Talk:Seven Enemy Offensives

Limitations of the "Seven Enemy Offensives" narrative

This narrative did not originate from Yugoslav historiography. It originated from the immediate war experience of the partisan headquarters. It came into being during the war, while the events were unfolding. It was based on the perception of imminent threat and of being targeted - more than on factual analysis. And It was not even intended to be some elaborate concept, or structured framework for organization of war facts. But, when introduced, it - the "Seven Enemy Offensives" narrative - became very popular, ubiquitous and unavoidable fact of common knowledge. Although very useful for popular literature, scientifically oriented historians always felt some uneasiness with it. It had been mentioned, but always in a cautious way in order to not disturb the more elaborate concepts. For example, in a publication OSLOBODILAČKI RAT NARODA JUGOSLAVIJE (Peoples' of Yugoslavia liberation war) (book 1, book 2, late fifties - early sixties), so-called "Third Offensive" chapter is sub-divided into three sub-chapters: one about general preparations of the enemy, one about operations in east Bosnia (Operation Trio), and one about operations in Montenegro and Herzegovina in april-june 1942. Simultaneous activities in other regions, and activities in period before and after, are covered with equal care and focus - only without a sounding name. Terms "Sixth Offensive" and "Seventh Offensive" are omitted completely in the prezentation, for the sake of better organization and presentation. Narrative, being viral and popular, in fact caused a severe distortion of image of the character and the logic of the war.

Therefore, I suggest to make some remark in "Offensive" ( :D ) articles about the narrative being more a concept from popular historical literature, and much less from scientific historiography. Like in this article, only a bit stronger.--Gorran (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely support the notion that using a narrative from third-party sources is preferable, and that slanted narratives should be explained as such. It would be helpful if we determined if even this book by the Military History Institute of the Yugoslav People's Army (edited by Velimir Terzić), was something representative, i.e. something today's historians would actually reference as a reliable source. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that reliable third party sources often refer to it as "so-called" or in some similar vein. This is essentially the reason we have moved to operational names, such as Rosselsprung, Southeast Croatia, Trio etc. this page is really a marker for the popular concept, with signs pointing to how it is broken down on en WP. Operations are better delineated in time and geography than broad concepts such as "Third Enemy Offensive", for example. The other day I was looking at a book that suggested some Italian operation in the Slovene lands was part of the "Third Enemy Offensive". The value of such a grouping is low, IMO. I endorse what Gorran is saying, we just need a source that provides the explanation. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

In that sense, I suggest to alter as misleading the title and the content of the "Last Axis offensive" paragraph in World War II in Yugoslavia article.--Gorran (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Just go ahead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)