Talk:Battle of Lijevče Field

cat Croatia?
Croatia was part of FR Yugoslavia at that time, and didn't participate in the battle. The Independent State of Croatia is a different matter altogether. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Independent State of Croatia was a state party which participated in this battle. Countries can't "decide" what history they inherit. Regardless of the fact that modern Croatia is constitutionally drawn from SR Croatia, Independent State of Croatia = Croatia when it comes to categorizing.--Thewanderer (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Countries cannot decide what history they inherit"?! Of course they can't, that's why there are people who decide what history they inherit. Those people clearly had their say on this matter. The Federal State of Croatia (i.e. CROATIA) was part of Yugoslavia at that time, and that category is already included. Independent State of Croatia = Independent State of Croatia when categorizing, I suggest we add that category instead, as I'm sure we'll agree there can't be TWO Croatias at the same time. By adding that cat you recognize the existence of the NDH and its legitimacy as a Croatian state, not even the UN General Assembly deigned to do that. In short, the Independent State of Croatia is NOT Croatia (ironic, isn't it). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The UN didn't exist during that period. What did exist, the feeble League of Nations, recognized the Royal Yugoslav government-in-exile. Tito and the communist party's federalization of Yugoslavia were not internationally recognized politically until 1945/1946. With 1944's treaty on Vis, communists entered Yugoslav government, but were not empowered to make such federal divisions. In 1945, socialist Yugoslavia was officially proclaimed with de facto federalization. However, a new constitution was not put into place until 1946.


 * What does this mean: Of course they can't, that's why there are people who decide what history they inherit. Those people clearly had their say on this matter.? There's no such people who "arbitrate history". Croatia retains its national history from World War II, just as it retains its history from the medieval period - because it is self-evident.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're more naive than you sound. Of course there are people who arbitrate history, they're called the Winners. Try walking about with a swastika on your arm in Germany for a quick lesson in international historical bias. Anyway, you're going about this the wrong way, this is not the year 1944, this is the year 2008. Whether the UN existed or not at the time is irrelevant here, we're not at all supposed to keep a contemporary perspective in this matter. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Let me put this a different way: the Independent State of Croatia is not considered by historians to be the Croatian state from 1941 to 1945, the FS Croatia is. Therefore, battles of the Independent State of Croatia do not concern Croatia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not dress up historical revisionism and call it "keeping a contemporary perspective". Which historians do you speak of? All non-socialist sources include NDH in chronology of Croatian history. Whether you like it or not, it is part of Croatian history. NDH is not some invisible state as you claim. Even modern Croatia which has attempted to distance itself from NDH in some aspects has granted veteran pensions to remaining Home Guard and restored the "fascist" kuna as currency.


 * Also, is your claim that Federal State of Croatia was recognized as being "official" Croatian state in 1941-1943 another part of being contemporary? It didn't even exist until 1943/1944.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you'll just have to take it up with the Sabor or the UN, I suppose. The NDH isn't ignored, of course, but it is not considered the Croatian state, certainly not in 1945. Look, in this matter a choice has to be made (not by us, of course): either the Partisans are Croatia, to put it simply, or the NDH is Croatia. The choice has been made: the Partisans are Croatia, Yugoslavia was never dissolved during WW2. It doesn't get any simpler. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Partisans were recognized as Allied troops by the Casablanca conference, they are Allies. (interesting that you should call my stance "historical revisionism", promoting the legitimacy of a Nazi puppet state is almost the definition of historical revisionism) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do these "rules" come from? There are two Chinas, two Koreas, two Irelands, etc. and there are multiple other civil disputes over government. Wikipedia is not obligated to only represent what is de jure 'true", but also what is de facto "true". The Independent State of Croatia was a Croatian state, just as Nazi Germany was a German state. Legal recognition does not affect this. We can take this to administrators if you'd like, or simply ask the people over at WikiProject Military history.--Thewanderer (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the existence of all the states you listed is recognized and accepted. It is de-facto true that the Independent State of Croatia participated in the battle, that this is the Croatian state of the period is not de-facto true, you're forgetting that Yugoslavia is not dissolved. Well, it's certainly an interesting subject for discussion, I would personally be interested in the general opinion on this. I think we both have legitimate arguments. We basically have a civil war here. On the one side there's the Independent State of Croatia, and on the other the Federal State of Yugoslavia (we're talking about 1945). They both de-facto existed, and this is not disputed, however, the Independent State of Croatia is not the recognized (by Croatia and the world) Croatian state of the period. Instead, the Croatian state of the period is the Croatian federal unit of the FS Yugoslavia (at the time very much in existence). I can't see the flaw in this argument... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're inventing your own criteria for defining who "owns Croatian statehood". Such a thing has no precedent. Even so, your argument is not sound. The Federal State of Yugoslavia was not recognized until late 1945 when the Kingdom was officially abolished. Any federalization which occurred during the course of the war could not have been recognized, as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was the internationally recognized entity and AVNOJ did not have royal-government mandate to officially make such federation.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, whether a federal state or not, Croatia was recognized as being part of Yugoslavia (Kingdom, or Federation). I'm sorry, but a country does not have to be a federal unit to be part of another state (for example: Croatia in Austro-Hungary). If I'm not mistaken I believe Croatia is then officially still the Banovina Hrvatska. In that case Croatia was part of Yugoslavia, and its head-of-state is King Peter II. I am not inventing my own criteria, this is the criteria of the Croatian Sabor. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sabor can legislate what it wants in its constitution, but Independent State of Croatia was in practice a Croatian state. The modern Sabor also considers Croatia the successor of the Triune Kingdom, yet there is no real legal continuity between the two. The then citizens' Sabor never voted to join with the Serbian kingdom which eventually became Yugoslavia, within which the modern Sabor evolved.
 * More practically, since when can't there exist two parallel regimes in a country? You're arguing that either a banovina which was de facto dissolved in 1941 or a federal unit which was established only in 1943 and not recognized until after the war are "more Croatian" than the NDH. Neither of these entities was even capable of being involved in a battle as they didn't have their own armies.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what more to say, Yugoslavia didn't dissolve during WW2, and the Croatian Sabor considers the FS Croatia (that existed at the time of the battle) as the Croatian state. If that's not good enough, then Croatia is still part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (it is irrelevant that it didn't participate in the battle). Either way, you will find it difficult to de facto legitimize a Nazi puppet-state, especially while an actual predecessor state is very much in existence. If you want we can call in an Admin to mediate? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Croatia can't decide what was and what wasn't a Croatian state. It can only decide its legal predecessor, which it has done and which has little relevance to the application of such categories (Croatia has no legitimate legal succession from pre-Yugoslav Croatian entities). Croatia does legally recognize two armed formations from World War II: the Yugoslav Army and the Croatian homeland army (forces of the Independent State of Croatia). Partisans have challenged this and failed. The specific reference to this "Croatian homeland army" is not an official name of an army, but is a qualitative description to NDH soldiers who are officially considered fighters for the Croatian homeland.
 * I suppose that we will need mediation.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we made our arguments quite clear and have failed to reach an agreement. Perhaps the guys at Wikiproject:Military History might be able to resolve the dispute? The recognition of the soldiers by Croatia is not relevant as we have agreed that the state itself is not recognized by Croatia, and if the UN or Croatia do not have any bearing on this matter then I wonder who does? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that, but this debate is ludicrous. This is not even a corner case. The battle did not involve Yugoslavia, because it did not exercise sovereign rule over any of the belligerents involved. It did involve Croatia (so I restored the category "Battles involving Croatia"), because NDH was a de facto independent state, which is all that is necessary to wage war. GregorB (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Name of victor
The use of 'Croatian' instead of NDH conflates the two, and one does not equal the other. No 'Croatia' existed at the time other than the NDH, and use of 'Croatia' seems POV to me, and could be construed as an attempt to equate the military history of modern Croatia with that of the NDH.Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

'Battle of' or 'Battle on'?
The usual syntax for land and even air battle names is 'Battle of' not 'Battle on'. eg Battle of Midway, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Britain, Battle of Waterloo, Battle of Gettysburg. 'Battle on' is usually reserved for battles on bodies of water such as rivers, lakes etc, eg Battle on the Zuiderzee. Can someone explain why 'Battle on' has been used here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. What's the origin of the name of Lijevče field? Is there some place named Lijevče? --Eleassar my talk 12:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

POV
"They were then executed along with a number of Serbian Orthodox priests." This ounds like those priests were martyrs for their faith and not killers of civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.239.73 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Djujic himself, even with blood on his hands, was Orthodox war before the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.189.205 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Tag bombing
There was an excessive amount of tagging going on. We already have a refimprove tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Mythological battle
This article is not backed up by sources, and it was originally written only as a translation with hr.wiki. The article on hr.wikis also has no sources, and on the talk page it can be found that it is copied from some forum. The book that came out three years ago explores this alleged battle on pages 485 - 494. According to new, unpublished sources, it was a minor conflict with couple of hundred of dead and not thousands as mentioned here without the source. Named lists od dead chetniks count somewere over a hundred dead.

This article requires urgent and large changes. I do not know which policy is in such cases?--DobarSkroz (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is already tag at the top of this article. It says: "This article needs additional citations for verification. ....".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)