Talk:Yugoslav coup d'état

Is there any need for 1941 in the article title?

Is there another coup d'état in Yugoslavia that we need to differentiate this one from? Even if there was, I believe we could easily make the case that this one would be the primary topic. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Would you recommend "Coup d'état in Yugoslavia" or "Yugoslav coup d'état"? The former appears to be slightly more popular in Google books. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I make it 38 to 35. No commonname, so why don't we go for the simplest, which in my view would be "Yugoslav coup d'état"?

Dated or not dated

Peacemaker, the event is actually mostly known as the Coup d´état of March 27, and you wanting to have that information removed is unecessary. One thing is to have a "simple and straightforward" title, and another to be completely informative within the article. Your edit removed information from the lede section. The information deserves to be in the article. Unfortunatelly I don´t have much time lately to discuss this in detail, so I leave it to your own judgement by now. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in English it's not. [1]. The lead clearly states the date it occurred, so no information has been removed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The royal takeover of 6 January 1929 is commonly called a "coup d'état". It was more of a coup than this one. I would have opposed this move. I agree with FkpCascais that the date is very commonly associated with this coup. Srnec (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Argument from assertion. The evidence (Google Books result above) does not support your position. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your search is flawed. Try these:

• "coup d'état of march 27"
• "coup d'état of march 1941"
• "coup d'état of 27 march 1941"

Then these:

• yugoslav " royal coup d'état"
• yugoslavia "coup d'état" january 1929

At GoogleScholar, I get 1,990 results for —yugoslavia "coup d'état" 1929— and 2,880 results for —yugoslavia "coup d'état" 1941—. Whether or not there is a primary topic, you were wrong to call this the only coup in Yugoslavia's history. The coup in 1929, of course, resulted in the country being named Yugoslavia, but that doesn't mean it wasn't called that before. The 1929 coup was referred to as such at the time (cf. "A Dictatorship in Yugoslavia", Advocate of Peace through Justice 91, 2 (1929): 77–78). Tomasevich, who is righly one of our most utilised sources for Yugoslavia during World War II, in his book War and Revolution ... associates the coup with its date throughout: only once in 19 mentions does he not use the date 27 March 1941 (or 25 March plus "two days later") to refer to it. On p. 168 he says "Belgrade coup". Obviously, he has no need of saying "Yugoslav coup", but isn't it interesting that he always references the date? Srnec (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly happy to discuss, I'm certainly not going to die in a ditch about it. Although the description of Alexander's proclamation as a coup seems a bit over the top on face value. Nevertheless, I'll have a look at your search results and will consult Tomasevich x 2, Pavlowitch, Milazzo and similar texts and will respond. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, if we start with the blunt instrument of the Google Books results, there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME for this subject. I count 29, 31 and 22 for your top three linked searches, compared to 38 for "Coup d'état in Yugoslavia" and 35 for "Yugoslav coup d'état". In fact quite a few of the searches had hits for the same book (that uses several versions). Tomasevich 1969 and Hehn are both examples of that. IMO, the issue then comes down to WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURAL. Precise enough as to be unambiguously about this subject and not the "royal coup", and natural per one of the various permutations. Ramet (in The Three Yugoslavias), doesn't use the word "coup" to describe what happened on 6 January 1929, she refers to it as the "Sixth of January dictatorship" and Vucinich 1969 also steers clear of the word "coup" and uses ""proclamation of the royal dictatorship on January 6, 1929". Tomasevich refers to it as "introducing personal dictatorship". In fact, the current article on the subject is titled 6 January Dictatorship, which I think reflects what the sources I have copies of call it. In particular, Ramet and Tomasevich cover the background to both events in some detail as part of a historical examination of the history of Yugoslavia. I think if you add the fact that it wasn't even the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 6 January 1929 there is no real reason to amend the current title. I would be willing to consider adding "of 1941" to it in the interests of precision. Your thoughts?

A dictatorship and a coup are two different things. Frankly, when I saw this title my first thought was, "Which Yugoslav coup?" I suspect many readers, even those who don't know much about Yugoslavia, will have a similar reaction. It's not as if coups are the rare sort of thing that happen only once or twice in a country's history. For most countries they happen regularly. I also thought the WWII coup was strongly associated with a specific day of the year: 27 March. That, at least, is how I seem to recall always seeing it mentioned: as the coup of 27 March [1941]. Our article titles need be no more precise than necessary, but when they are descriptive they should not appear to be generic. Srnec (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The point about precision is that "of 1941" is all that is required to clearly identify which coup this is. Firstly, it is actually the only "Yugoslav" one, and the year then makes it clear which one (for those that might be confused about when the country became Yugoslavia). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But "of March 27" is also all that is required to clearly identify which coup this is. Likewise "Yugoslav officer's coup" and "Yugoslav royal coup" would be precise. (It is the only one that occurred in a state named Yugoslavia, but it is not the only Yugoslav one. That would be anachronism, like insisting that Galileo wasn't Italian because it wasn't 1861 yet, or insisting there are no more Burmese people now that it's called Myanmar officially.) Srnec (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"of March 27" would not be as concise or precise. "of 1941" clearly shows this coup occurred during WWII. I have suggested adding "of 1941" to address the issue you have raised, and have provided policy-based reasoning for it being all that is required. If you agree that "of 1941" addresses the issue you have raised, I am happy for you to move it, or I will do so when you let me know you agree. If not, I suggest you RM it, as I can see no policy-based reason to move it to a title with "March 27" in it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think FkpCascais had a legitimate point here. All articles on major historical events reflect the way these events are commonly referred to in their lands, with reference to the original language (See October Revolution as a case in point). I see no need to make an exception here. I am growing confident that Peacemaker has sought to effectively cast this Yugoslavian event as a British history event.Axxxion (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can grow confident in anything you like, but you are wrong. This discussion was about the title of the article, which has been stable at its current one for several years. It is not about including alternative names which haven't been shown as being common in English, and it is also not about including translations into Serbo-Croat in the first sentence. They are unnecessary and interrupt the flow of the first sentence. This information can be provided in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67: But that is an established practice in WP for topics outside the Anglophone space, as per MOS:FORLANG: See French Revolution, Russian Civil War, Spain, Germany, etc.Axxxion (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

French Revolution is still bad example. ....if an FA or GA review was done that stuff would be removed as per MOS:FORLANG "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology".--Moxy (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Touche. There isn't consensus for this edit at present. If you continue to editwar over it Axxxion, you will be reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No etymology here at all. That′s precisely the point: that in the country′s language the name is totally different.Axxxion (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Operation Bora

G'day all, PRODUCER and I have decided to put some structure around our work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles by creating a special project we are calling Operation Bora, the first stage of which is setting the scene for what happened in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 through this article, Invasion of Yugoslavia and a new article provisionally titled Occupation of Yugoslavia, which we intend will be the first of a series of Good topics. We are keen to identify other editors who may be interested in contributing, with the idea of eventually formalising the special project as a joint endeavour of WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Yugoslavia. So feel free to let either of us know if you are interested. The more the merrier! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of inline attribution for Tomasevich and Ramet

An IP editor is insisting on in-text attribution of the views of Jozo Tomasevich and Sabrina Ramet regarding the weaknesses of inter-war Yugoslavia. In the case of Tomasevich, the IP has included the description "Croat-American" and has stated that he was a "military historian". It is not clear what the motivation is behind including Tomasevich's heritage, or why he has been described as a "military historian". His historical work was (self-)described as covering "politics, ideology and military operations", not just military operations. Anyone who has read his works knows he was not just a military historian. I have deleted "military" as it is unsupported by any source. Given the points Tomasevich made about Yugoslavia include economic ones, I have included the fact that he was an economic professor. I await an explanation of why it is relevant or even necessary to refer to his Croat-American background, or why, given no source has been produced that challenges him or Ramet, there is a need for in-text attribution for either of them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that this issue can be resolved easily:

1. If cited assertions are supported only by Tomasevich or Ramet then IP editor was right to carefully attribute those assertion to them.
2. If you are able to present more sources which support the same assertion then do it and remove the in-text attribution.

I agree with you about ethnicity or heritage of the authors. Its irrelevant. As well as the motivation of IP editor. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the ethnicity, I will be working towards FA on this article and am sure the other point will be addressed in due course. In the meantime I will leave the in-text attribution in place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to make a quick summary here:

1. In the Background section Peacemaker67 has summarized 23 years of Yugoslav history 1918-1941 (with all of the economic, political, social, religious, cultural, and ethnic issues contained within that time span) in eleven sentences.

2. He has done so by relying on the historical assessment of two people.

3. He seems to be objecting to providing the readers with the very basic biographical info about these two individuals such as their names and professional and cultural background because he says their respective assessments of the 1918-1941 period in Yugoslavia are in agreement with one another.

There's a lot more to say when explaining the various weaknesses of the Yugoslav kingdom during the interbellum, and I will do so with your kind permission as soon as I get some time.

Meanwhile, I would simply like to see Tomasevich's and Ramet's opinions clearly attributed to them because they're neither gospel nor established historical fact. Further still, including their cultural and professional background serves as nothing more than providing context for the reader. What one does for a living and cultural circumstances where one got formed as a human being are certainly worthy of mention.99.225.202.45 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your point about making a summary of the inter-war period in however many sentences are there is well-made. I have no objection to naming the authors and their professional status, however, no mention of Ramet's heritage was added, but Tomasevich's was. Why did you feel it was not necessary in Ramet's case but that it was in Tomasevich's case? Any disinterested person such as myself would have good reason to think it was because you consider Tomasevich's Croat ancestry caused bias in his work. My view is that Tomasevich shows no discernible pro-Croat bias, and Ramet's analysis serves to reinforce that. I am unaware of any academic review of his work that indicates any bias. I certainly have no intention of identifying every author from the former Yugoslavia by ethnicity each time their work is cited, and that is frankly not the way WP is written. I too will be expanding this section significantly with lots of other sources in the near future, and the article will of course reflect the consensus of the sources or it will compare and contrast them as appropriate. At present the limited consensus of Ad and myself is that the ethnic information for Tomasevich is not required. I am aware it is not a !vote and it is a small sample. If you believe you have a case for inclusion, a RfC is probably the way to go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't include Ramet's heritage because I simply don't know what her cultural background is. She doesn't have a Wiki entry in English and a cursory Google search returns a bunch of stuff in German that I couldn't be bothered to translate and make sense of (at a glance I saw references to Norway, US, and Germany but don't really know what, when or why). But that of course didn't occur to you because "me not listing Ramet's heritage for unknown reasons" fits too nicely in your implied concoction that I consider Tomasevich to have a pro-Croat bias simply because I'm listing who he is!? Why wouldn't you assume good faith there? And also, what is the big deal in mentioning who someone is if it's a piece of info we definitely know?99.225.202.45 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I still believe that Peacemaker67 is right when it comes to ethnicity of the authors, especially in case of Tomasevich.
• I also think that Peacemaker67 is right that IP editor made a couple of very good points here. There are different positions about 23 years of Yugoslav history. Position of Tomasevich and Ramet is not the only one. Therefore it would be good to avoid too heavily relying on them, or on sources which support the same position.
• The IP's observation is valid for many other articles about the history of Yugoslavia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your approval ;-) I have never had any objection to editors who actually want to edit any article about Yugoslavia as long as they use reliable, published sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of memoirs or articles by protagonists as sources

Cvetkovic and Knezevic (and Mirkovic etc) wrote about the coup after the war, and obviously have their biases. Their writings have been examined extensively by academics. Using their writings isn't necessary or desirable in a WP article on the coup. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment should have been written as question. Carefully attributed statements of protagonists in their memoirs are necessary and desirable when they present their opinion about important aspects of the events.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If attributed in-line and their involvement is noted, their credibility should also be measured by third party academics where possible. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Yugoslav foreign policy..." Section

I do not see much structural logic in having this as a section that follows Background section. Methinks "Yugoslav foreign policy..." (with all its subsections) ought to be a subsection in "Background" and probably trimmed significantly: the topic is the coup, not the Kingdom of Yugoslavia′s interbellum political history.Axxxion (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to understanding the coup. Note that starting a talk section then reverting a reversion is not in accordance with BRD. Get consensus for your changes here, then edit the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

But you did not understand what i wrote -- read again carefully.Axxxion (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I understood it fully. There is no set structure for the article, it is not restricted to the number of sections you think it should have. It was created to clearly break down the background and developments that led to the coup. There is nothing illogical about the structure, and the detail is necessary due to the lack of detailed quality article(s) about the matters explained here. Such a situation is common on WP, and I see no reason whatsoever for any trimming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sourced additions

I do not understand the purpose and the basis for the wholesale reverts ([2] and prior) of my edits that added legitimate sourced info to this obviously seriously deficient and lopsided article. Its status does not preclude legitimate edits. I find reverts by Peacemaker67 disruptive, at the very least.Axxxion (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My only possible explanation (that I hope is incorrect) could be that Peacemaker67 seeks to present this coup (in both senses) as the sole victory (or blunder?) of the UK SOE, as he essentially bowdlerises all material that speaks of the USSR′s role in the events, which is undeniable, — all the way to deleting the subsection on Soviet–Yugoslavia non-aggression Pact, which was the most immediate international corollory of the coup. And the definition in the Infobox of the successful coup′s Outcome as ″Axis invasion of Yugoslavia″ was outright ludicrous. How can such activites be justified?Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Au contraire. You are making edits using a wholly unreliable source, which I have already pointed out. Savich is a blogger, not a historian. I have removed all material sourced to Savich and all Savich citations. You need to explain what additional material you have sourced from Savich where there were several citations, one of which was from Savich, and trim the material appropriately. That fact that you think Savich is a reliable source brings into question whether these other sources you are using are reliable themselves. You will need to justify their reliability here. You have also made changes to the structure of the article which haven't been discussed here, and are edit-warring to keep them in place. The appropriate place to discuss these issues is on the talk page, not via edit summaries. The consensus promoted state of the article is what is being changed, and you want to make those changes, so you must justify them here. I have no problem with people wanting to edit any article, but you are trying to take ownership of the article yourself by your edits, pushing your own perspective on the subject. Any further edit-warring regarding Savich or the structure of the article will be reported. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Peacemaker67 will you please be so kind to quote part of wikipedia policy which allows editors to remove substantial parts of articles (like you did with this diff ie) because of the citation style used?User:Antidiskriminator/signing template--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antidiskriminator. If I do not revert these edits, made with the incorrect citation style, it is no longer GA-class (criteria 2a). The article has been edited using sfn citations and full citations at the bottom. It is not too much to ask that if editors wish to edit it, they maintain its GA-class status and comply with the existing citation style, in fact, MOS:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR are clear on this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 English is not my native language so I was maybe unclear with my question. Let me try to clarify it.

• I did not ask you what would happen if you do not revert these edits.
• I did not ask you what is the citation style used in the article.
• I did not ask you to point to some policies.
• I did not ask you what is not too much to ask from other editors,

I can not repeat what I asked because I self-limited the number of times I mention the same thing on a talk page to zero. Therefore I politely ask you to read my question again and reply to my question if you can. If not, please be so kind to revert yourself. User:Antidiskriminator/signing template 2/2 comments--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator. I am not responsible for your self-imposed talk page restrictions. I have asked for a community view on my actions at ANI, you are free to comment there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation style used in this article

The sfn citation style is used in this article, with full citations provided for all sources. All editors wishing to edit this article need to use the established sfn style, per WP:CITESTYLE. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, additions to this article should use the sfn citation style. It is not my job to change them to the existing style, that responsibility lies with the editor adding the material. I will shortly start removing material that is not cited in the existing sfn style. Learn how to do it, or stop adding information to the article until you do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not invent Rules. Text should be sourced, this is the only requirement. You will be reported for vandalism, if you continue.Axxxion (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inventing rules, I've explained what the policy is, comply with it if you want to edit the article. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any attempt to fix the citation style in article space, I have moved this here until it is correctly cited using the sfn style, per the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67. You might have good faith ends in mind but your edits are objectively destructive. If there is sth wrong in style of citation, in YOUR opinion (I do not see any problem whatsoever) -- go ahead and fix it. I have no time to do research on such convoluted and contrived quibble.Axxxion (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Just comply with the policy. I'm taking this to ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-Aggression Pact with USSR

On 5 April 1941, the new government of Yugoslavia and the USSR signed the Treaty of Friendship and Non-Aggression. The treaty had been secretly prepared throughout March and early April during the talks between the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Yugoslavian Ambassador in Moscow Milan Gavrilović. According to Gen Pavel Sudoplatov, Milan Gavrilović was a fully recruited Soviet agent, but he writes that they knew that Gavrilović also had ties with the British.

Initially, members of the new Yugoslavian government had sought a military alliance with the USSR but this was rejected by the Soviet side, the USSR being bound by the non-aggression treaty with Germany then. The final relevant article of the Treaty read as follows: ″In the event of aggression against one of the contracting parties on the part of a third power, the other contracting party undertakes to observe a policy of friendly relations towards that party″, which fell short of a commitment to provide military assistance. The USSR leadership accepted the ensuing German invasion of Yugoslavia without any criticism.

Development of the coup

The plotters were immediately welcomed by the top clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church (the Holy Synod of the Bishops happened to be in session on 27 March) and personally by Patriarch Gavrilo V who spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime. Serbian Communists, who were largely an underground force, took part in pro-putsch rallies too.

Some of the plotters had previously been involved with secretive Black Handers; and there is evidence that Dušan Simović had spent at least two weeks in Moscow in early March 1941. According to Soviet General Pavel Sudoplatov, the coup was actively supported by Soviet intelligence agencies, GRU and NKVD, following Stalin′s instructions, with a view to strengthening the USSR′s strategic position in the Balkans. A group of Soviet intelligence officers that included Major Gen Solomon Milshtein and Vasily Zarubin was sent to Belgrade to assist the overthrow. Activities of the Soviets in Yugoslavia had been boosted by the establishment of a Soviet mission in Belgrade in 1940; the Soviet Union had been developing its intelligence network through left-wing journalists and academics at the University of Belgrade. The German embassy in Belgrade was certain that the coup had been organised by British and Soviet special agencies.

Legacy and historical evaluation

Dr Sue Onslow, in a bid to place the coup in the broader context of the of British policy towards Yugoslavia between the outbreak of the Second World War and the events on 27 March 1941, writes that the coup was a big propaganda victory for Britain, as it "proved a tremendous, if ephemeral, boost to British morale, coming rapidly upon the victories against Italian forces in North Africa and The Sudan"; it also was "a much-needed fillip to the ‘upstart’ service Special Operations Executive created by Dalton".

References

BRD on native language name

I see a lot of EW, some with edit summaries referring to talk, but I don't see the talk itself. Whatever that talk may be, it obviously isn't helping, because the dumb EW goes on. So, maybe we should actually follow BRD here. Stop EW and discuss.

Immediately after the opening words The Yugoslav coup d'état in this article, the following has been added and removed several times:

(Serbo-Croatian: Пуч 27. Марта 1941./Puč 27. Marta 1941.).

Myself, per MOS:FORLANG, it seems okay to include, and I see no reason to exclude. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

incomprehensible text...zero use to our English readers. ..zero results for that unreadable text.....junk spam that does not help our readers at all...in other words zero research value.....Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/Op-ed--Moxy (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The original thread on the topic is old, it is the second section on this page now. I think this is a plain case of following the Guideline cited by User:A D Monroe III. It has a caveat referring to etymology, which quite clearly does not apply here (unlike many cases where it could be actually invoked but where we have an original language name nonetheless). Calling other editors′ edits "junk", Moxy, does not measure up to a valid argument and may violate certain regulations and Policies such as WP:CIV. BTW, would you google a Japanese word in Canadian Google too? Try Google.rs - much more to the point and do not google both versions (you are certain to have a few hundred hits straight off): apparently you are totally outside the regional theme: the stroke in the name divides same phrase written in two scripts, one in Roman script, the other in Cyrillic (not junk, just a Greek-based Slavic script). The dots after digits that may likewise appear as junk to you, due to your ignorance and rashness to judge, is part of the text and signify in Serbian (as well as in German) that it is an ordinal number. Axxxion (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The requirement to initiate discussion per BRD lies with the person who has been reverted. Axxxion tried to carry out this discussion in a thread unrelated to this issue, and I did engage there. However, he has not tried to achieve consensus here, he just makes a comment here then reverts to his preferred version. This is the English Wikipedia. What function does this addition achieve, other than breaking up the flow of the lead sentence with unnecessary translations and redundancy? MOS:FORLANG says a single foreign language equivalent name CAN be included, not that it must. But this is not a single foreign language term. It is a claimed significant alternative title in English, to which has been added translations in two scripts. If it was a significant alternative title in English (for which no evidence has been provided as yet, merely claims) then it would be just the English alternative and in bold, not the translations. The translations can be provided in the body. My question is, what benefit is this addition to the average reader of this article? None that I can see, the date of the coup is already included in the lead sentence, providing it with the claimed significant alternative title is redundant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker: too many meaningless words, ZERO common sense: vry unEnglish, I would say. Sleep well and have nice dreams.Axxxion (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, take a look at Wikipedia's policy on civility. Your talk page is full of warnings to you about your attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Page number needed for "Memoirs of Gavrilo V" citation

G'day Axxxion, the sentence "The plotters were immediately welcomed by the top clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church (the Holy Synod of the Bishops happened to be in session on 27 March) and personally by Patriarch Gavrilo V who spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime." is sourced to Tomanić and the Patriarch's memoirs. I found the relevant pages of Tomanić where he mentions Gavrilo V speaking on Belgrade radio, and added that to the citation, although I wanted to check something with you before I edited the sentence to just that. Leaving aside the reliability of memoirs for a moment, there is no page number for this passage in the memoirs. My ability to accurately search for phrases in Cyrillic is very limited, and I have been unable to verify this material. Could you please provide a page number(s) for the passage(s) that mention the synod welcome and the Patriarch speaking in front of mass rallies? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67. The pages would be 399, 401–411. These links could be added as well, if you see it as appropriate: Šta se stvarno desilo 27. marta, a nisu vas učili u školi (FOTO) (VIDEO) on Telegraf.rs, or this: Vojni puč i demonstracije u Beogradu 27.marta 1941. Also, to be on the safe side, the passage ″...spoke in front of mass rallies in support of the new regime″ be better modified as ″spoke publicly in support of the King and the new regime multiple times, including over the radio″ — feel free to amend for better style and coherence.Axxxion (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll incorporate that information. BTW, savremenaistorija.com isn't a reliable source, as it doesn't have any information about who writes its articles, or the bonafides of the publishers. Generally, a reliable publication process (editorial board etc) is needed at a minimum. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. I agree, but most of the publications in the Balkans are quite nonchalant about sourcing, generally, (facts normally do not matter either, as you may know). That said, a myth, if believed, is a powerful force in its own right.Axxxion (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Generally there seems to be a lot of yellow press there (and everywhere these days). Telegraf.rs might be reliable, and does seem to have at least an editorial group and lists its journalists on the site, but I am steering clear of using it because it is really unfamiliar to me. I prefer to use Novosti, RTS, Politika etc, although on some topics even they can be far from the academic consensus. Personally, I'm not really comfortable with using Gavrilo's memoirs, but on the basis that anything from it is attributed in-line and the material is not exceptional, I can live with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Politika is that the most interesting publications of theirs are not available on the net, only in print.Axxxion (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Information required on source

G'day Axxxion. What is Решетникова О. Н. К вопросу о советско-югославском договоре о дружбе и ненападении // Международные отношения и страны Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы. pp. 110-123? I have been unable to match it on Worldcat. Can you provide a ISBN/ISSN or OCLC for this work? Is it a book or article? If article, what journal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Full details on this publication (not book) in an academic journal РЕФЕРАТИВНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ СЕРИЯ 5 (collection of articles - сборник статей): Международные отношения и страны Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европы в период фашистской агрессии на Балканах и подготовки нападения на СССР (сентябрь 1940 - июнь 1941) / отв. Ред. Гибианский Л. Я. , случ С. З. - М. : ин-т славяноведения и балканистики РАН (Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences http://inslav.ru/page/institute-slavic-studies-russian-academy-sciences ), 1992. - 166 с. (the total number of pages)

The title К вопросу о советско-югославском договоре о дружбе и ненападении (″On the issue of Soviet-Yugoslavia treaty on non-aggression″) refers to a particular article by Reshetnikova, apparently the only ever research on this topic (Yugo-UR Pact) based on the Soviet archive docs.Axxxion (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have located the full details now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of srpska.ru website

I don't believe the website srpska.ru is reliable. The "editor-in-chief", is apparently a machinist. It seems to be essentially a blog/forum drawing in Serb nationalists in Russia. I've deleted it from the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of segodnia.ru

What are the bonafides of this website? It appears to be some sort of mouthpiece of the Russian Department of Information? Does it have an editorial board etc? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but the page shows authentic docs. Why not?Axxxion (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How are they "authentic"? On RISS the article doesn't even have a credited author, and although it does have authors on segodnia, who are they? There is no information about them or any editorial board. It's just not reliable. That is the basis on which we use sources. If they are unreliable we don't use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomanic book

Peacemaker67, I changed the page number as per the print book I have looked up — to 175 (also according to the list of chapters in the online version). But if one looks at the relevant text in electronic version, one would need to go to a page that is numbered as 187, as was before (the chapter is titled KADA EPISKOPI ZAGUSLAJU). Feel free to revert that. But I would suggest we remove the inline reference to Gavrilo′s memoir, as this statement is also supported by this book (it is not a church publication, incidentally, and is indeed quite critical of the clergy and Serbs generally). Also pay attention that the book says that the Synod session was in progress on 27 March, as it had been convened in connection to Yugoslavia′s accession to the Berlin Pact (perhaps a notable fact to mention): ″Otvarajući vanredno zasedanje Sabora sazvano zbog pristupanja Kraljevine Jugoslavije Trojnom paktu, patrijarh Gavrilo je rekao: "Neka je slava Bogu, zahvaljujući tome da je prošle noći izvršen puč i situacija je mnogo jasnija. Naš položaj je mnogo lakši. Sinoć mi je jedan od kraljevskih namesnika rekao da ćemo mi biti krivi ako narod bude ustao i nastali nemiri, i da će posledica toga biti ulazak Nemaca u našu zemlju. Noćašnji akt spasao je čast našeg naroda i države, pa zbog toga i mi možemo samo blagosloviti ovo delo."....Axxxion (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs to be to the electronic version, to assist in verification. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Stanković vs. Stajić

The article isn't saying that Stanković was the commander of the royal guard at the time of the coup, just that at one point (while he was commander) he was offered the lead role in a post-coup government. Given some sort of coup was being planned from 1938 onwards, there is no reason why Stanković wasn't the man that was offered the role, given that he wasn't replaced until late 1940. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ratification of the Tripartite Pact

It should be added somewhere that the new Yugoslav governments refusal to/belief that they didn't have to ratify the pact was mistaken, since the pact stated that it became ratified upon signature (and was obviously signed) --Havsjö (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have a reliable source for that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Legacy and historical evaluation section

How is expanding a quote already in the article undue weight? The full Tomasevich quote is that "from the point of view of the total war effort against the Axis, the Belgrade coup and the invasion of Yugoslavia contributed in a very important, if indirect, way toward the final victory over the Axis". The Shirer quote is about the testimony of key German generals about the impact of Hitler’s decision to destroy Yugoslavia on the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Tomasevich and Shirer are both already mentioned in the section, why remove material supported by the same source? Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to read WP:UNDUE and WP:RSUW. Neither Tomasevich nor Shirer reflects the current academic consensus about the role of the coup and invasion with regards to its effects on Barbarossa and the war as a whole. Given that, their views are interesting (in that they reflect what was once a view held by some historians) and worthy of inclusion, but they shouldn't be given any more prominence than a mention that this was a view held at one time. BTW, you don't just make a comment then revert, that is not how WP:BRD works. You make a bold edit, you get reverted, you start a discussion, and then we see what the outcome of the discussion is (and if necessary we go to dispute resolution like a WP:3O or WP:RFC to determine a community view if we can't agree). Edit-warring about this is completely pointless and will probably just result in a block. This is also the Balkans space and is subject to greater restrictions on editor behaviour due to an ArbCom decision, so all editors in this space need to tread carefully. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

First apologies about the lack of WP:EQ on my end clearly did not consider my edits to be controversial as I am new in the the Balkans space. For those interested the versions are here. More than 25% of the references used in this article come from Tomasevich (like most articles about World War II in Yugoslavia) so Tomasevich's views are already given more prominence than anyone else. This said I just changed the quote following WP:INTEXT using Tomasevich's exact words which I found a little stronger that the version edited. From Shier I added testimonies from the Nuremberg trials directly related to the topic, nothing about his views. The Beevor quote reflecting the current academic consensus is: More recently, Antony Beevor wrote that "most [historians] accept that the Balkan campaign made little difference" to the eventual outcome of Barbarossa." but all I could find in Beevor's book was: "Historians have argued over the effect Operation Marita had on the invasion of the Soviet Union. Most accept that it made little difference", if this is the one, it's about the Balkan campaign in Greece (Operation Marita) not the Yugoslav campaign (Operation 25) and it should be replaced. As a counterexample in 2011 Frederick B. Chary wrote: "the consensus is that the invasion of the Balkans delayed the Reich's move against the Soviet Union long enough to stop Germany from taking Moscow", so it seems to be still open for debate. Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Beevor should not be replaced, because it is clear from the context that he is talking about the whole Balkans campaign, including Yugoslavia. The Balkans campaign involving the invasions of Yugoslavia (Operation 25) and Greece (Marita) are thoroughly intertwined and the operations in the two countries are often conflated by authors under the umbrella of the Greek or Balkans campaign, largely because the success of the invasion of Greece was expedited by part of the 12th Army bypassing the northern Greek border defences by attacking into southern Yugoslavia, capturing Skopje and turning south to enter Greece. In this vein, Gabriel Gorodetsky's 1999 Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, Yale University Press, p. 177, states "As the military historian [Martin] van Creveld has most convincingly proved in his debunking of the established myth, the Greek diversion, far from overstretching the Wehrmacht, only produced a negligible delay in the build-up for Barbarossa". The "established myth" he is referring to was debunked in 1972 by van Creveld in his article in European History Quarterly, and then again the following year in Hitler's Strategy 1940-1941: The Balkan Clue, Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–151. But even basic introductory texts like Christopher Catherwood's World War II: A Beginner's Guide, [3] state that the "Yugoslav delay to Barbarossa" is one of the greatest myths of WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you but Beevor wrote specifically about Operation Marita and I do not think we should assume that he meant something else. The quote was modified to say that he wrote “Balkan Campaign” this was presented as In-text attribution between quotation marks. This is a problem since these are not the source's words and that quote also feeds the ending statement of the lead: Most scholars now consider that [The importance of the putsch and subsequent invasion] had no significant impact on the eventual outcome of that campaign. That statement is then potentially repeated in other articles. This is why I think Beevor should be removed (with the end of the lead) until another reliable source is found. I’m sure you will agree that, especially within the Balkans space, the accuracy of quoted material is paramount as emphasised on WP:RS/QUOTE. Regarding the position of scholars on the subject, we could go back and forth endlessly, Elizabeth Wiskemann, Hugh Seton-Watson, Hugh Dalton, Max Beloff, Baron Beloff among others considered that the coup d'état and the subsequent campaign did delay Barbarossa as mentioned here[4] but what we are looking for is a clear consensus from a reliable source that would justify its mention in body and lead. Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

We could not go back and forth endlessly if we place the issue in context and examine both the motivations and publication dates of the people listed in Erickson. He lists a whole bunch of people, some historians, some not, almost all published in the 1940s and 1950s, and gives far too much weight to Hitler (calling him a "star witness") when van Creveld takes a completely different view of Hitler's statements. Many of these sources were written immediately or soon after the war, and are ancient in academic terms on this subject. Erickson's discussion of the views of these people is also very fleeting and selective. Several of these people were pushing a particular POV, and the arguments of several were completely dismantled by van Creveld nearly fifty years ago. When he does get to van Creveld, he gives brief lip service to one or two of van Creveld's arguments, and doesn't even summarise his main points debunking earlier writings. In terms of clear self-interest, Klugmann, Seton-Watson and Dalton (as the responsible minister) were all SOE, which had a vested interest in convincing people that what they did in Yugoslavia in supporting and encouraging the coup was effective in helping the war effort. Their views are self-serving and they definitely are not independent of the subject, given SOE's involvement in the coup. Seton-Watson published in 1946, Dalton in 1957. Likewise, Adamić (quoting Klugmann) published in 1952, and Wiskemann was also a British intelligence officer and published in 1949. David Martin's incredibly pro-Chetnik piece in 1946 should be dismissed out of hand, later scholarship by Tomasevich, Milazzo and others has dismantled that nonsense. Beloff was published in 1949. Hamilton Fish Armstrong published in 1951. Cordell Hull published in 1949. Von Paulus is obviously self-serving, and Halder (who had far more of an idea, being the Army Chief of the General Staff at the time) contradicts him. Butler's Grand Strategy Vol 2 was published in 1957. Ansel published in the early 70s (when van Creveld was writing), and he concludes that Barbarossa could not have started earlier, but van Creveld even addressed this argument. So, this list of authors etc (bar Ansel) all published at least fifteen years before van Creveld debunked this myth, many of them were self-serving/self-interested, and none had the opportunity to consider and accept or reject van Creveld's conclusions. If we are discussing current academic consensus on this, we need to be looking at post-van Creveld, not this ancient history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have substituted material from van Creveld for Beevor, and explained his conclusions in the body and summarised them in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s not surprising to see two military historians analysing similar historical datas arriving at two different conclusions but Erickson published his work 20 years after van Creveld so he may have had more material to work with. Anyway none of this is used in the article and it is unrelated to a current academic consensus. Before you brought up van Creveld, I mentioned a 2011 quote from Frederick B. Chary: "Although a minority of scholars believe the Wehrmacht would not have been able to move until then in any case, the consensus is that the invasion of the Balkans delayed the Reich’s move against the Soviet Union long enough to stop Germany from taking Moscow and Leningrad before the winter ". Probably the most recent study on the subject is Craig Stockings and Eleanor Hancock 2013 book Swastika over the Acropolis: Re-interpreting the Nazi Invasion of Greece in World War II, using new archival findings 40 years after van Creveld and all the others. In Chapter 20 Marita and Barbarossa (page 569 to page 581) they look into everything that came into play: the German planning process, meteorological factors, German equipment shortages (pointing out weaknesses in the "equipment" argument of van Creveld) and looking at past analyses and ancient history. There is a lot to read and it is of course more complex that a few words on a talk page but on page 573 Stockings Hancock say: ”There is little doubt then that the German planning process for Marita, and to a lesser degree for ‘Operation 25’, forced a delay to the planned start date for Barbarossa by around six weeks from that which was originally intended" so this surely deserved to be mentioned. Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC) ; edited 12:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding Stockings Hancock to body and lead, removing van Creveld unneeded dismissive comments from lead Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: also happy to share the full chapter if you don’t have Swastika over the Acropolis or can't access that content. Sculpordwarfprunesea (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

G'day Sculpordwarfprunesea. Looking back on this discussion, I think it may have diverted from what I (and Van Creveld) was trying to get at. A delay to Barbarossa isn't really the big issue here. Even Van Creveld acknowledges there was some limited delay, but it is the effect on the success of Barbarossa that is the real game here. I don't think Chary, someone specialising in Bulgaria, is a good source to be using to claim a consensus among historians about the effect of the delay on the success of Barbarossa. I will try to see what specialists on the Eastern Front like David Glantz et al say. Do Stockings and Hancock say anything about the effect of the coup and subsequent invasion on the eventual outcome of Barbarossa? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

There seems to be a formatting error at the end of the introductory paragraph (last sentence repeated twice verbatim). Keshav Saharia (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you — LauritzT (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Flawed Edit reversion

@Peacemaker67 According to your edit description I created multiple unneeded duplicate links; I can't find a single one. You also mention that the removal of piping is unhelpful. I removed one pipe, changing Balkan Entente to Balkan Pact, which is the name of the agreement and the page title. Under MOS:NOPIPE there's no reason to pipe it to Balkan Entente at all. Your blank reversion also reinstated a number of spacing errors that I'd removed, an erroneous link to Sudan and numerous references to 'Prince Peter' when he was already king. Do I need to remind you of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and also Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"? Ecrm87 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to remind me. I am well aware. There was a duplicate link, to Nazi Germany, however, you unlinked Royal guards; moved "King", "Prince" and "Princess" outside the links, which is unhelpful, leaving the link being just the given name; created links for countries (see MOS:OL), unhelpfully changed "the [[Belvedere, Vienna|Belvedere]] palace in [[Vienna]]" to "the [[Belvedere, Vienna]]". And you changed a quote from Onslow so that it now reads "East Africa" instead of "the Sudan". There was one instance where Prince should have been King. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate links are permitted if they're in different sections to the original link and are helpful for readers under MOS:REPEATLINK. I unlinked Royal guards because the link was highly unspecific and there is nothing related to Yugoslavia on that page, it might as well be a disambiguation link. I removed the royal titles from the links as this is what Wikipedia:NOPIPE mandates. MOS:OL does not apply to links to older polities, of which there are many links already on the page. I removed the pipe in the Belvedere, Vienna link as this was also in keeping with NOPIPE, Vienna also being unnecessary under MOS:OL.The Onslow quote was an error on my part, he was clearly referring to fighting in the East Africa campaign which I meant to edit the link to, not remove the piped quote section. There were in fact two mentions of Prince Peter. Ecrm87 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

NOPIPE mandates nothing. It is a "how to" guide. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's a guide, but guides should be followed. It's why Elizabeth I doesn't have Queen in the link, Nero doesn't include Emperor, etc. Ecrm87 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)