Talk:Yugoslav Partisans/Archive 2

Again?
Imbris, again? Unsurprisingly, the Serbo-Croatian language (called "Serbo-Croato-Slovene", but virtually identical) was the official language of the unitarianist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. So much so that when the Partisans were formed (mid-1941, a few weeks after the surrender of the Royal Army) there was no other recognized Štokavian language. None. The Partisans promised to reinstate them as official, but that's a whole different story. Now, I apologize for my alleged "interrogativeness", but please explain your edit. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All you wrote is pure WP:OR. First of all there were no official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the sittuation was — in statu nascendi — moving toward a unified Yugoslavian nationality and language. The Yugoslavian monarchy dropped the triune-tribe theory and moved toward Yugoslavianism. In any case there should be written Serbo-Croato-Slovene
 * Second – recognized by whom, the new-Yugoslavian policy installed in 1937 was a positive Stalinist Marxist view on supporting of nations, like Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians in their right to self-determination (including the right to secession), right of their own language, culture, political representation as equals, etc.
 * Imbris (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: there are no fifty languages here, Serbo-Croatian language = Serbo-Croato-Slovene = (hypothetical) "Yugoslav language". It is the same damn thing. There is no seperate Croato-Serbian, or "Yugoslav" languages. The "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" was the language used as official in pre-war Yugoslavia. I am fascinated by your logic, though: if there was no Croatian language, no Bosnian language, no Serbian language, no Slovene language, no Serbo-Croatian language, no Serbo-Croato-Slovene, and no "Yugoslav language", what language did exist in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? No wait, let me guess: Croatian somehow managed to exist without being official while Serbo-Croatian did not, in a unitarianist state no less? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop patronising. Serbo-Croato-Slovene was a name for the common language of triune-named-nation of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It apparently also included the spoken language of Macedonians (even they did not officialy exist by the decree of the king and his clique). Stop with historical revisionism, you are deliberately excluding the Slovene language to get away with your POV. This is pure WP:SYN what you are doing.
 * All this time the ordinary folk kept reffering to their Maternal language under its "tribal" name, Tribes being nations — fully aware of their heritage — Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes, Serbs (joined by unitarist Montenegrins). The language was at official levels reffered to as Maternal, People's language, and in high-circles as Yugoslav, Yugoslavian, Serbo-Croato-Slovene, but without official decree of any kind.
 * Croatian language is the undead, nothing has managed to distroy it, which is best visible today, when the majority speaks Croatian (even if that is not good Croatian) in Croatia and wherever Croatians live.
 * Imbris (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's so romantic, all of it. Unfortunately nothing you write here now can change the fact that unitarianist pre-war Yugoslavia supported the unified language most commonly known as "Serbo-Croatian". That's fact. Claiming that the Serbo-Croatin language somehow did not exist after the country was renamed into Yugoslavia (and started pursuing total unitarianism) is down right ridiculous. You're making no sense, whatsoever. Let me get this straight: you claim that in the most unitarianist Yugoslav state in history Croatian and Serbian existed while the unified Serbo-Croatian somehow ceased to exist when the country became unitarianist (renamed to Yugoslavia)? I'm sorry, but that's kindergarten-level absurdity. Its a wild stretch concocted by your rabid nationalist POV trying to "de-Serbianize" articles with absurd, petty, and provocative edits. I'm going to bed, tomorrow I'm posting an RfC on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to settle your nonsense once and for all. You obviously need five people telling you you're ridiculously wrong before you consider the possibility. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Led" or "dominated"?
In 1941 the Communist Party of Yugoslavia formed the Yugoslav Partisans along with a number of other anti-fascist parties and organizations in Yugoslavia. They were not forced into this, and were never "subjugated" by the CPY in any way. The CPY organized the military forces of this "coalition" and never faced any opposition from other members of the "coalition". In any case, I wish you would read sources before editing, the terms used were not picked at random. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, probably the best source on the net for encyclopedic NPOV wording, uses the term "led". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Croats underrepresented
In 1944 the croats accounted for only 60% of the partizan troops in croatia, and this was the time when croat support was at its peak. It is well known that most partizan support in croatia was initially from the serbs, due to the extreme genocidal terror that was being perpetrated against them by ustasha. With the imminent defeat of the ustasha, more croats joined. As we see, in late 1944, only 60% of croatia's partizans were actually croats... http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/yugoslavia/statistics/partisans/ ...shows clear under-representation as the croats were some 80% of croatia's population after the slaughtering of hapless hundreds of thousands of serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).

Again?
You'll have to do better than that, LAz. Selective representation of sources will get you nowhere, not to mention your incredibly biased "personal touches". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are not biased personal touches. I have sourced all my material. Any material out there that deals with ethnic composition in the early parto f the war suggests that the Serbs were most of partizans. This is in the early part of the war. It certainly makes sense, as the partizans were not active in places with many croats. There were VERY few croats back then and in this day in Western Serbia an Northern Montenegro. So what is your issue here? Quite frankly, Tim Judah, wrote an awarding winning book on this. He is by no means biased, and I have sourced him. He also notes other stuff... croat partizan enslitment happened for a few reasons... the movement of the partizans westward, after being pushed out of their initial locations. 2), Partizan enrollment was not so strictly serbian, they appealed to all nationalities while the chetniks did not, 3) chetniks did many crimes on innocent civilian croats, and bosniaks, and 3) mussolini's italization of dalmacia got many croats to join the partizans. Judah is a very respected author by all sides. Well maybe not since he wrote some pro-Albanian stuff later on, but he is very well respected nonetheless. I shall put him back. Him and those other sources. Thanks for your cooperation in keeping wikipedia a top notch non-biased place. Change your anti-serb behavior. Furthermore, there is no reference to the sisak brigade, so that will be taken off until you get a source. (LAz17 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm very busy right now, so I'll have to "fade away". I'll be back, though. cya soon -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why do you edit that stuff again? It is all sourced. Look into the sources. Do you have anything CONTRARY to that to offer? YOu do not, or at least have not so far. (LAz17 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Partizani (locality)
In 2008 I came across a village in Bulgaria called Partizani. Since this article Partizani is redirected to Partisans I suggest a explanation site for Partizani. Sorry for the external link, with some more time I'll register at Wikimedia Commons and u/l the picture there. -- 84.180.168.161 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)