Talk:Government of National Salvation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Policy basis for move of article[edit]

Not sure on what policy basis this article was moved. My understanding was that this term was commonly used in sources to refer to Nedic's government (a Google Books search for "Government of National Salvation" brings up hits on several WP:RS. In fact one of those sources gives it as the official name as well. See Haynes and Rady [[1]], although Ivo Tasevac took the view that the phrase was used by apologists for the Nedic regime [[2]], and this should be taken into account in the article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Nedić's Serbia" is also commonly used as a term for Serbia during World War II, but we don't use that title anymore either. The official title of this body was the Council of Ministers, sometimes referred to in the literature as a government of national salvation but not officially known as such. You've been arguing with User:PANONIAN about the Serbia article title for quite some time. If we want an official name, this is it. Government of National Salvation is simply the term used in the appeal by the Serbian academics and clerics, never officially used at all, and quite clearly apologist to a fascist regime.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I've found an article which appears to confirm that the name was officially used on occasion. My objections are withdrawn.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambig brackets[edit]

The disambig brackets should read "(Yugoslavia)" or "(occupied Yugoslavia)" rather than "(Serbia)", as the current format suggests there was a country called "Serbia" at the time wherein this government was located. There is no need to risk any confusion in the title. Other options would be "(puppet government)" or perhaps simply "(World War II)"? -- Director (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I amended the disambiguation brackets. Though mind you, as far as I'm concerned a whole host of other methods of disambiguation are fine with me. There were apparently only two such governments, so we can use just about anything. My favorites are "(occupied Yugoslavia)" and "(World War II)". -- Director (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Turns out that the more accurate title for the "Government of National Salvation (Albania)" article is "Government of National Reconciliation", it looks like both articles are in luck and may not need disambiguation at all. However, its not possible to simply move the article to "Government of National Salvation" over the disambiguation page without admin assistance, so we need to request a move. In order for it to be carried out, it would be good if we had everyone's consent so that nobody over there thinks I'm trying to pull something off. Do you agree to move to a title without disambiguation brackets (simply "Government of National Salvation")? -- Director (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing. I support the move to the undisambiguated version. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox former country[edit]

DIREKTOR, please provide source that says that this government was a country. PANONIAN 09:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

shouldn't it stay as 'infobox government agency'? It was an agency of the military government, so I don't see the problem. No other infobox seems appropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
PANONIAN, infoboxes are not used exactly according to what their name is. The name of the infobox itself is absolutely irrelevant. It is its usage that matters. The {{Infobox government agency}} template you added is for something completely different than this. COMPLETELY.
@Peacemaker. Nope, this isn't an agency of a government, this is a real, honest-to-goodness puppet government (however impotent). The {{Infobox government agency}} template is for government agencies. There isn't a single article about any government whatsoever that uses that template. At all. The two articles like this one are Quisling regime and Hellenic State (1941–1944), the two other puppet governments established within occupation zones. While they did not actually have the status of a country (i.e. "puppet state"), and were completely and openly controlled by the occupation authorities, they did sport the trappings of a "country". The confusion this can cause is pretty significant, and is mostly to blame for the whole mess back at the article (e.g. PANONIAN, who still thinks there was a country there).
Anyway, there really ought to be either an {{Infobox former country}} or {{Infobox former subdivision}} template in there, as is the case in similar articles. The reason why PANONIAN insists on {{Infobox government agency}} is because he is pushing the POV that this was a government of a fantasy country called "Serbia" (Territory of the German Military Commander). And since I've personally had quite enough of that, I strongly believe it necessary that this article be renamed to a title that does not suggest it was part of some puppet state called "Serbia", and it be granted an infobox equal to that of other puppet governments of its type. Not something that was part of the machinery of some country called "(Serbia)", which is the author's intent. -- Director (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposing compromise[edit]

Perhaps we can create new infobox named "puppet regime or government", which would be used in all similar articles? The basic problem here seems the fact that we do not have appropriate infoboxes for all subjects. PANONIAN 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

But "régime" is simply French for "government"? I think the former country infobox is perfectly fine, though I would agree to infobox former subdivision. The article is called "Government of National Salvation", it says the same at the top of the infobox and the lead says "this was a government" pretty clearly as well. I don't think anyone could possibly say "oh look I've clicked 'Edit' and now when I scroll down I can see this infobox template is called 'former country infobox', so that must mean this was a country.." etc. What I mean is I don't see any room for a misapprehension. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, after reading all the relevant guidelines, I am now happy with the former country infobox here. I am firmly opposed to creating a new infobox when an existing one will do the job. In fact, such custom infoboxes are discouraged in the guidelines. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Name in Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Since "national" can be translated as both "narodno" and "nacionalno" in Serbo-Croatian, what exactly was the accurate translation? "Vlada Narodnog Spasa" or "Vlada Nacionalnog Spasa"? The article on srWiki uses one version in the title and the other in the lead.

"Narodno" seems to be the proper term [3]. -- Director (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
If you mean "Narodnog", I agree. It is the one used in WP:RS already used in this article as per your link. Not sure where the "Nacionalnog" came from. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. "Narodnog" is the same word. -- Director (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia)Government of National Salvation

  • Redundant disambig page -- Director (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, why was this posted here, AA? I feel confident noone will oppose removing unnecessary brackets. -- Director (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Supported. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
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.


Why is here infobox former country? This is not country, but government? --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, I think I speak for everyone when I say people here at this point have little patience for repetition. Read the discussion. Do not make people explain it to you. -- Director (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I did. I see not problem to use Template:Infobox government cabinet, as we should, instead of that one. It is only technical question. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you did not. Had you done so, you'd understand that this wasn't a cabinet of a country (which is PANONIAN's POV that you are repeating), but was a puppet regime. A "quasi-country" like the Quisling regime and the Hellenic State. It was simply called "Government of National Salvation". It had a partial state apparatus, in order to do the day-to-day business of administering the territory for the Germans, but it did not have the status of a country. So it wasn't a country, and its not just a cabinet (of a country). Its easier and more accurate to cover it in a manner similar to a country, rather than a cabinet of a country. -- Director (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ooooo, that is your POV. Well, i understand it now, you should say that before, in that way, and not to attack me and accuse me without arguments. OK, i get it. So, dont you think that puppet regime did have country to lead, at least de jure? Therefor, that was my reason to ask question? Without that remains of Serbia, there was no reason for this regime to exist. Also, i still think that it is more detailed when we say territory, as "Administrative divisions of the Government of National Salvation" means that Government of National Salvation had its own Administrative division inside. It may be better to say "Administrative divisions by the Government of National Salvation". That is far more precise, dont you think so? --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
WW, de jure means 'at law', ie legally. I think you mean de facto? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No, i mean de jure. They didnt have de facto, as that territory was de fact german. But de jure was under that puppet government. Peacemaker, tell me why is here country infobox in the article about government, please? I can understand that State of Burma have this infobox, but why this article? It is about government, not state. And i dont give a damn about existence or nonexistence of state here, this should have government infobox, either way. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there is much too much emphasis on which infobox is being used, and not enough on content of the article. But to address your point about de jure, under what law was this government the government of a country? So far as I can see, all we have seen on this is WP:OR. ie 'it must have been', no sources. BTW, what template are you suggesting should be used? Could you link it here? Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
but to address your infobox query more fully, the cabinet one assumes all sorts of things that are not relevant here, and the other major problem is that there were several GNS, with significant changes in personnel. You are not suggesting there should be an article for each one? Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The one that is by far closer to this subject. Template:Infobox government cabinet, as this one have default categories that are wrong, wrong , wrong. And government cabinet is also often used for governments in general... And if not, we should create new infobox, that can be used in other articles also. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The categories are indeed inappropriate and will be removed (if they had not been already). Infoboxes will not be duplicated just so they can have a name that pleases you. PANONIAN's Template:Infobox government cabinet is completely inappropriate for this: contrary to PANONIAN's beliefs, it is not used for governments, but only very rarely to list all the members of a cabinet. PANONIAN only introduced it here as part of his extensive POV-pushing campaign, since, in his mind, its in-line with his "theory" that there was a country here and that this was just its government. Of course, not only isn't there any country, but government articles don't use Template:Infobox government cabinet. Articles on governments use no inofobox at all.
This is why I think you're just here mirroring PANONIAN's views. You even share misconceptions (like the one above) that I find hard to believe could have been formed separately. Template:Infobox government cabinet is just out of the question entirely. It isn't used by government articles, or by articles like this one (Quisling regime and Hellenic State (1941-1944)).
I'll just add that this is all I have to say on the issue. I will not repeat the same discussions with you, WhiteWriter, that I had with PANONIAN. -- Director (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, i will also add. If you have problem with discussion, step up, and leave this page. I was not talking to you anyway, so i care about your thought about my similarities with user:PANONIAN. I want this page to be better, and therefor, i dont want to listen (read) pointless insinuations or hatred from you. Can you imagine, we proposed the same infobox? How strange. That may be because that infobox is obviously better for this page than you pushed pov. I will talk with you in the future only if you speak normally and peacefully. All of us will agree on something, or we will delete this infobox, and fix the problem. Peacemaker67, i would love to hear your respond to my question. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WW, I consider infobox government cabinet completely inappropriate for pretty much the same reasons as Director. I suggest you have a look at the discussion on WT:MILHIST, and consider taking your concerns about the infobox to WT:INFOBOX to see if anyone there is willing to do the work. I do not consider the infobox to be a major problem, as it meets our needs despite its title, and am more concerned with the content of this article and Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


I've moved the main administrative map out of the table as it really didn't belong there. WP:TABLES explicitly mentions not putting images in tables, and not using tables to format a page. I also reverted the map to the non-infobox version as this style is inappropriate for use in the main text. However, I am now wondering if the background is too dark. The map colour set I use is one established by Bartholemew for their maps, but I think the grey (for non-important areas) is not the correct one. I will check later and modify the map accordingly if needed. XrysD (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Director, I really think the counties and districts map is far too busy and cluttered. I see no need for that level of detail in this article. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I thought, since the disctricts map contains everything the other one does, it makes sense just to use one of them and not clutter the article up with repeat info. Its really rather unnecessary. Its busy, just like many infobox maps [4], but that's fine - because the reader can enlarge it by clicking on it. -- Director (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, I think any map should provide an appropriate level of detail, and should complement the text. Having to click on and enlarge it takes away from its illustrative value. I think the districts are completely unnecessary, as the article doesn't even deal with them, and the map is way too busy to be useful. I suggest we retain the county one only, and discard the district one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't think we should have two maps that show exactly the same things. -- Director (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree, we should get rid of the district one. It is superfluous. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hm. I can't say that would be good for the article. The district map contains all the information the counties map has - and more. Its really an excellent piece of work. -- Director (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your compliments about the map DIREKTOR. I think I may have a solution. The map that was originally in the infobox File:SerbianGovernmentOfNationalSalvationCivilAdminMap.png was much less cluttered, but it doesn't show the full admin structure like the current one. But it did look a bit odd having both maps on the same article. So I propose a separate page on the administrative districts (that can have the more detailed map) and that the original simple infobox version map is restored. XrysD (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


We should, I think we all agree, stay consistent in our editing. Serbo-Croatian is not accepted here by editors as one language- therefore it shouldn't be here either. Unless we change other articles such as Croatia Kosovo etc., also. Agreed? Ottomanist (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are here WP:STALKING my edits, and that will be reported as well. It is completely irrelevant whether editors "accept Serbo-Croatian" as a language, as sources clearly, unanimously, and unambiguously state that Serbo-Croatian exists as a pluricentric language and that Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian are the names of its four its standards. -- Director (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Relax. Isn't that the point, though? Serbo-Croation is not ONE language; it isn't accepted in other places, why make an exemption here? p.s. I couldn't care less about your edits, I'm only interested in making sure that editors are consistent with their principles. Ottomanist (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You're clearly WP:STALKING me in retaliation for my closing the Talk:Kosovo thread - and you're telling me to "relax"? Governments can proclaim whatever they want, and call their standards whichever name they choose - but it is the sources that we are concerned with on this project:

"The official language of Serbia is Serbian (Serbo-Croatian). [...] The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnical grounds. [...] the language that used to be officially called Serbo-Croat has gotten several new ethnically and politically based names. Thus, the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2 ed., 2006.)

"The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnic grounds. [...] the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." (Brown 2006, p. 294.)

"Because of their mutual intelligibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian." (Fortson p.431)

That's just a sample, of course, you will find many more sources on the Serbo-Croatian article, and are free to inquire with knowledgeable Wikipedians on Talk:Serbo-Croatian. As the Croatian language and Serbian language articles state (with many sources listed in support): they are "a form of the Serbo-Croatian language". The entire Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin nations can cry out in one voice "THERE IS NO SERBO-CROATIAN!" - it would not matter one bit. -- Director (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it is also called BSC- you might want to add that to the intro. Ottomanist (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not the point that you were making, you just shifted your argument. And its wrong again. Serbo-Croatian is the WP:COMMONNAME. While I don't mind the name, "BCS" is barely used at all. -- Director (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Nemambrata[edit]

I have restored previous content over most of the recent edits of User:Nemambrata. The edits that I have corrected include

  • edits in the infobox, which removed the continent and region in which this government operated, to the extent that a template error message appeared, and a WP:EASTEREGG link to a redirect rather than to the appropriate page, which also incorrectly pointed to an appointment by the military administration, when the appointment was made by Danckelmann, the Military Commander in Serbia
  • Nedic was in fact a General during the war, he was serving at the time of the invasion, and was legally a prisoner of war, initially under house arrest then effectively on parole during his time as leader of the government. In fact the Germans threatened to send him to a POW camp in Germany at one point. Numerous sources refer to him as General Milan Nedic in his role as leader of the government.
  • The issue of the official name. Just to reiterate, Hehn says the official name was the 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', Pavlowitch says the official name was 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia'. Deroc also uses the title 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia', as do Bond and Roy. Verbatim, to refer to that territory. I don't think it is necessary to add Bond & Roy and Deroc, or UK Naval Intelligence Division or Kerner with the German version, but I will if this continues, the constant removal of Pavlowitch 2002 and neverending claims that there is only one source for the name in this and other relevant articles are classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and need to stop.
  • I have added the description of the Yugoslav authorities as communist, which restores one of the edits made by User:Nemambrata.

User:Nemambrata has been warned, asked nicely, reported twice as an WP:SPA and once for editwarring and yet continues to edit disruptively, edit war, and fail to respect sources, both here and at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. User:Nemambrata is continuing to behave inappropriately (such as the edit summary, 'no source to support this stupidity'). I will escalate my reports of this poor behaviour to the appropriate fora if it continues. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, you must stop to track and revert my changes. You do not own pages in Wikipedia and do not behave like you do. Also, you must stop to include wrong info in pages. Reasons for my changes:

Current infobox place this page into categories ”Former countries in the Balkans”, “States and territories established in 1941” and “States and territories disestablished in 1944”. This is wrong because this was not country, state or territory but only government. Because of that parts of infobox that automatically place this page into 3 categories must be changed. That is why infobox should not have lines continent, region, year start and year end. Info about start and end year should be in other part of infobox.

Government was installed by “Military Administration in Serbia”, not by “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia”, so Peacemaker do you try to say that “Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia” was governing body?

There was no Serbo-Croatian language in that time and this page have nothing to do with Croatia or Croats. In Kingdom of Yugoslavia official language was Serb-Croat-Slovene (not Serbo-Croatian), so do not promote an name for language invented after WW2. This is part of history of Serbia and Serbian language should be used.

Nedić's Serbia was not name for this government but for territory ruled by government. Why you write such stupidities in this page?

Author Pavlowitch do not use name “Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia” but name “Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia”. You make forgery if you use Pavlowitch as false support for this name. Why you doing this?

Personal attacks against me: Peacemaker, you are disruptive user that was blocked for revert warring in the past and “warning” that you (as disruptive one) send to someone is joke. Your “reports” to admins are just personal attacks against me, continue with attacks and I will ask admins to protect me from you. It is not true that I do not respect sources. Peacemaker, you abuse sources and place your own opinions into pages. I was try only to change obvious errors on this page and you must stop with your reverts. Nemambrata (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

make any further edits that delete sourced information or change the meaning of sourced information and I will report you. Your behaviour is appalling. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice threat and this is your clear violation of WP civility policy. In addition to my previous comment, sources show that name "Nedic's Serbia" was used for territory not for this government - [5]. Nemambrata (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

General Nedic[edit]

Here are just a few examples. 'The outcome was the appointment, on 29 August, of General Nedic's as president of a "Serbian Government".' Pavlowitch 2008, p. 58, 'Indeed, when on August 29, 1941, the German military commander in Serbia appointed General Nedic as puppet Prime Minister of Serbia, Pecanac made a personal deal with Nedic.' Roberts 1973, p. 21, 'Serbia itself was under direct German military rule, although in August 1941 a puppet government under General Milan Nedic was established, which drew support from Serbia's fascist movement, the Zbor.' Glenny 1999, p. 485. I could go on, but it is clear that he was a General. I will make the appropriate edit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker you again reverted page to your version. Stop with this disruptive actions. Why you include this into wrong categories? Do you want to say that this government was state or territory? Nemambrata (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominally a monarchy?[edit]

I know this has been raised before (by me; no less), but I've read on several websites (including Ben Cahoon's '' and Bruce Gordon's 'regnal chronologies', as well as ''.) that Nedic's government acted in the name of Petar II as 'King of Serbia'. (although the King himself did not recognise this title nor recognise the legality of the Government of National Salvation.) Now; whilst these websites cannot be considered to be reputable sources; nonetheless I took the liberty of asking the owners of these websites where they obtained their information from. Altogether; I was able to find the following sources:

'The East European Revolution' by Seton-Watson, page 79:

"Nedić considered himself the temporary representative of the exiled King Peter until the war was over."

and here:

'The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005' By Sabrina P. Ramet , pg 130:

" Thus, Nedic, aspiring to convey the impression of loyalty to King Peter II, hung a portrait of the king in his office and ordained that police recruits swear an oath to Peter II."

'Tito, Mihailovic and the Allies, 1941-1945', by Walter Roberts, pg 258:

"There is even some evidence that in 1943 Nedic secretly sent a declaration of loyalty to King Peter."

'Hitler's New Disorder, World War Two in Yugoslavia' by Stevan K Pavlowich, pg 58:

"he was allowed to use Serbia's old flag and coat of arms, and even King Peter's portrait"

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday 12th June 1946; article: 'The Mihailovich-Tito Duel At Close Quarters.':

"On the contrary, Rootham points out, Mihailovitch's men and Nedich's men regarded one another as essentially on the same side-the side of King Peter"

The Milauwakee Sentinel, August 8th, 1945. article: 'King Barred, says Tito.':

"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation.",5186282

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

which of these sources are you asserting supports the contention that the GNS was nominally a monarchy? So far as I can see, none of them say that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

-I never said any of them did; did I?

They do strongly suggest it however; and more to the point; what other reason is there for an oath of allegiance to be given to a monarch, other than them being regarded (legally or illegally) as the monarch?

However, that aside; none of this is incontrovertiable; uncontestable, undebatable evidence. I will therefore endeavour to find some. Watch this space.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is suitable for Nedic's personal allegiance in his biography, but not for flat out officiality in this article's infobox. --PRODUCER (TALK) 13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It just looks like empty propaganda to me. "We're not really against the popular young King... he's just been mislead by his advisers". Its an old one.. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda or not; if I can find a proper scholarly source that definitely says he was considered de jure monarch; then it being propaganda is pretty much irrelevant and it should be mentioned; even if just by a footnote.

More to the point; what be would the point in Nedic doing all this portrait-hanging, ordering of oath-swearing and writing letters of allegiance to the King unless he viewed his government as acting in the King's name? Why didn't he just do what Quisling and the collaborationist government of Greece did and declare the monarchy deposed (an analagous situation, as both these territories were mere occupied territories whose collaborationist civil govenment aspired to statehood)? Quisling certainly didn't pretend to be King Haakon's prime minister, and neither did any of the Greek collaborationist prime ministers view themselves as acting in the name of King George II.

Also; Tito must have had a reason to use this as justification for disallowing the King's return. He wasn't just making it up(but he was, I hasten to add; putting one hell of a lot of spin on it.).He had to find some reason to justify to the Yugoslav people why he could not let Petar II return.(primarily because he had no genuine reason apart from his own republican agenda; the King had been on the side of the allies from day one.)

This seems to me similar to the situation in Rhodesia 1965-1970. Rhodesia proclaimed itself independent in 1965 and declared that the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was the Queen of Rhodesia. The Rhodesian government acted in the name of Elizabeth II up until 1970; when a whites-only referendum declared a 'Republic'. The Queen never acknowledged holding the position of 'Queen of Rhodesia'; nor did she or the British government acknowledge the existence of Rhodesia as an independent state. But nonetheless; that was de facto the case.

Neither Rhodesia as an independent state nor the Government of National Salvation existed de jure. Both entities were illegal; unrecognised by the majority of the states of the world, and both had a fascist/racist agenda. Both of them governed the territory they claimed to govern as well. De jure, (in the eyes of the allies, but not the Axis); the Kingdom of Yugoslavia continued to exist 1941-1943. Likewise, de jure (in the eyes of Britain and the majority of the rest of the international community), Rhodesia did not exist as an independent state 1965-1980. Legally, the British crown colony of Southern Rhodesia continued to exist. BUT; regardless of any legal or moral issues, both entities did exist de facto.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


'Tito's Promised Land' by Alex N. Dragnich, 1954; pg. 19:

"Nedich never disavowed his loyalty to King Petar, nor did the Nazis ever consider Nedich's Serbia independent, even in the puppet sense."

'The Balkans In Our Time' by Robert Lee Wolff, 1974; pg 204:

"Nedich called his regime the "Government of National Salvation," and no doubt thought of himself as loyal to King Peter, and as keeping alive some sort of Serbia to which the King would some day return"

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Again: nobody cares what Nedic "thought himself as". You can write that sort of stuff here. Get a source that says this was "nominally a monarchy" or quit. Nobody is interested in all this OR. Frankly I find it very hard to believe the Germans would allow him to officially establish his government as subordinate to an Allied monarch who's coup actually changed Yugoslavia's alignment against the Axis. The reason why they "never considered Nedich independent even in the puppet sense" - is because they directly controlled him without any semblance even of de jure independence. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

...Ooh I'm not finished!

Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.

"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter." JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. So I have to repeat. Get a source that says this was "nominally a monarchy" or quit. Nobody is interested in all this OR.
There is no way this was even a "country" of some sort, let alone a "monarchy". I'm sure Nedic wanted it to be a "monarchy" with Peter II as head of state, its just that it wasn't. We know it was his goal to have a Serbian state very similar to Vichy France in ideology and status. Unfortunately for him, he remained just a head of a powerless puppet government in a German military occupation zone. This has all been established with reliable sources. You'll need quite a source-storm to challenge it with the claim that "no its not just a puppet government, its 'nominally a monarchy'". And by "source-storm" I mean sources that actually support you in that claim, not sources that you interpret as supporting you, or sources that talk about Nedic's personal wishes, dreams and ambitions. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

-Also; all I've presented is sources, not original research. If this government was carried out in the name of the King; then it was, regardless of the status of the government. If it wasn't, fair enough. I haven't come to a conclusion either way yet.

...oh and...

"The reason why they "never considered Nedich independent even in the puppet sense" - is because they directly controlled him without any semblance even of de jure independence"

Where did I say anywhere that that wasn't the case? No, really. I didn't say that wasn't the case anywhere.


"I find it very hard to believe the Germans would allow him to officially establish his government as subordinate to an Allied monarch who's coup actually changed Yugoslavia's alignment against the Axis" -This is POV. All I'm interested in here is the facts. If this government was carried out in Petar II's name, then it er, was. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"There is 'no way' this was even 'a country' of some sort"

-Did I say anywhere it was? Even my sources say quite categorically it wasn't.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You're kinda cluttering the page. Please use WP:INDENT, the {{quote}} template, and if you place you links between angle brackets ("[]") they'll look like this: [6].
JWULTRABLIZZARD, claims of allegiance, portraits, personal feelings - these do not amount to Peter Karađorđević being the official, de jure head of anything here. Like I said, we know what Nedic's ambitions were, and we know he wanted to have himself a client state with Peter II in charge. He didn't get one though. One cannot be a "monarch" of a puppet government. He never got to that point (and its questionable whether he ever would have).
The bottom line is that none of the above is new information, and that its OR to interpret any of it as amounting to Peter Karađorđević having any official status here. -- Director (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've got more! XD

The Milauwaukee Journal, August 8th, 1945

"Tito told the Yugoslav National congress that Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovich and Milan Nedich had acted in the King's name during the german occupation. Peter declared that he could not give his personal sanction to a state of affairs "Which is abhorrent to me."",3372528&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"You cannot be a 'monarch' of a puppet government" -er; yes you can. The Kingdom of Westphalia? The Kingdom of Holland? Both had puppet governments, both of which were headed by a monarch, regardless of the status of the territory.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"it is OR to interpret any of it as amounting to Peter Karađorđević having any official status here."

-I'm not interpreting the sources to amount to anything at the moment. Like I said; I haven't made my mind up personally. That aside; there are THREE sources (one scholarly, two newspapers) that say that Nedic 'acted in the King's name'; not 'viewed himself as acting in the King's name' or 'wished to act in his name', or whatever.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll need an explicit source. It would also be good if you posted your links and quotes in one orderly post. -- Director (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.

Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:

St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.

"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them.",164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=enJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugh.. The Kingdom of Westphalia was a kingdom, not a puppet government. To put it in brief, you need sources that says "Peter II was the nominal/official/de jure head" or "king" or whatever of the Government of National Salvation/Nedic's Serbia, or something to that effect. I really do not wish to read anymore clutter about Nedic himself and his own personal "allegiances" or "who's name he said he acted in" or what he "thought" etc. You also need high quality sources, and a whole bunch of them if you wish to avoid WP:FRINGE (a source storm, like I said). None of the sources you quote are relevant in any way towards the official status of King Peter.
And again, please use WP:INDENT, the {{quote}} template, and angle brackets ("[]"). -- Director (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please define 'explicit'. Those sources are all quite clear.

Here's another source that says Nedic acted in the King's name:

St. Petersburg Times, August 8th, 1945.

"He argued however, that Gen. Draga Mihailovitch, once royal war minister, and Gen. Nedich, puppet premier of Serbia, had committed acts in the name of the King and Peter had not protested them.",164744&dq=king+peter+nedich&hl=enJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun, August 8th, 1945

"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation."'s+President&pqatl=google

Lewiston Daily Sun, August 8th 1945; article: 'King Peter Refused Reentry To Yugoslavia':

"Tito said the decision was based on the grounds that Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation.",2308529&dq=nedic+king's-name&hl=en

The Telegraph-Herald, August 8th, 1945; article: 'King Denounces Action of Tito- Refuses To Give Sanction To Present Government'

"Peter would not be allowed to return to Yugoslavia because Gen. Draja Mihailovitch and Milan Nedich acted in the King's name during the German Occupation.",581733&dq=nedic+king's-name&hl=en JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Kingdom of Westphalia was a kingdom, not a puppet government" -Correct; but it was also a puppet state. Thus, by definition; it would have a puppet government. A government with ministers, prime minister, cabinet etc., all owing allegiance to a monarch (in this case, Jerome Bonaparte).

"None of the sources you quote are relevant in any way towards the official status of King Peter."

-This one is:

Titoism and the Cominform, by Adam Bruno Ulam, 1952; pg.

"At least one of these regimes, that of General Nedich in Serbia, claimed that it owed its allegiance to King Peter." JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, they might've "claimed they owed their allegiance to King Peter" - but what is required is evidence that King Peter was officially declared by someone to hold some kind of official status with regard to the VNS. Do you see what I mean? Otherwise its all just talk, sentiment, and wishful thinking (and probably propaganda). I mean, then we might actually debate on whether its appropriate to include him in the infobox (it still probably isn't), but even if he had an official status it still wouldn't be a "monarchy".
This is all interesting and relevant information pertaining to the VNS, but it doesn't make Peter II king of anything (other than Yugoslavia of course :)). -- Director (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree. As far as the official governmental type is concerned, this is a combination of Nedic's propaganda and Tito's spin, and the relevant information should go in the relevant articles. But none of the above makes the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia or the Government of National Salvation in any respect a monarchy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


The infobox should be the infobox settlement, not former country. This was dealt with ad nauseum at Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, which uses the latter. I removed it from this article for that reason. Some people are very sensitive (and suggestible) regarding the titles of infoboxes, let's not encourage them, eh? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Infobox settlement is best here, provides all the relevant detail needed. --Nug (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It could well be Infobox government agency here too. This was really an instrument of the German military occupation administration. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
After a second look I think you are correct, the article Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia should really have Infobox settlement, while this article, about a puppet government established on that territory, should use Infobox government agency. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)