Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

the offical name of this state

- With the greatest of respect to user:DIREKTOR; I think his comments, edits, etc. are entirely POV. I see no categorical reason why this state (which it was, regardless of how) was not officially called 'Serbia' and I see no evidenced reason to call it either 'Nedic's Serbia' or 'the Government of National Salvation-the latter of which is obviously not the official name of the state; or for that matter, any good reason why itwas not, at least formally, a monarchy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened with the emphasis on the German military administration being reduced? Also the title ignores that Serbia was led by another leader also in the stated time period

The name of this article is bad, since it describes a government that was also led by another leader, Milan Aćimović. Also, Serbia as a whole was under a German military administration known as the Military Administration of Serbia, led by a German governor who was in command of armed forces in Serbia. I suggest that the name of this be restored to "Serbia (1941-1944)".--R-41 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Enough said. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Military Administration in Serbia / Militärverwaltung in Serbien

Well, i have one proposition. We have where one name, but as far as i can see, there are not enough users who agree to this. I also dont like it. And i have one proposition.

As no official state was established during Nazi rule in Serbia, we dont have official name of the state that we can use. But, only official entity that did existed during the war was Militärverwaltung in Serbien or Military Administration in Serbia. In article Military Administration (Nazi Germany) you may see the names of the other countries that shared the same fate.

Name	Article
Militärverwaltung in Serbien	Nedić's Serbia
Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich	Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France
Militärverwaltung in Frankreich	German military administration in occupied France during World War II
Militärverwaltung in Polen	German military administration in occupied Poland
Militärverwaltung in Rumänien	Military Administration in Romania (No link, i created it.)
Militärverwaltung in Griechenland	Axis occupation of Greece during World War II

Now, we have sources for several names, but i propose that we rename this article into something like German military administration in Serbia during World War II, or Military Administration in Serbia, etc, as per this, we will have article that will cover entire WWII history of this article, and will be neutral. Nedić's Serbia is questionable per several questions.

1. . Nedić's government was not the only one government of WWII territory of Serbia
2. . Word Serbia does mean territory, not state. This WWII entity is located in the present state of Serbia, so it cannot be wrong, as we dont make thing up.
3. . COMMONNAME cannot be the main guideline in this case. In several questionable situations, common name is override in order to follow some more important guidelines, and to make peace. We need article about Serbia during WWII, not about Nedić's Serbia.

So, now, i first need your propositions, your attitudes, and after all, we will see what will happen. Thanks to all, my dear friends! :) :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A logical way to cover this would be to have a "Military Administration in Serbia" article, with two specific sections about it's civil governments: "Nedić government" and "Aćimović government". Ideally, we would have the "Nedić government" and "Aćimović government" main articles that the two sections woul link to. But of course, we are faced with powerful imaginations that consider an unnamed state to have existed under a German military occupation authority, and equate an idea of "defending Serbia's honor" with "proving" that their country was a Nazi puppet state.

WhiteWriter, I recommend you see how WWII Norway is covered on Wiki, an occupied Allied kingdom under a German military administration, with a civil government installed - an identical case. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with any renaming of this article that will not reflect that this article speak about Serbia. No matter how you define what Serbia was in this time (state, occupied territory, what ever), it is not disputed that an territory with name Serbia existed from 1941 to 1944 and that entity was not only geographical, but also political one. German military administration and local Serbian governments were only forms of administration that governed this territory, but existence of these administrations have nothing with the fact that an political entity with name Serbia existed. Therefore,this article should speak about that political entity, while German military administration in Serbia or local Serbian governments are subjects that should be described either in subsections of this article either in separate articles. So, if you want to have article about German military government in Serbia, you should create new article that would speak about that. Please do not rename this article without consensus. PANONIAN 04:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear: all titles of this article that would imply that it speaks about Serbia itself are acceptable. Titles that would imply that this article is not about Serbia, but about something "in Serbia", "of Serbia", etc are completely POV and completely unacceptable. I disagree with such annihilation of subject about which this article speaks. PANONIAN 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And to repeat: "German Military government in Serbia" and "Government of national salvation" ARE NOT POLITICAL ENTITIES. I cannot believe that you people do not understand the difference between political entities and forms of governments or administrations that govern political entities. Difference between such things is a basic fact. PANONIAN 04:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Now here I will give you concrete examples which will prove how your logic is wrong: this article also speaks about subjects such are theatre, film, sports,etc. So, did The Serbian National Theatre in Belgrade that is mentioned in this article existed in Serbia or it maybe existed "in administration" or "in government"? Or did city of Belgrade itself existed "in administration" or "in government"? How one theatre or city could exist "in administration" or "in government" at all? It is a question of basic logic. PANONIAN 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nazi Germany

  Areas under German and/or Axis occupation

  German allies, co-belligerents, and puppet states

  Allied-held areas

  Neutral countries

Panonian, I am terribly sorry you can't inderstand this, and when I finally have the time, I will do my best to resolve these misconceptions of yours. Quite simply, there was no state or political entity in Serbia during WWII. Serbia was occupied by various axis states, and this territory was under direct German occupation, with two successive civil governments installed by the occupation authorities. I am sorry, since that seems to trouble you, and I don't know what they taught in school, but it was not a nazi puppet country.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your POV and original research. Map that you showed is exact proof that there was an political entity named Serbia. If there was no such entity then maps would not show it. This entity had its borders and had military and civil administrations that governed over it - that is enough for definition of a political entity. Just answer this: how something that does not exist can have borders? You have no answer, of course. Please stop wasting valuable time of other users. PANONIAN 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. More or less everything 'DIREKTOR' has posted is POV and original research and thus has no place on wikipedia, however noble his sentiments may be. To wit: DIREKTOR, we get it, the nazis anmd the ustashe were bad. don't let it cloud hsitorical reality.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, and what do you think about Occupation of Serbia during World War II? P.S. PANONIAN, i really think that there was not official state proclaimed during WWII in Serbia. Only military administration. WWII Norway is really identical situation. And in order to satisfy both view, Occupation of Serbia during World War II may be good? Please tell me your attitudes, thanks, boys! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Serbia was "official state". It was an Axis political entity with its own borders and Wikipedia should have an article about that entity (whether it was state, occupied territory, occupied area or whatever is completely irrelevant here). All other things (occupation, military administration, Serbian governments) are only issues that happened within that entity and it would be ridiculous that we have articles about any of those if we do not have one about entity itself. Military administration cannot govern an non-existing territory. If there was an administration then there was also an territory that was under this administration and you would be in war with basic logic if you say anything opposite. PANONIAN 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR in particular seems to just be determined to avoid using the word 'Serbia' in the title of this article for whatever personal reasons, despite the amount of primary evidence both PANONIAN and I have given him.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Unlike most Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-supporters, who proclaim a Nazi Serbia existed alongside Nazi Croatia, I am a special case: I want to make sure "Serbia" is not on the list of Nazi puppets (notice that "Norway" is not there, but is listed as "controversial" in spite of its absolutely identical situation).

Dealing with Serbian nationalism is becoming a part-time job on enWiki. If I were to support the word "Serbia" nationalists would oppose me saying I'm trying to equate Serbs with fascist Croats ("Serbs were always anti-fascist!"). Since I support the removal of the word "Serbia", I am trying to "strike Serbia's name from the annals of history!" or whatever. Ridiculous.

I'll say this again: PANONIAN's sources are worthless with regard to supporting his claim in any way. PANONIAN's googling "Serbia World War II" is useless because it includes 1) geographic usage of the term (like "Macedonia" "Bosnia", etc.), and 2) colloquial unofficial usage of the term. There was no state there. No country. He has to show the opposite, and he has not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-but that's POV, which has no place on wikipedia. Your POV is clear here: "Unlike most Croatian nationalists and Ustaše-supporters, who proclaim a Nazi Serbia existed alongside Nazi Croatia, I am a special case..." -what about stuff like coins, banknotes, edicts et cetera? As shown above, they all used the word 'serbia'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, User:JWULTRABLIZZARD. I am following what the sources on WWII say on the status of this occupied territory - not any "POV" of mine. Why would I personally care about WWII Serbia?

Coins? :) Coins do not a country make. Quisling's money undoubtedly had "Norway" on it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes...and if the territory was not called 'Serbia', what would be the point in putting 'Serbia' on the currency?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nedić's goal was to have a Serbian state, after the war or perhaps sooner (assuming of course that the Germans would win). The point is that he did not - the Germans did not allow it (for a number of reasons) and kept the territory as the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. All in all: who cares about the coins.. We do not determine the status of a government or territory on the basis of coins and assumptions such as the above. That is called WP:OR. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"point is that he did not - the Germans did not allow it (for a number of reasons) and kept the territory as the Militärverwaltung in Serbien" -what evidence do you have for this assertion?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-Correct me if I'm wrong; but didn't Quisling get the storting to declare Haakon VII deposed and changed the state's name from 'Norges Rike' to merely 'Norge'?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are more than abundant that the Militärverwaltung in Serbien was the governing authority of this occupation zone for the entirety of the war (or I should say 1941-44). That said, you must understand that I am not the one in need of evidence here - the positive assertion is PANONIAN's ("Nedić had a country!"). Of course the nonsense assertion is indeed based on an argument from ignorance ("prove that he did not!") that demands proof for a negative. At this stage comes the false quoting of sources that do not really support the assertion, etc.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

-yes, but nonetheless every territory, occupied or not, has a name. for example, the riechskommisarriats in the eastern occupied territories were both called 'Ostland' and 'Ukraine'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The name of this occupied territory was "Military Administration in Serbia". The point I'm making is that Nedić did not have a state therein. That the area might've been called "Serbia" or that the term "Serbia" is used as a geographical term in sources - these are not what I'm talking about. This was a German-occupied territory (legally a part of Germany) that was administered by the Militärverwaltung in Serbien. The Militärverwaltung (which had a Wehrmacht officer as the commander) established two successive civil governments within - which did not consititute seperate states. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well; you are certainly mistaken on one point: being 'occupied' by another state's armed forces doesn't make a territory 'legally part of' the other state. to become 'legally part of' another state, said territory needs to be formally annexed. For example, the USA militarily occupied the us sector of germany after world war two; that doesn't mean the us sector became US territory. The same goes for Japan after World War Two. Now, it may well have been Nazi Germany's intention to later annex serbia, but no such annexation took place, like it did for example in austria. this was an occupied, not annexed territory.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems that DIREKTOR clearly admitted that he have personal political agenda that he want to push and due to that he should be banned from editing of this article. Now to deal with specific issue: WW2 Serbia was not "only geographical term" because of simple fact that it had defined administrative borders. No single area that is "only geographical" would not have defined administrative borders. It would be nice that DIREKTOR present one single source that claim that WW2 Serbia was "only geographical area". Of course, such source does not exist and it is clear that word "geographical" came from his head and from his head only with no any background in real World. Now, as I said before, the issue whether Serbia was a "real country" or not is completely unrelated to this problem. I myself would agree that Serbia was rather occupied territory than real country and that Germans left the full solution of the question of Serbian statehood for the future, but there is no single source that would say that area was only geographical and that name "Serbia" was not used for it. Status of WW2 Serbia was in fact similar with status of Iraq after American invasion in 2003: the country was under American military control with weak local government installed by the Americans. Would DIREKTOR also claim that Iraq was just geographical area in that time and that its name was not "Iraq"? Finally, if name of WW2 Serbia was not "Serbia" why German used name "Military administration in Serbia"? Why not "in Yugoslavia" or "in Balkans" or whatever? Facts are clear: Germans destroyed and occupied Yugoslavia and created an political entity named "Serbia", which was under their military administration, but where weak local Serbian government existed as well. So, yes, Germans did not allowed that Serbia immediately become "full country" because military control of that area was strategically important to them, but it is simply not truth that Germans did not allowed that name "Serbia" is used for it. Germans were the one who introduced name "Serbia" for that territory and claim that they did not allowed usage of that name is ridiculous. PANONIAN 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And two more questions for DIREKTOR: 1. is there any source that say that "Serbia was legally part of Germany" during the war?, and 2. if "Nedić did not had a state therein" why you presented in your map that he did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Axis_occupation_of_Yugoslavia_1941-43.png If it was some fictional government without therein why its domain have borders on your map? Geographical areas are not having such borders. PANONIAN 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's previous confusion about the meaning of the word "regime" seems to extend to "administration" also. The "Military Administration in Serbia" was not the "name of [an] occupied territory". That occupied territory was named or called "Serbia" (Serbien), as the term "Military Administration in Serbia" indicates. I myself would have no problem with two articles on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Nedić regime, with an overview article on Serbia during World War II. The current title is a compromise designed to reflect the reality of the current article's scope. Srnec (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR obviously does not understand the distinction between 'occupation' and 'annexation'. Two completely different concepts.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No pointing finger, please, JWULTRABLIZZARD! :) So what do you think about this?

We rename this article to Serbia during World War II. Serbia in the geographical sense, and in almost all other. And after that, we create new articles for both governments on that occupied Serbia? That may be god solution... What do you people say? Just tell me do you agree, or not? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no; 'Whitewriter'; that wasn't meant in a personal sense towards 'DIREKTOR' at all, far from it, just stating what seemed to be the case.

Yes, 'Serbia during World War Two' would be acceptable, although I think ikt would be a good idea to hunt for official documents relating to this regime to see what offical name, if any, this entity had, and to include that name in the table at the top of the article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

as regards separate articles for the two governments: that to me seems uneccesary: whatever the political reality of this entity, it clearly was an organised political entity of some description, to whatever degree, and as such information about those governments should be included in here.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Let see, there are several other titles that are acceptable for me:

• Serbia during World War II
• Serbia (1941-1944)
• Serbia under German occupation

However, it should be clearly specified that such article would speak about territory of political entity named Serbia that was created by Germans in 1941 and not about territory of modern Serbia in AVNOJ borders. We can also have separate articles about two governments and about German military administration, but these articles should be focused only at specific issues related to these governments such is list of ministers, documents adopted by the governments etc. Anyway, WhiteWriter, I suggest that you do not rename this article unilaterally without general consensus and to start new revert war with DIREKTOR who will probably rename it again to Nedić regime after your own renaming attempt. PANONIAN 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, i will not do anything until DIREKTOR agrees. It seems that all three of us agreed on Serbia during World War II article name, as the first step. We will see what DIREKTOR said... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is best, as it is completely unambiguous.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont know, i am against it... It looks ugly, and it may mean that Serbia was official name. Like this it will mean only Serbia during World War II, and what happened to territory of Serbia during WWII... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

-I think it looks much neater, and using the term 'Serbia' does not imply that it was an official name. Also, to be fair, the regime only lasted from 1941 to 1944, and that's not the whole of World War Two. So, that's why I think 'Serbia (1941-1944)' would be the most correct title for this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I was misunderstood, this territory was obviously not "a part of Germany" as an annexed territory. What I meant was that it was admninistered by Nazi Germany. PANONIAN, most of your posts and activities here are really not much more than trolling. You are not discussing the issue properly but are merely repeting the same old fake arguments, "supported" by purposely misquoted references, and refuted a dozen times over. I reccomend you try to understand more about the very complex situation and history of WWII Yugoslavia before you try to write on the subject. Keep your personal attacks and theories about my "political agendas" to yourself, I will report them the second I read them.

Secondly, "Serbia" is (according to Wiki naming conventions) the title that we would use for a country called "Serbia". Hence the name is entirely unacceptable and is not much more than an affirmation of the strange idea that "Nedić had a country!".

And thirdly, this issue is really moot. The name change was discussed several times in proper RMs and this name was chosen by the admins on good grounds. Unless it is shown that the country of this country article did not exist (which I plan to do quite easily when I catch the time), there are no new changes to the state of affairs and there are no grounds whatsoever for an RM. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For those few who ween't aware, this has all been previously discussed at some length here quite recently.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR, how on earth was what you said in anyway unambiguous? You stated quite clearly it was 'legally a part of Germany'; when it wasn't.

Also; your objections to using the word 'Serbia' in this article is frankly baffling; (and with all respect makes me even more convinced that you're just -for whatever reason-determined to prevent the title of this article having the word 'Serbia' in it.) even if it wasn't a country, and was merely an occupied territory like the eastern reichskomissariats, that doesn't mean it wasn't called 'Serbia'. For example, the Reichskomissariat Ukraine still had the word 'Ukraine' in its official name and there is no argument about whether that was a country. (and it wasn't, is was just a German occupied-territory.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway has two articles, Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany and Quisling regime. This article covers Nedic's regime but does it cover the whole of Serbia in WWII? ie, what was Serbia before the Nazis sliced it up and parcelled it out. If not, perhaps there should be another article on Serbia in WWII and this one on Nedic's regime.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

-Well, this is why I object to 'Serbia during World War Two'; because 1939-1941, this territory was part of the Kingdom of Yugolavia, 1944-1945 it was part of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, which later became the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It was only under this regime for part of the war.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the title should be reverted to the more neutral Serbia (1941–1944), as the article was titled previously. The Germans considered the territory to be "Serbia", as in the Military Administration in Serbia. Also, unlike "Nedic's Serbia", it can take into account that there was another leader, Acimovic, who led the puppet Serbian regime before Nedic. The emphasis on the military administration needs to be restored, it was effectively in charge of Serbia. The military administration governed the armed forces of Serbia, and allowed the region of Banat to be an autonomous territory to be run by local ethnic Germans. The Nedic regime was like that of Quisling or of collaborator governments in places like Flanders, they were not independent states, even though they often attempted to persuade Germany to recognize them as such.--R-41 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway covers this in three articles:

• Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, with two sub-articles
  • Reichskommissariat Norwegen, the German authority in Norway, essentially the equivalent of the Militärverwaltung in Serbien
  • Quisling regime, about the civil government under the Reichskommissariat

This is how I would cover this question: Occupation of Serbia in World War II would cover ALL of Serbia, including Banat (Hungarian-occupied), Kosovo (Italian/Albanian-occupied), Srem (NDH-occupied), etc. as well as the central area under German occupation. A sub-article Military Administration in Serbia, would focus on the German authority, and the Nedić regime and Aćimović regime articles would focus on the two German-established civil authorities in the Militärverwaltung. The focus in the latter two would obviously be on the Nedić regime article, with the possibility that the early, and far less significant, Aćimović regime be included as a section in the Nedić regime article.

This imho is the only elegant and accurate solution to this complex problem. The current situation 1) handles the Nedić government, a civil authority in the Militärverwaltung, as a WWII country(!); 2) ignores areas of Serbia occupied by others than Nazi Germany; and 3) ignores the Aćimović government. Renaming the article "Serbia" is, as I said, extremely inaccurate and misleading, and only aggravates "problem #1". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Occupation of Serbia in World War II would cover ALL of Serbia, including Banat (Hungarian-occupied), Kosovo (Italian/Albanian-occupied), Srem (NDH-occupied), etc. as well as the central area under German occupation."

Yeess, but that's only because we're looking at it (well, you are) from a 2011 perspective. what constitutes 'Serbia' has been historically fluid: for example, before 1912, the Kingdom of Serbia consisted of only the northern aprt of what we now call 'Serbia', (and didn't include the Banat region either.) 'yet the Kingdom of Serbua' article still has 'Serbia' in it.Tsar Stephan Dushan's empire of Serbia covered most of the Southern Balkans, but it was still 'Serbia,'

Also this also depends on political perspective: the Serbian government of today would view Kosovo as part of Serbia, but supporters of Kosovan independence and the Kosavan government would not. This also extends to whether it was or was not. If Nedic considered his territory independent (but the germans did not)-as I think was the case with the Quisling regime- where do we draw the line? If that is the case,was it a state or not, even if only de jure? (I'm not going to take 'de facto' arguments here-if the state was considered legally a state in it's own eyes, then de jure, it was, at least to a degree.)

Regardless of all that, 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is quite clearly the best, most unambiguous choice. The term "Militärverwaltung in Serbien" was used in an official capacity, therefore use of 'Serbia (1941-1944)' is entirely correct, regardless of how much of the territory of modern serbia (which was not consitituted until 1944 anyway in its present borders.) was covered by it.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was and am ware of all that, but the bottom line is there was no "Serbia" at all from 1918 to 1945 (just like there wasn't any "Croatia" or "Bosnia" or "Montenegro" etc.), so "Serbia (1941-1944)" is just plain nonsense. We're not in the business of inventing countries.

As a part of a series of articles on Serbian history it is perfectly acceptable to use the title "Occupation of Serbia in WWII". As far as Kosovo is concerned I would include it, but the issue is really quite secondary - its certainly not the only non-German occupied part of Serbia. We can probably just mention it in a sentence or two as a compromise, avoiding any in-depth study. (I hope you don't mind I WP:INDENT-ed your post :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-Of course not. :)

As far as Kosovo is concerned I would include it, but the issue is really quite secondary - its certainly not the only non-German occupied part of Serbia." -yes, but like I said, this only means 'Serbia' as we define it today.

Serbia in the middle ages did not include all of what we now define as 'serbia', and neither did the kingdom of serbia prior to 1918-do we not crate separate artciles for those examples? clearly not.

but the bottom line is there was no "Serbia" at all from 1918 to 1945 (just like there wasn't any "Croatia" or "Bosnia" or "Montenegro" etc.

-well, 1918-1941 there was no 'Croatia' (although there was a banate of Croatia created just prior to the german invasion) or 'Montenegro', but 1941-1944, in the eyes of the axis (of which some states recognised the independence of) there was, in the eyes of the allies, there was not. and it can be argued that, with some degree of international recognition, that makes you a state.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, let me answer some questions that were raised in some of the last posts. Regarding DIREKTOR's accusation that I "repeat the same old fake arguments, supported by purposely misquoted references", here are these references: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia" So, how exactly these refences could be "misquoted"? Are they saying that Serbia was puppet state or not? Who ever want to say that Serbia was something else should provide valid references that would support such claims. My references are here and are properly quoted. It is DIREKTOR's turn to provide anything else instead empty rhetorics. However, due to problems that were caused by new renaming proposals, and due to the fact that some examples of proposed new names are even worst solutions than the current title, I must agree with DIREKTOR in one question: that current article title was agreed after long discussion and supported by an administrator and that, therefore, we should not change title of this article without general consensus. Sources that mention Serbia as an puppet state cannot be ignored and I will not support any change that will annihilate "state nature" of this article and that will transform it into "government of", "occupation of" , "regime of" or what ever. Speaking about occupation issue, title "Occupation of Serbia during World War II" is also not acceptable, although some modified version like "Serbia under German occupation during World War II" would be at least acceptable, but it is much worse than current title. Popular term "Nedić's Serbia" that is used in literature usually cover all aspects of this puppet state, including first government led by Aćimović and German Military administration since "Nedić's Serbia" is general name used for puppet state itself and all other issues related to local governments or administrations were something that happened within this state. Therefore, I created two new articles about two serbian governments and these articles are only subarticles that are further describing some of the issues in Nedić's Serbia. Also, situation with Norway is not interpreted in proper way. Norway existed as a state before German occupation, so article "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" only describing period of German occupational administration in Norway, but we have main article about state of Norway as well. Contrary to this, puppet state of Serbia did not existed before German occupation - it was created by Germans and it ceased to exist after Germans were defeated in 1944. Also, the question of occupation of present-day territory of Serbia is something that belong to History of modern Serbia article. That is unrelated to the fact that we should have an article about historical puppet state of Serbia that existed from 1941 to 1944. PANONIAN 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORKs to prejudice the discussion

User:PANONIAN has just created a "Government of National Salvation (Serbia)" article, a WP:POVFORK created to prejudice any discussion on this page - and is openly threatening to create more [1]. This is quite exemplary of the unbelievably abrasive and non-cooperative behavior displayed by the user. As opposed to discussing and presenting his arguments, the user has simply decided to "solve" this for us with a superfluous non-consensus article completely within the scope of this article. PANONIAN's "reign" over this article and his serious WP:OWN issues need to be resolved one way or the other. If this discussion is to continue in any kind of productive way this disruptive WP:POVFORK-fork war needs to be nipped in the bud. Others might've just started simply creating seperate articles in accordance with their own POV. An AfD has been posted --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please stop disrupting my edits in Wikipedia. Renaming discussion on this page have nothing to do with new article that I created. Discussion was whether we should rename article Nedić's Serbia to some other appropriate title, but that does not change the fact that Nedić's Serbia article speaks about country (or territory if you prefer more). If we have articles about Serbia and Government of Serbia then I do not see why we cannot have articles about two governments of Nedić's Serbia (I in fact created both: Commissary Government and Government of National Salvation (Serbia)). By the way, here is evidence that Nedić's Serbia article was created by user:FrontLine in 2 May 2006 as an article about "nazi puppet state", not about "its government": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nedi%C4%87%27s_Serbia&oldid=51137486 Furthermore, content of new articles that I created is not copy-pasted from Nedić's Serbia, but it is completely new text that I translated from listed sources. I really do not see why these lists of ministers should be deleted as user:DIREKTOR proposed. PANONIAN 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The existence of your "country" is disputed, and it is contested that it was synonymous with the Nedić government. You simply created a non-consensus WP:POVFORK, separating the two, and effectively "creating" a country from a civil government with in a German WWII Military Administration. At a stroke you "solved" the issue for us all, without consensus, - knowing full well this position is opposed and disputed. The disruptive behavior of the one user, defending his "country POV", is the primary reason why the occupation of Serbia during WWII is not adequately covered on enWiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The existence of an political entity named Serbia is not disputed (whether it was country or occupied territory is completely irrelevant). I see that you like rhetorical games, but can you play another game of providing sources that would support your rhetorics? I can play this game very well, so let examine what some sources would say about it: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia", etc, etc. This is just what could be found in quick 5 minutes long research. So, what you say? Do you have one single source that say that Serbia was not an puppet state? So, I am not defending "my country POV" but I am defending sources. Wikipedia cannot accept your unsourced rhetorics instead sourced facts, you know. PANONIAN 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-Your objection on such grounds is frankly baffling, 'DIREKTOR'. A 'government' and a 'territory' are two different concepts.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

-in other words, this artcile should be about the territory (regardless of whether it was a 'country' on not -Reichskomissariat Ukraine has a separate article, for example, and that was not a country.) and not about the geovernment, which is, at the end of the day, merely a group of people who run said territory and not the territory itself.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it very clear that we need at least two articles: one for the German military government and another for the Serbian civil government. The name for the former is obvious (Military Administration in Serbia), the name for the latter is debatable. Nedić regime and Government of National Salvation (Serbia) do not quite cover the whole topic. Also debatable, I think, is whether we need another article on Serbia during World War II or German-occupied Serbia. I think the latter would be redundant, while the former is probably too broad a topic for us to adequately cover just as a solution to a problem with this article. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And what about article about puppet state of Serbia itself? Just compare situation with Iraq in 2003 after American invasion: there was state of Iraq, there was American occupational administration and there was Iraqi civil government. Situation is absolutely same and it is clear that neither article about German military administration or about two Serbian governments are able to fully cover the topic of WW2 puppet state. Iraqi civil governments were controlled by American occupational administration, but it is not disputed that American administration acted within state of Iraq and that state of Iraq was not annexed by USA. In the same way WW2 puppet Serbian governments were subordinated to German military administration, but this German administration acted within state of Serbia (which was not annexed by Germany either). The very name "Military Administration in Serbia" confirm what I just said and, therefore, an article about puppet state of Serbia should be "parent article" while articles about German and Serbian administrations should be only sub-articles of main article about state. PANONIAN 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "Military Administration in Serbia" does not confirm the existence of a Serb state. The statehood of Serbia during WWII is entirely summed up by accounts of the (German) military government and the (Serb) civil government. The case of Iraq is quite distinct: Iraq pre-existed the 2003 invasion and it was an internationally-recognised state. 216.8.141.134 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

These sources are confirming existence of Serbian puppet state: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia" (or you disagree?). That, of course, have nothing to do with issue of international recognition. I never said that puppet state of Serbia was internationally recognized - it was not, of course. It was an unrecognized country and Wikipedia has many articles about unrecognized countries, so why this country should be an exception? PANONIAN 14:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, there was no Nazi puppet Serbia, i.e. Serbs, unlike Croats, were not part of the fascist Axis. You have no sources confirming the status of Nedić's government as a "puppet state" of its own - this is what I've been telling you for months now. Your whole argument is based on your own WP:OR and (quite blatantly) misquoted sources.

I would support Srnec's proposal. Srnec, your position is more-or-less fine with me, but as things stand now the text of teh Nedić's Serbia article clearly includes the Nedić government, and there is no consensus for a separate one just yet. PANONIAN's haughty article needs to be AfD-ed before we can discuss this issue at peace.

Srnec, I agree that the "Occupation of Serbia in World War II" article may not be necessary. I would support it, but I myself am flexible on that issue. Your two-article proposal ("Nedić regime"/"Government of National Salvation" + "Military Administration in Serbia") is acceptable provided that the former of the two articles includes a section on the Aćimović regime. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, Please stop with rhetorical games!!! If I "misquoted sources", then what is this: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia". You will just ignore these sources and pretend that I did not posted them at all? I think that everybody now see who you are and what you doing here. Please stop wasting our time and find some other place to play. PANONIAN 14:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Iraq pre-existed the 2003 invasion and it was an internationally-recognised state" -this doesn't apply for the Independent State of Croatia eitherJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the case of WWII Croatia is also quite different from that of 2003 Iraq. 216.8.141.134 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, let conclude this discussion with my compromise proposal:

• 1. This article should remain under its current title and it should be general article about all things: puppet state of Serbia, German Military administration within this state and its two governments.
• 2. Article Government of National Salvation (Serbia) could be renamed to List of ministers in the Government of National Salvation (Serbia), which would not imply that this article speaks about government itself, but only about its list of ministers.

3. Article Commissary Government either remains as it is either is renamed to List of commissaries in the Commissary Government.

Since there is no general consensus that article Nedić's Serbia is split into several articles or renamed, it should remain under its current name and in current form and everybody can use their own interpretation about what exactly this article is speaking. Fair enough? PANONIAN 14:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus. Splitting this article up into each government or administration is ridiculous, there would need to be an article on the brief unorganized period of occupation, then an article on the Military Administration in Serbia, then an article on the Acimovic government, and then an article on the Nedic government; 4 articles about one territory - that is too much and duplicates too much. The most simple resolution to this dispute is to revert the article's title to "Serbia (1941–1944)", which was it's name for some time. Then the POV-forks can be removed and re-directed to this article. The term "Serbia" is appropriate, because that is what the German military authorities and the puppet regime designated this territory. The current name is too exclusive to Nedic. Plus the precedent of articles on Norway being broken up is not a good precedent, that is likely an example of POV-forking.--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

R-41, I completely agree that one article with title "Serbia (1941–1944)" is indeed best possible choice, but DIREKTOR will not accept that and he will start again revert warring and rhetorical warring and we will never solve this problem. Therefore, I would rather accept current compromise solution which is at least minimally acceptable for everybody (even for DIREKTOR) instead that we all waste our time in discussing same things again and again. I doubt that we can find any solution that is acceptable for everybody. PANONIAN 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the best resolution is to bring in an arbitrator, a Wikipedia administrator (who has no or little history editing this article) to provide a neutral perspective and resolve the dispute. Different options should be discussed with the arbitrator, the arbitrator will voice their view of the situation, and then if no solution has majority support, the arbitrator will make the final decision.--R-41 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with that one too, but it would be hard to find an administrator who would want to spend free time to deal with this issue. I already contacted administrators because of this article few months ago and all what I achieved was response to my third opinion request and renaming from "Nedić regime" to "Nedić's Serbia". If you think that you can achieve more than that, you are free to ask administrators for arbitration. PANONIAN 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your problem is, admins don't do arbitration. If you want to rename an article and there's no consensus you put it up at the relevant noticeboard. Everybody sets out their positions and the closing admin decides whether there's consensus or not. That's what happened last time. If you look at the archives R-41 you will see this issue is a very long running one. You can see all the various arguments and proposals there. Personally I think the Norway solution could work - but it can't be imposed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

R-41 as I said before, while simply naming all this "Serbia" may seem an elegant solution of a sort, the title unquestionably implies that the article is about a country named "Serbia" that existed between 1941 and 1944. This is simply misleading and historically inaccurate. The complexity of this subject demands at the very least two articles to handle it properly and with regard to the facts on the ground:

• Nedić regime - (analogous to Quisling regime) about the German puppet government (that would include a section on the Aćimović government)
• Occupation of Serbia (1941-1944) - (analogous to Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany) about the occupuied territory of Serbia, as part of the series on the history of Serbia. This article currently does not cover WWII in large portions of modern Serbia.
• Military Administration in Serbia - (anaologous to Reichskommissariat Norwegen) about the German authority.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, DIREKTOR, you will still ignore sources that I presented? These sources are confirming that WW2 Serbia was an puppet state and any serious discussion with you is impossible until you post your comment about these sources. You may repeat 1000 times that this puppet state did not existed, by sources that I presented are more valid and more relevant than anything what you might say. PANONIAN

For the hundreth time: no PANONIAN. Wiki does not function by fishing for words on Google. We try to get to the bottom of the problem by actually reading the sources and understanding what the situation was before trying to represent it. This is what you do not understand. You found four or five googled books that use the word "state"; then what shall we say about the hundreds, even thousands of publications that do not use that word for Nedić's regime?

The simple fact, PANONIAN (which you would know if you actually read any sources about this issue), is that this territory was organized under a German Military Administration, which installed a civil government. No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to present exact quotation from a source from which you concluded that "No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany"? The way in which Wikipedia function is usage of exact quotations from reliable sources. Since you did not presented a single source that support your POV, the only possible conclusion would be that you have no any source that support your claims. And fact whether "I read something" about this issue or not is completely irrelevant. This is not discussion about me, but about correct presentation of historical data. And I did not "fished anything on Google". Google search and Google books are very different things. I presented here 4 Google books references, so please point to them (there are lot more there than "fished words") and say which part of these references is claiming that "No country, no Axis puppet, was ever officially inaugurated by Nazi Germany". Or you perhaps do not understand difference between unrecognized states and recognized ones? As for term "Nedić's regime" used in sources, user who responded to my third opinion request clearly stated that there is no basis for your interpretation of these sources and that such term refer only to regime that governed puppet state of Serbia. "Nedić's regime" is nothing else but form of Government of Serbia. Also, about what kind of "official inauguration of puppet state" you speak? Creation of that puppet state was long process and you might took date of formation of Commissary Government as a day of official inauguration of puppet state. PANONIAN 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this help?

What remained ofYugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory....On 1 May the German military commander appointed a low-grade Serbian Administration of ten commissioners who were put in charge of ministries,under the control of Turner and Neruhausen, as a simple instrument of the occupation regime. It was headed by the commissioner in charge of the Interior Ministry, Milan Acimovic - a former Belgrade police chief....The main task of his administration was to get the population to accept obedience to the Germans...

Pavlowitch,Hitlers New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia p 49-51. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And what is exactly POV (they are just bare lists) and what is exactly FORK (they don't duplicate any contents from this article) in Commissary Government and Government of National Salvation (Serbia) articles? For the most part, they document the list of ministers who served in these two governments. I don't even think that they should be merged here, because there's just too much dry information there. And I don't see how that "prejudices" the discussion, since we have discussed the matter ad nauseam and came to a consensus (which Direktor don't seem to agree with, but that does not make it much less of a consensus). Direktor, this looks to me like bickering for the sake of bickering. No such user (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How about three articles;

• Occupation of Serbia in WWII which covers what happened to the whole of Serbia when the Germans invaded and dismembered it.
• Military administration of Serbia in WWII The Germans
• Civil administration of Serbia in WWII covers Nedic, Acimovic, Commissioners, "Government of National Salvation" etc etc etc. A nice neat set. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with Fainites, but just this, What will be with this article? Where will be renamed? What will be the main article about Serbia? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just an idea from reading the talkpage. I assumed this article would be subsumed in the Civil Admin article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, your proposal is totally unacceptable. Sources that confirmed existence of puppet state of Serbia are quoted and therefore you cannot just delete this article that speaks about that puppet state and leave only those that are speaking about its governments. It would be same if you delete article Serbia and leave only article Government of Serbia instead. Also creation of one article named "Occupation of Serbia in WWII" that would speak about territory of present-day Serbia during WW2 would be a true example of POVFORK since this issue is clearly elaborated in History of Serbia article. Also proposed article "Military administration of Serbia in WWII" that would speak about Germans have no any point. What would you mention there? List of German military administrators? Do you at least have a source that mention these administrators? That article is pointless, and it could exist only as subarticle of puppet state article. I will repeat my previous point: post-2003 American occupation was in Iraq (and Iraq was not in this occupation). As for "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII", I created separate articles about both governments and I think that it is better solution than to have single article about both. PANONIAN 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And Fainites, please tell me one valid and logical reason why you want to annihilate this article about historical puppet state. Would you also say that such state did not existed? PANONIAN 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to annihilate anything. It was a suggestion based on my reading of the talkpage, Pavlowitch and Ramet. I understand your point, but the article I proposed, ie "Civil adminstration of Serbia" does say "Serbia". It is difficult to know what to call a left over rump, scarcely worthy of the ID "quisling". How about Serbian rump state WWII. Pavlowitch says the germans called it the "Serbian residual state" which means pretty much the same thing. Not sure what the original german word was. Ramet calls it "the rump Serbian state" and says Nedic's efforts to create Serbian national state with it were a failure as all he could really do was ratify german decisions. Ramet quotes him as saying "...we lost our freedom and our state,and now we are facing the danger of national extinction....I came into government to save the people, to keep them from destrying each other...". "Rump" meaning remnant is in legitimate modern political usage. See here for a historical usage still used today, and of course Ramet. Ramet is not the only one who uses it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact I've just found this article List of rump states , which does indeed list Serbia.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fainites, No such user, WhiteWriter. Though since the Aćimović "Commissary Government" was only in place for three months, had no military units, and really played a quite marginal role altogether, I still would much prefer it if we incorporated it into the article about the Nedić "Government of National Salvation" as a seperate section. It seems more elegant imo than to rename an article that would essentially be on the Nedić regime into the "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII" article (there were of course only these two civil governments, the 3-month initial Aćimović Commissary Government and the Nedić Government of National Salvation that lasted for the remainder of the War in Serbia).

Hence I propose that the "Civil administration of Serbia in WWII" article be named the "Nedić regime" article (the WP:COMMONNAME of the "Government of National Salvation") with the short-lived Aćimović "Commisary Government" incorporated therein as a section. But that's just a proposal of course.

In closing I'll once again point out that both the "Commissary Government" and the "Government of National Salvation (Serbia)" articles have been created in the past few days with the sole purpose of assisting User:PANONIAN in this discussion. They should be merged into the one article on the civil administration (whatever name it ends up having). Its hardly bickering for the sake of bickering, imho, when someone just starts creating articles with their necessity a subject of serious discussion. While we were all discussing how to handle this, PANONIAN simply went ahead with his preferred organization. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, boys, if any of you choose violence as a way of solving this issue then I will have to ask administrators for intervention and I will use all legal means to prevent that POV pushing and unsourced original research prevail in opposition to sources that I (and only I) presented in this discussion. So, let repeat this: puppet state of Serbia existed and that is confirmed by reliable sources: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia". Therefore if anybody of you try to annihilate this article I will report you to administrators for nothing less than vandalism. PANONIAN 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Violence? Through computer screens? PANONIAN, this is naming dipute. Disagreeing about naming is not vandalism. I shall act to prevent edit warring by editors moving articles back and forth until consensus is reached. Bear in mind that consensus does not involve unanimity. If we take the best two of your sources Panonian,ie Tomasevic and Fischer,they both say"puppet state". We seem to have a choice between "puppet" or "rump".Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is much more than naming dispute. This is question whether an article about an historical puppet state will exist or not. Therefore, complete annihilation of this article is an example of vandalism. It is one thing if you think that article about puppet state should have another name and completely different thing if you say that only article about government should exist, but not article about state itself. In first case I would have nothing against titles "Serbian rump state WWII" or "Serbian puppet state WWII", but title "Civil administration of Serbia" is unacceptable since it change the basic concept of this article and it imply that there was no state but only government. It is not enough that title only have name "Serbia" in it, but it should have meaning that undoubtedly claim that this article speaks about puppet state. PANONIAN 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I would have thought the fact that it had "Serbia" in the title avoided that. Anyway -nobody is committing "vandalism" so please moderate your tone a little. The title Serbian puppet state WWII or Puppet state of Serbia WWII (or "rump") could solve a lot of problems. What does everyone else think? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not said that "somebody is committing vandalism", but that "somebody might commit it". That is not same thing. PANONIAN 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

May I suggest an alternative? It seems to me that the issue is firstly whether Serbia was a puppet regime or a puppet state, and secondly whether a puppet or rump state is a state. In other words whether a puppet/rump state can simply be called "Serbia" in the title without further qualification or description. The fact that this argument could not be resolved last time resulted in the compromise "Nedic's Serbia" rather than "Nedic's regime". Until we can resolve this, the article should not be renamed. Can each participant please set out here, with sources, their concise argument,without personalisation, as to why they say the entity was a state or not. PANONIAN has cite 4 perfectly worthy books which use the word "state", although they are not books that deal in detail with the specific time period and the word is always qualified by "rump" or "puppet". I have cited Ramet and Pavlowitch. If anybody thinks that is a daft argument altogether as the Germans never followed established norms in these matters, they could say that too. If we can resolve that, agreeing the right name might become possible.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

PANONIANs sources;

• "satellite state of Serbia" The history of Serbia : John K. Cox
• "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government" Contemporary Yugoslavia: Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S.Vucinich
• "German rump state in Serbia", Armed Peacekeepers in Bosnia
• "...a puppet state of Serbia was created...",Balkan strongmen: dictators and authoritarian rulers of South Eastern Europe Аутор: Bernd Jürgen Fischer

Fainites sources;

• "What remained of Yugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory", Pavlowitch; Hitlers New Disorder
• "the rump Serbian state" Ramet; Three Yugoslavias

Sources;

So, your sources only confirming my point that it was state. Whether we will use terms "puppet", "residual", "rump", "satellite" (or whatever) as a description of this state is completely irrelevant. Facts are clear: all sources that were presented are claiming that Serbia was state and there is no single source that claim that there was "only government without state". There is simply no proof, no argument and no source for opposite claims. PANONIAN 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. I am waiting to see whether any other sources are produced in this section -preferably without too much intervening TLDR argument. Tomasevic, Pavlowitch, Ramet and Fischer are a pretty strong team. The more important issue in my view is whether a puppet state can simply be described as a state without qualification. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you use qualification then (any qualification you want). Any title that does not drastically change subject of this article is fully acceptable. PANONIAN 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is funny is that we all seem to agree (±10%), and sources seem to agree, on the basic facts, yet we drag this dispute over and over; somewhat resembling the color of the bikeshed problem. The catch is that there is no really a common name for this entity either in sources or in common parlance, so we (editors) are basically free to pick a descriptive title... and there we fail to agree on one, because every proposal so far had one problem or another, be it precision, POV, or aesthetics. As I said before, I don't like "Nedić's Serbia" too much, but it's almost as good as any. As Panonian said, "Any title that does not drastically change subject of this article is fully acceptable".

So I did a little research... There are 11 redirects starting with Nazi occupation of..., covering similar situations like in Serbia, and each of those ends up in an article named using different style. The most common one (applied to Belarus, Norway and Baltic republics) is "Occupation of X by Nazi Germany". Then, there's German occupation of..., also all redirects, many of which end up in "Occupation of X" articles (which is not applicable for Serbia because of ambiguity).

In other words, there is no established rule or model. Based on our article's contents, I would propose "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany" (which follows some kind of established practice) or "Serbia under German occupation" (which focuses a bit more on Serbia than on occupation). Or pretty much any other, just let us stop wasting so much time. No such user (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not agree with title "Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany" because it is focused on occupation, not on Serbia. If puppet state of Serbia existed (and presented sources confirming that it did) then Wikipedia must have an article focused on puppet state of Serbia. Therefore your second proposal "Serbia under German occupation" would be acceptable. I have only one basic point in all this: there must be an article focused on puppet state of Serbia and it is this article (everybody can see that it was created as such: [2]). So, I will repeat this too: if anybody thinks that there should be an article focused on "occupation", "military administration", "civil administration" (or whatever) he should create new article about that without attempt that focus of this article is changed. PANONIAN 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nazi Germany

  Areas under German and/or Axis occupation

  German allies, co-belligerents, and puppet states

  Allied-held areas

  Neutral countries

@PANONIAN, you and your preconceptions (supported by word-fishing on Google) are the only reason this nonsense issue even exists. The status of Nedić's government and the situation in this occupied territory is chrystal clear. Could not be any clearer. This terriory had in essence the same status in Nazi Europe as northern France, Greece, Norway, Denmark, etc. Read any serious treatment, Pavlowitch, Tomasevich, whomever, they will all say the same thing. This is a manufactured, non-factual dispute.

We should not labor under the idea that PANONIAN has some sources to his claim. The situation on the ground, as well as Wikipedia naming conventions, are clear as day, and ALL sources essentially agree and say the same thing. If some use the word "state" to refer to the territory - that does not change what it was.
In other words, it is irrelevant whether a few sources choose to use the word "state" to refer to Nedić's government: firstly calling it a state does not make it one and WP:NC applies; secondly (and more importantly) - PANONIAN's entire method of "research" is biased, in that it disregards the hundreds of sources that simply do not use the word "state" and imposes on them the two or three fished-out sources that do.

I'll say again, the situation on the ground is clear: no puppet state called "Serbia" was ever officially inagurated by Nazi Germany. That is a fantasy. Period. This is a manufactured dispute over one user's preconceptions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR. "no puppet state called 'Serbia' was ever officially inagurated by Nazi Germany. That is a fantasy." -evidence please? You keep on stating this, over and over again, but don't seem to be able to come up with any evidenceJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, this is the most basic stuff on WWII Yugoslavia. Evidence on the status of this territory has already been provided, numerous times - most recently above by No such user. But if you would like more, Read any, ANY elaboration on the status of this territory, for example Tomasevich Volume II p.175. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, and can you provide any? Because so far, you haven't. "Evidence on the status of this territory has already been provided, numerous times" -no, you have conflicting secondary sources that say different things about the satus of the territory.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not reading my posts, and your participation thus far is unconstructive. I have already pointed out two sources, and explained where others can be found. I have also pointed out two seperate reasons why PANONIAN's "word-fishing" is irrelevant and has no effect on the actual situation in the territory (which we must try to describe). There is, in reality, no contradiction or diagreement in the sources about the status of this territory. I will not respond to further posts such as the above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you make very bold and definite assertions regarding sources but have not yet had the courtesy, despite repeated requests, to produce any, other than to say "Tomasevic Volume II p175" today. This page runs from May 2011 and you have produced no other sources. Please be so good as to set out the relevant passage or provide a link. Secondly, so far, all the sources produced by others say "puppet" or "rump" state. Can you give a good reason why this article should not called Puppet state of Serbia WWII or something similar? Finally, your characterisation of Panonian as "word-fishing", of which you also accused him further up the page, is either mischievous or you have not read the talkpage. Either way it is disruptive and unwarranted. Panonian has produced quotes from and links too 4 perfectly sensible mainstream sources as clearly set out twice by him and once again by me.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, you maybe "pointed out two sources" (presumably Pavlowitch and Tomasevich?), but you did not provided any quotations from such sources. We need quotations not description of "what you think that these authors wanted to say". Without quotations you did not proved anything. And self-made map created by Wikipedia user is also not evidence for anything. In another words, please provide exact bibliographical reference - full name of author, name of the book, page where quotation is founded and exact quotation (and if, possible link to google books page if available). Without that, we have nothing to discuss. PANONIAN 14:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Bother waiting. Here's a link to p175. He calls it a puppet government in "Serbia proper".Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Term "Serbia proper" there means "Serbia without Banat" and nothing else - it is clearly stated here on page 199: [3]. "Serbia proper" is seen there simply as main part of Serbia (the other part was autonomous Banat, of course). I do not see that this source is providing any evidence that puppet state of Serbia did not existed. On the contrary, it only confirming that it did - on that same page (199) Tomasevich says that Serbia was "country": [4]. PANONIAN 15:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about the organization of the territory in Nazi-occupied Europe. As I said: quote mining aside, any source will make it clear that the territory was, as I keep pointing out, directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed.

PANONIAN has quote mined a source which at one time chose to refer to the civil government in this territory as a "puppet state". However, no amount of such careful google searching will change the official status of Nedić's regime in there. If necessary, I will copy down a thorough and detailed explanation from Tomasevich (though the source is already quoted), when I have the time.

P.S. The source referring to "Serbia proper", refers to Serbia proper. As I said, since 1918 no official states of Croatia (the NDH was illegal), Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, etc. existed, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a unitarianist state. Only in 1945 (1943 de iure) did Yugoslavia establish federal states inside its borders. WWII authors very often, in fact regularly, use geographic terms as they were defined after the war, in 1945. "Bosnia" is used extremely frequently, even though no Bosnian state existed, "Croatia" is often used as a term defined by its 1945 borders, not NDH borders, etc. "Serbia proper" ALWAYS refers to Serbia without its autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo, as defined by the 1945 internal borders. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And, if I may ask, what's the fucking difference between "territory [...] directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed" and a "puppet state"? And even if there is one, why should anyone care, and why would it need to be reflected on article title? No such user (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a simple issue: the governing authority of the territory was the German military, and Nazi Germany never instituted a seperate puppet state (such as the NDH, for example). As such it should not be treated on Wikipedia as a puppet state.

The difference is small, granted (and PANONIAN is quick to capitalize on that), but it is very significant nontheless. We cannot very well invent a WWII "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR "quote-mining" is scarcely better than "word-fishing". Please stop these offensive remarks (in respect I might add of perfectly mainstream sources). The Puppet state article lists as puppet states both puppet states designed to reflect national aspirations, like the NDH, and puppet regimes, like Serbia. I other words, there is no one absolute definition of puppet state - certainly nothing that requires official inauguration. Tomasevich doesn't seem to have a problem with it being both a puppet state and "under formal German military government." Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, nobody denying that territory was "directly occupied by the German military, with a civil government installed", but you obviously do not understand concept of term "occupied territory". To be occupied territory have to exist first. Term "puppet state" also does not exclude possibility that such state is occupied by foreign military. Also, regarding Tomasevich, you clearly do not understand that source either. Tomasevich quite clearly says that term "Serbia proper" refers to "WW2 Serbia without Banat" and not to region of Serbia proper established in 1945. If Tomasevich refereed to post-1945 region, he would say "Serbia proper (excluding Kosovo and Vojvodina)", not "Serbia proper (excluding the Banat)". I do not see a single part of that book where Tomasevich used term "Serbia proper" to refer to post-1945 region. As for your claim that "no official state of Serbia existed before 1945", German puppet state of Serbia did existed de facto from 1941 to 1944, but you obviously do not recognize its existence because of personal political reasons. I will repeat that subjects of Wikipedia articles are not only internationally recognized states, but also unrecognized de facto states. Therefore, the issue of international recognition of this state has no impact on the question whether we will have article about that state or not. If something existed then we are obligated to have Wikipedia article about that, no matter what anybody might personally think about subject of that article. As for your claim that "WWII authors very often, in fact regularly, use geographic terms as they were defined after the war", I do not see any evidence that Tomasevich used "post-war geographical terms" when he wrote about WW2 Serbia. In fact, his terminology very correctly reflecting de facto political situation during the war. As for claim that "Nazi Germany never instituted a separate puppet state" of Serbia, that claim is totally false. In Axis de jure "new order", Serbia was an separate state and was not annexed by Germany or any other country. PANONIAN 05:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-Couldn't have put it better myself. If DIREKTOR were willing to provide some evidence to back up his obviously entirely POV claims, I would perhaps agree with him, however i.he can't and he won't, and ii. the secondary evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of this territory being a 'puppet state' regardless of whether it was occupied by another state's armed forces or not? To wit: the northern half of Vichy France was occupied by Germany, that was unquestionably a puppet state, so was the NDH (the westernmost portion occupied by Italy, the easternmost Germany), the 1941-1944 Greek State was occupied by both Nazi Germany and Italy, that was still a puppet state, and so on.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, as the article states: the Nedić regime was indeed a puppet regime, as opposed to a puppet state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-a 'regime' is another word for a government. a 'state' is another word for a territory, be it federal state, nation state, feudum, country, et cetera, et cetera. You cannot have a regime without a territory. (unless you're talking about a government -in-exile, which obvisouly does NOT apply in this instance.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, a 'puppet regime' rules a 'puppet state'JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Régime" is another word for "government", true. But "state" is most certainly not another word for "territory". Thats besides the point, however.

A puppet regime usually does rule a puppet state, but, as we have seen, it can certainly exist without the official inauguration of a puppet state. These "philosophical" semantics are besides the point as well, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-Does it? Certainly news to me. (unless it is a puppet government in exile.) Can you give me an example; because I certainly can't think of any.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"as we have seen" -as we 'have seen' where? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence, secondary or primary, to support any of your statements.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are few examples of such a complex situation as this, the Quisling government is one. Essentially anywhere where a state is not inaugurated, this is most often in areas under military occupation.

Look JW, no offence, but you are apparently capable of going on like this forever.. What can I tell you? The Germans just did not establish a puppet "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It must be obvious by now DIREKTOR that you can't just tell anybody anything. We have sources saying "state" and "regime", though far more of the former than the latter, including your favourite, Tomasevich. Sources please for your assertions. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

i.you are apparently capable of going on like this forever

-I will take that as a compliment.

ii.The Germans just did not establish a puppet "Serbia". -Sources please.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This must be the 15th time I am being asked to prove a negative on this talkpage. As I said elsewhere, people do not write books to refute every idea someone somehwere might come-up with. All I can offer you is proof positive on the administration of this territory and its status in occupied Europe. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Current proposals

• Serbia under German occupation
• Serbian puppet state WWII

Or - two or three articles called Occupation of Serbia by Nazi Germany or Occupation of Serbia WWII to cover the whole territory, plus Military/Civil administration in Serbia WWII.

First two are acceptable and second two are unacceptable (due to reasons that I elaborated numerous times on this page and there is no reason to repeat them). Finally, I have proposal that current title "Nedić's Serbia" should stay and that would be my first choice - I see no any valid reason because of which this article should be renamed. Current title is accurate and supported by both, English and Serbo-Croatian literature and I doubt that we will find another one that would satisfy that criteria. PANONIAN 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-I still think Serbia (1941-1944) would be best, due to it being completely unambiguous.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. "Serbia" unambiguously implies the existence of a 1941-44 country called "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

-No, it doesn't, (it doesn't follow that it is neccesarily a country.) and even if it does, so what? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour that it was called 'Serbia'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nazi-occupied Serbian rump state . Clumsy but covers a lot.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  But it's unbearably clumsy... No such user (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also with distinct barbecue overtones perhaps.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I favor "Serbia under German occupation" as reasonably succinct and descriptive. Maybe even Direktor would grudgingly approve. "Serbian puppet state WWII" is pretty bad English. Serbia (1941-1944) is acceptable. I don't find the current title, Nedić's Serbia particularly common, and it somehow implies that Nedić was the true ruler of the country (compare "Hitler's Germany" or "Tito's Yugoslavia") when in reality it was just the opposite. No such user (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Grumble..grudge..grumble ..yeah, Nsu is right, I can agree to "Serbia under German occupation". I do fear, however, that my agreement alone might be cause for PANONIAN to shy away from that name :). Its not a reflection on you, PANONIAN, its just an effect I apparently have on people. Though it does open up interesting possibilities for reverse psychology ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a winner chaps? Serbia under German occupation?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's acceptable to NSU, DIREKTOR and PANNONIAN. What about the rest of you?Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree , sure, finally! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

-I like it :)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations ladies and gentlemen.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I've done the honors, and tweaked the intro accordingly. No such user (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

All round.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm more into wine recently ;) No such user (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again

I thought this wouldn't be that easy. It seems PANONIAN's thought of this name because he thinks he can now go around naming this mess "Serbia". To him this is a country article, about a "State of Serbia Under German Occupation" country. The title is fine, make no mistake, its a good way to place all the nonsense in one article about Serbia during WWII, but the issue of the scope of this article, and the historically non-existent state pushed by some users, very much remains. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I don't particularly care either way, though I don't like either this diff by Panonian or this one by you. Per WP:BEGINNING, when an article has a descriptive title, it does not need to start with its bolded title, so Panonian's intervention looked somewhat artificial. Then you "corrected" that title, but "Nedić's Serbia" was hardly an official name of that puppet state. I do see, however, that similar cases of Quisling regime, Reichskommissariat Norwegen and Independent State of Croatia use {{Infobox Former Country}}.

I must attribute this dispute to stubbornness of both of you, though...

OK, can we find a middle ground here? The first sentence could hopefully be recast to begin with Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state..., to make everybody happy, and the title of the Infobox should be... something... what was its formal name? No such user (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Panonians first sentence doesn't actually make sense and DIREKTORs isn't right because the first sentence should describe the title. It should start as NSU says. That should make everyone happy. More Schhliivvvovisshhishishish anyone? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not "my" sentence I'm just restoring the status quo.

The problem, fellas, is that Serbia under German occupation was not a puppet state, thats the whole point. I don't like this "equate the two main opponents as equally stupid morons" approach, btw, thats just a little too easy. The difference between us is that I actually understand how this territory functioned and was administered. Nazi Germany did not establish any puppet Serbian state, and you're calling me "stubborn" for pointing that out. The actual problem here is that the existence of "Serbia" as a puppet state to its Nazi occupiers seems to be an issue of national pride. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From which one can deduce that you are suggesting Pannonian is a stupid moron? The problem is that there are multiple sources, including Tomasevich, describing a "puppet state". Therefore you are not going to "win" your argument but it will go on forever. I see the point you are making - that this was a sorry, half-baked affair compared to a full blown proper puppet state like the NDH, but it would appear that the phrase "puppet state" covers quite a gamut as far as the authorities are concerned - unless it is being suggested Tomasevich is a Croatian revisionist? What about saying "Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state or puppet regime......"Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew that we will go again. In fact, I can bet that after few months some other user will say that he do not like current title and then we will really go all this again from the very beginning. Nevertheless, I have no general problem with DIREKTOR's introduction version (except with the fact that he unlinked two government articles). The fact is that every article simply must have an introduction sentence that briefly describe article subject and we cannot start elaborating history of the subject without basic definition of subject itself. So, definition is that subject of this article is an puppet state (I will also repeat that article was started as such) and I really do not care which name we will use in infobox or in first sentence. Both are fine for me. PANONIAN 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I want my Slivovitz back. How about something along the lines of Serbia under German occupation was the residual state comprised of what remained of Serbia following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia by Axis powers in 1941. A puppet regime was set up, originally under ....Acicmov, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).

There is no such thing as "what remained of Serbia" - the only Serbia was puppet state of Serbia. Besides that puppet state, only internationally recognized Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed (just de jure, of course). PANONIAN 22:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What's "de jure" got to do with anything? Aren't we allowed to say the Axis powers cut off chunks of Serbia? We all know what we mean by Wales though it has (had) no separate jurisdiction. How about Serbia under German occupation was the residual state comprised of what remained of lands traditionally considered Serbian, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia by Axis powers in 1941. A puppet regime was set up, originally under ....Acicmov, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).

States could exist either de jure or de facto (or both of that two). In this case, puppet state of Serbia existed de facto and Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed de jure, while fictional "enlarged Serbia" did not existed at all (this is completely unrelated to the Wales question). This is not place where we should mention fictional countries and I really do not understand why you introducing this idea. Kingdom of Serbia ceased to exist in 1918 and there simply was no any territory with name Serbia until formation of puppet state of Serbia in 1941. Term "lands traditionally considered Serbian" is also disputed and largely fictional (who considered them? what were borders of such lands? which source is using this term?) Sentence that would be acceptable is "what remained of Yugoslavia", since existence of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was internationally recognized during entire war. Or perhaps you have some problem with word "Yugoslavia"? PANONIAN 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

All this bickering is getting us nowhere. I am going to address the issue of the name "Serbia" to finally end this.

• FACT #1: The German military authorities called this territory "Serbia" as in the "Military Administration in Serbia".
• FACT #2: Whatever the status of the puppet government, as a puppet state or puppet region, the government considered the territory to be "Serbia", there was a currency put out by the government of Nedic that said "Serbia" on it, with the Serbian double-headed eagle on it. Here is the Serbian dinar of 1941 that says "Serbian National Bank", indicating the existence of an entity of Serbia.[5] However I urge users not to assume that because a currency existed that this proves that Serbia was an independent state, it only indicates a process by the government to promote independence.
• FACT #3: Many World War II maps label this territory as "Serbia".
• FACT #4: Much if not all of this territory has been historically associated with Serbia whether as an Ottoman province, principality, or independent state.
• The combination of these four facts demonstrates that the term "Serbia" best describes this entity. The term "Serbia" should not be assumed to connote an independent state simply because an independent Serbia exists today, as a "Serbia" existed as a principality of the Ottoman Empire for years. Now as for whether Serbia was an independent state: from what I have read what we do know is that the Nedic government did attempt to make Serbia an independent state like Croatia under Axis rule. The regime produced its own currency and connected itself with the Serbian nation, i.e. "Serbian National Bank". However the situation in Serbia was like that of Belgium that was also under a German "Military Administration". This must be considered because within the Military Administration, Belgium was not an independent state. Still in places like Belgium and the Netherlands that had no independent states, there were puppet administrations and self-proclaimed leaders, such as Anton Mussert claiming to be the "Leader of the Dutch Nation". My conclusion is that the Serbian government under Nedic was attempting to gain recognition of Serbia as an independent state, like other Axis puppets tried to do, whether he got it needs to be demonstrated.--R-41 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in the Balkans set up by Nazi Germany following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији), despite efforts to establish an independent state.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "in the Balkans" could be replaced by some more precise term, something like this: Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area set up by Nazi Germany in part of territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Vladimir (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Despite efforts by Nedic to establish an independent state it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији).Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • I would not agree that term "puppet state" is removed from the intro. Even DIREKTOR's version is better than this one. Also, there is another inaccuracy: efforts of Nedić were certainly not opposed by Germans. Therefore, I would support this: Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Despite efforts by Nedic to establish an independent state it remained internationally unrecognized and de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији). PANONIAN 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm happy with either, as long as it has a reasonable degree of consensus and doesn't result in edit wars. Yours looks good. The main problem with the original was that it starts The Nedic's Serbia...Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

... it remained internationally unrecognized... Is there any sense in even mentioning some "international recognition" of a puppet state in the middle of WW2? Vladimir (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sentence certainly have more sense than claim that "Despite efforts by Nedić to establish an independent state it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration" - from that sentence one can conclude that Germans did not allowed to Nedić to create independent state. That is quite inaccurate - Germans created that state and if they won the war, they would certainly recognize its full independence. But, if you ask me, we do not have to include such sentence at all. PANONIAN 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I wouldn't use "international recognition" in this context. Maybe we could reword that sentence without "despite", to state efforts by Nedic to form (organize, make prerequisites of, move towards, ...) an independent state.

Apart from that, and not directly connected with this discussion, are you sure that they would certainly recognize its full independence? What about Nazi plans to eventually remove Slavic populations to Siberia? I think I've read that somewhere. Vladimir (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I read some speech of Milan Nedić where he said that "Germans do not have permanent territorial demands towards Serbia", so if that was true, they would leave Serbia after the war. Anyway, sentence without word "despite" is acceptable. PANONIAN 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia, under German occupation, was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. Serbian Quisling administrations were set up, originally under ....Acimovic, then under ....Nedic. Nedic took steps to establish an independent state though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration known as the Military Administration in Serbia (German: Militärverwaltung in Serbien; Serbian: Vojna uprava u Srbiji or Војна управа у Србији). Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Though" is same as "despite". This sentence must have different meaning. I would rather keep original sentence: "Serbian civil administration claimed that Serbia is an independent state, though its affairs were dictated by German authorities." Also, most of existing intro is better than modified sentences, so I would agree that we change first sentence into Serbia, under German occupation, was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941. As for rest of the intro, Fainites, you can change there what you want and others will change that if they do not agree with you. PANONIAN 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that Fainites is only trying to help here, so, PANONIAN, I don't find your attitude quite appropriate. Serbian civil administration claimed that Serbia is an independent state - are there any references for that? It looks a bit strange, given the fact that everyone with normal mental capacities was aware that Serbia was under German occupation. Secondly, the intro sentence should be without commas that you introduced, so that the words corresponding to the title could be bolded: "Serbia under German occupation was a puppet state set up by Nazi Germany in part of the territory of present-day Serbia, following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia in 1941." Thirdly, I don't agree that "though" is the same as "despite", and the sentence proposed by Finites "Nedic took steps to establish..." could be modified to start as "The Serbian civil administration took steps..." while the part "though it remained de facto subordinated to a German military administration..." does not in any way imply that Germans opposed or hindered those "steps to establish an independent state", as was your objection. Vladimir (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks VVV. It seemed to me that we could argue forever as to whether Nedic would have achieved an independent state. I don't actually care what it says, as long as it has a degree of consensus as fairly represents appropriate sources. I would like to avoid future edit-warring. As I understand the authorities, until the end of the German occupation, Serbia remained subordinate to the German military authorities. Why should the Germans care about what the coins said if it kept people more docile? All they cared about was obedience, raw materials and slave workers. Hitler had some odd ideas about "official" authority anyway. He believed strong men fought their way to the top. I thought "took steps to..." covered the situation of what Nedic did during the occupation without speculating as to what the end result might have been.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What attitude? I am only saying that we can find solution more easily if we actually CHANGE article text instead to discuss this issue to the death. So, Fainites, if you want to change anything in text please do it, and I will correct your changes if I think that something should be corrected and then (if something is still disputed) we can discuss it here (that would not be "revert warring", but rather cooperation). I am not going to waste so much of my time to discuss a form of one whole sentence on talk page. When we see if something is still disputed then we can discuss about disputed issue. PANONIAN 04:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with trying to get an agreed first sentence on the talk page? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I've done some minimal alterations to the first sentence and copy-edited the rest of the lead to remove repetition and improve sentence structure. I don't believe I've altered the sense of it but you'd better check.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the wrong thing is that we would lost much more time if we discuss it here instead that we all change what we want in article text and to discuss only what might remain disputed. Besides two minor corrections, I am satisfied with your changes. PANONIAN 15:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Luis Molnar moved Serbia under German occupation to Serbian State.--Zoupan (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. That was a patently bad idea, to say the least. No such user (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected this page for 3 days to stop a budding edit war over "puppet state". Please discuss it here. Some discussion has already taken place on WhiteWriter's talk.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead issue

All right, lets see what the sources have to say. PANONIAN, please list your sources that support your proposal that there existed a puppet state called "Serbia" during WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes PANONIAN, I know you don't give a damn about whatever goes on on the talkpage now that your version was protected by an administrator, but I do request once more that you lay out here all the sources that you have for your position. I will then be listing all the sources that do NOT describe the state of affairs in this territory as having been part of a puppet state, in order to ascertain whether WP:FRINGE VIEW applies to your calim. You have my full and undivided attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am not going to play your rhetorical games any more. I presented my sources on this talk page in earlier discussion, so try to read them, OK? I cannot believe that somebody can spend several months to engage himself in these ridiculous, pointless and childish rhetorical games. Can you find another hobby in your life? PANONIAN 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here follows a the summation at the end of a (very detailed) treatise on the establishment and authorities of the Nedić government

"Nedić thus headed a government whose powers were strictly limited, one that had no international standing even with the Axis powers. Like its predecessor [the Aćimović Commissary Government], it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort, and bearing some of the blame for the harshness of the rule. As time went on, Nedić's powers, instead of being increased as a reward for his loyal service to the Germans (which was repeatedly noted by most high German commanders and officials in Serbia), were whittled away. His situation was always difficult and frustrating and the minutes of his conferences with and his letters and memoranda to succeeding military commanders in Serbia amply show that it became more and more degrading to him personally."

— Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945, Volume II: Occupation and Collaboration, Stanford University Press 2001, p.182.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Even your quotation says "doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified". PANONIAN 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha. That is not "my quotation", but your comment is the perfect example of how you misrepresent published sources. In essence, all you do here is take quotes like the one above out of context. An author clearly explains the status of Nedić's government, but PANONIAN is not interested in all that - all he needs is a few quote-mined sentences, like the expertly excavated one above, to "prove" his point.

Gentlemen, there was no puppet state. In no place in occupied Europe did a German Military Administration exist simultaneously with a recognized puppet state of the Axis Powers. Common sense itself rebels against such nonsense nationalist tosh. The two are mutually exclusive: either a territory is under an occupation authority - or its is granted the status of an independent puppet state, not both. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Panonian - keep it clean. Direktor was asked for sources - and here they come. In the mean time - I am posting the earlier sources here again for ease of reference for any new readers.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Earlier sources.

• PANONIANs sources;
• "satellite state of Serbia" The history of Serbia : John K. Cox
• "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government" Contemporary Yugoslavia: Jozo Tomasevich, Wayne S.Vucinich
• "German rump state in Serbia", Armed Peacekeepers in Bosnia
• "...a puppet state of Serbia was created...",Balkan strongmen: dictators and authoritarian rulers of South Eastern Europe Аутор: Bernd Jürgen Fischer

Fainites sources;

• "What remained of Yugoslavia after the various annexations, redemptions and restorations was called by the Germans the "Serbian residual state" and kept under their control.....It had no status other than that of occupied territory", Pavlowitch; Hitlers New Disorder
• "the rump Serbian state" Ramet; Three Yugoslavias

@Fainites, here you have the whole gist of the issue laid-out beautifully by PANONIAN himself. See the Tomasevich quote? And do you see what PANONIAN has selected from it? That's exactly what's happening here, and I've been saying it for weeks now. An author clearly states the Germans established a government subordinate to military occupation, with no international standing whatsoever, but he happens to use the word "state" or "country" at some point and presto - its PANONIAN's "source". Note particularly "the other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government", the author does not really claim a phantom puppet state existed there, he's merely using the term more loosely. And I've read Cox so I can only stand in awe of how masterfully his position is twisted. In reality, PANONIAN has not a single source, not a single scholar that really and truly claims, without having been taken out of context, that Nazi Germany established an actual puppet state called "Serbia" or the "Serbian State". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are Cox's words actually describing the inauguration of Nedić's government on p.84:

"Inside Serbia itself, the Germans were looking around for Serbs to help them run the country. They set up General Milan Nedić in a Government of National Salvation."

And when referring to the entity later in the text he uses the terms "the Nedić administration" (e.g. on p.88) and "the Nedić government" (p.93 etc.). But we have PANONIAN's quote so I guess Cox thinks there was a "puppet state" there right? The whole thing is just quote mining and misrepresentation of valid sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could there just be a basic misunderstanding/disagreement about the meaning of "puppet state"? As I understand it, a puppet state is not a proper state - because it's a puppet. That's why you call it a puppet. There is no reason though why a puppet state should not have a name - which indeed this one did. It wouldn't get anything like international recognition. Also - whenever the puppet-master chose, they could do what they wanted or pull the whole thing. The degree of autonomy would depend on all sorts of things - including necessity. The NDH was doing all the right things (from the Nazi point of view) so they could have more autonomy - until it all went a bit wrong and then the Nazi's just did what they wanted anyway regarding NDH territory. On the other hand, Hitler hated Serbs, thought they were slavs ie inferior, and blamed them for Yugoslavia not joining the Axis, so they had no autonomy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...you're right. xP Upon reading a few dictionary entries, seems "puppet state" can be used to refer to a "government". Well.. that solves the mystery of the self-contradicting sources and ends any dispute at stroke. Don't I feel sheepish -.-, I guess it took a real English-speaker.

The sources are in agreement then (I knew they had to be, this is just too basic) - and do not contradict Tomasevich. The term "puppets state", on the few occasions that it is actually used, is used in the sense of "puppet government". Wikipedia does make a distinction between a country and a government and covers the two differently. This still means we cannot treat this government, apparently often referred to with the term "puppet state", as an actual country and write a country article called "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No but we can write an article called "Serbia under German occupation" under which it is described as a puppet state. Hooray! Now - does this leave an issue with the map? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so you're really trying to argue against me but have accidentally argued for me? Ah.

Well it seems the names of the "puppet states", in the sense of "puppet government", were "Government of National Salvation" (1) and "Commissary Government" (2), not "Serbia Under German Occupation". There was no puppet state under the name of "Serbia Under German Occupation". Indeed, if the article does indeed cover both the Military Administration in Serbia, its two subordinate "puppet states" the Government of National Salvation and Commissary Government, how can we start this article with "Serbia under German occupation was a Nazi-installed puppet state.."?

Your first lead draft was spot-on, your second one seems more like a makeshift compromise, without any real logic behind it, intended to get the hell out of the annoying discussion. Am I near the mark? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't argue for or against anyone Direktor. I am simply trying to assist editors to reach a consensus that is also in accordance with policies and sources. switch off pompous mode. The lead currently says "Serbia under German occupation refers to the Nazi-installed puppet state..." which is better grammar. It's a descriptive title - which is allowed. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Serbia under German Occupation" DOES NOT refer to any puppet state, call it what you will. This article also covers the Military Administration in Serbia, which is not a puppet state, and as far as puppet states are concerned: there is not one of them, but two, and neither are called "Serbia", still less "Serbia Under German Occupation". The lead is essentially gibberish and does not even remotely reflect the the article's scope. "Descriptive title"?

"Serbia under German occupation was an administrative area in occupied Yugoslavia set up by Nazi Germany following the invasion and dismemberment of Yugoslavia." (your own words) reflects the article's diverse scope excellently allowing for an elaboration on the Military Administration that governed the area and the two subordinate puppet governments that were installed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let see: the basic delusion of mister DIREKTOR is that he thinks that terms "puppet state" and "puppet government" are referring to same thing. This is clearly wrong. From source that was presented by DIREKTOR himself we can clearly see that these things are regarded as separate subjects. Sentence "it was no more than a subsidiary organ of the German occupation authorities, doing part of the work of administering the country and helping to keep it pacified" clearly indicates that we speak about 3 different subjects here: 1. puppet country, 2. German administration, 3. puppet Serbian administration. Also, official name of German administration ("Military administration in Serbia") clearly indicates that it is just administration in Serbia. Also, nobody here disputing that Serbian puppet government was subordinated to German military administration, but administrations are very different subjects from countries or territories that they govern. I cannot believe that several users here wasting so much of their free time discussing with a person that do not understand difference between one country and government that govern that country. Status of puppet Serbian government is not same as status of puppet state of Serbia. There are several other examples of countries whose local governments are somewhat subordinated to foreign or international administrations. Notable cases are Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, or if we want to list unrecognized countries only then notable examples are Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia. Governments of all these countries are or were subordinated to various forms of foreign or international civil or military administrations and these governments are enjoying or enjoyed various levels of autonomy. However, what is common for all these countries (including WW2 Serbia) is that they were not annexed by any foreign country and that they were seen as de jure independent by those powers that occupied them or administered them. In Axis new order, Serbia was seen as de jure independent country and whether that country was administered by German or Serbian administration is completely irrelevant. So, sources presented by DIREKTOR are obviously speaking about status of government and not about status of country itself. In fact, these sources are making very clear difference between country and government ("doing part of the work of administering the country"). So, since DIREKTOR thinks that country and government are one same thing he should provide sources that confirming this, i.e. sources that will clearly say "country of Serbia was same as government of Serbia". So far, such source was not presented. On the contrary, presented sources are clearly distinguishing country of Serbia from its government. PANONIAN 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "lets see" who's being "delusional". Dictionary.com defines "puppet state" as "a government that is appointed by and whose affairs are directed by an outside authority that may impose hardships on those governed [syn: puppet government]". So we can conclude that the terms "puppet state" and "puppet government" do, in fact, refer to same thing. As most dictionaries point out, the two terms are synonyms and can be used interchangeably. Thanks to Finites who pointed that out, you can no push your POV on the basis of my poor English skills.

As for your confusion with regard to the difference between "territory" and "administration", I do believe it is at the very root of this problem. Both the Military Administration in Serbia and the Nedić government (referred to also in sources as the "Nedić administration") were "administrations".

But this is an entirely meaningless exchange. As I said, this article covers the Military Administration in Serbia, which was not a puppet state, and covers two different puppet state/government entities that were established by the Military Administration. Neither of the two puppet states/governments had the name "Serbia", still less "Serbia Under German Occupation". The lead is essentially gibberish. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources please - as to what the territory governed by the military administration was called.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, it is positive change that you presented some sources that supporting some of your claims, so now we maybe can have something that looks like serious discussion. I agree that dictionaries that you presented are claiming that term "puppet state" can refer to "puppet government", but here is another definition which states that "puppet state" can refer to "entity". Also, Wikipedia article about puppet state lists most of these states under name of the country, not under name of a government (so, it seems that term is mostly used for countries, and sometimes also for their governments). I admit that usage of this term looks a bit confusing, but even if term "puppet state" could be equalized with term "puppet government", that government still cannot exist without country or territory that it govern. We cannot ignore numerous sources that mention that this country/territory that had name "Serbia" existed. Therefore, due to somewhat unclear meaning of term "puppet state", I can accept some parts of your changes, i.e. those that describing Serbia as "administrative area". However, I do not agree with your changes in infobox. Since you defined that article speaks about "administrative area" then infobox should also reflect that administrative area (named "Serbia") and not only German military administration and Government of national salvation. Infobox also should reflect Serbia itself and Commisary government. I believe that we can include all these things into single infobox. Also, is there any evidence that flag of Germany was officialy used by German administration in Serbia? Your division of infobox into two parts is competelly bad and wrong. PANONIAN 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Allright, so now that we have all the sources and have reviewed them, the situation becomes clear at last: 1) the name for the territory alone, seems to have been "Serbia". 2) This territory was under German occupation and was administered first and foremost by the German Military Administration in Serbia (Wolff, Lee, Tomasevich), 3) which had installed two successive and subordinate civil puppet governments/states, the short-lived Commissary Government and the Government of National Salvation (neither of which were known as "Serbia").

Now then, will someone (Fainites) please tell me what is wrong with

"Serbia under German occupation was a territory in occupied Yugoslavia established following the invasion and dismemberment of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in April of 1941. The territory was placed under the authority of the German Military Administration in Serbia, which set up Serbian Quisling civil governments: initially the Commissary Government under Milan Aćimović, lasting for the first two months of occupation, and subsequently the Government of National Salvation under Milan Nedić, which remained in power until 1944."

? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that your first version of the text is better (version where you used term "administrative area" instead "territory", but I suppose that term "territory" is acceptable too). Anyway, do we agree to use a single infobox for all these subjects? If we do not use a single infobox we would need as much as 4 infoboxes to cover all four subjects: territory itself, German administration and two Serbian governments. PANONIAN 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I only copied down Fainites's proposal, those aren't my words. As I said I would not mind either, but "administrative area" does seem slightly better to me as well. Lets finish the lead business and then tackle the infobox problem. "One step at a time" seems to be working here. First the title (check), then the lead (check), and finally the infobox(es). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any further problem with lead part, so you can say your standpoint about infoboxes. PANONIAN 16:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented what I understand to be the agreed lead between editors. Please correct me if I am wrong in that. I will now unblock. I also did a few copy-edits to adjust to the rephrasing. I also added "German-run" to the camps as I understand from previous discussions this is considered an important point but feel free to remove and discuss if I am wrong in this. I have also put your new discussions on infoboxes and which map under separate headings for the sake of other editors.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the above quote was the agreed-upon version (with the replacement of "territory" with "administrative area"). Fainites you've entered something else completely, and then PANONIAN's modified it. This is not the way we play as I understand the game. I've entered the above version (plus some translations into Serbian which I hope noone minds). If there's still some dispute to iron-out lets have it here rather than posting it in the article.

PANONIAN, I've reverted your other non-consensus changes unrelated to the lead. Consensus first, edits later (and the flag looks just.. terrible. its just a scan, its not even vector, provided its accurate at all of course). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR kindly strike out your bad faith insinuations made above. Your version is not in strict accordance with the suggested version above either. You do not own this article. These matters can be discussed without insinuations of bad faith on your part. You spent several days recently insulting everybody for not agreeing with you before having to acknowledge your "understanding" was wrong. Have you learned nothing from this? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kindly cool your heels and stop assuming bad faith. I did not mean to imply anything at all and I am sick and tired of having to fight my way through your preconceptions every step of the way and on every talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly cool thanks - but I did misread your post so apologies for that. I'll strike it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Map issue

The original map - showing the country after the Axis powers divided it all up - labels the Serbian bit as the "National Government of Salvation" with "Serbia under German occupation" underneath. WhiteWriter has altered it to show "Serbia" and underneath "under German occupation". To avoid revert wars, can we agree here on a suitable label? The problem with the first one is that the NGS doesn't cover the whole period.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no "Serbia" and not a single source supports that in reality. The full names of the "puppet states" were the "Government of National Salvation" and "Commissary Government", under the umbrella and authority of the German Military Administration (which is sourced by four separate sources). There is in reality nothing to discuss here, the only name this territory ever had was "Military Administration in Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is no reason why a puppet state (or indeed an administrative area) should not have a name, you will need sources for that assertion please Direktor. They will need to be good ones given Tomasevich himself says "The other puppet state, Serbia, was kept under a formal German military government".Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources? What assertion? Just... what? Look, the highest authority in that territory was the Military Administration in Serbia, whatever puppet regimes existed answered to it, were subordinate to it in every way, had no recognition outside it, and were little more than its tools (Tomasevich). The sentence you quote above shows exactly what I mean ("kept under a formal German military government").

Is it by chance that you are opposed to my position in every single issue of every single dispute you (I assume) follow me to? I take it your admitted personal distaste for my style of conversation has a part in this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Direktor I really really do not care about the precise nature of the final result. Only that it is is in accordance with the best sources and is not likely to result in edit wars. One reason I often find myself addressing you is to ask you to provide sources to support the very definite positions you tend to take. I started this discussion because WhiteWriter made an obvious goodfaith change to the map, thinking, not unreasonably, the argument was now resolved. You now wish to argue the same point all over again having failed to provide sources except for 1 page reference on the last occasion. You have reverted all of his edits across 5 articles. I am hoping that by providing a forum for discussion here, you will be able to provide any sources you have to support your assertion that the puppet state/government/administrative area was not called "Serbia" as asserted by the other editors here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So its my fault you and WhiteWriter assumed the issue was solved without the participants actually agreeing? The only reason why this issue exists is that PANONIAN keeps pushing the idea that this article is about some fictitious country he likes to imagine, and I know the territory was under military occupation because I researched the issue. I can't imagine how you thought I would agree to a lead version that depicts this article's scope as being on some country of "Serbia Under German Occupation" (which undoubtedly was PANONIAN's plan with suggesting this title), when its scope includes one (1) German Military Administration and two (2) puppet regimes, which the title merges into one "puppet state". In short (and to use your own words), I don't care if now it looks like I'm "restarting" the issue, I'm not - it was never solved in the first place and that was painfully obvious.

As for your request, I'll prove that this territory was not called "Serbia" when you prove it was not called "Direktoria". I'll be waiting for your sources.

If we're done with requests for proving negative statements and shifting burdens of evidence, I'll repeat that the official names of the two puppet states/governments were the "Government of National Salvation" and the "Commissary Government" - not "Serbia". And I can provide dozens and dozens of sources to that effect, demonstrating that even IF the three sources that call these governments "Serbia" are not simply misrepresented (as one of them certainly is), the two are in a very decided minority. I would not be surprised if the other two sources, just like Cox, use "Nedić government" and "Nedić administration" far more frequently than "Serbia".

And with regard to the map, the whole issue of the puppet states and whether they were called Serbia - is irrelevant. The supreme authority in this territory was the German Military Administration, and that is a very well sourced fact. Hence, that should be the label attached to this territory on any political map. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No I suppose on reflection it was foolish to suppose the matter was agreed by you. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Other editors have produced sources showing there was a puppet or rump state or administrative area called Serbia. What I would like you to produce Direktor are sources which indicate what you say this entity, this territory, this puppet whatever governed by the German military administration was actually called. Where would a german soldier posted there tell his wife he was going? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This territory had the name "Military Administration in Serbia", just like all the other German Militärverwaltungs across occupied Europe, and I believe numerous sources have already been provided to the effect that this was the supreme governing body of the area. Their territory was defined by the Germans and they gave it its name. The soldier would say to his wife: "Helga, ich bin in der serbischen Militärverwaltung stationiert". Or possibly "ich bin in Jugoslawien stationiert" since he grew-up in the Interbellum.

As for the puppet governments/states themselves, I've already explained more than once that the official names of the puppet states (or governments) are not in question in any way with the sources, that none of them were called "Serbia", and that numerous sources can be provided to that effect. And I've explained that the two sources (possibly misrepresented like Cox) which refer to the puppet governments as "Serbia", if not taken out of context and misrepresented themselves, are a decided minority when it comes to referring to the puppet states as "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Aahahaha, bravo for Helga! As a German speaker, it is very funny to see that explanation in german there! :) Now, i agree with you Direktor. That Ernst, or Heinrich would really say something like that. But, we can see "serbischen Militärverwaltung" in that explanation. So, saying that Serbia and Serbians was that entity under German occupation is not that wrong, as i see. And i will not mention question of sources here and now... And after your agreement on this title here, this wast discussion and chaos regarding one title in one image is, if you ask me, quite hypocritical. I am really sorry, but i see it like that. If you have that attitude that this entire thematic and naming issue is not settled in a good way, you should create one good, sourced, brilliantly explained and at least month long move and rename request, and solve that there, with neutral participants also. At the end, your arguments in this section is not related to the image, but article subject. So, can you tell me what would you propose as a solution, and that is different from your image, on which none of us agreed? Maybe we can find something different... ? :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Military Administration in Serbia" ≠ "Serbia", WhiteWriter. And the difference is quite crucial as you can note: one is the name of a country, the other of a military occupation. These exchanges also have nothing at all to do with the title of the article, which I'm really getting tired of explaining at this point. The title is perfectly fine, it is the scope of this article that is the core of this dispute, and always was from the start. I have no intention of posting a WP:RM.

As for the image itself, my arguments are quite related to it. I can only post for the third time in this thread that the governing authority of this territory was the German Military Administration (which is very well sourced), and that this should be the label of the territory in any political map. Least of all some fictitious "Serbia", a name which does not refer to either the German authority or any of the two puppet states/governments. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate which policies require that governing authority of this territory .... should be the label of the territory in any political map. You may well be right FAIK but I am a bit suprised by this idea. Editors are very well aware that the German Military Administration was the supreme authority. It does not necessariy follow from that, that that was it's name. Other editors have produced sources indicating the territory was called , rightly or wrongly, "Serbia". You are being asked to produce sources showing it was called whatever you say it was called.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this map issue (I already elaborated this on Fainite's talk page, but I will repeat it here), DIREKTOR's map is certainly not "original map". Original map is this map that was created and uploaded by me in 31 October 2010 Now here you can see this list of references that I included on that page concluding with 3 November 2010. What then happened? DIREKTOR modified my map and uploaded his modified versions here: [6], [7]. Then, instead to post references that are supporting his modifications DIREKTOR simply copy-pasted my references from original map: [8], [9] Problem is that my references are not supporting his modifications in these maps. If you examine some of these references (those that are available online), you will see that they all using name "Serbia" and not name "Government of National Salvation". Also, speaking about second map that show political situation in 1943-1944, my references are not supporting these borders of countries since they all show political situation in 1941-1942 (i.e, before capitulation of Italy). We can just make a simple comparison of this: here is DIREKTOR's map that show Dalmatia within Independent State of Croatia and whole of Slovenia occupied by Germans and here are references that are allegedly supporting info in that map: [10], [11], [12] (It is clear that these references showing Dalmatia and part of Slovenia under Italian occupation, and not under German one or under NDH). I tried to ask DIREKTOR in Wikimedia Commons to provide his own sources for his map modifications, but he did not done that. Then, I tried to change reference list and to include references that actually showing political situation in 1943-1944: [13]. However, an IP (presumably DIREKTOR), reverted my edit and returned false references that do not supporting info which is presented in this map: [14]. So, this is very clear evidence that DIREKTOR is abusing sources and that the only thing that he cares about is to push his POV no matter what sources would say and no matter if he have sources for his claims or not. It is evident that he copy-pasted my references with a single goal to make false impression that his maps are referenced while in fact they are not - sources from that list which are available online are clearly against DIREKTOR's POV, while listed books are those from my personal private library and I doubt that DIREKTOR read a single one of them. DIREKTOR either should provide real references for his map modifications (the ones that actually would support these modifications) either his maps should be removed from Wikipedia as clear examples of unsourced original research. Wikipedia should not use files with abused references. PANONIAN 15:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: DIREKTOR now uploaded another file with abused references: [15]. Presumably, he now want to replace my map that is currently used in this article: [16]. As everybody can see, he again copy-pasted sources from my map: here is my edit from 24 November 2009 where I added these references to original map and here is edit of mister DIREKTOR where he copy-pasted my references to use them as "support" for his map. So, as someone who introduced and read these references, I say that they not supporting DIREKTOR's new POV that "Military administration of Serbia" was a name of a country or territory (and everybody can confirm this after examining these references). This kind of behavior and falsification of sources is simply unacceptable. So, yes, I agree with DIREKTOR that "Military administration of Serbia" was a supreme authority in Serbia, but there is no single source or historical map that would support his idea that "Military administration of Serbia" was actually a name of Serbia. Sources that DIREKTOR introduced are clearly distinguishing country of Serbia from both, German Military administration and local Serbian administration. Can somebody please stop this user from further disruption and damage that he doing to Wikipedia? PANONIAN 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks PANONIAN. When I said "original map" I was only looking at recent events on this article and the others reverted by DIREKTOR. I can now see that the original map created by you from the sources provided was first altered by Direktor and when that did not last, copied, with sources, into another file and then altered to show the area named as "Government of National Salvation". The three maps you have linked to as sources do not use this name. Did you use any other maps as sources? As a matter of interest, what did the Times Historical Atlas call it?Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at all the maps you used as sources and they clearly show the situation when Italy had chunks of the Dalmatian coast so not suitable for the second map where they have been copy pasted. The name of the territory in the maps,is always "Serbia" qualified by various legends such as "under German occupation" or "German Military Administration". Particularly relevent are the two Washington DC maps, this and this compiled from German Foreign Ministry information for Washington DCs Documents on German Foreign Policy. It appears therefore that DIREKTOR has indeed copy-pasted PANONIAN's map. and the sources, to create his own two maps, renaming "Serbia" as "Government of National Salvation" although that name is not supported by the source maps.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, user:WhiteWriter later uploaded new versions of DIREKTOR's maps where name "Serbia" is used instead "Government of national salvation", but original map was created by me and later modified by DIREKTOR who copy-pasted my sources. As for the "three maps that I have linked as sources that do not using name Serbia", I agree that they do not, but they do not using name "Government of national salvation" either. Anyway, in the time when I created this map and introduced these sources I was not very active in English Wikipedia and I did not knew that name "Serbia" used in my map would be problem for DIREKTOR. Therefore, I listed these references as a support for general political situation and borders, not as a support for name "Serbia". However, regarding Serbia, these references either using name "Serbia" either do not using any name, but there is no single one of those references that using names "Government of national salvation" or "Military administration in Serbia" as a country/territory name. As for other sources, I am collecting maps and last time I checked I had about 37,000 various maps in my computer and the only maps in that collection that using name "Government of national salvation" as a name of Serbia are those created by DIREKTOR (I am saving into my computer all maps that I find in Wikipedia). As for Times atlas, it uses name "Serbia". Anyway, you can conduct your own research and you can check some maps that google search engine can find. PANONIAN 16:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)Wow! 37,000! But we only have one globe. I was agreeing with you that they did not use the name "Government of National Salvation". They either use "Serbia" or there are a couple that don't give names for any territory. I'm not sure what DIREKTOR means when he says a political map should give the name of the governing authority of the territory. Presumably the UK would appear as "the Queen in Parliament".Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Fainites, I scaned page from Times history atlas (The Times History of Europe, Times Books, London, 2002) just for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe1942_scan.JPG (I know that I violated copyright policies by this, by since you are an administrator you can delete this image after you see it and no damage to Wikipedia copyrights will be done - or you can delete it after 2-3 days so that DIREKTOR and others could see it too). This atlas is very good source for issues related to European history and this discussion should take that source into account. PANONIAN 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As for maps, I do not have 37,000 maps that showing Serbia during World War II. :) I have 37,000 maps of all kinds - historical, political, ethnical, even maps that showing alternate realities, worlds from computer games, future proposed countries and so on. PANONIAN 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about the Times Atlas of World History. I used to have one but lent it to someone. It's amazing how much information they can cram into one book by using maps.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the histories of the various articles, PANONIANs version was replaced by DIREKTORs on 4th June 2011.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not about to take a scanned map that actually depicts the Kingdom of Montenegro as a part of a "Serbia" seriously. The map's coverage of WWII Yugoslavia is obviously superficial, not to say flawed, when they can't even get the actual borders and countries in this area right.

All right fellas, so what is this "Serbia" you both talk about? What does the term refer to? If you're referring just to the German-administered territory alone, I'll buy that (as opposed to a country or as another name for the Government of National Salvation). If the map were to say "under German military administration", and if a clear distinction was made from the other areas that were not under military administration, I'll introduce the changes to my map myself (WhiteWriter's map is almost an identical copy of my own modification of PANONIAN's map, and it really becomes redundant after an agreement on the label is achieved as this is its only distinction) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the sources alone, it appears to refer to the territory administered by the GMA and the Quisling governments, whether it's called a territory, entity, puppet state or whatever. "Administrative area" was a free interpretation by me to try and find a neutral solution. Territory is also neutral. (Personally I would have thought "puppet state" was neutral too because the whole point of it is that it's a false front masking the reality, not the real thing. However, I can see why some readers might think this meant the entity was more of a state than it was leading to edit warring in the future. Of course - if it had been a state, old Nedic would not have had to have faffed around trying to achieve one. I would have thought this can all be dealt with in the body of the article.) (By the way - which map says "Kingdom of Montenegro" as part of Serbia? On the scanned version it does say "Montenegro" but it's written out in the sea with an arrow). Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Nedić, seems the German military liked him well enough but he just could not get the (more "socialist") Nazis to go for an old non-Aryan(!) "reactionary". As far as I'm concerned both solutions for the lead are fine, I think it would be prudent to leave it up to you. It might avoid the Direktor-Likes-it-So-it-Must-Be-Biased Syndrome.

(The scanned map presented by PANONIAN shows the Banat, "Serbia", and Montenegro in the same colour. The Banat is fine as it is was sort of like an "autonomous province" within the territory created for the local Germans, but the Kingdom of Montenegro was an entirely separate entity with a similar status to the Independent State of Croatia, in fact its often informally referred to as the "Independent State of Montenegro". A mistake, most assuredly, and a serious one. There was really no connection with the two areas: one was a German military occupation, the other an Italian protectorate.)

As far as the map's concerned, if we're all agreed I'll enter the changes myself (I've been meaning to change the NDH's colour to Croatian red anyway). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Better wait until Panonian and anybody else has a chance to comment. My concern is to achieve consensus based on sources. I understood from his post at the end of the section above he was OK with "administrative area". I noticed the map was in the same colour. Not sure what that was meant to show. You'd need to see the key. As for Nedic - I expect his problem was that Hitler etc would have seen him as a Slav and therefore an untermensch, not to be taken seriously.Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Map issue redux

The scanned map presented by PANONIAN shows all "Axis-administered territories" (including Ostland and Ukraine) in the same colour, but Montenegro is clearly presented separately from Serbia (as opposed to Banat, which is divided from Serbia by broken line, not by the full one). Sure, scaned map is of much lower quality than original one, but it does not show that Montenegro is part of Serbia - it show various Axis-administered territories in same colour and I do not see why this would be wrong. As for map that we should use in the article, I do not agree that we should use map that mention name of any administration instead name "Serbia". Anyway, DIREKTOR, you said here that "the name for the territory alone, seems to have been Serbia", so why map that show that territory should not use name "Serbia"? All maps from all sources are using only name "Serbia" and not name of any administration. PANONIAN 15:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes lets forget about the scanned map for the moment, are you allright with "Serbia (under German military administration)" as the label per the sources provided by Fainites? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Title is acceptable, but not best one. I say that we should use my original map with name "Serbia (German occupation)". It is clear that your map is plagiate created from my work and why we should use this plagiate when we have original version which is of much better quality? PANONIAN 09:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad the fair reputation of the THAOTW is restored. If it helps, the Washington DC source maps say Serbia with "under German military command" underneath. The others say "occupied...." in various ways. As a compromise, why not use Panonians map - as he did all the research and the work, and the Washington DC legend? Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, it is PANONIAN's map: its just a colour modification I made not wanting to overwrite anyone's work, and its attributed to him with his research underneath. I also added another map with the post-1943 state of affairs depicted in the same colour scheme and imho the two make a good pair. I never pretended I did not modify another map, but I do think (in all modesty) that my modifications are good work. I consider PANONIAN's accusations of "plagiarization" quite offensive (not to mention absurd considering the stuff is PD), they do not at all help the fragile progress we've made thus far.

Anyway I would like the label to refer in some way to the fact that the area was presided-over by a military administration, which was not the case anywhere else in occupied Yugoslavia. The whole place was "occupied", sometimes through puppet government, sometimes through direct annexation, but only Serbia was administered by military commanders along the lines of, say northern France or Norway or Greece. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, what I consider offensive is your behavior where you changing various files of other users in Wikimedia Commons thinking that you are smarter than these users and that only you know which colors are "better" and which ones are not. You neither respecting these users neither their work. That is rude and completely unfriendly behavior and, by my opinion, most of such file changes performed by you in Wikimedia Commons are examples of such behavior. Colors that you imposing in your changes of these files are not "better" by any criteria and therefore your general "work" in Wikimedia Commons is rather disruptive than constructive. So, be aware of this: while Wikimedia/Wikipedia policies allowing you to upload modified versions of my maps under separate filenames, these policies also allowing me that, once you leave Wikipedia for good, I remove your modified versions of my files from articles or modify them again to reflect what I see as better colors or descriptions (and be sure that I will do that, as I already done with some other versions of my files that were modified by some other users). I would always accept every friendly suggestion how any of my maps could be corrected and improved, by changes that you making to files created by other users are clear disrespect towards them and towards their work and, unlike some other users whose files you modified, I will not tolerate your bullishness. Regarding current look of this article (while you are still present in Wikipedia), I can accept this compromise: my map of Serbia could remain in infobox and your modified map of Yugoslavia (with whatever description you prefer in it) could remain in the article. In the future, other solutions will be implemented. PANONIAN 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

These files are public domain and can be modified by anyone who wishes it, which, by your definition I emphasize, would mean quite a lot of people are in the danger of "thinking they're smarter than you". Since it is well within anyone's rights to modify public domain images on Wikimedia Commons, I wonder which act of "respect" you believe I have withheld? I added the new map, sporting national colours, as a good-faith edit.

PANONIAN, I liked your work and I wanted to improve it further. Thats all. And I must add that it would be arrogant, not to mention contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, to assume one's work is literally perfect and cannot be improved. I am not the author of the new maps, we both are, and you more so than I. And if you have no objections I would like to list us both as co-authors, now that we agree on the maps' contents at last. Indeed, it even occurs to me that I might enter these superficial changes of mine on your map, if you do not object to my entry of national colours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please. General inter-wiki revert war that we had about usage of these files clearly show how much you disrespect me and my work. And I bet that other users whose maps you "improved" would 100% agree with me about your actions in Wikimedia Commons. And here is evidence for that: User XrysD also reverted your "improvements" to his maps: [17], [18] (and, unrelated to any dispute that we had anywhere, I sincerely agree with User XrysD that your versions of his files were much worse than original ones). I am sorry that you do not understand that your behavior is inappropriate but, besides written rules in Wikimedia Commons, there is also unwritten rule of mutual respect among users who (unlike you) actually created something for Wikipedia and who do not changing files created by others against agreement with them. In fact, if I think that an file created by other user is inaccurate, I notify that user about my opinion, but it is up to him whether he will change his file or not. Therefore, DIREKTOR, it is clear that you changed my file without any agreement with me and that I still do not agree with any of your changes in that file. So, I refuse your proposal to mention me as co-author. By Wikimedia policies, your are obligated to mention that you created your file from my file, but I do not agree even with very existence of your plagiate file (and I certainly do not agree with your choice of colors) and therefore I refuse to be mentioned as its co-author. And I object that you make any changes to my original map. In fact Commons policies are protecting original uploaders from this kind of behavior of other users - these policies would allow you to upload modified files under different filenames, but revert warring in original file with its original uploader (whether it would be me, User XrysD or anybody else) would certainly trigger admin sanctions against you. PANONIAN 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(I hope, Fainites, that you will take note of the above exchange.) PANONIAN, I am startled and deeply disappointed at your attitude. I did not "edit-war" over anything, and this resentment about a few meaningless colour modifications (I had every right to post) is childish to no end. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I know that technically you are right - it's all free use - etc etc etc, but as a matter of common flawed humanity, I'd be a bit pissed off if I'd spent hours researching and creating a map and someone just came along and altered it without even starting off with a polite suggestion. I know one shouldn't "own" articles but I feel a bit like that when, after spending months sourcing, writing and FA'ing Attachment theory someone comes along and adds or changes things that aren't in the source and are, in my view, stylistically inferior. I try not to feel ownerish but we are but human. The colour change without a proposal is just irritating and calling Panonian "childish" is adding insult to injury. Why couldn't you just say "sorry - I should have mentioned it". The change of designation of an area that was not supported by the sources the creator provided was more problematical though. None of Panonian's sources labelled Serbia as the "Government of National Salvation" as you did, yet you added no new sources. You described your edits on Panonians map as Rm borders and margin + entered a new color scheme whereas in fact you had changed the name of the territory, the subject matter of the dispute here. You also knew there was no consensus on this point.Why is everyone still arguing about this? I thought you guys had agreed now. Panonian - we all know you created the map. If we are now agreed on the name, can't you just stick it in?Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Fainites, we agreed about name of this article, but that agreement was result of a compromise and it does not quite reflecting data from the sources that I used. These sources are using name "Serbia" and for the sake of accuracy I would rather base my work on these sources than on a some Wiki compromise. However, I am not insisting that my map is used in this article at all. I will just let other users to decide which of the maps should be used here and if general opinion among other users prevail to decision that DIREKTOR's modified map is more suitable for this article then his map should be used. For me, map issue is over, but only when this article is in question and this is certainly not green light for DIREKTOR to engage himself in commons or inter-wiki revert warring. PANONIAN 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as my maps have been mentioned above I thought I'd just add a few words here. PANONIAN's experience with DIREKTOR is similar to mine (direct edits to my work without any consultation). I must say I have never come across another user who behaves like DIREKTOR in this respect. I agree with the posts above by PANONIAN and Fainites about the spirit of wikis - that although change is not in theory restricted, it should be done in a consensual way rather than a confrontational one. And that the original author of a map (who has done all the research and work creating it) should have priority in any changes if there is dispute. In the case of my map (NDH counties and districts in 1943) following further research (by myself) I decided that a few of his changes had some basis in fact (I had shown the OZAK and Kotor as being part of RSI (Italy) when they are better considered as under German Military Control and not part of any country). So I edited the map - consensus! Now in terms of how to label "countries" in maps, in my view it depends on what the map is of. All of my maps are civil administration which show the de-jure (or de-facto) internal civil administration boundaries. So in the case of NDH, although the Germans/Italians had overall military control, the civil administration was done by Croats. They called the "country" Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska (Independant State of Croatia), so it is labelled as such on my map. Likewise my map of the state-described-by-this-article has the label "Serbia" because that is what the Serbian civil administration called it. In the case of PANONIAN's map its title is "Axis occupation of Yugoslavia". In fact the whole country was occupied (militarily) by the Germans/Italians/Bulgarians/Albanians, including NDH. Certain parts also had foreign civil administrations, for example northern slovenia by the germans, as they had been annexed as well as occupied. In my view, the country labels on PANONIAN's map are valid names for the areas as they had local civil administrations that used them. One would not label Slovenia this way as it was annexed into Italy and Germany. However, NDH should also really show the German/Italian occupation areas to be consistent as it was most definitely under military occupation! (see NDH article. I hope that has been of some help to resolve the issue. XrysD (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox issues

Ok. First of all, I myself don't see any need for an infobox on the short-lived, two-month Aćimović government, and I don't understand what you mean with "infobox for the territory", these are infoboxes on political entities. Secondly, I must say I can't see how we can continue with this infobox format without it being strongly misleading. Something must be done: we really can't have, for example, Nedić's flag with the German military governors listed as rulers, and Nedić as a deputy (he really wasn't anyone's "deputy").

Now, you know my stance already. I really don't see what other choice we have: the Military Administration needs an infobox of its own. Its an entirely separate authority from the Nedić regime, which in my opinion, should also have an infobox of its own. The only other real alternative, if you mind the swastika too much, is no infoboxes. We can't have this "amalgam" of Wikipedia's own manufacture standing as it is, infoboxes are misleading enough on their own without our help. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, according to dictionary, "territory" is "political entity": [19]. Furthermore, certain things from your government infobox are unrelated to government: flag, anthem, capital, official language, religion, etc. They were flag, anthem, capital, official language, religion of Serbia, not of its government. Furthermore, the whole absurdity of your approach is seen in the fact that while you used name "Government of National Salvation" for whole infobox, you also wrote in that same infobox that this government had its government: [20] (please explain how one government can have its own government?). Clearly, these infoboxes are for territories and there are separate entries within infoboxes for governments that administered these territories. Furthermore, if you check articles about some other puppet states (for example Manchukuo, Far Eastern Republic, Independent State of Croatia, etc), you can clearly see that all these infoboxes are reflecting territories of these states, not only their governments. You proposing here something that is not implemented anywhere else in Wikipedia and that is clearly wrong and bad solution. Articles about all counties in Croatia are having their own "territory infoboxes" and you say that WW2 Serbia which was much more important than these counties should not have one. Does your approach mean that we should use "government infoboxes" for these articles too and that instead "Independent State of Croatia" we should use "Ustaša government" or instead "Lika-senj county" we should use "Administration of Lika-Senj county"? Seems that your "government POV" is related only to Serbia. As for Commisary government, which Wiki rule or guideline says that "short-lived" government should not be presented in the infobox? Please quote such rule or guideline if there is one. As for the flag, flag used in the article was not correct one - I uploaded now real official flag of Serbia and it was not "Nedić's flag", but state flag of Serbia, which was approved by Germans as such. Therefore, German administration can go under this flag because they approved this flag and they regarded themselves as occupational forces in the territory that used this flag. I see nothing misleading here. Real misleading thing is your approach where you wrote that Serbia was part of Germany and where you used flag of Germany. And no, German military administration does not need its own infobox. What could be relevant for that infobox anyway? The only things that could be used in such infobox would be name of administration and list of commanders. All other things (flag, capital, languages, population, etc) are completelly unrelated to German military administration. These things are related to territory and to territory only. Also, I wrote separate articles about two Serbian governments and therefore, if we have separate articles about them, usage of their infoboxes here would be example of POV fork. It is common practice in Wikipedia to have separate articles for states/territories and their governments. If there are separate articles about Serbia and Government of Serbia then there should be separate ones about Serbia under German occupation and its governments (Besides that article "Government of Serbia" does not have an infobox and article about Federal government of the United States does not have one either - so, you clearly violating Wikipedia practices with your approach to government issues). If you think that it is needed, we can create new article about German military administration as well. This article is about territory named Serbia and we should not change its character. I also do not agree that we do not use any infobox. If article about Independent state of Croatia have infobox then article about Serbia should have one too. PANONIAN 09:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Allright this is nonsense. You still consider "Serbia" a state, and not a name for the territory. The NDH had a far better status than the occupied territory of Serbia, and thats a fact you're going to have to face somehow, though I can't imagine why it bothers you that Croatia was a Nazi satellite and Serbia was kept under military administration. In actuality, I know for a fact many of your countrymen are quite proud of that and would like to emphasize the distinction between the two. So far as I've seen, you're unique in trying to downplay it (what that may speak about you I shan't venture to speculate). And if for one moment you think I'm here trying to emphasize the "superior" status of the NDH, you'd better think again, as I actually share the opinions of those countrymen of yours, and consider it a disgrace upon our national history that some Croats in early 1941 gave their support to Nazi Germany and Hitler and went about slaughtering their countrymen.

• The simple fact of the matter is we can't merge the infoboxes on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Government of National Salvation and call them both "Serbia". Its just balderdash. We need at least two infoboxes if we're even going to come close to cutting down on the misleading and confusing nature of this article. Or none.
• Flag. Oh come on PANONIAN, that scanned thing is awful. The simple tricolour's been up there for ages. First show the sources indicating that was the flag of the Government of National Salvation, then if you're right we'll do a vector .SVG flag.
• Successor. The successor here is the state of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (DFY), and not one of its subdivisions. We usually list the actual country and not a subdivision up there (see the NDH, e.g.). Especially if you think Serbia was a separate country and not a subdivision (so you should actually be the one supporting this). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just no more infoboxes, please. Infoboxes must burn in hell. If you must, change this one, or even remove it, just don't add more. An infobox is meant to be a summary of important data about the article, not a price and classification tag. No such user (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in hell, yeah, and the one in the article right now the perfect example why. What I'm saying is if we're going to have any infoboxes at all, there have to be two, but I'm also fine with none. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I think NSU has a point. Either this one can be adjusted to contain the necessary information or it may be best not to have one at all. Infoboxes do seem to be a flash point for edit warring and treading on national sensibilities toes in this area. They are just supposed to be a quick guide to basic information from the article, that's all.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um yes, NSU has a point. The same one I made a bit earlier. Infoboxes stink, and I would not mind if this article had none. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any valid reason why infobox should be removed? I do not think that claim that "Infoboxes stink" is example of any reasonable argument. Usage of infoboxes is common practice in Wikipedia in articles about various countries and territories and therefore it should be used for WW2 Serbia too, which was something between country and territory. It is clearly irrelevant whether Serbia is country or territory. Infoboxes are used in articles about administrative units of much smaller importance, such are counties, districts and municipalities. If one municipality article have its own infobox, why this article should not have it? This is really not question was status of NDH "better" than status of Serbia. I hope that nobody here would deny that status of Serbia was "better" than status of Vukovar-Syrmia County (and article about this county do have its own infobox). Also, this is not question of what any of us would think about things of what one should be proud of. These things should be discussed in political forums, not in Wikipedia. The only things that we should be concerned of are facts, sources, Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia practices, so please DIREKTOR, can you present any Wikipedia guideline and practice that say that article about one territory should not have an infobox? Also, I do not understand your sentence where you claim that "we can't merge the infoboxes on the Military Administration in Serbia and the Government of National Salvation and call them both Serbia". Who say that we "merging these infoboxes" and that anybody "call these administrations with name Serbia"? This is article about territory and Serbia was name of the territory and there is no single source that using name Serbia either for Military Administration in Serbia or for the Government of National Salvation. Also, since this article was created, it was about territory and its infobox was infobox for territory and we do not "merging" anything here. It was you who tried to split that infobox into two infoboxes and to change its basic character. And there is nothing "confusing" about nature of this article. It is article about one WW2 territory and the only person that is confused by its nature is you (obviously, your confusion does not come from nature of this article but from your lack of understanding of relations between states/territories and their administrations/governments). As for flag, it was scaned from reliable source and it was official flag of Serbia. It is irrelevant what you think about aesthetical nature of this file. You say "it is awful"? So what? Are we making artistic gallery or encyclopaedia? If you find better version of this flag you can replace current one, but please do not replace it with modern flag of Serbia. And again: it was not the flag of the Government of National Salvation, but the flag of Serbia as it is clearly indicated in my source which is mentioned on the page of this flag in Wikimedia Commons. As for successor state, both, DFY and PRS were successors, but PRS would be certainly more important one due to many aspects. PANONIAN 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN would you please stop posting these massive, unwieldy posts. Your only objective here is essentially to mislead the reader as much as possible towards believing this was some Serbian "counterpart" equal in status to the Independent State of Croatia, and you have made this abundantly clear. It is highly misleading to take an occupied territory (called Serbia, granted) administered by a military command and depict it as some sort of country with its flag, coat of arms, and an assortment of leaders mixed together from all the two or three separate governments and authorities that existed therein. We can either depict these authorities properly, in their infoboxes, or we can have no infoboxes. But we can't have you take an infobox that used to represent the Government of National Salvation and expand it into this "Independent State of Serbia" infobox of yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR, my objective here is to stop you from destroying this article or from drastically altering its nature. Why would I misled readers towards any believing and what benefit I could have from that? And where exactly I wrote that Serbia had "status equal to status of the Independent State of Croatia"? In fact, status of Independent State of Croatia is not a subject of my interest and for me, this article is completely unrelated to the Independent State of Croatia. I mentioned Independent State of Croatia only as illustration of the fact that you do not performing anti-state/territory campaign against history of your own country, only against history of mine. Nevertheless, if you agreed that there was an administrative territory with name Serbia, why you do not agree that it have its own infobox? I will repeat that usage of infoboxes for articles about administrative territories are standard practice in Wikipedia. I fail to see how usage of infobox can imply that Serbia was independent country. We all agreed that Serbia was "administrative area", but an "administrative area" should also have an infobox according to standard practices of Wikipedia. Sure, if usage of infobox named "Infobox Former Country" is problematic, we can use some other infobox designed for non-sovereign administrative units. All in all, administrative territory with name Serbia existed and it had its flag, capital, population, etc. Note that every municipality in Serbia also have its flag and coat of arms and that flag and coat of arms, by all means, are not a symbols of statehood. Your agenda by which article should not contain anything that even distantly might look as "Serbian statehood" is clearly disruptive and tends to deprive this article from legitimate content such are infobox, flag, coat of arms and other relevant info that is mentioned in that infobox. So, let try to implement our agreement that Serbia was not country but "administrative area" and let compare content of this article with another article which clearly is not about an country - that article would be Zagreb County. It is clear that this other article have an infobox, which contains flag, name of administrator, name of administrative seat, etc - basically all things that are used in infobox for Serbia. So, do you want to say that infobox used in Zagreb County article is something that imply that Zagreb County is a country? I also do not see why Serbian and German political and military leaders that governed territory of Serbia cannot be mentioned in infobox about Serbia. If župan that govern Zagreb County is mentioned in that article, why these leaders that governed Serbia should not be mentioned here. Also, there is no reason for separate infoboxes for administrations because there is not much things that we could include into these infoboxes (as I already explained in my previous post). Also you are clearly wrong in your claim that current infobox was originally used to "represent the Government of National Salvation". Here is evidence that it was originally used to represent "Nedić's Serbia", which is obviously name for territory and not for the government: [21]. I do not see that name change from "Nedić's Serbia" to "Serbia under German occupation" changed anything in basic meaning of the subject of this article. Also further evidence that infobox used in this article in the time when it was named "Nedić's Serbia" was about territory and not about Serbian government is the fact that such infobox listed names of German commanders, which clearly were not part of Serbian government. PANONIAN 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to respond to this? In PowerPoint? If you seriously think I'm waging some kind of "territory/anti-state campaign" against your country then there's nothing I can say here that will make an impact. PANONIAN, this place was under military occupation - Serbia during WWII wasn't a "country" per se, it was a territory kept under military occupation. No other period of my country or your country's history compares! Counties are counties, countries are countries, but this was a military occupation.

Look, since you created all those separate articles, I move we place the infoboxes there and leave this article without one. As Nsu says, infoboxes are a terrible pain. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How are you supposed to respond to my post? That is your problem, not mine. If you want summary, here it is: I agreed that territory was under military occupation and that it was not real country, but, as we all agreed that it was "administrative area", I pointed out that usage of infoboxes for Wikipedia articles about non-independent territories or administrative subdivisions is a standard practice and that I do not see valid reason that such standard practice is not implemented here as well. In fact, this infobox was in the article for long time, and name change of the article did not changed the essence of the article and therefore there is no need for infobox removal. I also pointed out that government-related articles in Wikipedia do not have infoboxes and that therefore, there is no reason that we use these infoboxes in separate government articles. Also, I said that the only things that we can include into government infoboxes could be name of the government and names of government members because governments clearly did not had flags, predecessor states, population, currency, etc. They were only administrative bodies and nothing else. As for your emphasizing that territory was under military occupation, Bosnia and Iraq are under military occupation too, but their articles are containing infoboxes. In fact, your claim that article about some territory that was/is under military occupation should not have an infobox is ridiculous. Please show me which Wikipedia guideline and practice support your claim or show me some other Wikipedia article about similar subject where your idea is implemented. Why should we implement here something that is not implemented anywhere else in Wikipedia? Because user DIREKTOR says so? Either show concrete Wikipedia guidelines and examples which would support your ideas either we really do not have serious subject to talk about and we just wasting our time. PANONIAN 06:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we simplify this discussion;

• There is no policy reason why a territory should not have an infobox. The relevent template here is titled "country or territory". There are also templates for governemnt organisations of all stripes - indeed for most things.
• Panonian has stated clearly that he is not arguing that WWII Serbia is a "country". Clearly any suggestion in the infobox that this was some kind of independent state is contrary to the sources provided so far and is not going to find consensus.
• The current infobox describes "Serbia" as territory under Axis administration. That is in accordance with sources. Not so sure about"caretaker government" though. How about "puppet civil government under German military administration".
• The suggestion for no infobox is not because there is anything inherently wrong with an infobox for an occupied territory but because on controversial subjects they are very difficult to get right and are flashpoints for misunderstandings, irreconcilable disagreements and edit warring and therefore have the potential to be more trouble than they are worth. This is likely to be the case here for historical reasons and because the efforts by a collaborationist civil administration to turn a militarily occupied territory into an "independent" state like the NDH or KofMontenegro were unsuccessful.
• The advantage of not having one is not having to argue about it right now. The potential disadvantage of not having one is that other editors will probably keep trying to add one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Fainites, is the infobx is an attemot to present a territory as a country, never mind the concessions. Note the flag and coat-of-arms of the Government of National Salvation, being presented as the flag and coa of a "Serbia". And note for another example the government entry: "Caretaker (or puppet) government under Military Administration". The civil government was not under military administration - the whole damn territory was. And have a look at the "anthem": was it of the territory, or of the Government of National Salvation? I assure you, PANONIAN most certainly is trying his best to depict Serbia as a sort of country - its what he's beeen doing since day one of this issue for goodness' sake. This infobox of his simply can't stand.

And here's the "ploy" in short: PANONIAN is essentially once again separating the German Military Administration from the "territory" it administered, and de-emphasize the fact that this was the supreme governmental authority there. If we were to actually post an infobox for this territory, it would have a German flag, it would read as a "Territory under German Military administration", and would list its government as "Military Administration", or possibly "Military Administration with puppet government". But this is unacceptable to PANONIAN, as he is actually out to present the Nedić Government of National Salvation as a sort of "Serbia" to the best of his abilities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, please stop posting false assumptions about my intentions. Where is your evidence that I "attempt to present a territory as a country"? I ask for this territory nothing less than for Zagreb County, which obviously is not a country. Flag, coat of arms and anthem were indeed symbols of Serbia, no matter was Serbia a country or not. Please show evidence that flag, coat of arms and anthem are exclusive symbols of a country. If Zagreb County is not a country, why it have its own flag? And again: there is no single evidence that "supreme governmental authority" of any territory is same as territory itself. If there is evidence for this, please present us a source that can confirm your statement. Or you want to say that United States of America is same as Federal government of the United States? As for flag of Germany, do you have any evidence that such flag was used as a flag of Serbia from 1941 to 1944? We cannot accept your claim without evidences. And again: I am not trying to "present the Nedić Government of National Salvation as a sort of Serbia" because I am well aware of the difference between state/territory/county and its governing body. PANONIAN 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You always have been, and still are, trying to portray the Government of National Salvation as a country. And you are doing this (marginal concessions aside) by de-emphasizing the fact that the territory was under the control of the Military Administration.

• What sources can you provide that the flag of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the flag of the "territory under German Military Administration"?
• What sources do you have that the anthem of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the anthem of the "territory under German Military Administration"?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But what evidence do YOU have for any of YOUR assertions, DIREKTOR? You continually keep on making these absolute statements, such as "this was not a state" or "this was an occupied territory" but you don't have any evidence whatsoever to back these claims up, whereas others have. As you have been so keen to point out in the past, 'DIREKTOR', "not using reliable (primary and secondary) sources" is NOT how wikipedia works. Kindly provide eveidence for your claims or stop derailing this entire article. We want truth here, not POV.

On another note, what would be the point in this government using a flag that was the same as the pre-1918 serbian kingdom, as well as that state's coat of arms?

Lastly, it is very obvious, DIREKTOR, that you are somewhat confused as to the distinction between state and government: a state is the territory, yes, we often use the term 'the state' to refer unofficially to the government of the country, but the two are not synomynous. The government is person or persons governing said territory. Hence er, GOVERNmentJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, can you, as administrator, please notify DIREKTOR that he should not use these false interpretations of my intentions: [22] - is there any evidence that I am "trying to portray the Government of National Salvation as a country" or that I am "de-emphasizing the fact that the territory was under the control of the Military Administration"? I clearly stated that I agree with definition that Serbia was an administrative area under German military administration and I do not understand what further problem DIREKTOR have with that statement. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

JWULTRABLIZZARD, flag and coat of arms that I included into infobox were official flag and coat of arms of Serbia from 1941 to 1944 and they are not same as symbols of the former Kingdom of Serbia - symbols of the Kingdom of Serbia also had crown above the eagle, something that symbols of 1941-1944 Serbia did not had. Also, forms of the shields are not same in two groups of symbols. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, why you avoiding questions from my post? Can you answer why Zagreb County have its flag if it is not a country? Also, source from where I scaned flag and coat of arms (and which is listed on pages of these files) clearly stating that these were symbols of Serbia and not symbols of the government. Same source also confirms that "Oj, Srbijo mila mati" was anthem of Serbia. PANONIAN 13:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out with the Zagreb County nonsense, your "analogy" is about as flawed as is they get.

• What sources can you provide that the flag of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the flag of the "territory under German Military Administration"? You call it the "flag of Serbia", which is very interesting since it seems you consider flags adopted by the Government of National Salvation to be "flags of Serbia".
• What sources do you have that the anthem of the Government of National Salvation also happened to be the anthem of the "territory under German Military Administration"? Here also, the "anthem" Nedić's government adopted (as part of his bid to create his own Axis-recognized country), you very misleadingly call the "anthem of Serbia".

As I said, you're out to turn the Nedić Government of National Salvation into "Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? PANONIAN? We both agree "with the definition that Serbia was an administrative area under German military administration". The flag and anthem are both of the Nedić government, adopted by them and them alone. These were not the flag and anthem of the "administrative area under German military administration". Not a single "administrative area under German military administration" had a flag of its own. There are no conceivable verbal acrobatics by which you can claim otherwise.

You don't want to split the infoboxes? Fine. You want one infobox on the "territory"? Fine - then do it properly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you. I can wait until then. PANONIAN 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)