Talk:Kozara Offensive

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

Name[edit]

The article's name should be changed to "Battle of Kozara"; "Battle on the Kozara" in English can only mean "Battle on the Kozara River," and there is no such river -- Kozara is a mountain name. Languagehat (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't agree more. The standard English usage regarding battles is 'Battle of', unless, as you point out, the battle is on a lake, river etc. DIREKTOR, can you provide your rationale for moving this in the first place? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, The name of this confrontation is actually "Bitka na Kozari", meaning "Battle on the Kozara (Mountain)". But I suppose if you fellas think this is more "English-friendly", as it were, I agree. -- Director (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third enemy offensive[edit]

This was actually part of the anti-Partisan operations by Kampfgruppe Bader which had two parts, the offensive in eastern Bosnia known as Operation Trio, and Operation West-Bosnien. It is not confusion, they were part of the same major anti-Partisan campaign. It is here that the Partisan-centric 'X enemy offensive' approach to WP:TITLE really falls over. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? -- Director (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both the Partisan (X enemy offensive) and German/Italian (Operation X) perspectives are imprecise and reflect a non-NPOV. As did (X anti-Partisan offensive). I think we should be considering using neither, and should develop a non judgmental descriptive title for each article. Some would be harder than others. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously stated, I don't have a definite opinion on the matter (I just can't decide which is better), but I don't think it would be appropriate for us to just invent names for battles out of the blue. -- Director (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In fact, WP:NDESC encourages us to do so if required, and I believe it is required. I am no more interested in 'Fourth enemy offensive' than I am in 'Case/Operation Weiss'. I think we could come up with better NPOV titles based on the location and timeframe of each one. Battle of the Neretva, for example, is a terrible name, as it relates to only a brief period of Operation Weiss/Fourth enemy offensive. No doubt it will be challenging, but I just don't think WP:COMMONNAME cuts it in this area. Perhaps we could start with an easier one. The Drvar operation might be one to start with. 'Battle of Drvar (1944)' might be a good point to start from (there were attacks on Drvar in 1941/42, as you are no doubt aware). What do you think? I'd be happy to take this over to Seven enemy offensives to make sure all interested editors are involved in the discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the issue then: is it required? I myself do not think so. I wouldn't mind either of the two historical versions (I'm slightly leaning towards the German names), but I couldn't possibly agree to us here knocking our heads together and dreaming-up completely new names for battles and campaigns that already have two names each. Its a-historical. These battles are of immense significance for Yugoslav history, to have them (unnecessarily) named by whatever title a couple of "random internet persons" can dream-up might even be seen as "insulting". WP:NAME is, I believe, squarely on my side here. -- Director (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider using the 'seven enemy offensives' titles places them in a pre-eminent position among anti-Partisan operations in WW2 in Yugoslavia on the basis that they have been chosen to form part of the mythology of the Partisans. The use of Axis operation names widens the scope to include other major operations that don't fit within the Partisan mythology (such as Operation Maibaum). I accept that as pointed out in WP:TITLE, this approach does only reflect one side of the planning, but as the 'seven enemy offensives' were essentially defensive and reactive on the part of the Partisans, I think operation names are preferable to 'X enemy offensive'. The Seven enemy offensives article should always remain titled as such because it represents an important concept for the Partisan side, but the individual articles should, in my view, be renamed to the Axis operation names or, in one case (Second enemy offensive) to a WP:NDESC as I have never seen an operation name for it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my old proposal, should we decide to go with the codenames.

-- Director (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move away from seven articles that correspond to the seven enemy offensives. My point is that whilst we need to retain an explanation of the Partisan historiography in its own article and mention it in the relevant 'operation' articles, Axis military operations were devised to achieve particular purposes, and should not be artificially grouped to fit Partisan historiography. I therefore believe Schneesturm, Kugelblitz and Herbstgewitter should be treated separately. I also believe there is no reason not to translate Fall to Case (per Case Blue), and in fact very good reasons to do so based on wide translation in sources. I am at a loss as to why Fall Weiss (1939), Fall Grün (Czechoslovakia) and Fall Rot have not been translated, but they are all stubs anyway (and Fall Weiss (1939) and Fall Rot should just be merged into the relevant parent article anyway), and I don't think we should be taking them as a precedent. My counter-proposal is:

as we appear to agree on Operation Trio and Operation Rösselsprung (1944), I propose moving them and working towards solutions on the others. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets not do this piecemeal. Lets try to arrive at some sort of agreement first. -- Director (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with that approach, for the reasons outlined above, but I'll play. How about Fall vs. Case/Operation? Tomasevich 1975 uses Operation Weiss and Schwarz, as does Pavlowitch, Roberts uses Operation Weiss, ditto Milazzo. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, are we agreed on "Weiss" and "Schwarz" rather than "White" and "Black"? We have three options, as I see it:
  • Case White
  • Fall Weiss
  • Operation Weiss
Mind you, I'm hoping it won't be necessary to disambiguate with "1943". The Fall Weiss (1939) article is completely useless, and actually carries far less information on the plan then the main, Invasion of Poland article. Plus "Fall Weiss" (in the context of 1939) is virtually synonymous with the Invasion of Poland. I performed a good-faith merge there.
P.S. From what research I've done, it appears that "Operation Weiss" is significantly more common than the other variants. I myself still prefer "Fall Weiss": the Germans made a distinction between "Falls" and "Operations". "Falls" are, I believe, usually larger and more complex. That distinction would be lost if we just called them all "Operation". And I don't think "Fall Weiss" translates well. -- Director (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with "White" and "Black" or "Weiss" and "Schwarz", it's mostly "Fall" I have a problem with. I can live with "Case" or "Operation" (although the sources I've mentioned clearly favour "Operation"), but I think it needs to be in English. My preference, if I had to choose, would be Operation Weiss (with no disambig required) and Operation Schwarz. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for now, lets go with your original proposal ("Case White" and "Case Black"). Moving on. The other major issue is the split of the "Sixth Offensive" into three articles. Personally, I don't agree that we should unnecessarily split that article. What Yugoslav history calls the "Sixth Offensive" is basically Operation Schneesturm. The other two are a preparatory operation for Schneesturm, and a barely-notable sideshow of marginal importance. I think we could very nicely incorporate them all under "Operation Schneesturm" (the first one as the background, and the other as part of the context). What I am certain of, however, is they certainly do not warrant separate Wikipedia articles at this time. Covering the three (or rather "2.5") operations in one place is sensible imo - as two of those "2.5" are part of the same effort. -- Director (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sixth Offensive is quite a strange one. The initial operation that fits into the 'Sixth Offensive' context and arguably the most effective from a German perspective, was Kugelblitz in eastern Bosnia. It was followed by Schneesturm (which was essentially a pursuit operation conducted after Kugelblitz), but then the Germans, NDH and Chetniks conducted a series of operations all over the NDH, including Ziethen, Herbstgewitter, Panther, Delphin, Merkur, Waldrausch and Weihnachtsmann. These operations ranged from the Livno-Duvno area (Zeithen), Korčula (Herbstgewitter), Glina (Panther), central Dalmatian islands (Delphin), Gospic (Merkur), Slavonski Brod to Konjić (Waldrausch, which was huge and actually consisted of three smaller operations), and south of Zagreb (Weihnachtsmann). Which operations are we suggesting are covered by the Sixth Offensive? I'm thinking only Kugelblitz and Schneesturm, and given it was the initial and main operation involved, I think such an article should be titled 'Operation Kugelblitz'. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably certain (though not 100%) that all of those, or virtually all, fall under the term "Sixth Enemy Offensive". This presents a problem. Kugelblitz, however, seems to be the central operation, yes [1]. Tough question... how to cover all this? -- Director (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a source or two for this. The actual article doesn't even have any. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the link. There are three sources that explicitly state the Sixth Offensive was Kugelblitz (I've found nothing of the sort for Schneesturm, apart from this website [2]). The fourth (as far as I can tell) states that Kugeliblitz was part of the second phase of what the Partisans called the "Sixth Offensive". Either way, I think we can safely reorganize the Sixth Enemy Offensive article into the "Operation Kugelblitz" article that incorporates Kugelblitz and Schneesturm. -- Director (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, but thought they were inconclusive about the other operations, and don't consider Vojska a WP:RS. I'm comfortable with naming it 'Operation Kugelblitz' though, and including Schneesturm. So we have agreement on Trio, White, Black, Kugelblitz and Rosselsprung. What's next? Uzice? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Imo its a mistake to rely on the Uzice Republic article. That thing probably shouldn't even exist as a separate article, all its caused is confusion, but for our considerations it ought to suffice to pretend that it doesn't exist. Its a state article, not a battle article.
There's a lot to say on the initial conflict over there. The way I see it, the article ought to cover the uprising and the offensive: the question is only which of those two do we choose to name the article after? -- Director (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is more than enough material available to have two articles. My view is we should merge the 'Uzice Republic' article into an 'Uzice Uprising' article and have a separate 'Operation Uzice' article with summary sections and a main article link in the respective articles. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't agree :). I think it ought to be one article, whatever we name it. Its all one story, really. Even if we had a separate Operation Uzice article, we would need to have an extensive "Background" section on the uprising. And the uprising article would require an extensive "Aftermath" section. No I really don't think there's any reason to split this thing. (Also I think the Germans didn't really care enough to spell the name of the town correctly, it was Operation "Uzice", without a "ž" (which is pronounced "zh" as in.. I don't know, Zaporizhia? :)). -- Director (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it is one story. The first story is about the uprising and the creation of a liberated territory around Uzice and the second story is about how the Germans got rid of it and forced the Partisans to retreat to rebuild and rethink how they were going to do business. However, I could live with 'Operation Uzice' (no zh) to cover the lot. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that oughta do for now. But then if you ever feel like creating an "Užice Uprising" article, who am I to stop you? :) (Goddammit its 9:30 and its already so hot you could fry eggs on the pavement..) -- Director (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking me back... Divulje Barracks, right on the sea, but still stinking hot and dusty. Ok, back to business. Do we leave Second enemy offensive for now? I have had a cursory look for a codename, but haven't found one yet. There probably was one, but it's likely in a text like Kroener, and not all volumes are online. I'll have to take a trip into the library... Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barracks? Its an air force base, or used to be.. now I don't know what it is. I know one half of our warplane is up in Zagreb so that's probably where they store the other half (the wings and the tail). I was around there a couple days ago when I went over to the airport to welcome my unsuspecting Austrian cousins to the oven, "have fun, but for the love of god don't go outdoors..".
Right, do you think you'll be able to find the codename? -- Director (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We might be talking about a different thing. It was definitely a barracks when I was there. There was a heliport, but it was on the other side of the road from the airport, on the coast road towards Trogir. As far as the codename goes, who knows, but I can at least give it a try. It's so obscure that we may have to stay with 'Second enemy offensive' for now. As I understand it, we now have:
Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, its the same thing. And believe it or not, its an "air force base" [3]. I think the actual JNA air strips were dug into the side of Kozjak Mountain above, but those are definitely a ruin by now. I wouldn't know, through. I've been told the SFOR held that base for quite a while.
Anyway I'm perfectly fine with the list. -- Director (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article[edit]

As part of working on Operation Trio, it has become clear to me that this was not a battle per se, but rather an offensive. The Axis called it Operation West-Bosnien, but it is referred to by a number of different titles, including 'Kozara Offensive'. It went on for weeks, so really does not fit the description 'battle'. I think the title needs reviewing.Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this article to "Kozara Offensive" given that the number of hits (21) per [4] for that name is twice that of "Battle of Kozara" (10) per [5]). Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kozara_Offensive&oldid=1208034839"