. After Đurišić was captured by the Germans, the Italians disarmed majority of Chetniks in Montenegro, captured and interned to prison in Italy big number of Chetnik commanders, including many from the staff of LSCD. Initially, Lašić gathered scattered groups of Chetniks on the territory that was under Djurisić's control. Lasic and Djurisic were in conflict earlier (this needs clarification) and Djurisic's former associates did not trust Lasic, especially after one of former Djursic's deputies (Veskovic) died under mysterious conditions on the return from the meeting with Lasic. With approval of Rudolf Perhinek, envoy of the supreme command, they recreated Chetnik organisation and new staff of LSCD and asked from Mihailović to appoint Lukačević as their commander. (I can't believe that the text of the article does not even mention Perhinek).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 No doubt you know that your "capnotes" you repeatedly add to talkpages to create a false narrative about my disruptive conduct are blatant violation of wp:talk behavioral guideline. Please be so kind to remove all of them both in this talkpage and in all other talkpages you added them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


### Lukačević fought the Germans at the Autumn of 1944, while both Lukačević and Đurišić wanted Chetniks to attack Germans
According to "The Chetniks" (Jozo Tomasevich - 1975, page 433 and 434) Lukačević "had fought the Germans briefly in Herzegovina in September". On the same page Tomasevich mentions 320 German officers and soldiers captured by Lukačević forces. The same source explains that Germans intercepted some Chetnik radio messages in October 1944 so they knew that both Lukačević and Đurišić wanted Chetniks to attack Germans. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to add that material from JT. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Schraml on attack on Trebinje: Über die Ereignisse beim I./Gren.-Rgt. 369 berichtet Unteroffizier Teimer: „Um den 20. (24.?) 9. wurden überraschend von den Cetniks, die bisher gemeinsam mit uns auf Spähtrupps und in die Einsätze gegangen waren, die äußeren Bunker um Trebinje in Besitz genommen, indem sie wie gewöhnlich in der Frühe vor den Bunkern erschienen und eingelassen wurden. Die Besatzungen dieser Bunker gerieten daher alle in Gefangenschaft. Kurz darauf traf beim Regiment — das wie auch einige Rgt.-Einheiten ebenfalls in Trebinje lag - die Aufkündigung der Waffenbrüderschaft ein, unterzeichnet nach der Mitteilung eines mir befreundeten Funkers von einem Major Lukačević. Gleichzeitig wurde das Rgt. aufgefordert, sämtliche Kroaten unserer Einheiten den Cetniks zu übergeben, dafür würde dem deutschen Personal freier Abzug gewährt werden. Der Rgt.-Kdr., Oberst Fischer, lehnte nach Rückfrage bei der Division, die Forderung ab und die Truppe richtete sich zur Verteidigung ein. Der Kampf begann laut Ankündigung der Cetniks genau 21 Uhr. Die Kroaten schlugen sich hervorragend, da sie fürchteten, bei Gefangennahme von den Cetniks getötet zu werden. Die Angriffe der Cetniks konnten abgewehrt werden. Trebinje wurde wenige Tage später (am 28. 9.?) von Truppen der 118. Jäg.-Div. von Dubrovnik her entsetzt. Gemeinsam mit ihnen wurden die Cetniks, die starke Verluste erlitten hatten, vertrieben und die Umgebung gesäubert. Sie wurden dabei so geschwächt, daß sie den Raum um Trebinje aufgeben mußten. Viele unserer Kameraden, die bei dem Abfall der Cetniks in Gefangenschaft geraten waren, kamen bei dieser Gelegenheit frei und fanden zur Truppe zurück. Nach ihren Aussagen waren sie anständig behandelt worden." p.94--Gorran (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gorran. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### Lukačević received by British King George VI in early 1944
Serbian language edition of Tomaševićs 1975 says that Lukačević was received by high British officials, including the King George VI himself.

Tomašević, Jozo (1979). Četnici u Drugom svjetskom ratu: 1941-1945. Sveučilišna naklada Liber. p. 302. Lukačevića su u Londonu primili kralj George VI i visoki britanski funkcionari, medu  njima i ministar vanjskih poslova Eden
If I am not wrong, this important event deserves to be added to the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It is contained in a footnote on p. 337 of the English edition. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I think that this important information should be added to the text of the article, unless there is any particular reason not to. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### "Waffenruhe-Verträge" = Formal collaboration? Did Lukačević violate this agreement?
 (according to User:Antidiskriminator, who has not edited the article to add this information)
Google Translate translates Waffenruhe-Verträge as Ceasefire agreements. Croatian language edition of Tomašević work also refer to the Chetnik-German agreements as ceasefire agreements (sporazum o primirju). The text of article refers to this agreements as "formal collaboration agreement" and gives German language term "Waffenruhe-Verträge":

On 13 November, his representative concluded a formal collaboration agreement (German: Waffenruhe-Verträge)
I propose to double-check if the sources are maybe misinterpreted in this case and whether Waffenruhe-Verträge really mean a formal collaboration agreement.
Croatian language edition of Tomasević 1975 work says that German General Meyszner was against agreement with Lukačević and launched a campaign against this agreements in February and was particularly against providing arms to Lukačević (and Đurišić) also because they violated the agreements. The text of this article does not mention that Lukačević violated agreement with Germans.  --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On p. 321 JT uses the section heading "Chetnik-German Collaboration Agreements in Serbia", then refers to them as "so-called armistice agreements (Waffen-ruhe Verträge)". Later in that same section on p. 323, JT says "Thus while in Serbia the Chetniks continued to pursue a policy of ambivalence, their relationship to the Germans was direct, rather than indirect through the Nedic regime, and fairly intensive, and at least for some months was based on formal agreements." He then goes on immediately to describe the agreement between the Military Commander in Southeast Europe and Lukacevic concluded on 13 November. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It was named "ceasefire agreement", but it was in fact a collaboration agreement. Paragraph 6 of the agreement states that, in larger operations, Lukačević četniks will fight under German command, and will take German orders: " 6)  Uključivanje četničkih odreda prilikom većih zajedničkih operacija pod nemačko zapovedništvo. U tom periodu nemačko vodstvo izdaje borbene naloge četničkim odredima.") - in sh translation. And this was exactly what happened. Tomasevich described that collaboration in some detail.--Gorran (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The source: Zbornik dokumenata, XIV/3, NARA signature: T77, roll 822, frame 630919.--Gorran (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It is important to read it in the context of the whole section, rather than a few words here and there. It is easy to cherry-pick a few words out of a few pages, but Tomasevich makes it clear what he means. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 12:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I know. Again me and my conduct. You mentioned cherry-picking here only to continue to disseminate false narrative about my disruptive tendentious conduct. Every time you have no argument for your position, which is basically in almost your every discussion with me, you complain about my conduct. Peacemaker67, will you please be so kind to stop with your hostile actions against me? (This message should be left at your talkpage, but since you forbid me to communicate with you there, I had no choice but to write it here.)
Hello Gorran. I noticed your recent involvement in articles on this topic and expected you to join here. Thanks for your careful explanation. Still, I think that your answer has not addressed two main points I brought here.:
Translation/terminology issue: The text of the article implies that translation of Waffen-ruhe Verträge is "formal collaboration agreement". The source says that Waffen-ruhe Verträge actually means "ceasefire agreements". If the source further explains that this ceasefire agreements were actually not only ceasefire agreements but in their essence the agreements of cooperation it can be explained in the text of the article, without wrong translation.
Incomplete information issue: Tomasević 1975 work says that German General Meyszner was against agreement with Lukačević and launched a campaign against this agreements in February and was particularly against providing arms to Lukačević (and Đurišić) also because they violated the agreements. If the text of the article presents information that Lukačević signed this agreement, it should present information that he violated it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
One thing at a time, Ad, I'll get to the HSSPF soon. Did I raise your cherry-picking? No, wish I had though, now that you mention it. Actually, you were the one who mentioned it. But now that you bring it to my attention, it IS a bit of a pattern. One more time. The source doesn't say that. Verbatim, in English (of course), it says "CHETNIK-GERMAN COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS IN SERBIA (that is the title of the section) The formal basis of all these so-called armistice agreements (Waffen-ruhe Verträge) between the representatives of the Military Commander in Southeast Europe and the leaders of the various Chetnik groups was the November 21 directive of Field Marshal Maximilian von Weichs, Commander in Chief in Southeast Europe, which listed the rules upon which these agreements had to rest:" Now, I know from experience that you can struggle with this stuff, so I'll point out that when someone calls something "so-called" in English, they are questioning the validity of that description, I don't know what the idiom is in Serbian. So, he not only doesn't call them "ceasefire agreements" (he actually calls them "so-called armistice agreements"), but he is in fact questioning their description as "armistice agreements". This is also clear from the fact that he chose to call the section of this chapter "CHETNIK-GERMAN COLLABORATION AGREEMENTS IN SERBIA". Now, for me, this is a bit of a give-away. He is saying they are in fact "collaboration agreements", not "armistice agreements". If you were to read the sentence fragments you have honed in on in their proper context, you would get that. But that is exactly the point, isn't it. I don't know where you get "ceasefire agreements" from, but frankly, I have stopped wondering, really. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Translation/terminology issue: I pointed to the wrong translation which might mislead readers. Formal collaboration ≠ "Waffenruhe-Verträge". The source does not put "Waffenruhe-Verträge" after "Formal collaboration" but after "ceasefire agreements". Like I said: If the source further explains that this ceasefire agreements were actually not only ceasefire agreements but in their essence the agreements of cooperation it can be explained in the text of the article, without wrong translation. The article uses Template:Lang-de which: "is a template usually used to indicate to readers that the previous term or phrase is translated from a foreign language; .... It should generally be placed after the English translation of the German term or phrase." Is "Formal collaboration" translation of "Waffenruhe-Verträge"? No. I think I gave fairly clear explanation for my position regarding this wrong translation issue and don't have anything to add to it now.
Incomplete information issue: Your "one thing at time" position contradicts to your own position when you complained because I created separate section at talkpage of another article to discuss each of its numerous issues. In this case I don't think that those two issues related to Waffenruhe-Verträge necessarily have to be discussed in separate sections. If you insist, I can create separate section for this discussion? All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Two main points addressed by Antidiskriminator:
Translation/terminology issue: Waffenruhe Vertrage does mean "ceasefire agreement", and does not mean "collaboration agreement". But, this does not resolve the question did Lukačević make ceasefire, or collaboration agreement. What we have here is only a term, not a meaning. Here we have Tomasevich as a reliable source, and it is quite clear what he says: He notes that Germans named these arrangements "armistice agreements", but they in fact were collaboration agreement. I think that Tomasevich is quite explicit on this: page 321
Incomplete information issue: did Lukačević violate the agreements? Well, I have my own opinion on this, but I don't think anyone should care. What is relevant is only: does reliable source say that he did? If yes, any diligent contributor is free to add a faithful interpretation to the article. But, I think that is not what Tomasevich says. In fact, on p.335 he quotes von Weichs, who states that, after cancellation of most of the agreements in February 1944, only agreement with Lukačević remains standing.--Gorran (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gorran for your reply. Yes, Tomašević notes that Germans named these arrangements "armistice agreements", but they in fact were collaboration agreement. Yes, Tomašević confirms that agreement with Lukačević remained standing. Otherwise, he would not be able to violate it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Pajovic (1977, page 462) refers to agreement signed between Lukačević and Germans as "споразум ... о ненападању и заједничкој борби против народноослободилачког покрета" (agreement on the truce and joint struggle against NOP (Partisans)) which even better corresponds to the content of the agreement than simple "collaboration agreements". Somehow the text of the article does not even mention truce which is explicitly mentioned in the text of the agreement, by Tomasevic and by Pajovic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


### Lukačević himself collaborated extensively with the Italians .... until mid-1944?
The lede of this article might be wrong with collaboration timeline?
Lukačević himself collaborated extensively with the Italians and the Germans in actions against the Yugoslav Partisans until mid-1944.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


### Adjutant
The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 81) explains that Lukačević was promoted to the rank of King's Adjutant in the Spring of 1944 when he was in London. This article does not mention this promotion of German collaborator and this rank of his.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### German attempt to capture their collaborator
The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) explains that Lukačević had to hide from Germans when he returned from his trip in May 1944 because Germans wanted and tried to capture him. This article does not mention this, so the readers of this article could be mislead about his relation with Germans at that time.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### Break with Mihailović since February 1944?
The section about February 1944 — September 1944 is named "Break with Mihailović". If the break happened in August and if in the meantime Lukačević was in good relations with Mihailović, even being appointed by him for commander of Chetniks in Stari Ras and illegal Chetniks in Sandžak and Montenegro, the title of this section could mislead readers about the timeline of relation between Lukačević and Mihailović. The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) confirms that Mihailović and Lukačević were in good relations after Lukačević returned from London and that Mihailović appointed Lukačević for commander of Chetniks in Stari Ras and illegal Chetniks in Sandžak and Montenegro.
The title of the subsection could mislead readers about the timeline of relations between Lukačević and Mihailović so I propose to expand the text about events in period between February and August and to split this section to two sections. One about February - August events and second for post August events related to his break with Mihailović.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### Appointment for the commander of Stari Ras Chetniks and illegal Chetnik forces in Sandžak and Montenegro
The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) explains that, when Lukačević returned from his trip to London, he went directly to Mihailović headquarter. The source also explains that Lukačević's travel to London was actually his mission undertaken against the order of Chetnik headquarter. It also explains that Lukačević brought to Mihailović important messages. He stayed for short time in the Chetnik headquarter and then was appointed to his old position of the commander of Chetnik forces in Stari Ras (part of Sandžak). Mihailović also appointed Lukačević as commander of illegal Chetnik forces in Sandžak and Montenegro. This made Đurišić angry. Đurišić was promised that he will remain commander of both illegal and legalized Chetnik forces. The source already used in this article (Pajović, page 82) says that after illegal Chetnik forces were given to Lukačević, Đurišić was angry because he had to play the "black" role of open collaborator of occupying forces. He wrote official complaint to Mihailović. After a month Mihailović again appointed Đurišić as commander of both legalized and illegal Chetnik forces in Sandžak, Boka and Montenegro. 
The text of this article does not mention the above appointments of Lukačević, so I propose to add this information to the article, unless there is some particular reason not to.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


### Karađorđe's star
Pajović (page 132) explains that Lukačević was awarded with "Karađorđe's star":

Pajović, Radoje (1977). Kontrarevolucija u Crnoj Gori: četnički i federalistički pokret 1941-1945.
My translation of the text: "Based on the proposal of Mihailović, King Peter awarded Lukačević with Order of the Star of Karađorđe with swords of V degree". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


### In July 1943 Lukacevic invited some Chetnik officers to stop with collaboration with Axis forces and proposed Chetnik organisation in Montenegro
Pajović (1977 work, page 363) explains that Lukacevic, based on instructions of Mihailovic, on 15 July 1943 invited some high rank Chetnik officers to stop with collaboration with Axis forces. He also proposed organisation of Chetnik forces in Montenegro. Mihailovic expected Allies to invade Balkans and in preparation for this, reorgaized Chetniks in Montenegro. He took away Stari Ras from responsibility of LSCD and appointed Lukacevic as its commander. Mihailovic appointed Lasic for commander of eastern Montenegro while commanders for western Montenegro were planned to be appointed by Lasic and Lukacevic, with approval of Djukanovic. Mihailovic emphasized that nobody is allowed to be legalised. Perhinek kept his position of Mihailovic's envoy for Montenegro responsible for intelligence service in Montenegro and Albania. Lukacevic was dissatisfied with Mihailovic's appointment of Lasic and offered his resignation. Several officers from Berane who were Djurisic's associates and disliked Lasic, joined Lukacevic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


### Based on Mihailovic's instructions Lukacevic prepared a plan to seize the control over Montenegro
Pajović (1977 work, pages 360- 365): On 5 June Mihailovic's staff invited Chetniks to disguise as Partisans and to attack smaller units and even garrisons of Axis forces. Based on this and some later Mihailovic's instructions Lukacevic (as Mihailovićs authorized envoy for Montenegro) (p.369) prepared a plan to organize his Chetniks and to seize the control over Montenegro from Italians after their expected capitulation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


### Nickname "Rogljaš"
Pajović (1977 work, pages 363): Lukačević received nickname Rogljaš because of the specific way he used to punish communist collaborators in Montenegro. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


### Attack on Prijepolje on 12 September 1943
Pajović (1977 work, pages 395- 396):
German collaborator Lukačević attacked German forces in Prijepolje. Germans repelled two Chetnik attacks and retreated toward Pljevlja. Lukačević attacked rear flanks of German forces.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)