File talk:Serbia1941 1944.png

The map is false

The Banat was integral part of that time occupied Serbia. See for example Encyclopedia of the Holocaust 1990 edition, Page 1717

What exactly this page say? Banat was formally part of Serbia but was ruled by its local German minority. Regarding the map itself, you have some maps here that also show Banat as autonomous area within Serbia: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/211.gif PANONIAN 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This map is just a misinterpretation of a map that shows inner organization of the German military and civil administration in Belgrade in the period of 1941-44. Who ruled Banat that time is not a proof of its autonomy. Occupation and autonomy are mutually exclusive terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.49 (talk) 14:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

What word instead "autonomy" you proposing for usage? PANONIAN 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not place for such type of bargaining. You were supposed to use valid and verifiable references in order to support the idea behind this map. As you can see it from :

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York - London, 1990 entry Serbia, map of Serbia on page 1342

there is no clue that Banat has some distinct status inside that occupied territory. Also, I could give at least two more references demying your idea about Banat.--4.249.9.200 17:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your source do not mention that Banat had special status within Serbia in 1941-1944 only mean that your source do not contain entire info about that historical period. There are numerous sources that mention such special status of Banat and I listed some of them here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1941_1944.png#References Also, I changed description in map, which now describe Banat as "region with special status", which I believe is most accurate description. PANONIAN 12:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]