This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I note that many names of this type (ie Subdivisions of...) redirect to the main article on the country, territory etc rather than having their own article, whilst most that have a separate article are named (Administrative divisions of...). Whilst I have no fixed view on whether this should stay as an article or not, it certainly needs renaming for consistency with the name of the territory in the main article and it also needs incorporation of the German military occupation divisions. That might allow the current section of the main article to be trimmed. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter. These were not German administrative divisions of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia in general, but were administrative organs of the puppet regime - the Government of National Salvation. That is a sourced fact. You may personally believe that's somehow "impossible" because the puppet regime was called "Government of National Salvation", but I assure you it is so (read the sources). So please do not create a conflict where none should exist, most importantly - read the references, and do not start a WP:MOVE WAR without sources in support.
Incidentally, here as well you are mirroring exactly an argument by PANONIAN. And one that is demonstrably faulty at that, and in contradiction with sources. -- Director ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
see first Talk:Government_of_National_Salvation#Infobox, and then go back here, and then respond... :) :) :)
Above, I noted that many titles of this type (ie Subdivisions of...) are redirects to the main article on the country, territory etc rather than having their own article. Given the GNS decreed these subdivisions after they were mandated by the Germans, I don't think this article is justified, and believe the content could be merged into the main article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Given we are the main editors that have shown recent interest here, I will commence the merge. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure on what policy basis this article was moved. My understanding was that this term was commonly used in sources to refer to Nedic's government (a Google Books search for "Government of National Salvation" brings up hits on several WP:RS. In fact one of those sources gives it as the official name as well. See Haynes and Rady [ [1]], although Ivo Tasevac took the view that the phrase was used by apologists for the Nedic regime [ [2]], and this should be taken into account in the article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The disambig brackets should read "(Yugoslavia)" or "(occupied Yugoslavia)" rather than "(Serbia)", as the current format suggests there was a country called "Serbia" at the time wherein this government was located. There is no need to risk any confusion in the title. Other options would be "(puppet government)" or perhaps simply "(World War II)"? -- Director ( talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that the more accurate title for the " Government of National Salvation (Albania)" article is " Government of National Reconciliation", it looks like both articles are in luck and may not need disambiguation at all. However, its not possible to simply move the article to "Government of National Salvation" over the disambiguation page without admin assistance, so we need to request a move. In order for it to be carried out, it would be good if we had everyone's consent so that nobody over there thinks I'm trying to pull something off. Do you agree to move to a title without disambiguation brackets (simply "Government of National Salvation")? -- Director ( talk) 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, please provide source that says that this government was a country. PANONIAN 09:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create new infobox named "puppet regime or government", which would be used in all similar articles? The basic problem here seems the fact that we do not have appropriate infoboxes for all subjects. PANONIAN 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Since "national" can be translated as both "narodno" and "nacionalno" in Serbo-Croatian, what exactly was the accurate translation? "Vlada Narodnog Spasa" or "Vlada Nacionalnog Spasa"? The article on srWiki uses one version in the title and the other in the lead.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia) → Government of National Salvation –
Why is here infobox former country? This is not country, but government? -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
WW, I consider infobox government cabinet completely inappropriate for pretty much the same reasons as Director. I suggest you have a look at the discussion on WT:MILHIST, and consider taking your concerns about the infobox to WT:INFOBOX to see if anyone there is willing to do the work. I do not consider the infobox to be a major problem, as it meets our needs despite its title, and am more concerned with the content of this article and Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the main administrative map out of the table as it really didn't belong there. WP:TABLES explicitly mentions not putting images in tables, and not using tables to format a page. I also reverted the map to the non-infobox version as this style is inappropriate for use in the main text. However, I am now wondering if the background is too dark. The map colour set I use is one established by Bartholemew for their maps, but I think the grey (for non-important areas) is not the correct one. I will check later and modify the map accordingly if needed. XrysD ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
We should, I think we all agree, stay consistent in our editing. Serbo-Croatian is not accepted here by editors as one language- therefore it shouldn't be here either. Unless we change other articles such as Croatia Kosovo etc., also. Agreed? Ottomanist ( talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"The official language of Serbia is Serbian (Serbo-Croatian). [...] The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnical grounds. [...] the language that used to be officially called Serbo-Croat has gotten several new ethnically and politically based names. Thus, the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." ( Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2 ed., 2006.)
"The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnic grounds. [...] the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." ( Brown 2006, p. 294.)
"Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian." (Fortson p.431)
I have restored previous content over most of the recent edits of User:Nemambrata. The edits that I have corrected include
User:Nemambrata has been warned, asked nicely, reported twice as an WP:SPA and once for editwarring and yet continues to edit disruptively, edit war, and fail to respect sources, both here and at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. User:Nemambrata is continuing to behave inappropriately (such as the edit summary, 'no source to support this stupidity'). I will escalate my reports of this poor behaviour to the appropriate fora if it continues. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker, you must stop to track and revert my changes. You do not own pages in Wikipedia and do not behave like you do. Also, you must stop to include wrong info in pages. Reasons for my changes:
Current infobox place this page into categories ”Former countries in the Balkans”, “States and territories established in 1941” and “States and territories disestablished in 1944”. This is wrong because this was not country, state or territory but only government. Because of that parts of infobox that automatically place this page into 3 categories must be changed. That is why infobox should not have lines continent, region, year start and year end. Info about start and end year should be in other part of infobox.
Government was installed by “Military Administration in Serbia”, not by “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia”, so Peacemaker do you try to say that “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia” was governing body?
There was no Serbo-Croatian language in that time and this page have nothing to do with Croatia or Croats. In Kingdom of Yugoslavia official language was Serb-Croat-Slovene (not Serbo-Croatian), so do not promote an name for language invented after WW2. This is part of history of Serbia and Serbian language should be used.
Nedić's Serbia was not name for this government but for territory ruled by government. Why you write such stupidities in this page?
Author Pavlowitch do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” but name “Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia”. You make forgery if you use Pavlowitch as false support for this name. Why you doing this?
Personal attacks against me: Peacemaker, you are disruptive user that was blocked for revert warring in the past and “warning” that you (as disruptive one) send to someone is joke. Your “reports” to admins are just personal attacks against me, continue with attacks and I will ask admins to protect me from you. It is not true that I do not respect sources. Peacemaker, you abuse sources and place your own opinions into pages. I was try only to change obvious errors on this page and you must stop with your reverts. Nemambrata ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice threat and this is your clear violation of WP civility policy. In addition to my previous comment, sources show that name "Nedic's Serbia" was used for territory not for this government - [5]. Nemambrata ( talk) 18:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are just a few examples. 'The outcome was the appointment, on 29 August, of General Nedic's as president of a "Serbian Government".' Pavlowitch 2008, p. 58, 'Indeed, when on August 29, 1941, the German military commander in Serbia appointed General Nedic as puppet Prime Minister of Serbia, Pecanac made a personal deal with Nedic.' Roberts 1973, p. 21, 'Serbia itself was under direct German military rule, although in August 1941 a puppet government under General Milan Nedic was established, which drew support from Serbia's fascist movement, the Zbor.' Glenny 1999, p. 485. I could go on, but it is clear that he was a General. I will make the appropriate edit. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker you again reverted page to your version. Stop with this disruptive actions. Why you include this into wrong categories? Do you want to say that this government was state or territory? Nemambrata ( talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been raised before (by me; no less), but I've read on several websites (including Ben Cahoon's 'worldstatesmen.org' and Bruce Gordon's 'regnal chronologies', as well as 'rulers.org'.) that Nedic's government acted in the name of Petar II as 'King of Serbia'. (although the King himself did not recognise this title nor recognise the legality of the Government of National Salvation.) Now; whilst these websites cannot be considered to be reputable sources; nonetheless I took the liberty of asking the owners of these websites where they obtained their information from. Altogether; I was able to find the following sources:
'The East European Revolution' by Seton-Watson, page 79:
"Nedić considered himself the temporary representative of the exiled King Peter until the war was over."
and here:
'The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005' By Sabrina P. Ramet , pg 130:
" Thus, Nedic, aspiring to convey the impression of loyalty to King Peter II, hung a portrait of the king in his office and ordained that police recruits swear an oath to Peter II."
'Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, 1941-1945', by Walter Roberts, pg 258:
"There is even some evidence that in 1943 Nedic secretly sent a declaration of loyalty to King Peter." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=43CbLU8FgFsC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22in+the+name+of+king+peter%22%22nedic%22&source=bl&ots=hRn83AtO2C&sig=ZLsOpqUWyuG-7sbRE97sjgE9JyM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkPHULa3GdSp0AWSoYCQBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20the%20name%20of%20king%20peter%22%22nedic%22&f=false
'Hitler's New Disorder, World War Two in Yugoslavia' by Stevan K Pavlowich, pg 58:
"he was allowed to use Serbia's old flag and coat of arms, and even King Peter's portrait"
The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 12th June 1946; article: 'The Mihailovich-Tito Duel At Close Quarters.':
"On the contrary, Rootham points out, Mihailovitch's men and Nedich's men regarded one another as essentially on the same side-the side of King Peter"
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17987270
The Milauwakee Sentinel, August 8th, 1945. article: 'King Barred, says Tito.':
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
-I never said any of them did; did I?
They do strongly suggest it however; and more to the point; what other reason is there for an oath of allegiance to be given to a monarch, other than them being regarded (legally or illegally) as the monarch?
However, that aside; none of this is incontrovertiable; uncontestable, undebatable evidence. I will therefore endeavour to find some. Watch this space. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 13:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda or not; if I can find a proper scholarly source that definitely says he was considered de jure monarch; then it being propaganda is pretty much irrelevant and it should be mentioned; even if just by a footnote.
More to the point; what be would the point in Nedic doing all this portrait-hanging, ordering of oath-swearing and writing letters of allegiance to the King unless he viewed his government as acting in the King's name? Why didn't he just do what Quisling and the collaborationist government of Greece did and declare the monarchy deposed (an analagous situation, as both these territories were mere occupied territories whose collaborationist civil govenment aspired to statehood)? Quisling certainly didn't pretend to be King Haakon's prime minister, and neither did any of the Greek collaborationist prime ministers view themselves as acting in the name of King George II.
Also; Tito must have had a reason to use this as justification for disallowing the King's return. He wasn't just making it up(but he was, I hasten to add; putting one hell of a lot of spin on it.).He had to find some reason to justify to the Yugoslav people why he could not let Petar II return.(primarily because he had no genuine reason apart from his own republican agenda; the King had been on the side of the allies from day one.)
This seems to me similar to the situation in Rhodesia 1965-1970. Rhodesia proclaimed itself independent in 1965 and declared that the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was the Queen of Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government acted in the name of Elizabeth II up until 1970; when a whites-only referendum declared a 'Republic'. The Queen never acknowledged holding the position of 'Queen of Rhodesia'; nor did she or the British government acknowledge the existence of Rhodesia as an independent state. But nonetheless; that was de facto the case.
Neither Rhodesia as an independent state nor the Government of National Salvation existed de jure. Both entities were illegal; unrecognised by the majority of the states of the world, and both had a fascist/racist agenda. Both of them governed the territory they claimed to govern as well. De jure, (in the eyes of the allies, but not the Axis); the Kingdom of Yugoslavia continued to exist 1941-1943. Likewise, de jure (in the eyes of Britain and the majority of the rest of the international community), Rhodesia did not exist as an independent state 1965-1980. Legally, the British crown colony of Southern Rhodesia continued to exist. BUT; regardless of any legal or moral issues, both entities did exist de facto. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also...
'Tito's Promised Land' by Alex N. Dragnich, 1954; pg. 19:
"Nedich never disavowed his loyalty to King Petar, nor did the Nazis ever consider Nedich's Serbia independent, even in the puppet sense."
'The Balkans In Our Time' by Robert Lee Wolff, 1974; pg 204:
"Nedich called his regime the "Government of National Salvation," and no doubt thought of himself as loyal to King Peter, and as keeping alive some sort of Serbia to which the King would some day return"
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
...Ooh I'm not finished!
Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.
"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter."
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NgpwAAAAIAAJ&q=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&dq=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBfKULfvCpG20QXKoIGIAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgU JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
-Also; all I've presented is sources, not original research. If this government was carried out in the name of the King; then it was, regardless of the status of the government. If it wasn't, fair enough. I haven't come to a conclusion either way yet.
...oh and...
"The reason why they "never considered Nedich independent even in the puppet sense" - is because they directly controlled him without any semblance even of de jure independence"
Where did I say anywhere that that wasn't the case? No, really. I didn't say that wasn't the case anywhere.
-Lastly:
"I find it very hard to believe the Germans would allow him to officially establish his government as subordinate to an Allied monarch who's coup actually changed Yugoslavia's alignment against the Axis" -This is POV. All I'm interested in here is the facts. If this government was carried out in Petar II's name, then it er, was. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"There is 'no way' this was even 'a country' of some sort"
-Did I say anywhere it was? Even my sources say quite categorically it wasn't. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've got more! XD
The Milauwaukee Journal, August 8th, 1945
"Tito told the Yugoslav National congress that Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovich and Milan Nedich had acted in the King's name during the german occupation. Peter declared that he could not give his personal sanction to a state of affairs "Which is abhorrent to me.""
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CzAaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ESUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1977,3372528&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"You cannot be a 'monarch' of a puppet government" -er; yes you can. The Kingdom of Westphalia? The Kingdom of Holland? Both had puppet governments, both of which were headed by a monarch, regardless of the status of the territory. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"it is OR to interpret any of it as amounting to Peter Karađorđević having any official status here."
-I'm not interpreting the sources to amount to anything at the moment. Like I said; I haven't made my mind up personally. That aside; there are THREE sources (one scholarly, two newspapers) that say that Nedic 'acted in the King's name'; not 'viewed himself as acting in the King's name' or 'wished to act in his name', or whatever. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.
Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:
St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.
"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dtsKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w04DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5246,164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.
Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:
St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.
"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dtsKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w04DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5246,164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Baltimore Sun, August 8th, 1945
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
Lewiston Daily Sun, August 8th 1945; article: 'King Peter Refused Reentry To Yugoslavia':
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
The Telegraph-Herald, August 8th, 1945; article: 'King Denounces Action of Tito- Refuses To Give Sanction To Present Government'
"Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iEdjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K3UNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1961,581733&dq=nedic+king's-name&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 19:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Westphalia was a kingdom, not a puppet government" -Correct; but it was also a puppet state. Thus, by definition; it would have a puppet government. A government with ministers, prime minister, cabinet etc., all owing allegiance to a monarch (in this case, Jerome Bonaparte).
"None of the sources you quote are relevant in any way towards the official status of King Peter."
-This one is:
Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.
"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter."
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NgpwAAAAIAAJ&q=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&dq=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBfKULfvCpG20QXKoIGIAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgU JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The infobox should be the infobox settlement, not former country. This was dealt with ad nauseum at Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, which uses the latter. I removed it from this article for that reason. Some people are very sensitive (and suggestible) regarding the titles of infoboxes, let's not encourage them, eh? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The recently added map from Stritt's Weltkarte of 1942 shows Skopje as part of the area covered by the GNS in 1942. This is so obviously wrong it is misleading and should not be used in the article. Recent Serbian scholarship puts paid to this idea, see: Janjetović, Zoran (2012). "Borders of the German occupation zone in Serbia 1941–1944" (PDF). Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic. 62 (2). Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts: 93–115. doi: 10.2298/IJGI1202093J. Particularly pages 95 and 106 which clearly show Skopje in Bulgarian annexed territory. I have removed the Stritt's Weltkarte map on that basis. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
These "scholarships" are not very valuable when you're dealing with an ORIGINAL 1942 Nazi German political map. On this behalf I request my sources verified. Torba17 ( talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9. Also shows Skopje in Bulgarian-occupied territory, as do many other reliable sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely I do. I trust the people who *CREATED THE STATE* to know it's boundaries! Torba17 ( talk) 00:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a state in the official sense. History doesn't age like a fine wine. 1942 does not become less reliable than 1972. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree and end here. Torba17 ( talk) 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit vague. Some is an unspecified amount and MacDonald doesn't expand on this other than to give the number of Serbian State Guard men (13,400) and Zbor supporters (3,600) here.
This is hardly a representation of how much the regime had support from the general population though. MacDonald also seems to contradict himself in a later book when he writes:
In Serbia, General Milan Nedic formed a quisling 'Government of National Salvation'. The regime was unpopular, and most Serbs divided their loyalty between the fledging Communists Partisans (whose ranks Croats also joined), and the Serbian Chetniks under General Draza Mihailovic.Link The same is repeated in this book. That the regime was unpopular is also stated in this book
This work also elaborates: ..there was widespread disaffection with this government, which from the outset enjoyed very little popular support
.
Ljotić's Zbor movement was also a fringe movement that never received much support (see the Dimitrije Ljotić article).
So if the regime had actually little support, it's contradictory and unhelpful to suggest it had "some" support. -- Griboski ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: Explain yourself. -- Griboski ( talk) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Although both Serbian nationalist and Titoist historians have strenuously minimized this fact ( for obvious reasons ) the Nedić regime was tolerated by many Serbs and even received the active and enthusiastic support of some.Turnock, David (1999). "Serbia". In Carter, Francis; Turnock, David (eds.). The States of Eastern Europe. Ashgate. p. 269. ISBN 1855215128. and
But Nedić now took office as prime minister on 29 August 1941 ; in this capacity , he enjoyed the support of a portion of the officer corps , officials , and the general population , as well as of the Serbian intelligentsia .Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-253-34656-8. -- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly what I am talking about. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Peacemaker67:The flag file itself has a source and the Emblem/Coat of Arms is seen in tons of video material from the regime (intro of propaganda-movies or "models" shown put up at events
[7]
[8] etc. Here Nedic (and ministers behind him) has it as a sort of "pin" on their suits
[9]).
It was claimed there is no "reliable source in the article", but the files have sources from for example Serbian flag-guide books? --
Havsjö (
talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Savasampion:, I noticed your edit here. Though what is the reasoning behinds wiping all this information? Such as the admin map and so on? It had been there for so ling and abruptly removed? @ Peacemaker67: being that you also work on this page perhaps you may know more as well? Thanks. OyMosby ( talk) 01:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I note that many names of this type (ie Subdivisions of...) redirect to the main article on the country, territory etc rather than having their own article, whilst most that have a separate article are named (Administrative divisions of...). Whilst I have no fixed view on whether this should stay as an article or not, it certainly needs renaming for consistency with the name of the territory in the main article and it also needs incorporation of the German military occupation divisions. That might allow the current section of the main article to be trimmed. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
WhiteWriter. These were not German administrative divisions of the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia in general, but were administrative organs of the puppet regime - the Government of National Salvation. That is a sourced fact. You may personally believe that's somehow "impossible" because the puppet regime was called "Government of National Salvation", but I assure you it is so (read the sources). So please do not create a conflict where none should exist, most importantly - read the references, and do not start a WP:MOVE WAR without sources in support.
Incidentally, here as well you are mirroring exactly an argument by PANONIAN. And one that is demonstrably faulty at that, and in contradiction with sources. -- Director ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
see first Talk:Government_of_National_Salvation#Infobox, and then go back here, and then respond... :) :) :)
Above, I noted that many titles of this type (ie Subdivisions of...) are redirects to the main article on the country, territory etc rather than having their own article. Given the GNS decreed these subdivisions after they were mandated by the Germans, I don't think this article is justified, and believe the content could be merged into the main article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Given we are the main editors that have shown recent interest here, I will commence the merge. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure on what policy basis this article was moved. My understanding was that this term was commonly used in sources to refer to Nedic's government (a Google Books search for "Government of National Salvation" brings up hits on several WP:RS. In fact one of those sources gives it as the official name as well. See Haynes and Rady [ [1]], although Ivo Tasevac took the view that the phrase was used by apologists for the Nedic regime [ [2]], and this should be taken into account in the article. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 07:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The disambig brackets should read "(Yugoslavia)" or "(occupied Yugoslavia)" rather than "(Serbia)", as the current format suggests there was a country called "Serbia" at the time wherein this government was located. There is no need to risk any confusion in the title. Other options would be "(puppet government)" or perhaps simply "(World War II)"? -- Director ( talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Turns out that the more accurate title for the " Government of National Salvation (Albania)" article is " Government of National Reconciliation", it looks like both articles are in luck and may not need disambiguation at all. However, its not possible to simply move the article to "Government of National Salvation" over the disambiguation page without admin assistance, so we need to request a move. In order for it to be carried out, it would be good if we had everyone's consent so that nobody over there thinks I'm trying to pull something off. Do you agree to move to a title without disambiguation brackets (simply "Government of National Salvation")? -- Director ( talk) 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, please provide source that says that this government was a country. PANONIAN 09:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create new infobox named "puppet regime or government", which would be used in all similar articles? The basic problem here seems the fact that we do not have appropriate infoboxes for all subjects. PANONIAN 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Since "national" can be translated as both "narodno" and "nacionalno" in Serbo-Croatian, what exactly was the accurate translation? "Vlada Narodnog Spasa" or "Vlada Nacionalnog Spasa"? The article on srWiki uses one version in the title and the other in the lead.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia) → Government of National Salvation –
Why is here infobox former country? This is not country, but government? -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
WW, I consider infobox government cabinet completely inappropriate for pretty much the same reasons as Director. I suggest you have a look at the discussion on WT:MILHIST, and consider taking your concerns about the infobox to WT:INFOBOX to see if anyone there is willing to do the work. I do not consider the infobox to be a major problem, as it meets our needs despite its title, and am more concerned with the content of this article and Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the main administrative map out of the table as it really didn't belong there. WP:TABLES explicitly mentions not putting images in tables, and not using tables to format a page. I also reverted the map to the non-infobox version as this style is inappropriate for use in the main text. However, I am now wondering if the background is too dark. The map colour set I use is one established by Bartholemew for their maps, but I think the grey (for non-important areas) is not the correct one. I will check later and modify the map accordingly if needed. XrysD ( talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
We should, I think we all agree, stay consistent in our editing. Serbo-Croatian is not accepted here by editors as one language- therefore it shouldn't be here either. Unless we change other articles such as Croatia Kosovo etc., also. Agreed? Ottomanist ( talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"The official language of Serbia is Serbian (Serbo-Croatian). [...] The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnical grounds. [...] the language that used to be officially called Serbo-Croat has gotten several new ethnically and politically based names. Thus, the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." ( Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2 ed., 2006.)
"The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnic grounds. [...] the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." ( Brown 2006, p. 294.)
"Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian." (Fortson p.431)
I have restored previous content over most of the recent edits of User:Nemambrata. The edits that I have corrected include
User:Nemambrata has been warned, asked nicely, reported twice as an WP:SPA and once for editwarring and yet continues to edit disruptively, edit war, and fail to respect sources, both here and at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. User:Nemambrata is continuing to behave inappropriately (such as the edit summary, 'no source to support this stupidity'). I will escalate my reports of this poor behaviour to the appropriate fora if it continues. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker, you must stop to track and revert my changes. You do not own pages in Wikipedia and do not behave like you do. Also, you must stop to include wrong info in pages. Reasons for my changes:
Current infobox place this page into categories ”Former countries in the Balkans”, “States and territories established in 1941” and “States and territories disestablished in 1944”. This is wrong because this was not country, state or territory but only government. Because of that parts of infobox that automatically place this page into 3 categories must be changed. That is why infobox should not have lines continent, region, year start and year end. Info about start and end year should be in other part of infobox.
Government was installed by “Military Administration in Serbia”, not by “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia”, so Peacemaker do you try to say that “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia” was governing body?
There was no Serbo-Croatian language in that time and this page have nothing to do with Croatia or Croats. In Kingdom of Yugoslavia official language was Serb-Croat-Slovene (not Serbo-Croatian), so do not promote an name for language invented after WW2. This is part of history of Serbia and Serbian language should be used.
Nedić's Serbia was not name for this government but for territory ruled by government. Why you write such stupidities in this page?
Author Pavlowitch do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” but name “Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia”. You make forgery if you use Pavlowitch as false support for this name. Why you doing this?
Personal attacks against me: Peacemaker, you are disruptive user that was blocked for revert warring in the past and “warning” that you (as disruptive one) send to someone is joke. Your “reports” to admins are just personal attacks against me, continue with attacks and I will ask admins to protect me from you. It is not true that I do not respect sources. Peacemaker, you abuse sources and place your own opinions into pages. I was try only to change obvious errors on this page and you must stop with your reverts. Nemambrata ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice threat and this is your clear violation of WP civility policy. In addition to my previous comment, sources show that name "Nedic's Serbia" was used for territory not for this government - [5]. Nemambrata ( talk) 18:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are just a few examples. 'The outcome was the appointment, on 29 August, of General Nedic's as president of a "Serbian Government".' Pavlowitch 2008, p. 58, 'Indeed, when on August 29, 1941, the German military commander in Serbia appointed General Nedic as puppet Prime Minister of Serbia, Pecanac made a personal deal with Nedic.' Roberts 1973, p. 21, 'Serbia itself was under direct German military rule, although in August 1941 a puppet government under General Milan Nedic was established, which drew support from Serbia's fascist movement, the Zbor.' Glenny 1999, p. 485. I could go on, but it is clear that he was a General. I will make the appropriate edit. Peacemaker67 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Peacemaker you again reverted page to your version. Stop with this disruptive actions. Why you include this into wrong categories? Do you want to say that this government was state or territory? Nemambrata ( talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this has been raised before (by me; no less), but I've read on several websites (including Ben Cahoon's 'worldstatesmen.org' and Bruce Gordon's 'regnal chronologies', as well as 'rulers.org'.) that Nedic's government acted in the name of Petar II as 'King of Serbia'. (although the King himself did not recognise this title nor recognise the legality of the Government of National Salvation.) Now; whilst these websites cannot be considered to be reputable sources; nonetheless I took the liberty of asking the owners of these websites where they obtained their information from. Altogether; I was able to find the following sources:
'The East European Revolution' by Seton-Watson, page 79:
"Nedić considered himself the temporary representative of the exiled King Peter until the war was over."
and here:
'The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005' By Sabrina P. Ramet , pg 130:
" Thus, Nedic, aspiring to convey the impression of loyalty to King Peter II, hung a portrait of the king in his office and ordained that police recruits swear an oath to Peter II."
'Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, 1941-1945', by Walter Roberts, pg 258:
"There is even some evidence that in 1943 Nedic secretly sent a declaration of loyalty to King Peter." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=43CbLU8FgFsC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22in+the+name+of+king+peter%22%22nedic%22&source=bl&ots=hRn83AtO2C&sig=ZLsOpqUWyuG-7sbRE97sjgE9JyM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkPHULa3GdSp0AWSoYCQBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20the%20name%20of%20king%20peter%22%22nedic%22&f=false
'Hitler's New Disorder, World War Two in Yugoslavia' by Stevan K Pavlowich, pg 58:
"he was allowed to use Serbia's old flag and coat of arms, and even King Peter's portrait"
The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 12th June 1946; article: 'The Mihailovich-Tito Duel At Close Quarters.':
"On the contrary, Rootham points out, Mihailovitch's men and Nedich's men regarded one another as essentially on the same side-the side of King Peter"
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17987270
The Milauwakee Sentinel, August 8th, 1945. article: 'King Barred, says Tito.':
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
-I never said any of them did; did I?
They do strongly suggest it however; and more to the point; what other reason is there for an oath of allegiance to be given to a monarch, other than them being regarded (legally or illegally) as the monarch?
However, that aside; none of this is incontrovertiable; uncontestable, undebatable evidence. I will therefore endeavour to find some. Watch this space. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 13:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda or not; if I can find a proper scholarly source that definitely says he was considered de jure monarch; then it being propaganda is pretty much irrelevant and it should be mentioned; even if just by a footnote.
More to the point; what be would the point in Nedic doing all this portrait-hanging, ordering of oath-swearing and writing letters of allegiance to the King unless he viewed his government as acting in the King's name? Why didn't he just do what Quisling and the collaborationist government of Greece did and declare the monarchy deposed (an analagous situation, as both these territories were mere occupied territories whose collaborationist civil govenment aspired to statehood)? Quisling certainly didn't pretend to be King Haakon's prime minister, and neither did any of the Greek collaborationist prime ministers view themselves as acting in the name of King George II.
Also; Tito must have had a reason to use this as justification for disallowing the King's return. He wasn't just making it up(but he was, I hasten to add; putting one hell of a lot of spin on it.).He had to find some reason to justify to the Yugoslav people why he could not let Petar II return.(primarily because he had no genuine reason apart from his own republican agenda; the King had been on the side of the allies from day one.)
This seems to me similar to the situation in Rhodesia 1965-1970. Rhodesia proclaimed itself independent in 1965 and declared that the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was the Queen of Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government acted in the name of Elizabeth II up until 1970; when a whites-only referendum declared a 'Republic'. The Queen never acknowledged holding the position of 'Queen of Rhodesia'; nor did she or the British government acknowledge the existence of Rhodesia as an independent state. But nonetheless; that was de facto the case.
Neither Rhodesia as an independent state nor the Government of National Salvation existed de jure. Both entities were illegal; unrecognised by the majority of the states of the world, and both had a fascist/racist agenda. Both of them governed the territory they claimed to govern as well. De jure, (in the eyes of the allies, but not the Axis); the Kingdom of Yugoslavia continued to exist 1941-1943. Likewise, de jure (in the eyes of Britain and the majority of the rest of the international community), Rhodesia did not exist as an independent state 1965-1980. Legally, the British crown colony of Southern Rhodesia continued to exist. BUT; regardless of any legal or moral issues, both entities did exist de facto. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also...
'Tito's Promised Land' by Alex N. Dragnich, 1954; pg. 19:
"Nedich never disavowed his loyalty to King Petar, nor did the Nazis ever consider Nedich's Serbia independent, even in the puppet sense."
'The Balkans In Our Time' by Robert Lee Wolff, 1974; pg 204:
"Nedich called his regime the "Government of National Salvation," and no doubt thought of himself as loyal to King Peter, and as keeping alive some sort of Serbia to which the King would some day return"
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
...Ooh I'm not finished!
Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.
"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter."
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NgpwAAAAIAAJ&q=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&dq=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBfKULfvCpG20QXKoIGIAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgU JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
-Also; all I've presented is sources, not original research. If this government was carried out in the name of the King; then it was, regardless of the status of the government. If it wasn't, fair enough. I haven't come to a conclusion either way yet.
...oh and...
"The reason why they "never considered Nedich independent even in the puppet sense" - is because they directly controlled him without any semblance even of de jure independence"
Where did I say anywhere that that wasn't the case? No, really. I didn't say that wasn't the case anywhere.
-Lastly:
"I find it very hard to believe the Germans would allow him to officially establish his government as subordinate to an Allied monarch who's coup actually changed Yugoslavia's alignment against the Axis" -This is POV. All I'm interested in here is the facts. If this government was carried out in Petar II's name, then it er, was. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"There is 'no way' this was even 'a country' of some sort"
-Did I say anywhere it was? Even my sources say quite categorically it wasn't. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've got more! XD
The Milauwaukee Journal, August 8th, 1945
"Tito told the Yugoslav National congress that Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovich and Milan Nedich had acted in the King's name during the german occupation. Peter declared that he could not give his personal sanction to a state of affairs "Which is abhorrent to me.""
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CzAaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ESUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1977,3372528&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"You cannot be a 'monarch' of a puppet government" -er; yes you can. The Kingdom of Westphalia? The Kingdom of Holland? Both had puppet governments, both of which were headed by a monarch, regardless of the status of the territory. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"it is OR to interpret any of it as amounting to Peter Karađorđević having any official status here."
-I'm not interpreting the sources to amount to anything at the moment. Like I said; I haven't made my mind up personally. That aside; there are THREE sources (one scholarly, two newspapers) that say that Nedic 'acted in the King's name'; not 'viewed himself as acting in the King's name' or 'wished to act in his name', or whatever. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.
Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:
St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.
"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dtsKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w04DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5246,164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.
Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:
St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.
"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dtsKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w04DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5246,164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The Baltimore Sun, August 8th, 1945
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
Lewiston Daily Sun, August 8th 1945; article: 'King Peter Refused Reentry To Yugoslavia':
"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
The Telegraph-Herald, August 8th, 1945; article: 'King Denounces Action of Tito- Refuses To Give Sanction To Present Government'
"Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iEdjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K3UNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1961,581733&dq=nedic+king's-name&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 19:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Westphalia was a kingdom, not a puppet government" -Correct; but it was also a puppet state. Thus, by definition; it would have a puppet government. A government with ministers, prime minister, cabinet etc., all owing allegiance to a monarch (in this case, Jerome Bonaparte).
"None of the sources you quote are relevant in any way towards the official status of King Peter."
-This one is:
Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.
"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter."
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NgpwAAAAIAAJ&q=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&dq=%22king+peter%22%22nedich%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBfKULfvCpG20QXKoIGIAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgU JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The infobox should be the infobox settlement, not former country. This was dealt with ad nauseum at Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, which uses the latter. I removed it from this article for that reason. Some people are very sensitive (and suggestible) regarding the titles of infoboxes, let's not encourage them, eh? Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The recently added map from Stritt's Weltkarte of 1942 shows Skopje as part of the area covered by the GNS in 1942. This is so obviously wrong it is misleading and should not be used in the article. Recent Serbian scholarship puts paid to this idea, see: Janjetović, Zoran (2012). "Borders of the German occupation zone in Serbia 1941–1944" (PDF). Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic. 62 (2). Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts: 93–115. doi: 10.2298/IJGI1202093J. Particularly pages 95 and 106 which clearly show Skopje in Bulgarian annexed territory. I have removed the Stritt's Weltkarte map on that basis. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
These "scholarships" are not very valuable when you're dealing with an ORIGINAL 1942 Nazi German political map. On this behalf I request my sources verified. Torba17 ( talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Tomasevich, Jozo (1975). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: The Chetniks. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-8047-0857-9. Also shows Skopje in Bulgarian-occupied territory, as do many other reliable sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely I do. I trust the people who *CREATED THE STATE* to know it's boundaries! Torba17 ( talk) 00:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a state in the official sense. History doesn't age like a fine wine. 1942 does not become less reliable than 1972. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree and end here. Torba17 ( talk) 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit vague. Some is an unspecified amount and MacDonald doesn't expand on this other than to give the number of Serbian State Guard men (13,400) and Zbor supporters (3,600) here.
This is hardly a representation of how much the regime had support from the general population though. MacDonald also seems to contradict himself in a later book when he writes:
In Serbia, General Milan Nedic formed a quisling 'Government of National Salvation'. The regime was unpopular, and most Serbs divided their loyalty between the fledging Communists Partisans (whose ranks Croats also joined), and the Serbian Chetniks under General Draza Mihailovic.Link The same is repeated in this book. That the regime was unpopular is also stated in this book
This work also elaborates: ..there was widespread disaffection with this government, which from the outset enjoyed very little popular support
.
Ljotić's Zbor movement was also a fringe movement that never received much support (see the Dimitrije Ljotić article).
So if the regime had actually little support, it's contradictory and unhelpful to suggest it had "some" support. -- Griboski ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: Explain yourself. -- Griboski ( talk) 01:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Although both Serbian nationalist and Titoist historians have strenuously minimized this fact ( for obvious reasons ) the Nedić regime was tolerated by many Serbs and even received the active and enthusiastic support of some.Turnock, David (1999). "Serbia". In Carter, Francis; Turnock, David (eds.). The States of Eastern Europe. Ashgate. p. 269. ISBN 1855215128. and
But Nedić now took office as prime minister on 29 August 1941 ; in this capacity , he enjoyed the support of a portion of the officer corps , officials , and the general population , as well as of the Serbian intelligentsia .Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-253-34656-8. -- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly what I am talking about. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@
Peacemaker67:The flag file itself has a source and the Emblem/Coat of Arms is seen in tons of video material from the regime (intro of propaganda-movies or "models" shown put up at events
[7]
[8] etc. Here Nedic (and ministers behind him) has it as a sort of "pin" on their suits
[9]).
It was claimed there is no "reliable source in the article", but the files have sources from for example Serbian flag-guide books? --
Havsjö (
talk) 16:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Savasampion:, I noticed your edit here. Though what is the reasoning behinds wiping all this information? Such as the admin map and so on? It had been there for so ling and abruptly removed? @ Peacemaker67: being that you also work on this page perhaps you may know more as well? Thanks. OyMosby ( talk) 01:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)