Jump to content

Talk:Case White

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Fourth Enemy Offensive)

Bias?

[edit]

Is this statement "The Germans, characteristically, quickly caught on," showing some pro-Nazi bias? Specifically, the word characteristically? Otherwise, I don't understand it. T-bonham (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD and edit it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2006

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. There was no GFDL history at the move target needing preservation. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was better known by the name Battle of Neretva. Also, the current name is German-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use the English title (and the English alphabet). Bubba ditto 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of move target

[edit]

Although the redirect currently at Battle of Neretva does have a non-trivial history, its entire contents at their high point as an article were The Battle of Neretva (1944) was a major battle between Tito's partisans and nazis during the Second World War. IMO the history of this stub does not need preserving, which makes the move a little easier. Andrewa 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chetnik participation in question

[edit]

There is very little evidence to support such a bold statement. The Axis had several Ustasa there as well as 3 Italian divisions but nowhere have I read that Chetniks were involved and aiding the Nazi's at least not those under Draza Mihailovic. I suggest we remove the reference. Again there is no real proof that Chetniks were even there. If there were Chetniks it was a very small amount and certainly one's who had left the main army and formed their own that differed from that of Draza's because as we all know Draza was completely against Nazi's and the Ustasa regime.

- What I've heard from talking to some partisans and also to a son of Ustasha, not only were Chetniks there, but Ustashas and partisans allied in that single battle to totally defeat Chetniks. 78.3.79.60 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jebem vam majku u pičku lažavu, obojici. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.205.62 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

[edit]

Shouldn't the proper name be "Battle of the Neretva", Neretva being a river and all? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why this article is titled 'Battle of the Neretva'. The most common usage in key texts on this operation refer to the subject matter of this article as 'The Fourth Offensive'(Roberts) or 'Operation Weiss'(Roberts, Milazzo & Tomasevich). Tomasevich makes it clear on pg 231 of Vol 1 that the Battle of the Neretva was the final phase of Operation Weiss. The terms are therefore not interchangeable. The Battle of Neretva is only a subset of Operation Weiss. I propose moving the article to 'Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive' so that it encompasses the entire operation and make it consistent with the other anti-Partisan Offensives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge

[edit]

I think that the downed bridge in this article is not he original one. I tthink that is is replica from the movie. -- Bojan  19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks participation

[edit]

If Chetnik units defected and joined the collaborationist forces (here, the Anti-Communist Volunteer Militia), could they still be considered as Chetniks, i.e. members of Mihajlovic's Yugoslav army in the fatherland ? De facto, this chetnik unit had imho become another organization. Remember that Chetnik is actually a generic term, meaning member of a military unit, and used to mean in that context armed guerrilla/militia. I am not actually convinced that the Chetniks could be considered a belligerent here, unless we buy completely into the titist version of history. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Titist"? What is "Titism" LoL... :) The Chetniks, and I mean Chetniks, are well known to have held the opposite bank of the Neretva (unsuccessfully). 20,000 of them in fact, mostly southern Serbian formations. Those are not to be confused with members of the Bande VAC which were on the other side of the river incorporated into Italian units (comprising mostly Dalmatian Serbs). Even if we disregard this, the Chetniks troops you're referring to were only nominally "Italian" and were, in fact, Chetniks beyond a shadow of a doubt. Name does not change substance. Italian forces, and indeed Mihailović, could hardly be seen openly dealing with each-other. It was a rather shallow disguise for Axis-aided Chetnik formations. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Titist means pro-Tito, or at least officially sponsored by yugoslav communists. Sorry if I used a word that doesn't exist in english (it does exist in other languages, though) ;) I see what you mean, but if Chetniks defected to Axis, could they still be considered Chetniks, in the sense of "members of Mihajlovic's forces" ? Remember that Mihajlovic himself was rehabilitated in the USA and that several political parties in Serbia support his rehabilitation, so this is a controversial issue (I'm not taking sides, just raising a methodological point). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Titism"? :) Sry, that's a rather artificial term coined by Italian "anti-Yugoslav" circles ("Titini", "Titisti" etc..). There's only "Titoism", which refers to the special form of liberal market socialist economy in Yugoslavia, it does not specifically mean personal "support for Tito" any more than "Marxism" refers to support for Karl Marx personally.
  • "If Chetniks defected to Axis, could they still be considered Chetniks, in the sense of 'members of Mihajlovic's forces' "?
"Defected"? By no means. These units were under Mihailović's indirect command, a part of the Chetnik movement before, after, and during the Battle. If I'm not mistaken, Mihailović was found guilty of high treason and executed in the post-war trials. Now there are critics of the process, but I'm not prepared to start revising post-war Allied tribunals and their fairness here (Yamashita?). There can be little doubt that, towards the end of the war, forces under direct Mihailović's command engaged the Partisans in conjuncture with Axis forces, at the time when the latter were the recognized Allied military of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (even by the King himself). Put simply, Mihailović's policy was that if the Axis wins, they're done for anyway (correct btw), and that if the Allies win, the Partisans present the greatest threat to Yugoslavia, i.e. the kind of monarchist, Serb-dominated Yugoslavia he wanted to establish (this turned out to be perfectly correct as well).
The Chetnik troops were simply incorporated into an Italian volunteer organization, that much is pretty obvious. Calling this "defection" is hardly accurate since they still considered themselves Chetniks, still answered to Mihailović, and still remained Chetniks after the disbandment of the Bande VAC. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually controversy about Mihajlovic's own guilt, although there are no doubt that some units of his guerrilla force later joined the Axis. While he was indeed found guilty of treason (by Tito's communist regime), he has been rehabilitated in the US for 20 years and several books and documentaries (not "deniers" of any kind) have vehemently defended his historical role, considering for example that he was the victim of a smear campaign by communist sympathizers, who were influential in making the Allies switching their support from the Chetniks to the Partisans. Remember that yugoslav history, post-1945, has been written under a communist regime (until 1990, that is) who was also friendly with the west, and could therefore see its version accepted there. So I have some doubts about this (yes, even about the "Allies"' was tribunals), not that I have a definitive opinion on the matter. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is controversy about the guilt of many defendants of post-war tribunals, and still more about the severity of their punishments. However, I am not about to start questioning the findings of these institutions here. If we're going to discuss this, I must affirm that the man must be guilty of high treason, at least by command responsibility. One may be able to convince me that he himself did not collaborate or officially condone collaboration, but I don't think it is possible to convince any objective person that he remained blissfully oblivious to the years of very widespread collaboration (almost universal at the end of the war) of his, ever-decreasing troops.
"Communist sympathizers"? Ultra was communist? Fitzroy MacLean a "communist sympathizer"? Churchill was hardly to be swayed by anything short of hard cold facts. Which were: Chetniks - barely fighting, not fighting, or collaborating against the Partisans. Partisans (a three times larger military force) - drawing literally hundreds of thousands of Axis troops away from the Eastern, Southern, and (later) the Western fronts. Not to mention fighting bitterly against the occupying forces at all times... What's there to embellish?
"Tito's communist regime"? How unbiased of you :), you must mean the FPR Yugoslavia? The legal system in the second Yugoslavia was incomparably more professional and unbiased than the one in the open dictatorship that was the (capitalist) authoritarian Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In fact, its quality (probably) surpasses even the modern legal systems in most successor states of Yugoslavia (with the exception of Slovenia). (I can vouch that the court system in modern Croatia, for example, is a complete joke :) The second Yugoslavia is not to be compared to Stalin's USSR, but the phrase "communist regime", accomplishes that brilliantly :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that Tito's regime was communist (i.e. : dominated by the People's Front) is hardly debatable, even though I am well aware that it was the most west-friendly (and less totalitarian) communist country in Europe (take note : I know that communist does not equal stalinist ;) ) and would never dream of comparing it with, say, the Socialist People's Republic of Albania. Hence, the fact that the West would accept its version of history, or some counterfeited documents. It can be argued that Mihailovic was less effective than Tito as a political and (at least in a guerrilla context) military leader. The matter of his own guilt is, however, strongly debated now. He was certainly aware that his troops were disintegrating/defecting to the partisans/defecting to the Axis, but was he happy about it ? Did he approve it ? That's the whole point. IMHO, we should be extra careful about not swallowing any communist/pro-Tito/pro-Stalin/name it as you choose propaganda. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised again by a deletion by User:Knightserbia of material sourced from Tomasevich Vol 1 which incorporates information that the Partisans apparently captured from the Chetniks and which was produced at DM's trial. However, p115 of Milazzo clearly states that the Italians and Germans had intercepted Chetnik radio transmissions by this time, and Milazzo provides the reference (Italian military records). I will edit this section to reincorporate the detail of Chetnik involvement in Fall Weiss and add additional references including Milazzo and the source being radio intercepts. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2012

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, although there's apparent consensus not to move this article to the new title, no clear alternative supported by all can be deduced from the discussion. Once a specific alternative is agreed upon, propose it in a new RM Mike Cline (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Battle of the Neretva → Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive – Relisted. Favonian (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The rationale for this proposed page name change is as follows:[reply]

  • WP:TITLE states that the article title should resemble titles for similar articles. Of the seven articles on the seven anti-Partisan Offensives on WP, five are titled "X anti-Partisan Offensive", where X is the numerical adjective. The remaining two are this article and the article titled "Battle of the Sutjeska" (the Fifth anti-Partisan Offensive). WP:TITLE also states that the title should precisely identify the subject. The current title does not do this, as it refers to one major engagement that occurred within one of the two phases of the overall Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive. The proposed title is of a similar length to the current title, is natural, and is recognisable due to the well-known separation of the Axis offensives in Yugoslavia into seven and the use of the term "Partisan" with initial capital, which is recognisably associated with the Yugoslav Partisans rather than other partisan forces in Europe during WW2.
  • WP:NCE states that if there is an established, universally agreed-upon name for the event, use that name, otherwise use two descriptors, where was it and what happened. There is no universally agreed-upon name for the events covered by this article, reliable sources commonly using the terms Offensive I-VII with the German codename (Weiss) in parentheses (Roberts (1973)), the German codename (Operation Weiss)(Milazzo (1975)), or The Battle of the Neretva River and its Aftermath (Tomasevich (1975)). However, in the case of Tomasevich, he notes that "the Battle of the Neretva River... was the final phase of Operation Weiss or, in Yugoslav terminology, the Fourth Enemy Offensive." (p.231). I consider that the title "Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive" is more precise than the "Fourth Enemy Offensive" because the latter could have occurred anywhere, whereas an "anti-Partisan" offensive links the article title to Yugoslavia in WW2 as well as indicating what happened.
  • Whilst WP:MILMOS#NAME states we should preferably use a geographical term, this offensive covered a large area of central and south-eastern Bosnia, and whilst the Neretva River featured in a key battle, several significant engagements occurred along the Rama River and elsewhere.
  • WP:MILMOS#CODENAME states that operational codenames generally make poor titles and only represent one sides planning. For this reason, Operation Weiss is not appropriate.

It is therefore requested that this page be moved to "Fourth anti-Partisan Offensive" Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – the capitalization in the proposed title and others like it is odd. A book search shows "anti-partisan offensive" is not generally capitalized (except in wiki-mirroring books). Can you amend the RM to get the case right? Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just mirrored the capitalisation of the other articles, however, the use of the initial capital for the Yugoslav Partisans (as distinct from other partisans) is pretty much universal and assists in making the title specific. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The capital "P" is of course standard in referring to "the Partisans", that is to say a movement called "Partisans". The capitalization is, of course, based on the sources.
There is, however, one objection I must voice to the proposed title. The actual name is "Fourth Enemy Offensive", as opposed to "anti-Partisan", translated from the Serbo-Croatian "Cetvrta neprijateljska ofenziva". To my knowledge, the term "anti-Partisan offensive" is an entirely Wikipedia-invented term. I propose the seven numbered "anti-Partisan" offensives be renamed into "Enemy Offensives". -- Director (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – on several grounds; the capitalization of Partisan is not in the majority, not even in the phrase "the Yugoslav partisans", in books. Second, we seem to be inventing battle names and treating them as proper names. The present title seems like a legitimate proper name for this offensive, but the proposed name is nowhere to be found in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The capitalization of the Partisan movement is an issue of English grammar not of sources usage. That is to say, that was their actual name, even when they did not engage in partisan warfare (late 1944-45). The actual short name of the movement was "(the) Partisans" (Partizani), the full name was "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia". I am not sure whether your test is sensitive enough to disambiguate between the use of the word "partisans" in a Yugoslav context (as referring to any "members of detached light troops making forays and harassing the enemy") and the "Partisans" (as referring to this one specific WWII movement). Another thing one must be aware of in such considerations is that the name "Yugoslav Partisans" (Jugoslavenski Partizani) was never used by them and is not used in sources either, but rather simply "Partisans" or the "Partisan movement" (without "Yugoslav"). And, besides, virtually every source we have, where we are sure what the term refers to, uses the capitalized form when discussing the WWII resistance movement.
    • It is not accurate to equate the Battle of the Neretva river with the Fourth Enemy Offensive. The Battle of the Neretva river is simply the final phase of the wider operation. An article that deals with the entire operation must be named to reflect the actual subject.
    • As I said, the term "Fourth Anti-Partisan Offensive" is not used in sources to my knowledge [1]. That term is an unfortunate Wikipedia modification probably instituted as some sort of ancient, misguided compromise. The actual name for the offensive is "Fourth Enemy Offensive", a term that is indeed used in sources [2]. I propose that the requested move be modified to "Fourth Enemy Offensive". -- Director (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly object to this RfM being disregarded by you, Director. The article now reflects Yugoslav parlance only. There is no consensus here yet you have moved all seven articles. We might as well use the German codenames. How about addressing my policy points above? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize if I was too WP:BOLD, I would appreciate it if you did not hold it against me. I do not think, however, that I had disregarded this RfM in some way: I pointed out that the proposed title, while somewhat descriptive, is not used by sources at all and as such is not really in accordance with policy. To be frank I did not want to simply flat out "Oppose" and I was hoping to reach an agreement with you. What I hypothetically would have liked is an informal pre-RfM discussion preceding an actual proposal.
Yes I think that the only two real options are the Yugoslav terms vs. German code names (where such exist), but as you point out WP:MILMOS#CODENAME discourages the latter. Another option might be to simply use "Fourth Offensive" without either "Enemy" or "anti-Partisan", as that is also a formulation that is used in sources (though I fear it is only the short term for "Fourth Enemy Offensive").
To address your points more directly, 1) While WP:NAME does require the title to be descriptive etc., the primary requirement is that it be sourced. Or to be more precise, a title used in sources cannot supersede one we think of ourselves because it is more descriptive. If the Wikipedia-invented title is present on many articles, with other scholarly terms in existence alongside it, then that seems merely to indicate the gravity of the irregularity, rather than an argument to further it. 2) WP:NCE clearly advises us to determine whether an established, universally agreed-upon common name exists before we start to put together names ourselves. 3) I agree that WP:MILMOS#CODENAME discourages the use of codenames and may apply in this instance. -- Director (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Modification. In that case, taking User:Dicklyon's issues to start with, I believe the issue of the initial capitalisation is eliminated through User:Director's observation that this title is not sourced. ie we eliminate anti-Partisan from the title. The second issue is the suggestion that the Battle of the Neretva is sufficiently descriptive. As User:Director has pointed out, and as I originally observed, the subject of this article is wider than just the said battle, and in order to be properly descriptive it needs to reflect the whole offensive. In response to User:Director's suggestion of a choice between Fourth Enemy Offensive (the Partisan name for it), Operation Weiss (the German codename) and the Fourth Offensive, I believe we have two choices that inherently reflect one sides perspective, and the only sourced AND neutral title would be the one used by one of our key texts (Roberts), which is Offensives I-VII. To address the concerns expressed above, and in the interests of clarity and naturalness, I modify my proposal, and suggest that this article, and the other six (five of which User:Director has since moved to 'X Enemy Offensive', be moved to 'X offensive'. A search indicates that the only ambiguity for this title would be the 'Fourth strategic offensive', which redirects to Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive. Could a hatnote be used to deal with this? Any comments on the modified proposal?
    • I think we would first need to determine whether Roman numerals are indeed the more common form of numbering these offensives. The point is not to adhere to one particular source, but to try and determine some kind of most common practice among published sources. The other problem I see with the proposal is that "X offensive" is in essence a short form of "X enemy offensive" and hence should probably be present in full. Either way some Google testing is necessary to 1) verify which form of numbering is most common, and 2) whether "X Enemy Offensive" is perhaps more common than "X Offensive". Nevertheless, I personally would not oppose a title along the lines of "First Offensive", "Fourth Offensive" etc. However, I think there might be some Wikipedia naming guideline or other that might prohibit such a broad title, I mean "First Enemy Offensive" is pretty general, but "First Offensive".. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not at all sure that x offensive is short for x enemy offensive, in Roberts (which is the source we are talking about) at least. It isn't clear why he uses that formulation. We could speculate that he really means x enemy offensive, or we could speculate that he really meant to use a neutral term so that he was not using a term that was purely one sides perspective. As far as the use of Roman numerals are concerned, the index is the place that Roberts uses the term Operations I-VII, so it appears to have been done to make it fit alphabetically into the index. Essentially, fourth enemy offensive is a Partisan name for a military operation they defended against, and could reasonably be equated with the German name, Operation Weiss. I had a good look at the naming policies, and I couldn't see anything that would preclude x offensive. The other point is that neither x enemy offensive or x offensive as titles even tell you where it happened. WP:MILMOS#NAME indicates a preference for a geographical name, and by dropping anti-Partisan, we have lost any sense of where the offensives happened. It may be that either would need to add (Yugoslavia) after the name to achieve this. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are, in essence, two names for these operations: German (Axis) and Yugoslav (Allied). Whichever one we use we will be favoring one side over the other. I am Yugoslav, of course, but I believe the Yugoslav names are objectively the better choice because 1) codenames are discouraged by policy, 2) the Yugoslav variants appear to be generally more common, 3) because the Germans did not have codenames for all these operations and the Yugoslav numbering system is a good way to organize them all.
        • Regarding the "[number] Offensive" format. It is important to note that the Yugoslav numbering system for the seven larger operations is entirely arbitrary. That is to say, there were a lot more operations, some quite large in scope and easily comparable to the seven numbered ones (Battle of Kozara, for example), the Sixth Enemy Offensive, for another example, was actually three offensives etc. My point here is that, apart from adhering to the Yugoslav name system, there is no objective reason to particularly use precisely the Yugoslav numbers. If a source is numbering the offensives, and is using exactly the Yugoslav numbers, he's essentially adhering to the Yugoslav naming system and is using the "[number] Offensive" format as a short version of "[number] Enemy Offensive". As you say, Roberts probably finds the shorter formulation more neutral. Mind you, he probably got it from Yugoslav sources as well, who also refer to these offensives as "[number] Offensive" very frequently (its a shorter, perhaps more "neutral" version of the full name).
        • When all is said and done, however, I would not oppose you renaming these offensives to the "[number] Offensive" format as you suggest. However, I see no particular reason for us to prefer Roman numerals. I would strongly suggest simply removing the word "Enemy" from their titles. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Informal move discussion

[edit]

Imo Peacemaker, you can probably rename (move) these offensives to "First Offensive", "Second Offensive", etc. if you agree to that format. For my part, I am mostly indifferent whether we use "Fourth Offensive", "Fourth Enemy Offensive", or "Fall Weiss (1943)". I do prefer "Fourth Enemy Offensive", however, the other two are tied for second place in my book.

As far as the German codenames are concerned, there are a few practical problems. 1) The major problem in implementing them on all seven offensives is that the Second Enemy Offensive possibly did not have a codename (did it?). I don't know how to cover that conflict other than with the Yugoslav term. 2) The Sixth Enemy Offensive, which technically consists of three codenamed operations, can probably be covered under the name Operation Schneesturm. Operation Kugelblitz, which preceded Operation Schneesturm and is considered part of the Sixth Enemy Offensive, was something of a prelude to the main effort during Schneesturm and can be covered appropriately as a section of the Operation Schneesturm article. In other words Operation Schneesturm was the "Sixth Enemy Offensive proper". Operation Herbstgewitter, which is also considered part of the Sixth Enemy Offensive, was a comparatively very small operation, and was distant from the other two - it could similarly be covered as a section of the Operation Schneesturm article.

The First Enemy Offensive was codenamed Operation Uzice (with "Užice" misspelled), but that conflict can imo accurately and appropriately be appropriately covered as the "Užice Uprising" (or "Užice Rebellion") article, which would also include the preceding uprising as well as Operation Uzice/First Enemy Offensive which brought it down. So we would have:

-- Director (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just wondering what you think about geographically disambiguating 'xth offensive' with (Yugoslavia) after it. And btw, both Fall and Unternehmen translate to 'operation' in English in a military context. It is also interesting that Operation Maibaum, one of the largest ant-Partisan ops of the war, isn't included in the seven... Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my belated response. Unless disambiguation is really necessary, I don't think we should include it into the title. We can probably include "First Offensive redirects here. For [this] or [that] see [there]." to the top if necessary.
As regards "Fall" and "Unternehmen", in my experience Wikipedia allows the use of "Fall", but "Unternehmen" is translated into "operation". Why? I don't know. I think someone said "Fall" is like "Reich", a German word that should not be translated since it does not translate well. I think it means "case", doesn't it? -- Director (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fall" literally translates to "Case/Instance/Event etc", but is often rendered as "Case" in a military context (a la invasion of Poland). The Germans had a weird thing about naming of military operations differently depending on their size until they joined NATO. However, that is a side issue, as when we look at relevant sources, for example Milazzo, Roberts and Tomasevich, they all render it as "Operation". I don't think the idea that is it like "Reich" is sustainable on the basis that three major scholars on Yugoslavia in WW2 all render it as "Operation". I'm starting to think that both the "Yugoslav Front" and "Seven ... Offensives" constructs are artificial/POV and fail to communicate the whole picture. Once this thought bubble coalesces into proper alternatives within the policy framework I'll raise them on the relevant talk pages. In the meantime, I think "Operation Weiss (1943)" is the most accurate and unambiguous title for this article. Your thoughts? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think.. :( On the one hand Fall Weiss is more accurate and unambiguous, as you say, but on the other hand its discouraged by policy as a codename and its very... German.
I do know, however, that I am decidedly more in favor of not translating "Fall". It just isn't done on Wiki [3]. This isn't the only "Fall", as you know, and whenever I encounter them they're rendered in that form [4], and when it is translated its given as "case". If we're going to go with the German codename, I'm for Fall Weiss. We have to be consistent. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not agree. The usage in the Battle of France article is not the article title but section titles. Whether it is used regarding the invasion of Poland is relevant to that article. This is an article about an Axis offensive in Yugoslavia, and we need to look at what term reliable sources on this topic use, don't we? Earlier in the formal part of this discussion we had you indicated we should regard 'sources' as the key issue, now it's 'consistency'. What is it? To the three key sources already mentioned, Ramet also uses 'Operation Weiss'. So do Kroener et al in their translated and enormous history of Germany in WW2, also Banac, Lampe, Dedijer, Redzic, Pavlowitch, Djilas, MacLean.... Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Terms in use with sources always trump Wikipedia. Like I said, though, I'm curious as to why "operation" is never used on Wikipedia to translate "Fall" (and when it is translated its translated as "case"). German is kind of "special", and there are words we usually don't translate on Wiki, I'll ask around regarding "Fall". As things stand now, however, you're absolutely right. -- Director (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker I moved the title in good faith over to "Fourth Enemy Offensive" pending consensus, since we agreed that "Battle of the Neretva" isn't appropriate (being just a part of the operation), and this at least is one of the titles under consideration. Feel free to move it back, no hard feelings. -- Director (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no prob. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Case White (1943)

[edit]

Following agreement here (Talk:Battle_of_Kozara), I am moving this article to 'Case White (1943)' per the German name with disambiguation from the Invasion of Poland article. Please read the discussion for reasoning. The scope of the article will not change. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just move to "Case White". We can then use the {{Redirect}} template to disambiguate and get rid of the special disambig page. -- Director (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Case White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Neretva

[edit]

Since this information is from RS it is very valuable information. Few people in the world know that information and it is tied to the battle itself. Mikola22 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not relevant and unbalanced. In the middle of the description of the fighting, you suddenly insert data on ethnic composition of only one brigade of three dozen ([5]). And why not social? How many workers were there and how many peasants? Not all information from RS is appropriate. This information could be appropriate, for example, in the Order of Battle section, along with data on other brigades.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an attempt to make a point about the makeup of the Partisans which isn't relevant to this article. Just drop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Is this topic the primary meaning of "Case White"? I think the Polish operation is more well known by this name. Srnec (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is. Case White isn't even listed as a bolded alternative in the lead of the Invasion of Poland article, and Forczyk's Osprey book title is the only real mention of it in the body and refs. However, other than the Yugoslav-centric "Fourth Enemy Offensive", there is no other real common name for this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I search GScholar of GBooks for "Case White" + "World War", I get many more Polish results than Yugoslav. The invasion of Poland, obviously, was a much bigger deal and I think it shows up more regardless of how often Case White is used to refer to it relative to other terms (like 'invasion of Poland'). Srnec (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Case_White&oldid=1206565098"