Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another?

Do we really need another redundant Yugoslavian history article? We have enough articles on Yugoslavia to begin with, I see no need to add yet another one. Like with "Borders before and after Yugoslavia", all the information here either belongs someplace else or can be found in other articles already. K. Lásztocska 15:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose it for deletion or tell me how can I do it? PANONIAN 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've listed it on WP:AFD. This time I won't forget to post the link. :))) Also, for your future reference, here are the instructions how to nominate a page for deletion. K. Lásztocska 01:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: all votes so far are to keep, substantially improve and merge, not delete, and upon considering their comments I have to say I agree. What do you say? K. Lásztocska 15:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no comment. PANONIAN 09:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina

Percents of Serbs that you writting here are either percents of Serbs in present-day Vojvodina territory (that include Banat, Bačka and Syrmia) either percent of Serbs in BBB with borders defined by peace treaties. However, the assembly had deputies from all parts of BBB with cease-fire borders from 1918 and we have no data about percent of ethnic groups in that territory. PANONIAN 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, why you reverting me? Do you understand that these percents are not percents of Serbs in BBB territory in 1918 borders? PANONIAN 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Data with which I work are:
  • "Population of Banat, Bačka and Baranja (in borders defined on the peace conference) was 1,365,596, including 29% Serbs, 27.7% Hungarians, 23.8% Germans, and others."
  • Serbs 510,186 (33.8 %), Hungarians 424,555 (28.1) %, Germans 323,779 21.4 %,.. all in all 1 510 804. You can choose what you want but this data is having wiki about census of population in 1910 in BBB. Article is misleading if we do not write that Serbs are 76 % of assembly members in time when they are only 29 - 33 % of population. Simple speaking this fact must be writen in article !! Point is that assembly has been farse of occupation forces. Rjecina 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, what is your problem? You agree that 29% is data "in borders defined on the peace conference" (not in borders as they were in 1918) and 33.8% is a population of Banat, Bačka and Syrmia (not of Banat, Bačka and Baranja). The assembly made a decision for BBB territory as it was in 1918 borders, thus how we can present data for completelly different territories to illustrate population of BBB in 1918. I will show you maps to illustrate this difference:

It is clear that when we speak about 1918 assembly we speak about BBB with 1918 borders and you cannot present demographics data for other two territories as data for BBB in 1918 - it would be nothing but forgery. PANONIAN 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I stay with fact that demographics data for Serbs in territory under serbian occupation in november 1918 is that they are around 27 %. You do not agree with that but all data are saying that this number is good with possible mistake of -/+ 2 %. Rjecina 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
O moj bože! (Oh my god!) - we do not have population data for 1918 territory, so you saying that you want to INVENT one? I cannot believe this really. I can only raise a question of your intentions in Wikipedia if you want to writte data that you invented into article. PANONIAN 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Census data for BBB under Serbian occupation

Banat census (under Serbian occupation is all Banat):

592,049 (37.42%) Romanians 387,545 (24.50%) Germans 284,329 (17.97%) Serbs 242,152 (15.31%) Hungarians

Bačka census (all Bačka is under Serbian military control):

Hungarian = 363,518 (44.75%) German = 190,697 (23.47%) Serbian = 145,063 (17.86%) Romanian = 386

Baranja census (greatest part is under Serbian control. Only city outside control is Komlo):

Hungarian = 199,659 (56.64%) German = 112,297 (31.86%) Serbian = 13,048 (3.70%) Croatian = 10,159 (2.88%)

Numbers speak this:

Hungarian 805 329 German 690 539 Romanian 592 435 Serbian 442 440

Point of this is that Serbs are only 4th nation if we look numbers for BBB which is under Serbian military control. So 4th nation in census numbers has given 76 % of assembly members. This is democracy farse !! Now I am really interested to hear how is possible to defeat that data. ---Rjecina 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will "defeat" your data very easy. Check this: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif you will see that "all Banat" was not controled by Serbian army, you will also see that northern border of Bačka on this map is different from border of former Bačka-Bodrog county: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/images/megyek1/bacsbod.gif and you will also see that northern border of Baranja is different from border of former Baranja county: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/images/megyek1/baranya.gif In another words, you calculated population of non-existing territory. PANONIAN 07:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User Hobartimus...

It would be nice that you use talk page before your changes - you basically reverting two things:

  • 1. population data for BBB in 1918 - this problem is discussed in previous section of this talk page where I showed why this data is not correct. Why you posting incorrect data into article? PANONIAN 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. For ocuupation issue you said this: "so Hungary(including Pecs, Baja) is the "Serb's country" intresting theory". My answer is: we both know that main part of BBB is in present-day Serbia and Pecs, Baja were only its peripheral (irrelevant) parts. However, knowing the fact that Pecs and Baja are in question here I used neural words like "controled" and "entered" instead word "liberated", which is widely used in Serbia. I know that "liberated" would be POV word because of Pecs and Baja, so I did not used it, but I do not see why you using POV words "occupied" and "invaded" implying that Serbs occupied their own country? What is wrong with words "entered" and "controled"? PANONIAN 11:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
1. didnt post that data, you should talk to Rjecina about that.
O? But you reverted to article version that contain this data - with whom I should speak about that?
2. What's suddenly your problem with admitting that it was occupation? Let's see
"They were officially occupied until November 25..." remember who wrote this about the terriotries in question? [1] Yes, you yourself wrote that it was occupation until november 25, and now ask how Serbs can occupy? I ask you. You wrote it was occupation in the debate about the "propaganda map" (not my words, words of the voters there), and now you seem insulted by your own words and call them POV? (if occupied is correct than "invaded" must be correct too, but I would be happy to hear the opinion of others about "Invaded" or "entered" should be used. Hobartimus 12:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did wrotte that it was officially seen as occupation, but it was not "Serbian occupation" - it was "occupation of WWI ally forces". However, if you writte about "Serbian occupation" then you imply that Serbs occupied land in which they lived as majority and some Wiki readers could read this in very wrong meaning. Words "entered" and "controled" are NPOV and correct and I would like you to say any serious objection why we should not use these words. PANONIAN 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
WWI was over by that time so your argument is incorrect and those were indeed serbian forces (we are talking about the army not the population). You admit occupation at one place and try to deny it at another place? It would be intresting to hear what other users think of this matter. Hobartimus 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The word have several different meanings and usage of the word in the way you proposing could imply something else than official name of military operation of WWI allie forces. However, you still did not said why words "entered" and "controled" are wrong? PANONIAN 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what are we talking about here. YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED IT WAS OCCUPATION. Hobartimus 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I exaplained that this word could be POV because it have several different meanings. Why you object to word "controled"? PANONIAN 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand how can you object to a phrase that you yourself admitted is true. Explain that please. Occupation is a fact. Why try to whitewash occupation. Hobartimus 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Because word have several meanings and because you use this word in bad faith with exactly opposite meaning than it originally had. However, I will ask you again: what is wrong with word "controled"? PANONIAN 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? Exactly opposite meaning? please explain. Hobartimus 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is simple question really: what is wrong with word "controled"? Regarding opposite meaning, word "occupation" also have certain negative meaning and is sometimes used to designate (in negative sense) rule of one army over foreign territory. The problem here is the fact, that much of these lands were not "foreign territory", but historical territories of Serbian Vojvodina, inhabited by Serbs, for whom these Serbian soldiers were liberators. In most historical books in Serbia, word "liberated" is used for this event, but I do not understand why you object to word "controled"? PANONIAN 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to "controlled" (note the double LL), but I want the text to be accurate. All editors on this page wrote "occupied" at one time or another yourself included (you wrote it on August 2th.). Also you must understand the concept of "foreign territory", you cannot go around saying that lands outside the actual border of a country are not "foreign". The english language already defined the word "foreign" unfourtunately. I guess today's Bosnia-Hercegovina is not "foreign" to you? Croatia (the small parts where Serbs live) is also not "foreign"? Kosovo, Montenegro is also not foreign meaning the Serb army of today can invade (oh pardon "enter") all these lands since these lands are not "foreign" to Serbia? Is this what you are telling me? Hobartimus 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that this deals with the events after 13 November 1918. I think for that period "controlled" is the neutral term. --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah!!! This is a serbian clique. PANONIA hase lose the discusion and then comme PaxEquilibrium and later 1001 sebs. hahahah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.161.204 (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal facts

Can we agree with facts writen by user PANONIAN that name of assembly has been: Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and Other Slavs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja ?

In my think we all agree about that !

Dear PANONIAN legal meaning of this name/words is that this is assembly of all Serbs, Bunjevci, Other Slavs from all Banat, Bačka and Baranja !! If they have voted only for territory under Serbian occupation then name of assembly need to be something like : Great People's Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and Other Slavs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja under Serbian control.

All in all I do not see that something like that is writen because of which they have voted for all Banat, Bačka and Baranja ! Maybe you will PANONIAN say that this is not truth but legal fact stay and it is not possible to defeat him with nationalistic propaganda.

No. They did not voted for "all Banat, Bačka and Baranja" - they voted for (this was officially stated) "parts of Banat, Bačka and Baranja in borders that will be defined by the peace conference". Thus, the fact is that it is confusing for what they voted because assembly did had representatives from all parts of BBB controled by Serbian army, but it also stated that vote would apply to "borders that will be defined by the peace conference", which were not yet known in the time. PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Total population of Banat, Bačka and Baranja in census of 1910 has been 2 746 996. Number of Serbs has been 442 440. In the end they have been in BBB 16.11 % of population and in the assembly for BBB they are having 76 % of members. Hobartimus do you agree with my arguments ? ---Rjecina 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your defintion of "Banat, Bačka and Baranja" - do you speak about territory controled by Serbian army or about "all of BBB"? PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it must be shown that Serbs were a very small percentage in the whole country and a small percentage in BBB. The name of the assembly shows that they wanted to represent Banat Bacska and Baranya, not just the Serbian occupied BBB, so correct census data must be used. It must be noted that the assembly was the opinion of a few hundred Serbs (you could easily gather a few hundred people in any country so that would be insane if a few hundred ppl could give away a land to an other country). They had no right to give away Croatian and Hungarian land to anyone and vote about anything. Land can be transferred through war and conquest, gained with invasion of armies but not with a joke vote of a few hundred Serbs while excluding everyone else who lived there. This must be explained in the article, or the reader could be confused and think this was a democratic vote where everyone could vote not just a few serbs. The best example is to see what would happen today. If a few hundred Romanians gather and proclaim unification of Vojvodina with Romania tomorrow the police would simply arrest them as criminals would they not? Hobartimus 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually Serbs were largest ethnic group in BBB in the borders defined by the peace conference and they voted for these borders. And which country you speak about here? I also answered in my previous post about issue what this assembly represented: "parts of Banat, Bačka and Baranja in borders that will be defined by the peace conference". Also, we have no reason to use this census data here - we have separate article about BBB and this census data is already written there (I do not see that we wrotte in this article any other data about population of any other territory). Also, the peace conference certainly did not gave "Croatian and Hungarian land" to Serbs, because despite the fact Serbs were largest ethnic group in BBB with peace conference defined borders, there were only few thousands Croats there and also not much "real" Hungarians who were not magyarized Slavs or Germans. And the vote was indeed democratic - we can say that more than 50% of population of BBB was represented on this assembly because there were representatives of all Slavs and representatives of Germans as well, which together were more than 50% of population. PANONIAN 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again you are not writing truth and this is only cultural saying because of wiki rules. We will all accept your census data that Serbs has been majority in BBB but this data exist only in your wishes. Second in article Croats of Serbia you have been deleting my edits in which it is writen that part of Croats has taken Yugoslav nationality. Your comments have been "You cannot claim that somebody who declared himself as Yugoslav is Croat" and "you cannot count those people that declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci here, please respect their human rights to choose their nationality by free choice". Because you in this comment are not respecting Hungarians human rights to choose their nationality by free choice you are showing yourself like nothing other but Serbian extreme nationalist (in my thinking this is words with fund...). About voting it is interesting how regions want to become part of Serbia when they are under Serbian occupation but not before ?? ---Rjecina 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I speak about BBB borders defined by the 1919/1920 peace treaties in which Serbs were relative majority. In the 1918 cease fire borders of BBB population was ethnically very mixed and we do not have exact data about its population. So, why you inventing this data based on population for different territorial entities? Can you understand that BBB province did not included whole territory of Banat, Bačka and Baranja regions, thus you cannot present population data for these regions as population data for BBB? - what exactly is "not truth" in my statement here? And where exactly I said that I "do not respecting Hungarians human rights to choose their nationality by free choice" and what exactly this have with the fact that you adding into this article numbers that you invented? And regarding Vojvodina, Serbs of this region have fought to become part of Serbia for very long time before 1918, so your last sentence is ridiculous. However, I will propose compromise here: I will change article text and I will include your opinion that 1918 assembly might not be legal regarding territories majority inhabited by Hungarians and Romanians, but I will also writte that it was legal regarding territories majority inhabited by Serbs - in another words, we will see whether you really care for rights of Hungarians or you just want to deny right of Serbs to live in their own country. PANONIAN 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Census data

In begining PANONIAN you have spoken that voting has been for all BBB under serbian occupation. After it is shown that this is not true but that vote has been for all BBB you have changed song and spoken how Serbs has been majority in territory given to Yugoslavia in peace agreement. To finish this misleading writing with only thinking to show how BBB is Serbs land before 1918 I will show now census data for BBB. All data is taken from wikipedia articles and all data has been writen by PANONIAN, so nobody can say that this is my data:

Banat 1910:

  • 229,568 (40.53%) Serbs
  • 108,662 (19.18%) Hungarians

Baranya 1921 because in 1910 census data Serbs and Croats are put together:

  • Hungarians = 14,636 (29.6%)
  • Serbs = 6,782

Bačka:

  • Hungarian = 260,998 (35.5%) (data is from 1921 because data for 1910 is for all Bačka)
  • Serbian = 145,063 (17.86%) (data is from 1910 and it is for all Bačka. There is no clear wiki data for Serbs number in Bačka 1921 because they are put together with Bunjevci, Štokci and Croats)

Total :

  • Hungarians 384 296
  • Serbs 381 413

All in all Hungarians are having relative majority. If we put all south slavs (Serbs, Bunjevci, Štokci and Croats) together then they are having relative majority. ---Rjecina 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But Rjecina, voting was simply not for whole Banat, Bačka and Baranja regions. There were no representatives of other parts of BBB in the assembly, only representatives of these regions controled by Serbian army, thus, as I said, you cannot calculate population of whole BBB to illustatre population of Serbian-controled parts of BBB. That would be a forgery. Thus data that you presented here have no relation to subject of this article. And yes, Serbs were relative majority in parts of BBB assigned to Yugoslavia. PANONIAN 13:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is census data for parts BBB which has been given to Yugoslavia with peace agreements---Rjecina 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No it is not - census data is 29% Serbs, 27.7% Hungarians, 23.8% Germans (Source: Drago Njegovan, Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji, Novi Sad, 2004). PANONIAN 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We cannot be sure of the demographic data. In 1921 numerous Hungarians probably already migrated/left from Serbian Backa, so you shouldn't mix them. Also I believe that many Serbs-Croats have settled BBB by then due to process of inner migrations. So that means it's questionable whether you can really apply the 1921 population censuses, though counting the time and things that occurred, it certainly is more usable than the 1910 one.
Also, 1910 was far before 1921, and we must take to granted that probably the minorities (non-Hungarians and non-Germans) weren't at all in quite a nice position during the Great war in 1914-1918. For example when the very south (including mostly Syrmia) was shortly occupied by the Serbian troops in late 1914, the civilian population greeted them as liberators and collaborated. When shortly the Central Powers (Austro-Hungarian Imperial Army) retook control over those regions they retributed to the population, massacring thousands and thousands of civilians (guess who they were). And of course, there were some internment camps, and the minorities were (Slavs/Serbs in particular) subjected to a certain degree of oppression. This fully questions whether you can even begin to apply the 1910 census data. Then also perhaps, I guess there is a possibility that some Hungarians and Germans also fled before the Allies broke into B-B-B, but I have no data of a major exodus (if there was one) so I'm not sure. It also is an important factor. --PaxEquilibrium 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
We do not have to speculate anything - we have exact data from reliable source: 29% Serbs, 27.7% Hungarians, 23.8% Germans (Source: Drago Njegovan, Prisajedinjenje Vojvodine Srbiji, Novi Sad, 2004). PANONIAN 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This census data which are writen are yours dear PANONIAN. Do you want to say that you have lied in writing census data in articles Bačka, Banat and Baranja ?? Now you want that we do not believe in your data which are on wiki but in data from obscure book. Sorry wikipedia is not working in that way.
Another thing. If in article is writen that Slavs or South Slavs are majority then it is not possible to write that Serbs/South Slavs are majority. Do you want to say that all South Slavs are Serbs or that Serbs are not South Slavs but in union with them ??
Last thing about this stuff is question of Hungarians. I have been reading on internet that 30 000 or more Hungarians has left Vojvodina until 1921. This hungarians have been members of state administration, police force, army and similar stuff. I must say that I believe that data and fact that on place of this Hungarians has come Serbs from Serbia. --Rjecina 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
And Croats from Croatia-Slavonia. Also, according to the data from PANONIAN's book, 51.5% of the population were Hungarians and Germans. --PaxEquilibrium 11:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in PANONIAN books. I and many others from Croatia or Hungary do not trust data from his books because of many misleading edits. In the end for Croatia is not important if Hungarians or Germans are majority because she is having legal possibility for independence. She is kingdom in Union with Hungary. Yes she is very weak partner but ... --Rjecina 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You should be, if you plan on editing the Wikipedia. :) You cannot "dismiss" plainly his sources. That would mean you dismiss just because you don't like them. And I personally see absolutely no way that "you and many others from Croatia or Hungary" do not trust data from books presented by PANONIAN (what if he presents The Hamlet?) and AFAIK I do not see that you don't trust 'em. Don't use "she" for Croatia, use it. And here again you twist around having legal possibility. She wasn't a Kindom in Union with Hungary - she was a part of a Kingdom subjected to Hungary. And it's possibility for independence simply lies with that right for self-determination, which again accounts for each respective ethnic group of Croatia-Slavonia. And you also seem to forget the great controversy and what Croatia did in Međimurje, which was far more "absurd" than any other annexation by the Yugoslavians (BBB, or other). Firstly, Medjimurje wasn't even evacuated by the Belgrade 13 November 1918 treaty, so you can see how there's controversy over its annexation. --PaxEquilibrium 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should also be aware that the 1910 population census was an overestimate. It included officials and soldiers who only had temporary residence, and ergo a huge number of, well, I guess mostly Hungarians and Germans, was there only on duty. But that number couldn't've been drastically larger, however what was larger is the fact that a lot of people nationally declared as e.g. Hungarians weren't that. That's in particular the case with northern Backa, where thousands and thousands of Catholics were actually Slavs, Croats. This is especially seen in Subotica, Sombor and Bajmok. These all number thousands... --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let try again...

Ok, let solve problems like adults and talk about all remaining problems here one by one. PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation of Serbian army"

I already explained why word is POV - word "occupation" have many meanings and somebody could read it in different way than as description of WWI ally military operation. I suggest that word "controled" is used since it is correct and it does not have different meanings. Why you object to usage of word "controled"?. PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It must be explained that this so called assembly took place under military occupation. It is a fact that cannot be denied. Hobartimus 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Under most logic terms, that's an occupation (1. foreign forces occupying domestic terrain, 2. against the will of the majority of the people). --PaxEquilibrium 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not "foreign terrain" since Slavs were majority in most of these areas that were later recognized as part of SHS, and it was not against majority of the people who lived in these Slavic inhabited areas. However, I tried to make compromise in which I mentioned that land was controled by Serbian army (the only difference is usage of more neutral word) and I also mentioned that assembly did not had authority to represent areas that were not Slavic-inhabited. So, to what you object in this compromise version? PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Your extreme POV is obvious from the first sentence. I cant even read past that one sentence. It was not "foreign terrain"?????????? This is the type of stuff I talk about(fringe views held by 2-3 ppl like flat-earth theory). Hobartimus 21:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly you consider POV here? And please tell me how that can be "foreign terrain" when it is land of my Serb ancestors who live in that land for centuries? It is my and their land and how exactly it can be "foreign" for me and them? PANONIAN 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You do not understand that land outside the borders of the Kingdom of Serbia is "foreign terrain"???? Now I see the reason for all the wars started by Serbs, against Croatia, Kosovo etc etc. Thinking like this can easily lead to war. Hobartimus 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And do you understand that Serbian army was INVITED to come here by local National Boards, i.e. by local people for whom this country cannot be "foreign". And please, dont speak about wars because you are the one who want part of my country (that is why you writing what you writing), while you cannot see me editing articles related to Croatia or Kosovo attempting to prove that these lands should belong to Serbia. PANONIAN 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is still "foreign" to Serbia, even if some local people invited a foreign army. Local Germans invited Hitler into many places, local communists invited Stalin so it's not the best example either. Also you are too involved in this personally to the point where you became paranoid. You should cool down before you make more personal attacks. Hobartimus 23:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But it is not foreign to Serbs and this article speak about local Serbs whom you want to present like "foreigners" in their country. PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Foreign", PANONIAN, simply means foreign - a country has its territory, its borders, and BBB was most certainly foreign - it belonged to Austria-Hungary (i.e. Transleithania). --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It is maybe foreign for you (you are an Montenegrin, right?), but I am native of this area and my ancestors lived here long before Germans and Hungarians were colonized by Habsburg authorities and therefore for my ancestors who lived here in 1918, this land cannot be foreign and it is not acceptable that somebody want to present them like "foreigners" since they were the only true natives of this land. PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
PANONIAN I know from our other discussions that your point of view is that no country has controled BBB after death of Austro-Hungary. Only in my wish to show you another point I will say OK maybe, maybe you are right. If your point is right what will you say about question of Banat republic. They have not wanted that Serbian army make conquest and destruction of this state, they have not asked for military help. Even you must accept that this has been occupation ?? Rjecina 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Banat Republic never fully controled its territory - during its entire existence its guardists were engaged in civil war against guardists of Serb National Guard in Banatian cities (I can expand article and wtite more about it if you want). PANONIAN 12:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Slavic Banate did invite the Serbian forces and greet them as liberators. Of course, the Romanians were far from satisfied, but they agreed (in a way, both sides were semi-satisfied and semi-unsatisfied) in 1919, when the greater part of Banate was handed over to Romania. I'd also like to point that 1. the Romanians greeted the Serbian army as liberators and didn't call it occupation and 2. such leniency regarding the division of that part of the Crown of Saint Stephen shows that Serbia had no ultra-nationalist or "un-far" pretensions in that course (I'm much more unsatisfied with what occurred in Baranya and Bacs). --PaxEquilibrium 20:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is simply. It is ocupation from the LOSERS and LIBERTY from WINNERS. - I dont beliver thate this it was a putch or aneksion etc. but it was war. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.161.204 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"were not elected in a democratic way"

How exactly representatives of Slavs "were not elected in a democratic way"? What is your description of "democratic way"? And how exactly could be questionable whether they had "legitimity to represent the Slavic population"? PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we know the opinions of the Slavs that were not in the assembly? We only know the opinion of that few hundred people who actually was there at that time. If a gather around a few hundred Hungarians does that mean that we can speak for all Hungarians in the country? That would be pure nonsense. The sentence only means that this assembly only represented the 700 people who were there at a time of military occupation and thats it. Hobartimus 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
These deputies were elected by the people from their towns/villages, thus IT WAS an democratic process very similar to modern democracies. In another words, these deputies represented people from various towns/villages who elected them. We can agree that they did not had authority to represent Hungarians or Romanians, but claim that they did not had authority to represent local Slavs is ridiculous. PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Highly disagree. For compromise, put that it did not represent the main populations (Hungarians and Germans), but it's legitimacy over the minorities (e.g. South Slavs) is there. --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me then who put those people into the assembly? Who gave them the authority? Who put those people there? If I gather a few hundred ppl can we also proclaim legal unification with the United States, Germany or whatever? It is pure nonsens that a few hundred can have any type of legitimacy for anything. I already asked once. If today Romanians in voivodina gather the same way and declare the independence of the new State of West Romania can they do that in a legal way, or would they be arrested as common criminals? Please answer that question. Hobartimus 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, deputies were elected by the people from their towns/villages. That is a base of modern democracy as well, so if they did not had authority to represent people that elected them, then we can claim the same for every single parliament in this world. PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any source to these statements you make here? Also kindly explain how could the Serbs win 76% if the election was democratic? But I'm sure you can back this up with an abundance of english language sources. You also did not answer my question what would happen if they tried the same thing in todays Serbia. Also the whole thing was illegal as these territories had no autonmy so had no right to create this farce assembly in the first place.Hobartimus 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course that I have sources. Please post "citation needed" for every statement for which you think that it should be sourced and I will provide you sources for them. And as I said, we can agree that Serb deputies did not had authority to represent non-Serb population, but you cannot claim that they did not had authority to represent Serb population and Serb-majority areas. Also, I do not see how hypothetical question about modern Serbia is related to this discussion. I also do not see how existing autonomy of one territory is related to will of the local people to gain autonomy or independence. However, when Austria-Hungary ceased to exist in November 16 1918 (exact date) all initiatives of local peoples were legal because there was no any existing law of non-existing state against them. PANONIAN 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hobartimus, LEGAL and LEGITIMATE are two completely different terms in Law & Politics. For one things, that BBB Great Assembly was illegal, but also 'legitimate. --PaxEquilibrium 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. In my original text it is writen that National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs has not been elected but somebody has deleted that "not important" fact ?? I hope that in the end we will all agree how nobody outside Kingdom of Serbia in 1918 is having honest election victory (nobody is elected in free elections) Rjecina 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. The Council was elected by the local micromanagements of Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rijeka, Istria and the Slovenian lands. I beg to differ. You have to define "honest election victory" and "free elections" - 'cause the first time Free Elections emerged on our lands was no sooner than 1990, and still we can't deny that for example, Serbia, had only after 2000 entered the true era of democratic parliamentarism (while USA and France are, without break, practicing it for over 200 years for example). --PaxEquilibrium 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From my knowledge Council has been made by must popular politicans, cultural workers and similar from this lands but there have not been elections in near past (last has been Austro-Hungary elections before WWI) ? Rjecina 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes the council was assembled only 10 days after the Serbian army invasion ("entering"), so holding elections would have been impossible anyway. Hobartimus 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no; you're probably mixing it with the Yugoslav Board. --PaxEquilibrium 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why Hobartimus, that is absolutely completely false. The National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was already formed and its State already independent from Austro-Hungary that collapsed. With the collapse of the Dual Monarchy no law bounded Bosnia and Herzegovina for statehood; while Austria's own "give ups" (recognition) and shifting to the Republic have "freed" Dalmatia, Istria and the self-proclaimed Slovenian lands. And with the collapse of the 1867 treaty that made the Monarchy, the 1868 Hungaro-Croatian deal fell, also in legal terms "unbounding" Croatia and Slavonia from the Kingdom of Hungary. However, the only issue was with the Hungarian coastline with Rijeka, which was the actual territory of the Hungarian crown and yet still declared independence and joined the South Slavic state. However, remember that the state lost this to Italian forces.
The Serbian Army didn't invade those lands. Squadrons of Serbian troops were invited to enter Zemun, Osijek, Sarajevo, Zagreb and some smaller places. These small detachments had a solely diplomatic cause, meaning that Italy could never annex (further) parts of the State of SCS (which was recognized as independent by the Kingdom of Serbia) without going to war with Serbia. Rijeka also invited the Serbian Army, but never managed to reach there in time, as the Italian Army invaded Rijeka, expelled the local government and occupied it for itself (as per the London Treaty). The three retreating Austro-Hungarian armies were a problem as well. Slovenia for example, where the Serbian Army had no presence, was subjected to brutal robberies and rapes by Austro-Hungarian soldiers retreating from the Austrian front in the wake of the Italian Allied advance. So the State of SHS already greatly existed when tiny Serbian troops came to those regions. --PaxEquilibrium 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In state of SCS has entered only token Serbian force (greater army has entered only in Syrmia). Legal situation of Croatia-Slavonia has been simple. Kingdom in union with Hungary. Must simple evidence for that is Hungarian census of 1910 where data of Croatia-Slavonia is separated of data for Hungary. I will not enter discussion about legal situation of Bosnia or Slovenia because I do not have enough data (but information of token forces true). Rjecina 16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not how it was, I'm afraid. A delegation from Zemun came to Belgrade requesting backup from Serbia on 5 November 1918 (just like from Osijek). And the Serbian troops that entered were not even "great", lest even an "army" at all. Based on Wilson's Fourteen Points and the consent of both Vienna and Pest to national self-determination of the whole of Austria-Hungary based on ethnic points,... remember that the majority of the population of Syrmia (or most of it) were ethnic Serbs. However, the true bases of the November 24 1918 decision to join Serbia (which wasn't forced) based itself upon the poor actings of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in Zagreb to unite. And Nikola Pasic's Radical propaganda about the plan to first unite the ethnic Serb territory (as per presented on PANONIAN's previous map of the Kingdom of Serbia from 1918) and then unite with Croatian and Slovenian had to have some part in it too. The claims for this was the Serbian Dukedom in 1848-1860 that predated the 1868- Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia.
"Legal situation of Croatia-Slavonia" was partially resolved in 1919, then throughout 1920 and finally in 1921-1922. Zagreb was only indirectly subjected to Vienna - directly to Pest. There was no separate census data. Transleithania or the Crown of Saint Stephen, also called "Kingdom of Hungary" included Croatia and Slavonia. But without it, it's "Hungary proper" (just like Serbia without Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija). --PaxEquilibrium 11:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Why you replace reference to "Hungarians and Romanians" inside South Slavic borders with reference to "Hungarians and Germans"? Borders of South Slavic state were defined towards Romania, not towards Germany, thus I do not understand reasons for this replacement? PANONIAN 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? How does Germany come into the picture here? Hobartimus 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I explained you how - do you want to say that you do not see what you reverting or what? Also, why you reverted my last edits about Serb Boards and Serb Guard? It is disruptive to revert entire edits of other users, no matter if you agree with something there or not - this kind of behavior is not a good way towards compromise and agreement about this article and without such agreement acceptable for all, we will go nowhere (you are very wrong if you think that constant revert wars will help you here because revert wars without discussion on the talk page whose purpose is to solve problems and make a step towards agreement and compromise are considered disruptive). So, I suggest you this: go eat some food and rest few hours, cool your attitude, and then read differences between two versions and please do not revert part of my changes with which you agree, and as for other part that you do not agree with, please use this talk page to make your proposal about compromise. Is that ok? PANONIAN 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Your proposal is sensible, except for the fact that you usually never accept any part of other people's edit and revert them in full, so it would have a lot more credibility if you started it first. Also you complain about these guards that collaborated with the Serbian army, but you make things worse by adding new stuff when we have enough trouble trying to figure out the old stuff. Hobartimus 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Aha, here we are: I do not know you for long time, so how you can know me to claim that "I never accept any part of other people's edit and revert them in full"? (which is by the way ridiculous, since most my revets were partial with attempt to find compromise version - the problem of course was that when I accepted one compromise the "opposite side" was the one that constantly introduced more and more of new POV stuff after every compromise version of the article accepted by me). Regarding Serb guard, I added that to illustrate the fact that much of political and military initiatives came from local people (and I added that after I accepted your view that we should write that territory was controled by Serbian army) and I do not understand what problem you have with this fact? PANONIAN 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I already explained. The problem is not with the fact that there were some local Serb guards collaborating with the Serb army, but with the fact that you add this when we still debate about occupation/control and other things. It only adds to the confusion if you add more and more sentences to this section. Btw this is also the definition of original research when you write "I added that to illustrate the fact" you add facts, little details that are insignificant to strengthen your POV. You also misquoted me, I wrote "you USUALLY never accept..." you left out usually. My point was that your last action was to simply do a full revert instead of the partial revert suggested by yourself. Hobartimus 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Serb guard did not "collaborated with the Serbian army" - it was formed by local Serbs before army of Kingdom of Serbia came into area. And I really do not see how this can be confusing for anything. And no it is not original reasearch because I simply translated sentences from my sources (I can quote these sources if you want). The real problem is that you constantly want to present your personal (Greater Hungarian) POV that Serbs "conquered" and "occupied" this area and therefore you constantly deleting everything that speak about local Serb population and their political and military initiatives - I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. There is no single scientific reason that history of local Serbs is deleted (especially because this is their country that we speak about) - if you for example speak about France, it would not be nice to delete history of the French people, right? PANONIAN 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Very POVised article

I just skimmed it and got the impression that it was created to spit at Yugoslavia, cursing its ever creation. ;X --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think about it the existence of Yugoslavia caused enormous amount of suffering and multiple wars not even that long ago. With that said I think the article is very much written from a Serbian POV (Serbian army "entered" instead of invaded, or attacked etc etc). Hobartimus 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is not very neutral. It's basically an attack against a whole country and probably millions of innocent people. Should I say that existence of Albania is the reason for instability in the Balkans? Should I say that existence of Turkey caused the greatest suffering in the world the Balkans ever had in its history? Should I say the existence of Germany caused the greatest amount of suffering and multiple wars? Sounds a different way know, doesn't it? And you keep concentrating on BBB - overall article seems to be much anti-Yugoslav. --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Pax, this article was created by user Rjecina in bad faith to illustrate his personal views about politics. Regarding claims of user Hobartimus, Serbian army in fact liberated territories where my ancestors lived oppressed by the country nicknamed "dungeon of nation". Do you have problem with the fact that I live in my country in the land of my ancestors? And how exactly Serbian army can "attack" or "invade" land of my ancestors when they saw this army as liberators? PANONIAN 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The article may have been created by Rjecina but it seems you completely rewritten the article since it's creation. It's incredibly hard to get through even the smallest changes because of your high energy level. Hobartimus 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But PANONIAN, Serbs formed only a part of the population of Banate, Bacs & Baranya. I believe that others didn't consider it that way.
That is not a reason that somebody delete history of local Serbs. PANONIAN 12:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I in general have good thoughts of Rjecina. I shall talk to him about this. --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have answered about Montenegro question on discussion page of PaxEquilibrium but I will give now my thinking of this article her for everybody.
Part of article which speak about Montenegro is taken from Serbian wiki without my personal thinking.
Part of article which speak about State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is not writen by me but editor of that is user:AjaxSmack. In personal thinking my article is better because it is showing real situation of this state and why they have choosen Yugoslavia. If somebody read my version he will see that Yugoslavia has been right option (last my version is this [2]).
About BBB I will not speak because there is much discussion about that. Now I am interested to hear your thinkings ? Rjecina 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And I answered to you. ;)
The info is pretty much different from that of the Serbian Wikipedia, it looks to be far more different from a simple translation as you put it. Selective wording and even altering... --PaxEquilibrium 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I do not understand ?? Source article is part Izvori za skupštinu. Can you tell me what in this article is writen bad or misleading about Montenegro? Rjecina 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
During 1916 military forces of Austro-Hungary have made occupation of this independent kingdom. After destruction of Austro-Hungarian forces on Balkans it has become clear that Serbian army will "liberate" Montenegro from occupation. Because of that goverment of Serbia has on 15 October 1918 created Central Committee for Union of Serbia and Montenegro. After coming to "liberated" Cetinje (capital of Montenegro) this Committee with support of Serbian army has started to create cities majors and province governors. Soon after on 25 October 1918 in city of Berane Central Committe has writen rules for election of parlament members which only job will be to vote for union with Serbia. Elections for parlament which has not been even close to free has been on 19 November 1918 . In all there have been 165 „elected“ members. From that number minimal 30 has been put in parlament by occupation forces without election because population of Bijelo Polje, Plav and Gusinje has not been allowed to vote. Only great power which has in that time supported independent Montenegro has been Italy which king has been married with daughter of Montenegro king Nicholas I. Trying to stop parlament farse Italian army has entered Montenegro territory trying to take control of capital. Few days after this has failed Podgorica Assembly has started discussion about union with Serbia. On 26 November 1918 Podgorica assembly has with secret vote under "protection" of Serbian army passed this declaration: "To unite Kingdom of Montenegro with the Kingdom of Serbia, under the House of Karađorđević, and to then unite with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" After that story of Montenegro has ended but local population has been unhappy with this sort of events so they have on 7 January 1919 started Christmas Uprising which will be crushed only in 1926
The two "s twice on the term liberate are obviously there as weasel marks. This has not been taken from Serbian wikipedia.
The role of this parliament was not just blatantly only to proclaim union with Serbia. This hasn't been taken from the Serbian wikipedia.
which has not been even close to free, again, POV weasel-wording; especially considering the subject of "free elections". This hasn't been takend from the Serbian wikipedia.
another "s at the elected bit. Weasel too; not taken from Serbian wiki.
Italy never ever supported an independent Montenegro, but aimed against Yugoslavia (mostly Slovenes and Croats) to seize Dalmatia as per the 1915 Longon Agreement. And the so-called intervention of the Italian Army to take Cetinje has never ever occurred. Trying to stop parlament farse Italian army has entered Montenegro territory trying to take control of capital. Clearly POV, justifying an invasion (which didn't occur). This hasn't been taken from the Serbian wikipedia.
under "protection" of Serbian army what is the meaning of this, and especially the " bit? This hasn't been taken from Serbian wiki.
After that story of Montenegro has ended but local population has been unhappy with this sort of events so they have on 7 January 1919 started Christmas Uprising which will be crushed only in 1926 Completely false and certainly not translated from the Serbian wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Let speak about what are must important facts so that we can come to agreement.--Rjecina 18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The main issue as well is that you didn't take from the Serbian Wikipedia the date of the "other side", presenting it thereby far too one-sided. --PaxEquilibrium 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's your Croatian article:

Crnu Goru koja je bila okupirana od Austro-Ugarske 1916. godine Srpska vojska "oslobađa" tijekom listopada 1918. Već 15 listopada, to jest 8 dana prije "oslobađanja" Cetinja Srbija postavlja povjerenike za Crnogorsko pitanje koji de facto preuzimaju vlast pod imenom Centralni izvršni odbor za ujedinjenje Srbije i Crne Gore. Kako Crna Gora tog doba ima parlament okupator je proglasio da se izbori za njegov novi saziv trebaju održati 19. studenog 1918. godine. Dok su se kakvi takvi izbori održali u većem dijelu države u minimalno 3 kotara (Bijelo Polje, Plav i Gusinje) koji davaju sveukupno 30 zastupnika parlamentarce je direktno izabrala okupacijska vlast. Da bi se spriječio dolazak ljudi s pogrešnim političkim stajalištima tijekom ovog razdoblja srpska vojska je kontrolirala tko se smije, a tko ne vratiti iz inostranstva u svoju domovinu.
Nakon dovršenih izbora dolazi 24 studenog do okupljanja Podgoričke skupštine koja je trebala donesti odluku o ujedinjenju s Srbijom. U posljednjem pokušaju da to spriječi Italija koja je podržavala kralja Nikolu i nezavisnost Crne Gore pokreće svoje snage s današnje Crnogorske obale kako bi sačuvala nezavisnost ove države. U trenutku kada je talijanska vojska došla do prvih prepreka na svom putu ona se preplašena mogućeg rata s Srbijom vraća kući.
Nekoliko dana nakon talijanskog povlačenja, to jest 26. studenog 1918. godine Podgorička skupština pod "zaštitom" srpske vojske donosi sljedeću odluku tajnim glasovanjem:
"Da se Crna Gora bezuslovno sjedini s Srbijom u novu državu na čelu s dinastijom Karađorđević i da tako sjedinjeni uđu u zajedničku domovinu Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca"
Ovo izglasavanje pod pritiskom okupatorske vojske će rezultirati Božićnim ustankom crnogorskog naroda koji dovodi do gerilskog rata u Crnoj Gori što traje sve do 1926 godine.

Again the "" next to liberate, twice.

The Central Committee was formed as per the decision of the Great Assembly of the Serb People in Montenegro, not when the Serbian Royal Army liberated the country.

It calls the Serbian forces "the occupier" and than makes a completely false statement that it declared new elections because Montenegro had its own parliament - of course it didn't, it disassembled years before (and it's mandate would've expired had it existed anyway, which it didn't ;).

Actually the "occupational authority" (!) did not impose those 30+ MPs. :0)

Italy didn't do that, it just wanted to annex the Bay of Kotor and further Dalmatian territories. And what's more, how the heck did the Italians get to the coastline? And the whole Italian invasion is an invention that never ever happened.

The "protection" of the Serbian Army.

The Christmas Rebellion of the Montenegrin People (!) is a very bad term. The Greens were a violent and ultra-nationalist minority. And the uprising was crushed by the Montenegrin forces with allied assistance in 1919, the thing that lasted onwards limited itself to self-proclaimed half-robin hoods that hid in the woodlands or amongst the supporters of the Montenegrin Federalist Party that occasionally went out robbing or killing people, sort-off "haiduks" - far from a *guerrilla war* to call several people that didn't recognize the government, financed by the Fascists and working contrary to the commands of the late dethrowned Nicholas I whom they supposedly serve (in death). --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro

  • 1 Austro-Hungarian occupation of 1916
  • 2 Serbian occupation of 1918
  • 3 Creating of mayors and governers in Montenegro
  • 4 Voting (Bijelo Polje, Plav and Gusinje). This is showing that parlament has not been OK elected
  • 5 Italy intervention
  • 6 Parlament voting under Serbian "protection". I hope that you will agree that it is not normal in time when parlament is voting about union with Serbia it is not normal that he is under "protection" of Serbian army.
  • 7 Uprising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjecina (talk • contribs) 18:59, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Your thinking ?.--Rjecina 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

    • 1 Yes, until it was ran off by the Allies in 1918
    • 2 It's too controversial to refer it as an occupation, especially making it seem as if it's the same as that of the Central Powers.
    • 3 I don't think that that one's true. AFAIK I'm sure of it
    • 4 I'm not sure but gonna check it.
    • 5 No. That's incorrect. The so-called Italian intervention and the Christmas Rebellion are practically the same thing.
    • 6 ..but what does it mean "under protection" of Serbian Army?
    • 7 Yes, it occurred (it's actually that Italian intervention). But it happened after the 1 December of 1918. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just checked and the Committee for the Union of Serbia and Montenegro was created as per the decision of this Great Assembly in Podgorica and it was comprised of equal members from Serbia and Montenegro.
The source from which most of the text is a deeply controversial one. It's the infamous "Montenegrina". First of all, the actual article written by Mijat is a presentation of most extreme Montenegrin nationalism, inspired by rewriting of history recently, and practical spitting at Serbia. It contains several facts that are plainly outright fallacious. Montenegrina, in general, is known for this kind of opinion en total, and its support of the most controversial man in Montenegro (yes, even more than Milo Djukanovic) - Jevrem Brković (an uncultured man known for first being a fan of Slobodan Milosevic, and today an ultimate Montenegrin nationalist who believes the school that Montenegrins are actually Croats, throughout his age he both adored and spitted each and every single ex Yugoslavian famous person) and his Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts which controls an ferocious para-military unit known as the "Lovćen Guard", which first planned to martially seize Montenegro and break its ties from Serbia, and today aggressively threatens the Serbian Orthodox Church aimed at seizing all of its property in Montenegro. I'd never use something that supports Vojislav Seselj or the Stormfront as a source. The DANU & this "private army" of Jevrem are the cause of many tensions in Montenegro between many Montenegrins on one side and pro-Serb Montenegrins and Serbs on the other. In addition to that, the Montenegrina has for long "Montenegrin language" at its top, which was, all up until recently when Montenegro became an independent country and it became an intriguing subject, considered a revisionist opinion - especially when the website was formed. I myself have come to know of the website's administrators, and they are all mostly amateur historians and professional nationalists. They keep a "Guest Book", for which they selectively choose exclusively positive comments. To test that I wrote one day 4 comments, 2 good and 2 bad - and guess what, in a week or so the 2 two positive critics were uploaded and the negative ones weren't. But to add as a sugar on top my reasons why I dislike Montenegrina, is a controversy over one of its claims - it has presented a document allegedly written by a Serbian institution before it (the institution) was created. :)))
So to solve the issue, I've looked for other (and non-Serb) sources, and not a single one of them is criticizing the assembly in that manner. Take this one for instance: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923, taken from www.firstworldwar.com
Taking into consideration the historical tendencies as well as political and economic interests of Montenegro, the Great Skupshtina, elected by the people of Montenegro and assembled at Podgoritza, has decided:
1. To depose the King, Nicholas Petrovich Niegush;
2. To effect the union of Montenegro with Serbia under he Karageorgevich dynasty and its entrance into the common fatherland of Serbians, Croatians, and Slovenes;
3. To elect a national committee specifically charged with the conduct of the affairs of Montenegro united with Serbia, and
4. To communicate this decision to former King Nicholas and to the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia, as well as to the Governments of the Allied and neutral powers.
..so you get the picture. --PaxEquilibrium 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Without question Italian intervention has been before vote. This [3] pro-Serbian source is speaking that. I have been reading now little Montenegrina about Montenegro annexation. For me it is interesting that they are giving clear raw data (dates, places) so they are for me more clear of Serbian sources. Yes I am sure that they forget data which they don't like but in Serbian sources is very little raw data so if you do not give this data they will be right .... --Rjecina 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but one silly little squadron of troops going somewhere and then not even fulfilling its mission is hardly an invasion, don't you think? ;) I already notified you that you shouldn't rely on Montenegrina, because of not only the highly bizarre occasions (Matica Srpska publishing a page before its creation) but the very fact for instance that it writes that Nicholas died in 1924 and 1926 (!) on two places. As from a whole, I wouldn't rely that those dates are actually correct, because they're contradicting at many places... also, more clear than which Serbian sources? --PaxEquilibrium 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

I thinking that this [[4]] is better version of this part of article Your thinking ?.--Rjecina 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not quite. Drastically poorly written without most essential details. --PaxEquilibrium 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we agree that this state has entered/created Yugoslavia with free will and that in article need to be writen reasons (Italian aggresion, wild habsburg forces, skirmish with Hungary and Austria) --Rjecina 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Skirmish with Hungary and Austria? --PaxEquilibrium 21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
For skirmish with Hungary look article about Slavko Kvaternik .--Rjecina 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, why don't you change the "occupying Hungarian Army" in that article? --PaxEquilibrium 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been reading this article until today. My knowledge of this skirmish has been from school or television...Problem will be solved.--Rjecina 22:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...when? --PaxEquilibrium 11:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You know that in this article today there is nothing about skirmish between Hungarian and Croatian forces. When article will have words about that then we will write something like: "Separation between Croatia and Hungary has created border question. Hungary position has been that river Drava is border between states but Croatia has been thinking that Međimurje is Croatian territory because of Croats majority. During military skirmish in this region Croatian forces has defetead Hungarian which has left province." (I think that this is too long for this article but words will be very similar). Territory has not been under Hungarian occupation ! Why ? If we look Austro-Hungary territory Međimurje has been Hungarian territory. If we look nations right for self-determination which has been accepted by Hungary in november 1918 this has been Croatian territory. --Rjecina 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Problem with BBB is that they have taken parts of territory with Hungarian or German majority which is against nations right for self-determination. --Rjecina 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Serbia

I do not like part of article Serbian disagreements. I thinking that this is better version of article [[5]]--Rjecina 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about re-ordering the whole article, to concentrate on precise matters? Let's have one paragraph as a short "Intro" on the idea, then let's have a paragraph called "Yugoslav Board (Committee), then "Serbia" which talked everything about Serbia, and then "State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes". Those would include all the relevant data. Of course, if relevant and long individually enough, Serbia could have sub-paragraphs "Banat-Backa-Baranya" and "Montenegro". About Syrmia I'm not sure if it needs a separate subparagraph, but the data could be simply included in the "State..." or "Serbia".
What do you think? --PaxEquilibrium 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK I am for re-ordering article but in little different way of your thinking. In my thinking article need this parts. Intro (death of Austro-Hungary), Kingdom of Serbia, Yugoslav Board, State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, BBB and Kingdom of Montenegro. Maybe you want to ask why this. Reason is every of this 5 states or regions is having different story how they have entered Yugoslavia. Syrmia need to be inside State .... or independent part of article because it is important for that state. Day after Syrmia has voted for annexation State has voted for Yugoslavia. This has been form of pressure to stop discussion and start voting. --Rjecina 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's practically exactly what I proposed. ;))) In the intro the idea should go too (Josip Juraj Strossermayer, Ljudevit Gaj, Dositej Obradovic, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic,...). And what's wrong with putting the Kingdom of Montenegro and B-B-B as sub-paragraphs of Serbia (to emulate how it was - three paragraphs and three factors that created Yugoslavia in Geneva: Yugoslav Board, National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia)? Also, why's Syrmia important, I've actually never seen that in any book save from a map and here, from PANONIAN. I guess it's not so well-known. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to trick me ?? BBB has never become part of Serbia (if nothing else users from Croatia will destroy article because of Baranja). They have been under Serbian occupation. Similar situation is with Montenegro. If you write that way you will have many angry users from Croatia (Baranja part of Serbia), Hungary (Pecs part of Serbia), Romania (Temišvar part of Serbia) and maybe even Montenegro. We need 5 paragraphs to make everybody happy. --Rjecina 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh, trick you? Firstly, they were a part of Serbia (for at least several days) and most of all, that's how they entered the Yugoslav state - and we've already discussed the occupation. And sub-paragraphs are there not for that, but just for consistence - Montenegro and Vojvodina entered Yugoslavia through Serbia, and like I said, there were three factors that negotiating a "birth of Yugoslavia": the Yugoslav Committee (whoops! am I inclining that the Yugoslav Board was an independent country?), the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Serbian government (thus, 3 paragraphs), or we'll just have three times repeating. I also oppose creating Syrmia because that too will produce repeating for three times - and that's against Wikipedia's writing guidelines. You're not going to say that consistence and article construction is nationally offensive (!)? --PaxEquilibrium 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If for user:Hobartimus your thinking is OK then I will stop to speak against. Important thing is that PANONIAN map will not be in article because is map of Serbia which has never existed. --Rjecina 21:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, do you base your will all upon Hobartimus, or what? ;) How come it's Serbia which has never existed? Don't forget that even the Partisans/Communists recognized that (and they were gallant fighters against Greater Serbocentric hegemony. --PaxEquilibrium 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Let say this way. I am sure if Hobartimus will be happy with article then users from Hungary will be happy. My thinking is: I who live in Croatia have learned 1 version of this story. You Pax which live in Serbia have learned second version and Hobartimus have learned 3rd version. If we all agree then article is neutral and OK ! PANONIAN map which is showing "borders" of Serbia on "26 november 1918 is false. --Rjecina 22:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Aha, so here you abandon your rule about users editing articles where they are from. I don't get it - you called upon it when it's about Croatia and when it's Serbia no? Also, I live in Serbia only for a short time and have no intention on spending the rest of my life in it. --PaxEquilibrium 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
User:PaxEquilibrium, Please stop sayin things like "they were part of Serbia", Pécs was never part of Serbia, Baja(another Hungarian city) was never part of Serbia, Temesvár(Timisoara) was never part of Serbia, they were all occupied by the Serbian army for a short period of time but they were never part of Serbia. To say that Pécs was part of Serbia is very offensive. It's also silly to say that Moscow was part of France, Kiev was part of Germany, Tokyo was part of the USA, Baghdad was part of the USA and on and on. As for the article construction it should reflect the status of these lands. The section about Syrmia cannot be merged together with other BBB, because it was part of Croatia, and this must be explained in the article. The end of the border of Croatia-Slavonia was near Belgrade, and today we find no such border. So the section about Syrmia is definitely needed, as the others. The fact that you did not see Syrmia in a book is not very convincing if you look at any historical map, where Croatia is highlighted you will see it's border and notice where it's diffent. Hobartimus 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I never ever said that Pecs was a part of Serbia - nor Baja. However, Temisvar was a Serbian capital for very short time. ;) I meant B-B-B "proper". And those regions were seized by Serbia, which annexed them in 1918 and remains a part of Serbia until this day (except Baranja which is part of Croatia). And of course it's not the same thing - those areas you mentioned were brutally conquered and remained always occupation. I never proposed to merge Syrmia with BBB, but with "State of Slovenes, Croats of Serbs" and "Kingdom of Serbia", respectively. And it wasn't a part of Croatia, but of Croatia-Slavonia. The end of the border of Croatia-Slavonia was near Belgrade, and today we find no such border. What does this mean? I'm thinking that you feel frustrated that that kind of border is not today... ;X The fact that you did not see Syrmia in a book is not very convincing if you look at any historical map, where Croatia is highlighted you will see it's border and notice where it's diffent. He he, firstly (like to the bottom, when PANONIAN told me that all your attempts are just here to discredit the annexation of Vojvodina) I believed you're just a little annoyed, but I'm now beginning to think you actually have something very emotional with this subject. :( --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BBB

Can you 1 time write honest article about your Vojvodina. Now I will explain why your today changes are if nothing else but misleading.

  • 1 In first part of you changes you write how Serb People's Guard fought against Austro-Hungarian army before coming of Serbian army. Where is source of this statement (internet link not obscure book) ??
  • 2 "these areas de jure did not belonged to any country" ?? What is about Hungary ??
  • 3 "some Hungarian-inhabited and Romanian-inhabited areas remained within its borders, as well as some Slavic-inhabited areas remained in Hungary and Romania". This is very, very misleading so that user of wiki think how new situation has been neutral. You are saying that there is no difference between 500 000 Hungarians and Romanians in Yugoslavia and 50 000 Serbs in this 2 countries.

In the end I do not understand what are you having against this statement: "Most deputies of the assembly were Serbs, and other local Slavs, and since they were not elected in a democratic way it is questionable[citation needed] whether they had legitimity to represent the Slavic population, but they had no right to represent Romanians, Germans and Hungarians living there. The assembly also formed local provincial government (People's Administration) and parliament (Great People's Council), which wasn't recognized as legitimate even by Serbia." If you explain your thinking maybe we can come to agreement ?!--Rjecina 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1 If I recall the Serb People's Guard fought the Austro-Hungarian Army throughout the war, and not just in 1918.
  • 2 Well of course, they were a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Austro-Hungary dissolved, so I think it is at this where PANONIAN was aiming, however a legal "glitch" could only be found for Croatia-Slavonia, and not for any part of proper Hungary (including, as I noted, Rijeka).
  • 3 I think he was talking about Romanians-Serbs. But the notion that Hungarians and Germans where the majority must be accounted for in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that it's questionable? Where is it stated so? And of course they had no right to represent Hungarians and Germans - they boycotted it. And remember that it's actual purpose was just for South Slavs - the Yugoslav state was built on the ethnic principle of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - and not any other nation, which means that a considerable Yugoslav minority was enough of a reason to integrate that part into the state. Similar principles were used for Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. And no, Serbia just didn't recognize the executive branch - Banat-Backa-Baranya and Montenegro had Parliaments, but since their respective decisions bind them to Serbia, they had the Serbian government (unlike the other historical entities, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and the Slovenian lands that all had their own governments). --PaxEquilibrium 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes Serbia didn't recognize the executive branch, this must be noted in the article. And how do you know it's questionable, because they didn't win an election and no one can claim they speak for all serbs, all croats all any nation, there is always people who disagree. Also the territory was under military occupation when the whole gathering happened. Hobartimus 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, it didn't recognize the executive branch - because the executive branch was the Serbian government. Montenegro too in 1918-1922 didn't have its government. The way it's noted seems misleading. As far as I see, all sources say that they were elected, and not a single one I've seen questions it. Why questionable? When? Who says it?
As far as I see elections were held in 211 municipalities of Banat, Bacs and Baranya, which were organized by the civilian regimes and not the Serbian (or any other) military, and which were in protest boycotted by a very large number of Hungarians and Germans. Romanians too weren't involved in the voting, or simply voted for Serb candidates because of a primary agreement between Serbia and Romania to divide the Banat on ethnic lines. Actually here's another "legal" glitch - the Kingdom of Hungary recognized independence of the Republic of Banat, formally seceding all rights to it. However it also remained an entity without much recognition, so factually, as the international community observed it, it was "No Man's Land" just like the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. And the fact that the majority of its population opposed (Vlachs and Slavs) the para-German para-state, the Serbian intervention is altogether a different matter. This is AFAIK the main reason why I, next to the fact that it had a Serb majority unlike Bacs & Baranya, personally look fondly on the annexation of Banat by Serbia; but I much thing injustice was done in Backa & Baranja. One could now simply start to hypothesize that if Germans and Hungarians (especially the ones in Banat, knowing that Hungary gave up sovereignty over that land) should've participated (much more) in the election, regardless of the fact that it was illegal, and they perhaps could've made a difference. I mean thinking that the Great Powers would fondly treat someone they just beat in a war and in the Treaty of Trianon take Hungary's side at the future of Baranya and Bacs is just silly - the South Slavic Kingdom after all put the world in front of a finished act. It should also be noted that the international community put legitimacy and self-determination as prime subjects in the new world order, especially applied in Austria-Hungary's case. Had the Germans and Hungarians not boycotted it, they perhaps could've made a difference and blocked the decision. If Serbia annexed even next to that BBB, the world would've looked far differently in Trianon in 1920. Instead, they decided to follow the prescriptions of their governments (in dissolution) that they should not recognize them because they were illegal. I especially find that strange with those in Banat - did they really think that the World Powers would defend a never-recognized German-domination Republic which had the majority of its citizens opposing it, who already decided to split it between their two neighboring respective nation-states (Romania and Serbia)? However, that doesn't decrease the fact that it was quite unjust, at least from their own eyes.
I'd like read about the occupation of the Serbian Army of the regions in question. So far I've only heard that Pancevo invited the Serbian Army to cross and about the invasion of the Banat Republic. I myself never new that Serbia's Army went as far as Pecs to occupy, especially without invitation. Could anyone provide me anything? --PaxEquilibrium 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This [article] is very good. Because it is on german you will need to use Altavista Babel fish or something similar. Important words about BBB are:

"Hungary to do and to the not-Hungarian groups of peoples living in the country the right grant without the fiction of the uniform national state to express their will regarding their future national affiliation in democratically selected national councils due to the right of self-determination." Article is speaking before everything else about Banat. --Rjecina 16:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so the First Hungarian Republic itself recognized that non-Hungarian-inhabited parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary have the right of national self-determination? Ah yes, now I remember. It's because the Republic of Hungary was a Hungarian nation-state, while Transleithania (the lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen) weren't, so other nations had to have the decision of self-determination if they do not want to become a national minority in a foreign nation-state... yes, now I remember. Well, then this shows that the secession of Banat, Bacs and Baranya was actually legal, if we can begin to question its legitimacy in the first place. --PaxEquilibrium 12:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it could have been legal if there was a democratic vote in every city/region about wheter to secede or not, but this is not the topic of the article. We will never know what would have happened in a democratic vote because the Serb army invaded, and occupied these territories (including Pecs, Baja), and proceeded to create a farse assembly under occupation which was illegal(as any vote under occupation is). Just look at the NAME of the assembly which makes it clear that it is an assembly of SERBS some others thrown in for a little more legitimacy, but that's not even needed, think about it, if I create an assembly of 76% hungarians and then throw in a few Serbs those votes will mean actually nothing, if the 76% wants a thing they can decide it. Also Serbs were only 2,5% percent of the population of the country this also should be noted in the article. If 2,5% should have the right to proclaim union with their home country, that would mean a whole lot of such secessions. But the most important thing is occupation of a foreign army, no vote can be legal or legitimate under foreign occupation. Hobartimus 13:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not every city/region, but those who chose to do so. And it happened - all the non-Hungarian-inhabited parts of the "beheaded" Crown of St. Stephen chose that, mainly because of oppression and poor treatment in the most recent history by the dominating Imperial/Hungarian element. I can't see how this is "not topic" of an article that deals with precisely that (i.e. the
You speak of all the non-Hungarian inhabited parts, but can you name them? Is the city of Pécs non-Hungarian inhabited, to you? How about Baja, Szabadka, Újvidék? Also what's with this nice term you invented non-Hungarian. You want to count all non-Hungarians together, like they all want the same thing? How about I count all the non-Serbs in Serbia and say that all non-Serbs want to leave Serbia does that make sense?
No, of course they weren't. I didn't invent the term "non-Hungarian" and it means that anyone who is not Hungarian had the right of secession from a (future) Hungarian nation-state, as per Pest's concessions. And every single nation (including the Hungarians) had the right of self-determination in post-war Austria-Hungary, as mandated by the winning Allies/Entente (suggested by Wilson's Fourteen Points); remember that Austro-Hungary was known to most of its population as the "Dungeon of Peoples". I don't count non-Hungarians together, but am convinced that they then all wanted the same thing (i.e. secession from Hungary). It has nothing to do with *counting*. No, that doesn't make any sense, because I do not even understand what you want to say. And in the end, it seems that you and Rjecina invented the term non-Serbs, since this article has it. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
creation of Yugoslavia). Since we don't know - don't add it. Just plain hypothesizing based on absolutely nothing cannot be done. I could continue to hypothesize that Serbians "saved" the peoples of those regions, who were if you remember: vigorously oppressed by the Austro-Hungarian regime, Austro-Hungary was in open war with their neighboring nationmen and that the very same Austro-Hungarian forces that were retreating and were supposed to be there during the election slaughtered thousands of civilians in the southern parts of the region, close to the Serbian border and was known for
establishing cruel internment camps (and not just for prisoners, but any "doubtable" member of the hostile nations). This, according to your logic, gives me completely free hands to hypothesize (a no-no in Wikipedia) that BBB under Austro-Hungarian control would've never had a democratic election (and probably wouldn't allow any election at all), so I am free to
Actually you completely agree with me here without even noticing it.I wrote above "We will never know what would have happened in a democratic vote". I never wrote anywhere that Austria-Hungary would allow an election in this matter, you are arguing with something I never said. We simply do not know what would have happened which is exactly what I wrote.
...precisely, and that's why I think that the baseless ..questionable.. part of the article should be removed, because we don't know (at least before some certified claim appears). --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
give credit to the Serbian Army for allowing that democracy? And I do not even need to mention that the local self-governments (e.g. from Zemun and Pancevo) actually invited the Serbian Army to protect them fearing yet another "retribution" from the Austro-Hungarian forces and/or oppressive treatment.
To continue my statement, I don't see what precisely makes it a farce assembly. As for rendering any vote under occupation illegal, I must say that that'd make most of then's referendums/elections "illegal". What you now need to learn is the difference
What makes it a farce, is that it was a gathering of a few hundred serbs (who themselves were not democraticly elected) at a time of military occupation by an enemy country, and they wanted to decide things that they had no right to decide whatsoever. They voted that part of Croatia should become Serbia on what basis? They voted that Temesvár, Pécs, Baja, and other cities join Serbia on what basis? This was outragous and absurd, it was so absurd that even the French, British and the others didn't recognize it who hated Hungary with passion. This farce assembly didn't decide anything, borders were drawn at another place another time. The local administration created by this assembly wasn't even recognized by Serbia.
And how do you know they weren't democratically elected? Who claims that and when did he/she claim it? I bid it's not an "enemy country" for them, and ever since the 13 November 1918 ceasefire the term "occupation" is not applicable. The correct term is henceforth administration. What makes you think they had no right? The Great Powers, wining Allies, agreed that they had - and Pest agreed to the right of self-determination too. They didn't vote that "a part of Croatia should become a part of Serbia". What are you talking about? And no, I don't think they voted for those cities, but I'll check (but even if they did, wouldn't've the alleged boycott of most Hungarians and many Germans be absurd too?). The local administration wasn't recognized by Serbia - because the assembly had elected the Serbian government to be its administration. --PaxEquilibrium 12:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
between Legality and Legitimacy because you constantly mix the two terms and to pay attention to that which I said a while ago. Modern understanding of those terms (or specifically, the first) is a lot different, as the first international documents, made specifically to define such things and to solve those very problems, were made after WWII. And applying today's thinking basing on those opinions is erroneous, as not only the very first international body was created in 1919 (the League of Nations), which is even before this particular event we're discussing, is highly erroneous. Considering the situation, I could very freely say that "..the occupation of numerous Central European territories in the 10th century by the Hungarian barbarians was illegal, thus the established state of Hungary was illegal and remained internationally unrecognized for over about a millennium before the 1 December 1919 Versailles Peace Conference." Do you see how pointless is that?
I never once said that the occupation was illegal, occupation is already a clear definition as to what it is. The fact is that this territory was conquered with weapons, occupied and then awarded in a peace deal which ended the war, as it happened quite a few times already in history. It's not me that tries to create a false fairy tale about a legal peaceful assembly that "declared" "union with Serbia".
No, it isn't. The Treaty of Versailles placed under control the territory of Saarland of France. Serbia occupied that, but on the 13 November 1918 treaty of Belgrade it became a part of the former Kingdom of Hungary administered by Serbia. I don't even need to mention the problems that emerged when the Soviets ceased power in 21 March 1919 and dismissed all decisions of the previous state, however it only fought at the north (it didn't manage to invade BBB) and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was already created then. And no, fact is that this territory wasn't conquered with weapons. But what is fact is that the local self-governments invited the Serbian Army to these areas, that small detachments of Serbian troops have entered the region without fight, that it ended the ages of violence and disorder and that this Assembly (controversial according to you) voted union with Serbia. I already explained the controversy about using the term "legal" in this place and don't get your WP:POINT "peaceful" point out. --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And to turn a little tiny twist to the past, let me explain how things went on: if a country invaded another and conquered its territory nothing illegal occurred, except for one case: the presence of signed Treaties. Treaties were the only kind of such legal establishment. For example, the 1878 Congress of Berlin was such an occasion. When a signer of a treaty violates that
Again you agree with me because you misunderstood what I wrote. Nobody said that winning a war is illegal it's a standard way of conquering territory. It was the assembly that was a farce exactly because the territory was already conquered by the Serbian army at that time, and part of it even won in the peace deal at the end of the war.
I bid "conquered" is a far too POV term. Because: 1. there weren't greater sizes of Serb troops in BBB and 2. it was (practically) without fight. --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
to which it's obliged, then it's conducting something illegal. Such examples are the 1882 annexation of Ottoman Eastern Rumelia by Bulgaria and the annexation of the Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary (ping!) in 1908. However, you should note that no where in Wikipedia are these instances noted - AFAIK none such thing is noted for the period before establishment of the United Nations and International Law during the age known as the Cold War. So, it's pointless and essentially blatantly POV to apply that here. Especially more if you are basing it on essentially nothing (a plain assumption).
This has nothing to do with international law. Just as the southern part of California and Texas cannot vote to join Mexico, as per forbidden by the country where they live. If they so try they will be arrested for treason and possibly imprisoned or executed. If not for the Serbian invasion the same would have happened in this case. Secessions happened long before 1919 just think of how the South seceded in 1861, as per their rights in their respective states (war broke out later after the seziure of federal forts). The southern part of Hungary and the western part of Croatia had no such special rights to secede. What's more it also had no legitimacy because the people who did not want to secede were actually a majority in the region and had absolute majority in the northern half of the region.
No, it's not the same. For you forget that in 1918 a) Austro-Hungary was in deep destruction and that b) Hungary wasn't a country. Yes, they had - the Allied Powers imposed that, and both Austria and Hungary officially recognized it. What do you mean by western Croatia? In what majority? Relative or absolute? ;S --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I look at the name. It's the Great Assembly of Serbs, Croats, Bunyevs, Slovaks, Rusyns and other peoples from Banat, Backa and Baranja'. It wasn't named the way you think, but - please look again at its name. It's to include all Slavs, because that essentially was a Slavic peoples decision, to join a Slavic state. You forget that it wasn't imposed, but was elected - and
You are incredibly silly here. After the Romanian army's invasion the Romanians organize an all Romanian assembly in Voivodina and it is now essentially the Romanian people 's decision, to join the Romanian state, it's not imposed it's elected (by all Romanians who live in Voivodina). So it would be all good then no?
No, because the Slavic people form(ed) majority in Vojvodina, unlike the Romanians. You also forget that ethnic Romanians voted to elect their National Council - and that it did occur "under occupation of Serbian Army". And that very same National Council in 1 December 1918 (when the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was unified) voted to join Banat to Romania. As a result, Kingdoms of SCS and RO split Banat on ethnic Slavic-Vlach lines, leaving a significant number of Slavs on the Romanian side and a number of Romanians on the Serb. And that decision was a legitimate choice of the Romanian people of Banat. --PaxEquilibrium 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
that the election wasn't organized by the Serbian Army at all as you think, but by the local self-government (naturally, with support from Serbia). Very little turnout amongst Germans, and especially Hungarians, resulted this - and its bizarre proportionality still doesn't make it any less "good", just because some (very large, though) have decided not to participate. And as far as I see: 1. the Hungarian-Austrian representatives signed a truce with the Kingdom of Serbia in Belgrade on 13 November 1918 agreeing to withdraw all Austro-Hungarian forces from the three regions and recognize temporary Serbian governance over those territories, 2. On 1920 during the Treaty of Trianon the Kingdom of Hungary recognized that the territories are a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and 3. The Slavic majority wanted to live in a Slavic state. And that is enough to show everything (especially
Except for the fact that the Hungarian and German majority wanted to live in Hungary (and even you cannot deny the fact of Hungarian majority in the north of the region). And this is just a wild guess but I don't think that Croats really wanted to live in Serbia and would have voted for that part of Croatia to join in union with Serbia in democratic elections. (also noone actually cared about the whishes of anyone, borders were drawn according to strategic objectives of France, GB ,etc)
But obviously not on the whole territory (and as I see that was conducted on "snatched away territories" to include as much more as possible, perhaps). Then we could also hypothesize that the Hungarians and Germans boycotted the elections in the 211 municipalities. You seem to forget that Serbia had then a more democratic parliamentarism than Austria-Hungary and that Austro-Hungarian Slavs viewed Serbia as a beacon of Liberty. And everyone new that it'll all be Yugoslavia, so many decided to join Serbia (like most Bosnian Muslims) because the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was failing. --PaxEquilibrium 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
because I dismiss your usage of modern understanding of International Law & Regulations because it's not applicable in this age). So you see, essentially, this "great national assembly" itself (elected as per the agreement and proposal of Hungary) was a completely trivial, and essentially irrelevant thing. It was there not mainly for some major international gesture, but to
Again I completely agree that it was irrelevant. It was completely irrelevant and yet a great number of lines are dedicated to it (work of Panonian), in an attempt to hide the true mechanics of what happened (invasion, conquering, awarded in peace deal).
show that the Slavs of the 5 Hungarian southern counties () willingly joined Serbia for a large Slavic united state. And yes, if you ask me personally (and not professionally) I pretty much accept the possibility that Serbia has mettled in the election (perhaps even significantly), AFAIK I am certain that there were at least some irregularities (like with the Podgorica Assembly), but that still does not make it that there actually were.
Serbs didn't form just 2,5% of the population. Actually, they formed almost double of it. And you have to count (because of then's ideology and this very article) all (south) Slavs together. And then you'll get 11% of the population. And when you observe that Magyars formed 20% of the total population - I guess there's no real greater difference. ;))) What mattered, in the end,
I have to laugh at your numbers out loud. Hungarians formed 54% of the population while Serbs formed 2,5% (numbers are from the 1910 census).
Then humor me the same when I present you the 1910 population census> Totally 50,238,000 inhabitants: 10,051,000 Hungarians and 5,623,000 Serbo-Croats. And keep on mind that that's without doubt an overestimate for Hungarians (linguistic!). --PaxEquilibrium 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
is the regional right of self-determination, which means local percentages at the borders of neighboring countries. And yeah AFAIK there ..were a whole lot of secessions... Do you forget that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy crumbled to many
Actually the union of Hungary with Austria was already dissolved in 1918 (also the union of Hungary with Croatia was dissolved shortly after) while Hungary lost these territories in 1920 (two years later). Also please have the decency not to call Yugoslavia and Checoslovakia "nation states".
Well of course I will have the decency - I don't know about Czechoslovakia, but Yugoslavia 'was a nation-state. --PaxEquilibrium 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
minor nation-states? I shall finish my essay with the statement that you cannot say that the "occupation of the foreign army" (where
there are controversies whether it's occupation and which has been legalized) is only what matters, because that's picking what you like (and what you don't). And essentially, I will repeat - a) there isn't evidence that the great people's assembly was elected undemocratically and b) do not grossly overestimate the importance of one such little symbolical act (which in its key
a)There is plenty of evidence even your own words ("first democratic elections in 2000") say so. b) you grossly misread my position because I actually beleive that it was so insignicant it shouldn't be even mentioned or very shortly.
When I say that I mean from the modern-day point of view (which you seem to apply), i.e. the fact that quite possibly women couldn't vote. And it seems to me that you (or Rjecina) actually expanded that text. --PaxEquilibrium 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
statements had to proclaim Serbian/Slavic unity and as an act of protest and end of the Austro-Hungarian :::tyranny).--PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It has not been legal because there have not been democratic vote. All other stuff (Serbian occupation and possible others..) are not important. --Rjecina 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
And what makes you think the election wasn't democratic? What's more, do you know that the first ever democratic election was held in 2000 in Vojvodina (which is 82 years after this thing)? I'd beg to differ that all other stuff are not important - because as I've shown, it actually seems that this popular unorthodox parliament was that which was pretty darn irrelevant itself. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OMG, what makes you think? Let me see, let me think, maybe because ONLY SOME SERBS COULD VOTE?????? Maybe in a democratic election Hungarians could vote, Germans could vote, Romanians could vote, who were together actually the MAJORITY of the population???? Also there are many other reasons, but we should really agree on this one basic thing no? I mean I don't really understand your position sometimes, in one sentence you say that the "first democratic election was in 2000" meaning you totally agree with this, then you ask "what makes you think wasn't democratic"? Your position seems unclear to me.Hobartimus 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Some Serbs? Which Serbs are those? Also, a part of Germans voted (and even some Hungarians) obviously, it is their own decision to boycott the braking of their own country. The vote wasn't for Romanians, because Serbs and Romanians have decided to split Banat on ethnic Slavic/Vlach level. All I said is that of course, they were undemocratic. Just like every single election ever held in the Empire of Austria-Hungary. And my position comes to the fact that you shouldn't question its "correctness" in the article based on pure assumption (please read the lengthy reply to the up). Also, calm down. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should not have used caps, because actually I'm very calm, another thing misunderstood :) Please read the message on your talk page because this is more and more becoming our personal discussion and that's explicitly forbidden as per wikipedia rules (article talk pages must be about the improvement of the article). Hobartimus 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I just tried to explain you some things...I'm sorry if I was incorrect, but I started to get the impression that the only thing you're trying to do is prove that Serbia illegally holds Vojvodina... --PaxEquilibrium 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Serbia holds Vojvodina per the various peace deals and international recognition of it's borders. Peace ends war, winning side gets land, it's really simple. What I'm against is historical falsification that tries to magnify the importance of a farce assembly (that decreed that Pécs, Baja belongs to Serbia). Hobartimus 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to hear your thinking. Is part of article which speak about BBB OK or not. In my thinking this part is speaking truth so there is no need to change. Your thinking and if you want to change can you please write what and why ? Rjecina 22:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think more info is needed for the Banat Republic. It should include that Slavs and Vlachs/Romanians, who formed the vast majority of the population, didn't recognize the Republic. Some information on its lifetime should be noted, because the para-state was just a German domination. I think that invitations from the local self-governments from the Serbian Army to protect the people from potential Austro-Hungarian retribution should be noted next to the just plain Serbian Army also entered... The Most deputies of the assembly were Serbs, and other local Slavs, and since they were not elected in a democratic way it is questionable whether they had legitimity to represent the Slavic population, but they had no right to represent Romanians, Germans and Hungarians living there. sentence is highly problematic, as this whole paragraph I've been discussing that it's highly POV and needs to be at least a bit rephrased. As I've also said before, the fact that Serbia didn't recognize the parliament (Great People's Council) isn't correct, so it naturally, needs to be corrected (I wonder how no one answered to this before). Also, the data about the Army still occupying parts of Hungary in 1921 is news to me. Can anyone back it up. Not even the article that speaks about the Serb-Magyar Republic doesn't mention it. That's it. --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Look this:"As a result of the military convention concluded with Franchet d’Espérey without the specific sanction of the Allied Supreme Council, a line of demarcation was

laid down foreshadowing the territorial provisions of the future peace. This convention transferred a large slice of Hungarian territory to the Serbs and Roumanians, who immediately began to occupy it. It was expressly stated that the Hungarian police and civil administrations were to be continued." This is peace agreement of Belgrade between Antanta and Hungary. Because of this words BBB has been Hungarian territory in November 1918 ! Source is this [6] --Rjecina 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, yes Rjecina, thanks for helping me out again. So this practically that Hungary didn't even hand-over direct administration to Serbia and Romania; this clearly clears off the doubt that Serbia and Romania must've had something to go with messing the national elections. --PaxEquilibrium 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually he did not help you at all. If you read the text carefully, it is very clear that this was only expressed by the military convention, but it nowhere says that the agreement was actually honored by Serbia, Romania. Also you simply "forgot" to react to the main point of Rjecina's post, that these were Hungarian territories in november 1918, and that the source explicitly states "immidiately began to occupy it" talking about Serbia, Romania. Hobartimus 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, a line of demarcation was laid down foreshadowing the territorial provisions of the future peace....It was expressly stated that the Hungarian police and civil administrations were to be continued. This cleared a lot what I was saying. And no, I didn't miss it. If what Rjecina is trying to do is prove that the "occupation" is the right term in the article, he's nearly correct - because that indeed was (in a way) an occupation. However, if we observe article like e.g. the Treaty of Versailles we will see that the Allies/France controlled territory, and thus I think that we shouldn't make an unbalanced precedent here (like I already mentioned). --PaxEquilibrium 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, is Harry Hill Bandholtz to the Hungarians something like a 'light' version of Richard Archibald Reiss to the Serbians? --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We are now having all needed sources for this part of article. We are having source which speak that BBB has been Hungarian territory in November 1918 [7] , We are having [source] say that Hungary has accepted national councils with right of self-determination in peace agreements and which speak about Banat Republic situation. Can you please tell me PaxEquilibrium what is your problem with this facts ? When I see this from neutral (trying) perspective Serbs and other Slavs has made lawfull secession from Hungary. Only problem is that they have taken too much territory, but this ulmost always happen when we have defeated state (Hungary). I am really interested to hear what is your problem with this facts ?--Rjecina 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have no idea what you mean in the text before "Only", and for the text after that word I can only concur. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
BBB is territory of Hungary in November 1918, but nations living in BBB are having right to secede from Hungary if they choose national councils and vote for that (I speak about first part). You must not forget that border is still problem and that secession must be international accepted (Montenegro problem), but facts is they have right to secede--Rjecina 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember the controversies that occur in there. Austro-Hungary dissolved and an improvised self-appointed Republic presented itself there as an ambiguous successor of the Kingdom of Hungary, which recognized the right of self-determination of non-Hungarians. Also remember that most of Hungary was in pretty much anarchy until 1920. It is also interesting that the Hungarians didn't attack Serbian/SCS-controlled lands, actually not de facto extending demands to Yugoslav-annexed territories (unlike in Czech and Romanian cases).
And you mustn't forget that international acceptance does not belong to this time period. The first episode of an attempt to organize an international body (that utterly failed) was on 28 June 1919, when the League of Nations was founded, and that would mean that with your logic the first Montenegrin state that was internationally recognized, recognized on 3 June 2006. So there is no problem there actually. The only thing that may be of issue is its deposed King Nicholas, who in 1920 himself recognized the Serbian annexation (although there's still controversy over there about many other things). --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New article

If nobody is against we will work on new article on this page Talk:Creation of Yugoslavia/New article. When job is finished then we will transfer with copy/paste or simple move option of wiki on old place ?? Why this thinking. We will start article from nothing and job will last few days (until we all agree). In this way we will escape danger of revert wars. Second option is that we write article on discussion page and this page we place in archive ?? Your thinking ??---Rjecina 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be a good idea but I don't know if it's allowed by the wikipedia rules. Someone who knows all the hundreds of guidelines and other stuff could probably answer that. I'm not sure because I don't see this sort of solution too often.Hobartimus 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OK then put it in someone's user space and put a link here so ppl can find it. I was just thinking ppl can mistake it as a fork of the mainspace article if its named that way.Hobartimus 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It brakes no rule, but brakes guidelines. We're using too many space (not to mention that our friend Rjecina has already numerous subpages already, which is not looked nicely upon ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you join such a "workshop" in Rjecina's user space to improve the article and agree on a neutral wording? Hobartimus 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted disruptive user Rjecina since he deleting parts of this article without any explanation. Marko car 10:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Early advocacy of a South Slav state

The ide is comning from Rusia, or better from the pan-slavian projekt. The ide for Iliria it was from Napoleon Bonoparta, after he hase maket war for one Egyptien city witch it was in the hand of the albanian milic (Ali Pasha). - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.161.204 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BBB (new article)

Shortly after the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was created from the South Slavic territory of Austro-Hungary, the local Social Democratic Party in the multi-ethnic Banat region proclaimed an independent Banat Republic in Timişoara on 31 October 1918. This new state was an attempt to preserve the integrity of the region in the face of claims from South Slavs as well as Romanians which has wanted to unite with Serbia or Romania. On 15 November 1918, Serbian troops entered Banat and put an end to the Banat Republic. Serbian army also entered Bačka and Baranja where is has started short occupation of this Hungarian territory [8].

In peace agreement of 1918 with Antanta Hungary has accepted that nations on her territory are having right to elect national councils which will then have possibility for self-determination[9]. On territory under Serbian control this right has been used only by South Slavs which has voted in 211 municipalities across Banat, Baranya and Backa for Great people's assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs in early november. On November 25 this assembly which has consisted of 757 members of which 662 has been South Slavs has voted for union with Serbia. With this vote and agreement between Serbia and Romania about border in Banat where National council of Romanians has voted for union with Romania only local Hungarians and Germans has stayed without state waiting final border agreements of 1919 and 1920. With this agreement to Yugoslavia has been given territory in which South Slavs are relative majority, but with great number of nothern municipality with Hungarians and Germans relative majority on wrong side of border.


In 1921, the Serbo-Croat-Slovene army still occupied parts of the Kingdom of Hungary for more than a year after they signed the peace. Part of local population proclaimed short-lived Baranya-Baja Republic in Pécs, Hungary, which lasted 11 days and ended together with the Serbo-Croat-Slovene military occupation.


Now I am interested in your answers if this sort or words are good for everybody (english need to be better but...)?? Rjecina 04:31, 4 September 2007

Yeah, that's a good start (could contain a bit more information, seems pretty small). And it's not quite good English, but you said it yourself. ;)
However, at the bottom there's an issue - there was no such thing as a "Serbo-Croat-Slovene army" (but neither do I know its official name). And did we eve confirm that the Serbian forces still occupied Baranya in 1921? I recall it being fishy, for I've heard of it for the first time. Also "part of local Serb population" isn't correct - Hungarians desired it too. And in general, this lower one is quite fishy - the Serb-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic was annexed in cooperation by Hungary and SCS together.
Also I'm not sure if that includes the info for the Creation of Yugoslavia. If I recall, we never did define the criteria, didn't we? (we could consider "the Creation of Yugoslavia" all the way to 1929, or perhaps even 1945 and 1992)! --PaxEquilibrium 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you read the article about the "Baranya-Baja Republic", I think the info is from there, it says that after withdrawal of Serbian army... (by this time the state was called SCS so the army is called army of the kingdom of SCS, shortly SCS army if you have a better name, come forward :)) If you really think about it, the only reason that they could proclaim a republic was because the territory was under occupation (if you proclaim otherwise the police comes for you within hours). Hobartimus 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say that its a creation of the minor Serb population.
The statement of th Serbian Army's withdrawal is highly ambiguous.
You forget that this self-proclaimed republic had the great (if not most) of the part of its territory in SCS, it wasn't proclaimed just on Hungarian soil. --PaxEquilibrium 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was proclaimed IN Pécs, Hungary, as the article clearly states. Also if it had territory in SCS as you suggest that SCS gave it to them, or how they received it, I mean how they received part of SCS? SCS ever agreed to ceding that territory to Baja-Baranya? I think it would be more correct to say that they "claimed" part of SCS but where they actually were physically was they were in a small part of Hungary(in and around PÉCS), occupied by SCS troops so that's the reason why they were not bothered first by the police and such. When that army left naturally the "republic" ended. Hobartimus 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
All data about Baranya-Baja Republic is from PANONIAN so you must ask him for sources. Only internet source which I have is this [10] . PaxEquilibrium you are saying right that this part of article is small and I want 1 other thing to write but there is no data. When we speak about state SCS and Montenegro we are having data about elections of in which way national council is choosen. We need something similar for BBB but we need data. Do you maybe know in which way it has been created Great people's assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci and other Slavs. When has been election or similar stuff. We need this in article, but there is no data. I hope that everybody has seen data I have deleted in proposition of article words Serb in question of Baranya republic because in reality we do not known how many for example Germans or Hungarians have supported this republic. About Creation of Yugoslavia PaxEquilibrium I do not agree with you. Until peace agreements of 1920 everybody is knowing that new state exist, but nobody know borders of this state because of which it is not possible to say that Creation of Yugoslavia is finished on 1 December 1918. Rjecina 15:54, 5 September 2007
Well all I know is that there were elections in 211 municipalities across Banat, Baranya and Backa, and that the number of how many deputies they gave depended on their respective populations. We're also lacking mention in the article that the National Council of Romanians in Banat declared union with the Kingdom of Romania on 1 December 1918, although I guess it's not quite relevant to the creation of Yugoslavia. --PaxEquilibrium 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Version of article on this page is changed using data writen by you. This version or article is now very similar in size to version which is now in article. I am in pause for next 2 weeks so you 2 will must decide if this part of article is good enough.

Consensus

  • support In my thinking after BBB part of article in this discussion page will be writen in better english he will be good enough to be put in article Creation of Yugoslavia. Rjecina 6:50, 9 September 2007

Neutralno

Nije neutrlano! Pogledajte Crnu Guru! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreationSCS (talk • contribs) 11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally got to finish the article, I hope this helps: Podgorica Assembly. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hvala! Ali još uvijek ništa ne piše ođe! A i moje poznavanje engleskoga jezika nije veliko! Molim te da doćeš na rvatsku wikipediju i zaustaviš ovu mržnju i izmišljotine koje širi ovaj "Rječina". Uzgred, na crnogorskom "rječina" je pogrdni naziv. heheheh —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreationSCS (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, ease down. You have had a very bad approach at the Croatian Wikipedia - if you don't treat other people nicely, don't expect to be treated nicely. Rjecina might have a bit POV stretched opinion when matters come to Yugoslavia, but in general he's OK. I have no time to edit any other Wikipedia and shall remain to my vow - English, and just English. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Dobro. Izvini, možda sam ga i prećera. Ali stvarno ne razumijem kako toliko mržnje mere ležat u jednom jedinom čovjeku...oli što je Nikola Tesla reka povodom toga, trebalo bi ga podsjetit... CreationSCS (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Bad faith edit

What is Vojvodina doing here. She has not existed in 1918 and your revert reason that it is 1 of 6 entities that united into Yugo is false and you know that. Because of your knowledge it is not possible to think that you are making good faith error !--Rjecina (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Territorial Autonomy of the Vojvodina Serbs has been abolished in 1860 and all other autonomy in 1911 1912. All entities need the historic views of their desire for Croatian, Serbian and/or Yugoslavian unification. Such has begun in Vojvodina with the start of the First Serbian Uprising, so there's no reason just to remove data, just because one of the six entities had not existed precise in 1918 (and it was created). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you have not noticed that this article speak about creation of Yugoslavia and not about creation of Serbia ??
I will be sorry about this question but:Serbs autonomy in 1910 ????
In the end status of minority population is not important !
Which documents have been signed by Vojvodina in 1918 ? If you show me 1 document signed by Vojvodina officials in 1918 I will support your version of article :)--Rjecina (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As the so-called "Piedmont" of Yugoslavia, it's a worthwhile component of Yugoslav unification. And so is Croatian national unification. You should also know that all these movements, with very few exceptions, relied on South Slavic unification. The conservative elements wanted first Serbs and Croats to unite into their own nation-states, but then also into a Yugoslavia.
Yes, but not territorial - which was a constant struggle of them and several other peoples of Vojvodina for long times.
Serbs weren't a minority, but a majority. In the end, it is irrelevant who was where majority / minority - Creation of Yugoslavia should treat the historical movements of South Slavs, and no one else (Hungarians, Albanians, Germans, Bulgarians, Italians or Romanians).
I was referring to Banat-Backa-Baranja and Syrmia. You know that. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Serbs were a majority in Banat-Backa-Baranja and Syrmia"? Are you kidding or what? Whome have you left the Germans and Hungarians (Croats outnumber the Serbs in S Hungary, even today: in Bacs-Kiskun, 1683:307 and in Baranya 4599:324 [11]; and here's historical development 1900.-2001., [12])? Or you've forgotten the colonization of Serb volunteers (and their families) after 1918 on that areas (on the areas with majorities of other nationalities: Croats, Germans, Hungarians)? Man, we are speaking about pre-WWI times. Before the colonizations of Serbs that were organized after 1918, 1945 and 1995.
Also, the term "Vojvodina" for that area is term used mostly by Serbs. Other nationalities used other names for that area (in those times).
"Vojvodina - the Piedmont of Yugoslavia"? Come on. Read WP:OR. Kubura (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true; Serbs, or Yugoslavs in general, had formed relative majority in those territories. Are you implying that there were more Croats than Serbs in Vojvodina?
I don't understand what the settlers in Vojvodina with this, as you said this is pre-WWI, nor do I know that Serbs organized such colonizations.
Actually all nations but Hungarians and Germans used the name "Vojvodina" for that region. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Croats in S Hungary, I've cited Hungarian sources.
About colonizations: have you ever heard for "Bačke izbjeglice" (Bačka refugees)? These were the colonized Serb families, that Kingdom of Yugoslavia colonized them into Bačka. But, how did they became the refugees? Since they were not the original Serbs, in WWII, when Horthy's Hungary annexed those territories, it immediately expelled them. So, many of those Serb families came back to the villages where they originally came from. Those "returners" were known as "bačke izbjeglice". You can find some info about that in various Zborniks (I've found a Serb source, it was from the times of socialist Yugoslavia).
You don't know that Serbs organized such colonizations? Serbian authorities organized these colonizations.
"Actually all nations but Hungarians and Germans used the name "Vojvodina" for that region". Neither Croats. However, since 1945, it became political reality (as it is now), so they're using it now. Including Hungarians and Germans. Kubura (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You yourself claim that you talk about pre-WWI times, then do not post links that talk about population censuses of today's southern Republic of Hungary. I haven't left the Hungarians and Germans to 'someone', but simply Serbs were the majority, and not Hungarians, or Germans.
Let us compare the 1910 and 1921 population censuses. In 1910 on the soil of present-day Vojvodina there were 510,186 Serbs, who formed 33.8% of the total population. On 1921, there 526,134 or 34.7%. Their index of growth became 103.1. A great explanation might be their suffers, primarily during the First World War, but again, three years after the end of the war, where are those colonizations after 1918? And now let us look at the share of Croats, for example. The 1910 population census showed 34,089 Croats, forming 2.3% of the total population, and 122,684 in 1921, forming 8.1% of the population, with a drastic growth of 359.9. There were standard normal migrations of the Vojvodina region in throughout the entire Kingdom period by Serbs from all regions of former Yugoslavia, but also by the Croats. And your notion of justifying the expulsion of Serbs from the fascist Hungary is quite odd.
Looking at the Serbo-Croats in Baranja in 1910 (15,313, 30.15%) and 1921 (16,747, 33.7%) also shows no such thing for it. Evidently your claim has absolutely no basis, especially colonization of Croat (lol) settlements.
As for after World War II, you are right, there indeed were colonizations. But Serbs or Serbia can't be accounted for that - but the Yugoslavs and Yugoslavia, no specific aim to "Serbianize" these regions was there.
And I am especially interested to hear about these colonizations in 1995??
Or more so, I'd like to hear what all these "colonizations" - have got to do with anything? --PaxEquilibrium
Wrong. Josip Juraj Strossmayer was very proud that he was born in Vojvodina and a Union of "The Dukedom of Banat, Backa, Baranja and Srem" and "The Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" was being raised. All Croats in southern Hungary had shared the political aims of the Serbs, and supported their representatives. Croats were an active participant in the 1918 elections for the Great National Assembly and had 2 parliamentary representatives. The "Vojvodina", likened also by the Slovaks, Rusyns as well as even the Romanians to a lesser extent, used the term, which was found repulsive only by the Germans and Hungarians, who found the term reminding of separatism. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny. Can somebody explain what is having Vojvodina with Banat, Backa and Baranja ??
When you say that Serbs has been majority on soil of today Vojvodina you are clearly writing misleading fact, because today Vojvodina has not "voted" for union with Serbia but "vote" has been by "Banat, Backa and Baranja" and Serbian majority in this provinces is under very good question (if you add Syrmia then Serbs are majority but Syrmia is having separate "vote")
Croats were an active participant in the 1918 elections because they are having 2 out of 775 parliamentary representatives :))))
If you look this way Hungarians were an active participant in the 1918 elections because they are having 1 out of 775 parliamentary representatives :)))).
It is really honest that around 350 000 Serbs are having 578 out of 775 parliamentary representatives and that around 350 000 Hungarians are having 1 out of 775 parliamentary representatives. Maybe I am mistaking but this is Greater Serbia example of democracy--Rjecina (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Serbs were majority in Banat-Backa-Baranja, as well as minus Baranja plus (most of) Syrmia. There is no question there
No, but because in most Croatian settlements, the turnout was very high. And 2 does not seem very little, if that's what you're aiming at.
This was not an assembly of the Hungarian people.
If you are aiming at the presence of Hungarians, it might be even surprising that one was elected. He was a proponent of a liberal-class and was afterwards elected into the assembly, originally very close to the Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's time that the section be removed I think. Many editors support such removal. Hobartimus (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason of its length is - the info is no where. And it'd be pointless to remove it, what happens when I make all the other parts of same or similar length? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not see that parts of article which are speaking about creation of Czechoslovakia are going 200-500 years in history. Deleting per WP:Fork and consensus on talk page. Are you really serious and NPOV in saying that deleted section is not for article Serbs of Vojvodina but for this ? --Rjecina (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary sections

I give right to Rjecina on this one [13]. That is the deletions of big section, but we don't have to go so far in history, to the times when amoebas were ruling the Earth.
There're other topics that need to be mentioned in this article, and we don't have to burden the article with events that belong to other topics. Kubura (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a rough consensus on this talk page for the removal of the section. There is no reason to keep the section in the article and I suspect it is nothing but copying of text from another article so it's not like the text will be lost or something. Hobartimus (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If remove it, I also recommend removing 90% rest of the text...the text should go as far as it's relevant.
Most of its text is present no where. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
We already have sections discussing Syrmia(part of Vojvodina) for example. There is no reason to discuss the same territory twice under different names. Hobartimus (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it - where is anything repeating twice? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have a section on Syrmia, Bacska, etc etc, you have a section on a concrete territory already, there is no reason to open another section on the same territory. For example if you look at the city Újvidék (Novi Sad) events that happened in that city would have 2 sections representing them under different names (one section titled Backa one titled Vojvodina).Hobartimus (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Also when I was referring to consensus on the talk page I meant that Kubura, Rjecina and me seem to support a removal on this talk page, while Swik78 did not edit this talk page ever(?) and only you support including that section. Thats 3-1 and you still did not explain why would some territory be represented twice under two different sections, but I am open to arguments please bring them forward. Hobartimus (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Back in 2006, eight Albanian Wikipedians proposed to remove all data related to Kosovo from the Serbia and History of Serbia articles. Of course, they outnumbered everyone.
I think we are in some form of a misunderstanding. What is represented twice? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to explain it, but get out some maps and see it for yourself, check the names of cities etc. It's like having an article for Serbia and have sections like "Central Serbia" "Middle Serbia" "Mittel Serbia" "Part of Serbia that is south of Danube" all talking about the same area under different names. One section is sufficient. Hobartimus (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah...I'm really sorry over here for looking so God damn dumb, but one section for what? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pax, are you behaving as if you cannot understand? You don't need an IQ>200 to understand several messages above.
You've missed the point. You've missed the subject. Man, you've went 300 year back (What's next? Harvest results by season? Introduction of agricultural hybrids? ). We don't write about the medieval migrations of Slavs, we're speaking of creation of Yugoslavia. Also, have in mind that you cannot just list all events on the areas concerned (in the timespan concerned). Kubura (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I shall go as back as the 17th century and the Pan-Slavism of the Republic of Ragusa. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Panslavism deals with all Slavs, Republic of Dubrovnik is just Republic of Dubrovnik. However, you cannot go that far. What's next? When Ugh-Ugh came down from the tree and discovered the cave...
Writing from the times since ideas about unified (South) Slavic state is too wide (That way, you're putting in the Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs (the ones in Greece). Bulgaria and Greece have nothing with that. ).
That's overexpanding of the article.
Overexpanding of the article is a kind of trolling.
So, please, stick to the topic. This is the article about the country of Yugoslavia, not some foggy idea about some Slavic state. Kubura (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Vojvodina" question

User PaxEquilibrium which has kidnapped few articles (edit wars against all other users in:Pagania , Creation of Yugoslavia, Podgorica Assembly ....) demand that province Austro-Hungarian province Banat, Bačka and Baranja need to have section with that name and section Vojvodina (province which has existed between 1848-60 and latter in Yugoslavia after 1945) with 250 years of Serbs history in this province. Other editors are against because Vojvodina has not existed earlier of 1848 and after 1860 (but before 1918) so she has not voted or been annexed in Yugoslavia (1918). When we speak about history of "Vojvodina" we are having article History of Vojvodina so why is this history writen here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjecina (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 April 2008

Please see WP:NPA. Personal attacks like that are explicitly not allowed. By constantly writing on several pages that I have kidnapped several articles, even writing in some of those where a consensus has been achieved - this is the 5th - you are conducting a campaign of personal attacks to discredit a user.
This article is about that which it is - and that is Creation of Yugoslavia. It should go into far deeper details of each entity, and the reason for that is information and other things each article needs. As I said, I will greatly expand the article starting from Vojvodina, then Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and finally Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then, when the article becomes large enough, we shall brake it into numerous minor ones and present a general picture in here. If Hobartimus and you constantly keep removing relevant content however, that's not gonna happen. Also please do not make blatantly false claims (edit wars against all other users in...), as I have previously pleaded you over at Talk:Pagania. I see here only Hobartimus and you, and here is SWiki too. I cannot see a reason to write that which you wrote other than an attempt to discredit me and promote your proposal. That's not really fair, is it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This multiple writing of same topic (in big sections) in several articles may lead to, or at least, "prepare terrain" for contentforking.
Also, whole world isn't turning aroudn the Serbs. Before 1848, sources knew no Vojvodina (for over 1100 years, since the Slavs appeared for the first time there). Then after 1848, Vojvodina existed as some administrative unit under that name for sole 12 years, and after 1860, 85 years passed until Vojvodina was introduced again as official name. Kubura (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If we look Wikipedia rules about Vandalism we can even say that writing of this section has been vandalism because of this vandalism definition:
Page lengthening is:"Adding very large (measured by the number of bytes) amounts of content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computer"
About user:SWik my only answer it that he has been ulmost blocked because of his edits in this article :) Administrator vote has been 1:1--Rjecina (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The world isn't turning around the Serbs, but this article is turning around Yugoslavs.
Vojvodina is used as a common name for that part. Or what other short name do you suggest for it?
Well this doesn't fall under that. And as I said, once I add the content on Serbia, Montenegro, Ragusa and Croatia too, the article will then be abnormally huge. And then it shall be broken into several minor ones (Yugoslavian movements in each of the historic entities individually), as per Wikipedia's rules. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We are not having articles Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina because they have not existed in 1918. Similar to that Vojvodina has not existed in 1918.
Even you are speaking in your section of article that Serbs from Banat, Bačka and Baranja has wanted, worked on Serbian not Yugoslav state so it is not possible to say that they have worked on creation of Yugoslavia or they have started to work on Yugoslavia from 1690 ????
Do you want that I show how many times in 2008 in writing POV stuff without any source you have used explanation: Do not delete this I am looking for sources, I will expand article, or something similar ?
This is still vandalism and it will be reverted/deleted.--Rjecina (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have. But the matter if some were not independent countries, or even officially abolished, still doesn't change the complex image of the totally unconnected economically, historically & geographically different and even ethnically complex "entities" whatever you call them - that made up Yugoslavia. That in itself, with that form of unification which was conducted, sentenced it to a very difficult flaw from the start. The reader should be aware of the entire situation.
As I have said, Croatian and Serbian unificational movements are a component stratum of the Yugoslavian unification. No, the Vojvodinian Serbs haven't thought of that from 1690 - but several decades later, yeah. Hell, we could place it even earlier - as just before that Count Brankovich attempted Illyrian unification. However, factual political autonomy started on 1690, so I used that as a start year.
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Croatian de facto and de jure autonomy has started around 830. Do we need to write Croatian history from 830 ?
In writing how Serbs has wanted Yugoslavia you have not spoken about serbian prime minister Ilija Garašanin and his Načertanije. Using logic with which you have explained reasons for writing about Vojvodina you must write about Ilija Garašanin because he is father of Yugoslavia :)--Rjecina (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't get the Croatian-related comment.
Aha, but that's just because I wrote up the Vojvodinian part. Ilija Garasanin will be there too, just I don't get how could he be "father of Yugoslavia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For me is surprise that you agre with Ante Pavelić and similar nice Croatian extreme right politicians which has been declaring that Yugoslavia has been in reality Greater Serbia.

If you want story of "Serbian Vojvodina" with coming of Serbs then we need to start section Croatia with coming of Croats and section Serbia with coming of Serbs !!--Rjecina (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean...
Well if I wanted that, I'd have to start about the medieval ages and the Despots' colonizations! Which is of course irrelevant to this subject. We brake articles into minor ones, Montenegro has got the Podgorica Assembly, while this has no such thing yet, and that's the reason why it's so large. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You first real reason for this section has been that all other section will be expanded in similar way [14] . It is funny how this year you have started to write POV version of articles with similar explanation ( Podgorica Assembly ,Pagania ) but you have never ended your works and only continued to write new POV stuff with old explanation ???
You know what I mean :))
All in all vote is 3:1 and there is no real explanation for your edits about "Vojvodina". You have been member of consensus about section BBB and 5 months latter you are creating new section which speaks about BBB. This is clear breach of earlier consensus--Rjecina (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I really don't. :(
There has been no voting. I must say I have absolutely no idea why you keep claiming that data and information is not for the Wikipedia? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Pax I don't understand your insistance here multiple people stated that the text inserted completely by you is unacceptable for a variety of reasons yet nothing happens and the text stays? Hobartimus (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rude

I know that sometimes my actions are rude but I only speak my thinking. For me is not possible to understand that NPOV editor is edit warring against all other editors more of 3 years because he know the truth and nobody else. On talk page of article in question (Pagania) 8 editors has demanded changes but you have always revert. Even after March 2008 consensus vote 5:1 you have reverted. Can this be called kidnapping ?

We are having other examples but this is best for showing editorial style.--Rjecina (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, better keep your thinking to yourself. ;-) User:Nikola Smolenski deserves in my opinion and that of numerous other users, to be tagged with several appropriate names. But this is the Wikipedia, and we should limit ourselves to strictly formal speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK . In future I will write: "In my thinking PaxEquilibrium has kidnapped few articles in which he is edit warring against everybody else". With that definition I am not rude :)--Rjecina (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahem..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

15 February edits

Is there anybody who really thing that Pax changes of 15 february has created NPOV section of article [15]

Perhaps you should write here what part of it is POV so that we can together NPOVize it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_of_Yugoslavia/Archive_1&oldid=1216590737"