Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Infobox

Due expanded scope Kingdom of Yugoslavia should be added as combatant to infobox. Ideally columns 2 and 3 should be first merged for Kingdom and then split between Chetniks and Partisans, not sure if its technically possible though.--Staberinde (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is one more reason why this is a completely unmanageable topic. The infobox cannot possible cope with this topic. Well done to those who decided this was a continuum (like the Invasion of Poland and Occupation of Poland (1939–45). Well done... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The infobox in World War II is potentially much more complicated, yet it exists just fine. Besides, infoboxes as such are the epitome of unnecessary compartmentalization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the addition of Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the infobox is going to make it much more congested and confusing than it already is. Given that there has been a mini-section on the invasion here since time immemorial, and that the infobox has said for a while now that the conflict started on 6 April, it's just another – possibly final – tweak on top of the one or two minimal ones that have been made recently, post-title improvement, for the sake of consistency and clarity. Again, it doesn't seem to be a massive expansion of the topic or the content to unmanageable proportions that did not exist before now or an unwarranted and unprecedented elision of previously entirely separated topics. Equally I don't see that it would be fatal to leave it out of the infobox on this page, given that we still have the separate invasion article and the details are listed in the infobox there (although the date issue would have to be sorted). N-HH talk/edits 20:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sufficiently showcases the confused and self-contradictory nature of your position. "I don't know and I don't care" is more or less what I feel I'm getting from you, constantly. If I asked you who "Tito" was, I'm not entirely sure "Cuban musician" wouldn't be your first answer.. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, there was never any consensus for the absurd scope expansion. It is merely a pet project by N-HH and Joy. You gents have not demonstrated consensus for a scope expansion, beyond claiming that its "implied" in the title change (without having been discussed at all). A claim which is rubbished by majority opposition to your POV, expressed in the thread above. POV only enforced through bullying and edit-warring, when reverted.

The idiocy of artificially merging a completely separate conflict is I think well expressed by the triple-decker infobox it necessitates - all to include an integral segment of the Balkans Campaign, a confrontation between different combatants, and separated from the actual war by six months of virtual peace.

The bottom line here is: no consensus for the scope expansion. All indications are it is in fact opposed by the majority. It was just done, and then edit-warred into place, with a whole lot of meaningless blab. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out ad nauseam there is no significant scope expansion at play, simply a minor finessing of already blurred boundaries, for consistency and clarity. Neither I, nor I assume Joy, are "confused" or "self-contradictory" in our positions; at least no more confused than such topics and boundaries already are anyway. Talk of a "pet project", "bullying" and bizarre comments about what I might think Tito refers to is similarly off-beam, as well as amounting to little more than rather pointless personal insults. You can keep going on about this as much as you like, and claiming that major changes have been effected when a few words are changed or added at the margins of a topic, but you'd probably be better off dropping it and worrying about something else. N-HH talk/edits 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We can play around with words like "significant", but it most certainly can not be claimed that the scope of this article wasn't expanded. The infobox itself is the clearest indication (the previous appearance of the infobox was introduced through explicit user consensus), in case the outright statement that this conflict "took place after the Invasion and partition" isn't enough (here's the version prior to the move [1], please note the second sentence of the text). The original title of this article was "People's Liberation War". Fundamentally, scope is not determined by the article's text - the text is determined by the scope. One can not claim that "there isn't much here about the Invasion, so the scope was not expanded".

Either this article covers the defense of the Yugoslav Army in April 1941 as part of its scope, or it merely mentions it as the background. If its the former - then the scope was expanded (without consensus, against opposition). If its the latter - then the title is inappropriate. Claiming the background section indicated this article's scope is absurd, as by that definition the entirety of World War II up to April 1941 is the subject of this article. Confusing the obligatory rundown of the previous course of WWII with the focus of this article is a childish error and an untenable argument. -- Director (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Croatian antifascist casulties

I think this source could help: [2]

Please read WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[3] Asdisis (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Resistance war in Yugoslavia

..or Yugoslav resistance war? How's that for an NDESC title? The term "resistance war" can be seen as denoting both the resistance against the occupation and the war between resistance movements, which pretty much catches the whole original scope; also ofc removing all the aforementioned unaddressed problems caused by the (essentially-non-consensus!) inclusion of the Invasion (such as WP:OVERLAP with Invasion of Yugoslavia, etc.. not to repeat myself). -- Director (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just have an RM? N-HH talk/edits 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really; nor is this an RM. I think we're all grown men capable of expressing our opinion without formal framework. Imo a formal RM is only necessary if us "regulars" are in deadlock, i.e. if there's no consensus. That's the point of this thread.

If acceptable to all parties, this could be an elegant solution to the problems we're facing..? Yugoslav resistance war is imo a simple, elegant, and accurate NDESC title that does not conflate the guerrilla conflict with the Balkans Campaign six months prior. It doesn't simply denote "all conflicts in this area", but restores focus on a specific conflict that was the subject of this article since its inception.

Throughout this conflict, even in its conventional warfare phase later on, Yugoslav forces can still be described as the "resistance" (whereas "guerrilla war" loses applicability). The war between the resistance and the occupation can be described as a "resistance war" in the sense that it was a war of resistance, one that was caused by, and involved, the Yugoslav resistance. The conflict between Chetniks and Partisans can also be described as a "resistance war" in the sense that its a war between resistance movements (which the Chetniks formally remained, in spite of collaboration).

The term can be seen to work both ways, can be applied to all phases, and places the Invasion apart from the resistance struggle (which really is a separate, conflict). That's why I like it. Please let me know if you do. -- Director (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Guess not. Formal framework it is, then. -- Director (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong mentioning

There is no historic sources to indicate that any official army of the Government of Albania fought against Yugoslavia during 1943-1944. Mentioning Albania on the Axis forces is wrong and historically unsupported. Removed.

LupinoJacky (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is proof so I restored the information. The Banner talk 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you indicate what is the proof? Is there a source stating that an official army of Albania fought against Yugoslavia?

Unless there is a source backing up a claim, such a claim can not be asserted and should removed. As such, till there will be a source citing an armed conflict of an official Army of Albania, then mentioning it in a page on War is pointless.

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I admire your ability to ignore the facts. When you had been reading the article a bit better and a bit more neutral than you did now, you would have seen that the information and the sources were further down in the article. By now, you are just vandalising the article. The Banner talk 00:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear TheBanner, I read the article carefully. Can you please point me to any section that claims that an Albanian army fought against Yugoslavia.

LupinoJacky (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

National minorities

Removed:

During the war, generally the national minorities, with the exception of Czechs, Slovaks and Turks cooperated with the occupation forces.<ref>Yugoslavia's National Minorities under Communism by Paul Shoup In: Slavic Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1963), p.67</ref>

Although ostensibly sourced, the statement is so broad-sweeping to be effectively useless and misleading. First, what are "national minorities" in a multinational state? Second, whom do we count among the "major nations", of which three modern ones (Bosniaks, Macedonians and Montenegrins) weren't even recognized as such? Third, if by that is meant "those that weren't South Slavs", then we must take into account that most of those were actually a diaspora of the occupying forces (Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Albanians), naturally taking the occupiers' side, or were so small to be practically insignificant (Slovaks, Czechs, Turks, Vlachs(?)). No such user (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

List of commanders

Should Sekula Drljević really be listed as a military commander ? He was pretty much out of the picture after the July 1941 uprising - he was not even in Montenegro anymore, as the Italians had deported him - and the actual military leader of the "Greens" was Krsto Popović. Montenegro wasn't even a "proper" belligerent during the war since the Italians had given up trying to establish it as an independent State. The Greens might be listed as a belligerent like the Slovene Home Guard is, but from what I read in Tomasevich, Popović just had about 1500 men under his command, which make them a pretty minor factor, probably even more than other "ethnic" units like the Sandžak Muslim militia. Anyway, since Drljević himself represented a fairly minor side of the conflict (with no Independent State and no armed forces under his command except for the so-called Montenegrin People's Army during the very last weeks of the war), I don't think he should be listed. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But he was one side of the conflict, and also it was discussed on some other article, I don't remember which but he shouldn't be removed. Please revert yourself. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bother commenting on the original post, as I pretty much agreed with the thrust of it. He wasn't terribly important, and there are already plenty of people there that probably shouldn't be. We should have some criteria for who goes in the infobox on this article, as it could do with a trim. Pecanac shouldn't be there, he wasn't a major player, Horthy had little to do with Yugoslavia (should be the chap who commanded the occupation forces in Backa and Baranja), von Horstenau was a bit player, but German Army commanders are not mentioned. Kalafatovic surrendered the Yugoslav armed forces, but that doesn't qualify him to be in the infobox. Not even sure about Kvaternik. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both. And that infobox is already monstruous -- it's a bloatbox rather than a source of information. I encourage whoever is bold enough to trim it excessively, particularly the list of commanders. Since this has been (IMO rightfully) reframed into a broader historical article rather than the one on the military conflict, it is questionable if we need an infobox at all. No such user (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We do need an infobox, since it was a military conflict - and a terribly brutal one at that - but we should be a bit restrictive about who is included and who isn't, precisely because the infobox must not be too bloated. The Greens were militarily speaking, very minor players (1500 men under Krsto Popović's command, none under Drljević's, except for the Montenegrin People's Army which was formed very belatedly and whose recruits were actually fighting under duress) : if we include them, we should include every ethnic militia which participated in the conflict. The Slovene Home guard deserves a mention IMHO. I'd say Slavko Kvaternik can be included since he was minister of the armed forces. Not sure about Pecanac, he was admittedly a bit player... Probably not Horthy and Filov : if we include them, we should include Hitler and Mussolini, or even Churchill, which would seem a bit silly. On the other side, shouldn't Paul Bader be included ? Maybe Henry Maitland Wilson also deserves a mention as allied commander (since he was directly in command of the aerial operations in the Balkans)...

BTW, I'd say that the Tchetniks should be included as "Allies" for the 1941-1943 period instead of 1941-1942, since they kept receiving allied supports and carried some operations at the British's behest in late 1943 (they were also under attack by the Germans during Case Black, which the current version of the article does not mention, even though the Partisans were the main target). Listing them in the infobox as "Allies 1941-1943" (or maybe even 1941-1944 if we take their 1944 attempts into account) and "Axis 1942-1945" would give a more accurate idea of their position, since they managed to be Allies and Axis/aligned at the same time in 1942-43 (which may seem weird, but that's what happened~). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should limit the "national" leaders to those actually involved, not the leaders of nations engaged in Yugoslavia, so not Horthy and Filov. As far as military commanders are concerned, the main German ones were Franz Böhme who put down the 1941 Uprising in Serbia, Bader who was Military Commander in Serbia for a couple of years and was in overall command of a lot of smaller operations in the NDH, and Lothar Rendulic who commanded the Second Panzer Army for a couple of years. Perhaps it would be best to put a list of names here and agree/disagree on each one? I agree re: Slovenia, Leon Rupnik is probably the right man for that job. I'd leave the "handling" of the Chetniks to one side for now, it will just get in the way and we can deal with it at the end. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what we have now:

Axis +Paul Bader +Franz Böhme +Lothar Rendulic Maximilian von WeichsNSU Alexander LöhrNSU Edmund Glaise von HorstenauNSU Mario Roatta Miklós HorthyNSU Ante Pavelić Slavko Kvaternik Milan Nedić Kosta Pećanac Leon Rupnik Bogdan FilovNSU Xhemo HasaNSU

Kingdom & Chetniks Dušan SimovićNSU Danilo KalafatovićNSU Draža Mihailović Ilija Trifunović-BirčaninNSU Dobroslav JevđevićNSU Pavle ĐurišićNSU Momčilo ĐujićNSU Zaharije OstojićNSU Petar BaćovićNSU Vojislav LukačevićNSU Jezdimir DangićNSU

Partisans & Allies Josip Broz Tito Milovan ĐilasNSU Aleksandar RankovićNSU Kosta NađNSU Peko DapčevićNSU Koča PopovićNSU Petar DrapšinNSU Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo Arso JovanovićNSU Sava KovačevićNSU Ivan GošnjakNSU Boris KidričNSU Franc Rozman StaneNSU Fyodor Tolbukhin Vladimir StoychevNSU + Henry Maitland WilsonWilliam Elliot or Fitzroy Maclean

Not sure how to structure this, but I marked all those whom I consider removing with _NSU, reserving the right to change opinion. Peacemaker's suggestions added with leading "+" No such user (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the issues is whether we include the invasion in this article. If we do, I think some of those like Simovic need to stay, and we may have to add some more Germans. Personally, I'm not sure why we are including the invasion in this article. We could just define it in the lead about being everything after the surrender. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But the invasion was a part of the war. It did not happen before 1941 or 1939. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to open that can of worms again. But if that is the case, we need to cover the main players during the invasion as well as those involved in the insurgency. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We also need to take into account those German officers with both invasion and occupation responsibilities. Both Lohr and von Weichs commanded OB Sudost (with overall Wehrmacht-level responsibility for Yugoslavia, as well as being airfleet and army commanders (respectively) during the invasion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should definitely include the invasion in the article, especially as it's called "World War II in Yugoslavia". If we want to have an article about the whole situation, mentioning the invasion is absolutely indispensable since nothing would have happened in Yugoslavia without it. On a sidenote, it also avoids unnecessary bickering about "who started first" the resistance (arguably, Mihailovic was the first to officially create his organization, but Tito was the first to start an active uprising). I saw a previous version which started the action in Yugoslavia in July 1941 (i.e. at the start of Tito's uprising) and it was pretty unsatisfactory as it evacuated not only Mihailovic (who started his organization in may although he didn't do much) but also the Serb uprising in Bosnia and Croatia against the Ustashe, which started in June and was pretty active. And none of these things, of course, would have happened without the invasion. So I'd say that if we want a complete picture about "World War II in Yugoslavia", we definitely cannot do without the invasion. Every single book about the subject deals with the invasion, anyway, unless they are about a very specific aspect of the conflict (and even those ones obviously mention the invasion).

I tend to agree that we could do without Danilo Kalafatović in the infobox : his role was fairly minor as he was chief of staff for just a few days. We can add Böhme, although if I'm not mistaken he was just in Serbia during late 1941 as he was sent from Greece to crush the Serbian uprising. I think von Weichs and Löhr are pretty much necessary, juste like Roatta. If we take both chronological order and importance into account, Von Weichs should come first since he commanded the invasion, so he was in Yugoslavia before Böhme, and he later came back as overall German commander.

Overall, I'd say the infobox is long but not that bloated : it might be necessary to remove just the name of a few minor players like Kalafatović, Pećanac or Hasa. We can keep the major Partisan and Chetnik military leaders. Ranković, Vukmanović, Popović, Đilas, Kidrič, Jevđević, Đurišić, Đujić et. al deserve a mention in the infobox, I think : at least their roles in the conflict were important enough so their presence in the infobox is helpful to the reader. (including Stoychev without including people like Popović or Đurišić would be a mistake, I think)

By the way, if this can help, I have a book that lists the Soviet casualties in Yugoslavia as 19000.

I took the liberty to add Wilson : the british aerial support (supplies, but also bombing) was fairly important. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Wilson is too broad in terms of his direct involvement. It was almost entirely an air war from the Western Allies perspective, so the chief of the Balkan Air Force from its creation until March 1945 (AVM William Elliot) is probably the right level IMO. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem about Elliot. I won't put a fight over Wilson, but as Allied commander he also oversaw all the help and supplies to the Partisans, decided the creation of the Balkan Air Force, etc : he was pretty much directly involved. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd start culling the Chetniks with Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin, who was a Split-based armchair general at best. Another option for Western Allies is Fitzroy Maclean due to his central role in SOE, influence over Churchill and role in kick-starting the BAF. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We might indeed dispense with Trifunović-Birčanin, as he was essentially a commander "on paper" only. Still, he was official Chetnik commander, although the real leaders in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were people like Jevđević, and Đujić. Maclean was important, but that brings us back to Wilson who was more important, in terms of sheer military firepower under his command.

BTW, I agree about the inclusion of Rupnik as commander of the Slovene collaborators (but that brings us back to the Chetniks and we should keep in mind that people like Đurišić actually commanded more men than Rupnik. Not including them would also give the impression that Mihailovic was the only Chetnik commander, which is far from true, not to mention the fact that their "polycentric" leadership - or bad organization, if you like - was one of the major reasons for their defeat) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd favour Elliott over Maclean, who was of course influential but had just SOE missions under his command.

We might add Mario Robotti, who succeeded Roatta as Italian military commander in February 1943 until the September surrender. Are you sure about Glaise-Hortenau ? As plenipotentiary in Croatia he was fairly important, pretty much like Bader, although maybe not in terms of direct military command. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Elliot it is. von Horstenau didn't have any troops and had little if any influence over what happened. He's so well known probably because he wrote the German history of the southeast. In the territory of the NDH, I think the main Axis players were Bader (initially), Roatta (who was responsible for the bulk of the Italian mess), and Rendulic (later).

Yes, I read a lot of things about von Horstenau's disgust as the Ustashe, his comments about the NDH, etc, but very little about his actual military role (if he had any). That would mean he was just a leader "on paper", pretty much like Trifunović-Birčanin or Đukanović in Montenegro. Robotti might be justified since he succeeded Roatta as overall Italian commander, and was military commander in Slovenia before that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Von Horstenau's role was nothing like Bader's as plenipotentiary, Bader had four divisions and actually had operational responsibility for the German part of the NDH at the beginning. I reckon the Slovenia angle gets Robotti over the line. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Djilas qualifies. Yes, a Politburo member, but he fluffed his only real military command and was a propagandist for the rest of the war. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia angle and overall command after Roatta. Unfortunately, Robotti's article is currently very poor...

I have some doubts about Djilas, too. He was important but his role was more political than military. Jovanović qualifies more than Djilas as military commander. Ivan Milutinović, maybe ? (but he actually fluffed his command just like Djilas did...)

Good thing if we can dispense with Glaise-Horstenau : indeed, what I read about his role always made him look more like some sort of ambassador rather than a military commander. It might help me to alleviate the infobox in the French article which I recently rewrote. I kind of copied the English page for the infobox, but if I can trim it a bit it might be welcome. (I used Wilson as British commander especially since we don't have a page about Elliott) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd dispense with Rankovic too. My view is yes, he was a Politburo member, but his real influence was as UDBA/OZNA chief, which was much more relevant after the war ended. Jovanovic was the chief of staff, so he has to stay, surely. Nađ commanded at all levels including army, as did Dapčević and Drapšin. Kovačević is more a hero than a person of significant influence, his main claim to fame was commanding the rearguard during Case Black, even then he was only a divisional commander. Perhaps he would have risen higher if he'd lived, but that doesn't mean we should include him. Tempo, Gošnjak and Kidrič/Rozman were in effect territorial commanders (over B-H, Croatia and Slovenia respectively), but I'm not sure if that gets them across the line. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rankovic might get across the line precisely because of his role as OZNA commander, since OZNA was relevant well before the end of the war, not only because of the purges (in Serbia et al, not to mention the foibes) but also because of its role in actual military actions like putting down the Albanian uprising in Kosovo.

Using the "territorial commander" criteria is tricky since Yugoslavia was fragmented at the time : the fact that Kidrič, for example, was commander in occupied Slovenia, makes him a quasi-national commander, pretty much like Rupnik on the opposite side. As for Tempo/Vukmanović, he was involved in several territorial commands (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo) which makes him even more relevant IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, what about Kovačević and Rozman? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rozman : not sure he is indispensable. He was important as a military commander but maybe not enough to be in the infobox : Kidric might be enough for Slovenia. Maybe Kovačević is more famous but, then again, I'm not sure that his presence in the infobox is indispensable either. I may be wrong, though. Same for Bacovic and maybe Dangic or Ostojic on the Chetnik side. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Alessandro Pirzio Biroli may qualify as Italian commander for Montenegro, by the way... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we could drop Rozman, and Dangic's role in eastern Bosnia was pretty short-lived although significant in the break between the Partisans and Chetniks. Bacovic was a regional commander (although not as important as others) and Ostojic was the operational leader of the Chetnik part of Case White as well as being DM's chief of staff for quite some time. I agree about Biroli, he should be included. Kovačević I think we can lose. What about Gošnjak? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if Dangic's role had been less short-lived he would definitely qualify, but he was rather soon out the picture. His presence is not indispensable, although it does no particular harm either. You may be right about Ostojic. I'm not sure about Bacovic, who was important but - if I'm not mistaken - less than Jevđević, Đujić and especially Đurišić. Not sure about Gošnjak either, though as commander of the Partisans in Croatia he may qualify. On the Chetnik side, Bajo Stanišić may deserve to be included as an important commander for Montenegro (his influence lasted definitely longer than Dangic's). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(Just dropping by to say that you can safely ignore my initial assessment, I'm fine with whatever you guys agree.) No such user (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no definitive opinion about Rozman : he might not be indispensable, but if he is considered important enough as a territorial commander, his presence would do no harm either. Not sure about Lukačević either. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

World War II in Yugoslavia: Revision history

(Moved from User talk:No such user) "Đilas going to cinema is not important for "WWII in Yugoslavia"

Why is this picture important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#/media/File:Stahl,_Ustase_officer_and_Radic.jpg and mentioning that Djilas went to cinema in Nazi held Zagreb while negotiating with Germans unimportant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs)

@Dds737: This talk page is the right place for discussing the article, not mine.
Yes, I maintain that Đilas going to cinema is unimportant for this big and important article about a 5-year war with a million casualties. Do you seriously argue otherwise? Comparing unimportance of that factoid with unimportance of something else from the article is not a particularly convincing argument (it's known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in Wikipedia jargon). Further, we do have (featured) article about the event, German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations which could be a proper place to add that particular piece of trivia, but as far as I see it, it does not mention it either, presumably as too trivial. You can take that up at that article, but I doubt it would be accepted. It is one thing to mention something in a 400-page book, and quite another to have it in a 3-page Wikipedia article. No such user (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to moving page to right place. As far as I can see, word "Chetniks" shows more than 20 times on page like "Chetniks" did this and that. What's wrong to write that Djilas went to cinema in the Nazi Zagreb? He went to the cinema while negotiating with Germans. Why is this trivial? It can only cast balance on predominately biased text? If my small addition to wikipedia article blows some already established concepts in your head (Like "Ceaseless and undisputed heroic struggle of heroic Partisans against invading German hordes"), it's okay with me, but you cannot hide the truth. And the truth is: Tito and his inner circle (Not peasant Serb fighter - who care about him!) was more interested in personal power and hidden Kominterna communist agendas, not in "Liberation". Otherwise he will not ban political parties in Serbia, will not steal first "free" elections after 1945 (Against advice of close adviser Djilas) , not made concentration camps, the list is huge, and you know it very well. But this is another topic, off course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.247.248 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd just point out that the photograph encapsulates the collaboration of the Chetniks, perhaps better than any other photograph, so its inclusion is a no-brainer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable sources

After some edits by user 94.146.247.248, which my constitute as vandalism, I have reviewed some sources that he has provided. Here are some questionable sources: - * - it links to a amazon site, is that kind of a source that can be used, and where is the proof that it is really a source for the edited text? The problematic text and use of that source is in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#Critical_Axis_offensives - this was edited to the article, still no source provided: "United States President Harry S. Truman posthumously awarded Mihailović the Legion of Merit for his contribution to the Allied victory."

So, is Lekovic a valid source? And can the part about mihailovic stay in the article, or should it be removed? Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

a. yes, Lekovic is a reliable source, here it is on Google Books, it doesn't have to be available in preview to be used. Also, the award of the Legion of Merit is widely known. Have a look at the DM article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then surely someone can provide a picture from the book, at least from that page that is used as source. If not, it should be removed.

What is DM? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to do so, read WP:V. DM is Draza Mihailovic. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: If I may ask, what exactly[4] are you holding in your hands (pun intended), as the whole book Leković's is titled "March Negotiations" and, apparently, devoted to the subject? I don't have it in my hands, but I don't see how it could say anything radically different. That text summarized what we have in our featured article German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations more or less accurately, as far as I can tell. It needed some tweaking, not outright removal. For a really quick summary, Tomasevich 1975:245 also corroborates the episode. Why are you so bent on removing it? No such user (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Because, unlike you I have read parts of the book. On page 151 it says nothing about Gornji Vakuf, nothing about 25 March 1943, does not mention Koča Popović, it only mentions Velebit and Đilas and how they were first in Zagreb, to negotiate prisoners exchange. That they were questioned, but did not give any information to the enemy, and that Velebit and Đilas managed to memorize the positions of enemy troops, from a document they found. So nothing about the statement that "Royalist Chetniks are main enemies of Partisans", nothing about a proposal for an armistice with Germans, nothing about stating that "there was no reason for the Germans to attack the Partisans, and it would be in the interests of both if hostilities stopped and areas of responsibilities were agreed" and nothing about that Hitler strictly forbade further negotiations with the "bandits". I hope you understand now. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuvixer you probably missed page 134:

I found Lekovics book on net: Here: http://www.znaci.net/00001/170_5.pdf Here is part: "Zbog toga u nacionalnom četničkom pokretu mi vidimo našeg najvećeg i najopasnijeg neprijatelja, pošto oni teže da stvore Veliku Srbiju, a nas da istisnu. Pod takvim okolnostima mi nemamo više nikakvog povoda da se borimo protiv nemačke vojske, niti da nanosimo štete nemačkim interesima u celoj zemlji, bili oni vojne ili privredne prirode, a takođe interesima saobraćaja. Mi ne tražimo nikakvu protivuslugu. Treba nam samo dati priliku da se borimo protiv četnika da bi ih uništili. Vrlo je žalosno što će i italijani biti u to uvučeni i snositi posledice, ali to je sudbina 'saveznika'. Posle ovih opštih zamisli nama je odgovoreno da najpre dokažemo da ćemo stvarno poštovati nemačke interese i da će se tek posle toga nastaviti razgovori po ovoj stvari. Kao primer takvog dokaza navedeno je: puštanje zarobljenika na slobodu, obustava neprijateljstava itd. Mi smo zarobljene Nemce već predali i spremni smo — i bez protivusluge — da obustavimo neprijateljstva u Slavoniji i istočnoj Bosni."

Rough google translate: "Therefore, in the national Chetnik movement we see our greatest and most dangerous enemy, because they tend to create a Greater Serbia, and us to displace. Under such circumstances, we have no longer any reason to fight the German army, nor to inflict harm German interests in the country, be they military or economic nature, but also the interests of traffic. We are not asking for any counter service. All we need is a chance to fight against the Chetniks to destroy them. It is very sad that the Italians will be drawn into this and bear the consequences, but it is the fate of 'allies'. After these general ideas we were told that the first to prove that we really appreciate the German interests and that only after that to continue discussions on the matter. As an example of such evidence, it is stated: the release of prisoners to freedom, cessation of hostilities, etc. We are trapped Germans already surrendered and we are ready - and no counter service - to suspend hostilities in Slavonia and eastern Bosnia. ""

And there is text in respected Serbian Magazine "Vreme" which is about "March Negotiations - 1943" http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1100877 "Što se mene lično tiče, prilikom dogovaranja o tome kako da nastupimo pred Nemcima, nisam se slagao da treba govoriti da su nam četnici glavni neprijatelji. Smatrao sam da ne bi trebalo ići toliko daleko. Ali Tito je bio za to; bili smo ugroženi, morali smo činiti najviše što se može da bismo neutralisali Nemce", rekao je Koča Popović Aleksandru Nenadoviću za njegovu knjigu Razgovori sa Kočom."

Here text states that proposal statement that "Chetnik movement were main enemy of partisans" went too far according to Koča Popović.

So, who is vandalising pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 user Tuvixer totally reenginnered my addition to page as it pleases him in spite of clear evidence here, and you undid my action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For starters, please read WP:TALK to learn how to interact with other editors on talk pages, and please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Your formatting leaves a great deal to be desired, you need to indent your comments after the preceding one using one or more colons →:← so that the comments cascade down the page, I have done a bit of that to help sort out this mess. This makes it easier for everyone to follow. You are also leaving a number of blank lines between comments, which also makes comments hard to follow and discourages other editors from trying to read your contributions. I have also removed some of them to improve readability. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your use of a WP article as a citation, as we cannot use WP as a source for anything. Please refer to WP:CIRCULAR. You need to cite a reliable source for material you add to an article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we will have to ask our user Tuvixer to read pages 134 and 135 in the Lekovics book and write about his findings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Chetniks Massacres against Croats in Northern Dalmatia and Lika

"Chetniks carried out massacres against Muslims in Bosnia and Sandžak and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, northern Dalmatia, and Lika."

Chetniks did not virtually existed in Lika region in Croatia during WW2, how could they carry massacres? And for northern Dalmatia I am only aware of one 'massacre' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.247.248 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What? How about the Dinara Division? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Dinara divison AFAK never operated in Lika, Lika was almost 100 % partisan teritory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the material is reliably sourced. You would need reliable sources that agree with you, AND they would only then be given due weight and compared and contrasted with the sources that say these massacres occurred. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess that *you* should point me to reliable source about "chetnik massacres" in Lika?

I guess *you* should read the article, where the material is clearly cited to Tomasevich 2001 p. 747. I just checked my copy and it is correctly reflected in the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you quote here for *fair use* what is written Tomasevich 2001 p. 747. about "massacres in Lika" ? I think in his other relevant for the topic "Jozo Tomasevich: CETNICI U DRUGOM SVJETSKOM RATU 1941-1945" which is available on znaci.net site here: http://www.znaci.net/00001/40_52.htm book he writes: "Jedna od najgorih provala četničkog terora protiv hrvatskog pučanstva u Dalmaciji dogodila se prvih dana oktobra 1942. u selu Gata, u znak odmazde nad narodom tog i drugih obližnjih sela, zbog razaranja nekih puteva na tom području; ove represalije kao i još neke četnici su u stvari poduzeli za talijanski račun. Tu je ubijeno oko stotinu ljudi, a mnoge su kuće bile spaljene.177".

I found Tomasevic book on google books. It' correct that page 747 he mentions Lika as place where Chetniks did massacres. But he does not cite sources that part of the writing? Well I'm ordered book via local library and I will cast look at books sources :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

google translate of text:

"One of the worst invasions of Chetnik terror against the Croatian population in Dalmatia occurred in the first days of October 1942 in the village of Gata, in retaliation against the people of this and other nearby villages, the destruction of some roads in the area; of reprisals and some Chetniks were in fact taken to an Italian account. There's about a hundred people were killed and many houses were burned"

Also Croatian politician Stipe Suvar on Radio Free Europe stated "that massacre in Gata village is only in Croatia was only crime commited by chetniks in Croatia" Unfortunately, I had no proof for this statement, link is non existent on Radio Free Europe South Slavic section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jozo Tomasevich is a reliable source. I would also note that Tomasevich 1975 p. 218 notes the commanders of Chetnik detachments in Lika as being Lieutenant Colonel Ilija Mihić and Major Slavko N. Bjelajac, both appointed by Draža Mihailović, but under the overall control of vojvoda Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin, and that all his Chetnik units were organised as Italian auxiliaries, supplied by the Italian divisions in their area. On p. 219 he quotes German General Glaise von Horstenau who says that in January 1943, the Italians had around 3,000 Chetniks under their control around Plaški and Vrhovine. Chetniks concentrated around Otočac are mentioned on p.229. The Lika Chetniks were used by the Italians during Case White. So I hope that puts the idea that there were no Chetniks in Lika to rest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, see this source, which also mentions Chetnik killings in Lika here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on World War II in Yugoslavia. 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/20070203003152/http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/sfa/hungary.html to http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/sfa/hungary.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719102638/http://www.ds-rs.si/?q=publikacije%2Fzborniki%2FZrtve_vojne to http://www.ds-rs.si/?q=publikacije%2Fzborniki%2FZrtve_vojne
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719102550/http://www.ds-rs.si/dokumenti/publikacije/Zbornik_05-1.pdf to http://www.ds-rs.si/dokumenti/publikacije/Zbornik_05-1.pdf

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) 08:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Revisionism

@OyMosby: Regarding your revert of the latest IP edits, it would be very kind of you if you could, however, promptly restore my improvements. In fact, you could or should have done so before backing out… After all, I would not like to have to redo all that. Hoping for your understanding and reply--Boczi (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Boczi I apologise for the heavy handed revert. The user made so many surgical edits amongs other edits, I got fed up with their now 8 months of Wikipedia abuse, I just restored to a certain time. I should have replaced the certain parts. I will look into your edits. OyMosby (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear OyMosby, thank you very much in advance! Best wishes--Boczi (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Collage caption - Stjepan Filipović

Shouldn't this say "about to be hanged" or "prior to being hanged" or at least "being hanged" as opposed to just "hanged?" "Hanged" by itself implies he has already been hanged but of course this is a photo of him immediately prior to his execution. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to change it if you think it will improve the page. Parabellus (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Casualty data

The section on casualty data first references 1,704,000 casualties, then 1,700,000 dead. Since casualties and victims also include those wounded, or otherwise violated, these are incompatible estimates. The disagreement seems to go back to the sources cited. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

@Peacemaker67:, Thanks for making the infobox tidy, It caught my attention after your arrangement from the September 1943-45 section the Italian Social Republic disappeared...was it inentional, or have a reason? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

No worries. What involvement are you suggesting the ISR had in Yugoslavia? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:,

I don't suggest anything just after reviewing the changes it caught my attention (this was the only difference), and I am curious of the reason.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for your work as well @Peacemaker67:. And for making sure to keep true to the actual name of the entities. One things is that Chetniks were axis collaborators in 1942, so sould they be in 41-43 too? OyMosby (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the Chetniks in 1941-September 1943 have to be treated as a separate category, I mean they did pretty much everything, from attacking the Partisans, to collaborating closely with the Axis, to occasionally attacking the Axis, in different places at different times. They really are a special case, and that is why they need to be in a separate column. But from the time the Italians surrendered at the very latest, they really were almost entirely collaborating, so they should be where they are post-Sep 43. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry KIENGIR, I missed your point, I am not aware of any actual fighting between ISR troops and the Partisans, but if reliable sources said it was significant, they could be re-inserted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I get your point and agree but in the info box why only have them in the second column but first column as well since they got support by allies and axis in 42? They appear not so much on their own but with the allies from 41-43.OyMosby (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67,

I'll let it on you, if you say is not really appropriate, you should not reinsert.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

OyMosby, the point is they are a separate case, which is why they are in a column of their own. We could add a note. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox 2

@OyMosby: The infobox is of the type "Infobox military conflict" and is located in the article "World War II in Yugoslavia", i.e. its about the military conflict in Yugoslavia throughout the war. The infobox is broken into 3 parts, the 1941 invasion and then the resistance/guerrilla war in the periods 1941-1943 and 1943-1945. Since the Invasion of Yugoslavia has its own extensive article (and infobox) and the article body of this page is very concentrated on the resistance/guerrilla war, its quite evident that the invasion is more of a "prologue"-section in an infobox focused on the resistance/guerrilla war (see also leaders, casualty numbers, troop strength etc). So when listing the belligerents (and other things), they should naturally be in rough order of relevance/level-of-involvement in the military conflict of the resistance/guerrilla war in Yugoslavia World War in II.
Having narrowed the scope to this conflict and area, it is (I would say) quite evident that the NDH, despite being a client of Germany-Italy, played a far larger role in the Yugoslav resistance/guerrilla war than Hungary. Hungary annexed a region, but faced only "small-scale armed resistance in the second half of 1941" as "the communist-led Partisan resistance movement of Josip Broz Tito was never strong in Bačka and Baranja [and] the Partisans and their regional committee had largely been destroyed by the end of 1941" while the "Chetnik movement was largely inactive during the occupation". Even the Novi Sad raid is written as having been undertaken only "ostensibly" as suppression of Partisan activities, but actually just suppression of civilians. The NDH meanwhile was knee-deep in fighting the partisans from beginning to end with over 150,000 armed men involved (in-fact its entire military + paramilitary due to the countries location entirely within the resistance/guerrilla war-zone...)
So it would be inaccurate and misleading to list Hungary so high and Croatia so low in relation to their relevance/level-of-involvement in the resistance/guerrilla war in the Infobox military conflict" in the article "World War II in Yugoslavia --Havsjö (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: for thought/comment

Good idea for you to ping Peacemaker as he was the one who recently restructured the infobox and he said he specifically put NDH on the bottom as he told me “ placed the NDH at the bottom of the list to show that they were a lesser power. As far as I am concerned, that is the correct way to present the NDH in the infobox.” I agree with this stance as well. So I will let him chime in also. However his views may be different now. I will respect whatever consensus is reach. You both have a lot of experience with these subjects which I respect. Thanks for talking it out CheersOyMosby (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Any argument in favour of Hungary to be higher would seem to only be in consideration of things "outside" the article-scope of the guerrilla war in Yugoslavia. I.e. "it wasn't a satellite state" globally speaking etc. Not part of level of involvement the military conflict in Yugoslavia... --Havsjö (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I think we should wait for @Peacemaker: to input as you pinged him initially and he stated he intentionally put Chetniks and NDH lower. Lets hold off on the edit for now. PM can be tie breaker. OyMosby (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The scope of the article is all of WWII in Yugoslavia, not just the guerilla war, and Hungary was one of only three powers that invaded the country, and subsequently occupied and annexed some 11,475 km2 of Yugoslav territory encompassing 1.1 million Yugoslav people from 1941 to 1944, implemented or assisted the Holocaust in those territories resulting in the deaths of most of the 23 per cent of Yugoslav Jews that lived there, killed thousands of Serbs in several incidents, including the massacres in southern Bačka. It is arguable what order they should go in, but it seems to me that the actual invaders and occupiers should go ahead of a puppet regime created by the invaders. In my view, the general rule (after the invasion) should be: Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria (who didn't invade but occupied and annexed large areas), then NDH, Chetniks and then the ISR (which arguably shouldn't even be there, I mean what did they do in Yugoslavia after September 1943?). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:1. The infobox is "military conflict" type and Hungary is above NDH in that infobox specifically in the sections about partisan-war in the periods 1941-1943/1943-1945. Your argument about oppressing civilians and annexing territory does not relating to that, and with what I mentioned now and before it doesn't make sense to have Hungary that high as barely participated in the partisan-war during the periods 1941-1943/1943-1945.
2. Hungary higher than Bulgaria? Why? Bulgaria got Macedonia (where armed resistance occurred and was confronted, much more than in Hungarian areas) and also operated in a large part of German-occupied-Serbia (especially after Italy was gone). Far bigger role than Hungary in the 1941-1943/1943-1945 partisan-war that the military-conflict-infobox details.
3. Areas of Slovenia taken by Italy in 1941 was still formally part of the Social Republic (albeit de-facto controlled by Germany), but RSI units nevertheless took part in actions against partisans in Slovenia because of this, most "famously" in the Battle of Tarnova. --Havsjö (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Areas from Drava Banovina...btw. both you have your own considerable points, at a certain point of view equally solid, deciding between them may only be possible to determine the exact frame/scope. Peacemaker determines per article title (which should automatically determine the scope overall), while Havjsö argues in a specific timeline, one part of the infobox Hungary should be given less weight. I see both approach reconcilable, however the question then is reduced of the overall consistency of the infobox, meaning each identical item listing order should be varied in a given timeline by a another criteria, or not, if applicable.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Yes, the infobox is the military conflict one, what of it? What do you think the invasion and occupation by Hungary was part of? A military conflict begun by Germany, Italy and Hungary, all of which went on to remain in occupation of parts of Yugoslavia until 1944-45 with varying levels of resistance in different areas. The RSI was hardly a factor in Slovene areas of Yugoslavia in 1943-45, as (except for the small bits Hungary occupied) they were all occupied and controlled by the Germans, and RSI troops all fought under German control. A couple of fights with the Partisans (the other was on the Banjšice plateau), neither of which involved more than two companies of RSI troops, is hardly the basis for their inclusion in the infobox. There is no way the RSI is a justified inclusion in the infobox of this article. I have removed it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As infobox is divided into periodical sections, it seems logical that weight of each belligerent is measured separately for each section. So Hungary's involvement in invasion phase shouldn't really be used as basis to measure their placing in following occupation/guerrilla conflict phases. Also as a sidenote, I would say that commanders list feels somewhat too long. I don't really know enough about the conflict to suggest specific cuts, but I do think some shortening would be appropriate.--Staberinde (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67,

I am not sure you asked you question from me or Havsjö, yes it is a military conflict as well, and yes was part of (as a first layer of top-down view). I oppose shorteining commanders. Btw. the about the orignal issue, I let all you to decide, I just summarized how I see the question in order to be solved more easily.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

I think @Peacemaker67: was clear about the infobox. I think it can stop being meddled with. OyMosby (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox list Axis 1941 – September 1943

In the interests of getting a solid consensus position on this and avoiding the pointless edit-warring about it, I propose we choose from the obvious options for this segment of the infobox, with a focussed discussion of the rationales for our choices. Now, clearly Germany and Italy were the major powers in Yugoslavia, did the lion's share of fighting of against the resistance and had several subordinate entities, so I think we can assume that we all agree they are listed first in that order, and we don't need to discuss that. The real issue here is how we weight the role of Hungary, Bulgaria and the NDH during this period from the Yugoslav surrender to the Italian surrender. It seems to me that there are two arguments above, the first is that the NDH created the conditions for the resistance to begin through its genocidal actions and then participated in a fair bit of it (although usually as a poorly-equipped and low morale cousin under German and Italian control) during this period, and the second is that Bulgaria and Hungary occupied large swathes of Yugoslav territory during this period during which there was some resistance and attendant war crimes. I don't think there is a lot of difference between the resistance conditions in the Bulgarian and Hungarian occupied areas, but I really only know the Hungarian areas well, so may have got that wrong. So I have provided four options, two of which have the NDH first, and two have the NDH last. Please indicate your support (and any second or later preferences if you wish, for the following options, by just adding a bullet with *"'''First (or lower) preference''' ~~~~" and keep all discussion in the separate subsection where I have explained the rationale for my choices. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Option One

1. Bulgaria
2. Hungary
3. NDH

• First preference Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Second preference Mikola22 (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Second preference Staberinde (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• First preference OakMapping (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Option Two

1. NDH
2. Bulgaria
3. Hungary

• Third preference Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• First preference Staberinde (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Third preference OakMapping (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Option Three

1. NDH
2. Hungary
3. Bulgaria

• Fourth preference Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Fourth preference OakMapping (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Option Four

1. Hungary
2. Bulgaria
3. NDH

• Second preference Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• First preference Mikola22 (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Second preference OakMapping (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

My preferences are based on the almost complete military subordination of the NDH to the Germans (and to a lesser extent the Italians) and occupation of the NDH by both Axis powers throughout this period and its irrelevance to operational counter-insurgency decisions, along with the fact that it was actually not permitted to military occupy much of the Italian-occupied part of the NDH for considerable periods. This is combined with the fact that while during this period there wasn't a lot of Partisan activity in the Bulgarian-occupied areas of Yugoslavia to my knowledge, those territories were larger than those occupied by Hungary, and in both cases, the Bulgarians and Hungarians had complete military autonomy in their annexed territories, while the NDH had very little. The Bulgarians also had progressively more of the German-occupied territory of Serbia to occupy, but this was still controlled by the German military administration, so they didn't have complete autonomy there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this issue but using logic it should be option four (Hungary, Bulgaria and NDH). Still Hungary and Bulgaria hold parts of Yugoslavia under their territory while NDH is under Germans or Italians. We'll see what the other editors say but this is my opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day Mikola22, then feel free to put your preference(s) in the list of options. You really only have to put one option if you prefer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that direct involvement in war effort is more relevant than various chains of command here. My impression is that NDH was far more heavily involved in actual combat operations in Yugoslavia than either Bulgaria or Hungary. Like if one checks various battle/operation articles of that period then NDH is very often present on Axis side, Bulgaria is rarely present, and Hungary is practically non-existent.--Staberinde (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't really reflect the NDH's actual direct combat involvement with the Partisans during major counter-insurgency operations, which was almost entirely wrapped up in the Ustase Militia. While the Home Guard did "participate" in many of the offensives against the Partisans, this was only ever under the direct control of the Germans. They were often completely ineffective, subject to desertion and cooperation with the Partisans, and used by the Germans for peripheral things like cordons, not assaults. The Bulgarians were heavily involved in the fighting in 1943–1944 in the eastern parts of occupied Yugoslavia, as the Partisans tried to break into occupied Serbia from the NDH (and even as early as Case Black). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

How do German sources refer to this Yugoslav resistance war?

How do they call it? -- love.wh 05:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They had a series of operation names for different attempts to destroy the Partisans. Why do you ask? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead has a footnote listing the names of this resistance war in various languages in Yugoslavia. I think it would be useful for readers to include a German name as well. But if the resistance war is known as a series of operations rather than a single umbrella term in German sources, then so be it. -- love.wh 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. The names are just literal translations, not common names in sources. In general terms, probably Bandenkämpfe in Jugoslawien/Croatien/Serbien, but Bandenkämpfe is a generic and euphemistic term for anti-Partisan operations anywhere, and as the Germans drove the splitting up and parcelling out of Yugoslavia, so they probably didn't use Jugoslawien anyway. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox commander bloat

I agree that the infobox inclusions of a whole bunch of commanders who had little if anything to do with operations in Yugoslavia adds nothing to the article, and bloats the infobox. There is not a consensus for this addition at this time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1941–43: Soviet Union's support?

Shouldn't Soviet Union be under other Allies in this era? What kind of support were Soviets providing to Yugoslavia before the official switch of support/recognition in 1943? –Vipz (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)