Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Slovene Partisans

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

Merge

[edit]

I oppose the merging (proposed here) of this article for a number of reasons, including edit warring over the Slovene Partisans percent in Yu partisans and because of removal of the Slovene Partisans flag (See here) there. --DancingPhilosopher 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What? Concentrate on the merge please. There were Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks etc who all served in the Yugoslav Partisans, and all the federal states had their seperate commands. There was no organization known as "Slovene Partisans", as separate from the rest of the movement. This is just another textbook WP:POVFORK. You created this article, one who's subject is already covered in the Yugoslav Partisans article, without any sort of consensus or discussion - and apparently only for the purpose of pushing some sort of changes and info you could not get through on the main article. (For the record here: I have nothing to do with these apparent disagreements.)
I should probably just merge this non-consensus pamphlet right into the main article. It would fit the structure very nicely. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to ask for permission to create an article and it may always be proposed for deletion if necessary. If the title Slovene Partisans is unsuitable due to the cause explained above, it may also be moved - in case of a consensus - to (Yugoslav) Partisans in Slovenia to focus in depth on the movement in Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now Eleassar, you know I wasn't suggesting some sort of "permission" is needed to create an article, but this subject is already covered in another place. Its not policy, but it would have been nice if we at least had some sort of discussion there. Again, this is a very typical WP:POVFORK that DancingPhilosopher apparently created because of differences at the main article.
I am by no means suggesting Partisan activities in Slovenia don't deserve thorough coverage, but that should be covered in the main article, and perhaps in a Slovenia during World War II article - not in an article that presents the "Slovene Partisans" as some sort of additional faction in WWII Yugoslavia. The Federal State of Slovenia, just like all six federal states, had a command of its own that presided over the local forces (defined geographically - not ethnically). This is just one of many not particularly independent and integral components of a single faction. -- Director (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely this kind of Serbian traditional dismissive attitude towards Slovene sovereignty including their fight for the preservation of their ethnic identity (what Slovene Partisans were more then anything else, not for Yugoslavia or for revolution) which made Slovenians declare their independence from the rest of the - as you call them - "many not particularly independent" and "integral components of a single faction" in 1991. Slovene Partisans used their own language, had their own flag on Triglav that Belgrade didn't want the photo of, and were fighting for preservation of Slovene culture and ethnicity, with or without the indeed geographically mixed ethnicities of Yugoslavia.
Mhm. I'm Croatian. And thank you for so thoroughly validating my point with regard to WP:POVFORK. Do you have any real arguments? Aside from "fighting for preservation of Slovene culture and ethnicity", that is. -- Director (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the merge. -- Director (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose merging. The fact that the Slovene partisans were part of the Yugoslav partisan resistence isn't a valid argument for merging. If we were to follow this logic, we would have to abolish all separate articles for military subunits. If a subunit is important enough, I don't see a reason why not to describe it in a separate article. In the case of Slovene Partisans, there are many arguments favoring the maintainance of a separate article. Until 1943, they acted almost completely separately from the rest of the Yugoslav resistance (mostly due to their geographical separation), and also thereafter they maintained their own autonomy vis-a-vis the Yugoslav Partisan leadership. Furthermore, the organizational srtucture of Slovene Partisans was significantly different than in other Yugoslav areas. Most importantly, however, they themselves emphasized their particularily Slovenian charactzer: there are many sources confirming that the Slovenian partisan forces articulated itself foremost as a Slovenian national army, using Slovenian symbols etc. Nobody denies that it was part of the Yugoslav Partisan movement, but I think its specificities are such, that they need to be described in a special article. Even if merger prevails right now, I'm sure that the section will soon expand to a level that it will need separation again. Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of course, every Slovenian user on Wikipedia is going to support the creation of this article ("we're fighting for preservation of Slovene culture and ethnicity"), and I'll turn out "anti-Slovene". I've already been called something like that...
Fellas this is policy we're talking about. There was already an article that included this subject in its scope. The question is "why create another article on the same subject?", not "why not?". And if there ever was a texbook WP:POVFORK, this is it: the user who actually created the thing practically said so himself. Every single federal state had a separate command. This is not about whether history of WWII Slovenia and the resistance struggle requires separate coverage - it does, but why does one part of the Partisan movement in Slovenia need to be covered separately from the rest of the same Partisan movement in other parts of Yugoslavia? -- Director (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being covered separately, but more in depth. Of course, the article on Yugoslav Partisans will mention the Slovene Partisans, as well. However, since the Slovene Partisan movement has a complicated history and structure of its own that need in depth descriptions, the best is to create (keep) a separate article, where the dynamics of the Slovene partisan movement can be explaint in depth without expanding the Yugoslav Partisan section beyond reasonable limits. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your claim that the Slovenian Partisans were just one of the federal sub-units of the Yugoslav Partisan movement isn't correct. The Slovenian Partisans had a larger autonomy than other partisan units, and there were notable cases in which they entered in conflict with the "federal" headquarters in order to maintain it (the dispute over Arsa Jovanović's mission) - by the end of the war, Tito was forced by the Slovenian Communists to recognize the specificity of the Slovenian Partisans and to promise to maintain a separate Slovenian Army within the Yugoslav People's Army (modelled on the dominions' armed forces within the British Commonwealth); a promise which was not kept, of course. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, and most importantly, the vast majority of the text is written as a history of the National Liberation War in Slovenia. That is relevant information that needs to be covered in depth, and perhaps separately as well. However, this article also created an entirely non-existent military organization, admittedly(!) for no other reason than nationalist sentiment. As a side note, you'll notice the user who created it is so completely biased he actually omitted any mention whatsoever of a connection between these "Slovene Partisans" of his - and the rest of the NOV i POJ. Its a WP:POVFORK. A blatant one.
  • Secondly, there was no organization known as "Slovene Partisans". The Partisan movement was NOT separated on ethnic grounds in any way. There were Partisans of Slovene ethnicity, of course, but no organization or military faction bearing the name "Slovene Partisans" existed.
  • Thirdly, if you contend that the elements of the Partisan movement in the Federal State of Slovenia had a special status in some way, please present sources to that effect. Do I really need to say this? Those were elements of the Yugoslav Partisans, in the Federal State of Slovenia.
If this article were reorganized as a Slovene history article covering World War II in Slovenia and the resistance struggle therein, I'd have no problem with it. The nationalist POV invention of the "Slovene Partisans" resistance movement is a such an obvious POVFORK I'm amazed I'm having this discussion at all. -- Director (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AD 1. Your claims that no such entity existed is not exact. It's enough to read the main program of the Liberation Front from summer 1941, to see that the Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation regarded the Slovenian partisans as its own army, as an integral but separate part of the Yugoslav partisan movement. The Slovene Partisans were organized as the "National Liberation Army and Partisan Units of Slovenia"; it was abolished as a separate unit on March 1, 1945 and merged with the Yugoslav Army. Now, in simplified terms, these units may be legitimately be called simply "Slovene Partisans", the name they themselves used. According to your logic, no military unit called "Yugoslav Partisans" existed, as well. As for your second point: if the article is flawed or incomplete, the solution is not to delete it or merge it, but rather to expand it by mentioning the missing information.
AD 2. I'm afraid you are completely wrong here. Slovene Partisan units were not just subunits of the Yugoslav resistance, whose members "just happened to be ethnic Slovenes". They had their own structure, leadership, and they were (until March 1st, 1945) considered the armed force of the Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation (OF). Until the first AVNOJ meeting, they were de facto and also de jure (according to their own internal documents) independent from the headquarters of the Yugoslav partisans, although they of course always recognized the leadeship of Tito and regarded themselves as part of the Yugoslav partisan movement.
AD 3. The Federal State of Slovenia never existed. I'm afraid you got your historical data wrong. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had the chance to look more thoroughly at the article only now. It definetely needs editing. But, as I've said, this can't be an argument for the deletion of the article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Federal State of Slovenia never existed"? Six federal states were established with the Second Session of the AVNOJ when the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was established. Slovenia was no exception. Each one of these six republics had a parliament, a government, and a military command. They were just as legitimate as the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the Partisans themselves.
  • Concerning the "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia". It was simply the name for the Partisan command in the Federal State of Slovenia, it had no ethnic connotations ("of Slovenia"), and it was the counterpart of five other such commands - all of which were named "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of [State]". If you contend that the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia enjoyed a special autonomous status in relation to the other five, present your sources please.
  • "in simplified terms, these units may be legitimately be called simply 'Slovene Partisans'". Nope, its ambiguous and very misleading. "Slovene Partisans" primarily means "Partisans of Slovene ethnicity", and that is not how they were defined. No Partisan formation or institution was formed along ethnic lines. The term used is "of Slovenia".
I could go on like this, let's try and cut it short. I will repeat for the third time: if you have any sources whatsoever that indicate an especially autonomous status of the Partisan command in Slovenia (as opposed to their equivalents in all other federal states) - now is the time to post them (and please be mindful of WP:OR). I never read anything of the sort, so I'm reasonably sure you will not be posting any sources. You will forgive me if I ignore claims of autonomy unless corroborated - and move on. -- Director (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unaware of the English terminology. Anyway, Slovenian Partisans existed prior to the formation of DFY. As for the position of the Slovenian partisans within the Yugoslav partisan movement, suffice it to consult the comprehensive volume "Narodnoosvobodilna vojna na Slovenskem : 1941-1945" (edited by Tone Ferenc et al, Ljubljana, 1976). The adjective "Slovene" might mean either "relative to Slovenia" or "relative to Slovenes". And besides, it's anachronistic to make distinctions between the two. The distinction between ethnic and territorial made sense in the Yugoslav context, but it made no sense in the Slovenian partisan movement. Such a distinction was never postulated (prove me wrong): first of all, because "Slovenia" (which btw. didn't really exist at the time, it was first established as an entity in 1945) was ethnically homogeneous (with some 95% of its inhabitants being ethnic Slovenes - the rest were mostly German speakers, which were in any case treated as a foreign element, "alien to the nation" by the partisan movement); second, suffice it to read the fundamental documents of the Liberation Front and one will see that the emphasis is on the Slovenian Nation as the subject of sovereignity and of emancipation. The "Kočevje Assembly", organized in early October 1943 after the Italian armistice, as the supreme body of political sovereignity in Slovenia, was called "Assembly of the Delegates of the Slovenian Nation" (Zbor odposlancev slovenskega naroda) - and there was no doubt that this "nation" was conceived in purely ethnic terms ... (And btw, unlike in Serbo-Croatian, there is no terminological ambiguity between the concepts of "nation" and "people" in Slovene: "narod" means Nation, and "ljudstvo" means people - thus "Jugoslovanska ljudska armada" and "Ljudska republika Slovenija", but "Osvobodilna fronta slovenskega naroda" and "Zbor odposlancev slovenskega naroda" etc.).
I don't want to go personal, but it seems to me that here you are the one who's introducing anachronistic notions, such as the distinction between ethnic and territorial. Slovene Partisans (slovenski partizani) is a contemporary term; they were an ethnically very homogeneous and also quite nationalistic movement (it's just that their nationalism was not anti-Yugoslav) Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Anachronistic"? You must be joking - this is a history article. Yes I know the Partisans in Slovenia were ethnically homogeneous, but that does not justify representing the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia as being an organization defined by ethnicity. Especially when such a representation goes directly against the fundamental principles of the same movement.
Look lets cut to the chase. The only thing that really matters in all that you posted are all your claims as to the special autonomous status of the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia. For the fourth time: do you or do you not have a source that actually states this? I am not interested in your WP:OR, please stop being evasive. Please be so kind as to provide a scholarly publication and page number, and please quote the source (preferably in English, and preferably visible on-line, but that's secondary). -- Director (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, you can check out the volume mentioned above. I'm sure it's available in all major libraries in former Yugoslavia. When I'll have more available sources with me, I might include it in the article. Here, I believe, we're only discussing whether to keep it or not. As for the fundamental principles of the Slovene Partisan movements, you can check out the Fundamental Principles of the Liberation Front: http://ales.ledina.org/projekti/timkoII/2.svetovna/Temeljne_tocke_OF6-3.htm (it's a silly page, I'm sorry, but the text is correctly reproduced). It was an organization defined by nationality, but in that time, there was no distinction between nationality and ethnicity in Slovenia. If you want to prove me wrong, and that it was a movement defined on territory and not on nationality, I urge you to provide sources. But I can already tell you you won't find them. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia, was no more autonomous than the other five "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of [state]". For the fifth and absolutely last time: can you properly source your claim that the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia were in any way especially autonomous? We're not kids here, and I'm in no mood for WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, chatting, and general discussion. Back-up your claims please or stop making them.
If you cannot source your claims properly (and I know they are incorrect), we can resume the discussion on the other points. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's Sunday evening and since I haven't got any book on the subject with me, it's highly unlikely I'll go running about to get it. I gave you a source, though: unfortunately, I didn't memorize the whole book, but you can find a fairly detailed description of the relation between the Slovenian Partisans and the Yugoslav headquarters in there. It will not be difficult to find more. I urge you to povide sources, as well. We'll need them in editing the article. I don't see exactly how this is relevant to the discussion whether to keep the article or not, though. My arguments for keeping: there were units calling themselves "Slovene Partisans", with their own symbols, specific internal organization, specific dynamics of development and (most importantly) with their own political agenda (as defined by the OF - since they were officially considered, up to March 1945, as the armed branch of the OF). The level of their autonomy vis-a-vis the Yugoslav partisan movement can be discussed when editing the relevant sub-chapter of the article; I don't see the relevance of discussing it now. Peace be with you, Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, right.. When you provide a source for the autonomy of the NOViPOS, then we can take that into consideration. They were geographically seperated from the Partisan Main Operational Group in Bosnia and Montenegro, but they were not autonomous. Moving on. -- Director (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying, the article was created as a WP:POVFORK:

  • It represents the nationalist POV that Partisan movement in Slovenia were somehow separate or exceptionally autonomous from the rest of the Partisan movement. Which is incorrect.
  • It creates a non-existant organization, the "Slovene Partisans". There were Slovene Partisans, but there was no organization defined by ethnicity within the Partisan movement.
  • It basically covers Slovene WWII history instead of the Partisans themselves.
  • Even so, it overlaps completely with the scope of the Yugoslav Partisans article.

This article, in its current organization serves only to perpetuate the nationalist notions of one user. Its extreme language is a testament to this (among other things). It should either be restructured as a Slovene WWII history article, or it should be merged. As it stands, its a violation of policy (WP:POVFORK). -- Director (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1][2]: "Slovenski partizani so sicer celo vojno delovali samostojno, s poveljevanjem v slovenskem jeziku. Ob koncu vojne pa so v vodstvu OF prevladali ljudje, ki so zagovarjali popolno vključitev v jugoslovansko vojsko." and " V letih okupacije od 1941 do 1945 je nastala skoraj povsem samostojna slovenska partizanska vojska." So, there are sources that validate the claim that the Slovene Partisans were exceptionally autonomous.--Eleassar my talk 13:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is an issue pertaining to Slovene nationalism, and therefore Slovene sources aren't the best sources imaginable. There are dozens upon dozens of highly reputable publications in English on this subject, published outside of ex-Yugoslavia.
Secondly, even if we set the former aside, the source seems highly suspect in claiming that between 1941 and 1945 there existed a "completely independent" Slovene partisan army, which is a blatant exaggeration contradicted by the very fact that they were part of the Partisan movement. "Completely independent"? Can you find any non-Slovene source to corroborate that?
People, I am aware of the fact that the NOViPOS were separated from the Partisan Main Operational Group in Bosnia and Montenegro. So they acted independently - just like many other segments of the Partisan movement separated from the main force (I dare say that was the majority, in fact). What I am asking is that you provide evidence as to the official exceptional autonomy of the NOViPOS, which would qualify it as a separate autonomous force - as opposed to just one of the many local commands acting on their own due to being seperated from the Main Operational Group (i.e. the "Proletarian brigades"). -- Director (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you need an English source, published outside Yugoslavia, you may read [3]. Now we have three sources supporting each other, and no source contradicting them. --Eleassar my talk 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything in the link. Could you quote the source here please? -- Director (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar. "Histories of the Individual Yugoslav Nations." In "The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook". ABC-Clio, Inc. 2004. Santa Barbara, California. ISBN 1-57607-294-0 (hardcover), ISBN 1-85109-547-0 (eBook). Pp. 167–168. Quote:
"In autumn 1942 came Tito's first attempt to control the Slovene resistance movement, which until then had developed completely independently from the resistance movements in other regions of Yugoslavia. Arsa Jovanović, a leading Yugoslav communist who was sent from Tito's Supreme Command of Yugoslav partisan resistance, ended his mission to establish central control over the Slovene partisans unsuccessfully in April 1943"... "During the last months of the war many troops and armies operated in the Slovene territory: In addition to Slovene partisan units and the Yugoslav (partisan) army, there were some Soviet troops, ..." --Eleassar my talk 15:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right... more Slovene authors. I don't want to offend anyone, but I am highly suspicious of ex-Yugoslav sources in disputes pertaining to local nationalism. I equally suspect Croatian sources - actually more so than Slovene ones - in similar disputes pertaining to Croatian nationalism. Like I said, there is certainly no shortage of non-local scholarly sources on this issue. I know it looks like I'm raising the bar, but all I've been asking from the start is a non-Slovene source. -- Director (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Resistance began almost immediately. Led by the Communists... the Liberation Front formed in 1941... Operations were portioned out to autonomous Partisan units, for the time being separated from Tito's struggle to the south... the Slovene Partisans united with Tito's forces in 1944..." James Stewart. "Slovenia". New Holland Publishers, 2006. ISBN 1860113362, ISBN 9781860113369. Pg. 15. --Eleassar my talk 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, could you provide more context around "Operations were portioned out to autonomous Partisan units, for the time being separated from Tito's struggle to the south"?
Like I said several times, Partisan federal state commands were generally autonomous. All over Yugoslavia there existed "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of [federal state]"s, which commanded local forces, and every single federal state had its own "National Liberation Front" (joined in the "Unitary National Liberation Front"). "the Slovene Partisans united with Tito's forces in 1944" - most likely refers to the disappearance of a geographic separation between the military range of the two. And I note that the above sources claim this occurred a year later.
What we're talking about here is the proposition that the NOViPOS had an exceptionally autonomous official status in the NOViPOJ, thus making it different in status than all the other five (relatively) autonomous "NOViPO"s in warranting a special article. We're not talking about a geographic separation, which was commonplace between various (relatively autonomous) segments of the Partisan movement. Note that this is an important point even if this article does not get merged. -- Director (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More context: "For example Tito had promised Slovene partisans that they would be able to keep their own army with Slovene as the commanding language, but that promise was never fulfilled" In other words, the Slovenes had their own army with Slovene as the commanding language. (Erika Harris. Nationalism and democratisation: politics of Slovakia and Slovenia. Ashgate, 2002. ISBN 9780754618904. Pg. 150.)
Another source, of Slovene author, but claiming the same: "The Slovene Liberation Front, which until 1944 was quite independent of Tito's leadership and the rest of Yugoslavia... Tito went so far as to promise Slovene partisan leaders that they could maintain their own army after the war." (Uncertain path: democratic transition and consolidation in Slovenia, Rudi Rizman. Texas A&M University Press, 2006. ISBN 9781585444236) --Eleassar my talk 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Director: again, the Federal Republics of the DFY were established in 1944, while the structure of the Slovenian Partisans (incuding their de facto autonomy) dates to 1941. Also, you seem to be mixing the "AVNO" (Antifašistično vijeće narodnog slobodjenja) of Croatia (ZAVNOH), Serbia etc., which were mirroring the "federal" AVNOJ, with the Slovenian "Liberation Front". The Slovenian correspondent to the federal AVNOJ and Croatian ZAVNOH would be the SNOS, established only in 1944; even then, it came into existance only by the Supreme Plenum of the Liberation Front renaming itself to SNOS, and proclaming Slovenia as a sovereign constitutive unit within federal Yugoslavia.http://www.bsi.si/bankovci-in-kovanci.asp?MapaId=485 Hitherto, Slovenia had a completely different structure, because the Liberation Front was established (as a self-declared sovereign political body) already in April 1941. There were no Liberation Fronts in the other republics to my knowledge. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extensive sources, Eleassar! It would be difficult to charge Rudi Rizman with a nationalist bias, I believe. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is far too long for me to join in at this point. I'll simply add that for quite some time there's also existed articles about the National Liberation War of Macedonia and the People's Liberation Army of Macedonia, so a precedent certainly exists for this article as well (although the terminology likely needs to be clarified and standardized for comparison).--Thewanderer (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia is a source, Wanderer? :) I see you started contribs surfing yet again, please don't be offended if I ask you to keep a polite distance. -- Director (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ugh. I'm not "mixing" anything, Eleassar. I know when the federal states of the DFY were established, and I also know full well when the Partisan movement was founded. You're the one apparently confusing those two. Pardon the length of the post, but it looks like I need to lay this out in full.

  • The individual liberation fronts, the political coalitions/organizations who incorporated the Partisans as their military arm, were formed in 1941. They were all incorporated into the JNOF, the Unitary National Liberation Front. OF was formed first, but not by a particularly wide margin. The Serbian liberation front was formed in the summer of 1941, for example. After the war these became the "Socialist Alliances of Working People".
  • The Partisan movement, the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia", was formed as the military arm of the JNOF. Also, each individual liberation front incorporated its "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia/Croatia/BiH etc." as its military arm.
  • The liberation councils, formed out of prominent liberation front members, were also formed at various dates. Some councils were established before the federal states were proclaimed (Supreme Plenum of the OF/SNONS, ZAVNOH) and assumed the new role as parliaments (Supreme Plenum of the OF changed its name to accommodate the new role), some were established simultaneously with the proclamations of the federal states in November 1943 (ZAVNOBIH, ZAVNOCGB), and some were actually formed afterwards for their federal state (ASNOS, ASNOM).
  • The federal states themselves were proclaimed de iure on 29 November 1943, and were established de facto over the course of 1944.

What I require is evidence for the claim that the "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia" was in any way formally independent from the "National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia". That the Slovene "Liberation" Front was especially autonomous from the "Unitary Liberation Front", more than its five counterpart "liberation fronts". The names rather betray the irony, don't they?

Now this is a highly sensitive Slovene nationalist issue. This is a matter of (quote) "fighting for the preservation of Slovene culture and ethnicity". Yet all we are seeing here is a myriad of Slovene authors - among so many excellent non-local publications of the highest quality. I refuse to be buried in local sources. I sifted through the presented quotations and the only non-Slovene source that came close to supporting the above claims was "Operations were portioned out to autonomous Partisan units, for the time being separated from Tito's struggle to the south" (Stewart). Since the sentence is ambiguous, I asked for context, but did not see any. Instead: more Slovene national authors. There is one source that claims de facto autonomy, none claim formal autonomous status. -- Director (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I want to clarify some things:
  1. It was not me who said Director is mixing this up.
  2. I'm really sorry if most authoritative books on the matter were written by Slovenes. There are other sources available nonetheless:
  • The book "Civil-military relations, nation building, and national identity: comparative perspectives" by Constantine Panos Danopoulos contains the qoute (italics added): "World War II: Slovene Partisans The acceptance of that request by Slovenes was the beginning of the end of the independent Slovene army. At end of the war". I'm sorry I don't have it at disposal, and it is not available in Slovenian libraries, but it may be found in other European countries,[4] so if someone has access to it, I'll be grateful if they can quote additional relevant content.
  • The book "Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture, Volume 1" by Richard C. Frucht, ISBN 9781576078006 contains the quote: "In November 1943, at a key Partisan meeting in Jajce, the OF became formally affiliated with the Partisans" (pg. 490, chapter "Slovenia").
  • Independent Slovenia: Origins, Movements, Prospects. Jill Benderly, Evan Kraft. "The Liberation Front, led by the Communists, combined the liberation struggle in Slovenia with struggles of the other Yugoslav peoples and was thus the only movement in Slovenia that had direct contact with the rest of Yugoslavia the entire time from 1941 to 1945... The leadership of the Slovene national liberation struggle, despite connections to Tito's leadership and to the rest of Yugoslavia, proceeded in a fairly independent manner until 1944." (pg. 34)
It's clear from these sources, written by English and other non-Slovene authors in English, that the Slovene Liberation Front was formally unafilliated with Tito's army till November 1943 and remained fairly independent till 1944. --Eleassar my talk 10:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I think you made your point and the merge is really starting to seem unwarranted. But this article is, either way, in need of an overhaul nevertheless, and this is a crucial issue. One source states the OF maintained its connection with the Partisans 1941-45, while the other source states the OF only became "affiliated" with the Partisans at the Second Session of the AVNOJ.
The crucial question here seems to be: what of the Communist Party of Slovenia (who ran the OF)? Were they not, since long before the war, a part of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (who ran the JNOF)? Was the OF was unaffiliated with the JNOF until November 1943? Or just "with the Partisans", the army of the JNOF, as the sources say? -- Director (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's keep the article and start editing it. The Communist Party of Slovenia was established in April 1937 as an autonomous branch of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. It had the upper hand on the OF since the very beginning, its supremacy was made official with the Dolomiti Statement in February 1943. There's no doubt about the fact that Slovene Partisans were part of the Yugoslav partisan resistance. This should be made clear in the article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the Communist Party of Slovenia was established in April 1937 as one of the six autonomous branches of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.
Right, then, nothing unexpected there.
  • a "Communist Party of [state]", incorporated in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia
    • leading a "Liberation Front of [state]", incorporated into the Unitary Liberation Front
      • presided over by a deliberative council, deferring to the deliberative body of the Unitary Liberation Front (the AVNOJ)
      • who's military arm is the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of [state]", incorporated into the "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia"
Add a geographic separation from the rest of Yugoslavia, and you have a formally incorporated resistance organization exercising de facto control until this geographic divide has been eliminated by the successful campaigns of Tito in 1943 and 1944. The person who wrote this article is the same one continuously expressing his nationalist hatred on this talkpage, and he has depicted this organization as being entirely independent. Whereas it was de facto independent, and that only for a part of the war.
He also seems to despise Germans and Italians as well. The language used is very provocative and unencyclopedic. The version I introduced on the Yugoslav Front article is stripped of extreme "partisanship" (pun intended), and I had to work pretty hard to make it so. -- Director (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid original research and deductions. Do you have any (reliable) source for "a formally incorporated resistance organisation"? Here in my book (J. Gow. "Slovenia and the Slovenes"), it is written on page 48: "While the Slovene communists and their partisan army were linked with the communist partisan army (under the command of Josip Broz Tito) in the other Yugoslav lands, they did not become part of it until relatively late in the war. In the meantime, the autonomy of Slovene activity–often criticised by Tito and his command–meant that there was an entirely different character to resistance in Slovenia, where the communists led a coalition of parties. This was formed by the communists, on the lines of the Popular Front they had dissolved in 1939, as early as 27 April 1941. It was formed to oppose the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia–but, against the wishes of the Yugoslav party, under Tito."
And as already quoted from the "Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture, Volume 1" by Richard C. Frucht: "They could not compete with the OF, which had apparently won the hearts and minds of most Slovenes. In November 1943, at a key Partisan organizational meeting in Jajce, the OF became formally affiliated with the Partisans." --Eleassar my talk 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have to interfere here. Aside from the usual "they won the hearts and minds of the people" and the "they were autonomous and Tito didn't like them because they were to democratic" kind of propaganda I get from partisan supporters (and which I have, for now, no intention to try to remove from the articles - waste of time) I'm a bit astonished by this: "the OF became formally affiliated with the Partisans". I know this is not you saying it but you obviously agree with it, otherwise you wouldn't quote it. So please explain to me, what were the partisana affiliated with before? And what did the OF represent before? Was there another partisan organisation? And what do you mean by "formally affiliated"? This whole article should be merged with the OF article, there is no difference accept that "partisans" was for the military part of the OF and "OF" also meant the administrational structure and other things connected with the organization (spies, "terenci" etc.) Tadej5553 (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar you're confusing various WWII organizations. The National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia (the Partisans), are not the same thing as the JNOF, which incorporates the Partisans, and much more (its a wider term). Since we know and agree that the Slovene Communist Party was a part of the Yugoslav Communist Party - the WP:BURDEN is yet again squarely on you in claiming that the extensions of said parties, the OF and the JNOF, were formally unaffiliated.
And anyway, to claim that the communist resistance movement in Slovenia was entirely unaffiliated with the communist resistance movement in the rest of Yugoslavia is an entirely nonsensical proposition. A claim of that sort should require direct, unambiguous backing. -- Director (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some clarifications:
1. The source fits the WP:RELIABLE criteria and is supported by other reliable sources. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." That's the only reason why I've quoted it, not because of my personal beliefs. There are other sources that support the claim that the Slovene population supported the Partisans. For example: "At the all-Yugoslav level the Slovene support for the Partisan movement was much more solid than either the Serb or the Croat. For, unlike Serbia or Croatia, Slovenia was not established as a quisling state but was partitioned between Germany and Italy and its population threatened with national extinction"[5] Etc...
2. I agree that the Slovene Partisans were the military arm of the OF, what the author was discussing was the affiliation between Slovene and Yugoslav forces, not between the Slovene OF and the Slovene Partisans. I agree that KPS was part of KPJ. What exactly means "official affiliation" should be further clarified and additional sources should be searched to confirm they were not officially affiliated before adding this to the article. Hereby, it makes sense to remind you that the Slovene Partisans did not pariticipate in the first AVNOJ session in Bihać. In the same manner, if anyone adds a sentence that the Slovene OF was formally affiliated with JNOF, I'll request a source directly claiming so, and per WP:VERIFY, the burden is on the one who adds material, not the one who removes it. If it will be found, great, if it won't, the unsourced addition will be removed. There's no place for original synthesis, even if it looks well founded.
3. I don't support the merger of OF and Slovene Partisans, in the same manner as JNOF and Yugoslav Partisans have not been merged, as OF was much wider. There may be a section added, however, to OF so that it includes a short paragraph and a link to this more detailed article. --Eleassar my talk 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"That's the only reason why I've quoted it, not because of my personal beliefs. There are other sources that support the claim that the Slovene population supported the Partisans." Well your second sentence kind of undermines the first one. And there are also sources that say otherwise, but you didn't make any effort to find them or even acknowledge them. If those sources are deemed reputable enough for wikipedia so be it, but there's no need to fake complete objectivity and lack of any personal beliefs on the matter.
"Hereby, it makes sense to remind you that the Slovene Partisans did not participate in the first AVNOJ session in Bihać" And this means what? Do you even know why they weren't there? Not because they would be super autonomous and all that stuff but simply because they couldn't make it due to objective reasons (something related with the time and Germans blocking the path, I don't remember exactly). But they were invited and they had real intention of going.
" I don't support the merger of OF and Slovene Partisans" OF was centered around the partisans, everything else was just supplementary. I see no real distinction between the two. This is confirmed when you compare the two articles: you can see no real distinction between OF and the partisans, the only thing different at the OF article is the mention of "Radio Kričač". This is pretty much all. So unless you can change these two articles to clearly reflect the difference there is just no reason not to merge them. Tadej5553 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop making poorly founded assumptions about people. I didn't find the sources, that's all. If there are any, claiming that the Partisans didn't have (much) support among the Slovenes, list them. Thanks for the information about Bihać, I've verified it and will add it to the relevant article (AVNOJ). Please, also list your sources for the claim that there was no real distinction between OF and the partisans - Wikipedia, which you have based your opinion on, doesn't count really. According to the book I have currently borrowed, OF was not centred around the Partisans, at least not in the early stages of the war: "Neither the communists nor their Slovene opponents were particularly active militarily in the early stages of the war, although the OF was always strongly engaged in political-ideological and information campaigns." (Gow, 2010, pg. 47) Does any source claim the opposite? --Eleassar my talk 09:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From your source: "Že na Dolenjskem, v Podturnu, so na svoji poti v Bihać srečali Iva Lolo Ribarja in Rata Dugonjića, ki sta prišla iz nasprotne smeri, tj. iz vrhovnega štaba NOPOJ v Slovenijo. Skupaj so ugotovili, da nadaljevanje proti Bihaću zaradi sovražnikove ofenzive (operacija Weiss) na hrvaško ozemlje ni možno." I have serious doubts either about your objectivity or your reading abilities. All the text concerning any kind of Kardelj's hesitations is completely unrelated to the absence of Slovene delegation in Bihać. Your source offers no other clues or reasons for their absence except for the plain fact that thy could not proceed due to enemy's offensive. So your claim is pure original research. Oh and BTW I have my own sources that say the exact same thing as yours does, but I just want to see how far are you prepared to drag this pointless attempt to prove your unbased assumptions.
About OF/partisans not being the same thing: The text you quoted is dubious. What does "first stages of the war" mean? Until the German attack on the USSR? Yes in this case it would make sense, because OF (PIF) was a non-existent organization, it's only act was the founding meeting, everything else was done within the KPS. Or does it mean until OF could gather enough troops to form first military units? Because as far as I know the purpose of the OF was armed resistance, so it was always centered around the partisans, either aiding them (hospitals, gathering artillery, food and other supplies), promoting them or forming them at the very beginning.
About sources: there are probably no sources that talk about whether the OF and partisans were the same thing (because there is no reason to raise - historically - such a pointless question). Even your source dosen't do that, that is only your interpretation of it so it is therefor discarded as original research. And as I know, sources aren't neccesary at least not according to WP:MERGE. You say that basing my opininon on the current state of the articles doesn't count? I wouldn's say so: "Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic" Tadej5553 (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to say I have serious doubts about your reading abilities and your objectivity. The text clearly says: "v drugi polovici januarja 1943" ("in the second half of January 1943"). The page is not very short and is not unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time. Anyway, I've added a sentence about the absence of the Slovene delegation to AVNOJ.[6] The claim that "the purpose of the OF was armed resistance, so it was always centred around the Partisans", is refuted by "A political conglomeration of various left-wing groups, called the Liberal Front (Osvobodilna fronta) was the leading force. It was supposed to bring together the anti-fascist groups and to constitute a united front on a wide socio-political basis, but soon the Communists occupied the leading position. However, the Partisan movement was never particularly strong." (Between past and future: civil-military relations in the post-communist Balkans. By Biljana Vankovska, Håkan Wiberg. Pp. 164–165).
See also at "Smiling Slovenia: political dissent papers" by Vladislav Bevc (2008, pg. 85): "Edvard Kardelj explained that Yugoslav communists would take part in the anti-fascist combat only if they should be able to transform it into a socialist revolution and if that were useful to the Soviet Union. Because of this they did not decide to engage in armed resistance for three months after Yugoslavia was occupied. Their Slogans of Our Liberation Struggle – some kind of a program of the Anti-Imperialist Front published on June 22, 1941 contain more verbiage about class revolutionary and anti-imperialist generalities than about anti-fascism and people's liberation. Particularly surprising in it is the sharp condemnation and excommunication of the existing political elite. Slovenian communists decided on armed uprising only after Germany attacked the Soviet Union in response to the Soviet call for help."
You may listen about the width snd purpose of the Liberation Front at "Mi pa se nismo uklonili njih podivjani sili" [We Did not Submit to Their Rampant Force] by Radio Študent (Božo Repe: "Vloga osvobodilne fronte v narodnoosvobodilnem gibanju." [The Role of the Liberation Front in the National Liberation Movement]. 06:36. "OF organised a state within a state. ... It was not only a national defence organisation."). --Eleassar my talk 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The text clearly says: "v drugi polovici januarja 1943" " I admit, I missed that. I saw an expedition headed to Bihać and German military operations preventing it and immediately thought of the 1st AVNOJ session. Still doesn't mean I'm wrong though, because on page 112 of that book we can read: "Podobno velja tudi za kritike na račun odsotnosti slovenskih delegatov na zasedanju v Bihaću, za katero pa se niso skrivale nobene separatistične nakane, temveč preprosto dejstvo, da so v Sloveniji prepozno izvedeli za zasedanje ter tako niso mogli pravočasno poslati nanj svojih predstavnikov."
Wow, your first source is so trivial and obscure they even got the translation of the OF wrong... This is my main critique of you: you (intentionally or not) pick sources only remotely connected with the topic, their authors obviously nothing close to being experts on the subject we are discussing. There are tons of better literature (and I'm not saying this in terms of left/right political orientation, but based on how much authors are knowledgable on the subject). But instead of using literature by slovene authors that spent their whole careers researching the subject you pick some trivial and obscure books from god knows where which cover the subject only in a small (sub)section. The second source, which I would not consider any kind of reliable academic literature (although I would probably agree with most of the claims presented in the book), does not prove your point. It only debates the goals and motives of the PIF and makes a claim that until the German attack on the Soviet Union Slovene communists did not perform any armed uprising. I agree with this but this does not mean that they were performing some other activity in the mean time. As Tamara Griesser Pečar showed in her book Razdvojeni narod, the PIF remained idle until attack on the SU, meaning that it performed no actions at all. The only action done was within the KPS, where they were gathering artillery as they suspected the attack on the SU. I can provide sources on this if you request them (although I don't think this is necessary for this discussion). So I think it's safe to say that your interpretation of the second source is far to wide and should be considered original research. Tadej5553 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing: you say the pages are not very short. Well if you cut out the almost identical parts they are. Tadej5553 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still there is the third source. Pages can be expanded, there's no reason to assume it won't be done in reasonable time. --Eleassar my talk 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this too can be debated. From what I understand, the sentence "It was not only a national defence organisation" is more fit to the context of the next sentence, "it's goal wasn't merely national liberation, although I consider it as a primary [goal], but also a change of the social establishment". I'll get my sources tomorrow, I have few books at hand and few of them are about OF... Tadej5553 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may compare with [7] (Zdenko Čepič et al. "Ključne značilnosti slovenske politike v letih 1929–1925: znanstveno poročilo" [Key Characteristics of the Slovene Politics in the Years 1929–1925: Scientific Report]. Institute of Modern History, Ljubljana. Pp. 42–51.). This scholarly source treats the Partisans and the Liberation Front separately, in two chapters, and does not equal them. I don't think it would be of any good use to discover America here and merge them; it would be unfounded. Also, the sources listed above are not trivial, this claim is completely off base, even if I misspelled a word when writing here, and their authors are experts in their field.(may be verified here: Vankovska, Wiberg) If you mean to continue to criticise me - ad hominem arguments are not tolerated so stop right now. --Eleassar my talk 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and are experts in their field" Yes well too bad their field isn't contemporary Slovenian history. Because we have a lot of people who are, infact, experts in that field. And it just so happens that the subject of this scission is one of key elements of that field.
"This scholarly source treats the Partisans and the Liberation Front separately, in two chapters, and does not equal them." Original research as far as I'm concerned. Your only real argument seems to be the chapter organization, but I don't see this as relevant here. It does not "equal them", because it is clear that OF is about armed resistance (and revolution) so partisans are obviously it's main component. In the chapter about OF it is not describing an organization, separate from the partisans, but mostly political intrigues between political groups in OF, organization and composition of the OF and main events (such as it's proclamations and assemblies). Partisans are mentioned through the chapter and it is clear that Partisans and OF are not a different organization.
"I don't think it would be of any good use to discover America here and merge them; it would be unfounded" There is, of course, some difference between the OF and partisans (although I can't imagine OF without partisans) and if some of the non-Partisan aspects of the OF were covered (like governance on the "liberated area", cultural activity, schooling etc.) there might have been a reason to keep to separate articles. But now, when there is only about 2 short paragraphs of difference between the two articles I don't really see a reason not to merge them.
"Also, if you mean to criticise me - ad hominem arguments are not well tolerated here." Yes, I am attacking you because of the sources you use. If that is forbidden here I suggest you take appropriate action. Tadej5553 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you agree there is some difference between the OF and the Partisans. The OF seems more like an umbrella term, the partisans are its main component. I think the appropriate way forward is to expand the articles with the content you proposed, i. e. add missing material to the OF article and expand this article with more military matters. We have common grounds then.
As to the attacking, the appropriate action for now is to point you to read WP:AVOIDYOU: "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible." --Eleassar my talk 22:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm glad that you agree there is some difference between the OF and the Partisans. The OF seems more like an umbrella term, the partisans are its main component" Well kind of like that, although without partisans there isn't much organization left. Partizans were often carriers of other OF activities (for example schooling and governance on "liberated area") so it's hard to draw the distinction here. And the other purpose of the OF was, I believe, to create an impression of political plurality (at least at the beginning). Despite the fact that all main groups were represented in the IOOF and plenum, OF was controlled by the communist party. The partisans were not commanded by IOOF or plenum but by the supreme command of the partisan forces in Slovenia and most high-ranking officers were members of KPS anyways. KPS, with a strong net of it's members controlled the situation within individual units of partisans and kept watch over member of other political groups within OF. Oh and let's not forget that KPS instituted politcomisars to "guide" the political opinion within units.
"I think the appropriate way forward is to expand the articles with the content you proposed, i. e. add missing material to the OF article and expand this article with more military matters." Great, you do that. I'm afraid I won't be joining you for now, I'll only keep watch to keep the articles at least close to some neutral, objective stance. My first action right now will be to restore the part about naming of the OF (it wasn't called OF from the beginning), because you (WP:AVOIDYOU doesn't really help here...) simply deleted my previous claim, backed by sources, and replaced it with your own... The least you could do is find the article by Bojan Godeša that Repe was referring to [sigh]... Don't worry, I'll sort that out tomorrow (hint: Godeša isn't very honest) Tadej5553 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I should work and you should supervise. Thanks for the offer. Merge then and thanks for a nice conversation. --Eleassar my talk 23:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you were so sure that these articles will be expanded in reasonable time and you listed things that needed to be done I supposed you were going to do them. I watch over these articles anyways... But since I was given the green light (right?), I guess I could attempt to merge these two articles... Tadej5553 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them if you will. I'd regard this as the worse option and a unilateral move. I'm also sure both articles will be expanded by other users (or by me, eventually) in reasonable time in any case, even if reduced to a redirect. In addition, I prefer professor's Repe's hints, judgement and information. That's why I've quoted Repe rather than Godeša directly and removed those obsolete sources. The added reference clearly shows the two to agree. I also don't see any original research in keeping two articles separate because it has been done so in reliable sources: it's about structure, not about content. --Eleassar my talk 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I also don't see any original research in keeping two articles separate because it has been done so in reliable sources" Neither do I. But it is original resource to claim (based on the sources you presented) that the OF and Partisans are somehow substantially different.
"and removed those obsolete sources." Obsolete sources? I quoted one of the members of the founding meeting of PIF and one a book by a recognized Slovene historian, which has received an award (see [8]). Oh and the book was published in 2006 so if this is obsolete for you, than you must really be up to date with literature in this field... And if you think that some new finding by one historian simply discards all previous findings by other historians than I must inform you that you are wrong. So in short: my source (if you wish I can add more) was a top quality scholarly peer-reviewed source while yours was an audio recording from a "debate session", when one historian was referring to an unpublished (!) research by another historian. I'm not even sure that your source is appropriate for wikipedia anymore: nor the recording, nor the unpublished research that recording was refereeing to are scholarly, peer reviewed sources... Tadej5553 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a scholarly peer-reviewed source by Godeša about the flier found mentioning osvobodilna fronta in April 1941, much before the first mention of protiimperialistična fronta in June 1941, and the testimony by Josip Rus; it characterises previous sources claiming that protiimperialistična fronta appeared first as incorrect.(pp. 142–143) And evidently, Repe has found the claim by Godina trustworthy, otherwise he wouldn't mention it. I think there is a need to describe the dispute in detail and to re-add your sources to the article in a proper context. --Eleassar my talk 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section about the name to Liberation Front of the Slovene Nation.[9] --Eleassar my talk 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here[10] you may read: "Slovenija je bila namreč edina pokrajina, v kateri je civilna oblast (OF oziroma njen izvršni odbor) imenovala organe nove ljudske oblasti. Partizanska vojska je bila zgolj »udarna pest« mnogo širše in razvejane odporniške organizacije, ki je bila do marca 1943 tudi koalicijska. Drugod po Jugoslaviji je bil proces nasproten, saj so predvsem vodstva partizanskih enot imenovala organe civilne oblasti, pa tudi sicer je bilo vse povezano z vojsko, kar je »imelo trajno posledico v teh odnosih in vojaški vrh se ni nikoli čutil povsem podrejen organom federacije«.
Translation: "Namely, Slovenia was the only region where the civil authority (OF, respectively its executive board) named the bodies of the new people's authority. The Partisan army was only the "striking fist" of a much wider and branched resistance organisation, which was a coalition until March 1943. Elsewhere in Yugoslavia, the process was the opposite one, because particularly the leaderships of the Partisan units named the bodies of the civil government, and also otherwise everything was connected with the army, which had lasting consequences and the military summit never felt completely subordinate to the bodies of the federation." (Božo Repe (2005) (in Slovene). "Vojaška zgodovina" [Military History]. (VI) 1/05. ISSN 1580-4828. General Staff of the Slovenian Armed Forces. Military Museum. Pg. 5). --Eleassar my talk 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number underestimated

[edit]

Just ask yourself why do the majority of books written by foreigners underestimate the number of Slovene partisans? The answer is that Serbs systematically marginalized non-Serbian membership in Yugoslav partisans in sources they presented to authors coming from Allies countries. You should be ashamed to do it yourself - only Slovene collaborationists prefer this. --DancingPhilosopher 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard just about enough. You will be reported the next time you go on an nonsensical and offensive nationalist rave like that. Then you can tell the folks at ANI all about it. Wikipedia is obviously not the place you think it is, find somewhere else to vent your hatred. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, to both: avoid insults and avoid threats. --Eleassar my talk 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to assume the high ground Eleassar, the user has contributed nothing to the discussion and only posts flamer provocations. If he should continue he will be reported. That hardly qualifies as a "threat" (unless he himself has behaved inappropriately), as I am not able to sanction him in any way. -- Director (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CIVIL: "If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. ... It is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse." There's no need for threats and confrontational attitude. --Eleassar my talk 12:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to explain that I maintain that sources coming from a majority, claiming anything about a minority are not to be trusted. Why? Because power corrupts. And being in majority is giving you power. Hypothetically, any nation or ethnicity or group, and not only the one which actually are/was, could be in either position. Imagine that Slovenes were the majority and Ljubljana would be a capital city of federation and all foreigners would come to it in order to learn from Slovene (secondary) sources about any other nation's primary sources. I'm anti-majoritist and I would not trust them. That is the reason why I don't trust the number estimates above, too. The speakers of big (majority) languages, because they have power (which corrupts, remember?) also doesn't make enough effort to learn the small languages. While their colleagues from Slovenia traditionally make an effort to learn not only Italian, but also German and Serbo-Croatian languages, for example Italian historians, the very ones who research Slovene-Italian (!) relations, traditionally make no effort to learn Slovene language. How on earth do they study primary sources, I have no idea. For us Slovenes, the Serbo-Croats in ex-Yugoslavia were no better in that respect. When a friend's family visited their son serving in "the people's" army in 1980s, people upon hearing Slovene language in Belgrade asked if they are Czechoslovakians. I would also like to ask if something similar happened in the article regarding Slovene liberation front first lands' conference date in the article about People's Front of Yugoslavia? DancingPhilosopher 09:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You may look at sources by Slovene historians presenting similar numbers at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. What exactly do you mean saying that something happened to the Slovene liberation front first land's conference? Can you post a link to the relevant diff? --Eleassar my talk 10:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think reliable sources confirm that the number of Slovene Partisans was quite low at first compared to the number it reached in 1943 or so. However, it should also be said that they already were an important force before reaching a higher number. For example, in the Province of Ljubljana, the Partisan Resistance become so intense in 1942 that even Tito and Kardelj were surprised. The Italian occupational authorities were surprised as well, and changed their occupational policies drastically (they were milder than those of Nazi Germany-occupied Northern Slovenia in the beginning).

So just saying that the number rose in the later stages of the war doesn't explain all of the story.

Justice and Reason (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repression

[edit]

The article is full of descriptions of Axis repression in Slovenia (part and partial of the extreme nationalist tone of the article). This article, unless its renamed and reorganized, is not the place for that. Apart perhaps from a brief "Background" section, that stuff should be moved where it belongs - the Province of Ljubljana article.

I tried to put together an "Activities" section that focuses on what these folks actually did, and barely managed to scrounge-up a paragraph from all over the article. From the structure and content of the article as it is now, these Partisans look like a well and truly "repressed" movement - with a radio. -- Director (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be some information about the background but it should be limited; it's not the primary topic. I've removed some unsourced material yesterday. --Eleassar my talk 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I',m reluctant to move the text to Province of Ljubljana since it didn't include all of Slovenia and all the events discussed there (at least I think it didn't). Could you review the repression stuff and see whether its suitable for Province of Ljubljana? -- Director (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material is not specific enough, and the article 'Province of Ljubljana' is long enough already. What is actually needed there are sources. --Eleassar my talk 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you propose we do with all that stuff? -- Director (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened it and renamed it to 'Background'. --Eleassar my talk 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.Perhaps the article should be reorganized somehow, but it certainly is important to include Axis repression (among other things) in it somewhere. After all, this was a major characteristic of the conflict. For example, the German occupational authorities announced that for every killed German soldier, they would execute 10 Slovene hostages, and then proceeded to carry out that plan. As for the zones under Italian occupation, it's worth mentioning that their occupational regime was relatively mild compared to the German (the Nazis started a policy of Germanisation and ethnic cleansing right away) at first, but after the Resistance in the P. of Ljubljana became quite intense in 1942 or so, the Fascist regime changed its policy drastically. So yeah, repression certainly is quite connected to the Partisans in many respects.

2.As for moving the content to the Province of Ljubljana article, I think it's already been mentioned that it doesn't include all of the relevant regions. I don't know the exact numbers, but about half of all Slovenes didn't live in the Province of Ljubljana.

Justice and Reason (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased section: Occupation and repression

[edit]

I think the whole section makes the article biased. As written in the article, the historian Jože Dežman stated that not only was this a war of a suppressed nation against an occupator, but also a civil war was going on, and Repe stated in the above mentioned seminar that the point of OF was not only a fight against the occupator but also the enforcement of the power of the Communist Party. This section should be removed and a new section titled 'Background' written explaining all of this. --Eleassar my talk 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. But it also has to be said the majority of the population supported the Partisans, not the collaborationists. And while the Communist element was an important one (they were the ones who pulled the strings, after all), most people who joined the Partisans were not Communists. They were simple Catholic peasants and labourers (which is basically what the majority of Slovenes still were at the time) who didn't agree with the official Church line (which was collaboration).

The sort of "messianic" nature of the movement certainly should be mentioned though as the Communists not only offered national liberation, but social emancipation. This made the movement even more attractive than if national liberation was its only stated goal. Hardly surprising, considering the economic state of the people.

It's a complicated issue that can hardly be explained in a few sentences. One also has to go back decades and look at the whole politics and the role of the Church and clericalism (the desire of the Church to dominate every aspect of life was noticeable already a long time before the war), the economy, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice and Reason (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justice and Reason (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Speaking of bias, what bothers me is that there is no mention of the crimes of retaliation (summary executions of tens of thousands of mostly POWs) that (some of) Tito's Partisans committed.

One such killing location in Slovenia (among many): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C4%8Devski_Rog#World_War_II_aftermath

Then of course, there are the Foibe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_killings

And possibly the largest, the Bleiburg Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre

Justice and Reason (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

[edit]

This is a historical text you might find useful. It's got its flaws, but is decent enough: http://sistory.si/?urn=SISTORY:ID:2250

Here's one specializing in Slovene-Italian relations. It's quite objective and reliable as it was written by experts from both countries.

http://www.kozina.com/premik/indexeng_porocilo.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.48.24 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene Partisan flag

[edit]

According to [11] (Brezovar, Milan. Letopis muzeja narodne osvoboditve LRS, leto 1957. Pg. 41), the Slovene Partisan flag is the Slovene tricolor flag with the anti-Fascist red five-armed star over all three fields "1. Zastava slovenskih partizanov je slovenska trobojnica z antifašistično rdečo peterokrako zvezdo čez vsa tri polja.". That's why I removed the flags used till now from the article. I haven't found such a flag in the Commons. --Eleassar my talk 09:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Slovene Partisans?

[edit]

This article appears to be biased by omission. It completely neglects to mention that this movement was effectively just one of several state commands of the Yugoslav Partisans. Throughout Wikipedia, references to the Yugoslav Partisans are being replaced outright with links to the Slovene Partisans, where the article makes no mention of the fact that this was basically just one (really rather small) part of the Yugoslav army during World War II.

There is no question that the current state of affairs implies this was an entirely independent movement, and sources it with some traveler's guide. This is all grossly misleading: the Communist Party of Slovenia, which ultimately controlled all this throughout, - was just a branch (one of six) of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and was subordinate to the chiefs thereof.

I know this is a touchy subject, and I really don't want to start another "battleground", but the current state of affairs just won't do. -- Director (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slovenes after the First Word War "lost" a 1/4[1] of the entire Slovene population and 1/3[1] of the entire territory inhabited by Slovenes at the time ceded to Italy and subjected to forced Italianization. Do not try to compare this loss with the Croatian one! Ever! During the WW II Croats were granted an independent state, don't you try to compare this with the Slovenes teared between three occupiers! It was Slovene parrtisans who fought this, not Yugoslav. It was Slovene partisans who were motivated to liberate themselves, they were not liberated by some Yugo partisans!
  1. ^ a b Kacin Wohinz, M; Pirjevec, J. (2000) Zgodovina Slovencev 1866-2000. Ljubljana. Nova revija.
DancingPhilosopher my talk 15:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly not here to have a constructive, objective discussion. To be perfectly frank, experience teaches that trying to reason with nationalist POV-pushing is a futile endeavor, and I intend to wait a while for others to perhaps join in the discussion. Please do not engage in disruptive section-creation.
The Slovene Partisans were an integral part of the Yugoslav Partisan movement. The Communist Party of Slovenia, which controlled the movement, was merely a branch of the KPJ. This is all supported by sources and will be made clear in the article lede. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed ad nauseam in February, with you agreeing about the Slovene Partisans' autonomy,[12] and I don't see any new argument to restart the debate. I'm even not sure that the Communist party controlled the movement all the time; or did it only significantly influence it? There's a long way from the Communist Party of Slovenia being a branch of the KPJ to the Slovene Partisans being an integral part of the Yugoslav movement, and you should provide sources for all the claims you want to post in the article as well as for the synthesis you have proposed if you want to rework the article. --Eleassar my talk 18:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going through the same discussion again. Just rectifying some claims: the KPS was not merely a branch of the KPJ, but an autonomous part of it, which is a different thing. Second, the Slovene Partisans were officially submitted to the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People (OF), not to the KPS. The OF proclaimed, from the very beginning, Slovenian sovereignty (within a restored Yugoslav federation), including the right of secession (explicitly repeated in several documents). Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be some misunderstandings here (my fellow Slovene wikipedians :)). 1) A "branch" may indeed be "autonomous". Every branch of the KPJ was "autonomous", to a degree. 2) The Federal State of Slovenia was indeed a "sovereign" state, and it was the programme of the KPJ to establish a federation of sovereign republics (which actually happened). All state councils, controlled by the KPJ branches, declared the same sovereignty of their federal states.
@Eleassar Elfstone :). The way from the 'KPS being a branch of the KPJ', to the Slovene Partisans being a part of the Yugoslav Partisans is only "long" on paper. Its not so long once you realize that KPS members (i.e. KPJ members!) commanded the Slovene Partisans.
I do not propose "reworking the article", merely making it much clearer in the lede that this movement was one part of the Yugoslav Partisans. And, forgive me, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it was not. People that ran it were members of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and this was but one segment of the resistance movement established by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Sources are sure to abound regarding an obvious point such as that. -- Director (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Slovene Partisans" itself is weaselish. It is ambiguous, in that it can mean "Yugoslav Partisans of Slovene nationality under the Slovene state authority" (as one of six Yugoslav nationalities), or it can mean "these are Slovene Partisans, and these are Yugoslav Partisans, they're separate". Participants here have twisted the term to mean the latter, rather than the former. Of course there were "Slovene Partisans", there were also "Serbian Partisans" and "Croatian Partisans" and "Montenegrin Partisans" etc. And they all had their councils, and their individual branches of the KPJ, and their state military commands.

You are getting funny, Direktor, with your obsession to prevent the Slovene partisans to stand on their own feet. Why not create - instead of abandoning the article in favor of the umbrella YP article - multiple in depth articles for each of the Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin etc partisans, in addition to the umbrelly article on YP? Are you afraid that it would show that none of them were - in comparison to Slovenes - de facto autonomous enough to be able to demand what Viator slovenicus mentioned here DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of affairs is simply unacceptable. "Yugoslavia" and, the term "Yugoslav" in general, includes Slovenia and Slovenes - it is not a separate movement. This article needs to make it crystal clear that this movement was a part of the Yugoslav Partisans movement started by the KPJ, and was by no means an independent faction in this war. I may be "outnumbered" here by Slovene Wikipedians, but I have no intention of giving up until unsourced POV is rectified: the Slovene Partisans were an autonomous part of the Yugoslav Partisans, and by no means a separate movement. And yes, the latter is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM for which we have yet seen no sources whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you see this written? Can you please at least clarify which sentence seems biased to you and how you would rephrase it? On the other hand, if you consider the entire article simply a POV fork, the correct forum would be Wikipedia:Articles for discussion. --Eleassar my talk 11:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my first sentence above: the article is biased by omission. It needs to be made clear that this was an autonomous part of the Yugoslav movement (and that Slovenia can never stand on its own feet, of course). I acknowledge that the article can be justified as this was in many ways a separate struggle, at least for the majority of the war, but this is taking it a bit too far. -- Director (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take there's no objections to a clarification then? Again, if there is, I'd like to see a source that explicitly states this was an independent faction in this war, separate from the Yugoslav Partisans. Rather than an autonomous, geographically separated part of the Yugoslav Partisans faction. Then we can add it to the infobox on the Yugoslav Front article. I draw attention, once more, to the fact that this movement was founded by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and that throughout its existence it remained controlled by the KPJ. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a reference for the claim that it was established by the KPJ, because as far as I know it was established by the KPS. --Eleassar my talk 10:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is just one of several branches of the KPJ. Most members of the KPJ were members through their membership in one of the branches. We're at pretty basic history right now. See, this is the problem here. Slovene Partisans? Sure, yes, but they are are a part of the Yugoslav movement. The KPS founded them? Correct, but the KPS is a part of the KPJ, etc. Omission. -- Director (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Tomasevich 2001 p. 96 states "The Communist-led resistance in Slovenia was part of the general Communist-led resistance throughout Yugoslavia, whose objective was to establish a Communist-ruled Yugoslav state." and on p. 97 after introducing the VOS, "The VOS was subsequently incorporated into the Liberation Front, but it remained under exclusive party control. Its chief was Zdenka Kidric, known as 'Marjeta'. She was the wife of Boris Kidric, who with Edvard Kardelj and Franc Leskosek formed the senior Communist leadership in Slovenia". I don't think you'd argue with the fact that Kardelj was clearly part of Tito's clique. Then on p.98, "Early in 1942, Yugoslav Supreme Headquarters ordered the Slovene Partisan leadership to strengthen its units and increase armed actions and sabotage." So, in early 1942, the Slovene Partisan leadership received its orders from Tito. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but Slovene Partisans were established by the KPS; or do your sources differ? Who's talking about VOS? --Eleassar my talk 11:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker. Tito was the head of the KPJ, and gave orders ("directives") to all party members. Be they part of the KPS, KPH, KPETC or whatever party branch. He and the Central Committee (the "CKKPJ") were ultimately in charge from the very beginning. From 1937, in fact. Slovenia was simply very removed from the main forces of the movement, and thus its branch understandably enjoyed more autonomy in its direction of the local war effort. Macedonia was a similar case.
@Elessar. KPS ≤ KPJ, its the same party. Lets not argue semantics here. -- Director (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Tomasevich says (p. 96) is that "the Communist-led Liberation Front began to organise armed units and engage in sabotage and active resistance. The front consisted of members of the Communist Party of Slovenia, a sizable number of followers of the Christian Socialist Party, the gymnastic organisation Sokol, progressive intellectuals from other groups and organisations, some former Yugoslav army officers, and even some members of the Slovene People's Party." So, the Communist-led front organised the resistance (ie the Partisans), not the KPS on its own. I mention the VOS because it was established exclusively by the KPS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its basically the same story all over Yugoslavia, and in the Yugoslav party overall. You had the "Communist Party", which controlled the "Liberation Front" (a coalition of all sorts of parties), which controlled the local "Liberation Army" ("the Partisans"). Just add the prefix "Slovene" or "Croatian" or "Serbian" or "Yugoslav" etc. Its a clever system that basically masked the Communist Party's ultimate control, while at the same time guaranteeing a broader base of support among the populace: "we're fighting for the Liberation Front!" Its a pretty common "ploy", if that's the appropriate word (note the Viet Cong used the same system e.g.). In the end, of course, Communist Party members were always the commanders in the Partisans, practically to a man. -- Director (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below I quote from the article on the Liberation Front of the Slovene Nation where it is stated it was only "during the course of the war" that KPS monopolized the power, precisely with the so-called Dolomiti Declaration, therefore KPS was not the only one who established the movement that - and I happen here to somewhat, but not completely, agree with Direktor - became an autonomous part of the Yugoslav movement.: Although the Front originally consisted of multiple political groups of left-wing orientation, including some Christian Socialists, a dissident group of Slovene Sokols (also known as "National Democrats"), and a group of intellectuals around the journals Sodobnost and Ljubljanski zvon, during the course of the war, the influence of the Communist Party of Slovenia started to grow, until the founding groups signed the so-called Dolomiti Declaration ([Dolomitska izjava] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), giving the exclusive right to organize themselves as a political party only to the communists, on 1 March 1943. DancingPhilosopher my talk 11:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the Liberation Front was both founded and controlled (in Slovenia as everywhere else) by the Communist Party. The Liberation Front did consist of many factions, but again, it was controlled by the KPJ (i.e. its local KPS branch). The Liberation Front (as everywhere else) technically founded the Partisans, but again, the Communist Part controlled both the founding Liberation Front, and the founded Liberation Army ("the Partisans"). KPJ members were always in command. I don't even know the names of the commanding officers of the Slovene Partisans, and I'm still absolutely certain they were KPJ members to a man. -- Director (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"At its meeting in Ljubljana on June 22, 1941, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovenia founded the High Command (Supreme Command at first) of the Slovenian Partisan Troops which was actually the military command of the armed struggle of the Slovenian people against the enemy occupying forces."[13]
And to complicate things a bit further: "Mirko Bračič in Ljubo Šercer; oba sta izhajala iz strukture starojugoslovanske vojske, nista bila člana KPS in sta v letu 1941 vodila več partizanskih enot." [Mirko Bračič and Ljubo Šercer; both stemmed from the structure of the Old Yugoslavia Army, were not members of the KPS and in 1941 led several partisan units.](pg. 131)
Therefore, let's be as exact and faithful to the sources as possible. This is the best way to avoid bias and original synthesis. --Eleassar my talk 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as I said just above, everywhere in Yugoslavia the "Liberation Fronts" were the ones that founded the military arm, the Partisans. Those are details for the main text. The lede however needs to state outright that this movement is a part of the Yugoslav Partisans resistance ("The Communist-led resistance in Slovenia was part of the general Communist-led resistance throughout Yugoslavia, whose objective was to establish a Communist-ruled Yugoslav state."). In the first sentence, too. That's being faithful to the sources, as opposed to misleadingly implying otherwise.
Honestly I'm struggling to believe that the above underlined fact, missing from the article(!), is even under "discussion". Its all well and good to explain the details and formalities, but they should not be used to cloud the basic facts on this talkpage or in the article. -- Director (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose that the article reads: "Slovene Partisans [or the Slovene Partisan Movement or sth] were established on 22 June 1941 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovenia,[14] which was an integral part of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.[15]" I would not mix it with the Liberation Front, which consisted of other groups besides the KPS. For example, here one may read (pg. 115) that the members of the LF agreed about the liberation struggle, but did not reach any specific decision about the armed struggle. The armed struggle was started on 22 June 1941 solely by the KPS.(pg. 116) Otherwise, I agree that this movement was part of the Yugoslav Partisan resistance.(per pg. 120) --Eleassar my talk 12:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that's completely inconsistent with Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more specific? As for the relation between the KPS and the KPJ, it is particularly for the spring 1941 unclear; e.g. it is claimed that Kidrič wrote: "I'm happy this Yugoslav monster has been pulled down.", and in Prekmurje they linked with the Hungarian Communist Party etc.[16] (pp. 20-22) As the author states, one should be extremely careful in interpreting the situation in the early 1941. --Eleassar my talk 12:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Eleassar. Again, those are all details, and they're not disputed. Tomasevich, however, is a (high-quality, scholarly) source that provides an overview, which is what we're looking for when looking at the lede. I have no objections to any of the above information, in fact I laid it out myself. My point here, and subject of this thread, is that the basic, general facts are being drowned in the details. The source says that this resistance movement "was part of the general Communist-led resistance throughout Yugoslavia, whose objective was to establish a Communist-ruled Yugoslav state". My whole point here is that this needs to be crystal clear in the lede. We must remove any and all implications that this is an independent faction in the Yugoslav Front. It was not. That is the current state of this article, and the problem needs to be rectified. -- Director (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this sentence. --Eleassar my talk 14:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If noone has any objections I'll insert the correction. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is generally written according to Slovene national sources, published in Slovenia, and hence sports almost exclusively the (post-Yugoslav) Slovene view of their own history (and we all know how absolutely objective people are at writing their own history). The article sports some pretty outrageous claims that I would like to see independently corroborated before they're restored.

The line I've encountered several times in reading through the article is that the Slovene resistance was 1) entirely independent until 1944. This is absolutely untrue. 2) That the Slovene resistance was somehow unique in having a pluralistic Liberation Front. Again - entirely untrue, every nation and federal state had one, and Yugoslavia had another one overall. They were all political coalitions, and they were all pluralistic. 3) It is also stated that the military arm (the 'National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Slovenia') were again somehow "unique" in being subordinate to the civil authority. Again, nothing could be farther from the facts. All national branches of the Partisans were subordinate to their civil "Liberation Fronts", and the whole Yugoslav Partisans military in general (Slovene Partisans very much included!) was entirely subordinate to the National Liberation Front of Yugoslavia. Or more specifically, its assembly - the AVNOJ.

One gets the impression of reading typical "national history", where Slovene-published authors glorify the Slovene WWII resistance beyond measure. As heroic as the struggle no doubt was, it wasn't particularly "unique" in these respects. Nor is it to be compared with the full-scale guerrilla warfare in Bosnia and Montenegro for brutality and intensity. -- Director (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care neither about impressions nor about the Slovene national pride. What I do care about is that these claims are based on sources that are regarded as WP:RELIABLE, so if you want to remove anything, first demonstrate and gain consensus they're not reliable per this guideline. --Eleassar my talk 07:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are highly dubious claims, no doubt contradicted by sources elsewhere, and indeed, contradicted by the most basic knowledge of this conflict. Just like the incredible claim that this movement was independent until 1944. All National Fronts were coalitions, and all military arms answered to their National Fronts. This situation is not only not-unique, it is commonplace. Even the Viet Cong used a close facsimile. It is also commonplace to hold locally-published sources to a higher standard (if not exclude them entirely) in these ex-Yu historiographical issues. There are such things as WP:NPOV and WP:THIRDPARTY.
Can you corroborate these claims on "uniqueness" with neutral sources? Preferably not published in Slovenia? -- Director (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From this viewpoint, one may say that Jozo Tomasevich is biased too, because he is (was) a Croat. I've thought that you said he was a reliable source.. Or do you think that a source can be of any ethnicity as long as they're not published in their home country, because then it's reliable. If published in their home country, then it's not reliable. Do you have any evidence for such a claim? Where is this written in the guidelines (citation needed)? --Eleassar my talk 08:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tomasevich is not the issue here. He was published by Stanford U, and is generally acclaimed in international peer reviews as one of the foremost experts on this period. Additionally, I myself can see no inherently "Croatian" point of view on this issue. As things stand now, he's the "gold standard". Lets try to keep the discussion focused on the content issue at hand, rather than attempting to reciprocate.
The sources sporting relevant aggrandizing and highly dubious claims are all by Slovene authors, published in Slovenia. And after the 1990s and the war with Yugoslavia. Surely you can find a single non-Slovene source that will attest to the challenged facts? The claim that no other Liberation Front coalition in Yugoslavia was "quite as pluralistic" as the Slovenes were - is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim delivered through WP:WEASEL WORDS by a non-WP:THIRDPARTY Slovene source. -- Director (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why do we need to go over the same discussion again. Just two comments: 1) I don't understand why scholarly work by Slovene historians, who worked on primary sources should be given less credit than "internationally acclaimed" historical monographs based mostly on secondary sources; it so happens that very few non-Slovenian historians (if any at all) made primary research on the issue; the idea that someone's scholarly work should be discarded or deemed less reliable due to his/her's ethnic/national background has a very clear name - racial/nationalist prejudice; as such, these arguments have no place in a serious exchange of opinions and I refuse to even take them into consideration!; 2) I find it inappropriate that the article was changed before reaching a consensus on the talk page. As for the content: I think the previous discussion established rather clearly that the Slovene partisans were a largely autonomous and sui generis part of the Yugoslav partisans, whose autonomy of course slowly diminished by the end of WWII. If someone finds this conclusion (based on a very wide consensus of Slovenian historians, who otherwise tend not to have much consensus on anything, especially not in regard with WWII) problematic, I'm afraid there's not much one can do about it. Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I do think that it should be mentioned more clearly in the intro that the Slovene Partisans (despite their different political configuration and organizatory autonomy) were part of the Yugoslav Partisan Movement. Although in the first year or so of the war, they were cut off from the rest of Tito's movement, they nevertheless recognized his leadership from the very beginning. Let's see if we can write a balanced article, without to prove (or imply) two opposite extremist (and factually unsustainable) theories: that this was a completely independent, separate resistance, or that it was just a regional/ethnic/territorial subunit of a (supposedly) unitary Yugoslav partisan movement. Both notions don't correspond to reality. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well its really not the same discussion. Here we are currently debating over the inclusion of a few dubious claims that only find support in one Slovene publication. I recognize that Slovene authors will naturally be the ones focusing on this subject more than those of any other nationality, but 1) that does not mean there isn't an abundance of sources that focus on this war in general and still talk extensively about the struggle in Slovenia. And 2) that is hardly a license to insert dubious, aggrandizing statements.
I challenge the claims about the "unique plurality" of the Slovene Liberation Front (as opposed to the other six 'Liberation Fronts') and would like to see independent evidence that the other (six) military organizations equivalent to the SP were not subject to a civil authority. I mean these are just weasel words and plain absolute nonsense. They were all subject to their civil authority (e.g. the AVNOJ), that's grade school level history. -- Director (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

[edit]

As it appears some editors are not familar with WP:BRD, I will start this off. The fighting in Italian and German occupied parts of what is now Slovenia between anti-communists and Partisans is described as a civil war by a number of reliable authors. They include Cox Slovenia: Evolving Loyalties (2004) p. 41, and Kranjc To Walk with the Devil: Slovene Collaboration and Axis Occupation, 1941-1945 (2013) (numerous pages). Kranjc states that it was a civil war, but was not purely a civil war. In the absence of any sources to the contrary, the description of the conflict as a civil war should remain in the article, as it is reliably sourced and unchallenged. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I completely disagree with your statement. You are citing two books as proof there was a civil war? Really? Do you really believe that the Home Guard would have 2000 dead in the entire conflict (I do not count post-war extrajudicial killings as conflict, that was just criminal murder) if it was a civil war? Slovenia did not have a civil war during WWII, and that is the prevalent view in modern history, and of modern historians. Slovenia had a local collaborationist military organization fighting on the Italian/German side against the Slovene Partisans. By that definition, do you believe there was a civil war in France during WWII? How come there is no civil war mentioned in the Slovenian version of the article? If anywhere, I would assume that page would have the most complete coverage about a civil war in the country. Even though the article is very biased, I did not delete any important information. I simply removed the term civil war, reworded some of the statistics to reflect a more accurate picture, and corrected some grammar mistakes. If there is any info I deleted without cause, please tell me which. LjEmona (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your claim that the term civil war in this case is reliably sourced and unchallenged is LAUGHABLE. Pick up any history book on the subject (except the two you mentioned) if you need proof. You can't be making up civil wars 60 years after a conflict is over, whether it suits your personal views or not. LjEmona (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through your sources, and I must say the parts I read were very well written. The term "civil war" in Cox's book is used only once for Slovenia in the whole chapter of WWII. The reference is this: "The resistance war, which thus quickly became a civil war as well, was a tortuous affair." In Kranjc's book, the term "civil war" is used constantly to describe the conflict. However, as Kranjc acknowledges himself, "Unlike Communist historiography, the emigre school recognized the conflict as a civil war, yet erred in the opposite extreme by portraying it purely as a civil war. By doing so, the emigres conveniently diminished collaborator's crucial dependence on their occupiers." That being said, those two authors' opinions are simply not enough to classify the conflict as "civil war". Firstly, voluntary ideological collaboration, which is what the Home Guard did (in your two sources above you can confirm this), is a much more concise and proper term for what happened. Secondly, if the "civil war" was ideological and real, why was it mostly confined to the Ljubljana Province and surrounding areas? Thirdly, do you really believe it should be classified as civil war on WP solely based on two authors, negating 60+ years of history books? In Kranjc's book, there is an account by UK SOE agent Moore from February 1945: "However, a civil war of short duration and some discreditable excesses by the Partisans, are unfortunately only too likely after the departure of the Germans." Notice the future tense in that sentence, and this was written right before the war ended, by people on the ground. I understand that the massacre of ~12000 Home Guards by the Partizans after the war created resentment and hatred in the emigre world. And I also understand that many people who lost loved ones would prefer to call it a civil war, instead of being classified as collaborationists. Honestly, though, have you ever seen a conflict classified as a civil war in a country that is occupied by a foreign army (which supports and arms one side), and where the loosing (collaborationist) side only has 2000 combat deaths?LjEmona (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

much of what you have written is WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:CIRCULAR. The civil war description is well sourced, even if Kranjc cautions against it's use in terms of "purely a civil war". If you have a well sourced alternative description, it should be included alongside the "civil war" description and the variance between the descriptions used by reliable sources should be contrasted. That is how we roll on WP. We don't just ignore reliable sources because they don't describe something the way we like. We would only do that if the view was proven to be a WP:FRINGE description, and clearly that is not the case on the basis of the sources currently under discussion. If you can point to an overwhelming majority of reliable sources that don't use the term "civil war" to describe the fighting, then we can discuss it, but in the meantime, the reliably sourced term "civil war" should stay. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem correct

[edit]

"Being the first organized military force in the history of Slovenes"

After world war one Rudolf Maister organized a force of volunteers that later disarmed the Austrian Green Guard and took control of Maribor, as well as fought several skirmishes/battles in Carinthia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janez90 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making sense of alphabet soup

[edit]

As most of you on this talk page know by heart, dozens of organisations existed in Slovenia and elsewhere in Yugoslavia during this time -- the major Allied powers found it to be a very confusing environment -- and the acronyms only make sense in the original language. The VOS specifically existed between 1941 and 1945, so it should not be considered a direct predecessor of more modern agencies, which is why I have not linked to that WP article. (Indirect influence is debatable. Very debatable. I am not here to debate it.) The OF translates as "liberation front", so it is usually referenced as LF in English-language literature. My only purpose here is to clarify article abbreviations for the user who does not speak WW2-Balkan-acronym as a fluent second language. English-language reference for VOS is below. If anyone knows the WP convention for this kind of thing, feel free to edit accordingly. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC) https://books.google.ca/books?id=Kt7NUorHcKAC&pg=PA404&lpg=PA404&dq=VOS,+Slovenia&source=bl&ots=7rUXpMcTZs&sig=Od3NgZLqE_EYHZqwY3b0FgtXIv4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg_vSJhZjUAhUe8YMKHfeaAuAQ6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=VOS%2C%20Slovenia&f=false[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovene_Partisans&oldid=1210226390"