Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Neutrality

I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that there are a number of unsourced and rather dubious statements. For example, the actions in Croatia surely cannot have been so widespread-and widely known-as early as September 1941. I would also imagine that there must have been a high degree of co-operation between Nedic and the SS to allow the Germans to declare Serbia 'Jew free' as early as August 1942. The whole thing just seems far too partisan. White Guard 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, there are some things inthis text that are strange. For example:"persuaded to take this ungrateful role". What ungrateful role?! To use the word ungrateful is not a NPOV. The same with sentence: "He also had in mind the appalling genocide". Notice the word "appaling"! The sentence is not neutral when it contains the word appaling, it is almost a weasel word. Beacause of these words not being within the frames of a NPOV. I am going to delete them. Aryamehr 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Aryamehr

Conditions of leadership

The idea the 'That national emblems of Serbia be allowed' seems rather unclear to me. Does it mean that people be allowed to possess them, the government or the public allowed to display them, that Germany allow Serbia to display its own emblems (where anyway?) or oes it mean something else? Seeing as this also has a citation needed tag I am tempted to delete it but was wondering whether anyone else had more information on it before doing so. --Hydraton31 14:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Initially, German occupation forces didn’t allow anybody to publicly display Serbian or Yugoslav national symbols. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordan 777 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Official name?

What was the official name of Nedic's Serbia? Nedic's Serbia is only popular name but what was official name of the state? For example Nazi Germany is popular name of Hitler's Germany but official name of state was German Reich(later Greater German Reich). So what was official name of state of Nedic's Serbia?--Staberinde 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's popular name - the official name was "Kingdom of Serbia". --PaxEquilibrium 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i thought that king went to exile? Anyway official name should be mentioned in introduction(same way as is done in Nazi Germany).--Staberinde 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no official name because there was no state. It was just a territory, occupied by Axis powers. Nedic’s government was introduced by Germans to simplify local administration and take care about internal affairs at occupied territory. They called it Serbia, but it was not recognized by any Axis state as an independent nation. --Jordan 777 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

-correction; the official name of the serbian state during WWII was indeed 'the Kingdom of Serbia'; lookee here: www.worldstatesmen.org; in the section about Serbia; and King of Yugoslavia, Petar II, was designated as its King, even if he did not accept the office or recognise the existence of the polity.

Map wrong

The map is wrong. It doesn't show the Principality of Pindus Italian-Bulgarian puppet state. --PaxEquilibrium 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a state, just self-governing territory. --Taivaansusi 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Genocides cannot be neutral.

I've noticed that all the articles about genocides have been marked, "neutrality disputed". Keep in mind that anything written about a genocide that even admits that it is a genocide in the first is bound to be slanted. On some topics of global events where horrible atrocities have been commited, it is impossible to remain neutral. I think, however, that this should be ignored unless someone says something truly nutty.

In every genocide there are the Victims and the Criminals.There can be no other way to describe what has happened. In this particular case it's clear. The official Croatian state at that time MURDERED over a million people (mostly Serbs).That is undisputable.

Number of Ustasha murders is maybe as high as 100 000, but nowhere near a million, as serbians claim. --Taivaansusi 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A million MAY be too high, but 100,000 (and you seem to suggest this would be the upper limit) is laughably low. Most sources now specify in the 100s of thousands, usually between 300,000-700,000. - DTC

This discussion is getting insensitive and is going to create an edit war if nothing is done to end it. I am no Yugoslav, but these kinds of declarations will spark fierce nationalist-driven edit wars between Croat and Serb wikipedians. Most wikipedians want to see a discussion page, with people providing FACTUAL EVIDENCE, such as, widely accepted information from widely credible sources. not debating whether "Serbs are lying" or "wrong" or whether the "Croats are lying" or "wrong". POST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WIDELY ACCEPTED EVIDENCE before you start declaring whether a million people died or one hundred thousand, because that is a VAST difference. Also we are talking about Nedic's Serbia, not Ustashe Croatia, so there is no point bringing it up here. User:R-41

Falsified history

Serbia was not a puppet-state as the article claims - rather the occupied territory. Neither historians not the international law does categorize this territory as a puppet-state. For details - see, for example, Israel Guttman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, entry Serbia.

About the concentration camps - Sajmiste was on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia and all concentration camps on the occupied territory of Serbia were established and run by Germans. See again Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

Serbia WAS a puppet-state like Albania or Montenegro after 1943. They were recognized by Germany, but the situation was so chaotic that governments had little actual power at all. Most of the Albanian and Serbian rural areas were in the hands of the partisans and chetniks. See for example Rich, Norman: Hitler's War Aims (1974) --Taivaansusi 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Serbia was not even mentioned in that book. Yugoslavia - yes on the pages 197-203. "Norman Rich's book - Hitler's War Aims - is published in the year of 1973. Please, avoid this type of foolishness next time.

There MUST have been SOME SORT of government running Serbia! It wasn't just some void hole in the middle of the Balkans. The reason why Serbia is not mentioned in this book "Hitler's War Aims" was because Serbia itself became Yugoslavia in 1918. After 1929, unlike in the SFRY, Serbia was not even a constituent state of the Kingdom, Serbia was divided into regional districts (banovinas, look at Kingdom of Yugoslavia to see for yourself). Frankly, I am suspicious about the unnamed editor above's intent, has removed the information table at the side, on their own personal initiative without presenting significant information and sources as to why they believe that Nedic's Serbia did not exist. I have seen plenty of biased people trying to manipulate articles in regards to the Former Yugoslavia, based on the common beliefs of the states of the former Yugoslavia. During and after the Yugoslav Wars, many of the Yugoslav states advocated propaganda against each other to promote nationalism, resulting in inaccurate myths, such as attempting to prove one nation's close ties with fascism while disproving their own to save the image of their nation. But this page should not be considered an insult to Serbs, this site only is acknowledging that the Nazis DID occupy Serbia and DID set up a puppet regime there. There WERE puppet regimes all across Europe which were NOT considered legitimate internationally recognized regimes, nor supported by the people necessarily, but they did exist. Most evidence existing points to the existance of a puppet state (or occupation authority if you prefer) in Serbia from 1941 to 1944. By Wikipedia's standards, with most sources indicating that there was a regional government running Serbia, and fewer sources existing that can claim there was no government, this by default means that an article is warranted for this. Please do not make radical changes like removing the info table, without allowing a significant discussion prior to doing it. I will restore the table. User:R-41

Please, provide proper references - I'll be glad to discuss your claims. The article - as written - is very, very bad. The info table is a nonsense - the same as the map. A very good description (i.e. who actually ruled this territory) of the war time Serbia is given in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.--Guivon 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say to this source then: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif The map in that source is same as the one in the article. So, to what exactly you object here? PANONIAN 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is non-academic, private commercial source i.e a tertiary source of not validated content. Definitely - it cannot be used as a reference at all.--Guivon 03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that your "opinion" about this source is not valid (you did not presented any proof why this source might be wrong), I presented for you other sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banat_(1941–1944) PANONIAN 11:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See also this source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/211.gif For main territory of Serbia this source use description "okkupacio, Nemetorszag" (in translation: German occupation), while for Banat it use description: "nemet kozigazgatas" (in translation: German administration). PANONIAN 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then the question arises, where did the idea of Nedic's Serbia pop up from. Who were the rebel Chetniks who allied with the Nazis against the communist partisans (p.s. I know that most Chetniks fought against the Nazis), if this article is becoming questioned as a "myth", then internationally-accepted scholarly evidence should be shown to prove it and also to defend it, because this is such a controversial topic. I only assume that there was such a state as Nedic's Serbia, because I have seen more available evidence than not that indicate that there were was a regime led by Nedic in Serbia, I admit that I have yet to see scholarly evidence. I will also admit that there were occupation authorities, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and parts of Northern France but in almost every case (except perhaps for parts of Northern France outside the determined colonization zone), the involved land was to eventually be annexed to Nazi Germany, while areas outside of immediate German interest became puppet states. Puppet regimes were commonly used by the Nazis. There was the puppet regime under Tiso (not to be confused with Tito) in Slovakia which lost land claimed to be Slovakian to Hungary, some maps incorrectly show Slovakia as being annexed to Germany which it officially was not. Also as I mentioned earlier, Vichy France was a Nazi puppet state which also did not have the full territory desired like that of the Nazi-drawn borders of Serbian territory. If it was an occupation authority, then there is more information that must be found, such as, who led the occupation authority?; what was the local administration?; and what was its purpose? I agree that this article needs way more scholarly references to back it up if it is to be considered credible, but also, scholarly information should be provided to create a credible page to show that Serbia was in fact an occupation authority. If it was an and the majority of well-known evidence shows that it was an official occupation authority rather than a puppet state, then I agree, that a renamed article should be made about the occupation authority. User:R-41

I do not understand to what you object here - this was indeed a state, not only "occupation authority" because, "de jure", entire territory of 1941-1944 Serbia was seen as part of Yugoslavia by the international community, thus I do not agree that we have article only about "occupation authority" and not about state tself. This state had its government and security forces that controled all its cities and most of its territory (excluding Banat, which was controled by local Germans) - rebel chethiks mostly were in the mountains and did not controled any important territory or city. PANONIAN 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please, stop claiming nonsense. The occupied Serbia is not recognized by the international law nor by historians as a puppet state. It was just an occupied territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia completely (military and economically) controlled by Germans. Also, Banat was a part of that occupied territory and Serbian dinar was a valid currency in Banat, Nedic's gendarmerie and police was present in Banat, too. I see that the two very respectable references Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, 3 vols, Holmes & Meyer, New York 1985, Volume 2, and the Guttman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust are not separating Banat from the occupied territory whose military and civil rule was subordinated to the supreme German command and rule in Belgrade. All the article is full of forgeries and unsupported claims about that time occupied Serbia. Also, the very article name is nonsense. The Nedic's regime did not have full control over the occupied territory - it was rather a puppet regime executing commands of the occupiers and respecting fully the occupier's wishes.--Guivon 17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire Nazi Europe was not recognized by the international law but we have articles about other states of that Europe, i.e. the international recognition is not condition for us to writte about something. Purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and present all human knowledge and the basic fact that puppet state of Serbia de facto existed from 1941 to 1944 is good reason that we have article about it. Regarding Banat, I showed you some sources about political status of Banat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banat_(1941–1944). Also the fact that regime of Milan Nedić did not had full control over the territory still do not prove that this state did not existed - it was partially controled by Germans, partially by Serbian government, but this is article about state and if you want to writte about government then you should start new article named Government of National Salvation, which was its official name, not to mention that this government controled military units known as Serbian State Guard (Srpska državna straža), which prove that it was a state. PANONIAN 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you have to support your 'knowledge' by valid and verifiable references. What is Wikipedia and what is your idea of human knowledge does not mean much here. Your 'basic fact' is already denied by very notable reference as the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.--Guivon 03:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I already showed you sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banat_(1941–1944) - so, you just have to read them. Regarding source that you presented, this source does not contradict to other sources that I presented and does not support yout theory that Banat was not autonomous area ruled by its German minority. PANONIAN 11:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Guivon and others, please look at the source that I have just provided, its a book from around 1980, called Partisans and guerrillas (World War II; v. 12) by historian Ronald H. Bailey who largely talks about both the Yugoslav Partisans and the Chetniks who fought against the occupation of Yugoslavia by Nazi Germany and Ustashe Croatia. BUT it does mention the existance of a puppet regime by a man named "Milan Nedich" which is obviously Milan Nedić without the accent on the "c". I found it in a section, where it talks about Draža Mihailović (Mihailovich in the book) deciding to temporarily abandon his campaign against the Germans due to the huge German reprisal attacks on Serbs for every German soldier killed. It then states that he disbanded his Chetnik force but allowed some Chetniks to join the state, who wanted to crush the Yugoslav partisans.

PLEASE READ THIS REFERENCE FROM THE BOOK I MENTIONED ABOVE

"Others, with Mihailovich's approval, enlisted in the home militia of General Milan Nedich, the puppet Prime Minister whom the Germans had installed to help them restore order. Mihailovich was no admirer of Nedich, but he now perceived Tito and the Communists as the real enemy. Besides in his hopeful scenario for a further uprising, he saw several advantages in molding his men into Nedich's home guard. From their vantage point, they could supply him with valuable information about German troop movements. They could also carry on the civil war against the Partisans without fear of interdiction by the Germans. And, when the time came to rise against the Germans, they would be well equipped for the attack with German weapons and ammunition." P. 81, Partisans and guerrillas (World War II; v. 12), 1978, newer edition of 1980, by author Robert H Bailey.

Now this is a source made by historian who has studied the World War II conflict in Yugoslavia, and speaks of a regime run by a man named "Milan Nedich", it speaks of him having his own armed forces. I think this is a good start to show that such a state DID EXIST, but now efforts are needed to find more info and references are needed on what this puppet state was like and what it did. User:R-41 • contribs) 05:51:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

• • I am afraid that you User:R-41 and User:PANONIAN are not able to understand difference between puppet-regime and puppet-state. 'Regime' is not 'state'. That is a reason I've mentioned the international law earlier. A state must have three branches of power: legislative, judicial, and executive, be sovereign over a territory, the territory with borders. The Germans had occupied Serbia and their military and civil administration was installed in Belgrade and all Serbian towns and cities. The legislative branch of government did not exist at all. As to the executive branch - the German Gestapo and Sicherheitpolizei was present all over occupied territory and superimposed to the Nedic's police and gendarmerie. So, before entering any discussion - please pay attention to the very basic law and historic terms and find proper confirmation of your assertions in the valid and verifiable sources. The 'state' was no international subject even in her relations to Germany i.e. was not state of all.--Guivon 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And I am afraid that you cannot understand the fact that regime cannot exist without state and therefore the basic fact that regime existed also means that state existed as well. And no, Germans did not ”occupied Serbia” – they in fact occupied Yugoslavia and they were the one who created puppet state of Serbia and installed regime of this state (without state, this regime cannot exist). Regarding sovereignty and international law, the entire Axis Europe was created against this international law, but that is not reason that we do not write about these puppet states created in Europe. I completely agree with you that this state was not fully sovereign and was not internationally recognized but that does not mean that it was not a state – term “state” is much wider than “sovereign state” and what you described in your post is description of an “sovereign state”, but not description of a “state”, which is much wider term. PANONIAN 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I presentd some sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banat_(1941–1944) - they might be helpful for other users as well. PANONIAN 12:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Guivon, as it currently stands on wikipedia, a puppet state and a puppet regime are considered the same thing. Look up "puppet regime" on wikipedia, it redirects to "puppet state". On the "puppet state" page it says the following

"Such a government (a puppet state) is also known as a puppet régime. In this respect, "puppet state" is one of many terms that describe the subordination of one state to another in the international system."

I see no difference between a puppet state and a puppet regime, and neither do the people who wrote the "puppet state" article. You are also looking at the term "puppet state" in legal terms, most puppet states are illegal by international law, the allies never considered Axis-occupied Europe to be legal, and often used pre-war maps, while the Axis sides redrew the borders of Europe. Now I make it clear that puppet states are the design of their master country, they naturally have little or no true sovereignty, for instance, in Norway, the puppet state run by a man called Quisling, is rarely shown on maps because it was completely dominated by the German military and German military decisions, BUT it had its own official government and its own official flag. Some historians have used the name "Quisling" to describe a number of puppet states which had little recognition by their citizens, Nedic's state would be a prime example of a "Quisling" puppet state. There was a government, there was a military, there was territory which Nedic had official authority over, therefore there WAS a state, but it was not internationally recognized and was dominated by another nation, so it was a puppet state.

Guivon, you're going to have to prove why a "puppet regime" does not equal a puppet state. What is a puppet regime if it is a puppet of no official territory? What is the definition of a puppet state itself? Can Serbia be seen as solely a military administration even if it possessed a national leader (Nedic) and armed forces (Serbian State Guards, Serbian Volunteer Corps)? If it is not a puppet state or solely a military administration, was it a protectorate or some sort of colony (for me, if it was not a puppet state, then for sure it was a protectorate)? These are the questions that people should consider if they are attempting to prove that it was not a puppet state.--R-41 20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• To R-41. You are advised to learn the very basic notions of the international law and history before entering into this type of discussion. (I've sincerely apologize to you - if finding this advice a bit rude). Both the international law and the history have pretty clear definition of the puppet-state term. Also, a good comprehensive dictionary of the contemporary English should have the puppet-state notion defined. Start, for example with:
• International Law Reports" by Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, Cambridge University Press 1957 Page 69
  Croatia is defined by contemporary writers as a 'puppet-state' or 'puppet-government', terms which apperar to be of comparatively recent adoption in the field of international law.
• "International Law in Historical Perspective" by Jan Hendrik Willem Verzijl, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1974 Page 313
  CROATIA A very special case is that of the puppet State of Croatia, called intobeing with the help of Fascist Italy in April 1941--Guivon 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "Anti-Serbian" Propaganda

I see now a very unusual, poorly spelled section in the article itself claiming that this entire article is anti-Serbian. I have looked at some of the references and they DO NOT come from, they ARE NOT made by Croatian or Albanian nationalists as some Serbs on the discussion page fear, but english pages. Also, I cannot understand why some are claiming that information on a Nazi-led puppet state, I say again and emphasis "puppet state" would make them think that it is an "attack" on their nation. The French had Vichy France, are they all Vichy collaborators? No! Were all Croats, Ustashe? No, there were the communist partisans of Tito. Were all Germans, Nazis? No! This page should not be considered an "attack" on Serbia, if people are turning it into such then action should be taken. This is about a puppet state, puppet states often have little power of their own, they are usually occupied by foreign powers and have little legitimacy from the people. From the information I see, Nedic's Serbia was a compromise by Nazi Germany to reduce the virtual civil war erupting across the occupied land which the German army could not fully control. From the page about Milan Nedić, I believe it says that Serbs were given the option to be expelled from Croatia and shipped to Serbia proper (or most likely face death from the Ustashe). With the Serb population localized in Central Serbia, the threat of Serbs to the Ustashe regime could be neutralized, and through Nedic, the Nazis would allow a small concentrated Serb state to exist, if it pursued Nazi racial and political policy against Jews and communists. By no means was this a friendly relationship between Nedic and the Nazis, but neither was the Nazis originally sympathetic to Romania, having forced that state to give up land to Hungary and Bulgaria to avoid all out occupation and persecution. At the same time, Germany was known to have bad relations with Hungary. Whether people want to admit it or not, the Hitler and the Nazis hated ALL slavs, and were playing one group off of another in an attempt to destroy one group and then the other, just as the Nazis themselves betrayed Mussolini in 1943 by putting Italian populated territory into Germany, leaving Mussolini with a puppet state that lost territory to Germany was not supported by Italians. The Nazis made alliances, but the key long term goal was German world domination and the extermination of all other races but Germanic ones, so Italy, Japan, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania were all eventually going to be betrayed by the Nazis for Germany's expansion, they would then have to fight for themselves. User:R-41

The following is an excerpt from this article on August 11, 2007, under the section "Motivation behind article" which demonstrates poor grammer, bad taste, and discriminatory accusations which are unfounded under. Take a look...

"This article should be viewed in context of the latest vawe of antiserbian propaganda, aimed at discrediting nation and state, related to Kosovo status. This government in ocupied teritory of Serbia come to existance because people of Serbia rejected any deal with nacy Germany and decided to fight in a war they have lost. Author can be traced in American security services or Albanian-hired marketing agency. It should not be removed. It should serve as an example of above activity." By the unusual unnamed editor User: 203.222.131.197

The above is not up to the standards of wikipedia, and is attacking every contributor to the article as being tools of "Albanian propaganda". Plus the person talks about Kosovo, This article has NOTHING TO DO with Kosovo, and has NOTHING TO DO with the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. This editor accusing this page of being manipulated by an "Albanian-hired marketing agency" is paranoid, discriminatory, and INSANE!!! But you know what, I'm not going to remove it, because I want to see how many people make further edits without removing it, to see and eventually report the level of toleration for discrimination seen on this page. I refuse to make any further edits until that racist and utterly nonsense statement is removed. In the meantime, I'm going to find a way to report the manipulative and distorted information put down in this article by both sides (those who are for the article and those against this article). This is a pathetic and utterly disgraceful squabble and will only be solved when more serious and unbiased editors start to sort this page out from manipulators, whether they be Croat, Serb, Albanian or anybody else. User:R-41

Who are the bad editors you are talking about? Please, give us their names and their claims. Also, support your assertions by a list of respectable references.--71.252.81.30 03:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear user R-41, I apologize for my bad grammar. I presume your text in Serbian would not be much better. This is precisely why I wonder what made you write about Nedic’s Serbia in May 2007. I know for a fact that thousands of people on US government payroll rampage all over internet, assisting in public opinion formation. Unfortunately, this article has changed considerably since my last comment, so it is less obvious what I was talking about. Even Kragujevac massacre is mentioned. However similar massacre in Kraljevo is omitted. Although you profess neutrality, it is not up to you to decide if you are neutral or not. It is up to people who understand what you omitted, and what you emphasized. I will not make any comments regarding language you used to describe my editing. I also believe your derogatory comments should remain on this page to give people an opportunity to look for racism and other in mine. To summarize, if you are not intentionally under-informed, which I’m positive about, you should refrain from writing about a subject you have no understanding of. 203.222.131.197

Dear user 203.222.131.197

I apologize for getting too angry, but I still am to a degree. I happen to be interested in Balkan history, and you are in no position to tell me that I should not be interested in finding out information. You accuse me in turn of being racist, I am not the one who accused "Albanian marketing firms" of "intentionally" putting bias on the page, which I perceive as a racist attack on Albania as a whole. Now you put down information about propaganda from people given "American government payroll". The second of which, in my view may have some credit (i.e. with U.S. government coverups of their previous ties to Saddam Hussein's regime, etc), but still, you have little proof to back up your argument. I know that Serbs suffered enormously in the second world war and I know that many people of multiple nationalities suffered during the Yugoslav Wars. The one and only bias I admit to having is my mistrust of nationalist-sounding information on information related to the Former Yugoslavia, former Yugoslavs have no doubt been affected by the wars and national hatreds have erupted and linger in the opinions and beliefs of some from all sides. On wikipedia, nationalist-sounding information added has created viscious edit wars with some racist attacks. I'm concerned in that there are some nationalist individuals who are manipulating this site, there have been some on the Ustashe Croatia page who claim that the information is "anti-Croat" and I mistrust those editors as well. Why I got mad at you is because you posted your point of view directly into the article, instead of the discussion page. I saw what you posted was an unwarranted attack on all the contributors to this article. When I see your accusations of conspiracy by "marketing firms", those accusations make you sound like a crazy person. I will no longer debate you if you want to continue to accuse me other contributors of being "manipulated" by Albanian and American propaganda then bring it up with wikipedia staff. If you can find information to show what government or occupation authority was running Serbian territory, and produce it in a manner without insulting entire countries, like Albania, then I will have no further problems with you. User:R-41

In order to reduce the potential offensiveness of the article, and alleged anti-Serbian attitude, I have removed some unreferenced info that may be biased. I have made changes to point out that this regime was an imposed regime by the Nazi Germany and that it did not have popular support amongst Serbs who were largely in opposition to the occupation of Yugoslavia. User:R-41

What shall be fixed here

• Title - Nedic's Serbia

Valid and verifiable scholar sources uses just simple term - Serbia. See, for example

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York - london, 1990 entry Serbia

The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg Holmes & Meier 1985 entry Serbia

Karl-Heinz Schlarp, Wirtschaft and Besetzung, Serbien 1941-1944 (Wiesbaden and Stuttgart 1986)

Neither of given references does support the Nedic's Serbia title use. My suggestion - Serbia 1941 -45 - as per Karl-Heinz Schlarp above

• puppet-state is definitively wrong term here. No reference uses this term for Serbia 1941-45.

However, there was a puppet regime installed by Germans which, by no means, was a puppet state. There is the strict distinction, in the plain English language, between the regime and the puppet state. This regime lacked judicial and legislative branch of government and, as an executive branch, was completely subdued to the German civil and military administration. Also, this regime had not have foreign diplomacy nor it was internationally recognized as a state - even not by Germans.

Please tell me how one regime can exist without its state? PANONIAN 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • There are many examples. The territory of Kingdom of Yugoslavia occup by Germans and ruled from Belgrade was, by no means, state. Not proclaimed as a state, without legislative and judicial branch, nor recognized as a state by anyone. Yet on that territory operated regime of General Nedic. Before Mussolini seized power in Italy, Sicily was practically ruled by a Mafia regime. Still, Sicily in early 1920eth was not a state.
    • Is term "protectorate" acceptable for you? (no matter that I do not see difference between terms "puppet state" and "protectorate"). PANONIAN

• autonomous Banat. Banat was not autonomous.

When talking abou autonomy of a region - it must be clear: who granted that autonomy, what kind of autonomy it was, and what scope. German military and civil administration in Belgrade was strictly hierarhically organized. Also, it is pointless even to talk about autnomy of a conquered and occupied region. Occupation and autonomy contradicts and denies each other.

If you object to word "autonomus" what other word you proposing for usage to describe status of Banat? PANONIAN 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • No replacement for a meaningless term. Simply do not use it here.
    • We must use some term to describe status of Banat. What about "self-governed"? PANONIAN 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• map of the occupied Serbia is not from a valid scholar source.

It is just a misinterpretation of a map that depict inner organization of the occupier's administration of this region.

Again: if only word "autonomy" from this map is problem, please propose another word. PANONIAN 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Problem with this map is inaccuracy and lack of basic knowledge.
    • Borders on map are 100% correct. If you object to description, then please propose what exactly should be changed and how. PANONIAN 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• antisemitism of the Serbs - denied by both Jewish sources above. Germans shall be blamed of the extermination of Serbian Jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.49 (talk) 14:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

• • This article is not about making judgements about anti-Semitism of Serbs, and should not be making any judgements about that, this is about the existance of a small regime which was set up by Nazi Germany over the occupied territory of Yugoslavia in what is now Central Serbia and eastern Vojvodina to officially administer that region. If the title is bad, (as Nedic himself had little real power), I am renaming it now '"Serbia under Axis Occupation (1941-1944)". to reduce the high numbers of complaints. If you have a problem, then address it, but I see no controversy in my proposed title.
    • One correction: this article is not about regime, but about WW2 entity called Serbia, no matter if you call it protectorate or puppet state. I also do not agree with title "Serbia under Axis Occupation" which could refer to whole territory of present-day Serbia and would confuse readers. "Serbia (1941-1944)" would be acceptable, however. PANONIAN 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, If it cannot be legally defined as a puppet state, then it probably should be defined as one of two possible administrations set up by the Germans, one is what is called a Reichskommissariat, most commonly associated with the occupation authorities set up in the east, though such did exist in the Netherlands and Belgium but are often left unnoticed. Reichskommissariats had no independent military control and were run by German administrators. However, unlike theses Reichskomissariats, this regime did have a Serb leader, thus it could be seen as a de facto protectorate like that of Bohemia and Moravia (central part of today's Czech Republic), which did have, for a brief time, a Czech leader. More importantly, Montenegro was also a protectorate of Italy, which provides a good precadence for the possibility that Nazi Germany followed Italy in creating a protectorate in Serbia.--R-41 00:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ustasha

May I suggest to not use the word "Ustashe"? This spelling is not a correct form of plural neither in English nor in Croatian. In plural I suggest to use "Ustashas" or "Ustašas". What do you think? --Koppany 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning about the changes

First of all - the article title must be changed according to the Wikipedia rules. This one violates the rules.

Also, replacing 'puppet-state' by 'protectorate' is a frivolous business. Editing an article is not inventing classifications - rather finding valid and verifiable references supporting edits.

Also, all inaccuracies including the 'map' must be removed or fixed. In the occupied Serbia Nedic's regime was just by historians fourth ranked player - behind German administration, Mihailovic's chetniks and Tito's partizans. So, undue weight given to the Nedic's regime must be removed.--71.252.83.230 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed word "autonomy" from map as you proposed, so to what else you object in the case of this map? Also, if you do not agree with words 'puppet-state' or 'protectorate', please propose other description. PANONIAN 09:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of all the complaining here, first people are fed up with it being called a "puppet state" now people aren't willing to accept a compromise that it was a protectorate (a dependant territory, which is not defined as a state). Like PANONIAN said, if you have a problem with the definition of what kind of entity it was, then post an alternative solution. First of all, it had its own leader, it had armed forces, which makes it look very much like a puppet state, but as others have pointed out that there is no legal document available which defines the government's territories or whether it had any legitimate sovereign powers over any territory. Because it had its own military forces and leader, it was not solely a literal "military administration" and that means that it was not just a literal occupation zone. If you want to put a complaint up about the nature of this government, please post an alternative solution to the debate. I put protectorate there, because, even though I have no literal proof that it was, it is the middle ground between a puppet state and a military occupation administration. There is conflicting information existing, with some claiming that a puppet state existed, while others claim there was none at all, or others claiming that it was a German military administration, or people like me who believe that it is something in between, and the possibility of the territory and regime being a de facto protectorate is a real possibility.--R-41 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• To R-41 - please, calm down. If you claim something - your claim MUST be supported by valid and verifiable sources. What is your understanding of 'protectorate' or 'puppet-state' is your point of view and not a basis for discussion. Here I am not complaining about anything - I am requesting you to follow basic editorial policy here. All references I have seen about WWII times particular to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - are talking only about the German occupied territory ruled from Belgrade and not a single one claims it to be a 'protectorate' or 'puppet-state'
• To PANONIAN. Please, avoid further pushing your 'map'. Your 'map' is an original reasearch - and as it - it breaks a basic Wikipedia rule - No Original Research. My first step will be to ask Wikimedia to remove your 'map' for good.--4.249.0.58 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To the unnamed person criticizing me, then explain to me what is the administration of Milan Nedic? It DID exist, that has been confirmed, I have found a source which you can see in the references section. It DID have its own armed forces, there is a picture in the article showing those armed forces. It was NOT a simple occupation zone. But I suppose you are right that my decision to call this administration a "protectorate" is my point of view. PANONIAN has shown maps where Serbia is described as a military administration. If military administration means not soley a German-run territory, but that it was a joint operation of both the German military and collaborators like Milan Nedic. On that basis, that is sufficient for a change. But anymore stuff about the territory simply being an occupation zone has been proven incorrect by this source: Bailey, Ronald H. 1980 (original edition from 1978). Partisans and guerrillas (World War II; v. 12). Chicago, Illinois, USA: Time-Life Books. P. 81 which mentions the role of a collaborator, which they name "Milan Nedich" (no accent put on the c, but phonetically spelled). So there WAS an official leader, Milan Nedic, there WERE armed forces, the Serbian Volunteer Corps. How important of the role of Nedic and the armed forces is debatable, but expected to be low in importance, but the fact that they existed shows that there was a government existing. But fine, protectorate is my opinion, puppet state may be an overstatement of the area's role, but military administration is a term which has been used on a very well-detailed maps of World War II that PANONIAN has referenced, so military administration is fine as long as the article does not claim that it was solely a German-run administration which is false.--R-41 16:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

• To R-41 First of all, you shall know exact meaning of the 'protectorate'. Here is what the Encyclopædia Britannica says

in international relations, the relationship between two states one of which exercises some decisive control over the other. The degree of control may vary from a situation in which the protecting state guarantees and protects the safety of the other, such as the status afforded to the kingdom of Bhutan by India, to one that is a masked form of annexation, in the manner…

• The fact is - occupied territory was not a state - as I explained earlier.

• Second - I could get this book Partisans and Guerrillas by Ronald H. Bailey Time-Life Books 1998 ISBN 0783557191 and I suspect that you do not understand the text you are referring to. So, please, give us full quote of the page you are referring to. Avoid giving us directions how the quoted text shall be rendered.

• Reading your long explanation of the wrongs and the corrects - I was even more suspicious after getting information about the Serbian Volunteer Corps (Nedic's???)

• The Chetniks by Jozo Tomašević Stanford University Press 1975 ISBN 0804736154 Page 189

The Serbian Volunteer Detachments were renamed the Serbial Volunteer Corps and placed under direct command of General Bader, commanding general in Serbia. ... It received arms and ammunition from the Germans and the men were fed and clothed according to German army standards, but for the latter outlay the Germans were reimbursed by the Serbian government.

• Partisan Warfare 1941-45 by Nigel Thomas, Thomas P. Abbott Osprey Publishing 1983 ISBN 0850455138 Page 22

In September 1941 the Serbains Fascist Dimitrije Ljotic formed a Serbian Volunteer Command, after September 1942 re-designated Serbian Volunteer Corps.

• The History of Serbia by John K. Cox Greenwood Press, 2002 ISBN 0313312907 Page 84

Ljotic's small Serbian fascist movement, called Zbor, also has a small "party army", called the "Serbian Volunteer Corps";

--4.249.72.252 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Well here's the reference, with no "directions" as you want and its a large passage from the book to avoid any possible confusion about the subject at hand.

By the end of 1941, the revolt in Serbia had been crushed. To seal their victory and to prevent another uprising, the Germans (and their Bulgarian allies) went from village to village, shooting hostages and burning the homes of the peasants who had given refuge to the guerillas. The costly defeat had a profound effect on Mihailovich, It convinced him that the Chetniks should go underground and remain there until the Allies arrived to liberate Yugoslavia. Reflecting on his flight from the Germans, he declared, "When it was over and, with God's help, I was preserved to continue the struggle, I resolved that I would never again bring such misery on the country unless it could result in total liberation. When that day comes for us to rise, we will rise." But for all practical purposes his hopes for continuing the struggle at a future date were foreclosed by his misguided efforts to save lives after the rout.

Mihailovich disbanded his main force and led a skeleton staff of Chetniks into hiding in the Serbian wilderness. While several units continued their resistance independently, most of his guerillas returned to their villages and resumed their regular lives.

Others, with Mihailovich's approval, enlisted in the home militia of General Milan Nedich, the puppet Prime Minister whom the Germans had installed to help them restore order. Mihailovich was no admirer of Nedich, but he now perceived Tito and the Communists as the real enemy. Besides in his hopeful scenario for a further uprising, he saw several advantages in molding his men into Nedich's home guard. From their vantage point, they could supply him with valuable information about German troop movements. They could also carry on the civil war against the Partisans without fear of interdiction by the Germans. And, when the time came to rise against the Germans, they would be well equipped for the attack with German weapons and ammunition. P. 80-81, Partisans and guerrillas (World War II; v. 12), 1978, newer edition of 1980, by author Robert H Bailey.

By the way, one of your own references says that the Germans were "reimbursed" by a "Serbian government", so your reference shows that there was indeed a government. The only thing in question is what kind of entity it was. I apologize for using the term protectorate, that was my personal opinion which I should not have added onto the page. I'm going with PANONIAN's referenced map which shows a well detailed Axis-occupied Europe and defines the governments of each of the regional entities, this is the link [1]. It describes it as a military administration, which I have changed the government-type to in the side table and the article. From the information available it is obvious that the territory was dominated by the German occupiers, but it did have a small group of collaborators such as Nedic officially "leading" the government. Now can you tell more about who is this General Bader?--R-41 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note that the anonymous IPs above are sock puppets of the permantly-banned User:Velebit (and his many other accounts), so take his comments with a grain of salt.Spylab 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for telling me that Skylab. When I saw this I looked up this "User:Velebit" character and found out he's also is User:Guivon (a frequent editor to this page under that name) and a bunch of other names and has repeatedly abused his priviliges on Wikipedia. I could sense a similar rift in the manner of the text written by his multiple identities on wikipedia. Again, I thank you, I will no longer answer to this individual who is manipulating wikipedia and if anymore posts are put here by anons that have a similar tone to Velebits, I may contact you to see if you know whether they are more sockpuppets of Velebit.--R-41 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Information on the ban of Velebit and Velebit's sockpuppets on wikipedia and his interference with this page

The User:Velebit, a.k.a. User:Guivon, a.k.a. User:Purger, or suspected User:4.249.3.159, or User:4.249.3.28 are all the names of a particular user, who has broken many of the priviliges granted to the user and is particularly vehement on this article to changes which do not meet his personal opinion on this page that there was no government in the Serbian territory during World War II and claims it was just an occupation zone, even though referenced evidence has shown that there was a government that was in conjunction with German armed forces, leading a military administration in Serbia. Also, even when most of the disputes have been resolved as best as possible, Velebit under his multiple aliases has continued to keep warnings up about this page having "no references", which it has now, or that the entire article is completely disputed, and has used his various alter egos to create the impression that there is significant opposition to what is on this page.

This user has gone at present to going under anonymous number user names, to avoid being caught. Using multiple user names (or sockpuppets) is banned on wikipedia. Edits by users without user names should be carefully evaluated by others and the edit history of those unnamed users should be observed first, to see it it is Velebit. Again to sum up, Velebit is permanently banned for large numbers of violations of ethics on wikipedia and he and anon users with a similar uncooperative, unrelenting tone, and violations of wikipedia rules, should not be taken seriously with their discussion or their edits to wikipedia.--R-41 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One mistake, which Velebit has pointed out to me is that sock puppets are not banned. That is my mistake, but they are discouraged as said on wikipedia's page on sockpuppetry and abuse of using multiple accounts results in a user being blocked. As the information is in the public domain, I will show you reasons why Velebit is not allowed to edit, some may deem this as a personal attack, but I intend this to warn users about his nature, so people do not believe everything he says in this article. Under the name User:GiorgioOrsini, he has broken the three-revert rule, which means that if a user makes three reverts to a single page within 24 hours, this is deemed as insinuating an edit war. He responded by insulting the administrator [[2]]. Also, his aggressive uncivil tone is revealed as his other user name User:Purger in a discussion on his talk page, over the Ustashe in Croatia, User:Ante Perkovic showed concerns over his editing over references on the article Neo-Nazism. Perkovic said that he agreed with Purger that there were elements of neo-Nazism and Ustashe support in Croatia, but asked that he be more neutral as to not offend Croatia. Velebit under the name Purger responded to Perkovic in an uncivil and demeaning tone, saying the following:

"There are many of you whitewashing the reality and writing in a politically corect manner. I am just counteracting such a nonsense. That's why I am here. All other 'ex-communist, neo-communism, nice people' etc. buzz-words are out of my interest and view." Quote from Velebit under the name Purger as shown on his discussion page[3]

I point this out because he accuses everyone of being uncivil, while he is not himself, and he has a personal agenda of eliminating what he believes to be "whitewash" and appalls "politically-correct" manners. Wikipedia has to be neutral in order to not offend people as well as seek objective facts that is accepted by most, which Velebit does not consider. He is hypocritical, aggressive, mean, and until he changes the way of his editing and his manners, he is not worth taking seriously. Every wikipedian has said something wrong one time or another, but Velebit's have been repetitive. I apologize for how crude and mean the above may seem, but maintaining a completely civil tone with this individual has been hard-pressing as in the past I used to listen to his comments, but I gradually realized that he was not listening to any of mine, which has frustrated me and others and I want to show evidence on why he is banned, as he claims these are false accusations by me and others.--R-41 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivily, bias, and false claims

• Firstly, all accounts above are not listed on the pages of banned accounts nor I was ever one of the banned accounts user. Lying about others this way This user has gone at present to going under anonymous number user names, to avoid being caught. Using multiple user names (or sockpuppets) is banned on wikipedia is just a lack of civilty and good manners.
• Secondly, I gave three notable references about Serbia in the WWI times. For example, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust mentioned Nedic's regime only in TWO sentences. The same attention Nedic's regime deserved in the Destruction of the European Jews. The main acters in the WWI Serbia were Germans and the same entry in both books is almost about them. Much bigger players on the scene were Tito's partizans and Mihailovic's Chetniks. Apparent bias and undue weight is given to Nedic here.
• False claims:
  • During this time the region was sometimes also called Nedić's Serbia - no way, not a single serious reference ever claimed it
  • Banat was under the direct control of Germans, although it was formally part of the military administration[dubious – discuss] - Banat was directly ruled from Belgrade by German military and civil administration
  • Partisans and Chetniks in Serbia mostly engaged in civil war against each other, only occasionally attacking German forces and supplies[citation needed]. - falsificate again. There are many references about Tito's partizans activities in Serbia. Mihailovic was even decorated as an anti-fascist fighter by American President Truman.--4.249.9.5 01:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Velebit, I know you think that this article is an attack on Serbia, which is probably your home country. It's not supposed to be, most Serbs DID fight against the fascists, but there were a small group of collaborators who did work for the Germans as has been confirmed by sources. This page goes far from insulting Mihailovic as you insinuate, it says that he DID fight initially but he stopped the fighting because he feared that the German reprisal mass killings would destroy the Serb people as a whole. He saw Tito a danger to Serbs for two reasons, one, Tito at this point had the support of Stalin, a brutal dictator, oppressor, and athiest, whose political persecutions and genocide against certain ethnic groups made Stalin much like a communist Hitler. Tito at the time was much in envy of Stalin, and to Chetniks, they feared that a communist leader would oppress Serb culture, destroy religious monuments, and engaging in mass killings of political opponents (thus the Chetniks would be wiped out). And secondly and most importantly, Mihailovic saw Tito's continued fighting as reckless to Serbs, who were continually being murdered in reprisals by the Germans for Tito's resistance. Mihailovic wanted to rid Yugoslavia of Tito's Partisans and then leave him as the sole leader of the resistance. So, Mihailovic wanted to re-arm and rebuild the movement, if some of his Chetniks could kill off the Partisans by claiming false loyalty to the Germans, then they could destroy their arch rivals, get their hands on more advanced German weaponry and report to Mihailovic the actions of the German armed forces. This has been stated in the reference I showed you.
    • I'm sure Mihailovic was indeed an anti-Fascist fighter, and I make the point in the article that he was NOT allied with Nedic and the Germans, his forces USED them to get their hands on weaponry and supplies and to kill off Partisans, then he intended to turn on the Germans. He was waiting for a moment of German weakness, as the author points out in the book reference which you refuse to acknowledge.
    • If you are offended by the sourced evidence that there was a man named Nedic, appointed by the Germans to do whatever they said, then you do not understand that there are bad people in all countries. I also think that you follow an idealist and patriotic theory that every single Serb was inclined to fight against the Germans to save Yugoslavia, you assume that not a single Serb could possibly have been anti-Semitic and have some reason to join the Germans, and you think that it would be "impossible" that any sane Serb would back the Germans? Was Nedic a sane man and were his followers sane? Who knows, his collaboration was not sane for his people. Did Nedic personally gain from working with the Germans? Yes, a government position and security which opponents did not have the luxury of. Is is possible that some Serbs may have had anti-Semitic sentiment? Yes, as many countries had elements of anti-Semitism at that time. These people would be fascist recruits. These were sick people but the world has wicked people and there are traitors in every country. And I believe that Serbia and the world has every right to know that there were a group of shameful traitors who took on the name of Serbia and its people to pursue their own selfish ends while Serbs suffered, and people have the right to know that Nedic and the ZBOR party were traitors to their homeland and will be remembered as such.--R-41 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, I think I've found what the banned user Velebit has been complaining about. He claimed that there was a German officer named "Bohme" who ran the administration as its I had no idea who he was talking about but recently I've found a lot of information on him and other information. Bohme was the "Military Commander" of Serbia, which was a de facto military governor position.I'm unsure of who replaced Bohme, but know that a German SS officer named Harold Turner had a role. But it still does not dismiss that there was a role (admittingly not a significant role) for Nedic and the collaborationist fascist forces of the Zbor party. Nedic was the representative of the Serbian people within the administration. Lot's of new information has been added and I think the article now is in way better shape and it is reasonable and appropriate for me to conceed that the administration was an occupation authority with all the available evidence seen, but not an average kind which Velebit was pointing out, there were elements such as the existance of a Serbian leader, a Serbian fascist party, Zbor and its Serbian paramilitaries, and even the existance of the administration's own currency which make it different than that of ordinary occupation authorities and more similar in nature to that of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, but yes, Serbia was not a protectorate, but was defined as a military administration. I think this clears up a lot of the issues on this page, but I assume that some remain.--R-41 05:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This page needs an expert

Although there are some references now, this page needs a lot of work. If anyone knows an expert in the history of wartime Yugoslavia and particularly about Serbia during this time, please contact them to help increase the number of references on this page. It will be greatly appreciated.--R-41 03:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also if anyone knows already of any good sources on Yugoslavia during World War II that can help improve this article, please list them.--R-41 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Milan Nedic.jpg

Image:Milan Nedic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Serbia under occupation ????

It is very interesting to read how Serbia has been during WW II under occupation but Slovakia, Vichy France and Croatia are in that time puppet states ?? Please stop writing this POV wishfull thinking. If you do not want to accept truth you can read little what Serbian Helsinki watch is thinking about this problem (read page 5) [4] . Table puppet state is returned !! ---Rjecina 16:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why occupied territory is not state

International law defines the state - according to the Montevideo Convention (1933):

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The articles 1 and 3 clearly rule out that an occupied territory might be the state:

• no integrity and independence
• no capacity to enter into relations with other states
• cannot legislate upon its interests
• cannot define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts

The territory of Serbia was under military administration of Nazi Germany in 1941-44. So,

• her legislative branch was non-existent (= cannot legislate upon her interests),
• her judiciary branch defunct (=cannot define the jurisdiction and competence of her courts),
• her executive branch reduced to police and gendarmerie service.

All above is alredy supported by the exsting text in this article: The Military Commanders of the administration Franz Böhme, was given emergency powers to govern the territory since July 1941 and served as a defacto governor of the region even before the administration was solidified in August. Böhme was relieved of the position later in 1941. Staatsrat (privy councillor) Harold Turner and SS Untersturmfuhrer Fritz Stracke handled most of the affairs of the administration while Nedić served as a nominal local leader and as a symbol of legitimization of the German presence there. Moreover, the economic affairs were under the German military appointee, every single town and city in Sebia had the Sicherheitspolizei outposts, identity cards and travel documents strictly handled by the Germans. --Standshown (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If Helsinki Committe for Human right is saying that Serbia has been puppet state in period 1941 - 1944 then Serbia has been puppet state [5]. There is many other examples for that statement but we are now having this. If you want other I will give you example from Serbia goverment site which clearly state that Mitrovica has been part of Nedic Serbia [6] I will like to hear how is possible that town is part of state which do not exist ??

We can play how much we want but everybody agree that Serbia has been under control of Nedic puppet goverment

In the end we must not forget Wikipedia:No original research so my and your thinking, conclusions are not important. ---Rjecina 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, restrain from inserting this logical falacy again. Falsely referencing articles (neither of them ever mentioned 'puppet state') is unethical and against Wikipedia code of conduct.--Standshown (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention was the opinion of the International Conference of American State, and is in no way, shape or form an internationally binding law or definition. Even so, the state would fulfil Article 1. It had a) permanent population, b) defined territory, c) three governments, and d) collaborated with neighbouring Axis states (which is essentially the same international relationship all Axis states in Europe had). --Thewanderer (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention is a Wikipedia article. It is visible there that the EU and Switzerland adopted this convention. Moreover, the UN adopted the same convention strenghtening it by adding the requirement saying that a state, in order to be the state, must be internationally recognized. So, the Convention - is an international law.--Standshown (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SPA account Standshown is very clear example of Serbian revisionism about which it is so nice article of Helsinki watch. He is trying to delete all wikipedia articles which speaks that during 1941 - 44 in Serbia has been Nedić puppet regime [7] . For that he will use all possible or not reasons. It is funny how he is saying that Serbia has not been state because state must be internationally recognized. If this is true then Independent State of Croatia has not been state because it has not been internationally recognized and it has been under occupation (Italian forces in south and German in north). In the end if Montevideo Convention is a Wikipedia article or not it is not important. Montevideo Convention has not been in force during WW II so discussion about that is simple stupid. It is not possible to use today law or morale for events which has happened before. --Rjecina 16:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The ad hominem attacks are not very productive Rjecina. // laughing man 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia code of conduct violated

I already explained why an occupied territory cannot be a state. I see that opposite side choose personal attacks instead of sincere discussion, false reference, blind denial of the facts, and refusal to accept valid and reputable references I supplied in order to support my changes.--Standshown (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention, Serbia 1941-1944 and International Law

International law defines the state - according to the Montevideo Convention (1933):

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The articles 1 and 3 clearly rule out that an occupied territory might be the state:

• no integrity and independence
• no capacity to enter into relations with other states
• cannot legislate upon its interests
• cannot define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts

The territory of Serbia was under military administration of Nazi Germany in 1941-44. So,

• her legislative branch was non-existent (= cannot legislate upon her interests),
• her judiciary branch defunct (=cannot define the jurisdiction and competence of her courts),
• her executive branch reduced to police and gendarmerie service.

All above is already supported by the existing text in this article: The Military Commanders of the administration Franz Böhme, was given emergency powers to govern the territory since July 1941 and served as a defacto governor of the region even before the administration was solidified in August. Böhme was relieved of the position later in 1941. Staatsrat (privy councillor) Harold Turner and SS Untersturmfuhrer Fritz Stracke handled most of the affairs of the administration while Nedić served as a nominal local leader and as a symbol of legitimization of the German presence there. Moreover, the economic affairs were under the German military appointee, every single town and city in Sebia had the Sicherheitspolizei outposts, identity cards and travel documents strictly handled by the Germans.

Two more references proving that the Montevideo Convention is widely accepted by the international law:

• Constructing the Nation-State: International by Connie L. McNeely Contributor John W. Meyer Greenwood Press 1995 page 52

Traditional international law has commonly relied on the criteria laid down in the 1933 Montevideo Convention when referring to a state. ... These "classical" criteria rest upon the idea of effectiveness among territorial units and are indeed reflected in the early discussions of statehood in the United nations.

Security Council records also show that, along with the traditional criteria, reference has been made to a member of other matters in connection with the statehood of an applicant, to greather and lesser degree, including mode of the establishment of state, foreign occupation of its territory, relations with a former sovereign, the extent of the applicant sovereignity, the ratification of peace treaties with ex-enemy applicants, war-related disabilities, the legitimacy of the statehood obtained through aggression and conquest, defense arrangements with other powers, the de jure versus de facto status of applicant and its government, recognition of the applicant by United Nations members, and diplomatic relations with other states.

• State Failure, Sovereignty And Effectiveness by Gerard Kreijen, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004 page 110

A telling example of this attitude and the empirical approach underlying it id the questionnaire that applicants for the League of nations were required to complete. The questions were

1. Is the application for admission to the League of Nations in order?
2. Is your government recognized de jure or de facto and by which State?
3. Does your country possess a stable governments and settled frontiers? What are its size and populaton.
4. Is your country fully self-governing?
5. What has been the conduct of your country, including both acts and assurance, with regard to (1) your international obligations; (2) the prescriptions of the League as to armaments?

--Standshown (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a fully functioning state as per some "rules" is besides the point. You are currently blanking the Former Country infobox. The infobox in turn clearly says that it was a "Client state of Nazi Germany", which is totally in line with your claims. --Thewanderer (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is just your point of view which could be regarded only as an original research. You did not demonstrate any valid knowledge of the subject. Denial of an effective, widely accepted knowledge is simply against the Wikipedia code of conduct. To support your claims - you have to provide reliable sources as it was required by Wikipedia:SOURCE

Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

--Standshown (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• As a proof that historians make strict disticntion between the state and the occupied territory - see the maps of the occupied Europe in 1942:

The Holocaust Cronicle by David J. Hogan (editor-in-chief), Publications International Ltd, Lincolnwood Il 2003, page 359 or online [8]

The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg, 3 vols, Holmes & Meyer, New York 1985, Volume 2 page 573

--Standshown (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

currency

The line: "The National Bank of Serbia reintroduced the Serbian dinar in 1941." is still not referenced, the reference provided [9] states - "Until 1941, there were several issues of coins in different denominations, and with different metal substance, mostly forged in Vienna. Last issue of coins made by Kingdom of Yugoslavia was in 1938. This issue was completed in State Manufacturing Plant in Topcider." Can you please give a quote from the source that refers to this line? // laughing man 02:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, National bank of Kingdom of Yugoslavia is transformed into Serbian National Bank, which introduced Serbian Dinar as the only legal currency and disabled the circulation of other currencies on the territories of Serbia occupied by neighboring countries. If you had done a simple search of the page, you could have easily found this... --Thewanderer (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I did do a search for the page and what you gave the reference for (quote above) is not given in that text. // laughing man 06:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nedić Serbia has made this type of money: 50 para, 1 dinara, 2 dinara and 10 dinara. It has been ease to find that . --Rjecina 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate over Client State vs. Military Administration

The issue over whether Serbia was a puppet state or an occupied territory keeps going on and it is leaving this page very unstable and has become a battle of semantics. I've seen plenty of sources which say that Serbia was a "Military Administration" from 1941 to 1944. I've also seen plenty of sources which show that Milan Nedic led a collaborationist Serbian government which had its own currency. These two points are obvious. When posting a website that had the title "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" I made a mistake in putting down a website which was a Serbian forum page which could be biased, I apologize for that. But I took the website matches off of a google search, there are many other websites that mention the existance of "Militärverwaltung in Serbien". Serbia was not the only Military Administration established by Nazi Germany, there was one called "Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich" (Military Administration in Belgium and North France). Both had collaborationist governments running under the supervision of German military governors. If anything Serbia may have been an anomaly, in that under Milan Nedic it was indeed a client state but also that under German supervision and military control the Germans. I know believe that the only acceptable alternative to an endless debate with no clear cut answer is to accept both the facts that (1) over 5000 results on Google for "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" indicates that this very well could have been the official name in German for the territory from 1941-1944, at the same time evidence of a currency showing Serbian national symbols certainly points towards the territory being a client state. So a compromise solution would be to accept that it was both a military administration and a client state of Nazi Germany. Such anomalies also existed in Reichskommissariat Ostland where there were separate collaborationist military divisions set up for each nationality within the territory, and there were collaborationist governments established within Ostland under the endorsement of the German military such as the Estonian Self-Administration which was run by Estonians. I hope that constructive thought is made upon what I have said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But keep in mind that Serbia definately had more self-rule than this Estonian Self-Administration. It did not just have a president, but ministerial posts in internal affairs, architecture, traffic, post, work, finance, justice, agriculture, economy, education, and social care. It had its own state army, another army similar to the Waffen-SS which was loyal to Ljotic's ZBOR party, special police, etc. It had its own currency and postal system for the entirety of its existence. It restored its national symbols. Its leader Milan Nedic even met with Hitler in Berlin - this can hardly be claimed for the toy leaders of this Estonian and similar administrations.

Here I've detailed some of the evidence which points to a client state. Before we can have any compromise, could you explain what role the military administration had? --Thewanderer (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop inventing and posting "facts". You are obliged to support your claims by neutral, valid and verifiable references - which I did not see yet. Your edits, therefore, can be considered only as the bad faith ones. See WP:HONESTY.

--Standshown (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are heavy accusations. Unless you have some concrete examples, I can't take these wild claims seriously. So far, you have attempted to delete content from the article on the grounds of some made-up criteria. If you want to change the article (as you obviously dispute certain points), you should add references to the article which support your claims. I have already shown many points which show that Serbia existed as a sort of client state. --Thewanderer (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents. It is a part of basic knowledge that the state is not equal to the government - even at the level of plain contemporary English language. As to the "I've also seen plenty of sources which show that Milan Nedic led a collaborationist Serbian government which had its own currency. These two points are obvious." - user R-41 demonstrates further lack of knowledge of this subject - existence of a government and a currency on an occupied territory does not promote that territory into a state. User Thewanderer is at the same level of knowledge as R-41 - no credible knowledge of this subject - rather his own idea what it shall be the state (He says - Here I've detailed some of the evidence which points to a client state.)--Smerdyakoff (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The name

This name has even less google search results than the Military Administration. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag and Coat of Arms

Thewanderer, I thought we have discussed this before? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The only source we have right now says that the state used the Serbian tricolour. If you have a source which says there was an emblem on the flag, you should bring it forth. --Thewanderer (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will search for it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts

To completey understand why Serbia in the years 1941-1944 was not a puppet state - see:

• War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration by Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press 2001
  The Germans System of Occupation in Serbia - pages 64-82
  The Puppet Government of Serbia - pages 175-232

--Standshown (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Tomasevich (a Serbian-American professor of economics originally from Croatia) would be considered an expert on the subject is beyond me. Also, it's not anyone else's responsibility to go searching your references. If there are relevant citations, bring them forth and add them to the article. --Thewanderer (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Except arguing and denying whatever you do not like - you did not show any knowledge relevant to this topic. Taking high post and demonstrating blatant ignorance of the subject - is just lack of good manners. So - your first responsibility - if wanting to be included in a rational dicsussion - is to tone down and learn some good manners.

--Standshown (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing we should understand that there were two levels of puppet-states in WWII. A reason for this that, aside from establishing a Greater Germany (or a Greater Italy) which, in truth, was only a mild territorial expansion, there were no conquests. Privileged nationalities that did not favor the state in which they are in, or other reasons, mostly result in puppet states like Slovakia, which (before the Hungarian involving, when it truly became nothing), maintained everything just like any other Axis satellite state - Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria for that matter. Such an example is the Vichy state, from 1940 to 1941 (in 1941 Nazi Germany forcefully took much control of it, so until 1944 it fell under the "other category").

The other category are - all else. The General Command created in central Poland, which was later (practically) annexed into Germany itself, presented the furthermost point of that. Another example are the puppet-states created along the Baltic sea, or those in Ukraine and Belarus, or even Manchuria (Japan). Ergo Serbia would fall much more into the latter category, much like the Principality of Pindus. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would accept this discussion as the valid one only if the participants adhere to the basic rule saying that the encyclopedia is about knowledge - not about personal point of views. The 'two levels of puppet-states in WWII' idea comes from where? What are your (PaxEquilibrium)references explicitly supporting this statement??? If we have plenty of sources talking about the occupied territories (where Serbia is regularly counted in) in Europe during WWII and we know that international law does not recognize an occupied territory as a state then what we arguing about?--Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Map

I have added a map showing the administrative areas (Okruzi and Srezovi). The source for this is a UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) map from 1944. I cannot post the MOD map itself for copyright reasons, but it is the main source of data for my map. I also used this map of

Bulgaria to better define the Serb-Bulgarian border. XrysD (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Milan nedic.jpg

The image File:Milan nedic.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Area

We do have the approximate population of that entity, but the area of the 'Nedić Serbia' is missing. Does anyone have sources for that, or do we need to rely on calculations of the districts (that should be available, after all)? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbia was a military administration of Nazi Germany, were is the evidence that it had its own flag, coat of arms, etc?

This article has deteriorated. Plenty of information provided shows that the Serbian puppet regime was a component of the entity known as the Military Administration of Serbia, a region run by a German Military Commander. The Military Commander had supreme control of the armed forces in Serbia and the puppet regime was answerable to the Military Commander. Were is the evidence that the specific flag shown was the flag of the territory at the time? Were is the evidence that the specific coat of arms shown was the coat of arms at the time? For now I am putting dubious templates beside them until evidence can be shown that they in fact were used.--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this quote, in Stevan K. Pawlowitch, Hitler's new disorder : the Second World War in Yugoslavia : "[Nedic] made much of the fact that he was allowed to use Serbia's old flag and coat of arms, and even King Peter's portrait (...) His government had no status under international law, and no power beyond that delegated by the Germans. The Nedic government was authorised to set up a Serbian State Guard to keep internal order. Planned initially to number 17 000, it absorbed the old gendarmerie, and gradually rose to 24 000" (page 58). Here is another quote stating explicitely that the Nedic government was merely formal (i.e. the official government of Serbia) whilst it was in reality subordinated to the German military administration. So Serbia, from 1941 to 1944, had a puppet government and a military administration, just like the Reichskommissariat Norwegen coexisted with the Quisling government in Norway. I don't see where the contradiction lies. The fact that the Nedic government was a ridiculous puppet government with very little autonomy does not contradict the fact that it was Serbia's official government at the time, with its own armed forces (Quisling, on the contrary, had no armed forces). The Serbian State guard was nominally independent, although in late 1943 it was put under the operational control of the SS (see link). We can compare this case with the Military Administration in Belgium and North France : while Belgium never had a "real" government from 1940 to 1944, Vichy France was France's government for the whole period, including officially in North France, although it obviously had far less control than in the South zone. One solution would be to make different articles for the Nedic regime and the Military administration per se, although the current solution may work if the article is well organized. The "old flag of Serbia" would be the Principality of Serbia's flag, which explains the similarities. The coat of arms is another matter, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are online sources (since deleted from the article, but somewhere back in the history) which state that the COA was the one used by the Kingdom of Serbia, with the crown removed. This matches up with the COA graphic seen on Serbian dinar notes from this period.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what would the current "coat of arms" be ? Some military emblem ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For my part I'm not sure. I've heard it called the "Serbian Cross", and I've noticed that the old Byzantine flag carried it. One thing though, how do you guys stand on the title of the article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the generic title is acceptable if the article continues to deal with the whole Serbian situation, including both the Nedic government and the Military Administration. Several articles on other wikis have titles like "Government of National salvation of Serbia", but the current titles might be ok if it keeps adressing both entities.

As for the intro, I'd like to stress again that it should not go like "Serbia from 1941 to 1944 was known as the Military Administration in Serbia", for this is incorrect. Serbia was known as Serbia, with a nominally independent government which went by the name "Government of national salvation" (of all things) and a Military Administration, which was not confused with the Serbian state itself, although it was de facto in control of it. I'd say we should keep the current infobox, as it was the official Serbian government. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is sliding to present Serbia as a puppet state, it was a German-run military administration

The infobox seems to be very misleading and contradictory to the content of the article. The Nedic regime was put into power by the German-run authorities there who retained power over the territory. Serbia was known as the Military Administration of Serbia. Another military admistration in World War II was the Military Administration of Belgium and North France. The Nedic regime was alike to the Quisling regime of Reichskommissariat Norwegen, it was directly subordinate to German administrators in the territory. The infobox should be redesigned to be like that of Military Administration of Belgium and North France.--R-41 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been adressed above, and I thought that it had been resolved. The issue is different than Belgium's or Norway's. For example, although Belgium did not have a government, France (including Northern France) had one, known as the French State, so France was not "known" as the Military administration of France, it was known as France. The same thing goes for Norway, in which the Reichskommissariat Norwegen and the Quisling regime were two different things (even though the Reichskommissariat was actually in control). The Nedic regime actually had more latitude for action than the Quisling regime, and did command armed forces. Serbia was not known as the "Military administration of Serbia". It was known as Serbia, with a German Military administration and a Serbian puppet government. So unless we do two different articles about these, I suggest that we keep the previous version. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In short: JJG is completely wrong, as usual... R-41, you are absolutely right. JJG cites Norway? I can't believe it, where is the Norway (1942-1945) article? Instead we have everything but the identification of a fake illegal government with an actual Norwegian state.

• "Military Administration in Serbia (e.g. Reichskommissariat Norwegen) would be a very an acceptable alternative title (frequently used in actual sources) for an article that could cover both the Militärverwaltung and the Government of National Salvation, if that's what you are suggesting JJG.
• Or maybe a merged Nedić regime" (e.g. Quisling regime) article (also with a very frequently used title) that would cover both the Militärverwaltung and the Government of National Salvation.
• Or even an "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany" article (e.g. Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany), covering both the Militärverwaltung and the Government of National Salvation, if you really can't decide which of the two is more important (I'll give you a hint: its the guys with the panzers ;).

In short, anything is better than the depiction of Serbia as an actual WWII "country". I cannot comprehend that someone thought that an illegal fake government within (and subordinate to) a Nazi Militärverwaltung somehow creates another actual "country". Finally: NO, this political entity is NOT primarily referred to as "Serbia" in sources (which is the title of this article), rather it is called "Nedić's Serbia", the "Nedić regime", or "Military Administration in Serbia". Anything but "Serbia" alone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a joke

I have a big question, why is there a mention of jasenovac here if it was not in Serbia? Why there says "30% of the serbs were killed there? 30% of the serbs in Serbia killed in jasenovac??? Why says 500.000??? That's false!!!!. The jasenovac memorial list has some like 70.000 victims, incluiding croats, and jews (although some of the poeple listed there were still alive), but this number has no link with the completly false of 500.000!!! Why wikipedia accepts false content??? These are just some questions I have and I will wait for a reply. Thanks. --190.172.217.98 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Move in order

article title at the time: Serbia (1941–1944)

This is a terrible title, both WP:COMMONNAME-wise & WP:NPOV-wise.

• WP:NPOV. This political entity was not an actual state, but a military administration (Militärverwaltung) that had set up a local government. The fact that a puppet government was formed within and by the Militärverwaltung does not mean this is not just another "standard-issue" German military administration. I submit the Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany article as an example of how a virtually identical situation was covered. Now in infoboxes throughout Wikipedia we have this "Serbia" listed as an Axis country in World War II, right alongside fascist Croatia (NDH) and Albania. Not even remotely accurate or neutral.
• WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, no sources I've ever encountered refer to this state as "Serbia" alone (which is the title of this article). It is either "Serbian Military Administration" or "Nedić's Serbia" (sometimes "Government of National Salvation") - never "Serbia" alone.

The article should be moved to "Serbian Military Administration" post haste, which would cover both the Militärverwaltung and the Government of National Salvation. Another option is "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany". The only reason this weird title is on is because someone thought that an illegal fake government within (and subordinate to) a Nazi Militärverwaltung somehow creates another actual country. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through with a good faith move, per actual sources usage. Simply put, this political entity is almost never referred to as simply "Serbia" alone, but is called "Nedić's Serbia" or the "Nedić regime". And since the latter name is more frequent in sources I've gone with it. It was also practically per the recommendation of User:Jean-Jacques Georges who has himself on numerous times here pointed to WWII Norway as a virtually identical situation to WWII Serbia, and lauded the manner in which this has been covered in the Norway articles. Well there we have the Quisling regime article covering the counterpart of the Government of National Salvation, certainly not the "Norway (1940-1945)" article. Indeed you will find there anything but an identification of a fake illegal occupation government with an actual Norwegian state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

During WW2, occupied Serbia had 2 governments: 1. Commissary government of Milan Aćimović (formed in April 30, 1941) and Government of national salvation of Milan Nedić (formed in August 29, 1941). Therefore, current title "Nedić regime" does not cover whole period of German occupation of Serbia (notably the period until August 29, 1941). If we want to cover this whole historical period we must have an article about Serbia as an Axis country (of course, we can also have two separate articles about two Serbian governments from that time). Serbia was an Axis protectorate and claim that an government could exist without country that it govern is totally ridiculous. And if you ask me, the best title for country article would be Military Administration of Serbia, not Serbian Military Administration (since the second one deny the existence of an entity named Serbia: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif ). 212.69.26.174 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is simply not truth that this territory is "never referred to as simply Serbia" in sources. Here are just a few sources that would prove otherwise:

• http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif
• http://www.svetskirat.net/slike/razbijanje/zazbijanje_jugoslavije_1941.jpg
• http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/yug71020.gif
• http://www.srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Yugoslavia/YU-Nazi-division.jpg
• http://www.cartoko.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Yugoslavia_1992_p038_CtryStudy.jpg

212.69.26.174 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The forums are irrelevant. The brief 3 month period of the existence of Aćimović's government is also irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What forums? And by which criteria you claim that government of Milan Aćimović is "irrelevant"? That government existed and therefore it deserve to be mentioned in encyclopedia. Political entity with name Serbia also existed during WW2 (no matter of the form of its exact status) and Wikipedia readers should be informed about that as well. You clearly posses a strong personal POV regarding this issue and only you know what you want to achieve with your POV. By the way, you can keep this article about this government in the current form but then new articles should be written about Serbia as WW2 political entity and about its first government. 212.69.26.174 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)