Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia/Operation Bora

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

Suggestion

[edit]

One thing that y'all might consider is to create some topic boxes that might help to guide y'all writing efforts. I like them because you create them for a group of articles that share the same theme or subject and you can submit them to the featured topics people and get some cool recognition. You can see some examples on my sandbox page that I use to help motivate me to complete various large projects. Over the long haul, I've found that it's really easy to burnout on a medium- or large-sized project and the prospect of completing a topic tends to motivate me more than just a list. It's also helpful in tracking my progress in working on topics as I tend to bounce around a lot to help keep my interest and energy up.

Your current project list looks to do many of the same things, but it might help to organize them into topic boxes as well so that work will already be done whenever you've completed one and are ready to submit it for assessment. Just an idea that's worked for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sturm! We've discussed putting together a good topic on the coup, invasion and occupation as a start point, and I think your idea will help group like things as topics and track things in general. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a good or featured topic promoted really does seem to represent "the gold at the end of the rainbow" and helps when you're on your twentieth British destroyer/Chetnik commander or whatever and am getting tired of the whole subject because "only 55 more to go!". Hope it works for you guys as much as it has for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new Uprising in Serbia (1941) article

[edit]

G'day, I suggest we try to get a consensus on the structure of the Occupation of Yugoslavia, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, new Uprising in Serbia (1941), Republic of Užice and Operation Uzice articles to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought further about this, I think this article could be useful to cover the initial uprising from July to September in detail, followed by sections summarising the Republic of Uzice, Operation Uzice and Operation Mihailovic articles, then an aftermath section. That way there shouldn't be much duplication? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

G'day all, just an update on progress. We've just finished prepping Yugoslav coup d'état (I've just nominated it for GA review), and the current "priority" article is Invasion of Yugoslavia. The rough short-term plan is to get those two articles to GA and create Occupation of Yugoslavia, get it to GA as well and submit them as a good topic. Feel free to suggest where we go from there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we work on Belgrade Offensive after that? I just noticed the 70th anniversary is coming up next year and it wouldn't be bad to get it up on the front page as FA perhaps. There's still 15 or 16 months left and I think it sounds like a realistic goal. 23 editor (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? No reason we have to go chronologically, and there are plenty of sources for it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a milestone

[edit]

G'day all, I note that with the promotion of 21st SS (well done, 23) we have reached several milestones, 10% A Class, 20% GA and 25% B Class, and we are just a smidge under 5% FA. The total number of articles is approaching 100. Great work so far. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in Albania

[edit]

23 has added the subject article to the project, and it raises an issue that needs discussion. Obviously, Italo-German Albania annexed parts of Yugoslavia, but I am a little uncomfortable with including all of Albania in this project. My proposed solution is to create a The Holocaust in Yugoslavia (being drafted) as a summary article and add greater detail on the Holocaust to the Independent State of Croatia, Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia etc articles. In order to properly cover the Occupation of Yugoslavia, we probably need an Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories article as well as the Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories article. I would see further exploration of the relevant parts of the The Holocaust in Albania going in the Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories article rather than including the whole The Holocaust in Albania article in this project. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories is an article that definitely needs to be created. 23 editor (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia and Slovenia

[edit]

These regions seem to be completely ignored on the project page. Oversight or is there something I'm missing? We have overview articles: Slovene Lands in World War II and National Liberation War of Macedonia. Srnec (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, that certainly is not intended. It is partially oversight, and partly unexplained intentions. As shown on the project page, the intention is to create an article called Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, which will cover all of the area absorbed by Bulgaria (almost all of Macedonia, plus sections of modern-day Serbia), and as indicated above Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories covering the remainder of Macedonia and part of modern-day Serbia/Kosovo (let's not get into that) not included in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. As far as Slovenia is concerned, the Italian Province of Ljubljana covers about a third up to 1943, and the small Mura region in the Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories covers 1941-1944. However, Operational Zone of the Adriatic Littoral needs to be added to the German ledger to cover the post-Italian period there, and a yet to be titled article needs to be created covering the extension of the German civil administration of Reichsgau Kärnten and Reichsgau Steiermark into modern-day Slovenia between 1941 and 1945, perhaps German civil administration of Yugoslav territory or similar. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added the Adriatic Littoral, but why only that? What is the threshold for inclusion? This is an honest question. The article Slovene Lands in World War II is a bad idea and I'd support deletion. And National Liberation War of Macedonia may be an unnecessary fork of Yugoslav Front, but don't they belong under the project as long as they do exist? Srnec (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at, but basically we (as project members) decide what goes in the project, and given you and I are the only ones discussing it at present and I agree with you about Slovene Lands in World War II being a bad idea, I don't think we should include it. Instead, I think we should redlink the articles we think we should have, rather than adding ones we think are a bad idea. Would you be ok with me adding German civil administration of Yugoslav territory (as a tentative title) and Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories to the project list instead? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Reichsgau Kärnten and Reichsgau Steiermark cover that information? I fear German civil administration of Yugoslav territory would be redundant if all our articles were up to snuff. The Albanian one would be fine.
Of course, as project members we can decide what belongs. But isn't the point to improve coverage of Yugoslavia in WWII? In which case, shouldn't we be concerned about articles in need of deleting or merging? Shouldn't we be concerned, in other words, about the structure of our coverage in this area? Perhaps we should have another list on the project page of articles in need of liquidating (by either deletion or merging).
I also think there is a danger of just ignoring the Italian and Bulgarian occupations in favour of concentrating on the Germans. I'm glad to see we haven't done that with Hungary. The number two priority after the invasion article ought to be getting a Bulgarian article started. Srnec (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, I think the Reichsgau articles might be going outside our scope a bit (ie they involve a lot more than the Slovene territory). A bit like my point about Albania above. I agree we need to spread the work around, happy to go with the consensus on where we go after the invasion articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories and will wait for your response/further discussion regarding how to handle the Reichgau areas. I'll post a tentative list of articles "needing attention/merging" etc for discussion about what should be included. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion - List of articles "needing attention"

[edit]

Per my discussion with Srnec above, it is probably a good idea to discuss whether there are any articles we consider "need attention", either because they are unnecessary forks, arguably ahistorical, or whatever. The aim being to merge useable material from them into existing or planned articles. Perhaps it is best for us to agree on what articles need this type of "attention" before we create an "articles needing attention" list on the project page? Here's a few to start the ball rolling:

Slovene Lands in World War II

[edit]
Makes sense. Why treat the Slovene lands differently from the Croatian lands, or Serbian lands, or Macedonian lands, or Kosovar lands, etc.? We might need articles on the Partisan "federal" governments set up in the last year of the war. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As far as the "federal governments", there is National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia and Anti-Fascist Council of the People's Liberation of Yugoslavia, and ZAVNOBiH, ZAVNOCGB, ZAVNOH, ASNOM, ASNOS, Liberation Front of the Slovene Nation etc, virtually all stubs.
I forgot we had all those articles. I think they should be part of the project, although don't expect me to do any work on them soon! Srnec (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axis occupation of Vojvodina

[edit]
Makes sense again. There was no occupied territory called "Vojvodina". Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.

National Liberation War of Macedonia

[edit]
And into Yugoslav Front. But, we might want to consider if Yugoslav Front gets too large, whether splitting it up based on the areas recognised by the partisans as distinct units of Yugoslavia makes sense. In that case, this article may have merit, but probably under a different title. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to merge it and split it off properly later as required?
Yes, unless that would make Yugoslav Front too unbalanced.

Axis occupation of Serbia

[edit]
I can understand why Serb editors would want a single article explaining where all the Serb territories went, since it is no accident that Serbia became divided between so many conquerors, but the article is as problematic as the others. Merge/delete; its main purpose can be served best by a general Axis occupation of Yugoslavia article. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At present, I have that article provisionally titled Occupation of Yugoslavia, do you think it needs "Axis" for clarity?
It's the only occupation of Yugoslavia there was, so probably not. But then again, it might be clearer.

History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1941–45)

[edit]
It should go, wherever it goes. It's anachronistic. But maybe a Formation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is required, to explain how and why it came into existence after the war. But that would be a borderline topic for this project. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See ZAVNOBiH.
Yes those articles ought to be merged and "ZAVNOBiH" re-titled, perhaps to its full name, perhaps to Formation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Unitary National Liberation Front

[edit]
This is probably a legitimate article, but it does not make clear what exactly it is about. So was the Front a coalition of parties supporting AVNOJ and the Partisans? Maybe merge into Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really am not sure about this one, I only discovered it when I was putting this list together.

The Holocaust in Serbia

[edit]
Mainly merge into Holocaust in Yugoslavia when we have it. Depending on the size that article reaches, we might eventually have to divided it based on the entites which exactly existed at the time, in which case Nedic's Serbia is a legitimate one: Holocaust in Serbia, Holocaust in Croatia, Holocaust in Montenegro, etc. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that there could be a "The Holocaust" section in each of the "Fooish occupation of Yugoslav territories" articles (similar to Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories#The Holocaust), with Holocaust in Yugoslavia being the overarching summary article, but you're right, they may need to be split out in some cases.
I agree with you. But if we merge the Serbian one, must we merge The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia (does it need a 'the'?) also? I think we should start with one overaching article and split as needed.

It will probably be easier if we discuss each one under its subsection. Thoughts?

See above. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put together a table of "articles needing attention" with an "intended action" column, and add it to the project page, and we can tweak it as other project members put in their 2 cents. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the Reichsgaue, I'm ambivalent. They don't really belong in the project, but German civil administration of Yugoslav territories should be a very low priority. After all, we're not going to split up the Bulgarian occupation article into different ones based on the different legal types of occupation. (A German occupation of Yugoslavia article covering German forces in Croatia, in the former Italian and Hungarian zones, in the extended Reichsgaue and in Serbia may be more helpful, or less, depending on how you look at it.) Srnec (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Good Topic suggestion

[edit]

G'day all, things are ticking along nicely with the invasion of Yugoslavia orders of battle, the Yugoslav one will go to mainspace this weekend, and I've already submitted the Axis one for BL assessment. While I think about it, once we have Invasion of Yugoslavia at GA, I am planning to submit Yugoslav coup d'état and Operation Retribution (1941), along with the invasion article to WP:Good topics. When we get this suite of articles to FA, I plan to submit them, along with the ORBAT lists (which will hopefully be at FL by then) to Wikipedia:Featured topics. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRODUCER has been kind enough to group some articles into Featured topics on the project page. I propose we split the first one as follows:
  • Invasion of Yugoslavia, consisting of that article, Yugoslav coup d'état, the two ORBAT lists, and Operation Retribution (1941). We can take this to Good topic as soon as the "invasion" article is up to scratch, and can then start upgrading it to Featured topic when we get a chance.
  • Occupation of Yugoslavia, consisting of that article and all the articles covering the various occupations. A longer piece of work, the exact structure of which I'm still a little unclear on.
I'm keen to get a good topic up soon, then get onto the hard slog of getting the occupation articles done. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I don't know how I overlooked your first post. Sorry about that. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New section proposal

[edit]

How about we have a section titled "Atrocities and concentration camps" or something like that where could fit articles like Glina massacres and such? 23 editor (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German occupation divisions

[edit]

Submitted for your consideration since y'all have almost completely dealt with the Waffen-SS divisions in Yugoslavia:

Keep up the good work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing

[edit]

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Literature and Documents

[edit]

My questions are:

Maybe with "Literature" section for books, and "Sources" section for documents, like in this example: 2nd Panzer Army?--Gorran (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-English sources are fine so long as WP:NONENG and WP:RS are followed. NA T311 and similar sources have been pored over by many academics, and most of what they have gleaned is available in reliable secondary sources. T311 etc are primary sources, and need to be treated as such in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. I suggest you have a read of those policies and if you have any questions about the their application, feel free to ask back here? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gorran. I think consulting WP:RS, which Peacemaker67 has linked, on what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia would answer many of your queries. Personally I typically avoid Serbo-Croatian works and resort to them only after exhausting peer reviewed university published English sources or when it's a topic uncovered by them. They are by no means forbidden, but take extra care in examining who the author is and who published the work. Primary sources, such as the minutes you provided, are rarely if ever used and when they are one should be incredibly careful to prevent abusing them. Please see what the reference sections of this operation's featured articles - for example Pavle Đurišić, 13th Waffen Mountain Division, and Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories - consist of as these have met the most strict requirements of Wikipedia. I hope I've helped and I encourage to you join the operation as we could always use another helping hand. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Morgenstern

[edit]

Hi all! I just saw a short documentary bit on German Operation Morgenstern (7-16 May 1944) in Lika on TV and thought to post here just in case the project finds it worth exploring. A quick search turned up at least one reference to it in Grünfelder, p.133. Personally, I'm not about to do anything about it, but I thought to "save" the ref here or future reference. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Losses Figures

[edit]

It is well known and said long ago that in war, the first victim is truth. And the problem of augmenting the opponent's and hiding own losses is ubiquitous. So, we all know that there's a need for caution. Still, there's a number of uncritically accepted claims. Two examples:

  • In the article on the 13th SS Handschar, for the Unternehmnen Vollmond it is stated that "Germans had killed over 1,500 Partisans and captured large amounts of arms and ammunition"; while from Partisan sources one can conclude that their losses were 59 KIA, 165 WIA, and 32 MIA - which is far more realistic.
  • Case White: German claim on 11,915 killed partisans. If someone would have enough time to calculate all the casualty numbers from German reports, he would inevitably come to the conclusion that each and every partisan soldier was killed at least three times. At least, it is noted here that the numbers are from German sources, with addition of some Yugoslav source - maybe the safest model for the start?--Gorran (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A truism of war, certainly. However, the Germans were particularly fastidious about recording how many people they killed. Even if they lumped civilians in with combatants, which they certainly did on occasion. That is not to say we accept their figures blindly, I have not looked at Case White myself, so I won't comment on that. If you have an issue with a specific figure, the best place to raise it is on the talk page of the article in question, not here or on individual editors talk pages. Wherever the figures are given, we should mention the source if it is not a secondary third party one. Where we have two versions, we contrast them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to rename 4th Army (Yugoslavia)

[edit]

Article 4th Army (Yugoslavia) covers a Royal Yugoslav Army formation. But, there is another 4th Army (Yugoslavia), formation of the new Yugoslav (Tito's) army (official name: Yugoslav army (Jugoslovenska armija)) formed on 1 March 1945. This one, by the way, saw a lot more fighting, reached Trieste on 1 May 1945 and forced German XCVII Army Corps to surrender on 7 May. Sugestion: to rename this article to "4th Army (Royal Yugoslav Army)", and to write another one about the latter. This is the book of documents of 4th Yugoslav army (1945): ZBORNIK NOR-a. tom XI - OPERACIJE JUGOSLOVENSKE ARMIJE 1945; ► KNJIGA 4 - ČETVRTA ARMIJA, 1. mart-15. maj 1945. --Gorran (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar for 1st Army (Yugoslavia) and 2nd Army (Yugoslavia).--Gorran (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, we disambiguate using the common name of the country whose armed forces the unit belongs to (as in 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)), or, if such usage is still ambiguous (or where the unit does not serve a country), the name of the service branch to which the unit belongs (as in 1st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)). In this case, we have two Yugoslavia's, the Kingdom, and Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, and in both cases, the common name is Yugoslavia. Given that the DFY Army was a continuation of the Partisan Army, and the subordinate formations such as Corps and Divisions operated as part of the Partisan Army before the creation of the armies in January 1945 (for example 12th Corps (Partisans), I suggest that the January 1945 armies be disambiguated with (Yugoslav Partisans), per the usage in reliable sources, for example Hoare and Tomasevich, and that the Kingdom's armies and army groups remain with the (Yugoslavia) disambiguation. The amount of fighting they did is actually irrelevant, we just need to work out what is the briefest and clearest way to disambiguate between them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think neither 4th Army is more entitled to the title "4th Army (Yugoslavia)" than other. Therefore, that title - 4th Army (Yugoslavia) - fits only on disambiguation page. In fact, no such thing as "Partisan Army" ever existed - there was always strict distinction in terminology between partisan detachments, as territorial and auxiliary formations, and regular units: brigades, divisions, corps, none of which was called "partisan".--Gorran (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concernig reliable sources - regrettably, Tomasevich did not finish third book he planed - that one about Tito's movement and army. But, regardless of this unfortunate fact, there is enough serious literature on the subject, regrettably on serbo-croatian...--Gorran (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An example, if anyone is interested: Milovan Dželebdžić: DRUGA JUGOSLOVENSKA ARMIJA (pdf) (please note the title)--Gorran (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the history of the development of the Partisan forces, from detachments, shock battalions, groups of shock battalions, brigades, divisions etc, most of which of course occurred before the creation of the armies. On en WP we use what it is called in English. For example, in Tomasevich 2001 p. 751, he refers to "three Partisan armies, the 2nd, 1st and 3rd", in Hoare 2014 p.278, he refers to the "Partisan 2nd Army", but in Tomasevich 1975 p. 67 he uses "Yugoslav armies" to refer to the VKJ ones. I've just provided them as examples. An issue with not using (Yugoslav Partisan), is that would be the appropriate disambiguation for the clear majority of its subordinate formations, ie the corps, divisions and brigades, but then we would be using a different disambiguation for the armies. That's not an insurmountable obstacle, because we do that with {Wehrmacht} divisions but {Germany} armies, but it's a factor to take into account. "Foost" Partisan Army would be no good because it would still need to be disambiguated due to other ones in Mongolia and post-revolutionary Russia. It appears to me that an RfC will be needed for this, when and if the Partisan army articles are created, probably using the 1st Army (Yugoslavia) talk page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These armies continued to exist after the war. In my opinion, there's something deeply wrong in calling 4th Yugoslav Army in 1946, or in 1970, a "Partisan Army".--Gorran (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, doesn't seem right to fail to indicate in this article 4th Army (Yugoslavia), that there's another 4th Army (Yugoslavia), unrelated to this one.--Gorran (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the moment, there isn't one (I mean an article). If one is created, we would put a hatnote on the current one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's nothing to be proud of. What I'm asking for, is a title. One that won't be unfair to either, and also one that will fit to the formation in 1945, as well as in 1948 and 1956.--Gorran (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not an easy one though. I'm reading Maclean, and he never fails to add something in front: "pre-war Jugoslav Army" on p. 346; "Royal Jugoslav Army" on p. 352; "old Jugoslav Army" on p. 382; but "new Jugoslav Army" on p. 531.--Gorran (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single instance of "Partisan Army" though.--Gorran (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there isn't an article on the latter army is just the reality of WP, the work gets done that people want to do. If you think there should be one, create it. It will take me years to get to there, because I am (largely) working through the war from the beginning. Maclean is an interesting read, but it's a first-hand memoir like Lindsay's Beacons in the Night, and they hardly stand up against Tomasevich and Hoare. There is nothing "unfair" about 1st Corps (Yugoslav Partisans) or 1st Army (Yugoslav Partisans), or even 1st Army Group (Yugoslav Partisans), it is not ambiguous, anyone seeing it will know what the article is about, a large military formation created by the Yugoslav Partisan movement. The fact that the 1st Army (Yugoslav Partisans) was by that stage actually the Yugoslav Army, will be lost on the average reader. When referred to in other articles, you are not going to include the disambiguation in any case, you pipe the link and use it without, and explain when you first introduce it that you are talking about the JA, not the VKJ 1st Army. And in any case, it's not about fair or unfair, it's just about applying WP:TITLE and WP:MILMOS to the problem. The post-war JA and JNA armies of the same names are really different entities, like the German Empire, Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr 1st Armies, same country, totally different organisations with the same name. If we are not going to agree, and I hardly think so given the discussion so far, then an RfC is the way to resolve it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have great respect for some people here, and I just had a feeling that we could come to an agreement. Not sure the post-war JA and JNA armies of the same names are different entities - war formations lasted for some time, and transformation was gradual. So, I'm not sure where the point of discontinuity was, if there was any. Macleans book is indeed a memoir, but he himself was a high ranking official on the spot, and, if anything, I think we could have some confidence in his ability of naming military formations appropriately, whereas Tomasevich, a very distinctive authority in most historiographical cases, maybe was not so deeply into military issues ... In any case, it was enough on this one. Regards!--Gorran (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this some more, perhaps 1st Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) and 1st Army (Socialist Yugoslavia) would work, on the basis we use the last name? 1st Army (Royal Yugoslav Army) seems a bit redundant. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This option sounds good, and works fine, as far as I can see. So, I am for it. Regards!--Gorran (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to ping Nsu, because he and I discussed it earlier. @No such user: what do you reckon? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historians

[edit]

Jozo Tomasevich (certainly) and Marko Attila Hoare (probably) belong in the Historiography section. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't want to discourage editors that want to contribute, but I should probably make it explicit that this is a project which some editors have signed up to. Of course I'm happy (and I'm sure others would be too) for any signed up contributors to add existing articles at any time assuming they aren't questionable in terms of notability. However, I'd prefer it if only contributors added articles, and would also prefer it if redlinks weren't created in the project for the sake of it. If there is an interest in creating an article, create it yourself, get it to a reasonable stub establishing notability (at least) with a few sources before adding it to the project. I also question the inclusion of some of the people that have been added. Petar Pesic, for example, was very old and compliant and had no appreciable impact on the defence plans or defence against the invasion. For now, I'm going to trim most of the redlinks and leave those with bluelinks that are obviously notable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Peasant Party

[edit]

Hi! Should these articles be included in the scope and where (if so):

  • Croatian Republican Peasant Party (1945) (HRSS) - a faction of the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) formally established as a party only after the war, but included/allied with the Partisan movement in 1943-1945; the party was actually a KPJ/KPH satellite
  • Croatian Peasant Party during World War II - article dealing with the HSS in the WWII, detailing how it split in several groups, with parts switching allegiance to Ustaše, others joining Partisans, a group included in the Yugoslav government-in-exile and a group first inactive, then plotting to gain control of the Home Guard in order to seize power in the NDH and switch allegiance of the NDH from Axis to Allies - culminating in Lorković–Vokić coup

Both articles include a couple of post-war years.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think both should be included, perhaps create an additional subsection of 2.4 for political parties? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZAVNOH photos taken in May 1944

[edit]

While looking for sources for the ZAVNOH article I found several PD images not used in that article, but which might be of use to editors contributing to this special project. Their quality is not the best, but I guess something beats nothing in this case. They are all PD (published in 1945) and now reside at commons:Category:ZAVNOH. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Trifunović

[edit]

I have started a userspace draft for Miloš Trifunović which is an article for creation here. I have been able to find only one source that I believe is reliable and gives some information (official newspapers of Yugoslav government-in-exile). I also found one book in Serbo-Croatian that mentions him, it's available in google books snippets and from what I saw in the snippets it barely mentions him once, but it's cited as a source in Serbian wiki article about him so I'll try to get that book from a library. There are several fairly obscure websites that have pages with his biography but they don't give any sources. If anyone knows a source that possibly contains needed info or can help in any other way, I'd greatly appreciate it. OakMapping (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair amount in various spots in Tomasevich 1975, his 2001 book briefly reprises what is in the 1975 book. Ramet's The Three Yugoslavia's also has several mentions. The mentions do not really cover any biographical info, just his political affiliations and views, his involvement in the short-lived post-coup government as Minister for Education, his involvement in the govt-in-exile as a minister and his brief run as PM. Enough for a reasonable stub/Start article I would think, but well short of enough for a B. We really need a reliable source for his personal life before and after politics for it to get to B or above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I have Tomasevich's 2001 book but it only mentions Trifunović in one sentence so it's not too helpful, although unlike Government newspapers it did give a reason for his resignation. I'll try to get Tomashevich's 1975 book and Three Yugoslavias from a library, but libraries might've close because of lockdown so I am not sure if I can get them. Meanwhile I'll continue my research in the books I have and in the stuff available on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OakMapping (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OakMapping are you eligible for use of WP:LIBRARY? There are at least three Pavlowitch's articles available through JSTOR that mention Trifunović.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of WP:LIBRARY before but yes, I am eligible. Thanks a lot for introducing me to it. Also, Tomobe03 could you give me names of the Pavlowitch's articles you're talking about. Thanks, OakMapping (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just search for "milos trifunovic" in JSTOR. I did that and it turned up: Out of Context - The Yugoslav Government in London 1941-1945; Momčilo Ninčić and the European Policy of the Yugoslav Government in Exile, 1941-1943: II; and Yugoslav-Soviet Relations 1939-1943 as Seen in British Sources. I have not searched for mentions by his last name only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll check them out. I searched his last name only but I didn't manage to find anything else, Regards OakMapping (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finished writing the draft but I would appreciate some suggestions for improvement before I move it to the mainspace. I also plan to nominate it for GA in the future. Thanks, OakMapping (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Invasion of Yugoslavia article

[edit]

Article Invasion of Yugoslavia is currently marked as Current No. 1 priority for the project and it is the only article that's not GA/FA in a planned featured topic of the same name. Overall I believe that article is quite good and not too far from being GA but there certainly is work to be done. I have read the article in detail and I have taken notes on how the article can be improved. I've probably missed several things but here are my notes. I split problems I have noticed into two groups, a quite small group about problems with the text and a larger group concerning references.
Problems with the text

  • In the Preparation section there is this sentence: "On 1 April, Yugoslavia redesignated its Assault Command as the Chetnik Command, named after the Serb guerrilla forces from World War I, which had resisted the Central Powers. The command was intended to lead a guerrilla war if the country was occupied". This needs to be clarified, what was the Assault Command and what did redesignation mean for the command.
  • I believe the Aftermath section should be expanded to include better summary of the resistance and end of the war in Yugoslavia

Problems with the references

  • Terzić 1982 references: There are two of them and two volumes are cited in the books section but it's not specified which footnote refers to what volume
  • Niehorster 2013 references: There are four different footnotes citing four different (I am guessing this because 2013a, 2013b etc is used) by Leo Niehorster, they do not have corresponding work in Books or Articles sections. I searched the web and I haven't found any work by Niehorster published in 2013.
  • Fatutta and Covelli 1975 reference: One of the footnotes needs a page so I tried to search for the cited article (1941: Attack on Yugoslavia in The International Magazine of Armies and Weapons) but I have not even found anything about this journal on the internet, any help with this would be greatly appreciated
  • Conways 1980 footnote: I am suspecting this refers to Chesnau's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 which is cited once on the page, I might be wrong tho so this needs to be investigated
  • Geschichte footnote: Geschichte simply means "history" in German so it's likely that this footnote refers to Gretschko's Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges but this needs to be checked before it's changed.
  • Robert J Edwards's Invasion of Yugoslavia-waffen ss Captain Fritz Klingenberg and the capture of Belgrade during World War page 173 of this work is cited but the only thing I managed to find is an article of the same name on historynet.com but that article is written by Colin D. Heaton, this is quite confusing
  • Enrico Cernuschi, Le operazioni aeronavali contro la Jugoslavia, 6–8 aprile 1941, in Storia Militare reference: Storia Militare means Military History in Italian (according to google translate) so that's probably a journal but I didn't manage to find anything about it online so I'd appreciate help from someone who speaks Italian. There are is one more similar reference from the same journal (if it's a journal).

I believe this is pretty much it, I will work on this but I will appreciate any help and/or opinions. I will also post this on the talk page of the article. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Should articles like the Battle of Ist and Action of 1 November 1944 be listed in the table listing battles/events or allies or someplace else? Potentially there's more naval action unrelated to the April War as a part of the Adriatic campaign of World War II relevant for this project. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say put it in Battles/events for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesarchiv captions reliability

[edit]

I came across Drago Gizdić's book "Dalmacija 1943" [1] (snippets are available through Google Books). On page 650 it notes that Partisans hoisted a flag of Croatia (with a red star) on Marjan Hill overlooking Split in September 1943 where it remained until the city was abandoned shortly afterwards. This caught my eye because I came across this photo of German soldiers pulling down a flag when I was editing the Treaties of Rome (1941). The caption provided by Bundesarchiv inicates that was is Split (certainly looks like view from Marjan Hill) but notes it was a flag of Yugoslavia. I assumed then that Bundesarchiv was right, but now that I read this and had a look at this other photo taken moments apart from the first one I'm not as sure anymore. It is difficult to tell colours in black-and-white photos, but the star must be red and it appears to me the stripe above the star is the same shade of grey as the star, but it's difficult to say so for certain. Is it possible that the Bundesarchiv caption is incorrect? How reliable are those?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can be inaccurate. The Bundesarchiv actually acknowledges this. I’m pretty sure they were all taken by propaganda units, so they should be used with care when what they show is likely to be challenged. In this case, you’d be better off just stating it is a Partisan flag, as that is unlikely to be challenged, and don’t say which one. It really is OR to interpret something from a photo without any other sources to support the conclusion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I like the proposed solution. I agree it is inappropriate to speculate on what might be in an image. While Gizdić explicity says there was a red-star defaced flag of Croatia flown at Marjan Hill then, there is no way to conclusively determine that this particular photo is showing the same flag (i.e. maybe there was another flag) - even if that seems possible or even likely. I was just concerned that someone might challenge the "Yugoslav flag" claim and there'd be essentially nothing to back the claim up except the Bundesarchiv caption.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yugoslavia/Operation_Bora&oldid=1238872817"