Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Contradictions in article

On one hand we have claim that Partisans were multiethnic fighting force, and then we have section which deals solely on Croat partisans as some kind of special group, in which there is even percentage of Croat vs. Serbs, emphasizing that Croats were majority. Whats the point of this? If Yugoslav Partisans were multiethnic, why there is emphasizing of just only one ethnic group? And if there is already distinction between various ethnicities within Partisan movement, why only Croats are mentioned (and only to prove that they were more Croats then Serbs in Croat Partisans)? Why there is no mention of Serbian, Slovenian, Muslim or Macedonian Partisans as such? How come that Croats became ethnic majority in Partisans of Croatia in 1943, just after German defeat in Stalingrad? Quite interesting, isn't it? It's also interesting that Italians, German ally, also became 'antifascists' in 1943. But as always, we have 'direktor's cut' version of history in English Wikipedia, since this Croat activist have clear agenda. Unfortunately, his total monopoly in English Wikipedia, about former Yugoslavia, based on Croatian ethnic viewpoint creates articles that are basically historically one-sided useless garbage. It would be nice that neutral persons, and historians of non-Yugoslav became main contributors. Direktor is supreme example of pseudo-historical spammer and one-sided ethnic activist. --Ganderoleg (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at this article and talk page for a while. It is very complicated. As Peacemaker67 said, The problem I see is that some editors will not accept properly sourced material being placed in the article because they personally disagree with it. That is what we are dealing with. If you accept the wrong views that Direktor has then there would be peace and no edit waring. That is the goal of wikipedia, even if it is not the right step.
For example, Direktor has this fantasy that the Croats were the majority of the Partisans in Croatia for almost the entire war. LAz17 uses a source, Kaufmann to prove Direktor wrong. Direktor does not accept this and instead uses a source that is not clear. Upon looking at that source LAz17 told him that the source is for the end of the war, that yes the Croats were the majority of the Partisans in Croatia at the end of the war. Direktor does not care, he does not like this information. As Direktor says You, of course, have no idea what the ethnic composition of Croatian divisions was, and are just speculating. Is Goldstein, LAz17's source also speculating? We could see what it says perhaps? According to Goldstein, among Croatian partisans at the end of 1941 there were approximately 77% Serbs and 21.5% Croats and others as well as unknown nationalities. The percentage of Croats in the partisan troops had increased to 32% by August 1942, which rose to 34% by September 1943. After the capitulation of Italy, it continued to increase rapidly and at the end of 1944 there were 60.4% Croats, 28.6% Serbs and 11% of other unknown nationalities in Croatian partisan units. The article clearly has a bias towards Croats. This removal of sources [1] is especially worrysome. This user is doing tenacious editing. The bottom part of that edit, if you look at it, shows this removed, This was the lowest percentage that the Serbs had during the war.[1] That source is totally true, as are the others that LAz17 has included. The conclusion is that the wrong person was banned. (Mike085 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).
Look, people, you've been mislead by LAz17. You have been, to a very large extent, played. Please don't tell me you just accept someone's claims at face value because he happens to be of your nationality? Isn't it at all possible I am not, in fact, some maniac "Ustashe" "Greater-Croatianist", part of an international conspiracy directed against User:LAz17 and Serbia? What am I supposed to do? Go to hrWiki and post a "Rat na nas narod!!!" thread? LAz17 was blocked once for violating a topic ban. A ban he got somehow, I don't even know how - I myself and this whole issue had nothing to do with it. He thought he was indeffed, so he created a sockpuppet. His third sockpuppet. When his first indeff ban was lifted, he was indeff blocked again because he created three sockpuppets. People, admins are not quite as stupid here on enWiki as LAz17 would have you believe.
As far as civility and admins is concerned, I am finding it hard to believe LAz17 has not been blocked on srWiki as well for his outbursts against other Wikipedians. And I'll be damned if I'm about to sit still and be insulted here as well. Ganderoleg will be reported. Mike, please be a lot more careful and observant of WP:NPA. If the tone of the "War on our People!!" thread is to be transferred here, its next stop shall be WP:ANI. I am not going to defend myself against this person's nonsense accusations. I have stated more than once that I consider Croats and Serbs to be kindred nations, perhaps even one and the same nation when viewed on a greater scale.
As for LAz17's edits being reverted constantly by three people, it is simply becausehe was removing sources, rewriting sourced material, and misrepresenting other sources - all without consensus and discussion. Just for an example: when a source stated the conflict in Serbia in 1941 between Partisans and Chetnks was a "Serbian civil war", LAz17 presented it as a referring to the entire war. Please bear in mind: I did not participate in the Partisan ethnic composition debate in months and years. I was here recently only because the Chetnik dispute had been transferred here by User:FkpCascais, and my edits and comments were centered around the representation of the Chetniks in this article.
Once again, if there is sourced information - please add it to the article. Please list the publication, author, page number, you know the drill.. And if necessary please be prepared to copy down a few sentences from the source so that we can all agree that it has been represented accurately (note that this has become common practice in these issues, e.g.). -- Director (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, you say that you welcome sources, but your actions speak different as you prefer to edit war and to remove content that you yourself do not like, regardless if it is sourced or not. All of LAZ17's material was sourced. Yet here you pretend to be tolerant and say that you welcome sourced material. I have added a source the Producer claimed was a lie.[2],[3] So, I am willing to bet that you will remove this sourced content and return it to the Ramnet source which in fact does not even mention their composition. As for the civil war in Serbia, do read Judah's source yourself. LAz17 added that source directly from the book, and it was altered in this article by your tenacious editing. Judah's source explicitly states that it was a Serbain Civil war as a whole, not a Serbian civil war in Serbia. You are messing around with sources so that they fit your POV. Shame. (Mrserb89 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/PRODUCER.png],[http://i459.photobucket.com/albu i459.photobucket.com

Yes I am a dirty "Ustase thug" aren't I? I guess LAz was right, we Croats are not to be trusted... xD When you remove sources your edit will be reverted. I am sorry, but what can I tell you? Please explain exactly why you removed "<ref name="Ramet 61">[[#refRamet2006|Ramet 1996]], p. 61.</ref>" with your edit? I actually don't oppose anything you added - just try to add new information without deleting anything? Is that too much to ask? Or am I actually supposed to go around repairing the damage? You removed that source without even a hint of explanation. Were you "testing" or something?
Gentlemen. When someone is bombarded for days with just one side of the story, it is very easy to develop preconceptions. Particularly if that side of the story is being relayed by a blocked sockpuppeteer trying to back at someone for reporting him. And when preconceptions are developed, they need to be dispelled - and that is often difficult. I'm sure you know all this. I, however, consider it beneath me to respond to LAz17's insulting lies and slander in any way. I'll ask you again to WP:ASSUME GOOD FAITH when you meet with someone. -- Director (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Look I agree with that Tito quote. I can not and do not have anything against it. I do NOT think Croats formed a majority in the Partisan movement. But please, if you wanted to remove a source for some reason - discuss it on the talkpage properly beforehand, challenge it, or at least explain it with your edit summary. Don't try to provoke a fight with unexplained deletion of sources. I have been insulted, slandered, and berated by LAz17, and now I am trying my best to be patient with you fellows who have been blatantly WP:CANVASSED into starting a conflict here. Please answer in kind. De-escalate. Discuss in a civil manner. Most of all: stop making comments about me personally or I shall certainly bring all this up on ANI and request sanctions. -- Director (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's quite clear that is pointless to communicate with this person (or persons) under alias Direktor. There is no need to show or convince him about anything, since he is a man of mission - to impose Croat ethnic viewpoint, as much as possible, not to contribute to objective and unbiased article. Other members should check his 'contributions' on other topics about former Yugoslavia, in which he is imposing official Croatian agenda. Fine example is article about Foibe massacres in Dalmatia, in which he censored Italian and Western members, since their data contradicted with his Croatian ethnic POV. He misuse his position of privilege as much as possible. Since he is not just in conflict with Serbian contributors, but with every single contributor which he have personal disagreement with, I call all Wikipedia contributors about former Yugoslavia to protest against this monopoly and misconduct. Although, theoretically, this is open encyclopedia, in reality it's the Direktor's circus. He (or they) imposed his will about every single article about former Yugoslavia, and his word is always the last one. I'm not quite sure what gives right to medical doctor from Split, Croatia to be monopolist on historical topics about Yugoslavia? Since English Wikipedia is technically international Wikipedia, it's quite clear that some people, like Direktor, have very strong motives to spam biased, contradictory and illogical nonsense to international audience. Something must be done for removal of biased and intellectually dishonest monopolist. I believe that main contributors to English Wikipedia articles about ex-Yugoslavia should be persons of non-Yugoslav origin, without ethnic or political agenda. What is truly incredible is that this person don't want to discuss about him personally, but he himself created entire section on other talk page to discuss others personally, and to label them. Here is example (War on our people): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chetniks --Ganderoleg (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiethnic Partisan flags?

G'day R-41. What are your references for these flags? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are more accurately the flags of the six "Federal States" that were proclaimed by the Partisan AVNOJ in November 1943 as part of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. FS Serbia, FS Croatia, FS Slovenia, FS Bosnia and Herzegovina, FS Montenegro, FS Macedonia. They were used by the Partisan commands (and sometimes the Partisan units) of each respective federal state. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps they should live over on the AVNOJ article? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The Partisans were technically the military of the DFY, but they also founded the AVNOJ that founded the DFY so its a rather strange issue. No I think the Partisans are best viewed as a faction here. The flags should be organized in a gallery though, I think. Would that be ok? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am happy for them to stay if they are sourced. What is the reference for them using these flags as Partisan military units/formations? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Its sort of general knowledge, they represented Partisan states so the Partisans used them.. There are no sources, though (very few people actually concerned themselves with what additional flags were used by Partisan units), so if you want them out you can move them of course :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, general knowledge. That old chestnut. OK, I'll play. I don't consider myself as full bottle on the Partisans as I might be on say, the Chetniks (damn you Tomasevich for not finishing your life's work...), but I've never seen any reference to the supposedly 'ethnic' Partisan formations (such as 1st Proletarian Assault Brigade, raised in Serbia, but reinforced with recruits from throughout Yugoslavia during the war) using 'ethnic' Partisan flags of this sort. The only flag I am aware of being actually used is the one used at the top of the article (straight or curved arms... whatever). The ethnic flags are just unsourced and seem unnecessary to me. Plus, it clags the article up unnecessarily, imho. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No no, not ethnic distinctions, certainly not, the distinctions were geographic --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, although my point was geographic to some extent, where are the sources? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Serbian tricolour.
Croatian tricolour.
Like I said, I can not and will not contest the removal of said flags from the article - since I do not have a source :). -- Director (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoare (2006) pp. 83-84 briefly touches on the subject of the flags of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian partisans and their adoption in 1941:

"In order to mobilise support from all Yugoslav nations, it was necessary for the KPJ to accord full recognition to national names, symbols, flags, and languages. The flags carried by the Partisans until that time [mid to late 1941] had varied according to local conditions. [...] At Stolice, the Communists took steps to standardise Partisan symbols. The Partisans at this stage did not adopt any specifically Bosnian national symbols. According to Tito's decree at Stolice, in Croatia they were to wear the Croatian tricolore (red-white-blue) and in Serbia the Serbian tricolore (red-blue-white). In Bosnia-Hercegovina, as in the parts of Croatia where the Serbs lived, they were to wear 'a Serbian and Croatian tricolore in the form of triangle.' The General Staff of Bosnia-Hercegovina appears to have altered this prescribed emblem in its order to its subordinate staffs: it decreed that 'our flag in Bosnia-Hercegovina will be: for Serb areas - Serbian, and for Croat - Croatian'."

That means there were at least three different flags: the Serbian tricolor flag, the Croatian tricolor flag, and the Serbian and Croatian triangle flag (Serbs in Croatia apparently did not modify it). I note that there is no mention of a red star being on the flags. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits

I have removed information backed by the locally published source (Goldstein) as we have previously agreed to avoid them and readded information removed by Laz. [4] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree Goldstein is unreliable. -- Director (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Director. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The recent addition of Hoare is pointless as both he and Ramet are referring to the same statement by Tito on the composition of Yugoslav Partisans in May 1944. Ramet is more specific and mentions all the ethnic groups whereas Hoare mentions only Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. No sense in repeating it. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 07:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to be "politically correct", as it were. I suggest you leave Hoare in as a source for those figures. -- Director (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Factual errors

The page still contains factual errors (actually complete geographical nonsense) about raid at St. Lorenzen (now Lovrenc na Pohorju) and mixing this place with some Austrian place Sankt Lorenzen ob Eibiswald. Žarišče (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New evidence about Chetnik resistance

Just a quick point of interest, what about the Cambridge spy ring which showed that Soviet spies had deliberately doctored intelligence reports to make the Allies shift their support to communist Tito and the Partisans? I think James Klugmann was the sixth member of the spy ring and a proven Soviet mole, there is supposedly proof of his doctoring of reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezboy18 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

bring some reliable published sources for that stuff and we'll talk... Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources on the matter, set out in brief in the Yugoslavia and the Allies article [5]. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of Partisans in Slovenia

The number of Partisans in Slovenia given in the table seems exaggerated. Does anyone have an explanation or another source to confirm the data?

  • Per Gow, "Slovenia and the Slovenes: A Small State in the New Europe", ISBN 978-1-85065-944-0, "the numbers engaged with the OF remained relatively small till the latter stages of the war. Throughout 1941 the total number in OF units was no more than 800, while at the time of the Italian capitulation in 1943 figures vary from 3,000–5,000; domestic opponents were perhaps 8,000 strong."
  • Another source is "Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country" by John R. Lampe, 2000, ISBN 9780521774017. Quote (pg. 222): "In 1943 ... the acquisition of Italian arms boosted the Partisan ranks from 2,500 to 6,000". Nowhere near the currently stated 21,000 to 25,000.
  • Hans-Christian Petersen and Samuel Salzborn mention in their book "Antisemitism in Eastern Europe: History and Present in Comparison" (ISBN 9783631598283, pg. 102) that in August 1944, there were 27,751 Partisan fighters in Slovenia, men and women.

I think these data make the complete table void, as it is only based on one source, not supported by any other and contradicted by several others. --Eleassar my talk 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just ask yourself why do the majority of books written by foreigners underestimate the number of Slovene partisans? The answer is that Serbs systematically marginalized non-Serbian membership in Yugoslav partisans in sources they presented to authors coming from Allies countries. You should be ashamed to do it yourself - only Slovene collaborationists prefer this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 21 February 2012
Please note that uncivil behaviour and insults are not tolerated here. If you have reliable sources claiming that these works are biased, or have more sources that put the number of partisans higher, present them. --Eleassar my talk 18:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Another book with lower numbers is "Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in the Post-Communist Balkans" by Biljana Vankovska and Håkan Wiberg" (I.B.Tauris, 2003; pp. 164–165). It estimates the number in 1941 to 700–800, 2000 partisans at the time of the capitulation of Italy (some sources 3000–5000), and over 30,000 (per Slovene sources) in 1945. I'll replace the information about the Slovene Partisans in the table and mark the table as dubious, if no source supporting Cohen is provided. --Eleassar my talk 13:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
"Cohen the Dentist" is known as a suspect source. -- Director (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, "Cohen the Dentist"? In what way are you suggesting Cohen is unreliable, and what evidence do you have to support your suggestion? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Haha, yes, that's his "nickname". Again, I can't remember exactly when or where, but the last time his reliability came up strong criticism was cited from historians. I think it was somewhere in Talk:Chetniks or Talk:Draza Mihailovic, quite a while ago. As I remember, he's apparently a Jewish dentist with a grudge against Serbs, and a strong pro-Croat and pr-Slovene bias (at least I've been told he is). In any case he is suspect, that I recall for certain. -- Director (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I must say I have a copy of 'Serbia's Secret War', and I don't get that sense. It is well referenced and positively reviewed, he is widely published in scholarly publications as well. This is akin to suggesting an economist isn't reliable. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Touche. I get your meaning. Remarks on his occupation must've touched on some deep-rooted bias on my part against the stomatological profession. Perhaps we should revisit the issue? -- Director (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I plan to use him as appropriate as a reliable published source until the community brings forth evidence he is not reliable. I would have thought the default position is that he is reliable. He's published by a major Tier One US university (Texas A&M), he's positively reviewed (even Baroness Thatcher likes his book) and he has been published on a number of scholarly publications as well.Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
An online source I've found dealing in detail with the number of Slovene Partisans is the diploma thesis "Slovensko in italijansko odporniško gibanje - strukturna primerjava" (in Slovene) [Slovene and Italian Resistance Movement - A Structural Comparison] (pp. 69–72), written by Primož Pirc in 2008.
Pirc cites the data from a work by Klanjšček, Ferenc and Ferlež from 1976, titled "Narodnoosvobodilna vojna na Slovenskem: 1941-1945" (in Slovene) [National Liberation War in the Slovene Lands: 1941–1945] (COBISS 6356737), "Zbornik dokumentov in podatkov o narodnoosvobodilni vojni jugoslovanskih narodov. Del 6, knj. 16, Boji v Sloveniji 1944" [Proceedings of the Documents and Data about the National Liberation War of the Yugoslav Nations. Part 6, volume 16. Fights in Slovenia 1944] from 1981 (COBISS 1568286), and "Zbornik dokumentov in podatkov o narodnoosvobodilni vojni jugoslovanskih narodov. Del 6, knj. 17, Boji v Sloveniji 1944" [Proceedings of the Documents and Data about the National Liberation War of the Yugoslav Nations. Part 6, volume 17. Fights in Slovenia 1944] (COBISS 1568542) that shall also be used. I think these works have more merit to be used as a source of the data in the table, as they deal specifically with the situation in the Slovene Lands during World War II and were written by experts in the modern history of Slovenia. They also roughly correspond to the sources cited above, but are much more detailed.
The data given are: 700–800 partisans and armed illegals in the first half of August 1941, 1,924 in 1941, 2,500 at the end of April 1942, about 3,500 in the winter 1942/1943, 5,500 partisans in September 1943, 29,462 partisans in summer 1944, 38,000 members of NOV&POS in December 1944 (5,100 in POS), which was the largest number, 30,000 soldiers of NOV and POS in March 1945, 37,901 soldiers of NOV and POS on 26 April 1945, not counting the Division of the National Defense. --Eleassar my talk 15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Eleassar,
I'm not going to attack your sources, but still would like to ask you which sources dealing with the number of Slovene Partisans are more accurate in your opinion, is it the sources from 1980s (that are being cited in the diploma thesis by Primož Pirc written in 2008), or the ones collected and published in 2011 in the Slovenski zgodovinski atlas?
The data given in the Slovenski zgodovinski atlas are as follows:
* December 1941: 1,200 Slovene partisans (it states "1200 partisans" only, but I think the armed illegals are included).
* Summer 1942: 5,300 Slovene partisans / 400 members of the Home Guard.
* Summer 1943: unchanged number as the year ago, i.e. 5,300 Slovene partisans / 6000 members of the Home Guard / 200 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
* Autumn 1943 (after the capitulation of Italian army): 20,000 Slovene partisans / 3,000 members of the Home Guard / 0 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
* Summer 1944: 30,000 Slovene partisans / 17,000 members of the Home Guard / 500 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
* Winter 1945: 34,000 Slovene partisans / 17,000 members of the Home Guard / 500 members of the Slovene Chetniks.
DancingPhilosopher 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If the Slovenski zgodovinski atlas (Slovenian Historical Atlas) cites these numbers, then they can be listed where applicable. The number of Partisans fluctuated quite a lot, so we have to be exact in regard to the periods listed in the table, or the table should be redesigned.
The Atlas, judging by the numbers written here, does not give the data for late 1942, nor September 1943 (the atlas gives the data for summer 1943, probably meaning July/August, and for the autumn after the surrender on 23 September 1943), nor late 1943 (the number could potentially increase from the autumn to the end of the year), nor late 1944.
Also, the number 2000 for 1941 is stated and explained in the work by Tamara Griesser Pečar and by the European Resistance Archive,[6] the same (ERA) source is used for late 1944.
I don't want to flag a published source as unreliable just because it differs from the Atlas; however, in the cases where there is a difference, the number less commonly cited in available sources can be given in the 'Notes' section as a footnote.
Summarising this, if the table is not redesigned, the only difference I see is for the late 1941, where the number used by most sources should be used in the main text and the alternative number in the 'Notes' section. --Eleassar my talk 13:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Adjective concerns

The Yugoslav adjective "narodno" is a major problem. It can be translated, with virtually equal accuracy, as "people's" or "national". Sometimes "people's" is the commonname, sometimes its "national" - and now we have a serious lack of consistency in translating the damn word. Its the "national liberation war", but its the "people's liberation army", or its the "Yugoslav people's army", but its the "national liberation front" - whereas in SC the exact same word is always used. Should we try to agree on the more accurate translation and apply it in all cases (or in most cases) for the sake of consistency, and not confusing the poor reader? -- Director (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

aren't sources trumps? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and we should use sources to determine the best translation for the adjective "narodno" and then we should use it. At issue is the word itself. -- Director (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In Slovene, there is a difference between ljudski (people's) and narodni (national). I'm not sure if such a distinction exists in other Yugoslav languages. --Eleassar my talk 16:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In Serbo-Croatian its more complicated. SC has just one word, "narodno", which can mean, and is translated in sources as, both "people's" and "national". There is "nacionalno", of course, which is a Serbo-Croatian-ized Latin word and can only mean "national", but that's besides the point. Slovene has "nacionalni" as well I think? -- Director (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Nacionalni usually means the same as narodni, but may also pertain to the state. --Eleassar my talk 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Map

Come one, DIREKTOR, do you have to delete or redraw every single WW2-related map that I create? What is wrong with this one? I used exactly same borders of the Užice Republic as they are presented in this atlas: Povijesni atlas za osnovnu školu, Kartografija - Tlos - Zagreb, Zagreb, 1975. If you have objections to that, you should contact publishers of that atlas. Anyway, my map at least have a source while this one does not list any source for such borders of the republic. Do you want to say that partisans did not controlled this territory in 1941? In every atlas that showing partisan-controlled territories in 1941 you will find that partisans controlled eastern Bosnia and much of Montenegro - the only difference is that they naming this area "liberated partisan territory" instead "Republic of Užice", but atlas that I used as a source for my map is using name "Republic of Užice" for that whole partisan-controlled area. Also, is there a reason why partisans would respect "territorial integrity" of Axis Montenegro and Axis Croatia? There is no logic that they create a republic only in parts of Axis Serbia that they controlled, but not in adjacent parts of Axis Croatia and Axis Montenegro that they also controlled. PANONIAN 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, read about WWII in Yugoslavia from real scholarly literature, not from the Elementary School Historical Atlas - that's my advice to you. I am certain that the Republic of Uzice did not encompass so much territory, so I know your map is wrong in its depiction. It looks like some amalgam of all territory held at any one time by the Chetniks and the Partisans in 1941, and the definition of Partisan/Chetnik-held territory seems to be very loose as well. (Its "come on", not "come one".)
PANONIAN, generally speaking, your main problem is that you really have little or no idea about the subject you're editing on. I understand you enjoy making these maps, and they're good, I grant you that (though they would be better without double borders and "cheerful", colouring-book colours) - but do not try to depict elements of the course of an extremely complex guerilla war without a detailed understanding of said course. If you want my advice (and I know you don't ;)) I recommend you try to find Tomasevich volume II in Serbo-Croatian and read it front to back. If you don't care about that, then, in my opinion, you should probably ask yourself what you're really doing on these articles. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, there is no authoritative source for borders and size of the republic. There is source that says that "the town itself was a republic" and there are sources that saying that republic included 15,000 square kilometres or 20,000 square kilometres. So, we might say that all sources contradicting one to another when size of the republic is in question. The Yugoslav school atlas is only one of these sources and I see no evidence that any of the sources is a priori right or wrong when borders of the republic are in question. Also, I do not see that Elementary School Historical Atlas does not belong to "real scholarly literature" - authors of school books and atlases are often respectable scholars. Also, I collect maps - I have many maps and atlases and this atlas that I used is the only source that shows borders of the Republic of Užice. So, only map based on that source would satisfy "no original research" Wiki policy since all other user-created maps of the Užice republic for Wikipedia would be examples of original research of uploaders, since there is no graphical source that supports other borders of the republic (usage of textual source for graphical presentation would be rather problematic). So, what "you know" or what "you are certain about" is irrelevant for Wikipedia. You are not an scholar and you have no right to proclaim sources created by scholars as "wrong in depiction". PANONIAN 15:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what I am talking about. Had you read ANY of the scholarly sources you would not write such nonsense. I don't even have to waste time looking at your links. I already know you either misunderstood a source, or you found a source that, for one reason or another, is entirely dismissable in itself (like some random nonsense biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser). No professional source on this subject could possibly contend that the Uzice Republic encompassed only the town of Uzice, and the sources in general are NOT in any kind of conflict. You are projecting your own confusion about Yugoslav history onto historians in general. There are good German reports that allow historians to understand what occurred in this theatre relatively accurately - but you would not know this, so you assume professional scholars and historians are just as confused.
The bottom line is that the territory you depicted is ridiculously huge. Its at least 40,000 km2, and probably represents, not the Uzice Republic itself, but all the territory ever held throughout 1941 in eastern Yugoslavia (by the Partisans and the Chetniks combined!). But the size itself in km2 is not really relevant. What is relevant is that you base your map on a similar map from a real source, a scholarly source.
And anyway, why would you make an anachronistic map like that? It can only confuse the reader about an already confusing subject. There were many other resistance-held territories in 1941 besides the blue blob, and many other liberated territories in 1942 besides the red area. If you want to make maps that depict all liberated territories held in a particular year I suggest you do that, rather than just one area on one part of the map, and another from a year back on the other part... -- Director (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I had enough of this, DIREKTOR. I do not know what you believe that you will achieve by POV-ization of WW2-related articles, but you will not be in Wikipedia forever, so I am sure that there will be a day when good-faith users will correct WW2 articles that you usurped. So far, I will focus only on keeping the worst incarnations of your personal POV out of certain articles. Regarding map issue, I will temporarily not insist that my map of Užice republic is used in articles in en Wiki, but I insist that two other maps of the Užice republic that are fully unsourced are not used as well. Otherwise, I will open original research case because of inclusion of such maps. PANONIAN 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
One day the world will be free of my tyranny. Until that day, please find a scholarly source for your elementary school map. -- Director (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

The article says nothing substantial about the numerous atrocities committed by partisans against prisoners and civilians. --41.151.100.18 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

feel free to add some information about these atrocities, along with inline citations as per WP policy. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm also working on this issue. Right now collecting material. Yugoslav Partisans article partly isn't neutral just because of this issue. I'll contribute where I can. --Wustenfuchs 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, Wustenfuchs is going to write about Bleiburg.. Alright, but this is a controversial issue so please use non-local sources, list the page number, and please be sure to follow what they say exactly. Painfully exactly. In these sort of touchy issues people often tend to try and summarize the position of the source in a way that others might view as misinterpretation of the source, so it would also be nice if you could provide relevant quotations from the sources (as was the practice in similar Chetnik issues). Also please be brief in describing atrocities (such as Bleiburg and the Foibe) which already have their article where the context and the controversial details have been laid out for the reader in full. -- Director (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol. DIREKTOR, you will participate (I hope). There won't be problems, we can discuss everything. But I need time for this, it wont' be finished for weeks. But I think it's something that should of have been writen long time ago. --Wustenfuchs 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright then. -- Director (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, where is the problem Direktor? --Wustenfuchs 17:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

After Axis forces lost the war, Croatian Armed Forces and Croatian civilians, along with Slovene Home Guard and part Montenegrin Chetniks, retreated to British occupational zone in Austria in Bleiburg. British Army didn't accepted them as prisoners of war, but insted, they transfered them to the Partisans. Partisans stripped of all of their weapons, extra clothing to include shoes and boots, food and water and were forced to march as much as 100 kilometers into the Yugoslav interior.[72] Majority of them was killed after they returned to Yugoslavia. It is estimated that around 250,000 of them was killed in mass executions, death marches and concentration camps in 1945 and 1946.[73]

In the report of an American official about the situation in Yugoslavia from February 1945, it is noted that Partisans' propaganda, organized "spontaneous" demonstrations, forced labour, summarialy self-willing executions, arrests and punishing and measures of deterrence reminde people on occupation.[73]

Tito's secret police, OZNA, was used to purge real and made up political enemies. According to Tito's own words, purpose of OZNA was to "strike fear into those who dislike this Yugoslavia".[73] Those who had better luck were sentenced to a forced labour, and one of their major projects was the constriction of a railway Šamac-Sarajevo in 1947. Even though it was represented that those railways were built by Communist Youth, large percent of workers were convicts, which is a major reason why those same railways were in bad shape.[73] Persecution of Volksdeutschers Between 300,000 - 500,000 Volksdeutschers, ethnic Germans, left Yugoslavia between 1943 and 1944. According to the German estimates, that was 60% of total German population in Yugoslavia. The Germans in Banat region remained in Yugoslavia after the war. The Germans who did not flee lost many of their rights. In November 1944, Tito deprived them from citizenship and put them out of protection by Yugoslav laws. After the war, ethnic Germans become subject of Partisans revenge. In October and November 1944, Partisans horrificly massacred Germans and Hungarians in Vojvodina region. Large number of Germans was imprisoned in working camps, of which around 10,000 of them died between October 1945 and March 1948. From December 1944 till January 1945, some 27,000 to 37,000 women and children were taken away to the Soviet Union, and none of them returned to Yugoslavia, but insted, they were sent to East Germany in 1949. This actions left very few German-speaking people in Yugoslavia. According to the Yugoslav 1953 census, there was only 62,000 Germans left in Yugoslavia.[74] Persecution of Italians Population in Istria was divided, one part supported Axis or were pro-Allied, while other supported Yugoslav communists. After Germans left Istria, the peninsula was occupied by Yugoslav Partisans in spring 1945. Thousends of Istrians, Italians and Croats, who were real or imagined fascists or anti-communists, were rounded up and executed. In an orgy of revenge, bodies of men, women and children were tossed from the cliffs into the Adriatic sea. Between 1945 and 1951, Yugoslav communist authorities expelled around 300,000 Istrian Italians.[75] Persecution of Albanians After Germans have been driven out of Kosovo, Yugoslav Partisans entered and occupied the area in September 1944. During the war, Yugoslav Partisans slain around 25,000 Albanians. Despite these figures, much larger killings occured in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.[76]

This is what I added to the article. Just say where did I went wrong. --Wustenfuchs 17:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous problems, Fuchs. I'm looking at your additions just now.
  • First and foremost, as I said before, I'd like to request that you please quote the sources directly. Since you're going into the most controversial subject of Yugoslav history, laying out what exactly the sources state would be extremely helpful.
  • Secondly, I'm noticing a lot of misleading and slanted wording. For example: "Croatian Armed Forces". It is true that that was the name of the military of the NDH at that time, but I'm sure you understand that the uninformed reader might get the wrong impression. The Independent State of Croatia is not "Croatia", hence we must be sure to point out that these "Croatian armed forces" are those of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia, and that they were Yugoslav collaborationist formations.
  • Thirdly, grammar. Could you please be more careful there? ("British Army didn't accepted them as prisoners..")
And in general the tone of your additions is just heavily slanted. Even if all the stuff you included is, in fact, directly supported by the references you quoted, I sincerely doubt that was the tone of the sources themselves. There's also much omission of extenuating circumstances, there are figures there which vary significantly from source to source, etc. -- Director (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean to quote sources directly? Like quote the authors, every letter they wrote or? I did wrote same what authors did, I only shortened the informations. Some infos are really irelevant.
Well yes, about that "Croatian Armed Forces", I noticed other users always complaining about that... I don't see controversy there, adding Armed Forces of the Independent State of Croatia is just to much writing :) But we can solve that too... not a problem. The tone? I, well, to be honest, I mostly copied the authors... so... I don't see a tone there. --Wustenfuchs 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I mean something like this. Now I'm not suggesting you should write as extensively as all that (nor should you create a separate page! :)), but just the part that directly supports your text. However, you should carefully avoid bias by omission. If for example, after describing the atrocities, the author adds extenuating circumstances (such as Tomasevich does), then you should under no circumstances avoid including them as well. Otherwise you'd be misrepresenting the source (and people do check).
As for "Croatian Armed Forces", in short, its technically correct but its very misleading. NDH institutions are illegal. Their names were deliberately devised to claim representation of "Croatia" and the Croatian people, but that claim was forcefully contested (to say the least). By using simply "Croatian Armed Forces", without any clarification, one adds undue credence to their, ultimately failed claim. The modern Croatian state is, by its constitution, a direct continuation of the Federal State of Croatia, not of the Independent State of Croatia. In short, there were two "Croatias", and your usage of Ustase names without clarification disregards one of them - favoring the other. As everyone's favorite president would say, its "Ustašoid". I recommend "NDH troops" or "NDH units" etc. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, authors don't mention circumstances. What are circumstances in killing Germans or Albanians or even members of the Croatian Armed Forces? Authors ofter mention "revenge", but don't mention what civilians did to deserve death. However, it is easly explained that Albanians or Bosniaks were killed mostly because Partisans were Serb-dominated in Bosnia and Kosovo. I'm not saying Serbs are genocidal, but you know how it is. The problem with Italians, well what were the circumstances? Majority of them weren't fascists at all, and I did added there were fascist sypmathizers, but you can't kill or imprison a person for simply being a fascist or anti-communist, right? Similiar thing was with Volksdeutschers. I really don't know where to find more detalied info, what encouraged partisan authorities to persecute those people. But like I said, you and other users can contribute, which I would appriciate.
So, to be constructive. Now I need to make a new page like Talk:Yugoslav partisans/quotations? I can do that, probably today for few hours. --Wustenfuchs 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Re Circumstances.. Well for one thing, having read more than one source dealing with Bleiburg (I was very interested in that a while ago), I find it hard to believe a respectable author would fail to mention Ustase atrocities as the context and motivation - even you've mentioned "revenge". Authors do not attempt to "excuse" the atrocities, nor would I suggest anything of the sort, but they do explain them. To quote Tomasevich:

"Considering [1] the nature of the struggle among the various competing forces during the Second World War in Yugoslavia, [2] the Ustaša atrocities against the Serbian population in the territory of the Independent State of Croatia and against all pro-Partisan Croats, [3] the fact that the Ustaše adhered to the Nazis to the bitter end, and finally [4] the fact that the Ustaša leadership wanted to put its troops at the disposal of the Western Allies for possible use against Yugoslav and other Communists, no mercy on the part of the Yugoslav Partisans toward these troops could have been expected."

I've underlined the individual "circumstances" as laid out by Tomasevich. In addition to these, there's [5] the fact that these killings were not only without sanction from the General Staff - they were against explicit orders.
Re ethnic hatred. I would refrain from trying to explain Albanian and Muslim deaths as ethnically motivated without a source explicitly stating something of the sort. In fact, I read that the killings were primarily motivated by ideological hatred. The primary "creed" of the Partisans was "brotherhood and unity". Very many Bosniaks fought in the Partisans, and there was close friendship and cooperation between Albanian and Yugoslav Partisans. In fact, after the war, there was talk that Albania should be included into yugoslavia as the seventh federal republic. Similarly, there was an entire division of Italian troops fighting as part of the Partisan army (the Garibaldi Division). So, in general - explicit sources for ethnic motivation.
Re civilians. Wustenfuchs, you must understand that, technically, all Yugoslavs in those columns were "civilians", in uniform or no. Civilians engaged in "high treason during wartime", warranting a death sentence (in virtually all countries in the world at that time). In spring 1945, with fighting still going on, amnesty was only offered to those who surrendered freely. To my knowledge, there were no amnesties on offer on May 15 - they had long expired, and the prisoners were, by all rights, supposed to be tried for treason. Tito, however, apparently ordered the prosecution to the full extent of the law only of those individuals among the prisoners who were prominent collaborators (he was in Russia at the time trying to get Stalin's army out of the country as soon as possible). The rest fell under the general amnesty that was later declared after the war. What was supposed to happen was that all the bigwigs, prominent Ustase and Chetniks, were to be tried and executed (with full propaganda of course) - but the rank and file were to be released under the amnesty. However, many of the latter were killed by the rampaging Partisans and the forced march through the ruined country.
Re sources. I don't think there's need to create an entire talkpage like that, but its your call. The most important thing is to accurately convey the position of the source on what you're using him for. -- Director (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, ofc. Circumstances are necessary. However, all sources state that Volksdeutschers were persecuted 'casue they were Germans. Same reason was for Italians, as sources state. We can talk there were Italians, Bosniaks etc in Partisans. You know there were Serbs in Ustaše, there were Jews in German Army etc. This doesn't mean they loved those people you know. Sources state they were killed in that and that number in very horrific way, and killed people were civilians mostly (in Albanian case) or POWs (in NDH's case). While expelled Germans and Italians, were again - civilians. No excuse for that. This is clearly an ethnic hatred or just stupid prejudices that Germans are Nazis and Italians are fascists. Clearly, communist Yugoslavia was impossible to be created withot expelling undesirable elements, as Tito stated oftenly. --Wustenfuchs 10:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
And if I may add an observation, its very strange how elements of the Croatian public are so "outraged" about the Bleiburg killings. NDH troops, particularly the Ustase, never took Partisan prisoners. And I mean never. They were treated as rebelling civilians and executed, mostly on the spot - and that was the officially-sanctioned policy. No distinction was made between soldiery and unarmed civilians, women, children, or even the wounded. This policy, more often than not, actually included all civilians that happened to be found in newly-captured Partisan territory, regardless of whether there was any direct evidence of association with the Partisans (the massacre at Kozara is a rather infamous example of this, but by no means the only one). The Partisans, who were the military of Yugoslavia (an Allied force), often requested that the POW status of their prisoners be recognized by the NDH, offering to grant the same status to captured NDH troops - to no avail. In short, the NDH showed no mercy, and apparently expected mercy in return. In a way, they set the rules of the game themselves, and having lost, they're being victimized. -- Director (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you observed that very good. I agree with you. The reason why people in Croatia are "outraged" (as you put it) by Bleiburg massacre is that majority of killed people were Croats. Number of killed people varies from 50,000 to 250,000. All of those are very high numbers, and NDH troops never killed so many Partisans (we don't count KIAs). Every man should be "outraged" by such action of Partisans, not just Croats, and it's very unhuman to explain this with "they killed them, so they revenged to them, what did they expect?" Especially when we talk about expelled Germans and Italians or killed Albanians, or robbed peasants or killed people just because they weren't communists. You are an expert (if I may call you so) in Partisan and especiallly in Chetnik history, so you know that large number of Chetniks just changed uniforms, which is one of major reasons why Bleiburg massacre occured. I really doubt Croatian partisans would kill Domobrans or even Ustaše, when I know alot of Croat partisans saved them. Well, sorry for not adding the citations, I'm currently working on the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina article, and I really have alot of work in school, so... you understand. Don't expect anything in day, or two. --Wustenfuchs 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with what has been said by various people here so far, but for now I am going to focus on the post-war killings of Ustashe:

"The reason why people in Croatia are "outraged" (as you put it) by Bleiburg massacre is that majority of killed people were Croats. Number of killed people varies from 50,000 to 250,000. All of those are very high numbers, and NDH troops never killed so many Partisans (we don't count KIAs). Every man should be "outraged" by such action of Partisans, not just Croats, and it's very unhuman to explain this with "they killed them, so they revenged to them, what did they expect?"

I don't support extrajudicial executions of anyone, but here you are DRASTICALLY misrepresenting what the Ustashe actually were and what they did.

The Ustashe not only killed Partisans. Their main goal was an ethnically pure Croatia, and to achieve this they murdered tens of thousands Gypsies and Jews, and hundreds of thousands of Serbs (the most realistic estimate is around 350 thousand), in the most sadistic ways imaginable, the most notorious example of this being the extermination camp Jasenovac (the only extermination camp in Europe that was not run directly by the Nazis). They had a genocidal agenda and carried it out. What they did was worse than anyone in the entire Balkan region did either during or after the war.

So even if we look at just the Ustashe and ignore every other Axis power active in the region, we can say that anything the Partisans did is simply incomparable to what the Ustashe did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.158.193 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, you spoke of the violence against Italians. Some of it is true, but you are misrepresenting it. Read this, it's very objective and writted by a mixed commission, that describes history, including the inhumane Fascist treatment of Slovenes and Croats in the interwar period, the Fascist crimes during the war and the revenge after the war: http://www.kozina.com/premik/indexeng_porocilo.htm

This is completey different to the attitute that Tito's men had towards Germans. In that case, we certainly can speak of blatant ethnicity-based violence and expulsions. With Italians, it's a lot more complicated.

And yet, when speaking of violence against Germans, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the great majority of Yugoslav Germans were supporters of Nazism. They were Nazified already before the war, and when Nazi Germany invaded, they were ecstatic. They were supportive of a regime that commmitted horrible crimes against humanity against a large number of people in Yugoslavia. This is a verifiable fact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this to imply that I somehow think it was right to expel Germans and that I'm okay with the accompanying death of 60 thousand of them. But if you ignore the fact that the great majority of them supported Nazism, you are working not for clarity and truth, but against them.

Lets not drift into a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. I will reply though:
  • Yes, perhaps I was rather unclear. What I meant was why are people so outraged about Blieburg especially when it was nothing more than part of a pattern of mass-murder throughout the war. But the numbers you quote are at the extreme upper end of the estimates. The number of victims ranges between 20,000 and 55,000. That it was beyond 100,000 is highly unlikely. The number of Partisan POWs killed (on the spot or in camps) by NDH and German troops throughout the entire war can also be counted in the tens of thousands, no question. As I said, unlike with the Partisans - "no prisoners" was the actual policy of the NDH military.
  • Nobody is saying the NDH only killed Partisans, I believe all of us here are very well aware of the ethnic cleansing agenda of the Ustase. The subject here is the treatment of POWs.
  • Certainly I agree (and the sources actually say this explicitly) that nothing the Partisans did could possibly be compared to the mass-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide campaigns undertaken by the Ustase against civilians. That is not the subject here, though.
  • Yes, I agree that the Italian minority was treated better than the German minority. They were nudged out a lot more "gently", and many stayed. This was basically because Italy was part of the Allies by that stage.
-- Director (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just respond to the first point. I don't think it's true that what I'm saying is at the extreme end. If I'm not mistaken 80 thousand Serbs perished in Jasenovac alone. There were a number of other locations where Serbs were killed, often in their own houses. That the number is over 100 thousand is actually at the 'lower' end of estimates. I don't know why you think it's extreme. -Justice and Reason (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about Bleiburg (not going into Jasenovac, I didn't do any research on that). Its fair to say most estimates on Bleiburg roughly range between 20,000 and 60,000. "250,000" is indeed - extreme. -- Director (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Monuments

Most of these sculptures belong to the socialist realism art form

This sentence is incorrect, more likely most monuments are abstract art. Look at the picture? It this socialist realism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.74.8 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

what is your source for that? --Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
One would have to check some monograph on Yugoslav art, which I don't have. But that's common knowledge. As things were in ex-Yugoslavia, social realism along with many other things went out of the fashion in late 50's and beginning of 60's, when Yugoslavia broke with USSR.
That's probably correct, actually. Not that I know anything about sculpture.. :) -- Director (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Axis Colaboration

http://www.novinar.de/2012/01/19/saradnja-brozovih-partizana-i-pavelicevih-ustasa.html

Partizans colaborated with nazis, it should be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.20.141 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (used by the Partisans)

Flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (used by the Partisans) says the infobox. It was actually the opposite. DFY was established in 1943, after Partisans were using this flag for more than two years. That means that flag of Partisans was proclaimed as flag of DFY.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, strange. Fixed now though. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Serbian partisans

The article presents flags of Partisans in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, but not in Serbia. It would maybe be better to have some gallery section with all flags they used.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I haven't got the time to do it, but if you do, go right ahead. I don't think I have a source for the Slovenian one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to add it to section about Partisans in Serbia, but I could not find such section. There are sections for Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and even for Herzegovina. But not for Serbia. This part of the article needs expansion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, feel free. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberty

On more than on occasion a term liberty/liberated was used in this article to refer to the territories captured by Communists. I propose to replace this term with some more appropriate term.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Parallel actions

Paul N. Hehn, who is already used on wikipedia, i.e. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, says:

Maybe I haven't read the article carefully, but I did not find any mention of this kind of "parallel actions" in its text. Communism is not subject of my particular interest (at least till recently) so I apologize if I am wrong here, but I think that information about Partisans joining Germans against Chetniks should be presented to the readers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There was "dialogue" in one known instance, during Weiss I believe, but there were no joint Partisan-German operations. If you mean to introduce such a claim, you will need specifics (where?, when?, who?) and additional sources. -- Director (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Paul N. Hehn (1971), "Serbia, Croatia and Germany, 1941–1945: Civil War and Revolution in the Balkans", Canadian Slavonic Papers 13(4): 362 n. 47, says:

The subject of partisan "parallel actions" against the nationalists is less widely known and understood than similar nationalist actions against the partisans. One such action occurred when the Second Proletariat Brigade moved from Montenegro to East Bosnia and joined the Germans, Croatian Army forces, and Ustasha in attacking the numerically strong nationalists, at the precise moment the Germans were launching a campaign to cleanse East Bosnia. A German Lagebericht states: "between the Croatian Communists, Ustasha, and the Proletariat Brigade thrusting from parts of Montenegro a kind of agreement seems to have been struck according to which these groups will not fight one another." German intelligence also reported "Ustasha units and partisans fighting together against Dangić (the East Bosnian nationalist leader)." German Military Commander in Serbia to WB Südost, Lagebericht for the period 11–20 March 1942, No. 1868/42. Similar reports can be found for the period March–April 1942. As a result of this collaboration the large Serbian nationalist concentration in East Bosnia was successfully decimated by the Germans.

It is important to distinguish "parallel action" from "collaboration". It is also important to compare it with other sources. It does not comport well with Tomasevich's account of the same area in the same period in The Chetniks, but it is not absolutely incompatible with it either. Srnec (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a lot more complex, I suggest reading Operation Trio. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It can't be any "more" complex, since I didn't suggest how complex it was. Srnec (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, OK, good point. Hehn needs to be contrasted with the sources already in the article (and those used in Trio). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur. The overlooked information about joint actions of Partisans and Axis forces against Chetniks should be contrasted with the sources already in this article and in related articles, such as Operation Trio, Jezdimir Dangić, Ustaše,...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, there were no "joint" Partisan/Axis actions. -- Director (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Direktor is correct. What Hehn means by "parallel action" is basically two armies attacking a common enemy simultaneously and, for mutual advantage, not attacking one another during that time. It is distinct from joint action (collaboration), although it may involve tacit agreement. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I concur. Parallel actions of Partisans and Axis forces fighting together against Chetniks. Term joint should not be used.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of 1st Proletarian Brigade formation.

I was just searching for to see if there was anymore info on the internet about the 1st Proletarian Brigade unit when i accidentally clicked on the wikipedia/Yugoslav Partisans Wikipedia Page (this page). I noticed that in it, is says that this, the 1st, was formed on December 21, 1941, when the article for the 1st Proletarian Brigade says that it was formed on December 22, 1941. I am just questioning if one is wrong or if both dates are "accepted" because of time zones change or something. Bit ohms (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Croatian antifascists

Source that could help this article: [7]. Asdisis (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A 1944 Pathe News un-issued film of an RAF supply drop to Yugoslav partisans here: [8] - the aircraft are Short Stirlings - perhaps someone may recognise the area, and the uniforms of the people on the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Veteran numbers in table in Composition section

The table in the Composition section had a column for "1978 Veteran membership" from [2] but these numbers couldn't possibly be right: they were too small and fractional. Probably they referred to hundreds or thousands, but without a copy of the book I can't be sure. Somebody who has a copy of the book should check and re-add them after multiplying by the correct number. --Taejo|대조 07:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hoare, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Whose Is the Partizan Movement?, pages 24-41 volume 15 issue 4, page 27
  2. ^ Rakić, Petar (1980). Statistical pocket-book of Yugoslavia. Federal Statistical Office of Yugoslavia. ISSN 0585-1815.

Edits regarding Danube Swabians

I rolled back a number of IP edits today which either a. added material to sourced sentences, making it appear the material was sourced; or b. were completely unsourced. If there is a case for part or all of them to be re-instated, please make the argument here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref problem - Sharon Fisher 2006

FYI -- There appears to be something wrong with the way the work is cited, resulting in this message in the References section:

  • Fisher, Sharon (2006). Political change in post-Communist Slovakia and Croatia: from nationalist to Europeanist. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 27. ISBN 1-4039-7286-9. Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Sharon_Fisher_2006.2C_p._27" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

--K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Objectives Section

The second paragraph of the Objectives section of this page reads

The objectives of the rival resistance movement which emerged some weeks earlier, the Chetniks, were the retention of the Yugoslav monarchy, ensuring the safety of ethnic Serb populations,[13][14] and the establishment of a Greater Serbia[15] through the ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs from territories they considered rightfully and historically Serbian.[16][17][18][19] Relations between the two movements were uneasy from the start, but from October 1941 they degenerated into full-scale conflict. To the Chetniks, Tito's pan-ethnic policies seemed anti-Serbian, whereas the Chetniks' royalism was anathema to the communists.[20] In the early part of the war Partisan forces were predominantly composed of Serbs and given to the persecution of Muslims (e.g. the slaughter of Muslim women and children in April 1942 in Herzegovina). In that period names of Muslim and Croat commanders of Partisan forces had to be changed to protect them from their predominantly Serb colleagues.[21]


Notice that the last two sentences seem contradictory; the penultimate states that the Partisans employed pan-ethnic policies, while the final states that at least portions of the Partisan forces engaged in ethnic cleansings and took an anti Muslim Croat stance.

Upon inspection of source [21], we do indeed find the information cited in the large paragraph above. On the next page of this source however, we find the sentence "Tito's Partisans in Bosnia-Herzegovina quickly shed Serb exclusivity, and picked up the banner of Bosnian Statehood as one of their auxillary cuases....Rodoljub Colakovic (sic), a leading Serb Communist from Bosnia, noted in a parliamentary speech of January 1946 that the 'Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a seperate-but for the most part, still nationally undeclared-Slavic ethnic group, were equal to Serbs and Croats'"

While the source does make it clear that there have been instances of Muslim persecution by Partisans, when viewed in the context not only of the source from which the citation is drawn, but within the context of the rest of the article, it seems that an isolated incidents during the beginning of the parties formation, during a time when the group was allied with the anti-muslim Chetniks, should not be viewed as a primary objective of the Partisans, and so I propose this be reworked or removed.

Further, upon inspection of source [20] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/partisan_fighters_01.shtml we find the following quote: The Partisans' goal was to create an independent Socialist Yugoslav state by freeing the country from Axis occupation. For Tito, therefore, resistance to the Axis always went hand-in-hand with the fostering of Socialist revolution. To this latter end, the KPJ attempted to appeal to all the various ethnic groups within Yugoslavia, by preserving the rights of each group - including those of both Serb and Croat Muslims. While the ethnic composition of partisan units varied widely over time and between regions, Tito's followers on the whole were Serbs.

This quote is highly opposed in statement to the final two lines of the paragraph currently in the Objectives section. I propose this quote be inserted in place of the current rhetoric, which is largely encyclopedic in its tone ("slaughtering women and children") and which is inaccurate when considering the overall objectives in the movement, at least if one is to take [20] as a credible source.

I would like to move forward with these changes, but invite others to discuss and criticize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogsarticuno (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro

Why are Montenegrin Partisans completely omitted from the article? Sideshow Bob 08:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest because this article is targeted at the Yugoslavian partisans as a movement. Such as the Chetniks are omitted and some of the Albanian resistance. The article focusing on the actual movement of the 'Yugoslavian Partisans' led by Tito. Montenegrin Partisans should find their own article, or be included in Yugoslavian resistance as a whole134.83.3.185 (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Translations

I don't speak any of the languages in question but, to anyone who does, please try to fill in the untranslated names for things like liberated territories, army detachments, and whatever else you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orchastrattor (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes that are broken or inconsistent

This article uses an inconsistent style of shortened footnotes or parenthetical referencing (please see Template:Harvard citation documentation). Some of these are also broken. I will work on fixing this over the next week or so. Peaceray (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)  Done Peaceray (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, as I only have last name(s) & year to go by, & since I do not speak Croatian or Serbian, I am guessing a bit. Please review my citations for:
  • Kvesić, Sibe (1960). Dalmacija u Narodnooslobodilackoj Borbi [Dalmatia in the National Liberation Struggle] (in Croatian). OCLC 440318980.
  • Kovač, Tatjana; Vojnović, Mijo (1976). U Spomen Revoluciji [In Commemoration of the Revolution] (in Croatian). Split: Institut za Historiju Radnickog Pokreta Dalmacije. OCLC 442814475.
  • Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u Drugom Svetskom Ratu : 1939-1945 [Serbia in World War II: 1939-1945] (in Serbian). Vojnoizdavacki i novinski centar. OCLC 454984864.
Peaceray (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Just realized that there are many separate "Hoare 2002" citations. I will tend to consolidating those next. Peaceray (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)  Done Peaceray (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Conversion of bibliographic references in Notes to shortened footnotes with full citation in References

To make the citation style consistent, I plan to convert books that are footnotes in the Notes section to full citations in the References section, with shortened footnotes in the Notes section referring to them. By full citations, I mean to make the parameters as complete as possible. Peaceray (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoare 2006/2002

Griboski Please provide some evidence for what you are claiming. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

@Peacemaker67:,

thanks here also. A question, the Allies are listed, after the opponents are listed, but following with a separator line Yugoslav government-in-exile (1941–44) is listed...what's the catch? (Since above by the allies, the same entity is listed with the remark "(1944–45, de jure)"....would that conclude, between 41-44 YOU-govt-i-ex was neutral and belonged not any side (hence de jure above?). Thanks for clarification.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

Another problem with reflecting complexity in infoboxes. In my view, despite being recognised by the Allies, the g-in-e's policies basically supported the DM Chetniks and opposed the Partisans, even after the news of the Chetnik collaboration was out and it was clear the Partisans were the ones actually fighting the Axis, so their position is rather confounding, and they don't clearly fall into the Allied or Axis camps. I think it is better to leave them slightly separated from the Allies. Personally I think the de jure/de facto thing is trying to parse things too much for an infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work as well @Peacemaker67:. And the naming of the entities is proper. However shouldn’t Sloven Home Guard be under Germany tree? Also thanks for removing the puppet protectorate sub catagory. Better this way.OyMosby (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Good point, fixed Slovene Home Guard. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks just wanted to run by you first. OyMosby (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Composition

However, the Partisan movement would in regional terms be disproportionately western Yugoslav, and particularly Croatian. Of 97 Partisan brigades in existence by the end of 1943 – shortly after the foundation of the new Yugoslavia – 38 were from Croatia, 23 from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and 18 from Slovenia; and of the 38 Croatian Partisan brigades, 20 had an ethnic-Croat majority, 17 an ethnic-Serb majority, and 1 an ethnic-Czech majority. At this time, the whole of eastern Yugoslavia (Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Macedonia) was contributing only 18 Partisan brigades.[Composition 1] Significant information that should be part of the article.Mikola22 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of brigades from each eventual Yugoslav republic, which varied wildly in size at different stages of the war, isn't a very good metric for anything, as it was affected by the occupation framework in different parts of Yugoslavia at different times. The key metric is the ethnic composition of the Partisans overall, and at different stages of the war. That is what needs to go in the article IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, but we should present the fact that this movement is western Yugoslav and particularly Croatian. With ethnic composition of the Partisans overall we do not know that information which is very important.
Done! --T*U (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Composition references

  1. ^ Hoare, Marko Attila (2011). "The Partisans and the Serbs". In Ramet, Sabrina P.; Listhaug, Ola (eds.). Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. #page= 207
@Mikola22: It seems worth noting at different stages the composition of the Partisans. So it can be said up to 1943, per ethnic capita, Western Yugoslavia made up a larger portion. As there have been attempts to downplay Croatian and Slovenian contribution to the Partisan force through the years on wikipedia. Number of brigades is also useful information for the article. I don’t see why leave that out in this article of all places. The RS backs this as well. OyMosby (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Mikola22 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Numbers of detachments, battalions or brigades is not a useful metric, as these units and formations varied wildly in size. We should just get the sources on the composition by percentages together and agree on a form of words (or table) for expressing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Realistically now we have a lot of data about composition(in writing). But this information: "Partisan movement would in regional terms be disproportionately western Yugoslav, and particularly Croatian". is significant fact for the article. This is and historical fact and I think this fact should be part of the article. I do not want to diminish anyone's contribution (Yugoslav republics in WWII) but this area of the former Yugoslavia is place where the biggest battles are being fought. I think it is important information and from a quality source. Mikola22 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Problem with table is multiple sources with different percentages, however I support any quality proposal. Mikola22 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The numbers of units and metrics other than the percentage composition are often used to present biased perspectives that suit one side or the other. You only have to look at the List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina to see that detachments (as an example), ranged in size from 16 to 3,000 fighters. Numbers of units isn't a good metric at all, they varied in size so much it is meaningless. Let's just concentrate on the reliable sources about what the composition of the Partisans was at different stages of the war and put together a table. That would be a far better and less biased way to present the information. I agree that the information has been presented in different ways in different sources, ie for the whole country, by post-war republic etc, so we need to be careful about what framework and statistics we use and how they are presented. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I suport one table but you have this Yugoslavian information: "At the end of September 1944, Serbia had about 70,000 soldiers under the command of Main Staff of Serbia of which in the 13th Corps about 30,000 soldiers, in the 14th Corps 32,463 soldiers and in the 2nd Proletarian Division 4,600 soldiers." and in Cohen table "Late 1944, 204,000". Both are RS. Mikola22 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but I think we lay out what the various RS say here on the talk page, formulate something we can all agree on, then implement it. I'll start pulling out sources tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the 1977 records of recipients

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: At the end of 1977, according to the records of recipients of Partisan pensions, Serbs comprised 39.7% of the Yugoslav population but 53.0% of the recipients of such pensions. By contrast, Croats comprised 22.1% of the Yugoslav population and 18.6% of recipients This is information from Hoare (2002) source, page 4 [9] Mikola22 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what Hoare 2011 and Calic 2019 say, however. Those were the sources to which the statement was attributed when you made your edit. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Amanuensis Balkanicus: Hoare (2011) in footnote has source for this information (1977 recipients). Mikola22 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Also and this new source(Hoare (2002)) has this information as source in footnote, "iv Bilten, Savezni Zavod za Statistiku, Belgrade, no. 1174 (April), reproduced in Leonard Cohen and Paul Warwick, Political Cohesion in a Fragile Mosaic: The Yugoslav Experience (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983) p. 64. The pensions of dead veterans were received by their families". Mikola22 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans/Archive_5&oldid=1140148957"