Talk:1920 Croatian Peasant Rebellion

Communist support

Per offered source (Janjatović 260-261) "Drugi politički čimbenik koji je nesumnjivo imao utjecaja na iniciranje, pa i organiziranje seljačkih nemira u to vrijeme bili su povratnici iz Rusije, a zatim i socijalisti-komunisti, odnosno Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, koji su u tijeku 1919., a dijelom i 1920. godine, razvili široku agitaciju i u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj pozivajući seljake da sami provedu agrarnu reformu, obećanu od vlasti, ali ne i izvršenu, tj. da podijele vlastelinsku zemlju bez odštete zemljoposjednicima. Uz to su pozivali i na uspostavu novoga društvenog sistema, tj. »sovjetskih republika i dakako svrgavanje postojećeg«." (The second political factor which undoubtedly had influence on initiation and even organisation of peasant unrest at the time were returnees from Russia, followed by socialists-communists i.e. the Communist Party of Yugoslavia who developed, in the course of 1919 and in part in 1920, wide-ranging activism also in the northwestern Croatia by calling on peasants to carry out on their own the agrarian reform that was promised by the authorities, but never performed, i.e. to distribute the land owned by the gentry without compensation to the landowners. In addition, they called upon establishment of a new social system, i.e. the "Soviet republics and, of course, toppling of the existing [establishment]".)

This does not support the claim of "supported by Communists". Presumably they were pleased with the development, but the passage does not support that either. In fact, Janjatović states in p.275 that a known Communist village did not join in the rebellion, and notes on p.290 that it was surprising that six known Communists were seen at a rally at one point. Tomobe03 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Royal Serbian Army

Given that the Royal Serbian Army was the army of the Kingdom of Serbia, and the Kingdom of Serbia ceased to exist in November 1918, how is it that the Royal Serbian Army quelled a rebellion that took place in September 1920, nearly two years after the end of World War I? Wouldn't this have been the Army of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? If no one objects, I will change it to the latter. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources explicitly say so - calling them the Army of Kingdom of SCS would be synth at best. I assume this situation existed because the Kingdom SCS got its first constitution only in 1921. The same wording is found in sources dealing with, e.g. 1918 Zagreb demonstrations, Fiume crisis etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I realize this situation sounds odd, but I have yet to locate a source saying anything specific (date, etc) about renaming the army before 1921. I believe little (if anything) changed in 1918-1921 regarding command structure, uniforms/insignia, just as many pre-war structures were kept in place until the new constitution (e.g. ban of Croatia). I would not be surprised at all if nobody bothered with formalising such a (name) change knowing that the new constitution was in the works. There's "Vojska Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca 1918-1921" by Bjelajac that could clarify the issue, but I don't have access to the book right now.Tomobe03 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, excellent work on the article. But yes, it is very odd to have a country listed as a participant in a conflict nearly 2 years after it formally ceased to exist. From what I see, large swathes of this article seem to be based on a Croatian source from 1992. Could the fact that this source was published in wartime have coloured the author's account by chance? After all, it wasn't uncommon for Croatian authors at the time to deride Yugoslavia as "Serboslavia", etc. Your thoughts? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Terms such as "Serboslavia" were generally confined to tabloids, political commentaries in daily papers/TVs and similar. Obviously, I cannot say with confidence nobody ever used it (or similar term) in a scientific paper. The 1992 source is used exclusively to establish timeline as there are very few detailed sources on the topic. Conclusions on motives and outcomes rely on Banac, Newton, Ramet etc. As I said, I agree it seems odd there was (as it would be concluded by reading this article) the Royal Serbian Army in existence in 1920. I'll certainly try and find reliable sources determining when the name was changed - I'm not at all opposed to changes if there are sources to back them and I'm not in favour of any of the two particular solutions unless they're backed by sources. Right now, all I can reliably say that Newman (p.263) says that the "Serbian army" suppressed the disorder. Maybe Newman is simplifying (as the change essentially meant name change), but I'd prefer to switch names once a couple of good sources are found. I checked with my local library, it does not have Bjelajac mentioned above, but there are four Zagreb public libraries that have it. There are also few other online sources I'm trying to get my hands on because even if the name change took place in e.g. 1921 and nothing needs change in terminology of the article timeline, an explanatory note would probably be beneficial to readers who might come up with the same question you asked.

As a side note - While it would certainly be odd to have RSA under such name in 1920, units of the Croatian Royal Home Guard were only disbanded in practice in 1919, and RSA is well documented to exist formally under its pre-war name (RSA) in 1919 (for example in literature in Fiume crisis, where there can hardly be suspicion of derision as Croats saw Italian troops as adversaries and the RSA as the force capable of keeping Italians at bay). Therefore such changes obviously did not go through instantaneously. As already noted, I would not be surprised one bit if the change took place in 1921 with the new constitution or at any point between 1919 and 1921. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Per Newton's 2014 article used now in the article (pp. 325-326), actual legislation on establishment of the KSCS army was passed in August 1923. The source indicates that it was 'papering over' facts on the ground (i.e. army already established, implicitly by means other than legislative acts). Banac's 1984 book (pp 150-151) states the change involved change of name and cap badges over the course of 1919, while RSA uniforms, ranks and medals etc. were kept. Banac notes that the RSA and KSCS army were difficult to distinguish. Both sources note that the bulk of the new army was previously RSA (about 90%) and that the officer cadre was predominantly Serbian (which is a logical consequence of the preceding). I noted all these in the background as relevant for contemporary and subsequent identification of the army with Serbs/Serbia among the rebels and others who witnessed or learned of the events.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1920 Croatian Peasant Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Setting up review. Comments coming soon. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments about the prose:

• "and the brutally suppressed 1918 protest in Zagreb." I'm not sure if "brutally" adheres to NPOV, due to its negative conotations. Is there another adjective that can be used?
  • Rephrased to avoid the particular term (T)
• "rallies in its support were banned and its leader Stjepan Radić was arrested in March 1919, and imprisoned for almost a year." The phrasing at the end is a little weird. Maybe remove the comma after 1919? Or rephrase the end of the sentence?
  • Comma removed (T)
• "failing to distinguish between the HPSS's anti-militarism and the Bolshevism associated with the soldiers returning from Russian captivity in 1919, and mutinies in Maribor, Varaždin, and Osijek." I'm not sure where the distinctions are to be because of the phrasing. Is there another way this can be worded?
  • Rephrased to make clearer. Could you please have another look? (T)
• "in the Yugoslav colonisation of Kosovo, and arbitrary beatings by army" Remove comma before and
  • Removed (T)
• "Branding campaign" The first sentence in this section is too long and should be split into two.
  • Split as suggested (T)
• "There were rumours "Serbs will..." -> "There were rumours that "Serbs will..."
  • Addded the missing "that" (T)
• "By 10 September 1920, the rebellion was ended, except in the areas around Sisak, especially near Letovanić, where fighting ended two days later." Reword: too many commas
  • Rephrased. Could you please take another look? (T)

Source review:

• No concerns from earwig
• Refs verified: 3, 10, 11. The rest are either behind paywalls or in non-English languages.
• No issues with formatting.

Image review:

• Licences good
• Captions are good.
• Recommend alt text, per MOS:ALT

I'll put this on hold. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, thank you for your review. I believe I have addressed the issues raised above. Could you please take a look at the changes?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. I think this is a good article. I recommend that this be considered for WP:FAC, as it is well researched and I think is close to meeting those criteria. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.