Talk:Novi Sad

Population of Novi Sad

I don't know where you got the number of 215,000 residents from "census 2002"- there was no such thing. On the official webpage of Novi Sad it clearly says that the last census was undertaken back in 1991, at what time Novi Sad and Petrovaradin had a combined population of 246,000; metropolitan area also includes cities such as Sremska Kamenica, Karlovci etc and combined population reaches almost 400,000. I've just uploaded the info from the official website, check it out: [1]

"I don't know where you got the number of 215,000 residents from "census 2002"- there was no such thing."

Of course there was such thing. Last census in Serbia was in 2002. If you do not know this, visit the official statistical web sites:

You can download there PDF documents with population numbers for all cities and places in Serbia from the last census. The population figure of 215,659 is a population figure from 2002 census for Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica counted together, as these 3 settlements are parts of urban Novi Sad. Also, the area of Novi Sad do not comprise Sremski Karlovci any more, since this municipality was part of Novi Sad until 1989, but after this year it is completelly separate municipality with no administrative connection with Novi Sad. As for this site which claim that last census was in 1991, that site was obviously last time updated before 2002 census. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the document where you have 2002 census results:

http://www.szs.sv.gov.yu/Popis/PrviRez.pdf

PANONIAN (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian City

For Lephafta: I wonder why you deleted statement that Novi Sad was largest Serbian city in the 19th century? Here are some quotes about that:

Source: Djordje Randelj, Novi Sad slobodan grad, Novi Sad, 1997.

Quote: "Novi Sad was largest Serbian and South Slavic city in the 19th century".

Source: Jovan Mirosavljevic, Novi Sad atlas ulica, Novi Sad, 1998.

Quote: "In 1820 Novi Sad had 20,000 inhabitants, of which 2/3 were Serbs".

So, this statement is correct.

Second thing: you wrote that this article is not neutral, but you didn’t specify what exactly is not neutral here. If you think that this statement, which you deleted, was not neutral, then imagine this: What if somebody wrote that Paris was largest French city in the 19th century? I see nothing problematic with this statement. Why you deleted this in the case of Novi Sad? User:PANONIAN

I have problems with the construction of the fact I've erased. I find it incomplete without additional facts. I mean details like why did Novi Sad become a Serbian city, if we could call a city a national city in the Habsburg Empire or even later in the multilingual Austro-Hungarian Monarchy by that time. Lephafta

Novi Sad was called Serbian City because it was mainly populated with Serbs. Serbs are Orthodox Christians and that is why it was not allowed for Serbs to settle in neighbouring Petrovaradin. That is why Serbs founded new city on the other side of river Danube, which was called Serbian City (Ratzen Statt) in early historical records. User:PANONIAN

It's fine that you've listed these references, but I'd rather not rely on the literature that was published in the last 80 years, especially between 1945 and 2000. Writers are always inaccurate (checked!) when talking about numbers in Vojvodina. Lephafta

These books are based on older sources. For example, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (reformer of Serbian language) also wrote that Novi Sad is largest Serbian city in 19th century. User:PANONIAN

"History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, 'What is history, but a fable agreed upon?'"

Cited from Dan Brown's: The Da Vinci Code Lephafta

I disagree with this statement that history is written by the winners (anybody could to write history, no matter if he "win" or "lost" wars). Also people who "lost" wars usually use irredentist propaganda to justify eventual future political changes. User:PANONIAN

Let me answer your example with another example: Let's say that Senta has the largest Hungarian population in Vojvodina. You can't say that it is the largest Hungarian city in Vojvodina since it's not Hungarian. It's just a town in Serbia predominantly populated by Hungarians! Novi Sad probably was biggest, however, it was also a town in the Habsburg Empire, which seems to be forgotten when mentioned. Lephafta

Actually, Senta is largest Hungarian town in Vojvodina. There are two possible ways to use these terms (Serbian, Hungarian, etc.). One of these uses referring to statehood and the other to ethnicity. Besides, there was no independent Serbian state in 1820. Lands and cities populated with Serbs were divided between Austria and Ottoman Empire in that time. But the fact that these Empires ruled over those cities doesn’t change the fact that these cities were Serbian. And I think that I mentioned that city was under Austrian rule. User:PANONIAN

The reason I considered it not to be neutral is that I've found a lot of mistakes, misconstruction and omission of relevant data. Lephafta

Sorry, but I do not agree with you. I really tried to write this as much correct as possible and I regard this data as relevant. If you think that something else should be written you are free to write that too, but please do not delete what I wrote with accusation that this is not relevant. Historians who wrote books where I found these facts would not agree with you about that. User:PANONIAN

I'm trying to find a pretty neutral reference but it does not seem to be existing. I found a monography written by Menyhért Érdujhelyi in the 1890's (translated by himself into Serbian in 1894) but he was also angry with the Royalists, so he put a gloss on the truth by magnifying the numbers and leaving out really important facts (he divides the residents into Serbians and Catholics, not mentioning the second group's nationality, probably because he based his calculations on the number of churches). The work (in Serbian) was later republished/reprinted many times in the 20th century.

Next week I will try to collect as many references as I can to make my doubts clear. For the meantime, I think the most relevant media is the "Carte Rouge" (the ethnical distribution in the Carpathian basin). I have a reprint from 1927, so it cannot be scanned. Contact me if you want to take a look at it.

I hope, we'll cooperate!

Lephafta 19:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for cooperation, I have no problem that somebody include here history of other nations who live in Novi Sad (Hungarians, Slovaks, etc). I only have problem if somebody want to delete history of Serbs. User:PANONIAN

Celts

Original source in Serbian, which I translated into English, says: Prvo utvrdjenje na obali Dunava podigli su Kelti. The source speaks about history of Petrovaradin, and the sentence speaks about the first fortress, which was founded at this location. The meaning is that this fortress was founded by Celts. So, it was not the first fortress of the Celts, but the first fortress at this location. The source only mentions that Celts founded this fortress, but it is not their first fortress, only the first fortress at this location. User:PANONIAN

I was not trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts ever; I was trying to say that it was the first fortress of the Celts on the right bank of the Danube, which is what the original version indicated. I was merely trying to rephrase it to make it easier for an English-speaker to understand. To clear things up completely- was this fortress the Celts' first fortress on the entire right bank of the Danube, or was it just the Celts' first fortress at this specific location? The original version before I began editing this article was unclear.

I apologize for the "15th century" Huns edit- I had been making a lot of edits on a number of pages and accidentally included a 1 there. Olessi 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now where my mistake was. I didn’t explain this issue well. When I wrote that this was first fortress at this location, then you may ask where are other fortresses if the first one is here, right? Fact is that there were several fortresses at this same location during the history. The first one was founded by Celts, Romans founded the second one, Hungarians founded the third one, and Austrians founded the last one (which still exist). So, these are the other fortresses. The sentence, which I translated from Serbian have nothing to do with other Celtic fortresses, but with the other non-Celtic fortresses at this same location. I hope that you understand now. User:PANONIAN

Axis occupation

For anonimous user 193.11.239.144: I have to inform you about some facts here:

1. What you claim to be "a Hungarian point of view" is actually a Axis point of view. Many Hungarians who lived in Novi Sad were part of the resistance movement and fought together with Serbs, Slovaks and others against the Axis authorities who occupied their city. Also, many ethnic Hungarians in Novi Sad were the victims of these Axis authorities.

2. Between 1941 and 1944 Yugoslavia was internationally recognized sovereign state and Novi Sad was legally part of it. All foreign troops in that time were illegally located on the territory of one sovereign state - Yugoslavia. The occupation and partition of Yugoslavia was never recognized by the international community. So, I do not write here against any nation. This article do not say anything bad about Hungarians. This article only speaks against Axis ideology and its followers. Most Hungarians do not accept this ideology and do not agree with it. Also, the history I wrote in the article was from the official publication published by the City Council of Novi Sad.

3. There is no neutral way to write about Axis authorities. One of the generally accepted truths of the World is that Axis Powers were evil, and the only way to write about them is to condemn them and their policies.

4. I changed the word "liberation" since you did not like it. What is your objection now?

5. Last thing: I also have the pictures of the killed civilians in Novi Sad during the Axis occupation and I have list with the names of every single murdered citizen (And there are many Hungarian names in this list). If you like I can make a new article only about this. Something like: "Genocide in Vojvodina and Novi Sad between 1941 and 1944". User:PANONIAN

1. I am only trying to make you understand why you can´t in any form use the word "liberation" in a neutral encyclopedia. The word "liberation" is always onesided.

2. The occupation of Yugoslavia 1941, can be seen from many point of views. From a Hungarian point of view it (the reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary) first of cource was a "liberation" for the Hungarians. When it later turned out to become a nazi-german, and fascist-italian invasion, then of course the "liberation" became something else...for everyone.

I hope that your word "liberation" of 1945 meant the liberation from the Nazis. That was truly a liberation. But if you talk about the liberation 1945 as a liberation from Hungary, this of cource becomes offending in the eyes of the Hungarians. It would also be just as offending in the eyes of the Serbs if I would have written that "the Hungarian army liberated the city 1941 and it was reannexed to Hungary". I never did so. It is wise to not use the word "liberation" when it comes to a dispute between two nations. The word "liberation" is always offending to one nation or another.

3. Novi Sad, and Vojvodina was truly reannexed to Hungary. I don´t know why you delete that... Is it not true? Another Hungarian "propaganda" that must be under cencorship? You clame that it formerly belonged to Austria-Hungary. That is in only partly true. The Kingdom of Hungary still remained as a suvereign state, and Vojvodina with Novi Sad was then a part of Hungary. And Hungary in turn was a part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.

I already told you, do not use the term "Hungarian point of view", since it is only point of view of Hungarian nationalists from that time period. Most of the present day Hungarians do not share this view. And I already explained the situation about Yugoslavia and Novi Sad during the WW2, no reason to repeat. It was no "reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary", but it was illegal occupation of the part of one sovereign country - Yugoslavia. The only legal recognized government in that time was the Yugoslav government in exile. All other civil and military structures located on the Yugoslav soil were illegal and were occupants (or traitors and enemies of the people, of course).

So, the liberation in 1945 means both, the liberation from Axis authorities and the liberation from foreign country, of course. And I do not see how can any decent Hungarian to be offended by this.

Also you cannot possibly compare the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of Austria-Hungary and one expanzionist Axis state from WW2. Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before WW1, but this Kingdom was disintegrated after this war. The Hungarian state, which was created after this was something very different and Vojvodina was never part of it. Even during WW2 it was not part of it, since it was legally part of Yugoslavia and was occupied by the foreign troops, which came from that neighbouring state. User:PANONIAN

Are you trying to say that there is no Hungarian point of view? Didn´t the Hungarians see the reanexation of Vojvodina to Hungary as a liberation? I don´t think the half million Hungarians of Vojvodina were crying when the Hungarian army liberated the area... No, the Hungarians in Vojvodina had been living for 23 years under harsh conditions, until The Hungarian army liberated them from the cruel Serbian authorities.

Now you will say that this is all Hungarian propaganda, fantasies and non-sense. I know you will...

But I can tell you as God is my witness that the Serbian authorities weren´t any better to Hungarians and other minorities of Vojvodina after the 1918 and 1945 "liberation" then the Hungarian authorities were to Serbs in the 1941 "liberation". We all know what happend to the Hungarians living in Vojvodina in 1918 and after 1945, and what still is happening!!!!

You CANNOT denie it! The Nazis of Germany cannot denie the jewish holocaust! No country and authorities can denie there crimes. Not the Hungarians, not the Serbs.

Because you seem to be a Serbian nationalist you censored my previous contributions, so I will write then down here, once again and add some new.

1) "It was no "reannexation of Vojvodina to Hungary", but it was illegal occupation of the part of one sovereign country - Yugoslavia"

You talk about illegal occupation? Was the Serbian occupation of southern Hungary 1918 legal? It certanly was an illegal occupation of a part of one sovereign country - Hungary.

2) "Only the hard line Hungarian nationalist who still dream to occupy part of my country can be offended by this. Sorry pal, but your political views are very nationalistic and very bad."

Still dream to "occupy"? Oh no!! Not "occupy", but "liberate" my friend...

Excuse me pal....a part of YOUR country? Even a hard line Serbian nationalist could not say that Vojvodina was a part of Serbia before 1918. It is certanly not a lie to say that Vojvodina was a part of Hungary before 1918 and again in 1941-45. To take back a piece of a land that got lost is called reanexation. It is a correct technical term for the event.

3) "Also you cannot possibly compare the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of Austria-Hungary and one expanzionist Nazi state from WW2."

You certanly got lost here... After the WWI Hungary was disintegrated by the victorious states of the Great War. Most of Hungary was stolen, or given away as a reward to those who supported the Entente side of the war. As Hungary was forced upon the treaty of Trianon 1920, 2/3 of the country was given away (mostly by the French). Since 1920 Hungary became a small but almost ethnicly homogenous country. But 1/3 of the magyar population was left outside the new borders because of the treaty of 1920, leaving Hungary as the only country in the world completely surrounded by her historical self! Now what happened? Hungary became an revisionist Monarchy. Not an expansionist Nazi state. Expansionist states are those states who dream of extending there borders into territories that NEVER BELONGED TO THE EXPANSIONIST STATE BEFORE! Therefore Hungary, NEVER can be counted among the expasionist countries during the WWII. And certanly not a Nazi state!

4) "Now tell me this: what kind of a country is a country which killing people only because of their ethnic origin?"

Interesting question. Where shall I start? Well, Serbia is a very good example of such a country. So was Nazi Germany, so was the Sovjet Union and so on... Serbia was also a good exaple of a country where racism, and ethnic cleansing was the daily agenda during the Kosovo war just for an example.

So let me ask you instead: What kind of country is Serbia where the police don´t act when people from a minority get beaten up just because of their language and ethnic origin?

What kind of a country is Serbia where scools of ethnic minorities are closed down just because of the childrens ethnic origin?

What kind of a country is Serbia where churches and properties are confiscated from people just because of their ethnic origin?

What kind of country is Serbia where people from ethnic minorities are forceassimilated?

5) "And kid, listen to this: my own cousins and ancestors were murdered in 1942 only because they were Serbs."

First of all.....don´t call me kid...!! Second of all: I am truly sorry if your cousins and ancestors were murdered.

By the way, I know people slaughtered on the battlefields of Kosovo. Forced to fight in the frontlines, of a war which they had nothing to do with. Forced to the frontlines, to achiev minimun Serb casualties. Just because they where of a different ethnic origin.

Now, tell me! What kind of country is Serbia?

And last of all. There is nothing but one Hungary, not WWI Hungary or WWII Hungary and such non-sense. At the present Hungary is disintegrated. As long as the surrounding countries can´t take the task of protecting minority rights seriously there will ALWAYS be a Hungarian point of view on everything.

P.S It would be very nice to stop this arguing....

There is no "Hungarian point of view" here. The term "Hungarian point of view" would mean that absolute all Hungarians think the same about this and it is not the case. The view, which you presenting here was only the view of hard line Hungarian nationalists from that time period (WW2). Even in that time, there were Hungarians who did not share these views, for example Pal Teleky, the Hungarian prime minister, commited suicide because he did not agree with the Hungarian aggression against Yugoslavia. Here is what he wrote: "We took sides with scoundrels. We’ll become the vultures! We’ll become the most despicable nation. I failed to prevent that. I feel responsible." So, there were many Hungarians who did not share the nationalist view and please do not try to identify Hungarians with hard line nationalists. And no matter how some Hungarians in Vojvodina felt about the Axis occupation, they were no ethnic majority there. According to Hungarian data, the occupied territories in 1941 had a population of 463,000 Serbs and Croats, 301,000 Hungarians, and about 200,000 others. The Hungarians were only about 30% of population. The percent of Hungarians who supported Axis regime was much lower than this of course.

Also, Hungarians in Yugoslavia were never persecuted as were Serbs and Jews in WW2 Hungary. The story about "persecuted Hungarians" served in that time only to justify the genocide against Serbs, Jews and others in WW2 commited by Hungarian Axis authorities. And here is what Pal Teleky wrote about "persecuted Hungarians in Yugoslavia": "Because the news on alleged atrocities (against Hungarians) does not contain a single word of truth! Neither the Hungarians nor even the Germans are threatened!".

"You talk about illegal occupation? Was the Serbian occupation of southern Hungary 1918 legal?"

Actually, it was, since these parts of Austria-Hungary were recognized as part of Serbia by the London contract in 1915. Serbian troops only entered in their part of dissolved Habsburg monarchy. Also the demarcation line from November-December 1918 as well as the Treaty of Trianon from 1920 confirmed this, while the Hungarian Axis occupation in 1941 was never recognized by any internationl document. Also, the Austria-Hungary was the one who attacked Serbia and started WW1. The one who start a war should not to cry when lost that war.

"It certanly was an illegal occupation of a part of one sovereign country - Hungary."

And yes, Hungary was not a sovereign country in that time, but part of Austria-Hungary.

"Even a hard line Serbian nationalist could not say that Vojvodina was a part of Serbia before 1918."

Vojvodina was not "part" of Serbia but Vojvodina itself was Serbia. The official name of Vojvodina between 1849 and 1860 was: Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat (Duchy of Serbia and Tamiš Banat).

"It is certanly not a lie to say that Vojvodina was a part of Hungary before 1918 and again in 1941-45. To take back a piece of a land that got lost is called reanexation. It is a correct technical term for the event."

Vojvodina before 1918 WAS NOT a part of Axis Hungary as it was in WW2. It was part of Budapest part of Austria-Hungary and that is very different thing. Next, thing, the word "reanexation" was used by Hungarian Axis authorities, because they wanted with this word to justify their illegal occupation. And they did not only wanted to justify their occupation, but also their crimes and genocide commited against non-Hungarian local population. So, the word "reanexation" in this content acctually means a "justification" - justification for crimes and justifications for genocide, thus it is not acceptable.

"After the WWI Hungary was disintegrated by the victorious states of the Great War. Most of Hungary was stolen, or given away as a reward to those who supported the Entente side of the war."

Before the WW1, ethnic Hungarians were only 48% of the population of Hungary. So, the "Hungary" was not a "indefeasible property of Hungarians", but a multiethnic state. After WW1, the nationalities of Hungary simply took their part of the country.

"Hungary became an revisionist Monarchy. Not an expansionist Nazi state. Expansionist states are those states who dream of extending there borders into territories that NEVER BELONGED TO THE EXPANSIONIST STATE BEFORE! Therefore Hungary, NEVER can be counted among the expasionist countries during the WWII. And certanly not a Nazi state!"

Wrong. If your country is "small" and if you want to make it "bigger", then your country is a expansionist state. Also, if your country is ally of Nazi Germany, then your country is a Nazi State. Second thing: "the historicall ownership of land" is a Nazi idea. Every land belong only to people who live in that land in the mentioned time period, no matter who ruled over that land in any specific part of history. I can also claim that Hungarian town of Baja is a "historical property of Serbia" since it was part of Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat between 1849 and 1860.

"Serbia was also a good exaple of a country where racism, and ethnic cleansing was the daily agenda during the Kosovo war just for an example"

Did I ever said that I support the acts of Serbian authorities in the time when Slobodan Milošević was in power? I did not. So, do not put words into my mouth. I have absolute same opinion about Vojvodina and Kosovo: both lands belong to people who live there now, and nobody is a historical owner of these lands. End of story. Besides this, Serbia is democratic country now, and minorities are treated well.

"By the way, I know people slaughtered on the battlefields of Kosovo. Forced to fight in the frontlines, of a war which they had nothing to do with. Forced to the frontlines, to achiev minimun Serb casualties. Just because they where of a different ethnic origin"

So, what you want to say? You want to say that Serbs who also were forced to go to the frontline in Kosovo had something with this war? That is where you wrong of course. Nobody who lived in Vojvodina or in the Central Serbia no matter was he a Serb, Hungarian or something else, and who was forced to go to the frontline in Kosovo war, had nothing to do with this war.

"There is nothing but one Hungary, not WWI Hungary or WWII Hungary and such non-sense. At the present Hungary is disintegrated. As long as the surrounding countries can´t take the task of protecting minority rights seriously there will ALWAYS be a Hungarian point of view on everything."

As, for Hungary, it is quite obvious that independent and autonomous Hungary can not be the same. And one more thing: do not insult the decent Hungarians with your claim that "nationalistic point of view" is a "Hungarian point of view".

"P.S It would be very nice to stop this arguing...."

After you, of course...Have a nice day. User:PANONIAN

Emotional terms

Emotional terms like "liberated" and "occupied" should be removed. (Not only in this article.) Other claims should be discussed here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millosh, the only proper term, which is used in the historical books to define the status of the city during WW2 is "occupation". City was legally part of Yugoslavia during entire war, and it was illegally held by invading Nazi troops. In the juristical terminology, the word "occupation" is only proper word for it. Besides this, we speak here about the Nazis, remember. Or you would say that Europe was not liberated from the Nazis in 1944/1945? User:PANONIAN

But, before the WWI it was a legal part of Austro-Hungary. Serbia won the war and (what?) Novi Sad; Austrians won the war against the Turks and (what?) Novi Sad; Turks won the war against Hungarians and (what?) Novi Sad; Hungarians came from Asia and (what?) Novi Sad (if Novi Sad existed in that time; I don't know)... "Liberation" is emotional term (unless we are talking about slaves and and similar situations). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is why I removed word "liberation" from the sentence which spoke about 1918, but the situation in WW2 is quite clear. Entire Europe was occupied by Nazis, not only Novi Sad. There is difference between various armies, which conquered the city during the history, and Nazis from WW2, which clearly were occupants (even in their own countries). When Soviet Red Army entered Berlin in 1945, it was liberation of course. The fundamental principle on which our World is based is fight against Nazis in WW2. If we use the "neutral" view when we talk about Nazis, then we will disrupt the base of our society. User:PANONIAN

I have some interesting examples here (just some randomness articles):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade

"The city remained under German occupation until October 20, 1944, when it was liberated by Yugoslav Partisan forces and the Red Army."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw

"Warsaw became an occupied city under the control of the Nazi SS."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praha

"1938 after political betrayal of allied (France and Britain at Munich) Germany occupied Sudetenland and in 1939 whole country"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ljubljana

"In April 1941 it was occupied by Italy"

etc, etc...User:PANONIAN

But, people from Latvia think that Germans liberated them (from Soviet occupation). Also, (around) 30-40% of inhabitants of Vojvodina (Germans and Hungarians) might think that Germans liberated them. When we are talking about Belgrade, Kragujevac, Ljubljana etc. -- we have more clear situation then about Zagreb, Subotica (or even Novi Sad), Sarajevo. In those cities majority or significant minority felt that they are liberated. Also, I don't think that we can talk about "liberation" of Sudetenland, too (there were, as I think, majority of German population). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think about Yugoslav wars: what is the date of occupation of Knin and what is the date of liberation of Knin? The war is ended and "stable situation" means that it is under Croatian government. But, (maybe?) 80% of it's (former) inhabitants think that the town is occupated. So, it is better to sublimate the term "liberation" with some other term whenever we talk about not-so-clear situations and events. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not comment how Latvians felt about German occupation, but I know how majority of people in Vojvodina felt about this. You might be right about the number of Germans and Hungarians who lived in Vojvodina in 1941 (I am not sure, since I do not have numbers from 1931 census), but you just cannot say that all of them supported invading Axis troops. It is just not correct. I know that almost entire German population was indoctrinated with Nazi ideology, but it is not the case with the Hungarians. Many Hungarians were partisans and fought together with Serbs, Slovaks, Croats and other nations of Vojvodina against the Axis troops. For example, the 15th Vojvodinian partisan brigade was composed entirely of Vojvodinian Hungarians. You cannot simply calculate the number of Hungarians in Vojvodina and say that they all supported Axis occupation. One number of them did, but the other number of them did not. And if we talk about Novi Sad only, for the majority of inhabitants of this city the entry of Axis troops was occupation and not "liberation". Besides this, all historical books, which I have about this time period claim that it was "occupation". I do not see different way to write this. By the way, Millosh, you should first to remove word "occupation" from the history section in the article about your own city, and then to propose similar removal here, dont you agree? :) And here is another example about liberation: the fact that somebody is a Serb and live in Serbia still do not mean that he is "free". I did not felt "free" in Serbia when Slobodan Milošević was in power. I simply do not understand what kind of "freedom" anybody can have if he live under the regime of Adolf Hitler or Miklos Horthy? User:PANONIAN

Inače Miloše da bih malo razjasnio problem, citiraću ti neke navode iz knjige "Vojvodina u borbi" (Zbirka članaka iz narodnooslobodilačke borbe, uredio Živan Milisavac, Novi Sad, 1951). Poglavlje u knjizi je naslovljeno: "Učešće jugoslovenskih Mađara u narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi", a napisao ga je Karolj Brindza:

"U Vojvodini su i mađarski komunisti prionuli organizacionom radu. Naročito uspešan bio je rad u Subotici i Novom Sadu. Već 1941, u junu i julu, osnivaju se partijske organizacije u Subotici, Senti, Adi, Topoli, Čantaviru, Moravici, Somboru, Telečki, Bezdanu, Novom Sadu, Bečeju, Petrovom Selu, itd. i u partijskim redovima svugde nalazimo, u nekim mestima, - u Senćanskom i Topolskom srezu - čak u većini Mađare. U Subotičkom okrugu sekretar i većina članova partiskog vođstva su Mađari, odnosno pomađareni Jevreji. U Topolskom srezu organizovano je oko stotinu komunista, od toga 95% Mađara."

"Među Mađarima uspešno obavlja organizacioni rad Erne Kiš. U prvim danima okupacije već je član Pokrajinskog komiteta. U leto 1941 okupatori su ga uhvatili, a segedinski preki sud osudio na smrt."

"Najbolji mađarski komunisti shvatili su da će samo tako doprineti oslobođenju svoga naroda, ako se bez kolebanja angažuju u ovoj borbi koju je Komunistička partija Jugoslavije pokrenula za oslobođenje svoje zemlje i da bi pomogla borbu Sovjetskog Saveza, kao i čitave antifašističke koalicije."

"Prvi požar buknuo je u futoškom hataru u okolini Novog Sada. Pet odlučnih komunista zapalilo je nekoliko zamašnih kamara žita. Među ovima su dvojica Mađari: Antal Nemet i Đerđ Nemet. Antal Nemet je zajedno sa jednim drugom Srbinom pao odmah tu u borbi koja je vođena sa žandarima"

Inače, poglavlje je poduže, ali sam ovde samo citirao neke zanimljive delove. Dakle, vojvođanski Mađari su se itekako borili protiv okupatora i potpuno je pogrešno gledište identifikovati Mađare sa Hortijevim režimom. Dakle, ovde se uopšte ne radi ni o kakvom sukobu Srba i Mađara, već o sukobu fašizma i antifašizma (S tim da su i Srbi i Mađari bili na obe strane u ovom sukobu). To je ono što ja uporno ovde zastupam. Neki današnji pokušaji da se rehabilituju ustaše ili hortijevci su primer nasilja nad istorijom i smatram da takvo nasilje ne treba tolerisati. User:PANONIAN

Under the Danube Bridges section, I notice "built" is misspelt as "builded". There is no such word as 'builded' - User:Lowzeewee :)

Famous citizens

I deleted Milan Grbović and Đurđica Šolak from the list of the famous citizens. I never heard for them and google search results do not show anything which can define these 2 persons as famous. PANONIAN (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Sad in the past had many citizens of all ethnicities, at least some of which (German and Jewish for sure) used to be much greater than they are now. I think there must be some more citizens from minority-ethnicities worthy of making the list. This would also emphasize the city's former role as Srpska Atina, a confluence of many groups with significant intellectual activities.

If you know some other famous citizens, please include them. PANONIAN (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards

It's very nice that the atrocities committed by Hungarian and German forces 1940-1944 are mentioned here. However, there is no mention of the atrocities committed in revenge by partisans in 1944-1945. Could someone do a bit of a research on this and augment the article? Panonian perhaps? I'm not an expert on this, and it is almost impossible to find neutral sources on this on the net.

In the meantime, here is a quote from a neutral source (it doesn't go into detail, but at least it confirms that atrocities against Hungarian and Germans did happen, in case anyone would doubt this):

The Partisans exacted brutal retribution against the indigenous German, Italian, Hungarian, and Albanian populations. In the cases of the Germans and Italians in particular, most of those who were not killed by the Partisans or did not flee were expelled, including the "Schwaben" from Vojvodina and the Italians from Dalmatia and Istria, whose families had lived in those areas for centuries. Radio Free Europe--Tamas 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamas, Partisans did killed some people after the war, but it is simply not correct that it was "retribution against the indigenous German, Italian, Hungarian, and Albanian populations". Partisans were not "Serb nationalists who kill people because of their ethnic origin". Partisans were internationalists, and members of these mentioned ethnic groups (except Germans) also participated in the Partisan army. My last citation for Milosh about this was in Serbian, but it spoke about participation of the ethnic Hungarians in the Partisan resistance movement (The original article about this was writen by one ethnic Hungarian from Vojvodina). Just for example, in all mentioned places where Partisan resistance movement was formed, the ethnic Hungarians participated in this movement. In Bačka Topola, Senta and Subotica, most of the Partisans were ethnic Hungarians. Erne Kiš (ethnic Hungarian) was one of the organizers of the resistance movement among Hungarians, and he was killed by the Hungarian authorities in 1941. That is about what happened during the war. Now here is what happened after the war: Partisans did killed some people after the war, but the reason for these killings was political, not ethnic. The exception of this was German population: the entire German population was labeled guilty because during the war its members were not participated in the resistance movement (which was not the case with other ethnic groups). All other people were killed because they collaborated with Nazi authorities during the war or because they did not want to accept new socialistic system of rule. And fact is that killed people were of all nationalities (including majority Serbs). If we speak about Yugoslavia as a whole, very large number of people killed by the Partisans after the war were ethnic Serbs. So, I repeat, the reason for the killings was political, not ethnical. Also, I spoke here about entire Vojvodina and entire Yugoslavia. If we speak about Novi Sad city, I do not have information are some people killed in this city too after the war (I know that they were killed in some other parts of the country, but I do not know about Novi Sad). Every history book about Novi Sad, which I have, speak only about the killings during the war (especially in 1942 raid). PANONIAN (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try to collect some sources. As far as Novi Sad is concerned, I know about a Hungarian Catholic priest (a young Franciscan) who was killed by partisans (or some related irregulars). Again, I don't say this was official policy, but such things did happen. But I can't corroborate it with sources right now, I'm sorry.--Tamas 12:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that the partisans or people calling themselves so, in corroboration with the Red Army, perpetrated many crimes against minorities, religous figures, and the educated, as well as real and perceived Nazi-collaborators. This is not an article on the partisans, though - irrespective of who did it, many women were raped, many children were killed. The Schwaben (as they call themselves and correlating to svaba in serbo-croatian) still in Yugoslavia in 1945 were devoid of men of fighting age. I'm not sure I believe in "ethnic" strife, since the bottom line is this behaviour was animal and opportunistic and perpetrated by and against members of every group (though not equally), so those who wish can call it "political" certainly may without my objection, but it definitely merits mention that a significant community within Novi Sad does not exist anymore, and that not all left voluntarily. I might add that many Schwaben made significant efforts towards integration, being sent from their villages to Serb boarding schools in Novi Sad, and fighting against and even being captured by the Nazis (as part of the Royal Yugoslavian Army). Adam Mathias

Population data from various times

The early population data is fairly complete - numbers from the Ottoman times and 1820 are both given - but maybe a breakdown of ethnic groups at the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes would also be informative. A lot happened between 1820 and 2002. It would also be nice to show the traditional quarters of the city (where each group was concentrated). Adam Mathias

I have some population data from the time of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, but showing only a number of Serbs and Hungarians, not number of other ethnic groups. If I find data with the number of all ethnic groups, I will post it. As for the city quarters, the traditional quarters of the city are same as the modern quarters (with many new were built later). I only know that ethnic Hungarians were mostly located in Telep in the past. Today, most of the city quarters have Serb majority, but in few of them there are lot of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians, so I do not know who is majority there. PANONIAN (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the 1931 Vojvodina census shows two groups that are not even listed for some of the later dates: 21.000 Jews (who were no doubt mostly concentrated in Novi Sad and thus probably had a quarter), and 21% Germans, who no doubt also had a general quarter (despite being mostly in villages). I could probably get the numbers of just Germans, but that would be of course imbalanced with figures for others. Thanks for all your work.

- Adammathias

Yes, 1931 Vojvodina census, but only data I have for Novi Sad city from this census say that there were 50,4% Serbs and Croats and 27,1% Hungarians. Even Serbs and Croats are not listed separately. PANONIAN (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1918 assembly

1. There were 6 German and 1 Hungarian deputy on the assembly, thus it is not correct that these two nations were not represented at all.
2. As for "plebiscite which was administered", the assembly itself was a kind of plebiscite, there was no something like referendum there.
3. Plebiscite was held IN Novi Sad, so no reason to remove this.
4. No reason for us to delete reference that Novi Sad was capital of Danube Banovina, and part of the SCS Kingdom.
5. In 1910 (thus in 1918 too), there were 33.8% Serbs, 28.1% Hungarians, and 21.4% Germans in Vojvodina. It is POV if somebody calculate Germans and Hungarians together and not mention that Serbs were RELATIVE MAJORITY in the region. Second thing is that even if we calculate them together, they numbered together 49.5% of population, which WAS NOT absolute majority. The third problem is that 1910 census recorded only language and not ethnicity, and many Jews who lived in the region spoke German or Hungarian (and some other people declared to speak Hungarian too), thus the "real" number of Hungarians and Germans counted together was probably not larger than 45%. Also, we simply cannot to count together one Finno-Ugric Uralic and one Germanic Indo-European people, because they are VERY DIFFERENT peoples.
6. Finally, it must be noted that borders of Vojvodina with Romania and Hungary were defined in 1919-1920, and NOT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSEMBLY WAS HELD - 1918. Since the border was not yet defined in 1918, we CANNOT TO SAY how large part of the population was represented since we did not know the exact borders of the territory which the assembly represented (If the border was drawn little different, excluding northern Bačka from the country, the Serbs would be absolute majority in the region). PANONIAN (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sentence that "the ethnic makeup has changed considerably since WW2", it is POV. The ethnic makeup changed many times during the history of the city, and if we mention that it changed ONLY after WW2, that would not be correct or NPOV presentation. Besides this, in 1931 there were 50,4% Serbs and Croats (the larger part of those are Serbs of course), and in 1948 there were 50,9% Serbs. I would not call this "a considerable change". PANONIAN (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has changed since 2000

I can not speak about the changes to Novi Sad (my birh city) after 2001 since I have been living in New Zealand for the past 5 years, but I must say that Futog and Veternik have now become provinces (i hope it's the right word) of Novi sad. And as was said before the population figures look a bit scetchy because last I remember the estimate was 350,000 then again it's been a while. I'm looking forward to going back. Some say New Zealand nature is beautiful and it is but the culture is not as beautiful there is nothing like my home city (I hope it's not against policy to state opinions in talk). Please e-mail me if I can't be biest on these pages, I know that for writing articles you must be but I don't know about talk.

An updated article may be in order from some one who was there not so long ago like a year or sooner (which rules me out). Just for the figures, the history I'd leave to the very educated users that posted above.

The numbers in the article are those from 2002 census, which is the only relevant source for these numbers. Second thing, Veternik and Futog are still not parts of urban Novi Sad, but separate settlements. PANONIAN (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit

Changed the article so that it has the same basic infobox as Belgrade and Kragujevac (and soon Niš). The sources for the information I changed are all on the official city website, namely here (population) and here (territory). Also, removed the twin cities from the box and put them further down in the article. I've taken the city to be Novi Sad, Petrovaradin and Sremska Kamenica, as that is how it is defined at the territory page on the city website. --estavisti 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I know the location map is in German, it will be changed in due course, either by me or some other kind soul. Until, it's better than nothing. --estavisti 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the info box edits, it was about time this happened. I've made the Kragujevac one, but you did a good job making it a Serbian table. I'll do the same with other Serbian cities later on.--Krytan 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that for the population figures of the Serbian cities we should use official figures from 2002 census. This is already discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novi_Sad#Population_of_Novi_Sad

PANONIAN (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City History

Hmmm... According to this article, the only considerable thing happened between 1867 and 1910 in the city of Novi Sad is Magyarization and the "drastic" change in Serb population from the 1880's 41.2% to the 1910's 34.52%. To proove this fact, detailed census data is shown. Current census data is shown as well (not surprisingly) pretty far from this part of the article. It can be figured out that 1910's 39.72% Hungarian ratio has changed to 2002's 5.24%. And there is not even a single sentence about it and its reasons. Interesting.

Timur Lenk

The part about Magyarization was added to explain census results from 1910, which were added to the article without this explanation. The goal of the person which added 1910 census results was to present that city had Hungarian character in 1910 (which is disputed question, since we do not know for sure whether Hungarians or Serbs were largest ethnic group in the city in this time). Also, the person which added 1910 census results did not wrote that before Magyarization started the city had not relative but absolute Serb majority. Also, the number of 13,343 (39.72%) from 1910 census is not a number of ethnic Hungarians, but a number of citizens who said that they most frequently speak Hungarian language (which does not mean that it was their native language). The number of ethnic Hungarians in the city was probably not larger than 10-11,000. If we already post the numbers from biased and incorrect censuses like the one from 1910, we should at least explain the nature of such censuses. The census in 2002 was not biased, thus I do not see reason to further explain that census. PANONIAN (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The censuses were quoted to demonstrate ethnicity changes. I did not criticize the accuracy of any of the censuses. The ratio of the Serb-speaking population was decreasing until 1910, it is a fact. The point of my comment: why this change is shown as the most important (if not the only) "event" in Novi Sad between 1867-1910. And there is not even a sentence about the decreasing of the Hungarian population (which is a fact, too) as a consequence of "Serbization" since 1918. Why is decreasing in Serb population detailed without mentioning the changes to the Hungarian ethnicity after WWI? Timur

As I said, it was not me who added 1910 census results to the article. I only explained these results and nature of the census. If you ask why only that is mentioned for 1867-1910 period, it is because nobody else did not added anything else about this time period to the article. Regarding Hungarian population after WWI, it in fact increased, not decreased (as example, in 1921 there was 13,065 Hungarians and in 1931 17,354). PANONIAN (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inaccuracy. That's why I used the word "ratio" - just forgot to write it the second time. Even if statistics show increasing for both (or maybe all) ethnicities of the city in absolute numbers, it is the ratio what determines the ethnic character of the city. Timur

Ok, I do not object to have better covered demographic history of the city. It would be best to have information about all ethnic groups in the city from all censuses in history, but at the present moment I have only partial data about this, which we cannot use to have full demographic picture of the city. If I find more data, I will see to write more about the subject. PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it will surely improve the quality of the article. Timur