Jump to content

Talk:Prime Minister of Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latest IP edits

[edit]

IP user, please cease attempts at inserting your POV into the article. Do not alter or remove sourced text without discussion, and please provide references for your additions. Kindly refrain from entering your own personal thoughts into the encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat. Your edits seem POV and are in some respects completely incorrect. The text is sourced, please do not alter it without discussion. 1) The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs voluntarily joined with one state to create another unified state. There was no "annexation". 2) Yugoslavia had no "President" 1945-1953, the head of state was Ivan Ribar, the Speaker of the Parliament, not Josip Broz Tito. 3) The elections were not "rigged", the united opposition withdrew from the elections but remained on the ballot in the form of an alternative vote to the People's Front. There has never been any evidence to indicate the results have been tampered with in some way (nor is there any indication that the People's Front could possibly have lost after its wartime success and the popularity that brought). 4) the new government was formed, i.e. the exiled ministers joined into the NKOJ in November 1944 with the Belgrade Agreement according to my sources, not in 1945. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explain you. Annexation is the correct definition of facts under international law. The fact that Croatia was voluntary annexed by Serbia is irrelevant by this point of view: a classic situation of annexation was the annexation of East Germany by the Bundesrepublik in 1990, even if DDR voluntary became part of unified Germany, because there was a legal continuity between West Germany and Germany. "Unification" is not a juridical term or, by some scholars, it is used when a new federal state arises, creating a new legal system: for exemple, we can say that the thirteen colonies were unified into the United States.
Ivan Ribar was not the head of state, the Presidium was the collective head of state, as it happens for the Federal Council of Switzerland. However, we are not speaking of that period.
Speaking about the election of 1945, well, when the opposition does not take part to the vote, we are ipso facto into a not democratic election. If you want more sources, I suggest you: John R. Lampe "Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country" Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-52177-401-2.
Tito became unified PM on March 7, 1945. In late 1944, Nazis were still retiring from Greece, and it was quite impossible to set up an ordinary administration for the country.--79.54.164.85 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your changes caused many useless repetitions between the two paragraphs. I suggest a more simple structure of the page.--79.54.164.85 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "explaining me". The "annexation" nonsense will not be entered into the article. Let me issue a formal warning now: please stop edit-warring and misrepresenting sources. Rather I recommend you learn a few things about Yugoslav history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are not expert of international law. The birth of Yugoslavia was a classic case of annexation because there was a total legal continuity between the Serbian Government (and I use the term "government" in an American sense, including all the national offices) and the Yugoslav State. I understood your problem: you are Croatian so you dislike even only thinking to have been annexed by Serbia. But this problem can be reduced to the fact you don't know international law and its lexicon. Even Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845, and this fact does not create problems to anyone.
And I see you are also not an historian. A simple research in yahoo allows to find hundrends of sources about Tito's Premiership start in Belgrade on March 7, 1945. Not to speak about the fact you don't know that Alexander I abolished Yugoslav Constitution on January 6, 1929 (it may be incredible, but you deleted this information too).--79.54.164.85 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Croatian, but not while I'm editing Wikipedia, my only nationality here is Wikipedian. :) You completely misunderstood the problem. You cannot write something so new and bombastic like "Yugoslavia was formed by Serbia annexing Croatia" without a very, very, very good university-published, scholarly source. To be blunt: forget about your "lexicon". In addition, I cannot understand why you keep imagining that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is somehow "Croatia". That very statement betrays a deep lack of knowledge on the subject, particularly when one adds that you imagine Josip Broz Tito was somehow "head of state" between 1945-1953, when Ivan Ribar held the post. (Josip Broz Tito was appointed by the AVNOJ to head the Yugoslav government, the NKOJ, in late November 1943.)
Ok here's how things are:
  • "annexation" is unacceptable without a high quality source
  • "rigged" is simply unacceptable altogether as POV wording (especially since its unsourced, but even so)
  • Josip Broz Tito's term as Prime Minister did not start in 1945, he was appointed by the AVNOJ to head the Yugoslav government, the NKOJ, in late November 1943
  • The only point I am unsure about is the exact date when the royalist ministers joined into the NKOJ, I do recall reading that the merge was finalized upon the liberation of Belgrade in November 1944 by the Belgrade Agreement. Provide a citation if you hold otherwise.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding File:Replace this image male.svg

[edit]
Do we add these files into the article?

Should we add the File:Replace this image male.svg image into the empty portrait slots in the list wikitable? I myself am unsure. The images would create uniformity in row width, but there would be a lot of them. Thoughts anyone? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:Иван Богданов

[edit]

As a Serbian royalist, I understand your point of view is altered on this subject. However, the matter is much more complex than your point of view (POV) may lead you to believe. The simple fact is that the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, established in November 1943, was recognized by the Allies at the Tehran Conference. This was not a "second state" parallel with the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" that existed in London, but the single Yugoslav state with two governments - one actually in the country (NKOJ), and the other in London. In fact, the name of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was carefully chosen to leave the issue of "monarchy vs. republic" open. The DF Yugoslavia was the state that existed from then on.

In short, by the recognition the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia with both its governments (and arranging for the merge of the two in the near future), the state called "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" ceased to exist in any way, already "barely in existence" as nothing more than a government in London with no real power or authority. The question whether DF Yugoslavia was still a kingdom is separate from this and unrelated to the question of state succession. The state who's official name was "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" no longer existed after the Tehran Conference. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom was officialy abolished by the Constituent Assembly on 29 November 1945; It's not my POV, It's a historical fact. Also, historical fact is that Ivan Subasic was Prime Minister until 1945, when he was succeeded by Drago Marusic. Tito became Prime Minister only on 7 March 1945. So, DIREKTOR, your objections are out of question. I strongly advice you to avoid new edit wars, because your newest 48 hours blockade expired only a few hours ago. --Иван Богданов (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not understand my post: 1) the institution of the King of Yugoslavia, or "kingdom" if you like, was abolished in 1945, but the state named "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" ceased to exist in any way in 1943, when the name "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" was adopted. 2) The DF Yugoslavia, which existed by that name 1943-1945 had two governments for the majority of its existence, but there were never "two Yugoslavias" (one in London, the other in Yugoslavia).
Your point of view is seriously askew on this. You appear to believe that the wartime state named Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was never recognized, or worse, that it never existed, since you set the date for the dissapearance of teh state named "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" at the same time the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was established. This, of course, is utterly absurd.
Your basic error is in equating the institution of the King with the name of the state. In other words DF Yugoslavia was arguably a kingdom up until 1945, but the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was gone in 1943. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR, Yugoslav monarchy formally existed until 29 November 1945, when it was abolished by the Constituent Assembly. It's really weird to try to separate the abolition of the monarchy from the abolition of the institution of the King. So, Kingdom of Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1945, not in 1943, as you suggest. Next, you said that "DF Yugoslavia was arguably a kingdom up until 1945"?? That is utterly absurd. One of the decisions of the Jajce meeting in 1943 was to ban the King from even returning to the country. So, DIREKTOR, your objections are out of question. Don't revert my edits, because you don't have consensus for that. You are the only user who oppose my edits. --Иван Богданов (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time: you are correct, but you're missing the point completely. Please read more carefully. You are confusing the name of a state with the institution of the monarchy. We are talking about the name of the country, not whether it was a monarchy or not.
On 29 November 1945 the Constitutent Assembly of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia formally abolished the monarchy (while up to this point he was merely banned from returning to the country). You are confused in that you believe that as long as the king was not formally deposed, the state had to be named "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". The Allies recognized the DFY in 1943, and Šubašić formally recognized the conclusions of the second session of the AVNOJ as valid in 1944 (the Tito-Šubašić agreement). [1] [2] The point is that both the government-in-exile in London and the AVNOJ agreed that the name of the state was "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" (hence, naturally, the ambiguous name formed out of the compromise).
I cannot possibly use simpler wording. Since you are seriously lacking information and facts on the subject, I really hope that you will at least make a proper effort to understand the issue you are getting into. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

[edit]

Two things:

a. your edits were added without consensus so your assertion that I cannot remove them because I have no consensus is silly. You can't just add whatever nonsense you like and claim I can't oppose and revert the new edit because "I don't have consensus to do so".

b. On the contrary, since you are the trying to push new opposed edits (without consensus), you're the one who should not be edit-warring to keep them in. Indeed, you may rest assured that the darkkhaki color and the HUGE subsection names are not going to stay in the long term simply because you like the pretty colors and/or personally feel that is the right way to do things. The reason I'm not reverting you is because I'm trying to do things in a civil manner.

The two minor edits for discussion are:

  • 1) darkkhaki. The colors are used for political parties. It makes no sense to denote military service since nerely all officials listed here served in the military at one time or another, and others held military ranks even as they held office and membership in other political parties. Simply put, the colors are for parties. People can be party members and military officers. Its nonsense to use colors for both. Simović was non-party. White is used for non-party politicians. A colored prime minister entry denotes party affiliation. (Usage in some other Greek template is not an argument.)
  • 2) over-large subsection names. Simply put, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style recommends short subsection titles (WP:HEAD). You've added a very large subsection heading against recommendation because you feel like it.

"Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated."

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, you can't separate the end of the monarchy from the end of the Kingdom. You can't tell me that Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was a monarchy. It banned the King to even return to the country, long before the formal end of the monarchy. Kingdom of Yugoslavia legally existed until 29 December 1945, when it was abolished by the Constituent Assembly. It was not abolished by some "guerilla meeting" in Bosnia in 1943. Of course, you are wrong about terms of Prime Ministers: Ivan Subasic was Prime Minister until January 1945, when he handed over office to Drago Marusic, who was succeeded by Josip Broz Tito in March 1945.

I warn you to stop telling me that I'm "seriously lacking information and facts on the subject", because I regard that as an insult.

You are the only user who oppose my edits. You don't have consensus to change them. I strongly advice you to restrain yourself from reverting my edits in the future, and from placing your incorrect data into this article, as you did in other cases, if you don't want to start another edit war. Remember, your latest 48 hours block for edit-warring expired only three days ago.

    • darkkhaki. You have no right to ask me to mark military Prime Ministers with white color. That color is used for non-party Prime Ministers. It is historical fact that Dusan Simovic was an active army general when he entered office, so he must be marked with darkkhaki. It's true that "all officials listed here served in the military at one time or another", but they weren't active army officers, like General Simovic, when they entered office.
    • over-large subsection names. Official name of the country must be written, not because "I like it", as you tell. Kingdom of Yugoslavia was official name of that country. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was official name of Communist Yugoslavia. Both of this official names must be written in this article. --Иван Богданов (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not responding to the main issue in the above section.
  • You are not answering my arguments on the issue of the silly military colors. This is not a question of "right". Your "system" is impractical and self-contradictory.
  • You are not answering my post on the final issue of the over-large subsection heading (contrary to WP:MoS).

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still disagree with you about most of the issues that exist between us, I can agree that over-large subsection names isn't necessary. So, I'll change that now. --Иван Богданов (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see why you're not responding to my post in the above section? Do you discuss only in the latest section in the talkpage? The silly idea of a state by the name "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" in 1945 is complete fiction, and frankly betrays a serious lack of knowledge on the subject (you may check the sources on this, some of which are linked in my main post). Yugoslavia was arguably(!) a kingdom in 1945 (because it had not yet formally abolished the monarchy), but the name of the state was not "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". Hence the absurdity of the notion that Josip Broz Tito was "Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" you have introduced into the tables I worked hard to improve.
I also reccomend that you try to learn a thing or two about what constitutes a WP:POV FORK on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to all of your posts. Kingdom existed until 29 November 1945; DF Yugoslavia never recognized to be a monarchy. It was under firm communist control. Its leadership didn't even allow King to return to the country after the war. How then you can say it was a monarchy?
If we put in place your version of this list, it will remove Drago Marusic as Prime Minister in 1945, between Ivan Subasic and Tito. If you agree to left him on the list, we can struck a deal and resolve all of this. --Иван Богданов (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I see you feel very strongly about the Karađorđević dynasty, but you are saying the silliest things I've heard in a while. There was no "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" in 1945, there was only the DF Yugoslavia that did not yet formally abolish the monarchy. The issue of the monarchy was postponed in 1943 until the end of the war, but the name of the state was changed to Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in 1943. Are you even reading my posts and sources? Have you noticed the fact that the government-in-exile, under British pressure, agreed to all the conclusions of the AVNOJ with the Tito-Šubašić agreement?
For the millionth time:
  • 1941 - November 1943
    • State name: Kingdom of Yugoslavia
    • Government: One, the government-in-exile in London
    • Monarchy or republic?: Monarchy
  • November 1943 - November 1945
    • State name: Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (Tehran Conference)
    • Government: Two governments, a) NKOJ in Yugoslavia (recognized, Tehran Conference), b) government-in-exile in London. Allies insist they merge, and they agree to merge with the Tito-Šubašić Agreement (June 17 1944). Šubašić also agrees that Josip Broz Tito, prime minister of the NKOJ, will be the prime minister of the coalition government after the merge. Two governments merged into one coalition government with the Belgrade Agreement (November 2 1944), Josip Broz Tito is Prime Minister.
    • Monarchy or republic?: Undetermined. Final decision postponed until the post-war elections. Both governments agree that the King is not to return until a favorable result of the post-war elections.
  • November 1945 on
    • State name: Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY)
    • Government: One, People's Front government (in Belgrade) headed by Josip Broz Tito
    • Monarchy or republic?: Republic
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering scheme

[edit]

The numbering scheme of prime ministers is off. Nikola Pašić was only the acting prime minister, not truly the first prime minister. The first government in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was headed by Stojan Protić.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pašić

[edit]

The picture needs to be removed because:

  • Its too large.
  • Its the wrong picture, Pašić's other two terms as PM are represented by another picture.
  • Pašić was an ACTING prime minister during that time - not an official prime minister, so that entry should be smaller as are the entries of all other ACTING PMs.

I would appreciate it if you did not just arrive and make these sort of edits and then edit-war over them.

Incidentally, if you look it up, you might notice that the picture you're pushing was painstakingly repaired by myself, that I was the one who introduced it into the Nikola Pašić article (where you no doubt got it), that I repaired all other pics of Pašić on Commons, that I introduced new cropped pics depicting him, and repaired his infobox in the article. I have nothing against Pašić, his picture is in the article for his two terms as prime minister, but the term you're pushing that wrong oversized picture in was an acting term. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, its a place for a picture of PM (acting or not). Picture exist. Picture must be placed. End of discussion. --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I'll ignore the arrogant "End of discussion." proclamation.)
"Its a place for a picture of PM". That's just it - an acting PM is legally NOT the PM. Its debatable whether acting PMs should be included in this list at all, let alone in full entry as real PMs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DIREKTOR, I wrote "End of discussion" only because I see no reason for discussion! As I already said, its a place for a picture of PM (acting or not). There is no reason to remove picture that is not a non-free content from its place. If you like to remove Pašić's term as acting PM, just do it! Don't remove only picture from its place. --Sundostund (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NKOJ and the succession order

[edit]

Am starting a thread here to gather possible input on the succession order for the 1943-45 period. The matter is complicated not only with regard to the exact order, but also with regard to the succession, e.g. do we list Tito after Puric or only later after Marusic? The problem is essentially caused by the existence of two parallel governments in the 1943-45 period.

  • In (more-or-less) occupied Yugoslavia we have the NKOJ (National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia), the government which was established by the AVNOJ ("parliament") in November 1943, with Tito as prime minister (his title was "president of the NKOJ", but all Yugoslav prime ministers were literally titled "president", as in "president of the government" or "president of the federal executive council", etc.).
  • The other of course was the government-in-exile in London, headed by three different people in the same relevant span (Puric, Subasic, Marusic).

Its a sticky question. As far as the de facto aspects of governance are concerned, there is no question that, while the NKOJ was an actual executive body wielding very real power in increasingly-larger portions of Yugoslavia, the government-in-exile was virtually powerless and never governed anything.

As far as the de jure aspect of the issue is concerned, the government-in-exile was more legal due to representing the (as-yet-not-formally-deposed) King of Yugoslavia, Peter II. However - the government-in-exile was not instituted on the basis of any elections, and was in fact established in the aftermath of an (illegal) military coup by General Simovic. The waters in the de jure aspect are further muddied by the fact that with the Tehran Conference the allies recognized the AVNOJ (of which NKOJ was essentially the executive part) as the Yugoslav provisional parliament. The exact position of the western Allies with regard to Tito and the NKOJ appear to be unclear and are characterized primarily by the urging towards the formation of a unified government as soon as possible. And then there's the issue of the pro-Tito position of the Soviet Union. So, which government was more "legal" in terms of Allied recognition? I certainly can't say.

Its a terrible mess, and frankly I am unsure as to where Tito belongs in the list, and which numerical order would be most appropriate. -- Director (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the Allies after Tehran recognized AVNOJ as the main resistance force in occupied Yugoslavia, but this was never equivalent to NKOJ as de jure government of Yugoslavia. That was reserved for the government exiled in London throughout the entire war, and its legitimacy was never in doubt for the Allies - hence their pressure on Peter II to denounce support for royalist Chetniks and form an alliance with the communist NKOJ instead, which is all neatly described by Tomasevich and which resulted in the Treaty of Vis. So de jure it is Purić, Šubašić and Marušič all the way until 7 March 1945, and then Tito as head of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. The only parallelism here is what to do with Tito's self-proclaimed 15-month post as head (prime minister?) of NKOJ from November 1943 to 7 March 1945. How about not doing anything and mentioning it in a separate note? Timbouctou (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, DIREKTOR, its very sticky to discuss about the de facto control of the NKOJ over parts of Yugoslavia and the de jure legitimacy of the Royal Government in exile so I'll avoid to jump into that discussion... Its always very complicated when there are two separate governments which claim authority over one country at the same time. As for the succession of Prime Ministers, DIREKTOR, I think you got it right in the current version - the last three PMs of the Royal Government in exile were Puric, Subasic and Marusic. Tito belongs after those three (as the first PM of the Socialist Yugoslavia), as it is in the present version. I think it should stay as it is. Anything else (if something is still uncertain) should be mentioned in the 'Notes' section. After all, that's why that section exist. Cheers! -- Sundostund (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've been looking into the Decisions of the Tehran conference. There are no political decisions with regard to Yugoslavia, rather in the military decisions the Partisans were (de facto) recognized as the Allied military of Yugoslavia. And Soviet support did not extend to the recognition of the NKOJ as a Yugoslav government - in fact they explicitly made it clear the NKOJ should not be viewed as a government (a recommendation which Tito ignored, declaring the NKOJ the Yugoslav government, and prompting a start of Soviet-Yugoslav antagonism).
So it seems clear the Allies did not view the NKOJ as a parallel legitimate government of Yugoslavia. This, however, does not take away from the fact that it was the NKOJ, not the government-in-exile, that actually governed Yugoslavia between 1943-45 (by November 1944 the vast majority of Yugoslavia was liberated and under NKOJ control). And as I said, Allied recognition aside, the government-in-exile was a coup government and its legitimacy, strictly speaking, is not on particularly solid ground - were it not for the support of the King... -- Director (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the legality of the government in exile was never questioned by the Allies and it was even later recognized by NKOJ, evidenced by the Vis Treaty, coup or not. On the other hand if you want to take de facto situation on the ground, that's a whole new can of worms - NKOJ was a self-proclaimed entity and it only governed portions of its proclaimed territory, in parallel with various administrations in occupied territories. So de jure the succession is pretty clear, but de facto it is a soap opera. Besides, if one takes a de facto stance that NKOJ ruled Yugoslavia from its establishment in 1943, and the government in exile lost all de facto control in 1941, this begs the obvious question - who governed Yugoslavia from April 1941 to November 1943? One could maybe argue NKOJ was preceded by AVNOJ - but AVNOJ was established in November 1942, which still leaves about 17 months unaccounted for. Timbouctou (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AVNOJ territory, September 1943
NKOJ-administered, September 1944, immediately prior to the arrival of the 3rd Ukrainian Front and the Belgrade Offensive
It seems clear the Allies as a whole never challenged the legality of the gov-in-exile and recognized its legitimacy, but this was indeed challenged by the AVNOJ, which explicitly denied the legality of the gov at the second session. We can't conclude that the Vis Treaty constitutes a recognition of the legality of the gov-in-exile by the AVNOJ unless an explicit statement to that effect was made there (which was not the case, to my knowledge). Once you declare yourself a government you cannot very well accept others as governments of the same country, even if you do treat with them.
Yes, the AVNOJ/NKOJ never controlled the entirety of Yugoslavia (though as I said, it was very close November 1944-March 1945) - but compared to the government-in-exile, which never controlled any territory - the question is moot. The issue of who governed Yugoslavia de facto 1941-43 is clear: simply noone. No entity purporting to govern Yugoslavia actually governed it (that of course is no reason not to list the legal governments of the period that claimed right to do so).
So again to me its a very close call.. Allied recognition (plus arguably de jure legitimacy through appointment by the King) is in favor of the government-in-exile, whereas actual de facto governance of Yugoslav territory favors giving the NKOJ preeminence in the succession. As I said, the areas controlled by the Partisans in 1944 and '45 are vast (in terms of proportion of Yugoslav territory), even before the arrival of the Soviets in late 1944. -- Director (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get the message. I won't insist since I can't figure out an appropriate neutral organization, as I said though, its a very close call in my book. -- Director (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragiša Cvetković

[edit]

Was Dragiša Cvetković a member of the Yugoslav Radical Union during his time in office as Prime Minister? I can't find any information on that. -- Director (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Director: As far as I know, the Yugoslav Radical Union was the ruling party until the coup d'état on March 27, 1941. I never heard that it was disestablished as the ruling party when Milan Stojadinović left the office in 1939. Having that in mind, it seems relatively unlikely that Cvetković wasn't a member of the YRU... If he was indeed an independent politician or a member of some other party, there must be some source to support that. --Sundostund (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Date

[edit]

Hi Folks,

I'm new to wikipedia editing. I hope this gets where it should. I noticed incorrect information. Under the listing of Yugoslav Prime Ministers, specifically "In the Yugoslav government-in-exile" The listign for Dušan Simović shows him as holding office until 12 June 1942 when it was in fact 11 January 1942. This, in turn, leads to an incorrect start date for the following PM, Slobodan Jovanović.

Oddly, if you click the link for the Dušan Simović wikipedia page the information is likewise listed incorrectly as June. However if you click the link to Slobodan Jovanović it is listed correctly (and in contradiction to this page) as 11 January 1942

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1198914476"