Talk:The Expulsion of the Albanians

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

More conflicting information[edit]

I have removed contradicting lines of text. Lines written reflect authors personal opinion and are not based on any reliable source and/or the are ether slippery slope or post hoc derivatives. Moreover, sources cited in the text actually claim that lines written there are not true.

The text was later often quoted and cited as one of the fundamental documents of the Greater Serbia ideology in the 20th century; that is the basis for methods that were used during the breakup of Yugoslavia by the Serbian authorities for the purpose of ethnic cleansing of Albanians, Muslims, and Croats.

Some authors believe that Čubrilović's plan to expel Albanians from Kosovo actualized in 1999 by Slobodan Milošević's government under the name "Operation Horseshoe".[1][2] The report is deemed chauvinistic and nationalistic and was used as a reference to the Serbian atrocities in Kosovo in 1999 by Joe DioGuardi as he spoke to the US parliament demanding that the United States should be launching NATO-attacks against Yugoslavia. During the campaign of ethnic cleansing, over 850,000 Albanians left Kosovo, but soon returned after the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops.

  1. Sources stated here actually refute any existence of the operation Horseshoe. Also wikipedia article Operation Horseshoe says in first sentence it was alledged and hence not real.
  2. No operation Horseshoe - no ethnic cleansing - no displacement of Albanians -> post hoc fallacy derived from mere name of operation. It is as well already proven that displacement was due to the NATO campaign and not military operations

The document was mentioned and published in January 1988 in the Belgrade newspaper Borba, and later in Zagreb-based magazine Start. Čubrilović's document was not supported by Yugoslav historians and professors except for Ivo Andrić.

  1. If only one, out of all other historians and professors supports something - how can this be mainstream belief? If Ivo Andric suported, and rest have not, how can you state that it was the base of the Greater Serbia ?
  2. What atrocities?

--Pixius talk 22:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Louis Sell (4 August 2003). Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. Duke University Press. pp. 304–. ISBN 0-8223-3223-X.
  2. ^ "NIN / Da li je postojao "Plan potkovica"". Nin.co.rs. 1999-07-16. Retrieved 2016-02-01.

Rogozna[edit]

@Albanian Historian:, can you please find out where is this location called Rogozona that is mentioned next to Debar in the article? Thanks. --Mondiad (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i'll have a look! --Albanian Historian (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.se/maps/place/Rogozna,+Vojkoviće,+Serbien/@43.1038053,20.0225295,9z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x1353310de1f465ff:0xff454617b156c515 Its most likely in Serbia.

https://www.google.se/maps/place/Rogozna/@43.1428719,20.5149413,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x4756286cb166f5a7:0xc1b90987945d3121 It could also be in Novi Pazar...

--Albanian Historian (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Cubrilovic was referring to previous ethnic cleansing only during 1878, not to any in Deber etc . Also a clarification regarding Cubrilovic. When he was discussing Rogozona he was referring to what he perceived to be the limits of "Albanian expansion". He refers to a "Albanian triangle from Debar onwards to Nish. Rogozona is in reference to Rrogozhinë. There used to be a few Slavs brought there during the Ottoman days to work on the estates of beys and pashas. They left, some stayed and moved to Myzeqe etc. That's complicated. Anyway @Albanian Historian: we need to talk. You are making edits at some articles and your going to get yourself into strife (edit wars etc) while the rest of us are going to need to clean up after you. Please contact me on my talkpage. See also my user page if there are interests that coincide. But we need to talk, this is getting a bit out of hand. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having read the memorandum, but not Rogozhina. Nevermind, maybe it is time to read it again.
I would suggest to ping Zoupan or someone else other than Albanian so he/she can have a look on how to get the article in better shape towards full neutrality. --Mondiad (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rogozona is the Serbian rendition of Rogozhina. Cubrilovic talks of a Albanian settlement triangle. Wehn looking at a map Rogozhina is one point, Debar the second and middle point and Nish the third point, from Nish to Rogozhina then you draw a straight line and it forms a "triangle" as Cubrilovic envisaged it. A opinion existed and still exists amongst some Serbs that Albanians and Gegs in particular are "Albanized Slavs". Cubrilovic, in essence is referring to even northern Albania as being "settled" by Albanians displacing Slavs. I hope this helps in clarifying the matter.Resnjari (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly wrong, Resnjari, no need to complicate things. Rogozna is a mountain southeast of Novi Pazar, near the border with Kosovo. The triangle relates to the Albanian settlement in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, obviously, and not including areas in Albania. Interesting tale about Rrogozhinë though.--Zoupan 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

The expulsion of the Albanians (title)[edit]

For those who want to rename this article to The expulsion of the Arnauts, can you please start a title move page discussion instead of moving the page according to your own volition and acting in less than good faith. The article was originally created with the title The expulsion of the Albanians. The reason given by Zoupan who always uses google scholar/books and the amount of hits to change a page title (cites in multiple talkpages) was not given here (and one is left curious why there is a absence here). Instead all that was given as the reason for changing it is "Proper translation". That reason is less than forth coming. Is this document known in English language publications as "The expulsion of the Albanians" or is it known as "The expulsion of the Arnauts"? Those wanting a change need to provide evidence that warrants their rationale for change. Otherwise is this a case of wp:idontlikeit. All involved, please follow policy when regarding the matter otherwise all will be reported if constant POV pushing and edit warring continues. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accurate translation is Expulsion of the Arnauts per Judah , Weine , and Pavlaković and Ramet . 23 editor (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "accurate" translation can also be considered The expulsion of the Albanians, as Arnaut is the Turkish word for Albanian [1]. When the word entered the Serbian, it has acquired pejorative meanings and one needs to be mindful of that too [2], [3]. I do speak, write and read Serbian. A general question in this context does arise, why translate Isterivanje as the The expulsion of the but not Arnauta as Albanians in English? Nonetheless, my question in my previous comment was to determine what is the common usage for the document's name in English. Anyway for those 3 sources you cite that contains the word Arnaut in English, i have come across many more with the name The expulsion of the Albanians: Grujić [4], Gingeras [5], Petersen [6], Dragovic-Soso [7], Mestrovic [8], Perritt [9], Fabijancic [10], Cohen and Riesman [11], Clark [12], Alpion [13], Tarifa [14], Pearson [15], Booth [16], Di Lellio [17], Rezun [18], Blitz [19], Neofotistos [20], Cushman and Mestrovic [21], Elsie [22], Koehler and Zurcher [23], Courbage and Todd [24], Carmichael [25], Council of Europe [26], Janssens [27], Mertus (it will come when you click view all): p. 336 [28], Herbert: p. 41. [29] and so on. I went through the results of the name and checked each source, as results on Google scholar and books gave a mish mash of words that did not refer to the names cited of the document. There are many scholarly works that can be accessed that used the version The expulsion of the Albanians. Those using the word Arnauts in the title are only a few and you can do a meticulous search as i have done. In English, the title most used in sources is The expulsion of the Albanians and NOT The expulsion of the Arnauts.Resnjari (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still not right. Where did we get Isterivanje Arnauta. Iseljavanje Arnauta (Emigration of the Arnauts) is the correct title (see Elsie , Cohen , Carmichael , etc.) In other words, both "Expulsion" and "Albanians" are inaccurate translations of the title. Don't ask me why said authors didn't make that distinction. They probably don't comprehend Serbo-Croat and rely on third-party sources. As for the polemic re: Arnauts/Albanians, the title is the title. Check out The Negro Motorist Green Book. Just because the word Negro is no longer used to describe Black people doesn't mean the article's title should be altered to "The African American Motorist Green Book". The title is the title, regardless of potential pejorative meanings or otherwise. 23 editor (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry there, but the book that has the word Negro was the original title in English. This is English Wikipedia, not the Serbian one. In the policy about article title names, it states very clearly:
Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.
I outlined and gave series of examples that use the title The expulsion of the Albanians, not with the word "emmigration" or "Arnaut" etc. Anyway some of those criteria in the policy are:
  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects
Not only is "Arnauts" NOT recognizable (the word for Albanian in English is Albanian(s) and not Arnaut), but it is not used by a large corpus of reliable English publications (if you want more, i got wp:reliable scholarly journal articles too) regarding the Cubrilovic document. The issue is not what translation academics have used for the document (as words have malleable meanings when translated due to context etc), but what is the most widely used translated version of the title in English. An overwhelming number of wp:reliable academics use the title The expulsion of the Albanians in English publications. Moreover, you would need to gain consensus here for a change also and undertake a page move through the proper methods and outline your case with accompanying evidence. The expulsion of the Arnauts is not the title used by a majority of academics in English publications. As for Isterivanje vs Iseljavanje, academics (Serbian ones too in English publications) who have translated the title (even the ones using the word "Arnaut") in English Expulsion and not Emigration. They have translated the title as per what they have judged to be the appropriate translation of the Serbian terms.Resnjari (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The general translation is "Expulsion of the Albanians" not "Emigration of the Arnauts", as per common sense we reflect it in the article's name. As an analogy, L'espulsione degli Albanesi from the Italian Wikipedia [30], or Die Aussiedlung der Albaner from the German one [31], --Mondiad (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proper translation as in proper translation. If Čubrilović would have used Iseljavanje Šiptara or Iseljavanje Albanaca then "The Expulsion of Albanians" would be right. As 23 editor presented, the proper translation is used in reliable sources. Note that several Albanian sources do not use "Albanians" but "Arnauts", such as Kristaq Prifti, Paulin Kola, Miftar Spahija Thaçi and Enver Hasani.--Zoupan 01:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Yes, and in those sources that i cite above there, many are Serb or from the Serbo-Croatian speaking world that use the The expulsion of the Albanians instead of words like Arnauts or emigration etc. Note all are in English publications. A "proper translation" is when all words are translated, not just a few, or in part like Arnaut. Moreover the translation of the word Iseljavanje by these academics is still given in their English equivalent as Expulsion and not "Emigration". What your referring to is sort of wp:original. Wikipedia has guidelines on moving a page. The current title The expulsion of the Albanians meets the criteria such as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. For those calling for a name change, a official move page discussion needs to be started and position outlined and consensus gained for a change to occur.Resnjari (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would try a Google Books search, and came up with this result:
"Expulsion of the Arnauts" -wikipedia -lc gives 9 results
"Expulsion of the Albanians" -wikipedia -lc gives 19 results
The numbers are really to small to make a claim of WP:COMMONNAME, but they seem to indicate that "Albanians" is used somewhat more often than "Arnauts" in English translations of the title. However, looking at the results in the "Albanians" search, I notice that there is a pitfall here. About half of the results are not talking about the paper from 1937, but about the action of expulsing (does such a verb exist???) Albanians, and not limited to 1937. The number of results for "Albanians" actually mentioning the paper, is 10, so in reality the same result as for "Arnauts", give or take one.
This made me think that it will be important to remember that the article is about the paper, not about the action. One conclusion would be that it is important to keep the capital "E", not "The expulsion of...", but "The Expulsion of...". Even better: We could skip "The" altogether and call the article "Expulsion of...".
We also need to look at it from a translation POV. I feel that Zoupan has made a valid point: The author choose to use Arnauta, which I understand is somewhat derogatory, and not Šiptara or Albanaca. This will be best represented by the term "Arnauts". If the article explains that the author wrote a paper called Expulsion of the Arnauts where he suggests the expulsion of Albanians, we will actually underline the harshness of the suggestion. (Actually, I would have thought that a pro-Albanian point of view would be to show the use of the derogative, thus putting the paper in a bad light – and well deserved, in my opininon.)
I will suggest the title Expulsion of the Arnauts, possibly withe the addition of "(paper)", "[memorandum)" or similar. --T*U (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a generic google book search with a meticulous examination of each expression even when cited in academic publication has The Expulsion of the Albanians and NOT The Expulsion of the Arnauts. I only placed a selection from google books search that all can access, but when a PROPER move discussion occurs (of which this is not at the moment) i will place more from journal articles too. A sizable number of scholarly authors who cite the document here are Serbo-Croat specialists and they have not in anyway give a alternative translation to the one commonly used. They could give a alternative translation next to its Serbian cited name if they so wished. They Don't however. Moreover, like i said why have the title partly translated as the Wikipedia title, but not the word Arnauts. Either the whole Serbian name should be the title or the whole translated version which is the most commonly used and cited in documents. If only part of the title name is translated, not only is the article title POV (insisting on half translations) as the word Arnaut in Serbian has derogatory connotations, or even its sometime past use in English which is obsolete. Wikipedia is clear about this too regarding derogatory names. See policy: WP:NCI. Moreover if we insist on these alternative name as some editors are suggesting, is this article about having POV titles of half translations or going by the most common forms used in the English language and within scholarly English language publications? Like i said to all, if you want to change the title initiate a proper page move and attempt to gain consensus from all editors for a change as per the Wikipedia policy.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why we can't add a footnote that says "Arnauts" was the word Serbo-Croat speakers used to describe Albanians until ca. World War II. 23 editor (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Not all Serbo-Croat peoples used the word Arnaut to describe Albanian speaking peoples. The original word was Arbanas derived from what Albanians called themselves during the medaevil era and early Ottoman period. This word is the word still used for Albanian speakers that settled on Croatia's Dalmatian coast in the 18th century. In Serbian use the word Arbanas was still being used even academic publications in the early 20th century discussing Serbian and Albanian matters [32], [33]. The use of the word Arnaut was of a derogatory nature, and i do agree that a footnote is need to outline this use, as per the acedemic sources.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support "The Expulsion of the Arnauts", as the is proper for works. Some English-language sources mentioning the term (Arnauts/Albanians) itself:

Note that the sources presented by Resnjari most often cite other retranslations, such as the one by Elsie, and not the original work (the lecture), which, we can safely conclude, was Arnauts.--Zoupan 15:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

And so do the one using the word Arnauts. Also each scholar can give a alternative translation of the document if they so wish of the title as given in the original Serbian. They have not and The Expulsion of the Albanians is the most commonly used form in English, esepcailly when cited or used in English scholarly works.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elsie and all others can make their own translations, but they just stick to the common sense of Arnaut translating to Albanian. This is not regarding a historical fact which need us to trace down the primary source. This is simply a translation of the title.
I agree with Expulsion of the Albanians or Expulsion of the Albanians (memorandum) and the footnote. I saw the footnote is already there.--Mondiad (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say other publications. I don't see how common sense is applied to translating into "Albanians" rather than the original terminology. It is a paper, and not an event, and should therefore use the original title.--Zoupan 05:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
It is a paper that influenced the Serbian political elite many years later within Yugoslavia and later Slobodan's Serbia regarding the "Albanian question". Those sources that i cited above do make references to that. This document is a key document.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two question to those who know the language: 1) Is the word for expulsion (or emigration) in a definite or indefinite form in the original title? 2) Would one find "Arnaut" in a Serbian dictionary, and if so, how is it explained. (This suggests that it is not very common.) --T*U (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original title has the word =Iseljavanje, which means "moving out", "emigrating". Arnaut is a dated term that South Slavs and Turks used to refer to Albanians until the early 1940s. It wasn't used in a derogatory sense at the time, and only acquired a potentially derogatory connotation once it fell out of use (e.g. Chinaman, coloured person, etc.) It is one of several Balkan people names that have become antiquated over the previous 100 years (e.g. Servs→Serbs; Rumanians→Romanians, Bosnian Moslems/Muslims→Bosniaks, etc.) 23 editor (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: First, "Arnaut" is also an English word, it is included in Webster's Dictionary ("an inhabitant of Albania and neighboring mountainous regions"). 1) Slavic languages don't have articles (except Bulgarian and Macedonian), so in translations an article is added according to the context, if it is needed. In this case, I'd say the first "the" is not needed. 2) Vuk Karadžić's Serbian dictionary with explanations in German and Latin [34]: Арнаутин, vide Арбанас [Arnautin, see Arbanas]; Арбанас, der Albanese, Albanus. -in in Arnautin is a suffix for ethnicities (singular masculinum). Vladimir (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, both, for the clarifications! Then I will stand by my earlier conclusion that "Arnauts" is most appropriate. Also, I feel that we can do well without the article "The". That will make it clearer that the article is about the paper, not about an event. --T*U (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said, for those calling for a title change, initiate a proper page move process according to policy and gain consensus from all editors. Moreover it is important that rules are not made up regarding the matter, but instead change is based and consistent with Wikipedia policies and also precedents that certain editors use on other pages when conducting page moves there. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

The edit war pushed by Fez120 needs to stop. No explanations have been given. I was asked by Mondiad to have a look at the article, did, and made some improvements, citing reliable sources, etc. I ask Fez120, who compared the paper to Hitler's extermination of Jews and makes some correlation with the "origin of the Albanians and the autochthonous issue" to explain which revision is better and why, since he believes my edits are "bias, camouflaging, bullshit" I would want a better explanation.--Zoupan 15:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

I am done giving you explanations since you don't accept any. You are making bias changes, you are cleaning this article from any kind of Serbian responsibility and tying it to make it like a Serbian solution to problem caused by Albanians. Fez120 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th revert. You have given none. Have you actually read sources on this subject? I believe, no. Some sources on the paper and the Albanian question:

Some quotes on Albanian question=Greater Albania:

If you can't refute the reliable sources in the article, you have no right whatsoever to remove these (by reverting whole revisions) just because you don't like it. It is not for you to decide or accept (as you have commented). I have warned you and invited you to discuss. Your comments make it clear that you are a troll, calling edits bullshit and bias and comparing the subject to the Holocaust, you are even implying that this paper was actually an expulsion, when it was not. Now hesht.--Zoupan 16:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

@Zoupan:, why not bold out below some points on what to be changed and how - so we can all discuss them one by one rather than dive in an edit war. --Mondiad (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I bold out points? I have not changed anything, but added to the article?--Zoupan 18:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
@Mondiad: do you actually support Fez120's behaviour? It seems like it from your reply, having no comment on the edit war itself, nor the comments by me and Fez120. Do you have anything to say about this or no? --Zoupan 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same idea as @Mondiad:. Since it is you @Zoupan: the one that is making changes, why don't you first suggest your changes and discuss them before making them? I'm not changing anything I am only reverting your undiscussed changes.Fez120 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have failed to support your claim that the (improved) revision is "bias and bullshit". I gave your a perfectly good answer above (remember, you said "Greater Albania have nothing to do with this"). The subject needs to be presented in its entirety, including mentioning the "Albanian question". I have presented sources, you haven't. The improved revision introduces five new reliable sources (!) to further improve the article (duh). Again, you have given zero explanations on why and how these are "bias and bullshit". The other changes includes moving references and other information which is not directly related, to the article body.--Zoupan 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
I am not supporting anyone's behavior, but I am not the owner of the article. Just trying to calm things down. We're not in a rush here, are we?
Regarding the material, the sentence that mentions Dioguardi can go to the bottom section, does not need to be at the opening paragraph. I don't see why "Albanian question" automatically equals "Greater Albania". The Albanian question can deal with Albanian people rights, stability, prosperity, can't just be the Greater Albania. Anyway, the most important thing is the relevance to the material. Do we need it here?
Cubrilovic did not write the memorandum to cope with Albanian irredentism or any Albanian attempt for expansion. By 1937 there was no major threat coming from Albanian state or Albanians to Yugoslavia. His main concern was that all others methods applied so far had failed to overturn the ethnic proportions of the Albanian populated areas. He mentions the growth rate of the Albanians and how slow colonization or agrarian reforms had not been effective. As he says, "the only way to deal with Albanians is by brutal force, in which we have always been superior". Saying that, an ethnic cleansing would halt any Greater Albanian idea, but that's not the main target of the memorandum. On this point Fez120 is right.--Mondiad (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the opening paragraph, and moved one sentence from below to it (the one that talks about geopolitics).--Mondiad (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a (more recent) "major threat" is needed for Čubrilović's concern to the "Albanian question", which is obviously and explicitly Albanian irredentism/Greater Albania. Do I need to point out the importance of Kosovo (Albanians) in Albanian nationalism? Aren't you implementing your own analysis by removing that fact despite reliable sources? He is merely criticizing the past colonization and reforms. You need an overview (the whole picture), and not points, to understand why it is relevant, if you really don't. Better critical thinking. He says:

"... that Albanian block around Šar Mountains is of huge importance, of both national-statal and strategical importance to our state ... such important strategical positions not to leave in the hands of, towards us, hostile and foreign element. All the more because that element has the support of the kin national state (Albania). For now, (Albania) is still powerless, however, as such it became the base of Italian imperialism, through which (Albania) thinks of invading into the heart of our state. Against that invasion ... [Yugoslavs/Serbs will] protect their state. ... Apart from that block of 18 districts, Albanians and other national minorities in the south live scattered, thus are not that dangerous for our national-state life. Nationalizing areas around the Šar Mountains means to forever kill (destroy) all irredentism and forever secure the holding of those lands ... in the supporter of Albania their national consciousness are awakening, and if we don't deal with things on time, in 20-30 years we will have an egregious irredentism whose traces are already perceived (made aware of) and which will inevitably bring into question all our possessions in the South."

I think this is as clear as it gets, from his own words. One needs to separate the hypothetical "question" (possession/securement of Kosovo/Albanian-concentrated lands in Yugoslavia vs. Albanian irredentism/Greater Albania) from the hypothetical "answer" (pressure, terror, expulsion). Now, judging by the aftermath, Čubrilović wasn't that naive. Albania became an Italian protectorate and the Balli Kombëtar and Vulnetari rampaged freely, not to mention SS Skanderbeg. --Zoupan 06:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

I placed three sources for the changes on the opening sentence. Each uses direct citations from Cubrilovic's "conclusions". The conclusions reflect proportionally all the topics handled inside the memorandum. Cubrilovic did not come with the idea to expel Albanians just because "he didn't like them", he goes in details about what was done so far and how it should have been done better in order to achieve that. The Albanian irredentism was not a real threat at Cubrilovic's time. "if we don't deal with things on time, in 20-30 years we will have an egregious irredentism" - in 20-30 years. It can of course be see as a precaution measure, in the concept of geopolitics. That's what Mylonas says "According to Cubrilovic, the expulsion of the Albanian was necessary to "reestablish" the connection with the Slavs in South Serbia, Importantly for my argument, Cubrilovic makes clear the geopolitical reasoning underlying his proposal.". So, according to Cunrilovic himself the expulsion was necessary for the ethnic composition of the area, Mylonas comes to conclusion that there is geopolitical reasoning. This is fine, and is already present in the opening sentence. But which reference states that Cubrilovic's main concern was to cope with Albanian Irredentism or Greater Albania?
We can start and RFC on this if you want, but let's hear if anyone has another opinion as well.--Mondiad (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dubious date?[edit]

Why is the date 7 March 1937 dubious? --Mondiad (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubiousness[edit]

The lecture is mostly cited as having taken place on 7 March 1937 at the Serbian Cultural Club in Belgrade. Sources make no mention of another lecture. The dating of the paper (or memorandum), when it would have been presented to the government, is unclear. Petersen (2011) and Elsie incorrectly state 7 March 1937 as the date of the memorandum. For it to be a memorandum in the (strict) sense, it needs to have some "official" status, thus, it is only right to call it by the neutral term, a paper (a "policy paper"?). There are no indications that it was "official", i.e. state-supported, or made public. Going through the sources, it is also unclear how it got into the hands of the government. Some state that it was an official government memorandum presented on 7 March 1937, which would indeed mean that the paper/lecture was "official", which is dubious; some that it was presented to the government in 1937, or at an undisclosed date, after the lecture; some that it was later deposited into the JNA archive, meaning after 1945. It is variously claimed/interpreted as though: he was a government minister at that time (false, after WWII); he was a professor at that time (false, in 1939); he was an academic at that time (false, in 1959/61). We need to be clear about the dating, terminology and status.--Zoupan 09:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Moved from draft --Zoupan 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

... Probably best known are the views of Vaso Čubrilović, at the time a lecturer at Belgrade University, put forth before an audience at the Serbian Cultural Club. Albanian historiography consistently refers to this text usually claiming that it as written at the request of the Yugoslav General Staff. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim. Rather, it seems that it somehow had come into the possession of the military intelligence service and was eventually stored in the Military Archive (In interwar Belgrade, it was common practice to submit one’s written opinion on an issue to prominent persons in an attempt to exert influence on them) — Bjelajac, Mile. Migrations of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo 1938-1950

I was about to list some sources which prove that the interpretation of this lecture/paper wildly fluctuates, so as to make it clear not to portray it falsely. I found the above quote just now.--Zoupan 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

"he was a professor at that time (false, in 1939)" Why then does Bjelajac say he was a lecturer at Belgrade University in 1937? 23 editor (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lecturer is not translated as professor in this respect. It says here that he became a vanredni profesor in 1939. --Zoupan 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
In that case, the article does have a number of inaccuracies that need to be addressed. 23 editor (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Expulsion_of_the_Albanians&oldid=1219398992"