Jump to content

Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Monarchy?

In response to Peter Falk, I believe you are referring to Montenegro, which certainly WAS constituted a monarchy (albeit one with a vacant throne.), largely at the behest of Queen Elena of Italy, who was the daughter of the deposed King Nikola I. But both Prince Nikola of Montenegro and Grand Duke Roman of Russia turned the offer down.

Regarding 'whether the germans would allow such a thing', at least initially, it makes sense. It would have taken time for the Yugoslav gov.-in-exile to be formed. Nedic wanted to present as legitimate government/state as he could, and yes, I was fully aware of Petar's membership of the RAF and his heading of the gov.-in-exile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not suggesting you were unaware of any of that. I listed those facts to demonstrate why Peter II was very much different from all the other monarchs and

leaders you listed as similar examples. This guy was effectively one of the minor Allied leaders, and I imagine the Germans are very likely to oppose his institution as de jure King of one of their Axis puppets. Furtermore, I am still waiting for you to present a published secondary source that actually says this state was a monarchy, let alone that Peter II was "king". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, but i.How does the facsimile of the document in the book mentioned above not count as that? and ii. how is that any different to the situation Rhodesia found itself in 1965-1970? or the Empire of Mexico recognising Ferdinand VII as Emperor of Mexico despite being at war with Spanish forces, which of course proclaimed loyalty to Ferdinand. Granted, the nature of the conflict was on a much greater scale, but I don't see how it's any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.138.27 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I could check the sources, but it seems that Nedic, at least in the beginning, pretended to be still governing in the name of the King, or at least kept the King's portrait in his office or something to that effect. However, given the fact that the King wouldn't hear about him or his government, I don't think the Nedic regime can seriously be counted as a "monarchy". If anything, it was a provisional government waiting for a proper status, which it never attained, much like the Greek collaborationist government, or the Quisling government in Norway. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But EXACTLY the same could be said of Rhodesia 1965-1970. and how did the greek and norwiegan governments not have 'proper status'?

Mass killings of Croats and Muslims?

Now, this sentence would need some clarification: "These forces were involved, either directly or indirectly, in the mass killings of not only Croats, Muslims and Jews but also Serbs who sided with any anti-German resistance or were suspects of being a member of such." Nedić's Serbia did not had significant Croat population, so I think that reference to mass killings of Croats might not be correct. This sentence is referenced with this source, which is available online, so either somebody should say which page in that book claims that military forces of Nedić's Serbia were involved in mass killings of Croats (and of Muslims too) either this sentence should be changed. I searched this source with keywords "Croats, Muslims and Jews" and I did not found such sentence in this source. What I know from other sources is that these forces were involved in killings of 3 ethnic groups: Jews, Serbs and Roma. Croats and Muslims would not belong into this sentence. PANONIAN 19:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See page 198. --Kebeta (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Page 198 says this: "...the role of Ljotić, Nedić, and Chetnik formations in the genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Muslims and Croats." - this is exactly what I spoke about: it were Chetnik formations that were involved in genocide of Muslims and Croats, while Ljotić-Nedić forces were involved in genocide of Jews and Gypsies. This is what other sources are confirming and this source claims nothing else as well. PANONIAN
Also, "Two other Serbian ultranationalist groups, one led by Milan Nedić and the other by Dimitrije Ljotić, collaborated openly with the Germans and were responsible for the deaths of many Croats and Muslims as well as large numbers of anti-fascist Serbs." - Udovicki, Jasminka; Ridgeway, James (1997). Burn This House: The Making and Unmaking of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822319977. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we check that info online? However, even if that source would claim this, it would be obvious mistake since it contradict to data from all other sources which are claiming that Chetnik forces were involved in killings of Muslims and Croats. Let just use logic here: how Nedić-Ljotić forces could perform mass killings of Croats when there was no any significant Croat population in Serbia and when these forces did not crossed borders and operated in NDH? PANONIAN 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This claim is somehow controversial and at least strange. We are talking here about the German-created puppet state in Serbia who´s allies were Axis, and enemies the Partisans and the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland (aka Mihailović Chetniks), so why would they be killing Croats and Muslims? Croats were considered allies by the Germans, and Nedić Governament did everything the Germans wanted. The only Croats and Muslims that were possibly persecuted by Nedić regime were those fighting against the Axis, but again, we have Serbs in even larger number in both, Partisans and Chetniks. So basically, I can´t see how did this regime targeted specifically Croats or Muslims? It would rather be that this regime targeted all Axis enemies, whatever ethnic group they were. Thois claim sounds like a tipical 1990s exageration and manipulation. And PRODUCER says, "Two other Serbian ultranationalist groups... did this and that." Well, if they were "Serbian ultranationalists" they weren´t certainly associated with Nedić regime, that diminished Serbia to the maximum and that fought the real Serbian and Yugoslav royal nationalists who were against Nedić. I must say this, but this really sounds that some users want to use any sentences disfavourable to Serbs and use it to all groups, completely ignoring the differences between them, it is just important that are Serb. (I bet we have this included in Chetniks article, so they tought it would be nice to have it here as well, and if tomorow they find an article about another Serbian group, they will add it to them as well). FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can I use that in NDH article...NDH Governament did everything the Germans wanted...NDH didn't kill Serbs, it would rather be that this regime targeted all Axis enemies, whatever ethnic group they were... Is this OK? :-) Kebeta (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You are being ironic. I already answered this to you, it is worth mentioning the killing of Serbs in NDH becaiuse it was substatial and Serbs were a large minority in Croatia and other territory under NDH control. On the other hand, there was not any substantial Croatian minority in Nedić Serbia, so they could only do that if they did some "killing Croats" expeditions" far from home, which is not recorded. Now, it would be good if you stop making constant comparations, and stop making this issue a ping-pong match! FkpCascais (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry if I offended you, but both NDH (and Nedić's Serbia) were under German occupation, the only differnce is that Croatia had 'Independent' in it's name (which it wasn't), and was larger one. So don't be offended, we are only talking, and a little of irony can't hurt anybody. Now, there were Croats in Nedić's Serbia (of course, not even close to the number of Serbs in NDH), and if a sources claim that there was killing of Croats in Nedić's Serbia, we can't ignore that. --Kebeta (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Main point is this: Nedić-Ljotić forces could not be involved in any mass killings of Croats because of simple fact that Croats did not lived Nedić's Serbia. Here is an ethnic map of pre-war Yugoslavia which clearly show that Croats did not lived in Nedić's Serbia: http://www.srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Ethnic-groups/map-Nazi-1940.jpg As for Muslims, who lived in Sandžak, they were largely pro-Axis and many of them were members of pro-Axis militia, so there is no reason that an pro-Axis regime would be involved in killings of pro-Axis population. It is well known that Chetnik formations were involved in killings of Muslims in Sandžak, Muslims in Bosnia and Croats in NDH, so somebody obviously do not understand the difference between various Serb forces from that time and areas where they operated. PANONIAN 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, book of James Ridgeway and Jasminka Udovički is available online: http://www.questia.com/library/book/burn-this-house-the-making-and-unmaking-of-yugoslavia-by-james-ridgeway-jasminka-udovicki.jsp# So, PRODUCER, can you be so kind and tell us on which page of that book is sentence that you quoted? PANONIAN 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
133. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 19:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That page is not available in this free preview, but nevertheless, that sentence is an obvious mistake. This book have two authors, so I do not know who of them wrote which part of book, but sentence strangely does not mention killings of Jews and Roma. I believe that authors actually wanted to say this: "and were responsible for the deaths of many Jews and Roma as well as large numbers of anti-fascist Serbs". Somehow, "Croats and Muslims" appeared there instead "Jews and Roma". Due to the fact that this sentence contradicts to common sense, there should be further clarification of this claim, i.e. we should see some source with explanation how exactly and where exactly Ljotić-Nedić forces were involved in killings of Croats and Muslims and how these Croats appeared in Nedić's Serbia. This is certainly something that contradict to mainstream historiography. PANONIAN 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"I believe that authors actually wanted to say this" What they actually said. > What you believe they wanted to say.
And yes it is online: [1]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The source is quoted in accordance with WP:V. Perfectly acceptable, nothing to discuss.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There is much to discuss because source contradicts to other sources. Other sources (for example this one, this one or this one) are clearly stating that Jews and Roma were main victims, while source presented by PRODUCER does not mention these ethnic groups at all. Instead of it, that source mention Croats who even did not lived in Serbia and therefore claim that Nedić-Ljotić forces were involved in mass killings of Croats is an historical impossibility, no matter what that source say. There are some mistakes in every book, so there is no way that this could be anything else but mistake. PANONIAN 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are some other sources that claiming that Chetniks killed these Croats and Muslims (not Ljotić-Nedić forces): [2], [3], [4], [5]. And here are sources that claiming that Nedić-Ljotić forces killed Serbs, Jews and Roma (Croats and Muslims are not mentioned): [6], [7], [8]. And also see what this source say: "The 1941-45 Nedić's Serbia has no genocide record. On the contrary, even the Croats who took refuge there were not discriminated against". Or perhaps this one: "The fascist government formed by the Nazis in Serbia under Milan Nedic lacked the commitment to genocide displayed by the rulers of neighbouring Croatia. However, Serbians too, aided the Nazis in the deportation and murder of Jews and Roma and in reprisals against Tito's Partisans". So, what should we do with these sources? They are also in accordance with WP:V and both things just cannot be truth: either Croats were subject of killings either were not even discriminated. If some people insist that source that mention killings of Croats is used then we would have also to mention source that say that Croats were not even discriminated. PANONIAN 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If you have found some sources which doesn't mention Croats and Muslims as victims of Nedić's Serbia, that doesn't mean that offence against them didn't happened. Maybe the author didn't see them important compered to offence against Jews in that content. You should find sources which explicitly state that offence against them didn't happened. It's like I find source about football ball which doesn't say that ball is circular and used in sport....and disregard several other sources which state that ball is rotund and used in sport. --Kebeta (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I just presented a source that "explicitly state that offence against Croats didn't happened". Please read my post again. PANONIAN 23:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Which one, maybe one which state that Nedić's Serbia has no genocide record...:-) --Kebeta (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly that one - it is verifiable source, right? If you insist that your source is used then we have to use this one too. PANONIAN 10:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You want to use a source that says there was no genocide in Nedic's Serbia? i.e. in contradiction to your own claim that there were mass killings of Jews and Roma. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it is in contradiction to claim that "Nedić-Ljotić forces were involved in killings of Croats". I do not see how factual accuracy of claim that "these forces killed Croats" and that "Nedić's Serbia has no genocide record" could be different. I proposed here that we should not use sources that are contradicting to mainstream historiography, but if you want to use one such source, then I do not see why we should not use two? You cannot use controversial sources only when they supporting your POV and reject them when they contradict to your POV. PANONIAN 11:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"The 1941-45 Nedić's Serbia has no genocide record. On the contrary, even the Croats who took refuge there were not discriminated against." You're using a source that contradicts not only my claim but also your claim that there were mass killings of Jews and Roma.
My source, which says that the forces of Nedic and Ljotic "were responsible for the deaths of many Croats and Muslims", does not contradict that they also participated in mass killings of Jews, Roma, and antifascist Serbs. Stop trying to portray them as either having killed only Jews and Roma or as having killed only Croats and Muslims. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Your source contradict to fact that Croats did not lived in Serbia. Both these sources are contradict to something. PANONIAN 20:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
How about this: "The Slav Muslims suffered war loses....15000 in Serbia" See Yugoslavia: a concise history, page 79 --Kebeta (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That page is also not available in free preview. But I do not see that this sentence claim that Nedić-Ljotić forces killed them. Again: read some other sources and you will see that Chetniks done that. PANONIAN 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it refers to Nedić's Serbia. For other Slav Muslims victims in BIH for example, the number is much higher. This number (15,000) refers to Serbia only. --Kebeta (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not disputed to which territory it refers. Are you aware of the fact how many Chetniks of Draža Mihajlović was in Nedić's Serbia? I am simply saying that this source is not evidence that Nedić-Ljotić forces killed these Muslims. PANONIAN 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are all missing an important point, and that is that those people were not killed because of their ethnicity (and there is the difference with NDH Kebeta) but they were killed because they were anti-fascist. That meaning must be included. FkpCascais (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And this sounds even harder to beleave. I personally know jewish people that spent the entire war period in Belgrade. Discretly yes, but in Belgrade. They even receved other Jewish refugees from Zagreb and kept them in Belgrade troughout the war. All of them later stayed in Belgrade forever. But regardless, if the soyurce says that, well I can´t do anything without another source (not personal experience). However, I don´t see the page for that? FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The page 161 was included in the reference, but I copy-pasted from Judenfrei article other refs., just in case that if the first ref. was hard to believe...:-) Kebeta (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It is curious to say it, but probably because of that proclamation being donne so early, many Jews did survived in Belgrade, since that proclamation gave the impression that the "job" was donne and there was nothing more to search regarding Jews. Listen, part of my family are Jewish and they spent the entire war in Belgrade where they lived before, during and after the war. The case I mentioned were their friends. I feel sorry my grand-mother isn´t alive any more, but she has in Belgrade plenty of books regarding Serbian-Jewish relations and how many Jews survived actually in Serbia during WWII. I´ll try to see if my cousing can help me on this, but they have more things to do... FkpCascais (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
FkpCascais, I actually belive you, but on wiki the Secondary sources have the real power, so your grand-mother wouldn't help you much either. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, don´t take me wrong, but I have some doubts about you actually beliving me, but anyway, I didn´t meant on my grand-mother story on that way, but rather that in her house there is quite a large library and she used to spent most of the time in her late life reading, and she had many books (Secondary sources) on the Serbian-Jewish relation subject. That is what I meant, but sometimes I fail to make myself clear as I want. :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You have my answer on your talk page! --Kebeta (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Look PANONIAN, if the sources say "they killed Croats and Muslims" that does NOT contradict with "they killed Jews and Roma". The two are not exclusive. A contradicting source would be "they did not kill Croats and Muslims". There is no question that the source is verifiable and properly quoted. PRODUCER, you may freely include the statement since its removal is effectively - vandalism. When things are quoted in this manner they are not discussed (unless there really are contradicting sources). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It contradicts to fact that Croats did not lived in Serbia. Are you seriously trying to claim that they did? PANONIAN 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Some Croats did live in Serbia, and some Croats still do live in Serbia. The same source confirms it. Perhaps not in "significant" numbers, but they do not have to be in "significant" numbers to be massacred. Now do you get the point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER's revert

Well, PRODUCER, I would like very much to "check the source given", but I do not have that book in my home. Perhaps you would be so kind to provide some online location of that book so that we see what is written there? For all I know, you changed a sentence that was already referenced with that book without evidence what this book really say. So, please provide such evidence. PANONIAN 10:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FFS it's the second hit that Google brings up. [9] Also, why are you modifying sourced information when you have not checked the source as you did here: [10] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Because of the simple fact that I checked many other sources which saying that Croats did not lived in Sandžak: http://www.srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Ethnic-groups/map-Nazi-1940.jpg Books that foreigners wrote about former Yugoslavia usually containing many errors, due to the fact that authors are not very familiar with ethnography, geography or history of this region. Mention of Croats in that source is example of an obvious error, which unfortunately can now serve to some people who want to spread propaganda that "Serbs always and everywhere persecuted Croats" (even in those areas where Croats did not lived at all). I do not deny that this source mention Croats, but I repeat: it is obvious error. If someone check all other sources that speaking about ethnic composition of Sandžak he will see that this is only source that say that Croats lived there. PANONIAN 11:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you will cease this sort of behaviour or, I promise you, you will get yourself blocked. We do not remove sourced information om Wikipedia based on forums and user personal opinions about published authors.
PRODUCER, when you have a source, you have a source. Do not waste time in silly "debates", simply bring-up the disruptive editor's actiosn on WP:AN/I. What PANONIAN thinks about sources is not anyone's concern. Negative peer reviews are the only relevant criticism. Furthermore, ridiculous maps from even more comical websites such as "srpska-mreža.com" do not even deserve mention on Wikipedia. Even if they were not completely absurd, from an equally insignificant website, still a map would not serve to prove that "Croats did not live in Sandžak" or anything of the sort. In fact, I may go as far as to say that a user who lists "srpska-mreža.com" as a "source" :P in any capacity does nothing but embarrass himself no end. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please find some child to play these rhetorical games with you. I do not found that any word from your above post is worthy enough to be answered. PANONIAN 20:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Direktor, I know you have certain personal grudges against Panonian, but I don't see the need to inject yourself in this good faith debate, certainly not with this tone. The map provided by Panonian is obviously an Austrian-produced ethnic map of Yugoslavia; while srpska-mreza.com certainly does not fall into WP:RS, there is no particular reason to suspect the authenticity of the map (and we don't plan to use it in the article anyway). We're certainly allowed to evaluate and question sources, if what they state seem implausible. We know for fairly certain is that Croats have never lived in Central Serbia in any substantial number, so their mentioning in this context by a seemingly reliable source looks odd. Sources are written by people, and people are prone to errors. We're not banned from using our intelligence and critical viewpoint in evaluating sources. Not that anyone tries to portrait Ljotic and Nedic troops as good guys. No such user (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
NSU, are you serious? The map can be made by god, it does not show population stats. We do not use maps as sources for ethnic composition, for many many obvious reasons. I'll list just one: ethnic maps are made by depicting the majority population of a given area, usually following the subdivision structure (općinas). If, just for example, 500 Croats (red) lived in a subdivision among 200,000 Serbs (blue), the territory of that subdivision would naturally be depicted blue. That does not somehow mean the Nedić regime could not kill 500 Croats in Sandžak (this is just one example of why we do not use maps as references on population stats).
P.S. Since I'm sure the retort will focus on my last sentence above, I want to make it clear: my actual point is that maps are not sources. Find actual contradicting references. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but do you have source that say that "500 Croats lived in Sandžak". You do not have it of course. How could you have it anyway? PANONIAN 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
When you express actual point like that, instead of ad hominem, we can discuss. I will readily agree that maps are not sources. However, it is difficult to find a source which states that Chetniks or Ljotić's paramilitaries pa did not kill the Croats in Sandžak. On the other hand, to find a better source which states that number of Croats in Central Serbia, especially Sandžak in 1940s was negligible should not be much of a problem. I hope that you'll agree that likelihood of their existence in substantial count was rather low... No such user (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
According to a logical principle universally accepted in science (and of course Wikipedia), "argument from ignorance", nothing which does not have proof positive, requires proof negative to be disproved (i.e. one does not need a source to prove that Mongols did not kill Aztecs), however when something has evidence in its favour (e.g. a source that says Mongols did kill Aztecs), then you do require proof negative to disprove it or even bring it into question. If you cannot find that proof, then perhaps it does not exist.
Furthermore, I question this whole line of reasoning. If a hundred Croats all in all liven in Nedić's Serbia (and there were considerably more), how does this impact in any way the statement that "the Nedić regime killed Croats"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that case, you have to provide source that confirm that "hundred Croats" (or what ever that number might be) actually lived in Serbia. PANONIAN 20:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Admirably contrived wordplay. :) No dice. But even were I to play your game, if it is a sourced fact that "Croats of the Sandžak region" were killed ("Pavle Đurišić simultaneously held a command for Nedić in 1943 tried to exterminate the Muslims, Croats, and pro-Partisans of the Sandžak region."), then it is also a sourced fact that there were, in fact, "Croats of the Sandžak region". You're free to "disagree", just be sure any removal of the sourced information in question will be brought-up on WP:ANI.

To keep this short, PANONIAN: don't remove sourced information without either a) negative peer reviews, or b) contradicting sources. That is to say, don't invent fake contradicting sources, and don't waste people's time with your own thoughts/feelings or opinions on whether published sources are, "in your view", correct or not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Games are all yours, DIREKTOR. As for "removal of sourced material", just be sure that you do not remove sourced statement that say that Nedić's Serbia did not had a significant Croat population. And I will provide one very soon. PANONIAN 21:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I will repeat something I said in the discussion earlier. From what I understood, the Croats and Muslims were killed along with other anti-fascist Serbs so the Veselinka source strangely wanted to emphasize nationalities, when in fact, those people were killed because they were anti-fascists (by that anti-Nedić) and were killed because of that, not because of their ethnicity. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"[...] responsible for the deaths of many Croats and Muslims as well as large numbers of anti-fascist Serbs." The label "anti-fascist" is only applied to Serbs by the author not to all three groups. Your conclusion is wrong. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We should probably put that in the article! :) "<ref>From what User:PANONIAN understood</ref>". I mean, I would not mind you expressing your thoughts and feelings, considering my current training, but in a professional environment (not on Wikipedia - WP:NOTFORUM), not to mention that it will cost some money if you want an opinion. (I kid, of course ;)
IT DOES NOT MATTER whether Nedić's Serbia had a "significant" Croat population (whatever that means), probably not, the point is that even if there were 20 of them down in Sandžak its ok to say "Croats of Sabnžak were killed". Their exact numbers, and whether you or some source thinks those numbers were "significant", are both completely and utterly meaningless with regard to this discussion. I am still waiting for you to grasp what you are trying to prove. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We are dealing with a Balcans related subject well known for its complexity and sensitivity. By that, and by having in consideration all the sources used in related articles and with my general knolledge on the issue I am recomending to be carefull not to missleadingly spead free ethnic hateriot. That, when included in the article, needs to be contextualised. I really don´t understand your point of insistence on ethnic killings on eachother when the case here seems much more related with the ideology rather than ethnicity. We need to use common sence here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: It´s like saying Al-Qaida were killing Arabs because there were 30 Arab people death on the 7/11 attacks. And in this Nedic case, we don´t even have any attacks documented! FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And PRODUCER, I´m warning you not to move again other users comments as you did with mine here: [11]. FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"20" was an exaggeration for effect. I suppose I should have known there would actually be a "retort" to that. I was making a point that it is irrelevant whether Croat numbers were "significant" enough.
Further, Đurišić was a Chetnik - a Mihailović Chetnik (forget about Pećanac here) - that under the Chetnik collaboration agreements in Serbia was granted to the Nedić government. FkpCascais is essntially right that the NDH was a nominal ally of the Nedić regime, and that the Nedić regime could not actually conduct pogroms of Croats. The answer to this riddle is simple: it was just another in a long line of Croat and Muslim massacres committed by Chetniks collaborating with the enemy. I agree with Fkp that the Nedić government is likely not behind this after all. This is simply another Chetnik crime we have sourced. I'll try to dig-up more from Tomasevich, he's got a chapter in The Chetniks dealing specifically with mihailović's agreements in Serbia with the Nedić regime. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I can´t find the Veslinka source... Do we know who the lady is? FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, what happend, where are you all? There was so much enthusiasm these days on this and now you all left me here talking alone... :( FkpCascais (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see, it was Jasminka Udovicki and not Veselinka, I must have been drunk or something... FkpCascais (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one additional comment - that source mention that Croats were killed in Serbia, so use it if you wish, but: 1. until some other source that confirm this is provided, sentence "according to single source" is needed, and 2. there is no valid reason for PRODUCER's removal of info from another source that say that Croats in Serbia were not discriminated. You cannot use just source that support your POV and reject one that does not support it. PANONIAN 05:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fair. I mean, come on producer, it really doesn´t sound real that any intentionel killings of Croats occured in there woth that much attention. I wouldn´t mind at all to have that included, and the animosity between the two was evident in that period, but if we were talking about Bosnia or Crotia, OK, but in Nedic dominated Serbia, I honestly doubt. Also, does anyone knows who the lady Jasminka is. Is she some history expert? She is the only one saying something like that. FkpCascais (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
She is a professor at Psychology department at Massachussets College of Art. [12]. That does not matter, though, because she was the editor, not the author of the book in question [13]. The author of that paper is Stipe Sikavica, and the paper itself is about JNA collapse in 1992.
Producer, I'm with Panonian and Fkp here: you're uncritically taking a passing mention in a paper whose focus is something else, as the ultimate truth. Just because something can be sourced, it does not mean it must find a place in the article: sources are subjects to critical evaluation and consensus. The Croats in this sentence look just out of place. Don't know if it was author's carelessness, or he had in mind Đurišić's crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, or had in mind Jews and Roma: that statement just does not seem logical.
Also, Panonian, we shouldn't editorialize like this: [14]. Simply, I would like to see that statement either corroborated by other sources, or removed altogether. We have plenty of evidence that Nedić and Ljotić forces killed Roma, Jews and antifascists, but this piece of evidence for crimes against Muslims, and especially Croats is just too flimsy. No such user (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
NSU, its up to you to show that the source is faulty, not vice versa. The source makes perfect sense. Sandžak was administered by Austria-Hungary for 30 years (1878-1908), and still does have a majority of Bosniaks (i.e. Muslims by nationality), according to the 2003 census. The Ustaše considered it a part of Greater Croatia. It is not at all "inconceivable" that Chetnik troops granted to Nedić committed massacres of Bosniaks and the few Croats that lived there.
Again: please present something other than your opinion to the effect that the source is invalid. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Direktor, it does not work that way. I am questioning a statement based on a passing mention in a source whose main topic is something else. I am also politely asking for a corroborating source, because that statement goes again common sense. You're bureaucratizing the procedure, and I hate being bureaucratized. No such user (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN, that Milan Deroc source denies the occurrence of any genocide in Nedic's Serbia. It goes against the claim that there were mass killings of Jews and Roma. Do you realize this? -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 11:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
@NSU. Look we don't get to proclaim a statement from a published source "irrelevant" on the basis of whim. You cannot simply label a legitimate statement into a "passing mention" based on your subjective impression. I am fairly certain that Chetniks did indeed massacre Bosniaks (and apparently a few Croats) in the Sandžak. The statement does by no means go against common sense.
In a sentence: you do not get to label statements as "passing mentions" from sources and declare them "invalid" unless your own personal demands are met. Call it what you will.
That said, this dispute can be solved easily. PRODUCER, does the author list primary sources for the statement (or paragraph)? Because, NSU, that is the proper means to challenge a statement you consider dubious - check its backing. This is why we have WP:V in the first place. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
One sentence, without any further details, in a paper devoted to breakup of Yugoslav People's Army in 1992, qualifies as a "passing mention" in my book. No such user (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It can be two words in a book talking about killer whales - as long as the publication is scholarly and the statement is verifiable. If the primary sources check out then there is nothing to talk about, if they do not, then the claim was not verifiable in the first place. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don´t understand you direktor, you agree that the source wan´t be usefull here, but you would "love" to use it on Chetniks article? I´m sorry, but I agree with NSU on this, the source is vague. FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the source won't be useful here. Đurišić was evidently under formal Nedić command so the statement is related to the scope of this article. The statement is also not very vague at all, it just does not give a lot of details - but the statement itself is clear and unambiguous. Further, if its based on primary sources, it makes no difference. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it appears it does not. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well there you go then, its unverifiable. Case closed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

the offical name of this state

- With the greatest of respect to user:DIREKTOR; I think his comments, edits, etc. are entirely POV. I see no categorical reason why this state (which it was, regardless of how) was not officially called 'Serbia' and I see no evidenced reason to call it either 'Nedic's Serbia' or 'the Government of National Salvation-the latter of which is obviously not the official name of the state; or for that matter, any good reason why itwas not, at least formally, a monarchy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened with the emphasis on the German military administration being reduced? Also the title ignores that Serbia was led by another leader also in the stated time period

The name of this article is bad, since it describes a government that was also led by another leader, Milan Aćimović. Also, Serbia as a whole was under a German military administration known as the Military Administration of Serbia, led by a German governor who was in command of armed forces in Serbia. I suggest that the name of this be restored to "Serbia (1941-1944)".--R-41 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Enough said. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Military Administration in Serbia / Militärverwaltung in Serbien

Well, i have one proposition. We have where one name, but as far as i can see, there are not enough users who agree to this. I also dont like it. And i have one proposition.

As no official state was established during Nazi rule in Serbia, we dont have official name of the state that we can use. But, only official entity that did existed during the war was Militärverwaltung in Serbien or Military Administration in Serbia. In article Military Administration (Nazi Germany) you may see the names of the other countries that shared the same fate.

Name Article
Militärverwaltung in Serbien Nedić's Serbia
Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France
Militärverwaltung in Frankreich German military administration in occupied France during World War II
Militärverwaltung in Polen German military administration in occupied Poland
Militärverwaltung in Rumänien Military Administration in Romania (No link, i created it.)
Militärverwaltung in Griechenland Axis occupation of Greece during World War II

Now, we have sources for several names, but i propose that we rename this article into something like German military administration in Serbia during World War II, or Military Administration in Serbia, etc, as per this, we will have article that will cover entire WWII history of this article, and will be neutral. Nedić's Serbia is questionable per several questions.

  1. . Nedić's government was not the only one government of WWII territory of Serbia
  2. . Word Serbia does mean territory, not state. This WWII entity is located in the present state of Serbia, so it cannot be wrong, as we dont make thing up.
  3. . COMMONNAME cannot be the main guideline in this case. In several questionable situations, common name is override in order to follow some more important guidelines, and to make peace. We need article about Serbia during WWII, not about Nedić's Serbia.

So, now, i first need your propositions, your attitudes, and after all, we will see what will happen. Thanks to all, my dear friends! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A logical way to cover this would be to have a "Military Administration in Serbia" article, with two specific sections about it's civil governments: "Nedić government" and "Aćimović government". Ideally, we would have the "Nedić government" and "Aćimović government" main articles that the two sections woul link to. But of course, we are faced with powerful imaginations that consider an unnamed state to have existed under a German military occupation authority, and equate an idea of "defending Serbia's honor" with "proving" that their country was a Nazi puppet state.
WhiteWriter, I recommend you see how WWII Norway is covered on Wiki, an occupied Allied kingdom under a German military administration, with a civil government installed - an identical case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree with any renaming of this article that will not reflect that this article speak about Serbia. No matter how you define what Serbia was in this time (state, occupied territory, what ever), it is not disputed that an territory with name Serbia existed from 1941 to 1944 and that entity was not only geographical, but also political one. German military administration and local Serbian governments were only forms of administration that governed this territory, but existence of these administrations have nothing with the fact that an political entity with name Serbia existed. Therefore,this article should speak about that political entity, while German military administration in Serbia or local Serbian governments are subjects that should be described either in subsections of this article either in separate articles. So, if you want to have article about German military government in Serbia, you should create new article that would speak about that. Please do not rename this article without consensus. PANONIAN 04:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And to be clear: all titles of this article that would imply that it speaks about Serbia itself are acceptable. Titles that would imply that this article is not about Serbia, but about something "in Serbia", "of Serbia", etc are completely POV and completely unacceptable. I disagree with such annihilation of subject about which this article speaks. PANONIAN 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And to repeat: "German Military government in Serbia" and "Government of national salvation" ARE NOT POLITICAL ENTITIES. I cannot believe that you people do not understand the difference between political entities and forms of governments or administrations that govern political entities. Difference between such things is a basic fact. PANONIAN 04:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Now here I will give you concrete examples which will prove how your logic is wrong: this article also speaks about subjects such are theatre, film, sports,etc. So, did The Serbian National Theatre in Belgrade that is mentioned in this article existed in Serbia or it maybe existed "in administration" or "in government"? Or did city of Belgrade itself existed "in administration" or "in government"? How one theatre or city could exist "in administration" or "in government" at all? It is a question of basic logic. PANONIAN 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  Nazi Germany
  Allied-held areas

Panonian, I am terribly sorry you can't inderstand this, and when I finally have the time, I will do my best to resolve these misconceptions of yours. Quite simply, there was no state or political entity in Serbia during WWII. Serbia was occupied by various axis states, and this territory was under direct German occupation, with two successive civil governments installed by the occupation authorities. I am sorry, since that seems to trouble you, and I don't know what they taught in school, but it was not a nazi puppet country.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your POV and original research. Map that you showed is exact proof that there was an political entity named Serbia. If there was no such entity then maps would not show it. This entity had its borders and had military and civil administrations that governed over it - that is enough for definition of a political entity. Just answer this: how something that does not exist can have borders? You have no answer, of course. Please stop wasting valuable time of other users. PANONIAN 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. More or less everything 'DIREKTOR' has posted is POV and original research and thus has no place on wikipedia, however noble his sentiments may be. To wit: DIREKTOR, we get it, the nazis anmd the ustashe were bad. don't let it cloud hsitorical reality.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, and what do you think about Occupation of Serbia during World War II? P.S. PANONIAN, i really think that there was not official state proclaimed during WWII in Serbia. Only military administration. WWII Norway is really identical situation. And in order to satisfy both view, Occupation of Serbia during World War II may be good? Please tell me your attitudes, thanks, boys! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 14:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not claiming that Serbia was "official state". It was an Axis political entity with its own borders and Wikipedia should have an article about that entity (whether it was state, occupied territory, occupied area or whatever is completely irrelevant here). All other things (occupation, military administration, Serbian governments) are only issues that happened within that entity and it would be ridiculous that we have articles about any of those if we do not have one about entity itself. Military administration cannot govern an non-existing territory. If there was an administration then there was also an territory that was under this administration and you would be in war with basic logic if you say anything opposite. PANONIAN 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR in particular seems to just be determined to avoid using the word 'Serbia' in the title of this article for whatever personal reasons, despite the amount of primary evidence both PANONIAN and I have given him.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Unlike most Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-supporters, who proclaim a Nazi Serbia existed alongside Nazi Croatia, I am a special case: I want to make sure "Serbia" is not on the list of Nazi puppets (notice that "Norway" is not there, but is listed as "controversial" in spite of its absolutely identical situation).
Dealing with Serbian nationalism is becoming a part-time job on enWiki. If I were to support the word "Serbia" nationalists would oppose me saying I'm trying to equate Serbs with fascist Croats ("Serbs were always anti-fascist!"). Since I support the removal of the word "Serbia", I am trying to "strike Serbia's name from the annals of history!" or whatever. Ridiculous.
I'll say this again: PANONIAN's sources are worthless with regard to supporting his claim in any way. PANONIAN's googling "Serbia World War II" is useless because it includes 1) geographic usage of the term (like "Macedonia" "Bosnia", etc.), and 2) colloquial unofficial usage of the term. There was no state there. No country. He has to show the opposite, and he has not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-but that's POV, which has no place on wikipedia. Your POV is clear here: "Unlike most Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-supporters, who proclaim a Nazi Serbia existed alongside Nazi Croatia, I am a special case..." -what about stuff like coins, banknotes, edicts et cetera? As shown above, they all used the word 'serbia'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, User:JWULTRABLIZZARD. I am following what the sources on WWII say on the status of this occupied territory - not any "POV" of mine. Why would I personally care about WWII Serbia?
Coins? :) Coins do not a country make. Quisling's money undoubtedly had "Norway" on it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes...and if the territory was not called 'Serbia', what would be the point in putting 'Serbia' on the currency?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nedić's goal was to have a Serbian state, after the war or perhaps sooner (assuming of course that the Germans would win). The point is that he did not - the Germans did not allow it (for a number of reasons) and kept the territory as the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. All in all: who cares about the coins.. We do not determine the status of a government or territory on the basis of coins and assumptions such as the above. That is called WP:OR. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"point is that he did not - the Germans did not allow it (for a number of reasons) and kept the territory as the Militärverwaltung in Serbien" -what evidence do you have for this assertion?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-Correct me if I'm wrong; but didn't Quisling get the storting to declare Haakon VII deposed and changed the state's name from 'Norges Rike' to merely 'Norge'?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are more than abundant that the Militärverwaltung in Serbien was the governing authority of this occupation zone for the entirety of the war (or I should say 1941-44). That said, you must understand that I am not the one in need of evidence here - the positive assertion is PANONIAN's ("Nedić had a country!"). Of course the nonsense assertion is indeed based on an argument from ignorance ("prove that he did not!") that demands proof for a negative. At this stage comes the false quoting of sources that do not really support the assertion, etc.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-yes, but nonetheless every territory, occupied or not, has a name. for example, the riechskommisarriats in the eastern occupied territories were both called 'Ostland' and 'Ukraine'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The name of this occupied territory was "Military Administration in Serbia". The point I'm making is that Nedić did not have a state therein. That the area might've been called "Serbia" or that the term "Serbia" is used as a geographical term in sources - these are not what I'm talking about. This was a German-occupied territory (legally a part of Germany) that was administered by the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. The Militärverwaltung (which had a Wehrmacht officer as the commander) established two successive civil governments within - which did not consititute seperate states. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well; you are certainly mistaken on one point: being 'occupied' by another state's armed forces doesn't make a territory 'legally part of' the other state. to become 'legally part of' another state, said territory needs to be formally annexed. For example, the USA militarily occupied the us sector of germany after world war two; that doesn't mean the us sector became US territory. The same goes for Japan after World War Two. Now, it may well have been Nazi Germany's intention to later annex serbia, but no such annexation took place, like it did for example in austria. this was an occupied, not annexed territory.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems that DIREKTOR clearly admitted that he have personal political agenda that he want to push and due to that he should be banned from editing of this article. Now to deal with specific issue: WW2 Serbia was not "only geographical term" because of simple fact that it had defined administrative borders. No single area that is "only geographical" would not have defined administrative borders. It would be nice that DIREKTOR present one single source that claim that WW2 Serbia was "only geographical area". Of course, such source does not exist and it is clear that word "geographical" came from his head and from his head only with no any background in real World. Now, as I said before, the issue whether Serbia was a "real country" or not is completely unrelated to this problem. I myself would agree that Serbia was rather occupied territory than real country and that Germans left the full solution of the question of Serbian statehood for the future, but there is no single source that would say that area was only geographical and that name "Serbia" was not used for it. Status of WW2 Serbia was in fact similar with status of Iraq after American invasion in 2003: the country was under American military control with weak local government installed by the Americans. Would DIREKTOR also claim that Iraq was just geographical area in that time and that its name was not "Iraq"? Finally, if name of WW2 Serbia was not "Serbia" why German used name "Military administration in Serbia"? Why not "in Yugoslavia" or "in Balkans" or whatever? Facts are clear: Germans destroyed and occupied Yugoslavia and created an political entity named "Serbia", which was under their military administration, but where weak local Serbian government existed as well. So, yes, Germans did not allowed that Serbia immediately become "full country" because military control of that area was strategically important to them, but it is simply not truth that Germans did not allowed that name "Serbia" is used for it. Germans were the one who introduced name "Serbia" for that territory and claim that they did not allowed usage of that name is ridiculous. PANONIAN 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And two more questions for DIREKTOR: 1. is there any source that say that "Serbia was legally part of Germany" during the war?, and 2. if "Nedić did not had a state therein" why you presented in your map that he did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1941-43.png If it was some fictional government without therein why its domain have borders on your map? Geographical areas are not having such borders. PANONIAN 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Direktor's previous confusion about the meaning of the word "regime" seems to extend to "administration" also. The "Military Administration in Serbia" was not the "name of [an] occupied territory". That occupied territory was named or called "Serbia" (Serbien), as the term "Military Administration in Serbia" indicates. I myself would have no problem with two articles on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Nedić regime, with an overview article on Serbia during World War II. The current title is a compromise designed to reflect the reality of the current article's scope. Srnec (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR obviously does not understand the distinction between 'occupation' and 'annexation'. Two completely different concepts.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No pointing finger, please, JWULTRABLIZZARD! :) So what do you think about this?
We rename this article to Serbia during World War II. Serbia in the geographical sense, and in almost all other. And after that, we create new articles for both governments on that occupied Serbia? That may be god solution... What do you people say? Just tell me do you agree, or not? --WhiteWriter speaks 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Oh no; 'Whitewriter'; that wasn't meant in a personal sense towards 'DIREKTOR' at all, far from it, just stating what seemed to be the case.

Yes, 'Serbia during World War Two' would be acceptable, although I think ikt would be a good idea to hunt for official documents relating to this regime to see what offical name, if any, this entity had, and to include that name in the table at the top of the article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

as regards separate articles for the two governments: that to me seems uneccesary: whatever the political reality of this entity, it clearly was an organised political entity of some description, to whatever degree, and as such information about those governments should be included in here.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Let see, there are several other titles that are acceptable for me:

  • Serbia during World War II
  • Serbia (1941-1944)
  • Serbia under German occupation

However, it should be clearly specified that such article would speak about territory of political entity named Serbia that was created by Germans in 1941 and not about territory of modern Serbia in AVNOJ borders. We can also have separate articles about two governments and about German military administration, but these articles should be focused only at specific issues related to these governments such is list of ministers, documents adopted by the governments etc. Anyway, WhiteWriter, I suggest that you do not rename this article unilaterally without general consensus and to start new revert war with DIREKTOR who will probably rename it again to Nedić regime after your own renaming attempt. PANONIAN 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, i will not do anything until DIREKTOR agrees. It seems that all three of us agreed on Serbia during World War II article name, as the first step. We will see what DIREKTOR said... --WhiteWriter speaks 09:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is best, as it is completely unambiguous.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Dont know, i am against it... It looks ugly, and it may mean that Serbia was official name. Like this it will mean only Serbia during World War II, and what happened to territory of Serbia during WWII... --WhiteWriter speaks 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

-I think it looks much neater, and using the term 'Serbia' does not imply that it was an official name. Also, to be fair, the regime only lasted from 1941 to 1944, and that's not the whole of World War Two. So, that's why I think 'Serbia (1941-1944)' would be the most correct title for this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I was misunderstood, this territory was obviously not "a part of Germany" as an annexed territory. What I meant was that it was admninistered by Nazi Germany. PANONIAN, most of your posts and activities here are really not much more than trolling. You are not discussing the issue properly but are merely repeting the same old fake arguments, "supported" by purposely misquoted references, and refuted a dozen times over. I reccomend you try to understand more about the very complex situation and history of WWII Yugoslavia before you try to write on the subject. Keep your personal attacks and theories about my "political agendas" to yourself, I will report them the second I read them.
Secondly, "Serbia" is (according to Wiki naming conventions) the title that we would use for a country called "Serbia". Hence the name is entirely unacceptable and is not much more than an affirmation of the strange idea that "Nedić had a country!".
And thirdly, this issue is really moot. The name change was discussed several times in proper RMs and this name was chosen by the admins on good grounds. Unless it is shown that the country of this country article did not exist (which I plan to do quite easily when I catch the time), there are no new changes to the state of affairs and there are no grounds whatsoever for an RM. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For those few who ween't aware, this has all been previously discussed at some length here quite recently.Fainites barleyscribs 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR, how on earth was what you said in anyway unambiguous? You stated quite clearly it was 'legally a part of Germany'; when it wasn't.

Also; your objections to using the word 'Serbia' in this article is frankly baffling; (and with all respect makes me even more convinced that you're just -for whatever reason-determined to prevent the title of this article having the word 'Serbia' in it.) even if it wasn't a country, and was merely an occupied territory like the eastern reichskomissariats, that doesn't mean it wasn't called 'Serbia'. For example, the Reichskomissariat Ukraine still had the word 'Ukraine' in its official name and there is no argument about whether that was a country. (and it wasn't, is was just a German occupied-territory.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway has two articles, Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and Quisling regime. This article covers Nedic's regime but does it cover the whole of Serbia in WWII? ie, what was Serbia before the Nazis sliced it up and parcelled it out. If not, perhaps there should be another article on Serbia in WWII and this one on Nedic's regime.Fainites barleyscribs 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

-Well, this is why I object to 'Serbia during World War Two'; because 1939-1941, this territory was part of the Kingdom of Yugolavia, 1944-1945 it was part of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which later became the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was only under this regime for part of the war.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the title should be reverted to the more neutral Serbia (1941–1944), as the article was titled previously. The Germans considered the territory to be "Serbia", as in the Military Administration in Serbia. Also, unlike "Nedic's Serbia", it can take into account that there was another leader, Acimovic, who led the puppet Serbian regime before Nedic. The emphasis on the military administration needs to be restored, it was effectively in charge of Serbia. The military administration governed the armed forces of Serbia, and allowed the region of Banat to be an autonomous territory to be run by local ethnic Germans. The Nedic regime was like that of Quisling or of collaborator governments in places like Flanders, they were not independent states, even though they often attempted to persuade Germany to recognize them as such.--R-41 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Norway covers this in three articles:

This is how I would cover this question: Occupation of Serbia in World War II would cover ALL of Serbia, including Banat (Hungarian-occupied), Kosovo (Italian/Albanian-occupied), Srem (NDH-occupied), etc. as well as the central area under German occupation. A sub-article Military Administration in Serbia, would focus on the German authority, and the Nedić regime and Aćimović regime articles would focus on the two German-established civil authorities in the Militärverwaltung. The focus in the latter two would obviously be on the Nedić regime article, with the possibility that the early, and far less significant, Aćimović regime be included as a section in the Nedić regime article.

This imho is the only elegant and accurate solution to this complex problem. The current situation 1) handles the Nedić government, a civil authority in the Militärverwaltung, as a WWII country(!); 2) ignores areas of Serbia occupied by others than Nazi Germany; and 3) ignores the Aćimović government. Renaming the article "Serbia" is, as I said, extremely inaccurate and misleading, and only aggravates "problem #1". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Occupation of Serbia in World War II would cover ALL of Serbia, including Banat (Hungarian-occupied), Kosovo (Italian/Albanian-occupied), Srem (NDH-occupied), etc. as well as the central area under German occupation."
Yeess, but that's only because we're looking at it (well, you are) from a 2011 perspective. what constitutes 'Serbia' has been historically fluid: for example, before 1912, the Kingdom of Serbia consisted of only the northern aprt of what we now call 'Serbia', (and didn't include the Banat region either.) 'yet the Kingdom of Serbua' article still has 'Serbia' in it.Tsar Stephan Dushan's empire of Serbia covered most of the Southern Balkans, but it was still 'Serbia,'
Also this also depends on political perspective: the Serbian government of today would view Kosovo as part of Serbia, but supporters of Kosovan independence and the Kosavan government would not. This also extends to whether it was or was not. If Nedic considered his territory independent (but the germans did not)-as I think was the case with the Quisling regime- where do we draw the line? If that is the case,was it a state or not, even if only de jure? (I'm not going to take 'de facto' arguments here-if the state was considered legally a state in it's own eyes, then de jure, it was, at least to a degree.)
Regardless of all that, 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is quite clearly the best, most unambiguous choice. The term "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" was used in an official capacity, therefore use of 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is entirely correct, regardless of how much of the territory of modern serbia (which was not consitituted until 1944 anyway in its present borders.) was covered by it.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I was and am ware of all that, but the bottom line is there was no "Serbia" at all from 1918 to 1945 (just like there wasn't any "Croatia" or "Bosnia" or "Montenegro" etc.), so "Serbia (1941-1944)" is just plain nonsense. We're not in the business of inventing countries.
As a part of a series of articles on Serbian history it is perfectly acceptable to use the title "Occupation of Serbia in WWII". As far as Kosovo is concerned I would include it, but the issue is really quite secondary - its certainly not the only non-German occupied part of Serbia. We can probably just mention it in a sentence or two as a compromise, avoiding any in-depth study. (I hope you don't mind I WP:INDENT-ed your post :)) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-Of course not. :)

As far as Kosovo is concerned I would include it, but the issue is really quite secondary - its certainly not the only non-German occupied part of Serbia." -yes, but like I said, this only means 'Serbia' as we define it today.

Serbia in the middle ages did not include all of what we now define as 'serbia', and neither did the kingdom of serbia prior to 1918-do we not crate separate artciles for those examples? clearly not.

but the bottom line is there was no "Serbia" at all from 1918 to 1945 (just like there wasn't any "Croatia" or "Bosnia" or "Montenegro" etc.

-well, 1918-1941 there was no 'Croatia' (although there was a banate of Croatia created just prior to the german invasion) or 'Montenegro', but 1941-1944, in the eyes of the axis (of which some states recognised the independence of) there was, in the eyes of the allies, there was not. and it can be argued that, with some degree of international recognition, that makes you a state.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, let me answer some questions that were raised in some of the last posts. Regarding DIREKTOR's accusation that I "repeat the same old fake arguments, supported by purposely misquoted references", here are these references: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia" So, how exactly these refences could be "misquoted"? Are they saying that Serbia was puppet state or not? Who ever want to say that Serbia was something else should provide valid references that would support such claims. My references are here and are properly quoted. It is DIREKTOR's turn to provide anything else instead empty rhetorics. However, due to problems that were caused by new renaming proposals, and due to the fact that some examples of proposed new names are even worst solutions than the current title, I must agree with DIREKTOR in one question: that current article title was agreed after long discussion and supported by an administrator and that, therefore, we should not change title of this article without general consensus. Sources that mention Serbia as an puppet state cannot be ignored and I will not support any change that will annihilate "state nature" of this article and that will transform it into "government of", "occupation of" , "regime of" or what ever. Speaking about occupation issue, title "Occupation of Serbia during World War II" is also not acceptable, although some modified version like "Serbia under German occupation during World War II" would be at least acceptable, but it is much worse than current title. Popular term "Nedić's Serbia" that is used in literature usually cover all aspects of this puppet state, including first government led by Aćimović and German Military administration since "Nedić's Serbia" is general name used for puppet state itself and all other issues related to local governments or administrations were something that happened within this state. Therefore, I created two new articles about two serbian governments and these articles are only subarticles that are further describing some of the issues in Nedić's Serbia. Also, situation with Norway is not interpreted in proper way. Norway existed as a state before German occupation, so article "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" only describing period of German occupational administration in Norway, but we have main article about state of Norway as well. Contrary to this, puppet state of Serbia did not existed before German occupation - it was created by Germans and it ceased to exist after Germans were defeated in 1944. Also, the question of occupation of present-day territory of Serbia is something that belong to History of modern Serbia article. That is unrelated to the fact that we should have an article about historical puppet state of Serbia that existed from 1941 to 1944. PANONIAN 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORKs to prejudice the discussion

User:PANONIAN has just created a "Government of National Salvation (Serbia)" article, a WP:POVFORK created to prejudice any discussion on this page - and is openly threatening to create more [15]. This is quite exemplary of the unbelievably abrasive and non-cooperative behavior displayed by the user. As opposed to discussing and presenting his arguments, the user has simply decided to "solve" this for us with a superfluous non-consensus article completely within the scope of this article. PANONIAN's "reign" over this article and his serious WP:OWN issues need to be resolved one way or the other. If this discussion is to continue in any kind of productive way this disruptive WP:POVFORK-fork war needs to be nipped in the bud. Others might've just started simply creating seperate articles in accordance with their own POV. An AfD has been posted --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please stop disrupting my edits in Wikipedia. Renaming discussion on this page have nothing to do with new article that I created. Discussion was whether we should rename article Nedić's Serbia to some other appropriate title, but that does not change the fact that Nedić's Serbia article speaks about country (or territory if you prefer more). If we have articles about Serbia and Government of Serbia then I do not see why we cannot have articles about two governments of Nedić's Serbia (I in fact created both: Commissary Government and Government of National Salvation (Serbia)). By the way, here is evidence that Nedić's Serbia article was created by user:FrontLine in 2 May 2006 as an article about "nazi puppet state", not about "its government": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nedi%C4%87%27s_Serbia&oldid=51137486 Furthermore, content of new articles that I created is not copy-pasted from Nedić's Serbia, but it is completely new text that I translated from listed sources. I really do not see why these lists of ministers should be deleted as user:DIREKTOR proposed. PANONIAN 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The existence of your "country" is disputed, and it is contested that it was synonymous with the Nedić government. You simply created a non-consensus WP:POVFORK, separating the two, and effectively "creating" a country from a civil government with in a German WWII Military Administration. At a stroke you "solved" the issue for us all, without consensus, - knowing full well this position is opposed and disputed. The disruptive behavior of the one user, defending his "country POV", is the primary reason why the occupation of Serbia during WWII is not adequately covered on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The existence of an political entity named Serbia is not disputed (whether it was country or occupied territory is completely irrelevant). I see that you like rhetorical games, but can you play another game of providing sources that would support your rhetorics? I can play this game very well, so let examine what some sources would say about it: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia", etc, etc. This is just what could be found in quick 5 minutes long research. So, what you say? Do you have one single source that say that Serbia was not an puppet state? So, I am not defending "my country POV" but I am defending sources. Wikipedia cannot accept your unsourced rhetorics instead sourced facts, you know. PANONIAN 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-Your objection on such grounds is frankly baffling, 'DIREKTOR'. A 'government' and a 'territory' are two different concepts.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-in other words, this artcile should be about the territory (regardless of whether it was a 'country' on not -Reichskomissariat Ukraine has a separate article, for example, and that was not a country.) and not about the geovernment, which is, at the end of the day, merely a group of people who run said territory and not the territory itself.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it very clear that we need at least two articles: one for the German military government and another for the Serbian civil government. The name for the former is obvious (Military Administration in Serbia), the name for the latter is debatable. Nedić regime and Government of National Salvation (Serbia) do not quite cover the whole topic. Also debatable, I think, is whether we need another article on Serbia during World War II or German-occupied Serbia. I think the latter would be redundant, while the former is probably too broad a topic for us to adequately cover just as a solution to a problem with this article. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
And what about article about puppet state of Serbia itself? Just compare situation with Iraq in 2003 after American invasion: there was state of Iraq, there was American occupational administration and there was Iraqi civil government. Situation is absolutely same and it is clear that neither article about German military administration or about two Serbian governments are able to fully cover the topic of WW2 puppet state. Iraqi civil governments were controlled by American occupational administration, but it is not disputed that American administration acted within state of Iraq and that state of Iraq was not annexed by USA. In the same way WW2 puppet Serbian governments were subordinated to German military administration, but this German administration acted within state of Serbia (which was not annexed by Germany either). The very name "Military Administration in Serbia" confirm what I just said and, therefore, an article about puppet state of Serbia should be "parent article" while articles about German and Serbian administrations should be only sub-articles of main article about state. PANONIAN 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The term "Military Administration in Serbia" does not confirm the existence of a Serb state. The statehood of Serbia during WWII is entirely summed up by accounts of the (German) military government and the (Serb) civil government. The case of Iraq is quite distinct: Iraq pre-existed the 2003 invasion and it was an internationally-recognised state. 216.8.141.134 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
These sources are confirming existence of Serbian puppet state: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia" (or you disagree?). That, of course, have nothing to do with issue of international recognition. I never said that puppet state of Serbia was internationally recognized - it was not, of course. It was an unrecognized country and Wikipedia has many articles about unrecognized countries, so why this country should be an exception? PANONIAN 14:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN, there was no Nazi puppet Serbia, i.e. Serbs, unlike Croats, were not part of the fascist Axis. You have no sources confirming the status of Nedić's government as a "puppet state" of its own - this is what I've been telling you for months now. Your whole argument is based on your own WP:OR and (quite blatantly) misquoted sources.
I would support Srnec's proposal. Srnec, your position is more-or-less fine with me, but as things stand now the text of teh Nedić's Serbia article clearly includes the Nedić government, and there is no consensus for a separate one just yet. PANONIAN's haughty article needs to be AfD-ed before we can discuss this issue at peace.
Srnec, I agree that the "Occupation of Serbia in World War II" article may not be necessary. I would support it, but I myself am flexible on that issue. Your two-article proposal ("Nedić regime"/"Government of National Salvation" + "Military Administration in Serbia") is acceptable provided that the former of the two articles includes a section on the Aćimović regime. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, Please stop with rhetorical games!!! If I "misquoted sources", then what is this: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia". You will just ignore these sources and pretend that I did not posted them at all? I think that everybody now see who you are and what you doing here. Please stop wasting our time and find some other place to play. PANONIAN 14:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Iraq pre-existed the 2003 invasion and it was an internationally-recognised state" -this doesn't apply for the Independent State of Croatia eitherJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the case of WWII Croatia is also quite different from that of 2003 Iraq. 216.8.141.134 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, let conclude this discussion with my compromise proposal:

3. Article Commissary Government either remains as it is either is renamed to List of commissaries in the Commissary Government.

Since there is no general consensus that article Nedić's Serbia is split into several articles or renamed, it should remain under its current name and in current form and everybody can use their own interpretation about what exactly this article is speaking. Fair enough? PANONIAN 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus. Splitting this article up into each government or administration is ridiculous, there would need to be an article on the brief unorganized period of occupation, then an article on the Military Administration in Serbia, then an article on the Acimovic government, and then an article on the Nedic government; 4 articles about one territory - that is too much and duplicates too much. The most simple resolution to this dispute is to revert the article's title to "Serbia (1941–1944)", which was it's name for some time. Then the POV-forks can be removed and re-directed to this article. The term "Serbia" is appropriate, because that is what the German military authorities and the puppet regime designated this territory. The current name is too exclusive to Nedic. Plus the precedent of articles on Norway being broken up is not a good precedent, that is likely an example of POV-forking.--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
R-41, I completely agree that one article with title "Serbia (1941–1944)" is indeed best possible choice, but DIREKTOR will not accept that and he will start again revert warring and rhetorical warring and we will never solve this problem. Therefore, I would rather accept current compromise solution which is at least minimally acceptable for everybody (even for DIREKTOR) instead that we all waste our time in discussing same things again and again. I doubt that we can find any solution that is acceptable for everybody. PANONIAN 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the best resolution is to bring in an arbitrator, a Wikipedia administrator (who has no or little history editing this article) to provide a neutral perspective and resolve the dispute. Different options should be discussed with the arbitrator, the arbitrator will voice their view of the situation, and then if no solution has majority support, the arbitrator will make the final decision.--R-41 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can agree with that one too, but it would be hard to find an administrator who would want to spend free time to deal with this issue. I already contacted administrators because of this article few months ago and all what I achieved was response to my third opinion request and renaming from "Nedić regime" to "Nedić's Serbia". If you think that you can achieve more than that, you are free to ask administrators for arbitration. PANONIAN 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Your problem is, admins don't do arbitration. If you want to rename an article and there's no consensus you put it up at the relevant noticeboard. Everybody sets out their positions and the closing admin decides whether there's consensus or not. That's what happened last time. If you look at the archives R-41 you will see this issue is a very long running one. You can see all the various arguments and proposals there. Personally I think the Norway solution could work - but it can't be imposed.Fainites barleyscribs 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

R-41 as I said before, while simply naming all this "Serbia" may seem an elegant solution of a sort, the title unquestionably implies that the article is about a country named "Serbia" that existed between 1941 and 1944. This is simply misleading and historically inaccurate. The complexity of this subject demands at the very least two articles to handle it properly and with regard to the facts on the ground:

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, DIREKTOR, you will still ignore sources that I presented? These sources are confirming that WW2 Serbia was an puppet state and any serious discussion with you is impossible until you post your comment about these sources. You may repeat 1000 times that this puppet state did not existed, by sources that I presented are more valid and more relevant than anything what you might say. PANONIAN
For the hundreth time: no PANONIAN. Wiki does not function by fishing for words on Google. We try to get to the bottom of the problem by actually reading the sources and understanding what the situation was before trying to represent it. This is what you do not understand. You found four or five googled books that use the word "state"; then what shall we say about the hundreds, even thousands of publications that do not use that word for Nedić's regime?
The simple fact, PANONIAN (which you would know if you actually read any sources about this issue), is that this territory was organized under a German Military Administration, which installed a civil government. No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you be so kind to present exact quotation from a source from which you concluded that "No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany"? The way in which Wikipedia function is usage of exact quotations from reliable sources. Since you did not presented a single source that support your POV, the only possible conclusion would be that you have no any source that support your claims. And fact whether "I read something" about this issue or not is completely irrelevant. This is not discussion about me, but about correct presentation of historical data. And I did not "fished anything on Google". Google search and Google books are very different things. I presented here 4 Google books references, so please point to them (there are lot more there than "fished words") and say which part of these references is claiming that "No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany". Or you perhaps do not understand difference between unrecognized states and recognized ones? As for term "Nedić's regime" used in sources, user who responded to my third opinion request clearly stated that there is no basis for your interpretation of these sources and that such term refer only to regime that governed puppet state of Serbia. "Nedić's regime" is nothing else but form of Government of Serbia. Also, about what kind of "official inauguration of puppet state" you speak? Creation of that puppet state was long process and you might took date of formation of Commissary Government as a day of official inauguration of puppet state. PANONIAN 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this help?

What remained ofYugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory....On 1 May the German military commander appointed a low-grade Serbian Administration of ten commissioners who were put in charge of ministries,under the control of Turner and Neruhausen, as a simple instrument of the occupation regime. It was headed by the commissioner in charge of the Interior Ministry, Milan Acimovic - a former Belgrade police chief....The main task of his administration was to get the population to accept obedience to the Germans...

Pavlowitch,Hitlers New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia p 49-51. Fainites barleyscribs 09:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And what is exactly POV (they are just bare lists) and what is exactly FORK (they don't duplicate any contents from this article) in Commissary Government and Government of National Salvation (Serbia) articles? For the most part, they document the list of ministers who served in these two governments. I don't even think that they should be merged here, because there's just too much dry information there. And I don't see how that "prejudices" the discussion, since we have discussed the matter ad nauseam and came to a consensus (which Direktor don't seem to agree with, but that does not make it much less of a consensus). Direktor, this looks to me like bickering for the sake of bickering. No such user (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How about three articles;
I Agree with Fainites, but just this, What will be with this article? Where will be renamed? What will be the main article about Serbia? --WhiteWriter speaks 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just an idea from reading the talkpage. I assumed this article would be subsumed in the Civil Admin article.Fainites barleyscribs 13:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Fainites, your proposal is totally unacceptable. Sources that confirmed existence of puppet state of Serbia are quoted and therefore you cannot just delete this article that speaks about that puppet state and leave only those that are speaking about its governments. It would be same if you delete article Serbia and leave only article Government of Serbia instead. Also creation of one article named "Occupation of Serbia in WWII" that would speak about territory of present-day Serbia during WW2 would be a true example of POVFORK since this issue is clearly elaborated in History of Serbia article. Also proposed article "Military administration of Serbia in WWII" that would speak about Germans have no any point. What would you mention there? List of German military administrators? Do you at least have a source that mention these administrators? That article is pointless, and it could exist only as subarticle of puppet state article. I will repeat my previous point: post-2003 American occupation was in Iraq (and Iraq was not in this occupation). As for "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII", I created separate articles about both governments and I think that it is better solution than to have single article about both. PANONIAN 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
And Fainites, please tell me one valid and logical reason why you want to annihilate this article about historical puppet state. Would you also say that such state did not existed? PANONIAN 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to annihilate anything. It was a suggestion based on my reading of the talkpage, Pavlowitch and Ramet. I understand your point, but the article I proposed, ie "Civil adminstration of Serbia" does say "Serbia". It is difficult to know what to call a left over rump, scarcely worthy of the ID "quisling". How about Serbian rump state WWII. Pavlowitch says the germans called it the "Serbian residual state" which means pretty much the same thing. Not sure what the original german word was. Ramet calls it "the rump Serbian state" and says Nedic's efforts to create Serbian national state with it were a failure as all he could really do was ratify german decisions. Ramet quotes him as saying "...we lost our freedom and our state,and now we are facing the danger of national extinction....I came into government to save the people, to keep them from destrying each other...". "Rump" meaning remnant is in legitimate modern political usage. See here for a historical usage still used today, and of course Ramet. Ramet is not the only one who uses it. Fainites barleyscribs 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
In fact I've just found this article List of rump states , which does indeed list Serbia.Fainites barleyscribs 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fainites, No such user, WhiteWriter. Though since the Aćimović "Commissary Government" was only in place for three months, had no military units, and really played a quite marginal role altogether, I still would much prefer it if we incorporated it into the article about the Nedić "Government of National Salvation" as a seperate section. It seems more elegant imo than to rename an article that would essentially be on the Nedić regime into the "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII" article (there were of course only these two civil governments, the 3-month initial Aćimović Commissary Government and the Nedić Government of National Salvation that lasted for the remainder of the War in Serbia).

Hence I propose that the "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII" article be named the "Nedić regime" article (the WP:COMMONNAME of the "Government of National Salvation") with the short-lived Aćimović "Commisary Government" incorporated therein as a section. But that's just a proposal of course.

In closing I'll once again point out that both the "Commissary Government" and the "Government of National Salvation (Serbia)" articles have been created in the past few days with the sole purpose of assisting User:PANONIAN in this discussion. They should be merged into the one article on the civil administration (whatever name it ends up having). Its hardly bickering for the sake of bickering, imho, when someone just starts creating articles with their necessity a subject of serious discussion. While we were all discussing how to handle this, PANONIAN simply went ahead with his preferred organization. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, boys, if any of you choose violence as a way of solving this issue then I will have to ask administrators for intervention and I will use all legal means to prevent that POV pushing and unsourced original research prevail in opposition to sources that I (and only I) presented in this discussion. So, let repeat this: puppet state of Serbia existed and that is confirmed by reliable sources: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia". Therefore if anybody of you try to annihilate this article I will report you to administrators for nothing less than vandalism. PANONIAN 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Violence? Through computer screens? PANONIAN, this is naming dipute. Disagreeing about naming is not vandalism. I shall act to prevent edit warring by editors moving articles back and forth until consensus is reached. Bear in mind that consensus does not involve unanimity. If we take the best two of your sources Panonian,ie Tomasevic and Fischer,they both say"puppet state". We seem to have a choice between "puppet" or "rump".Fainites barleyscribs 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It is much more than naming dispute. This is question whether an article about an historical puppet state will exist or not. Therefore, complete annihilation of this article is an example of vandalism. It is one thing if you think that article about puppet state should have another name and completely different thing if you say that only article about government should exist, but not article about state itself. In first case I would have nothing against titles "Serbian rump state WWII" or "Serbian puppet state WWII", but title "Civil administration of Serbia" is unacceptable since it change the basic concept of this article and it imply that there was no state but only government. It is not enough that title only have name "Serbia" in it, but it should have meaning that undoubtedly claim that this article speaks about puppet state. PANONIAN 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I would have thought the fact that it had "Serbia" in the title avoided that. Anyway -nobody is committing "vandalism" so please moderate your tone a little. The title Serbian puppet state WWII or Puppet state of Serbia WWII (or "rump") could solve a lot of problems. What does everyone else think? Fainites barleyscribs 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not said that "somebody is committing vandalism", but that "somebody might commit it". That is not same thing. PANONIAN 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

May I suggest an alternative? It seems to me that the issue is firstly whether Serbia was a puppet regime or a puppet state, and secondly whether a puppet or rump state is a state. In other words whether a puppet/rump state can simply be called "Serbia" in the title without further qualification or description. The fact that this argument could not be resolved last time resulted in the compromise "Nedic's Serbia" rather than "Nedic's regime". Until we can resolve this, the article should not be renamed. Can each participant please set out here, with sources, their concise argument,without personalisation, as to why they say the entity was a state or not. PANONIAN has cite 4 perfectly worthy books which use the word "state", although they are not books that deal in detail with the specific time period and the word is always qualified by "rump" or "puppet". I have cited Ramet and Pavlowitch. If anybody thinks that is a daft argument altogether as the Germans never followed established norms in these matters, they could say that too. If we can resolve that, agreeing the right name might become possible.Fainites barleyscribs 21:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

PANONIANs sources;

  • "satellite state of Serbia" The history of Serbia : John K. Cox
  • "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government" Contemporary Yugoslavia: Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S.Vucinich
  • "German rump state in Serbia", Armed Peacekeepers in Bosnia
  • "...a puppet state of Serbia was created...",Balkan strongmen: dictators and authoritarian rulers of South Eastern Europe Аутор: Bernd Jürgen Fischer

Fainites sources;

  • "What remained of Yugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory", Pavlowitch; Hitlers New Disorder
  • "the rump Serbian state" Ramet; Three Yugoslavias

Sources;


So, your sources only confirming my point that it was state. Whether we will use terms "puppet", "residual", "rump", "satellite" (or whatever) as a description of this state is completely irrelevant. Facts are clear: all sources that were presented are claiming that Serbia was state and there is no single source that claim that there was "only government without state". There is simply no proof, no argument and no source for opposite claims. PANONIAN 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Not yet. I am waiting to see whether any other sources are produced in this section -preferably without too much intervening TLDR argument. Tomasevic, Pavlowitch, Ramet and Fischer are a pretty strong team. The more important issue in my view is whether a puppet state can simply be described as a state without qualification. Fainites barleyscribs 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
So, you use qualification then (any qualification you want). Any title that does not drastically change subject of this article is fully acceptable. PANONIAN 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What is funny is that we all seem to agree (±10%), and sources seem to agree, on the basic facts, yet we drag this dispute over and over; somewhat resembling the color of the bikeshed problem. The catch is that there is no really a common name for this entity either in sources or in common parlance, so we (editors) are basically free to pick a descriptive title... and there we fail to agree on one, because every proposal so far had one problem or another, be it precision, POV, or aesthetics. As I said before, I don't like "Nedić's Serbia" too much, but it's almost as good as any. As Panonian said, "Any title that does not drastically change subject of this article is fully acceptable".
So I did a little research... There are 11 redirects starting with Nazi occupation of..., covering similar situations like in Serbia, and each of those ends up in an article named using different style. The most common one (applied to Belarus, Norway and Baltic republics) is "Occupation of X by Nazi Germany". Then, there's German occupation of..., also all redirects, many of which end up in "Occupation of X" articles (which is not applicable for Serbia because of ambiguity).
In other words, there is no established rule or model. Based on our article's contents, I would propose "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany" (which follows some kind of established practice) or "Serbia under German occupation" (which focuses a bit more on Serbia than on occupation). Or pretty much any other, just let us stop wasting so much time. No such user (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I would not agree with title "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany" because it is focused on occupation, not on Serbia. If puppet state of Serbia existed (and presented sources confirming that it did) then Wikipedia must have an article focused on puppet state of Serbia. Therefore your second proposal "Serbia under German occupation" would be acceptable. I have only one basic point in all this: there must be an article focused on puppet state of Serbia and it is this article (everybody can see that it was created as such: [16]). So, I will repeat this too: if anybody thinks that there should be an article focused on "occupation", "military administration", "civil administration" (or whatever) he should create new article about that without attempt that focus of this article is changed. PANONIAN 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


  Nazi Germany
  Allied-held areas

@PANONIAN, you and your preconceptions (supported by word-fishing on Google) are the only reason this nonsense issue even exists. The status of Nedić's government and the situation in this occupied territory is chrystal clear. Could not be any clearer. This terriory had in essence the same status in Nazi Europe as northern France, Greece, Norway, Denmark, etc. Read any serious treatment, Pavlowitch, Tomasevich, whomever, they will all say the same thing. This is a manufactured, non-factual dispute.

We should not labor under the idea that PANONIAN has some sources to his claim. The situation on the ground, as well as Wikipedia naming conventions, are clear as day, and ALL sources essentially agree and say the same thing. If some use the word "state" to refer to the territory - that does not change what it was.
In other words, it is irrelevant whether a few sources choose to use the word "state" to refer to Nedić's government: firstly calling it a state does not make it one and WP:NC applies; secondly (and more importantly) - PANONIAN's entire method of "research" is biased, in that it disregards the hundreds of sources that simply do not use the word "state" and imposes on them the two or three fished-out sources that do.

I'll say again, the situation on the ground is clear: no puppet state called "Serbia" was ever officially inagurated by Nazi Germany. That is a fantasy. Period. This is a manufactured dispute over one user's preconceptions. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR. "no puppet state called 'Serbia' was ever officially inagurated by Nazi Germany. That is a fantasy." -evidence please? You keep on stating this, over and over again, but don't seem to be able to come up with any evidenceJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, this is the most basic stuff on WWII Yugoslavia. Evidence on the status of this territory has already been provided, numerous times - most recently above by No such user. But if you would like more, Read any, ANY elaboration on the status of this territory, for example Tomasevich Volume II p.175. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, and can you provide any? Because so far, you haven't. "Evidence on the status of this territory has already been provided, numerous times" -no, you have conflicting secondary sources that say different things about the satus of the territory.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not reading my posts, and your participation thus far is unconstructive. I have already pointed out two sources, and explained where others can be found. I have also pointed out two seperate reasons why PANONIAN's "word-fishing" is irrelevant and has no effect on the actual situation in the territory (which we must try to describe). There is, in reality, no contradiction or diagreement in the sources about the status of this territory. I will not respond to further posts such as the above. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR you make very bold and definite assertions regarding sources but have not yet had the courtesy, despite repeated requests, to produce any, other than to say "Tomasevic Volume II p175" today. This page runs from May 2011 and you have produced no other sources. Please be so good as to set out the relevant passage or provide a link. Secondly, so far, all the sources produced by others say "puppet" or "rump" state. Can you give a good reason why this article should not called Puppet state of Serbia WWII or something similar? Finally, your characterisation of Panonian as "word-fishing", of which you also accused him further up the page, is either mischievous or you have not read the talkpage. Either way it is disruptive and unwarranted. Panonian has produced quotes from and links too 4 perfectly sensible mainstream sources as clearly set out twice by him and once again by me.Fainites barleyscribs 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, DIREKTOR, you maybe "pointed out two sources" (presumably Pavlowitch and Tomasevich?), but you did not provided any quotations from such sources. We need quotations not description of "what you think that these authors wanted to say". Without quotations you did not proved anything. And self-made map created by Wikipedia user is also not evidence for anything. In another words, please provide exact bibliographical reference - full name of author, name of the book, page where quotation is founded and exact quotation (and if, possible link to google books page if available). Without that, we have nothing to discuss. PANONIAN 14:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Bother waiting. Here's a link to p175. He calls it a puppet government in "Serbia proper".Fainites barleyscribs 14:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Term "Serbia proper" there means "Serbia without Banat" and nothing else - it is clearly stated here on page 199: [17]. "Serbia proper" is seen there simply as main part of Serbia (the other part was autonomous Banat, of course). I do not see that this source is providing any evidence that puppet state of Serbia did not existed. On the contrary, it only confirming that it did - on that same page (199) Tomasevich says that Serbia was "country": [18]. PANONIAN 15:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about the organization of the territory in Nazi-occupied Europe. As I said: quote mining aside, any source will make it clear that the territory was, as I keep pointing out, directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed.

PANONIAN has quote mined a source which at one time chose to refer to the civil government in this territory as a "puppet state". However, no amount of such careful google searching will change the official status of Nedić's regime in there. If necessary, I will copy down a thorough and detailed explanation from Tomasevich (though the source is already quoted), when I have the time.

P.S. The source referring to "Serbia proper", refers to Serbia proper. As I said, since 1918 no official states of Croatia (the NDH was illegal), Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, etc. existed, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a unitarianist state. Only in 1945 (1943 de iure) did Yugoslavia establish federal states inside its borders. WWII authors very often, in fact regularly, use geographic terms as they were defined after the war, in 1945. "Bosnia" is used extremely frequently, even though no Bosnian state existed, "Croatia" is often used as a term defined by its 1945 borders, not NDH borders, etc. "Serbia proper" ALWAYS refers to Serbia without its autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo, as defined by the 1945 internal borders. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And, if I may ask, what's the fucking difference between "territory [...] directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed" and a "puppet state"? And even if there is one, why should anyone care, and why would it need to be reflected on article title? No such user (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Its a simple issue: the governing authority of the territory was the German military, and Nazi Germany never instituted a seperate puppet state (such as the NDH, for example). As such it should not be treated on Wikipedia as a puppet state.
The difference is small, granted (and PANONIAN is quick to capitalize on that), but it is very significant nontheless. We cannot very well invent a WWII "Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR "quote-mining" is scarcely better than "word-fishing". Please stop these offensive remarks (in respect I might add of perfectly mainstream sources). The Puppet state article lists as puppet states both puppet states designed to reflect national aspirations, like the NDH, and puppet regimes, like Serbia. I other words, there is no one absolute definition of puppet state - certainly nothing that requires official inauguration. Tomasevich doesn't seem to have a problem with it being both a puppet state and "under formal German military government." Fainites barleyscribs 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, nobody denying that territory was "directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed", but you obviously do not understand concept of term "occupied territory". To be occupied territory have to exist first. Term "puppet state" also does not exclude possibility that such state is occupied by foreign military. Also, regarding Tomasevich, you clearly do not understand that source either. Tomasevich quite clearly says that term "Serbia proper" refers to "WW2 Serbia without Banat" and not to region of Serbia proper established in 1945. If Tomasevich refereed to post-1945 region, he would say "Serbia proper (excluding Kosovo and Vojvodina)", not "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)". I do not see a single part of that book where Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to post-1945 region. As for your claim that "no official state of Serbia existed before 1945", German puppet state of Serbia did existed de facto from 1941 to 1944, but you obviously do not recognize its existence because of personal political reasons. I will repeat that subjects of Wikipedia articles are not only internationally recognized states, but also unrecognized de facto states. Therefore, the issue of international recognition of this state has no impact on the question whether we will have article about that state or not. If something existed then we are obligated to have Wikipedia article about that, no matter what anybody might personally think about subject of that article. As for your claim that "WWII authors very often, in fact regularly, use geographic terms as they were defined after the war", I do not see any evidence that Tomasevich used "post-war geographical terms" when he wrote about WW2 Serbia. In fact, his terminology very correctly reflecting de facto political situation during the war. As for claim that "Nazi Germany never instituted a separate puppet state" of Serbia, that claim is totally false. In Axis de jure "new order", Serbia was an separate state and was not annexed by Germany or any other country. PANONIAN 05:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-Couldn't have put it better myself. If DIREKTOR were willing to provide some evidence to back up his obviously entirely POV claims, I would perhaps agree with him, however i.he can't and he won't, and ii. the secondary evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of this territory being a 'puppet state' regardless of whether it was occupied by another state's armed forces or not? To wit: the northern half of Vichy France was occupied by Germany, that was unquestionably a puppet state, so was the NDH (the westernmost portion occupied by Italy, the easternmost Germany), the 1941-1944 Greek State was occupied by both Nazi Germany and Italy, that was still a puppet state, and so on.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


@Fainites, as the article states: the Nedić regime was indeed a puppet regime, as opposed to a puppet state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-a 'regime' is another word for a government. a 'state' is another word for a territory, be it federal state, nation state, feudum, country, et cetera, et cetera. You cannot have a regime without a territory. (unless you're talking about a government -in-exile, which obvisouly does NOT apply in this instance.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, a 'puppet regime' rules a 'puppet state'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Régime" is another word for "government", true. But "state" is most certainly not another word for "territory". Thats besides the point, however.
A puppet regime usually does rule a puppet state, but, as we have seen, it can certainly exist without the official inauguration of a puppet state. These "philosophical" semantics are besides the point as well, however. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-Does it? Certainly news to me. (unless it is a puppet government in exile.) Can you give me an example; because I certainly can't think of any.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"as we have seen" -as we 'have seen' where? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence, secondary or primary, to support any of your statements.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are few examples of such a complex situation as this, the Quisling government is one. Essentially anywhere where a state is not inaugurated, this is most often in areas under military occupation.
Look JW, no offence, but you are apparently capable of going on like this forever.. What can I tell you? The Germans just did not establish a puppet "Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It must be obvious by now DIREKTOR that you can't just tell anybody anything. We have sources saying "state" and "regime", though far more of the former than the latter, including your favourite, Tomasevich. Sources please for your assertions. Fainites barleyscribs 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
i.you are apparently capable of going on like this forever

-I will take that as a compliment.

ii.The Germans just did not establish a puppet "Serbia". -Sources please.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This must be the 15th time I am being asked to prove a negative on this talkpage. As I said elsewhere, people do not write books to refute every idea someone somehwere might come-up with. All I can offer you is proof positive on the administration of this territory and its status in occupied Europe. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Current proposals

Or - two or three articles called Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany or Occupation of Serbia WWII to cover the whole territory, plus Military/Civil administration in Serbia WWII.

First two are acceptable and second two are unacceptable (due to reasons that I elaborated numerous times on this page and there is no reason to repeat them). Finally, I have proposal that current title "Nedić's Serbia" should stay and that would be my first choice - I see no any valid reason because of which this article should be renamed. Current title is accurate and supported by both, English and Serbo-Croatian literature and I doubt that we will find another one that would satisfy that criteria. PANONIAN 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-I still think Serbia (1941-1944) would be best, due to it being completely unambiguous.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. "Serbia" unambiguously implies the existence of a 1941-44 country called "Serbia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-No, it doesn't, (it doesn't follow that it is neccesarily a country.) and even if it does, so what? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour that it was called 'Serbia'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with distinct barbecue overtones perhaps.Fainites barleyscribs 21:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I favor "Serbia under German occupation" as reasonably succinct and descriptive. Maybe even Direktor would grudgingly approve. "Serbian puppet state WWII" is pretty bad English. Serbia (1941-1944) is acceptable. I don't find the current title, Nedić's Serbia particularly common, and it somehow implies that Nedić was the true ruler of the country (compare "Hitler's Germany" or "Tito's Yugoslavia") when in reality it was just the opposite. No such user (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Grumble..grudge..grumble ..yeah, Nsu is right, I can agree to "Serbia under German occupation". I do fear, however, that my agreement alone might be cause for PANONIAN to shy away from that name :). Its not a reflection on you, PANONIAN, its just an effect I apparently have on people. Though it does open up interesting possibilities for reverse psychology ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a winner chaps? Serbia under German occupation?Fainites barleyscribs 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's acceptable to NSU, DIREKTOR and PANNONIAN. What about the rest of you?Fainites barleyscribs 16:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree, sure, finally! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

-I like it :)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations ladies and gentlemen.Fainites barleyscribs 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done the honors, and tweaked the intro accordingly. No such user (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All round.Fainites barleyscribs 07:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm more into wine recently ;) No such user (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again

I thought this wouldn't be that easy. It seems PANONIAN's thought of this name because he thinks he can now go around naming this mess "Serbia". To him this is a country article, about a "State of Serbia Under German Occupation" country. The title is fine, make no mistake, its a good way to place all the nonsense in one article about Serbia during WWII, but the issue of the scope of this article, and the historically non-existent state pushed by some users, very much remains. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I don't particularly care either way, though I don't like either this diff by Panonian or this one by you. Per WP:BEGINNING, when an article has a descriptive title, it does not need to start with its bolded title, so Panonian's intervention looked somewhat artificial. Then you "corrected" that title, but "Nedić's Serbia" was hardly an official name of that puppet state. I do see, however, that similar cases of Quisling regime, Reichskommissariat Norwegen and Independent State of Croatia use {{Infobox Former Country}}.
I must attribute this dispute to stubbornness of both of you, though...
OK, can we find a middle ground here? The first sentence could hopefully be recast to begin with Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state..., to make everybody happy, and the title of the Infobox should be... something... what was its formal name? No such user (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Panonians first sentence doesn't actually make sense and DIREKTORs isn't right because the first sentence should describe the title. It should start as NSU says. That should make everyone happy. More Schhliivvvovisshhishishish anyone? Fainites barleyscribs 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Its not "my" sentence I'm just restoring the status quo.
The problem, fellas, is that Serbia under German occupation was not a puppet state, thats the whole point. I don't like this "equate the two main opponents as equally stupid morons" approach, btw, thats just a little too easy. The difference between us is that I actually understand how this territory functioned and was administered. Nazi Germany did not establish any puppet Serbian state, and you're calling me "stubborn" for pointing that out. The actual problem here is that the existence of "Serbia" as a puppet state to its Nazi occupiers seems to be an issue of national pride. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
From which one can deduce that you are suggesting Pannonian is a stupid moron? The problem is that there are multiple sources, including Tomasevich, describing a "puppet state". Therefore you are not going to "win" your argument but it will go on forever. I see the point you are making - that this was a sorry, half-baked affair compared to a full blown proper puppet state like the NDH, but it would appear that the phrase "puppet state" covers quite a gamut as far as the authorities are concerned - unless it is being suggested Tomasevich is a Croatian revisionist? What about saying "Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state or puppet regime......"Fainites barleyscribs 12:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I knew that we will go again. In fact, I can bet that after few months some other user will say that he do not like current title and then we will really go all this again from the very beginning. Nevertheless, I have no general problem with DIREKTOR's introduction version (except with the fact that he unlinked two government articles). The fact is that every article simply must have an introduction sentence that briefly describe article subject and we cannot start elaborating history of the subject without basic definition of subject itself. So, definition is that subject of this article is an puppet state (I will also repeat that article was started as such) and I really do not care which name we will use in infobox or in first sentence. Both are fine for me. PANONIAN 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I want my Slivovitz back. How about something along the lines of Serbia under German occupation was the residual state comprised of what remained of Serbia following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia by Axis powers in 1941. A puppet regime was set up, originally under ....Acicmov, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).
There is no such thing as "what remained of Serbia" - the only Serbia was puppet state of Serbia. Besides that puppet state, only internationally recognized Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed (just de jure, of course). PANONIAN 22:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
What's "de jure" got to do with anything? Aren't we allowed to say the Axis powers cut off chunks of Serbia? We all know what we mean by Wales though it has (had) no separate jurisdiction. How about Serbia under German occupation was the residual state comprised of what remained of lands traditionally considered Serbian, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia by Axis powers in 1941. A puppet regime was set up, originally under ....Acicmov, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).
States could exist either de jure or de facto (or both of that two). In this case, puppet state of Serbia existed de facto and Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed de jure, while fictional "enlarged Serbia" did not existed at all (this is completely unrelated to the Wales question). This is not place where we should mention fictional countries and I really do not understand why you introducing this idea. Kingdom of Serbia ceased to exist in 1918 and there simply was no any territory with name Serbia until formation of puppet state of Serbia in 1941. Term "lands traditionally considered Serbian" is also disputed and largely fictional (who considered them? what were borders of such lands? which source is using this term?) Sentence that would be acceptable is "what remained of Yugoslavia", since existence of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was internationally recognized during entire war. Or perhaps you have some problem with word "Yugoslavia"? PANONIAN 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
All this bickering is getting us nowhere. I am going to address the issue of the name "Serbia" to finally end this.
  • FACT #1: The German military authorities called this territory "Serbia" as in the "Military Administration in Serbia".
  • FACT #2: Whatever the status of the puppet government, as a puppet state or puppet region, the government considered the territory to be "Serbia", there was a currency put out by the government of Nedic that said "Serbia" on it, with the Serbian double-headed eagle on it. Here is the Serbian dinar of 1941 that says "Serbian National Bank", indicating the existence of an entity of Serbia.[19] However I urge users not to assume that because a currency existed that this proves that Serbia was an independent state, it only indicates a process by the government to promote independence.
  • FACT #3: Many World War II maps label this territory as "Serbia".
  • FACT #4: Much if not all of this territory has been historically associated with Serbia whether as an Ottoman province, principality, or independent state.
  • The combination of these four facts demonstrates that the term "Serbia" best describes this entity. The term "Serbia" should not be assumed to connote an independent state simply because an independent Serbia exists today, as a "Serbia" existed as a principality of the Ottoman Empire for years. Now as for whether Serbia was an independent state: from what I have read what we do know is that the Nedic government did attempt to make Serbia an independent state like Croatia under Axis rule. The regime produced its own currency and connected itself with the Serbian nation, i.e. "Serbian National Bank". However the situation in Serbia was like that of Belgium that was also under a German "Military Administration". This must be considered because within the Military Administration, Belgium was not an independent state. Still in places like Belgium and the Netherlands that had no independent states, there were puppet administrations and self-proclaimed leaders, such as Anton Mussert claiming to be the "Leader of the Dutch Nation". My conclusion is that the Serbian government under Nedic was attempting to gain recognition of Serbia as an independent state, like other Axis puppets tried to do, whether he got it needs to be demonstrated.--R-41 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in the Balkans set up by Nazi Germany following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији), despite efforts to establish an independent state.Fainites barleyscribs 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "in the Balkans" could be replaced by some more precise term, something like this: Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area set up by Nazi Germany in part of territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Vladimir (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Despite efforts by Nedic to establish an independent state it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).Fainites barleyscribs 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I would not agree that term "puppet state" is removed from the intro. Even DIREKTOR's version is better than this one. Also, there is another inaccuracy: efforts of Nedić were certainly not opposed by Germans. Therefore, I would support this: Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Despite efforts by Nedic to establish an independent state it remained internationally unrecognized and de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији). PANONIAN 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with either, as long as it has a reasonable degree of consensus and doesn't result in edit wars. Yours looks good. The main problem with the original was that it starts The Nedic's Serbia...Fainites barleyscribs 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

... it remained internationally unrecognized... Is there any sense in even mentioning some "international recognition" of a puppet state in the middle of WW2? Vladimir (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that sentence certainly have more sense than claim that "Despite efforts by Nedić to establish an independent state it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration" - from that sentence one can conclude that Germans did not allowed to Nedić to create independent state. That is quite inaccurate - Germans created that state and if they won the war, they would certainly recognize its full independence. But, if you ask me, we do not have to include such sentence at all. PANONIAN 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In any case, I wouldn't use "international recognition" in this context. Maybe we could reword that sentence without "despite", to state efforts by Nedic to form (organize, make prerequisites of, move towards, ...) an independent state.
Apart from that, and not directly connected with this discussion, are you sure that they would certainly recognize its full independence? What about Nazi plans to eventually remove Slavic populations to Siberia? I think I've read that somewhere. Vladimir (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I read some speech of Milan Nedić where he said that "Germans do not have permanent territorial demands towards Serbia", so if that was true, they would leave Serbia after the war. Anyway, sentence without word "despite" is acceptable. PANONIAN 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia, under German occupation, was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Nedic took steps to establish an independent state though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији). Fainites barleyscribs 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Though" is same as "despite". This sentence must have different meaning. I would rather keep original sentence: "Serbian civil administration claimed that Serbia is an independent state, though its affairs were dictated by German authorities." Also, most of existing intro is better than modified sentences, so I would agree that we change first sentence into Serbia, under German occupation, was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. As for rest of the intro, Fainites, you can change there what you want and others will change that if they do not agree with you. PANONIAN 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that Fainites is only trying to help here, so, PANONIAN, I don't find your attitude quite appropriate. Serbian civil administration claimed that Serbia is an independent state - are there any references for that? It looks a bit strange, given the fact that everyone with normal mental capacities was aware that Serbia was under German occupation. Secondly, the intro sentence should be without commas that you introduced, so that the words corresponding to the title could be bolded: "Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941." Thirdly, I don't agree that "though" is the same as "despite", and the sentence proposed by Finites "Nedic took steps to establish..." could be modified to start as "The Serbian civil administration took steps..." while the part "though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration..." does not in any way imply that Germans opposed or hindered those "steps to establish an independent state", as was your objection. Vladimir (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VVV. It seemed to me that we could argue forever as to whether Nedic would have achieved an independent state. I don't actually care what it says, as long as it has a degree of consensus as fairly represents appropriate sources. I would like to avoid future edit-warring. As I understand the authorities, until the end of the German occupation, Serbia remained subordinate to the German military authorities. Why should the Germans care about what the coins said if it kept people more docile? All they cared about was obedience, raw materials and slave workers. Hitler had some odd ideas about "official" authority anyway. He believed strong men fought their way to the top. I thought "took steps to..." covered the situation of what Nedic did during the occupation without speculating as to what the end result might have been.Fainites barleyscribs 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What attitude? I am only saying that we can find solution more easily if we actually CHANGE article text instead to discuss this issue to the death. So, Fainites, if you want to change anything in text please do it, and I will correct your changes if I think that something should be corrected and then (if something is still disputed) we can discuss it here (that would not be "revert warring", but rather cooperation). I am not going to waste so much of my time to discuss a form of one whole sentence on talk page. When we see if something is still disputed then we can discuss about disputed issue. PANONIAN 04:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What on earth is wrong with trying to get an agreed first sentence on the talk page? Fainites barleyscribs 08:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I've done some minimal alterations to the first sentence and copy-edited the rest of the lead to remove repetition and improve sentence structure. I don't believe I've altered the sense of it but you'd better check.Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the wrong thing is that we would lost much more time if we discuss it here instead that we all change what we want in article text and to discuss only what might remain disputed. Besides two minor corrections, I am satisfied with your changes. PANONIAN 15:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Luis Molnar moved Serbia under German occupation to Serbian State.--Zoupan (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Reverted. That was a patently bad idea, to say the least. No such user (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia/Archive_3&oldid=1136229501"