Talk:Kingdom of Yugoslavia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Dates

It seems to me that the date given - April 1941, is rather POV. The Allies continued to recognize the royal government after the German invasion, and I believe that officially the Kingdom lasts until Tito abolishes it in December 1945. I'm going to change it. john k 17:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but then so are your dates. Maybe it should say that it ended defacto in 41 and dejure in 45.Dejvid 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the country was officially transformed to Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1945. It was occupied and divided by Axis powers in 1941 but it didn’t cease to exist. It was still recognized by Allays. --N Jordan 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal?

Why is the order of the nations reversed from the state? 203.218.88.120 14:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because numerality was decided to be the crucial definition: first Serbs, then Croats and finally Slovenes; the state simply named the nations without any order of definition. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? john k 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs - 44,57%
Croats - 23,5 %
Slovenes - 8,51%

From the most numerious to the least. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Community

From Early Politics, paragraph 3, third last line: "As the opposition continued their boycott the government decided it had no alternative but to rule by decree. This was denounced by the opposition who began to style themselves as the Pa[r]liamentary Community. " as of 29th June, 2006.

What is this? Does this mean the opposition maintained that only they were true supporters of parliamentary system?--User:Fitzwilliam 08:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Yugoslavia"

I am curious as to when the word "Yugoslavia" began to be used to refer to the kingdom. The article states when the name was officially changed, but the name "Yugoslavia" was used at least sometimes on an unofficial basis before then (for instance, the kingdom is referred to as Yugoslavia in the reports of the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games). Was the term used since the creation of the kingdom? -- Jonel | Speak 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially since 1929, but the name "Yugoslavia" was common, even before its creation in 1918 ("Pan-Yugoslavism", everyone expecting establishing a "Yugoslav unified state"). --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in geography between the two yugoslavias

Can some one try to obtain a larger pic of a map for the first Yugoslavia? I've always wondered what the differences were (geographically) between the first and the second and from the map currently up I can only see that Istria was not included. Thanks. 141.157.193.197 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

In the Yug-timeline template at the bottom of this article, it has Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929) and Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1945) separately, while this article deals with both together. Wouldn't it make sense to create a separate article for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? - 52 Pickup 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it was simply a change of a name and system of government. In every other way, nothing changed. --Methodius 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and Coat of Arms

The current images of the Flag and Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SCS)are incorrect. The present CoA is nothing more than the current official Serbian CoA of which is also the Coat of Arms of the House of Obrenović Dynasty. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SCS)was created and ruled by the Karađorđević Dynasty.

There are several differences between the two Coat of Arms:

The Crowns are different in design and decoration.
The Karađorđević CoA did not have 2 two golden fleurs-de-lys.
Lastly the inescutcheon was also different.

This mistake should be corrected. User:Dim24 12:53, April 13 2007 (UTC)

Dim24 Is correct. The flag had its coat of arms placed in the center and not the hoist side. And most importantly the royal crowns are very different from present day Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslvavia. Although its is correct that Serbia did create and rule the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Bluewings 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/yu_shs.html, there is no COA at the flag. The flag with COA was something called "war flag" (naval ensign).--N Jordan 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here is a link as well with image and information regarding the flag as well as coat of arms - http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/yu_shs.html Bluewings 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Snake bgd posted wrong images again. I fixed that. Note that national flag of Kingdom of Yugoslavia had no COA. You may check Constitution of Kingdom at http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/yugconst19310903.html: Art. 2. The arms of the Kingdom are a two-headed white eagle with outspread wings on a red shield. On the two heads of the double-headed eagle is the Crown of the Kingdom. On the breast of the eagle is a shield bearing: a white cross on a red shield with a flint and steel in each corner, a shield divided into 25 fields, alternately silver and red, and below it a blue shield with 3 gold six-pointed stars and a white crescent.

The national standard is blue-white-red in the horizontal sense against an vertical staff. Please stop using current Serbian flag and COA and pretend they belongs to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The difference is not only in shield(s) on the breast of the eagle. --N Jordan 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a plain blue,white,red flag that is in line with the description of the real KoY flag as it was in 1922. This is the correct version of the flag and should not be changed. I my self and N Jordan have provided references for this change. The CoA is next to be changed as the current one is incorrect. -- Bluewings 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag with the coat of arms was the state flag of the kingdom. Probably the plain tricolour was used, but the one posted on wikipedia has the wrong type of crown. I believe it would have followed the same colour shades as that of Serbia. The current Serbian flag is almost exactly the same flag as was used in the 1880s to 1918 and after that the state flag of Yugoslavia looked very similar. I will correct the colours of the Yugoslav state flag post an svg image of the civil flag with the Serbian colour shades as they would be the same as Serbia became Yugoslavia, and had little reason to change its shades of blue and red. User:R-41

I uploaded correct COA that we can use for this article. Re state flag, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/yugconst19310903.html) there is no state flag! --N Jordan 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R-41, there is no state flag in Yugoslav constitution. You can find it at the web site of former Yugoslav royal family (http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm), but the size and position of COA is slightly different from current state flag of Serbia. (BTW, the state flag of Kingdom of Serbia was different then current state flag. Check royal family site). I think that constitutional flag of Yugoslavia (without COA) is much better solution for this article. However, if you would like to use flag with COA, edit it according to the flag at http://www.royalfamily.org/history/flags/flags_yu.htm. Thanks! --N Jordan 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User N Jordan is right: there was no state flag in the Yugoslav consitution. The official flag was without the Coat of Arms. Viator slovenicus 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many other countries, Kingdom of SHS/YU had official state flag, and that is tha one with the big COA on it. If present day Republic of Serbia page has state flag, the same should be with Kingdom of SHS/YU. <(talk) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kraljevstvo/Kraljevina SHS

Sometime early in the history of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the name was changed from Kraljevstvo SHS to Kraljevina SHS. And info on when or why the change was made and on the linguistic issues involved? — AjaxSmack 18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea. I remember having seen the denomination Kraljevstvo SHS on some earlier stamps; the first Constitution (the "Vidovdan Constitution" of 1921) states that the official name of the country is "Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca"; so I guess the term "Kraljevstvo" was used some time between 1918 and 1921 as a semi-official denomination. My Serbo-Croatian is not very good, but in Slovenian the term kraljestvo sounds archaic and is mostly used in fairy-tale language (or in a metaphoric use, such as in "pridi k nam Tvoje kraljestvo"="Thy Kingdom come"), while the word "kraljevina" has a much more political connotation and cannot be used in metaphoric sense (you could never say, for example, "*Moja kraljevina ni od tega sveta"="My kingdom is not from this world.") Viator slovenicus 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End year

We need to assert a correct end year date. --PaxEquilibrium 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now there are three candidates:

1) 1941, when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was invaded by the German, Italian, Hungarian and provisional aid Axis forces (Albanian, Croatian Ustasha,...) and torn apart martially

2) 1943, when King Peter II Karadjordjevic in exile recognized the Partisans as the Yugoslav Royal Army in the Fatherland rather than the Chetniks, supporting Tito, whose Communists semi-officially abolished the unitary Kingdom in favor of a federal republic

3) 1945, when the King came to Belgrade to officially renounce all claims to the throne, and the temporary Democratic Federal Yugoslavia formed as the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia which received international recognition upon Stalin's demand after a referendum to choose between a Kingdom and a Republic.

It's very clear. From legal point of view, country ceased to exist in 1945, when the republic was proclaimed. Occupation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia and creation of puppet states was not recognized by international law. Creation of Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1943 was legalized latter by agreements between Tito and royal Yugoslav government. So, 1945 is the only option.--N Jordan 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the United Nations were created in 1945, so we can't observe it that way. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the predecessor of UN was the League of Nations, created before WW2. --N Jordan (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which essentially failed in integrating the majority of the world and in all it's attempts, but OK. You should know that in 1943 the Western Allies stopped supporting the Royalists and agreed with Stalin to with all force support the Communist Partisans, which in the same year ('43) decided the future shape of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shift from Royalists to the Communist Partisans was gradual and didn’t affect recognition of Yugoslav government in exile. The Allies supported Tito’s partisans but never officially recognized them as legal government of Yugoslavia. Tito’s partisans proclaimed their own government on Nov 29, 1943. That government was never recognized by the Allies. Instead of that, the Allies initiated negotiation between Tito and de jure government of Yugoslavia in exile. The result was Tito-Subasic agreement signed in June 1944, and new provisional government few months later. That government was recognized by the Allies. The monarchy was abolished one year later, in Nov 1945.--N Jordan (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist

There's a problem. The "succeeded by PFRY" doesn't work, it only shows the WWII Axis puppet-states, despite being written too. --PaxEquilibrium 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successor state(s)

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was succeeded by communist Yugoslavia, not Nazi German or any Nazi puppet state. Please respect international law. For example, Czechoslovakia was not succeeded by independent Slovakia creaqted by occupation forces. --N Jordan 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessors and successors

It seems there is some confusion about predecessor and successor states. The predecessors of royal Yugoslavia are Kingdom of Serbia and State of Slovenians, Croats, and Serbs. Montenegro was independent nation but joined Serbia before creation of Yugoslavia. However, [Banat Republic] and [Baranya-Baja Republic] were self proclaimed and never recognized. Successor states can’t be countries that temporary occupied Yugoslavia or Nazi puppet states. Royal Yugoslavia was recognized country during the occupation.--N Jordan (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the Banat Republic - that's 1918? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox does not only have to list the legal successors, see United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for example --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Succeeding states does not have to be legal successors to be added to the infobox. For a closer scrutiny on this review the instructions. -- Domino theory (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s illegal successor at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Both United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland are legal and internationally recognized successors. The predecessors of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland are Kingdom of Great Britain and kingdom of Ireland – both were perfectly legal: British King was at the same time the King of Ireland (personal union).

Banat Republic was just an attempt and nothing else. It was never recognized by anybody and lasted only 2 weeks. --N Jordan (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary. And nevertheless, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is currently depicted in the article - and yet it was in the same situation as the Banate Republic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Kingdom of Hungary was defeated in the WW1. A new government of Hungary was established on October 31, 1918. They officially declared independent Republic of Hungary on November 16. The Banat Republic also was proclaimed on November 1, before the Republic of Hungary officially declared independency. Serbian troops entered the Banat on November 15 – one day before official independency of the Republic of Hungary. So, it was not clear who recognized independence of Banat in the name of Hungary. It was a time of political struggle in Hungary.

Anyway, all of this doesn’t matter. The Banat Republic seized to exist on November 15. Banat became the part of Serbia on November 25, 1918. So, on December 1, it was just a part of the Kingdom of Serbia. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was at that time recognized by the Kingdom of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is official, and it had recognized the independence of the Banat Republic and then proclaimed itself, thus without the Banat (as the Hungarian Democratic Republic).

Please refer to the Creation of Yugoslavia article and the lengthy and problematic deep discussions over at Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without long discussions about legality of self-proclaimed Banat Republic, the point is it ceased to exist before proclamation of the new Yugoslav state on December 1. At that moment, (part of) Banat was already part of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg

Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]