Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Not really Military History. It was part of WWII but not really Military History. Big Roger (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary style

Is there a reason why is this short article restored without an edit summary and not expanded, instead of pointing to a more detailed one? As it is now, it is a content fork. See Wikipedia:Summary style, particularly "Avoiding unnecessary splits", and "Avoidance of POV forks" sections.

The topic of the Holocaust in Serbia is indeed worth a full-scale article. That should be done when somebody actually writes a full-scale article. Until that, it should remain a section in the History of the Jews in Serbia. The material has already been duplicated among that article, Nedić's Serbia, Sajmište concentration camp and few others. No such user (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please sop with that massive censorship? Whe have an internal link to this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Serbia#The_Holocaust --Croq (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
What censorship? Have you bothered to read my reasons? Have you read Wikipedia:Summary style#Avoiding unnecessary splits? This article is shorter than History_of_the_Jews_in_Serbia#World War II. In it, we have exactly 3 sentences devoted to the Holocaust itself. Why do you keep on restoring it, when the main article is equally long or even longer? Go write a comprehensive >20 kB article, and I won't say a word; for comparison, see The Holocaust in Belarus. Do not duplicate the material just because you can. No such user (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Needless to say, the "internal link" is there because you just added it [1]. No such user (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Conversion to redirect

Given this action has been reverted, the appropriate action is to discuss, not turn it into a redirect again. Please discuss here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker, the discussion is right above, and it is quite old.
I'm not into "he started first" type of quarrel, but it is not that I started "turning this into redirect", but that Croq started WP:CFORKing History of the Jews in Serbia two years ago. I do not have anything against having a proper article under this title, but just having it in the form of the content fork, unexpanded and left for years is not cool. As far as I can see, every single fact in this article also exists (and is predated by) History of the Jews in Serbia#World_War_II Also, given Croq's contribution history, I have a reason to doubt his good faith when he created this article.
So, if Croq (or anybody else) is going to make a decent article out of this forked stub, I wouldn't have a single word of objection. But all that he does is restoring it and going away. No such user (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It might be just above, but that doesn't justify blind reverting Croq. On another tack, as is the most appropriate course of action in this case in my view, I am working toward a The Holocaust in Yugoslavia article which this article could be merged into. In the meantime, I believe this article should remain in its current form. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
...which doesn't justify him blindly reverting me in the first place. But let's put that aside and discuss what to do for the future. I don't see why "in the meantime, this article should remain", if the redirect already leads to an article with much more detail and appropriate context for the events? No such user (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, I am really not interested in your interactions with Croq, whom I have not come across before (which is a bit of a shock after more than a year wandering these parts of WP. Nevertheless, I believe all these ahistorical "The Holocaust in Yugoslavfooiansville" articles need to be brought back to 1941-45, and I am not of a mind to accommodate making it harder for myself by having to justify a fork of some history article. I think we are essentially on the same page, as I believe a "The Holocaust in Yugoslavia" article will provide all the context you could want. However, if you insist, then you need to go to WP:AFD. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm wary of AFD because I know I'm gonna see a bunch of folks not reading the nom, then screaming "topic is notable!" (who denies that?), some providing citations that Holocaust in Serbia did exist (who denies that?), some hinting at anti-Semitism, some citing WP:NOTCLEANUP... and all of them going away when the article is kept. We do need a quality article, but this is not one. Merging or redirecting is an decision of interested editors, not a decision for AFD.
I do think we're on the similar page though. Just, I'm not sure is that "The Holocaust in Yugoslavia" is the right way to proceed, because Anti-Jewish policies and practices varied in the occupied parts of Yugoslavia (though there is an overlap). Actually, I think that "The Holocaust in Serbia" is a valid topic, or, more precisely: "The Holocaust on the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" (please let's not call it like that). Just, I don't think this version of the article cuts it. But I'm open to suggestions. No such user (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it can be a can of worms, but that is our process. I am not a fan of this " it's a country now, so we should call it what it is now" thing, but I believe the different policies across the whole of what was occupied Yugoslavia can be adequately covered in one article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of this either. The Holocaust in Yugoslavia might work, I'm not saying it won't. At least it won't be ahistorical. No such user (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
👍 Exectly my point, thank you I am also for quick merging into Holocaust in Yugoslavia. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
are you willing to give it a month? I reckon I'll have something in place by mid-May at the latest. Then we can argue the toss properly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. I'm not particularly keen to "defend" the current situation and the redirect, as long as there's someone willing to take proper care about the topic. I'm very glad that you would. No such user (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Working on The_Holocaust_in_Yugoslavia now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrections are necessary

There is a mixup in this article. Konzentrationslager Sajmište (a.k.a. Judenlager Semlin) was a Nazi German concentration camp near Belgrade, but on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during World War II. It was controlled and operted by the German military police apparatus in occupied Serbia. Initialy, it was used for extermination of Jews from Serbia. After that, it was renamed Ahhalte Lager Semlin and used for other prisoners (different guerrilla fighters, Serbian civilians, Jew from Italy).

The second concentration camp was Anhalteleger Dedinje (Banjica concentration camp), that was was jointly run by Gestapo and Serbian puppet police. That camp was used for Jews only for few months in 1941, before the Konzentrationslager Sajmište was established, in September 1941. After that, was was mainly used against Serbain population (hostages, guerrilla fighters, etc.). Only few hundred Jews were killed there, comparing to 30,000 that were killed in Sajmiste Camp.

Bosniaks were never subject of Racial laws so they were not targeted based on their ethnicity. They were not mentioned in articles about Sajmiste or Banjica camp.

So, this sentence is incorrect: "The camp, Sajmište, was established to process and eliminate the captured Jews, Romanis, Bosniaks and communists Croats and Serbs." The camp was established to process and exterminate Jews and Romanis, but was latter used against captured Yugoslav Partisans, Chetniks, sympathizers of the Greek and Albanian resistance movements, and Serb peasants from villages in other parts of the NDH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.47.44.20 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbian historiography

The whole section

During the Milošević era, Serbian history was falsified to obscure the role Serbian collaborators Milan Nedić and Dimitrije Ljotić played in cleansing Serbia's Jewish community, killing them in the country or deporting them to Eastern European concentration camps.[21][dubious – discuss] In 1993 the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts published The 100 most prominent Serbs. The book was reprinted in 2001 and 2009 (extended edition). There Nedić is named as one of the 100 most significant Serbs.[22][dubious – discuss]

needs a serious rework. Croat Perica is the least one who should write about Serbian historiography. Serbian historiography (Holocaust related) has far more serious scholars to say about the Holocaust: Petranovic, Almuli, Lebel, etc.--bez potpisa (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Browning

The statement 

Historian Christopher Browning who attended the conference on the subject of Holocaust and Serbian involvement stated:

“	Serbia was the only country outside Poland and the Soviet Union where all Jewish victims were killed on the spot without deportation, and was the first country after Estonia to be declared ‘Judenfrei,’” a term used by the Nazis during the Holocaust to denote an area free of all Jews.	”

— Christopher Browning, his conference statement[16]

is false. Most of the Serbian Jews were deported to Sajmiste concentration camp that was on the Independent State of Croatia territory where many died, not being shot on the spot.--bez potpisa (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

He didn't say shot, what about the women and children killed in the gas van? And we don't remove sources like that, we compare and contrast. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
He says "killed". Blatantly wrong, many Jews were deported to Sajmiste concentration camp where they died.--bez potpisa (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You need to cite a wp:reliable sources for this. Don't remove until wp:consensus is reached. Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The sentence authored by Browning is indeed blatantly (WP:BLUE SKY) wrong:
  1. Serbia was not a country during WWII. This sentence might mislead readers to believe that it was.
  2. More important: Jewish victims were not killed on the spot without deportation. All sources used in this article and many other articles (ie this article but also Topovske Šupe concentration camp, Trostruki surduk...) explain that most of Jewish victims were first deported to concentration camps and then again deported to Jajinci, Jabuka, Trostruki surduk.... and killed there or during their deportation, in gas van. Maybe the only notable exemption was Novi Sad raid which occurred on this day, which was not in Territory of Military.... but in Hungary so it even does not belong to this article and section dedicated to it should be moved to Holocaust in Hungary.
Taking that in consideration, there is no point for keeping this misleading and blatantly wrong sentence in this article.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid this is an overly literal reading of what Browning said. Browning is clearly referring to Serbia, in this case occupied Serbia. Plenty of scholars erroneously refer to occupied Serbia as a country or puppet state, when it clearly was not. You're not suggesting we delete everything those scholars say about the territory because they happen to get the legality of the situation wrong? He is not saying they were killed where they were found, ie in the street. He is saying they weren't deported to extermination camps in eastern Europe like Auschwitz (like the Hungarian Jews were), they were killed in the place they came from, ie in the occupied territory. The fact that the Sajmiste camp was just outside the occupied territory and was in the NDH doesn't change the fact that it was run by Germans and was in occupied Yugoslavia. All the Jews in the occupied territory were killed either by shooting or by gas van in the country, they weren't deported to another occupied country to be killed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed sections

Removed two irrelevant sections, while those sections are also highly questionable. Article about Ljotić already have those things, so removed forking. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

They are directly relevant to this topic, are reliably sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I support removal of two irrelevant sections performed by Anastan diff. The content of this sections is not related to the topic of this article.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

They are very relevant. The two sections elaborate on Holocaust in Serbia which is the name of the article. I have found additional stuff and I will expand two sections. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a heavy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV issue here, so I agree with removal. While sourced, the content lists only the revisionist tendencies in modern Serbia (not that they don't exist), and titles ("Serbian historiography" and "Serbian society today") gave reader an impression that those are the dominant trends rather than relatively isolated phenomena. Until they are rewritten to give a more balanced view on the issues, or at least clearly state that they refer to rather fringe(y) views, they should remain out. No such user (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Aren't they the dominant trends but relatively isolated phenomena? Do you have sources from which you derived your conclusions? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
And what sources do you have to the contrary in the first place? The current section is based on short news articles that describe attempts of Nedić's legal rehabilitation by his grandson, and revisionism of Ljotić's role by far-right paper Pogledi and right wing of conservative DSS, all pretty much par for the course. Pompously titling that "Serbian historiography" reeks of POV. Get me a book or overview article on overall position of various Serbian historians – who are, I can tell you, very critical of Nedić and Ljotić overall, then we can discuss appropriate weight to assign to them. What is here now are cherry-picked sources supporting "alternative facts". No such user (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Jovan Byford also makes a significant argument about revisionist arguments in Serbia re: the role of the collaborationist administrations and their involvement in The Holocaust, in Ramet and Listhaug (eds.) Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two. I'll start adding material shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@No such user, the "pompously titling that "Serbian historiography" which reeks of POV" was given to the section by other editors. If you can find stuff on position of various Serbian historians critical of Nedić and Ljotić then place them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with placing it under a heading titled "Aftermath and legacy", as opposed to the vaguely titled "Serbian historiography". 23 editor (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Scope

According to Jovan Byford and others, The Holocaust includes the spreading of anti-Semitic propaganda, compulsory registration of the Jewish population, confiscation of Jewish property, transportation of Jews to camps, guarding of Jewish prisoners, and the killing of Jews. Similar actions taken towards Roma are usually covered by the term Porajmos, not "The Holocaust", although the Porajmos is sometimes referred to as the "Roma Holocaust". I suggest the scope of this article is clearly limited to actions taken against Jewish people who were living on the territory of German occupied Serbia, and a separate Porajmos in Yugoslavia to cover the treatment of Roma people in occupied Yugoslavia. Thoughts? 

Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree Peacemaker67. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Disagree Peacemaker67. Balkan-historian (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (PST)

While I agree with the part about creating the separate page for other specific Holocaust(s)/Porajmos, I disagree with omitting these mentions completely. The Roma, Jews and Serbs were all together in these concentration camps, and therefore they should all be together in the summary. It is a key fact that should not be swept under the carpet.

Disagree. Multiple discussions at talkpage of the main article about the holocaust ended without consensus to exclude non-Jews from the holocaust. That fact is well known to the editor Peacemaker67 who made this proposal. Here is what they wrote about this issue (diff): The archives have several threads relating to this issue. many editors (like me) un-watched the article because of the constant drama. My view (which you will see if you read the threads) is that "The Holocaust" refers to the Jews. The Roma have their own term, and some of the others have advocates that want to associate the losses of "their" people with the genocide of the Jews with a range of motives. I believe the academic consensus is that they should be kept separate, but acknowledge that there is a vocal minority who disagree. Somehow this important context is not presented here. Instead, only arguments in favor of the proposal are presented, without mention the other perspectives. The lack of appropriate context makes this proposal similar to their attempt to proclaim the existence of an obvious consensus about the reliability of Cohen's work at Talk:Banjica concentration camp (diff) although they knew very well that two RSN discussions ended without consensus that this work is reliable as explained here (diff). It is important to present appropriate context because without it the editors who are less acquainted with the topic in question could be deceived to support POV which failed to gain community consensus at relevant pages. Also, somebody who does not AGF might get impression that this repeated lack of context might be intentional. This is my last comment in this discussion. All the best. User:Antidiskriminator/signing template --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Independent state of Croatia and Hungary are put in different planes - this is ignorant

Independent state of Croatia, simply Croatia was ally of Germany same way as Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania. It was not occupied. Serbia was occupied as well as Slovenia and Montenegro. If Croatia was occupied, same can be said that for Hungary or Bulgaria. This is historically completely incorrect. Ante Pavelic was Hitler's ideological129.192.10.2 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC) ally way before war has started. He got state with help of Germans, but he exercised huge autonomy. This equivalents countries that are bombed in submission with those that voluntarily cooperated with Hitler. Hungary, Bulgaria were no different in that matter then Croatia.

This is heavily inaccurate129.192.10.2 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not it is not. The NDH was a Axis quasi-protectorate until September 1943, then a quasi-protectorate of Nazi Germany after the Italians folded until the end of the war. Without Axis occupation forces, it would have quickly collapsed from the outset. Countries that cooperated with Nazi Germany before being invaded and occupied (like Hungary and Bulgaria) are a completely different beast from the NDH, which was basically an Axis construct. And, do yourself a favour, and register an account. IPs are a dime a dozen in the WWII Balkans area, the reality is that you can't expect much credence to be given to your comments unless you commit to an account and an edit history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Croatia is at first offer to Macek (HSS), and after he rejected such possibility, to Pavelic. So Pavelic was nothing special to Hitler, just another puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geranoll (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong facts - article claims Croatian antisemitic law is Serbian

In article it states "The main race laws in the State of Serbia were adopted on 30 April 1941: the Legal Decree on Racial Origins(Zakonska odredba o rasnoj pripadnosti)"

I googled and I found no such laws adopted in Serbia. But I found that an antisemitic race law, with the exact same name (Zakonska odredba o rasnoj pripadnosti), was adopted on the exact same date (30 April 1941) in the Independent State of Croatia, approved and signed by the Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic (see The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia). So this wrong information should be deleted, since it claims these were Serbian antisemitic laws, when in fact they were Croatian antisemitic laws

It seems the correct information is that on May 30 1941 the German Military Commander in Serbia issued The Regulation Concerning Jews and Gypsies (Verordnung Betreffend Die Juden Und Zigeuner), which determined who is considered Jewish and Gypsy. This German law excluded Jews and Roma from public and economic life, their property was seized, they were obliged to register in special lists (Judenregister and Zigeunerlisten) and for forced labor. In addition, the order prescribed the obligatory wearing of yellow tape for Jews and Roma, prohibited them from work in public institutions and professions of lawyers, doctors, dentists, veterinarians and pharmacists, as well as visits to cinemas, theaters, entertainment venues, public baths, sports fields and green markets (for more information, including links to the original German documents see: http://www.starosajmiste.info/sr/logor-na-sajmistu/istorija-logora)Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Serbia was the Nazi genocide against Jews and Romani during World War II in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia

How come that the genocide is stated "only" against Jews and Roma if there were at least ten times more serbian victims than any other? Only in Jasenovac there are more than 842.000 corpses and human remains left of slaughtered civilians, 95 % of them are SERBIAN civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.65.221 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead

@OyMosby: I'm assuming good faith here, but I was just trying to undo the changes of blocked sockpuppets and to expand the lead. I didn’t remove the collaborators, but put them in the lead twice. Other occupied territories also had collaborators, so they are not mentioned many times in the lead on the Holocaust article (The Holocaust in Poland, The Holocaust in Latvia...). The key Holocaust perpetrators in Serbia were the German Nazis, that should be unequivocally explained. This version is WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This introductory paragraph is not supported by the sources and main content of the article. Collaborators have historical significance in Serbia, but not as much as the Germans. As I have already said, they have already been mentioned two times. Quite simply, тhey played less important roles, not a supreme authority. Nazi ideologues were not a mainstream phenomenon in Serbia. You can suggest a new version, so we can agree with other editors on consensus, but we have to follow the rules. If you need any help, please don't hesitate to contact me. All the best.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB this may be a good idea. I cannot at the moment but will revisit with more. However I don’t see how it is “IDontLikeIt” as it is all sourced and pulled from the article. From the joint operation of a camp, to the support received by Milan Nedic and his government and the Serbian Volunteers Corp. it would be “IDontLikeIt” not to include this. The intro definitely doesn’t equate Serbian collaboration as on par with the invading Nazis. If it did than that would be highly problematic and weight. Milan Nedic’s regime was more than what existed in Poland or Latvia. That comparison would downplay Nedic and his government. They jointly ran a concentration camp after all. Again I will have to come back with more time to suggest any modifications to the intro. Also what some editor did doesn’t automatically cancel out RS sources or validity of edits. OyMosby (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Very biased and (intenionally?) poor article

How come that "German-occupied" attribute is used in title of Holocaust in Serbia and not in Independent state od Croatia? Serbia had same puppet govermenet as ISoC (as stated in several WP articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_National_Salvation), and ISoC was under same German/Italian occupation as Serbia. To me, it seems biased and leaves an impression that Serbians had no connection with the Holocaust. Actually the whole article is biased. In one place it says "...Nazi murdered approximately 14,500."(Jews). Only Nazis, not Serbian State Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_State_Guard)? In second place it says: "Thousands of Serbian Jews were saved with the help of Serbian civilians." How come when same article states that "..almost all 11,000 Belgrade Jews." were killed, and "Of the Jewish population of 16,000 in Serbia Proper, the Nazis murdered approximately 14,500.". So where are the thousands saved by "...the help of Serbian civilians."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geranoll (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

a) the NDH was a puppet state, occupied by the Axis, whereas Serbia was under a government of military occupation with a puppet government. They were significantly different types of occupation. b) the article is in a fairly poor state, why don't you get some reliable academic sources together and start improving it? c) I have rm the claim from the lead and tagged the online news source claim as dubious. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
a) even though Serbia was not recognizes as sovereign state, it had all atributes of one:
- government
- president of the government
- police
- army
- flag, coat of arms, anthem
Fields where serbia had no influence (foreign policy) was not relevant for extermination of Jews (i.e. this article). What is significant difference between two entities in relation to Holocaust?
Both entities (ISoC and Serbia) were created in territorial scope and by will of occupators. Even though camp Sajmiste was offically on territory of ISoC (on the very border with Serbia) it was run and financed by Serbia (Milan Koljanin, 1992, Nemacki Logor na Beogradskom Sajmistu 1941-1944, page 72-96). That says enough on ISoC sovereignity. Even you say: "The NDH was a Axis quasi-protectorate until September 1943, then a quasi-protectorate of Nazi Germany after the Italians folded until the end of the war. Without Axis occupation forces, it would have quickly collapsed from the outset. Countries that cooperated with Nazi Germany before being invaded and occupied (like Hungary and Bulgaria) are a completely different beast from the NDH, which was basically an Axis construct."
b) I have no interest in editing WP articles. I am exploring this subject, and reading in parallel Croatian, Serbian and English WP in order to get complete insight. I was surprised how biased many articles are on all sides. But was really disapointed by English version where I expected most objectivity. And it is all true I guess, but intentionally emphasizing some facts with ones, and minimizing with others is not ok.
c) Thank you. These number guestimations remindend me on total Serbian population estimation on Serbian WP. One editor thinks that population is 13-14 mil, another thinks 10-11 mil. Finally they agreed on 12-13 mil, but stating that this number depends on how many Serbs really are in the world :) Geranoll (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
a) is incorrect, all but fringe sources put it in a completely different category from the NDH. For example, the Ustashas rounded up and killed Jews off their own bat, in occupied Serbia the Holocaust was initiated by the Germans, although the SDS and others helped them. It did not have an army, the SDS was a gendarmerie and was completely under the control of the German HSSPF for most of the war. By the time it was placed under Nedic, nearly all of Serbia's Jews were already dead. If you are not going to edit, there is no point in discussing this further with you. Someone will get around to fixing this article eventually. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
So even though you think that NDH was an Axis construct, wich would have collapse without occupation forces, you don't think that it shouldn't be corrected to "Holocaust in Axis occuppied Independent State of Croatia"?Geranoll (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I've read it. Maybe you should read it too, because who ever edited this article had intetion of reducing Serbian responsibility and participation in Holocaust, visible from the fact that attribute "ocuppied" is not used in title of any other article about Holocaust on the WP (i.e. Poland, Belgium...), and statements like one that Serbian civilians have saved thousands of Jews. And yes, people interested in the subject read Talks too, so discussing have point. Have a nice day man.Geranoll (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Geranoll: and @Peacemaker67: per title “German-Occupied Serbia” isn’t necessarily the official title of the territory but a description no? Would be fair to say German-Italian Occupied NDH (Independent State of Croatia) as Territory of the Military Commander isn’t used. Just a quick comment in terms of occupation, according to sources and the Nurnberg Trials themselves [In its judgment in the Hostages Trial, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal concluded that the Independent State of Croatia was not a sovereign entity capable of acting independently of the German military, despite recognition as an independent state by the Axis powers.[1] According to the Tribunal, "Croatia was at all times here involved an occupied country".[1] The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide were not in force at the time. It was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and entered into force on 12 January 1951.[2][3]] So while NDH had more free rign and eagerness for sure, the Croatian population and the territory they existed on were occupied and subjugated to a puppet state and regime installed by Germany and partly Italy. They did not vote in or erect themselves. Nedic’s regime was also quite eager to assist in the rounding up of Jews as well. So or opinions or views of how active the NDH were on their own or “proactive” or eager compared to others doesn’t mean much as what RS says otherwise. The extent of occupation by Axis forces was different for both regions obviously. With German Army having direct control of the Serbian territory, but as Peacemaker states, the Croatian territory was indeed still occupied and a Puppet State forcefully installed on it. But this would be more of a discussion fit for the Holocaust in NDH article talk page really.OyMosby (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion just deleting attribute "German occupied" from the title of this article would be sufficient, and would put this article in line with the rest of articles on this subject. I just want to emphasize how biased articles are when comparing Croatian/Serbian interpretation of events on English WP. Few examples: a) Serbs are somehow included as the victims of Holocaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia) even though Holocaust by definition is genocide of the European Jews. b) term genocide is constantly used for killings of the Serbs in NDH, while the term itself got today's meaning 3 years after WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Serbs_in_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia). At the same time Chetniks (Serbs) killngs are titled as war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetnik_war_crimes_in_World_War_II), even though volume of killings was significant (50.000-68.000) and their ideology explicitly says their goal is to create Homogeneous Serbia, what understood cleansing of 1.000.000 of Croats. Instead of victims term casualties is used. Also Chetnik killngs of Jews is refered to as "Crime against Jews" (not Holocaust, hm?) c) Chetnik (Serbs) killings in the WP article are justified as "... a reaction to the genocidal policy implemented by the Ustashas against Serbs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetnik_war_crimes_in_World_War_II#World_War_II), while the Chetniks, as practically terrorist paramilitary group on the territory of ISC (NDH), who killed 50.000-68.000 thousands of NDH citizens (of which 2/3 were civilians) at the very same time, was not mentioned not even once in article Holocaust in ISC (NDH) or article Genocide of Serbs in ISC as a factor in the ongoing events. Also not mentioned that Chetniks committed first "war crimes" between 8 and 15 of April 1941 (2 days before NDH is established and 4 months before Jasenovac), by killing 42 civilians (18 woman) and burning Croatian villages in Bosnia and eastern Herzegovina (officially territory of NDH) (source:https://projektvelebit.com/tri-razdoblja-cetnickih-zlocina-bih-1941-1945/).
Conclusion - I think that this kind of interpretation hides the fact that simultaneous killings on both sides deepened the national antagonism and increased madness in already mad environment, and can be summarized as Serbian POV. Geranoll (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Entirely disagree. It is Serbian POV that this was a state, which it clearly was not. The title is the way it is because it was not a state. The NDH was a state, even if it was a puppet state. Sure, there is some Serbian POV as it is currently written, but as I often say, Wikipedia doesn't write itself, and no-one is under any obligation to prioritise rewriting an article just because some account that doesn't edit themselves decides to make a comment on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: ok I will start editing. Can I start with removing attribute "German-occupied" from this article title? Reason: this attribute is not used in any other article on Holocaust in any other German-occupied country at that time. Geranoll (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is great that you are going to edit, but I oppose any change to the article title. Just because some other article titles are ahistorical, doesn't mean this one should be as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:TITLE. Existing title formulation is contrary to following title principles:
Conciseness – This title is longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Consistency – This title is not consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
There is even nice example: "The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject." Geranoll (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

this has been discussed ad nauseum regarding the German occupied territory of Serbia, and people have even been topic banned for going on about it. The article title is a minor matter compared to the content, I suggest you stick to that for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

So what is the better place to start than beginning? It is interesting how you invited me to edit, but when faced with arguments you change your way of polite and inclusive conversation to soft threats.Geranoll (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

a) I don't know if it's due to include Serb and Roma victims in the Holocaust in Croatia article, but as the NDH implemented Nazi German policies regarding Jews they also implemented their own racial laws against Serbs and Roma. Thus the Holocaust in that territory overlapped with the genocide of Serbs and Roma. Those groups were killed simultaneously in massacres and concentration camps.

b) You realize historians write about the past. And once a new term is coined, it is applied for past events if it fits their research. According to your logic, Nazi Germany couldn't have committed genocide against Jews or Roma, heck the Armenian genocide can't be termed as such either because all of that happened before the term genocide was coined. Huh? The casualties on the Chetniks war crimes page is somewhat vague, because it is "deaths caused by the Chetniks" (according to Geiger) which would include massacres but also for example deaths incurred during battle. The death toll would be likely be lower if it only included victims of genocidal killings. Concerns about that article though should be addressed there.

c) What it says is that the July 1941 uprisings were a reaction to the genocide of Serbs by the Ustashe, which it was. It was led by Partisans and Chetniks. It is only afterwards that many of those insurgents were integrated into Chetnik units. Mihailović's "cleansing" memorandum was in December 1941. The first massacre by the Ustashe was on 28 April 1941. The first massacre by the Chetniks according to the WWII war crimes page was in June 1941. The homepage of the website you linked to contains articles like this one negating the importance of Diana Budisavljević while presenting Ante Pavelić and the Croatian Catholic Church as saviors of Serbian children, written by Igor Vukić, a holocaust and genocide denier who wrote a book about how Jasenovac was a labour camp. It appears to be a Croatian right-wing site peddling misinformation and pseudohistory. Read WP:RS. --Griboski (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Look Geranoll, "new" editors turn up on these "WWII in Yugoslavia" pages on a daily basis carrying on like pork chops about whatever their POV is. That is why they are subject to discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. You have obviously been here before. How about you show that you can edit neutrally before you expect people here to prioritise responding to your comments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Griboski:These three points are here to describe how biased articles are.
a) Serbs and Roma victims can't be victims of Holocaust, because Holocaust by definition is genocide of European Jews. Serbs and Romas are indeed victims of Ustashas regime, but there was no racial laws against the Serbs and that is a fact.
b) I agree on the genocid term use in present. Having in mind my starting point of biased interpretation, term genocid is not equaly used in all articles. All sides involved had civil and battle victims, so not sure why Chetniks have special treatment when counting their killings.
c) I don't want to go into old argument hwo started first. My point was that Chetniks needs to be included in article about NDH and Ustashes killings, and Holocaust in Serbia beacuse they were significant factor in the events of the time. I am not sure what other articles webpage includes, but the article I am refering to is written by Zdravko Dizdar PhD, historian employed in Croatian Institute for History who was educated in Belgrad, Serbia among other places. I am in no way discussing history facts (deny or claim something). I am just talking about interpretation of facts/events on English WP.
@Peacemaker67: Exactly because I don't want to express my POV I've started discussion to reconsider my opinion. Since my last arguments on article title are not disputed, I will include change of title in my editing scope of this article. And please do not feel obliged to respond to my comments.Geranoll (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Your arguments ARE disputed. I have pointed out that the title would be inaccurate, because it would imply the existence of a country called Serbia, which there was not from 1918 to 2006, and this occupied territory had significantly different borders to any other Serbia that existed before 1918 or after 2006. It would also imply a scope of the Holocaust within the current borders of Serbia, which isn't the scope of this article, which is limited to the occupied territory only. It is not the same as the other articles like Poland, as Poland existed both before and afterward, Serbia did not. Frankly, it is also POV, because equating the NDH with Serbia is a common nationalist Croatian trope intended to equate the crimes of the Serbian puppet regime with those of the Ustashas in the NDH. If you move it, I will just revert you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
As I already told this has no connection with Croatian nationalism, but with WP title principles which are not disputed. Don't be so full of prejudice. Wait to see the edit, maybe you will like it. Geranoll (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Do not move the article without consensus achieved via a WP:RM. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I won't do anything without consensus. I am a legalist :). Just one more thing - your argument about Serbia existance is not valid because article deals also with Holocaust in Vojvodina and easter Syrmia which was not territory of German-occupied Serbia, but territory of today's Serbia. So obviously title is incorrect.Geranoll (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Half of Vojvodina was part of the territory (the Banat), the other half was Hungarian-occupied and is covered in Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories#The Holocaust. It was under a completely different occupation regime, and the material in this article is out-of-scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Article you are refering to is not from Holocaust group of articles. It mentiones Holocaust with 9 sentences, while articles we are talking about are dealing thoroughly with Holocaust in different countries. When saying article is out-of-scope, you are saying that article needs to be built around the title? Not around the subject? Even though title is in contrary to 4 out of 5 WP title principles? Wow.Geranoll (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Kill one-third, expel one-third and convert one-third was the policy towards Serbs, whether or not it was officially on the books. Reducing the scope of the Chetniks article to just genocide would mean removing crimes against Partisans, Jews as well the 50,000-68,000 death toll since not all of it was genocidal. It's also important to note the genocide view on the Chetniks is held by a minority of scholars. It doesn't mean it's not accurate of course, but it's different from the Ustashe situation where there is an abundance of research, particularly from more Western sources. If you have reliably published material from legit historians you can always add that information. Although as Peacemaker67 alluded to, there is a POV that seeks to equate the Nedić regime with the NDH and Chetniks with Ustashe. That website is a great example as in some Croatian circles, the crimes of the Chetniks are emphasized and even overemphasized while Ustasha atrocities are downplayed and denied. There is also a kind of tit-for-tat type of editing on WP, which no one from the Balkans is immune to, but here it involves sometimes adding negative information about Serbian involvement in the Holocaust as counter balance to the NDH. Sometimes it is due, other times it's just looking for it when there is none. I originally found myself more or less agreeing with you that the title should be The Holocaust in Serbia per the other articles, though WP:TITLE isn't all that helpful on this and Peacemaker who probably knows more about these subjects than anyone here, disagrees. So I'm more neutral on it. --Griboski (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Griboski I agree with you related to Chetniks and their Partisans and Jews victims. But since their agenda had genocidal charactheristics (e.g. systematical killings, burning down villages and catholic churches with intention to reduce and cleanse certain population from certain area) it should be addressed properly. I don't want to turn this talk to discussion on who is more guilty, particular events, or trying to equate the Nedić regime with the NDH and Chetniks. There is actualy already some papers which summarizes diferences and similarities between the two, written by Serbian author, and I think they give good insights. I've just noticed how detailed articles about Holocaust in other countries (NDH) are made in comparison to Serbia. In example Jajinci site, place next to Beograd, where 65.000 - 80.000 people is killed, is not mentioned at all. I will try to neutrally edit article with focus on Holocaust which would be the very point of the article. And thank you for your neutral suppport :) Geranoll (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be at Holocaust in Serbia, for the very reasons I have alluded to above. It would change the scope of the article, as it would then be about the Holocaust in modern Serbia (which didn't exist before or after the war, or at the time, and would therefore be ahistorical) and would have to cover the Holocaust as perpetrated by the five different annexation/occupation regimes that were in place in the territory of the modern country. The current scope limits the scope to what what done by the Germans and their Serbian helpers in the territory they controlled (which is easily a big enough scope as it is), and excludes what happened in the bits of modern Serbia that were annexed or occupied by Bulgaria, Albania, the NDH and Hungary. It is well-focussed and notable in its own right. There are already articles for the Holocaust in Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary and the NDH the scope of which includes the areas of modern Serbia they annexed or occupied. However, if you want to write a summary article about the Holocaust in modern Serbia, go right ahead. Just not here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I don’t think Geranoll is at all trying to equalize the extent of Crimes between the Occupied Croatia and Occupied Serbia. They need to look at better sources however and be willing to put in some effort in editing. Also to be fair, there was never a consensus to change the title of this article from in Serbia to in German-Occupied Serbia a month ago as was done by an editor as a knee-Jerk reaction to the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia page not being changed to just Croatia. A clear example fo tit for tat editing that happens on Wikipedia. And a number of editors were against this change and had no say or chance to vote in a RfC. Also German-Occupied Serbia can still mean Serbia the country being occupied. As Poland the country was occupied as well. So it doesn’t really tell the reader by the title that Serbia didn’t exist. It was simply the Territory of the Military Commander of Serbia tht was controlled by Nazi Germany directly installing puppet governments to carry out their orders.
Also let us not make this discussion revolve around problems with Croatian Ultranationalist POV pushing on Wikipedia (which is absolutely a problem of course) however Serbian Ultranationalist POV pushing is also an issue. Another side of the coin. As was stated earlier that some of the article is written in Serbian PoV.I don’t see how fringe right wing Croatian groups trying to downplay NDH crimes or equate them to Chetniks has to do with this discussion as I don't see where Geranoll is doing this. So this is odd to keep seeing brought up. Though there is also a tendency I have seen on Wikipedia to highlight and amplify crimes by NDH or Croats in PoV edits at times as “nationalist point scoring” or “getting even” and using the fact that one was worse than the other, then the lesser evil can be downplayed or not really discussed. As Peacemaker stated NDH was a installed puppet state that would crumble without Axis forces proping them up but there are thos POV editors that want to give the impression that Croatia existed, decided to align with Germany and as a whole Nation began the Holocaust or push this angle as far as they can get away with. Despite the Nurnberg trials concluding the Croatian territory was an occupied territory throughout the war. We are here to go by the facts and let the readers form their own options and judgements themselves.
Griboski is right as in Balkan articles there is a lot of tit for tat editing where for example one article about Albanian crimes is added to and then an article about Serbian crimes is followed up and added to for example. But lets not act like there isn’t also Serbian Nationalist POV pushing to exacerbate Croat collaboration crimes and minimize Serbian Collaboration because it was to a lesser extent and much less independent. Even on these articles sometimes adding negative information about Croatian involvement in the Holocaust as counter balance to new information about Serbian involvement in the Holocaust obviously not being as extreme as the Ustashe (Croatian Fascists). However often when the spotlight is placed on Serbian collaboration during WWII quickly distraction accusations of “trying to equalize NDH and Nedic’s Regime” is made cleverly to make it then impossible to edit or discuss Nedic and Serbian collaboration. Peacemaker made a good point on this article’s page calling out a Serbian Source claiming “Serb civilians saved thousands of Jews” despite this conflicting that almost all Jews were exterminated from the Serbian territory. Peacemaker also points out that some of the article is written from a Serbian POV. Nothing new really as it is a never ending job to fix all of this. And as of late there has been a big uptick in new Balkan editors and POV warriors.
@Geranoll: you should have approached this page more humbly as a new user, as you came across with this sort of commanding attitude expecting other editors to fix perceived issues. You also need to us Reliable Sources (RS) that aren’t POV driven themselves. Peacemaker67 is extremely busy as are most of us. And Peacemaker is probably the most neutral editor in the Balkan-Wiki-sphere. So I trust his judgement and often I go to him for second opinions and advice which he kindly take time out of his day to do and I greatly appreciate that. And I agree articles dealing with Chetnik and Serbian Axis Collaborative articles are lacking with those trying to downplay complicity. Despite a number of authors and historians concluding that Chetniks waged genocide against Croats and Bosniaks, there are editors who still deny and want it stricken from articles (and still try to paint Chetniks is this major anti-Fascist heroes despite them carrying out minimal anti-fascist activities). Often quoting their favorite author McDonald who is the only author to deny Chetnik Genocide but also denies to label Ustashe Crimes as Genocide interestingly enough. So I don’t seem him being quoted as much as of late. There are even those from far right fringe groups that try to paint Chetniks as bigger anti-Fascists than Partisan and as some diverse group inclusive to Bosniaks and Croats. Peacemaker has actually made massive improvements to the Chetnik article despite blowback by some Serbian editors. So do not think for a second he has any pro Serb POV interests.
This article used to be worse. Avoidance in mentioning Nedic’s regime jointly running the Banjica Concentration camp. Attempts to pint him as a hero doing what he could to save refugees despire his regime deemed eager to help round up Jewish civilians as RS such s Isreal point out. There was an editor on Wikipedia who even point blank told me that not one Jew was harmed by Serb collaborators. I was baffled. Look at the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia talk page if you’d like your blood pressure to spike and blood run cold. The Balkan Battleground mentality on here makes one want to just walk away from Wikipedia. OyMosby (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
All Sadko did was move the article to an unambiguous title, and I support it. The scope of the article has been the Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia for over ten years. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That’s the same as changing the title... I was simply saying that there wasn’t a consensus to change the long standing title. Which you were requesting the new editor to do. Whether it was changed to a perceived better title or not. And I was stating it as an example of tit for tat as Griboski was mentioning. Griboski and AmeniusBalkanus being some users who disagreed with the “German-Occupied Serbia” change. I personally am neutral to the title of this article at this point. As you and I discussed this long ago anyway. Where you agreed an RfC should have been made before changing the title to begin with. Just because you agree with Sadko doesn’t mean overall consensus from other users was reach or are not relevant correct? I was surprised it was allowed without an RfC as was being done on the Holocaust in ISC talk page. Where you disagreed with changing to just Croatia. But surely if a person just changed it to Croatia and another usee agreed that wouldn’t be alright would it? It’s the principle of it is all. I understand your point bout differentiating the specific territory then article talks about and all. I understand your point. I don’t disagree with you. I agree with you! OyMosby (talk)<
There are two things at play here: a) editors who want to change the scope of the article (often for POV reasons), and those who want to change the article title (often for POV reasons). I'm a patient man, but I'm frankly sick to death of the POV pushing and am going to start issuing DS notices and reporting people at AE if it doesn't stop. As far as I am concerned the title and scope are correct and appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
And once again you surprised me Peacemaker. As I neither am trying to change the scope of the article or the title. But you and Griboski are free to report me for whatever reason. Not sure what I did to you or rules I broke here on Wikipedia. Heh, and I was defending you in this thread as being neutral and judgement I ultimately trust. Wasn’t trying to fight you on anything and i was reprimanding the new editor too. I’m a patient man as well And recent life events taught me more so and sick and tired of the pov pushing bull as well on here as we both agreed in past discussion. but I think I am the least of your worries for “POV pushing” as I don’t know what POV I am pushing on this thread. Guess I did something. Is disagreeing on a talk page a reportable offense? Yes go ahead and report me of all people to AE. I actually reached out to you in helping with articles in need of work given your workload. Maybe re read my responses more carefully that you responded to. Have a good day. Bye OyMosby (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that RfC about name change had to be held. Editor Sadko in similar RfC was for article name "The Holocaust in Croatia" and here is for "The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia", if nothing else it would be interesting to see answer in this RfC. By approving its renaming the article without wider consensus and RfC procedure actually support his inconsistent editing in this case. Mikola22 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not a RfC, it is a WP:RM. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean WP:RM procedure. Mikola22 (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see the point. The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia is the best and least POV title for that article, and The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia is the best and least POV title for this one. As far as I am concerned, Sadko got it wrong on the NDH one, and got it right here. No-one is right all the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
In this particular case of title change, I don't think it is POV matter as much as ego matter. I've noticed title "issue" by searching Holocaust on WP. So from a user's not editor's perspective. What is a little bit worrying is that I was indirectly labeled as Croatian nationalist when requested title change even though I had valid arguments. If I've noticed that section about Holocaust in Vojvodina is there just to put focus back on NDH, I would again be labeled as nationalist. So either title is incorrect, either article is out of scope. It seems that in editing on WP there is a lot of political negotiation. Anyway, this article title is not that important thing in life, so I won't insist on it anymore. And best thing is, Peacemaker67 is already working on article, and thank you for your effort Peacemaker67. Sorry if I was rude to anyone. Geranoll (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, I would also be for "The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia" but I'm talking about Wikipedia procedure and playing with Wikipedia of experienced editor. I don't think that was in good faith. But this is not the place and the time, let's move on. Mikola22 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Sorry for this long comment but I want to be as clear and detailed and well understood as possible. Please read my response carefully and keep in mind my best intentions. I am not looking to violate AE or anything. The POINT is fairness, consistency and following WP:RM. Example should be set for those new editors. Regardless if we think they are wrong or write in the change they want to make. I have to agree with Mikola that consensus should have been sought regardless of personal strong views or if we known what the best title should be. Unless I am missing a major piece of the puzzle here.... You told the new user “ Do not move the article without consensus achieved via a WP:RM” yet you were fine with that being skipped a few months ago when “The Holocaust in Serbia” was changed to “The Holocaust in German-Occupied Serbia”. You get what I mean now? If you are expecting the other user to garner consensus to change the title of a page then Sadko should also have done so being that he and yourself are big on there being consensus before such edits. Regardless if one thinks the title is proper or not. And I believe Sadko had good intentions and thought they were doing what was right or seen as obvious to them or you. I get it. As per WP:RM, it states that if there is opposition then a consensus should be reached. Especially given that a number of editors during the Holocaust in ISC title change RfC took umbrage with Sadko’s Title change For Holocaust in German-Occupied Serbia (Which a Serbian editor even called out as a knee-jerk reaction and WP:POINT), these editors being Croatian, Serbian and other editors. That was simply the point. The way it was done. Also “German-Occupied Serbia” can also be interpreted as a Serbian POV pushed by some to downplay any collaboration or guilt by Serbian collaborators and their crimes and complicity and put it all on the German Army as some POV warriors have done before in talks. Not saying the person who changed the title did it for this reason but just a counter to your claim that calling it “Holocaust in Serbia would be a Serbian POV pushing to recognize Serbia being a country when it wasn’t. It can go both ways. Again at this point I don’t care what the title now is as I trust your judgement Sadko didn’t start the RfC on the Holocaust in ISC it was another user. And no need to bring him up as he/she is not my or Mikola’s point so I don’t understand this continuous defensiveness on Sadko’s behalf. We are talking about the way this was all done in general being against WP:RM which says contentious changes should seek consensus, which wasn’t followed. And I’m sure you would ask for consensus if they changed it on their own straight up. As none of us are perfect and your own judgement can be wrong as well. As you said “No-one is right all the time”. So it is possible your agreement with the name change on this article could have been incorrect. You are not infallible nor have the lone final say on matters correct? Despite that I value your opinion and insight the most out of the Balkan editors on here. I’m not commenting on what the title should be but the inconsistency of one page going through consensus to change a title but not this page because you happen to agree with Sadko can skip obtaining consensus because you happened to personally agree with him. It ignores alL the other editors’ inputs. There should have been an RfC to gain consense to change the title in the first place. My only issue here. Few months back we discussed this same matter on your talk page and you agreed that Sadko should have sought consensus before the Title change as part of Wikipedia practice whether you happen to like his edit or not. I’m confused why now you disagree. Though we squared it away. Because if an editor makes an edit that I support and you don’t like, I’m sure you would take issue not accepting my response of “well I think it’s right so end of story” which is how this comes across. Just two editors agreeing isn’t consensus no matter how common sense the title change may appear for you. Just to be painfully clear I’m not asking to change the title or article at this point in time. Hope I was more clear this time than before. As this is the best I can explain. There are many different subject discussion happening at once here so I get your frustration. But this was my only topic of gripe. I don’t want to waist more of your or mine time on this. As I know you are busy and and lately as you know so am I though this does help me get my mind of things. So goodbye. OyMosby (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think in this case this is being unduly bureaucratic, because it is so obviously the right move. I see no current consensus opposing the move on WP:ARTICLETITLE policy grounds, only on the basis that it was not done as an RM (or possibly on some marginal POV angle that defies logic and should be given short shrift). RMs are only necessary if the move is actually legitimately disputed, not because someone wants to be disruptive, overly bureaucratic, or make a point. Sadko was WP:BOLD, and I see no issue with it because it was actually an appropriate move. "The Holocaust within the borders of modern Serbia", titled as "The Holocaust in Serbia" is certainly a notable topic, but it would have a much larger scope as I have explained above, and this isn't the article for that, this article has been about The Holocaust in the territory occupied by the Germans between 1941 and 1944 for over ten years, and I see no justification whatsoever for changing its scope, and a whole bunch of reasons not to. Editors should feel free to create a "The Holocaust in Serbia" article covering the entirety of the territory of modern-day Serbia if they so choose, I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. What isn't covered here then should technically be covered in the Holocaust in the NDH, Holocaust in Hungary and Holocaust in Bulgaria, if not already. There wouldn't be enough for a standalone article. --Griboski (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it would be covered in those articles, perhaps not in as much detail as it might be in a "Holocaust in Serbia" article, but if someone wanted to expand on the relevant sections of those articles in one about what happened in the territory of modern-day Serbia, that would be entirely ok as far as I am concerned, and frankly would be a relevant article in a "History of Serbia" topic. It would be legitimate, wouldn't be a POV fork, and would assemble all of the Holocaust that occurred in the modern state in one article. No doubt there has been academic work examining the Holocaust in the whole of modern-day Serbia which would support such an article. However, I personally think the WWII geopolitical entities should be the ones used for Holocaust articles, because it is much more clearly defined. On the basis of the Holocaust in Poland article, it is clear from not everyone agrees with me, because I would separate the German-annexed areas of Poland from the General Government when it comes to the Holocaust, as they were under quite different political and administrative structures and the division would make the articles more manageable and things clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think many people coming to this article would be looking for info on the Holocaust in all of Serbia, therefore I suggest, per USHMM, Holocaust in other parts of Serbia also be covered, even if they’re partly covered elsewhere. Thus following sub-sections should be added, similar to Banat (which although part of German-occupied Serbia, was entirely run by local German minority): (1) Holocaust in Hungarian-occupied territory, (2) Holocaust in NDH-occupied territory, (3) Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied territory, (4) Holocaust in Italian-Albanian-occupied territory. Perhaps all these latter could be added under a common heading of "Holocaust in rest of occupied Serbia" Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The scope of this article should just be the area under German occupation and subject to their policies. That is enough for one article. Your idea would require multiple sections covering the Holocaust in areas annexed occupied by the Germans, Hungarians, Bulgarians, NDH and Albanians. If you want to create a summary article with that scope, go right ahead, but I strongly oppose any attempt to make this article into that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I may do that, with links to this article on more detail for the Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia. All other WP “Holocaust in…” articles deal with the entire, common geographic entities, not sub-entities, as you state in the case of Poland, same for France (Vichy, plus German- and Italian-occupied areas), etc. There’s an article on the Holocaust in Serbia by Milan Ristovic, cited in Israeli, which takes same tack of entire geographic area, broken down by occupation zones, plus Tomasevich and the USHMM discuss these other zone, alongside German-occupied area, so there’s sufficient source materialThhhommmasss (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Deutschland Military Tribunal 1950, pp. 1302–03.
  2. ^ "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (PDF). United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. Retrieved 27 April 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". United Nations Treaty Series. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2020.

Page 87?

@Peacemaker67: I don't see the latest information on the page 87, or I have to buy glasses? Probably this information is from some other page? Mikola22 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good pick-up. It is in the Abstract. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I read, read but could not find information on that page, and edit violates copyright rule? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I could find it, so I don't know what you are looking at. It isn't a copyvio. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit of editor RuStr12 "In reality some forms of anti-Semitism had existed in Serbia for decades, they were marginal and widely considered as extreme, without any significant public support. Anti-Semitic narratives and propaganda, later followed through legislation, and were imported into Serbia, mostly from Nazi Germany and under its political and economic pressure." I thought that copyvio was the problem. But now when I read Abstract I can't find these parts "without any significant public support".
  • From source: "ABSTRACT: The paper analyzes the historical context, content, and aims of the organized anti-Semitic propaganda and legislation in the final year prior to the occupation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and in occupied Serbia. Both direct and indirect anti-Semitic orders and decrees have been thoroughly analyzed, while the propaganda has been gleaned from the writings of influential daily newspapers, magazines, and journals, and special events such as the Great Anti-masonic (1941) and Anti-communist exhibition (1942). An attempt has been made to show the predominant role of the German factor in both legislation and propaganda, although the responsibility of the local authorities is also discussed. The paper derives its information from research mainly done on primary historical sources such as the official decrees of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the German military commander in Serbia, and Milan Nedić’s Government, as well as the influential press published at the time."[2] Mikola22 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Good grief! If you click on the link there is an abstract by ResearchGate at the top! It is drawn from that. In any case, I have just looked at the authors and they are both PhD candidates, and it doesn't appear to be published in a journal, even online, so I don't think it qualifies under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've a mind to remove it, there are scholarly books and journal articles that cover this stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
If this help [3][4] Journal is from Serbia, Belgrade, "Istorija 20. veka". But we should use the source from page 85 to 104. This Abstract from above (ResearchGate) should not be used. Mikola22 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Theoretically, but the publication does help the fact that they don’t even have their PhDs. For a subject as controversial as this, we need better sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears that the text was initially copied, later paraphrased, from the Conclusion on page 100, not the abstract. Currently referenced that way. That does not address whether the document was published in a journal. David notMD (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The same exact information was added under "notes" but cited to Hehn (1971) and Pavlowitch (2002). --Griboski (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It is apparent that it was published in Istorija 20. veka, Issue 2 of 2019 (History of the 20th Century), which says it subjects articles to an editorial review and two independent external reviews[5]. I am just wondering if the academic status of the authors makes it a bit marginal? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There many concerns about the status Istorija 20. veka as RS. It is a publication which has quite a few of the external characteristics which define RS, but heavily engages in historical revisionism and fringe theories. From a paper which was published in 2018 in IV about Ljotić: Without wanting to join Ljotić’s apologists, we think that the reality was much more complicated than the picture offered by leftist propagandists, ideologues, historians and sociologists. Ljotić’s vision of WWII and his role in it were, no doubt, determined by Ljotić’s ideological worldview. However, it does not follow from this irefutable fact, that he was a quisling of common variety who collaborated with the occupiers for ideological or selfish reasons, i. e. that he has „put himself in the service of the occupiers“. Ljotić, as well as his cousin, General Nedić, had started collaborating with the occupational authorities in order to preserve the Serbian people. This would never get published in a journal outside of Serbia.

(Side comment: Its publications have so many grammatical mistakes that I'm not at all sure that they go through even a basic review before getting published. It's not limited to this particular journal - many journals in the Balkans claim to have a peer-review process only in order to provide to international readership a façade of academic legitimacy) --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. OK, I think the combination of the lowly academic status of the authors, the fact that according to the article itself the research project is funded by the Serbian government which itself has highly revisionist policies, and the above, indicates that it isn't suitable for an article of this sensitivity. I'm removing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the source be completely removed from the article then? If it's not good enough for one piece of information, it shouldn't be for another either. I'm sure better sources exist for both pieces of information. If it's unreliable, then it's unreliable. --Griboski (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that Springer or de Gruyter published a few years ago a volume about the Holocaust in the Balkans. I may have access to the papers, but I'll have to check it. You're right about that Griboski.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly the Nedic quisling authorities and the Ljotic-led Zbor engaged in antisemitic propaganda, and there are indeed other sources which confirm it (Jovan Byford, Raphael Israeli, etc). There is already a sentence in the article – “[Zbor] was very active organization that published a large quantity of extreme anti-Semitic literature“. Where this has become contentious is in the nationalistic Serb-Croat disputes, where both sides tried to use the Holocaust to paint entire nations, i.e. Croats or Serbs, as genocidal. On the Serb side Milan Bulajic and others misused the Holocaust for such purposes as described by Byford [6] (p. 147-). On the Croat side writers like Ljubica Stefan and others misrepresented facts to paint Serbs as a whole as anti-Semitic and genocidal. Historians like David Bruce McDonald state that Phillip J. Cohen (cited here and in other articles) also fell into these propagandistic disputes.
While on quick glance I see nothing contentious in the specific cited source, I think Cohen - a non-historian, dentist and aid worker - should not be cited as a reliable source. There are much more reliable sources on these matters, who do not verge into propaganda. Same with Milan Bulajic, who is not listed among References for Holocaust in the ISC, but is listed in Sources. He is not a reliable source, particularly when the publisher is given as Milosevic's Ministry of information of Serbia, as for his 1992 book, which is pure propaganda. Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's not get too hung up about what DBM says about Cohen, the range of views on Cohen's book are available at his page, including both positive and negative ones. DBM is also controversial, not the least because he reckons there weren't any genocides in occupied Yugoslavia in WWII, which is quite an outlier of an opinion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The point is there are much better sources than Cohen. There’s a whole series of authors, particularly active during the Serb-Croat propaganda wars of the 90’s, who directly or indirectly made claims of the fascist, criminal or even genocidal nature of Croats or Serbs, which is racist nonsense, and they should be avoided. At the very least, they presented very one-sided, very biased views, e.g. claiming that the Nazi puppets Nedic and Ljotic – who per Tomasevich had only minimal support among Serbs (Ljotic never got more than 1% of votes pre-WWII) - are representative of most Serbs. This is same as those who claim that the Ustashe and Jasenovac are representative of most Croats, so in that respect Cohen is quite similar to Bulajic. Both sides also played numbers games – it appears Cohen falsely underrepresented Serb participation in the Partisans, and AFAIK totally ignores the tens-of-thousands of Serbs in Serbia shot in reprisal for Partisan actions by the Nazis, plus tens-of-thousands more Serbs they sent to Nazi concentration camps, etc. Again similar to how Bulajic inflated Jasenovac victim numbers and ignored Croat participation in the Partisans
With reliable authors, like Tomasevich and others, having written extensively on occupied Serbia, Serb quislings and the Holocaust in Serbia, I see no reason to cite authors like Cohen, nor Bulajic on the NDH. On the specific issue of antisemitic propaganda promoted by the quisling authorities and Ljotic’s Zbor, that is a fact, described by reliable sources, but it is total misrepresentation to try to paint this as part of some broad-based Serb antisemitism, which again Cohen seems to be trying to do, when per Tomasevich there was relatively little antisemitism in pre-war Yugoslavia. Tomasevich does what all good historians do, as opposed to propagandists - he provides context, instead of martialing only selective facts, while distorting and ignoring others, to make a case Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
We use sources for what they say. If Cohen says something that other authors do not say, because he did that particular piece of research, then I use him for that. I also use him to reinforce other sources where they agree (which happens a lot). The claims you've made about Cohen aren't accurate. For example, don't believe what Mirkovic says about his stats about Serb Partisans, Cohen is only quoting a figure drawn from the 1978 work of Ivan Jelić, Hrvatska u ratu i revoluciji, 1941–1945 [Croatia in War and Revolution, 1941–1945], he doesn't claim the figures as his own calculations. And he doesn't ignore the Serbs shot in reprisal by the Germans. He doesn't downplay Serb deaths, but his focus is on other aspects, particularly the area of anti-Semitism in the puppet administration and its role in the Holocaust, including the dubious attempts to align Serbia with Israel). He is directly relevant to this article. Have you even read Cohen? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t have his book, just read many citations from it, plus criticism of his work by other historians. Per Zerjavic, 82,000 Serbs were killed as Partisans just in the NDH (and nearly 4 times as many were killed as Partisans vs. Chetniks), compared it appears to 46,000 Croats. Per Tomasevich, Serbs constituted the majority of Partisans in Croatia proper until the Fall of 1943, where they were just 16% of the population. I’m sure Cohen must’ve known of at least Zerjavic’s writings. If Cohen, as does Tomasevich, clearly states that the pro-Nazi Nedic and Ljotic forces had minimal support among Serbs, that the Nazis were almost uniformly hated in Serbia, that there was relatively little antisemitism in pre-war Yugoslavia, or in Serbia, and that the Nazis repressed Serbia and Serbs much more harshly then Croats and Croatia (probably most harshly in all Europe, after only Soviets and Poles), then I have no argument with him. And I certainly agree on the criminal nature of Serb quisling forces whose main task, by far, was to kill antifascist Serbs
If on the other hand Cohen tries to leave the impression that Serbs were the Nazi's most loyal subjects and greatest anti-Semites, or anything even close to that, that’s falsification and propaganda, as his critics state. Someone who received an award from Tudjman for telling "the truth" about Serbia, as did Cohen, to me has all the credibility of someone who received an award from Milosevic for "telling the truth" about Croatia. Btw there is also much fact in Bulajic, since he was also a researcher, and even legitimate historians like Goldstein cite some of his research, while they also vigorously criticize him for his propaganda and distortions. My view is that Bulajic should be cited only through legitimate scholars, and by that I do not mean Barry Lituchy plus others who even today have very positive views of Bulajic. What's your view then on citing Bulajic? Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just spitballing. You don't know what Cohen says because you haven't read his book, but you are musing about it. Why? If Cohen... this, If Cohen... that. It is just nonsense. Didn't you read what I said about Cohen's stats on Partisans coming from Jelić? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So the historians who criticize Cohen are also just spitballing. And you did not answer about citing Bulajic Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Quite a few of them are criticising him from a Serb nationalistic POV, which significantly undermines their credibility. And why focus only on those that negatively reviewed the book? Like virtually all sources, there are those that don't like it, and those that do. Israeli and Hoare praise it, for example. Raising Bulajic is a blatant WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument you are using to indirectly undermine Cohen by placing him alongside Bulajic. If you want to have a discussion about Bulajic, then start another thread so we can concentrate on him, not this nonsense comparison you have drawn with Cohen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Serious scholars, who are no propagandists, state Cohen is a propagandist, so according to them he is at the very least controversial. One author states Cohen fails to make the distinction that the Ustashe exterminated Jews on their own, per their own race laws, with Nazi assistance (actually not quite true, the Nazis also exterminated about 20% of the Jews, vs the Ustashe 80%), as compared to Serbia where the Nazis did all the extermination, and the quislings provided some assistance. If one looks up genocide in Tomashevich’s index, he’ll find that he states the Ustashe committed 3 genocides - against Jews, Roma and Serbs - but does not state that Serb quislings committed genocide (I can’t find it now, but I saw similar distinction in Israeli). When one side committed genocide and the other did not, this is not some subtle, little nuanced difference. I’ll try to read his book, but if he fails to make this most obvious, core distinction, it’s like writing of the Bosnian war of the 90s and failing to state that the Serb side perpetrated by far the most crimes. If an author can’t make this obvious distinction, then for me he’s simple not credible, even if he’s “trying to set the record straight” by writing about Bosnian crimes, since these get very little attention compared to Serbian ones. If he goes further, tries to equate the two sides, or through some highly selective marshalling of facts, tries to make the case that the Bosnian side committed the greater crimes, that’s outright falsification. I’ll try to track down Cohen's book and see which is which, but scholars clearly indicate he’s controversial Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Just no. You are ignoring the scholars who say he's fine, emphasising those that don't. He might be controversial, so if he is being used for anything that might be challenged, we attribute him in-text per WP:BIASED. You keep saying, you'll try to read his book, then drawn conclusions even though you haven't. It just isn't credible, and I'm wasting my time discussing it with you. How can you discuss his book if you haven't read it, and only pay attention to those that criticise it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll comment more when I've read it. But since you read it, what's Cohen's bottom line on Ustase vs Nedic-Ljotic-ites, with respect to their roles in Holocaust, compared to what I cited per Tomasevich, including Tomasevich's views that Nedic-Ljotic-ites were very small minority Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Cohen isn't writing about the Ustashas, and when he mentions them it isn't to compare them to the Serb puppet administrations. Frankly, his critics don't like him pointing out the fascist elements of Serbian society before and during the war and the over-representation of those people in the puppet administrations etc. His critics claim he compares them, but Cohen doesn't do that. His observations about the history and actions of the Ustashas are completely mainstream, but they are not the subject of the book. Look at the title of the book, he is writing about the Serb puppet administrations, their involvement in the Holocaust, and their rehabilitation in modern Serbia. His observations about the members of the puppet administrations being pro-German, anti-semitic and anti-communist are echoed by Prusin. Prusin says they too an "extremely opportunistic" view of the Jewish question, regarding their own participation in the Holocaust as "unpleasant but unavoidable". Cohen just isn't that controversial, he just touches a raw nerve with Serbs because he examines things they are not comfortable about and undermine the rehabilitation processes that have been ongoing there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
There’s no question Nedic-Ljotic-ites were pro-German and antisemitic. But as I said one can write a very detailed, very factual book on the crimes and extremists on Bosnian side in 90s wars, yet without context leave a very misleading impression. Although Croatia and Partisans aren’t the main focus of his book, he makes explicit comparisons of Croat vs. Serb participation in Partisans in Croatia, to make case Croats were the greater antifascists. More reliable data shows more Serbs died as Partisans than did Croats in the NDH, so per his logic, Cohen has proven Serbs were the greater antifascists there. WWII quislings are main focus of his book, yet I see no such comparisons on quisling side. Someone could take similar tack, to point out that fascist, antisemitic Ljotic militia drew 10,000 volunteers, compared to fascist, antisemitic Ustase militia, with 70,000 volunteers. So per Cohen’s “Serbian fascism” chapter, they could write a “Croat fascism” chapter, and use this data to claim Croats were the greater fascists. From what I can see on Google books, my main beef with Cohen are chapters like “Serbian complicity in the Holocaust”, which imply collective guilt, particularly since he does not writef “Croatian complicity in Holocaust”, instead only talks of Ustase. Although book is about WWII, he only uses the term “genocide” for Serb 90s actions in Bosnia. He mentions Ustase crimes, but does not call these much greater Ustase genocides, genocides, unlike most historians. And so on… To me all this reveals bias and an agenda, which distorts the truth. It’s hard to avoid the impression that he’s trying to present Serbs as a whole as fascist, antisemitic and genocidal, similar to how Serb nationalists paint Croats Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
“ More reliable data shows more Serbs died as Partisans than did Croats in the NDH,” you have a source for this? You claim to be against Crot-Serb mud flingging but your comments seem more interested in focusing Croatian collaboration and dismissing Croatian antifascist fighting. As sources show accounting for the smaller Croat population to Serbs in Yugoslavia, Croats are over represented. Why is it a competition for who is the “greater anti fascists”? You seem enamored with portraying Croats the biggest fascist by these comments rather this claim of neutrality on the side lines. @Peacemaker67: is there validity to these metrics by Thhhommmasss? Or iust a case of pov? OyMosby (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to Zerjavic's figures, who has something like 80,000 Serbs killed as Partisans, vs 50,000 Croats (I'll get exact data) in the NDH (btw there were more Croats than Serbs in the NDH) I was not making any judgements, this was just my response to some of the nonsense Cohen peddles, where he tries to paint all Serbs as antisemitic, pro-Nazi collaborationists, and Croatians as antifascists. I happen to be part-Croat, and as such find attempts at Ustashe-apologia and Ustashe genocide-denial, particularly appalling, as do incidentally many Croats. In typical Balkan fashion, denial of crimes on one’s own side typically goes hand-in-hand with trying to inflate the crimes of the other side, and all nationalists do it. Thus many Croat nationalists who deny Ustashe genocides, also like to claim that the Serb quislings exterminated the Jews in Serbia, when reliable source like Tomashevich and others contradict this. These inflated claims are attempts to relativize what Tomasevich and others say were Ustashe genocides against Jews, Serbs and Roma. Unlike Balkan-nationalists who like to throw collective guilt, I'm only interested in the facts (e.g. in this article I deleted someone's claim that the concentration camps in Serbia were also Ustashe camps, by which they probably meant Sajmiste, which was on ISC territory, yet clearly a Nazi, not an Ustashe camp) Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
And the other half? Honestly, I couldn’t care less if you were Croat, Serb, German, Klingon, mix of all or whatever. That doesn’t mean one cannot have personal pov or biases. We all don’t read the same so sources. Peacemaker even showed you new ones you never saw. Life is an ever ongoing education. Alos number killed is not equal to number thy served. Tito was a self proclaimed Croat, fighting A Croat Ustashe leader and Serbian Chetnik leader who mostly collaborated with Axis forces against Tito and the partisans. Then there is Nedic too, a Serb. Are Croats in net more anti fascist by such logic? (NO) as that is a weird metric. (But if that is your point than we are in agreement) If your previous comment was simply making a point and not a view you are trying to push then all is well. By the way, once can be half Croat and biased towards the other half. One can be not Slavic at all and have a biased or picked team. You need not explain to me nationalist revisionism in the Balkans I agree with all you said about it being used to smear. I made that clear in another response so no need to repeat it. And there is a difference between all and some killing Jews. Some still counts. No matter how much more brutal the Ustahse were. As for Cohen I never read his boook theought. Peacemaker knows morenbabout him than I. However many Western scholars say his topic of WWII was pretty spot on. His focus on Serbs mainly is another story. Also any Croat stating Ustashe as not genocidal or vile while claiming Serb collaborators were worse is a moron. Or raised in a closed minded household. I blame Tudjman a lot for that. For todays idiots running about. Tomasevich is a great RS. He’s my main go to by the way. Cohen is not the the supreme source but not irrelevant either. However Serbian collaborators being much less brutal doesn’t mean to now make the mm seem overly innocent either. Lets not widen the gap for the sake of overcompensating or fear a nationalist will use it either. As Serb nationalists love to downplay Serbian collaboration or Chetnik genocidal acts and upplay Croatian Ustahse genocidal acts (such as claims of 700,000 Serbs being killed in Jasenovac) a lone. Yeah, I have seen some claim that. Just stick to cold hard secondary RS facts and all is good. But don’t let fear of nationalists now make you overcompensate by inadvertently downplay or upplaying the role of croat or serb collaborators also. Bear that in mind. Also let the readers decide how to take the information. Not use overly emotive language. As excessive use of quotes to describe first hand accounts in mss amounts would cause. Which many times direct witness quotes carry. Not an encyclopedia voice. Like some articles had. In the end we agree on most parts. And that nationalists weaponize collective guilt for demonizing the other, validating crimes or just dumb pride or just state pf denial. I get what you are saying there and why you may be apprehensive. But the “lesser evil” is still an evil. Even if they killed less, less brutal or less autonomy. I wrote a lot and edited. Am hoping I am being clear. I do not condone equalizing or justifying crimes. Just to put it out there. OyMosby (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding role of Serb collaborationists, I researched, wrote up what I found, referenced everything. If you have additional specific info from Reliable Sources let’s see it. And I do mean both reliable and specific, not generalities like what you quote from Perica, i.e.: “Milan Nedic and Dimitrije Ljotic ́ had cleansed Serbia of its sizeable Jewish population by deportations of Jews to East European concentration camps or killing them in Serbia”, which completely contradicts what authors like Tomasevich and others document, i.e. that no Serb Jews were deported to East Europe, but instead nearly all were killed by the Germans inside Serbia. Even Cohen writes “the responsibility of the German authorities in executing the “Final Solution” in Serbia has been well established” (Cohen, p. 63) . If you are claiming forces led by Nedic and Ljotic participated in the mass murder of Jews, let’s see the citations of when and where, how many victims, etc. Even if you are claiming less then that, let’s see specifics citations of Reliable Sources, when and where the specific crimes committed, etc. Otherwise per Tomasevich and other historians you are quoting completely misleading and false sources Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed completely. I will have to see where where I saw the information and if in fact it is a strong enough source. We are working on the same side,@Thhhommmasss:. CheersOyMosby (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In any case I think ugly role of collaborationist forces should be highlighted in a special section, while focusing on facts, so I was thinking of moving some existing stuff and adding more info, along these lines:

Role of collaborationist forces To help them fight the escalating, Partisan-led insurgency in Serbia, the German military established a quisling administration under general Milan Nedic, which per Tomasevich failed to gain the support of the Serb populace and was given very little authority by the Germans. The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia was entirely directed by the Germans, and the Germans did all the killing of Jews, but they were assisted in a number of ways by collaborationist forces. At German command, the local police registered Jews. Collaborationist units served as guards at the Banjica concentration camp where the Gestapo killed at least 382 Jews. Large-scale round-ups of Jews were carried out by the Germans, but collaborationist forces captured and turned over to the Germans 455 Jews who managed to escape these round-ups. Collaborationists also carried out antisemitic propaganda Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a whitewash and inaccurate. What sources would you be basing that on? If you are going to suggest an insertion of a para like that, cite it to reliable sources, or it is pointless. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thhhommmasss, you had once claimed to me that not a single Jew was killed by Serbian collaborators. Is this still true?OyMosby (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker - all the above is sourced in Tomasevich and others, and I will add citations. Example from Tomasevich (p.585): “The Germans carried out the Final Solution almost completely in Serbia and the Banat, even before this policy was formally announced. This was possible for two main reasons. First, Germany fully controlled these areas through occupation, and the destruction of the Jews could be carried out by German forces. Second the Communist-led resistance began in Serbia, and in the mass shootings of hostages in reprisal, The Germans included a large number of Jews held in concentration camps”.... "Nedic was not fully trusted by the Germans and he was mistrusted by most fellow Serbs, who in their unhappiness under foreign occupation blamed him for many things over which he had no control" (Tomasevich p. 185)..."Nedic headed a government whose powers were strictly limited...it was no more than a subsidiary organ of German occupation, doing part of the work of administering the country and keeping it pacified so that the Germans could exploit it with a minimum of effort" (Tomasevich p. 182). Tomashevich states that "Nedic's" gendarmerie and police were under the direct command of the Germans, and he had no control over them (p. 184), etc. Is Tomasevich "whitewashing"?


Ristovic states that the mass arrests of Jewish men were carried out by the Germans, and I’ve not seen a single source that provides evidence (e.g. where and when) the quisling forces participated substantively in these mass round-ups. Byford describes how Jewish women and children were rounded up – they were told to report to the Gestapo Judenreferat, from where the Germans took them to the Sajmiste concentration cams. If there is any reliably sourced, specific evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in hearing it and it should be included. I find unspecified broadsides, with claims of "whitewashing", to be very unhelpful. Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@OyMoysby - Israeli and others state the Nazis "monopolized" all the killing of Jews. Provide a single reliable source of evidence to the cotrary Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss - Sorry for late reply. I just recalled this page. Here is one source that lead memto believe otherwise “ During the Miloševic era in the 1990ms, the regime and Serb historians found it extremely important to win over eminent Yugoslav Jewish organizations and individuals for the idea of the joint Serbo-Jewish martyrdom. To accomplish it, Serbia had to falsify history by obscuring the fact that the Serb quislings Milan Nedic and Dimitrije Ljotic ́ had cleansed Serbia of its sizeable Jewish population by deportations of Jews to East European concentration camps or killing them in Serbia” [1] Now is this source valid or fringe. I leave it to you to decide. No sane person would compare NDH government and GNS government as equal in power, levels of autonomy or scale of violence. Of course not. But we mist be mindful that the lesser of the evils is still evil. And like Tudjman, Milosovic wanted to hide away the “bad” parts of history to keep or inflate moral. As you know Croats-Serbs often use crimes in history as a weapon to denigrate the other as savages or bloodthirsty brutes. Each group has shown to have some that are. Like any other country. Sigh.... Anyway, please take a look and I will try to find another source that wasn’t (Croatian of course) but is from outside the Balkansphere as I thought I recalled reading another. And let it be known I respect your mission to try to put all the truth that find out there. But using primary quotes as heavy as you do might be a bit overweighted. Secondary sources are more clinical and less emotive and usually neutrally worded though sometimes over the top words mad need fixing. After all encyclopedias should be just straight facts not news or story telling. Which sometimes I see articles written as. Example some pages will almost look overly dramatic about a King or other figure instead of just neutrally worded facts. Quotes tend to be the opposite of that unless being specifically popular or a quote that sparked an uproar. I think @Peacemaker67: would agree. OyMosby (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The main quotes I added were from secondary sources – Tomasevich and Browning. Only primary is German sources stating executions of Jewish males had nothing to do with Partisan uprising, but was just an excuse to “solve the Jewish question”. This I cited from a secondary source – Byford. Had I paraphrased instead of quoted same, don’t know that it would make it better. Actually, I also cited a primary collaborationist document, again via a recognized historian, on how thanks “to the occupier, we have freed ourselves of Jews”. Believe this is much more effective as a direct quote, instead of paraphrase. Are you suggesting that the dramatic "Serbien ist Judenfrei" quote be taken out, because it has in fact been purposefully misused by Croatian nationalists in the Serb-Croat propaganda wars to imply that the Serbs exterminated all the Jews? Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying you want to remove a quote because of your personal views on how they have been used and keep quotes you personally like? What uproar? Why is it dramatic but other quotes are not? Would you say those describing killings or camps are “dramatic”? Is the article stating “Serbs exterminated all the Jews” or is it somehow possible that one can be complicit in some of the killings? Are you so careful in the Holocaust in ISC article with quotes that may be used by Serbian nationalist potential to demonize Croats? I don’t really understand what you are getting at. Direct quotes in secondary sources are still direct quotes not analysis by the secondary source of said quote. I really don’t get this defensive nature of conversation. OyMosby (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: could you chime in with your thoughts on this? OyMosby (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m not for removing quotes, you’re the one making that case. I can easily paraphrase the primary quote of Germans saying they executed Jews to “solve the Jewish question”, and not in response to Partisan resistance. The primary quote of “freeing ourselves of Jews” in my view shows the ugly mentality of the Nedic administration, but I can easily paraphrase that too, to make it more neutral and make Nedic-ites look less ugly, if that’s what you're after. But since you're obviously against primary quotes, to be consistent, you no doubt also want to get rid of the “Serbien ist Judenfrei” quote. I personally have no objection to that quote, as long as there are others providing context, instead of misrepresenting it as is frequently done by Croatian nationalist writers. Or to ask you the question you asked me – are you only for quotes which confirm your own views, but against others? Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Ahhh nice try. But your mind game has a flaw. I didn’t specify a removal of any specific quote but your propensity to overuse primary quotes throughout these articles instead of analysis of such quotes and their validity, context and so on. You would use countless long witness quotes. Never did I say which ones or that they are all to be removed. If the “Serbien ist Judenfei” quote is presented without context of who said, why and for what reason. Where is the context? It would make no sense tossed in the article randomly. Never did I say it should be written in stone. I haven’t even looked up were it came from. Your obsession with this quote that I never brought up is odd. You clearly do object to the quote as you keep bringing it up despite I nor Peacemaker doing so. But do not object to other long logs of quotes used in many of these WWII articles. Quotes offering a more dramatic wffect than cut and dry facts you so claim to be the goal? Hmmm? I replied to you in good faith conversation, but you have not done so in return. You focus on this quote not my answer to your initial comment calling me out to begin with on another subject matter. And as suspected you turn my question of your selectivity on quotes on me yet I have not been the selective one. I mentioned no specific quotes. Just the weight of quotes in general without explanation from Secondary RS and also the overall abundance again of long dramatic quotes. I am referring not specifically to jut this article but the many you have been editing. But thanks for answering my question of “ are you only for quotes which confirm your own views, but against others?”, Thhhommmasss. You made the answer loud and clear for us all. ;) Good day. OyMosby (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw my only interest here is getting at the facts, since this has been the subject of intense Serb-Croat nationalistic propaganda wars, with lots of falsehoods generated by both sides. Some of the edits and comment on these articles seem intent on continuing same wars. To get to the facts I read more sources – Jasa Romano’s excellent work, cited by Tomasevich and others, detailed analyses of Serb quisling role by Branislav Božović, Zdenko Lowenthal’s book, even Cohen’s

All these sources agree that the Holocaust in occupied Serbia was an entirely Nazi-initiated and directed affair. On the subject of mass extermination of Jews in Serbia, even Cohen says this was done by the Nazis, and cites no instances where Nedic-Ljotic-ites killed Jews. Cohen does cite a book by Zdenko Lowenthal, published in 1957 in Yugoslavia, which states that Chetniks robbed and killed some Jews who hid in the countryside. Although Romano and Tomasevich do not mention same, Lowenthal’s cited witnesses sound credible, even if these killings, which may have totaled dozens of victims, were not the equal of the wholesale genocide of Jews perpetrated by Ustase and Nazis (Cohen fails to cite the same Jewish witnesses who state they survived only through broad assistance from local Serb populace)

On the mass round-ups of Jews, Cohen doesn’t have any specifics to add, and from all other sources it appears that mass round-ups of first Jewish men, and later of women and children, were accomplished by the Nazis commanding the Jews, on penalty of death, to self-report to certain locations, from where the Germans took them to concentration camps. None of the authors cite evidence of quislings playing a major role in the mass round-ups, however they did play a key role in capturing Jews who eluded the mass round-ups or escaped Nazi custody, with the 455 Jews cited by Romano likely being the minimum number they captured and turned over to the Nazis

The quisling Special Police also played the main role in registering Jews at Nazi command, as well as enforcing antisemitic Nazi restrictions before Jews were sent to concentration camps. Quislings spread antisemitic propaganda, with Ljotic-ites playing the main role, but Tomasevich also cites Chetnik antisemitic propaganda against the Partisans, calling the Partisans Jew-, Croat- and Muslim-led, much like the Ustase claimed the Partisans were Jewish- and Serb-led.

So although it is not the mass genocide of Jews perpetrated by the Ustase and Nazis, it is a very ugly picture of collaborationist action. As I said, my main objection to Cohen is that he presents a very one-sided and very different picture than Tomasevich, which in a number ways seeks to lay collective blame against Serbs for quisling actions. This is no different from Serb propagandists seeking to lay collective blame against Croats for Ustase genocides. Such collective blaming has played a major role in fanning hatreds, wars and slaughter in the region. The Ustase used collective-blaming of Serbs for the repression under the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to justify their genocides, just as Milosevich’s propagandists used collective blaming of Croats for Ustase crimes to justify his wars.

In any case I will add a Collaborationist Role section, with a summary of the above. If anyone has better, reliably-sourced info, they can add it Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on what sources? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
All the sources mentioned above – Tomasevich, Romano, Bozinovic, Lowenthal, Byford and Cohen Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I'll see what you add. Other sources are Ramet "The Collaborationist Regime of Milan Nedić". In Ramet, Sabrina P.; Listhaug, Ola (eds.). Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two, and Mojzes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't have access to Ramet and Mojzes, all the sources I mention, other than Cohen, are available in full online. I may cite sources cited by Cohen (e.g. Lowenthal), instead of Cohen, due to latter's controversy and fact he does not seem to cite Lowenthal correctly 23:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that these topics are often used to demonize populations. During WWII Chetniks as well used the Ustase as propaganda to demonize Bosnianks and Croats to justify their genocidal acts. Pavlic would use Chetnik actions to further justify his genocide. I respect where you are coming from in intention. Israel does state in his book that Nedic’s regime jointly ran Banjica Camp, and that his men were “enthusiastic” in carrying out orders, in what capacity I’m not sure. If what you say is correct and they were not assisting in killings but in rounding up or guarding the camp than that’s all it was. I’ll have to come back with the page number and book if you wish to use it. OyMosby (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Banjica in the lead

Since there's some edit-warring going on over the inclusion of the Banjica concentration camp in the lead, it should probably be discussed.

I agree with WEBDuB that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE per MOS:LEAD. 688 Jews were killed in the camp which is a) Less than 3% of the total hostages in the camp (23,000+); the victims were primarily Serbian communists, anti-fascists and political prisoners and b) a tiny fraction of the total number of Serbian Jews killed during the Holocaust (27,000).

Also, while it is true that the Gestapo and Serbian Sate Guard both had joint guardianship of the camp, the Serbian administration could not do anything without the approval of the Germans. They were still subservient to them, it's not like power was equal.

Singling out this one camp is undue as it was largely insignificant in terms of the extermination of Jews in Serbia. --Griboski (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Information from book of Sima Begović (Logor Banjica 1941-1944, Opseg 2, page 28, [7]) "Nije lako i jednostavno utvrditi broj Jevreja koji su boravili u logoru na Banjici i iz njega izvedeni na stratište. Sudeći po banjičkim knjigama, taj broj je jedva premašivao brojku od 900 lica. Međutim, svi Jevreji nisu evidentirani u knjigama banjičkih zatočenika...It is not easy and simple to determine the number of Jews who stayed in the camp on Banjica and were taken out of it to the execution site. Judging by the Banjica books, that number barely exceeded a figure of 900 persons. However, not all Jews are registered in Banjica books". And information from page 106, "Najčešći oblik pogubljenja bila su streljanja, pojedinačna i grupna. U manjim grupama streljana su lica osuđena na smrt od nemačkih i kvislinških prekih sudova a veće grupe u Njemačkim odmazdama...The most common forms of killing were shootings, individual and group. In smaller groups, persons were shot sentenced to death by German and Quisling tribunals and larger groups in German retaliations". Mikola22 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you help us out with a more detailed explanation? Griboski gave a nice analysis of this tiny dispute. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sadko: If you address to me, I don't know exactly what you're interested in? Mikola22 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I am interested in history, literature and good champagne. :)
Well, I saw this [8] and it got my attention, so I wondered - what's up with that? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I explain in edit summary. I think I've seen that information somewhere before but now when I look at this specific information better, it is not exactly in line with one source. I think my similar information was confirmed by the editor ‎Peacemaker67 but probably on Banjica article. I don't know what the first source says. It should be checked. Mikola22 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Facts from Sima Begović book. 1) About 900 Jews killed but possibly more, 2) Sentenced to death by German and Quisling tribunals, and information from page 142, 3) "Streljanja zatočenika razvrstanih u I kategoriju vršena su sistematski. Vujković je za krivce Specijalne policije, a Kriger za krivce Gestapoa određivao vremenske intervale u kojima će biti obavljane »redovne« egzekucije"...The shootings of prisoners classified in the first category were carried out systematically. Vujkovic is for the convicts of the Special Police, and Krieger is for the convicts of the Gestapo determine time intervals in which will be carry out "regular" executions". Mikola22 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if we assume that the real number of Jewish victims was closer to 900, there were more victims at Topovske Šupe, Sajmište and in German reprisal shootings than at this camp. The lead should give an overview of the most important information. Bringing attention to one camp and the fact that it was jointly run doesn't serve much purpose. --Griboski (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No one disputes that the fact is true and sourced, but the Banjica camp and the role of collaborators in it are not significant for the main topic. The information is more appropriate for the civil war in Yugoslavia and the conflicts of political opponents than for the Holocaust. Certainly, there is no reason to mention this in the lead. Citing a quote from Begović's book, which is not about the Holocaust, but about the Banjica camp, is WP:OR. Either way, the information has no purpose in the lead.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Section of the book where writes this(numbers of killed) is entitled "The Genocide of the Jews and Romani people". I guess this information belongs here. Mikola22 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
However, it is not crucial information for the lead.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Perica 2002, p. 151.

Serbian Historiography

Not sure why a reference to Nedic being named as one of 100 most Serbs by an arm of the Serbian Academy of Sciences was erased. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust_in_German-occupied_Serbia&type=revision&diff=1004244175&oldid=1004243927

This section is also mistitled, would be better to title it Controversies, or something like that, since it does not pertain only to historiography. Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I presented my view, it is, of course, a fact, but it's not historiography or that notable in general. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This was published in a book by the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. That does not seem like a fringe publication. The paragraph after does not have anything to do with historiography, thus as mentioned it might be better to rename this section, perhaps to "Revisionism in Serbia", comparable to similar section in Holocaust in Croatia article Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The book was not published by SANU. The publisher is Princip. It was neither ordered by SANU in any way. Two or three editors of the book were not academics, the rest of them were, but that does not mean that the book has anything to do with the academy which has a far greater number of members. Please double-check. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Banjica Camp

@Griboski: it was removed by a user without discussion. Why would it be undue? It was the only camp that Nedic’s regime jointly ran. Otherwise the intro implies German army only. It’s significant context. Other similar articles call out camps as examples. Some of the non jointly run camps should be included to. Especially those with large amounts of Jewish victims. I’m not understanding why it is undue? OyMosby (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It was previously discussed here and never included in the lead. Comparatively it had the lowest death toll among the four camps, so highlighting it just because the collaborators played a role in its operation comes across to me as undue. Since we're talking about the Holocaust, most of the prisoners were political, i.e. ethnic Serb communists and there were only a small number of Jews (688 out of 23,697).
The lead makes it clear who the collaborators were and that they assisted the Nazis. The emphasis on collaborators is actually much more than any of the other leads in respective Holocaust articles in Europe, like France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and so on. None mention any of the camps in the respective countries either, only the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz while the Holocaust in Poland lead amazingly doesn't even mention Auschwitz. --Griboski (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t familiar with that talk. All the users in that discussion were banned for pov editing however. Doesn’t seem like a good consensus.
The articles you linked a number of them do go into collaborators and how far they played a roll including camps. Bulgarian one connects death camps with the regime. Then shouldn’t this lead included the deadliest of the camps that Germans installed? That was my other point in my previous comment. Also Auschwitz was not jointly run my Polish collaborators. As for the other articles you mentioned, I am not familiar if camps in those countries were jointly run as well. Jasenovac is mention for the Holocaust in NDH though it makes sense being it is infamous. Which furthers my point, excluding Banjica, should we include the most lethal of the German installed camps in occupied Serbia? Especially given most people are unfamiliar with WWII in the Balkans.
Perhaps @Peacemaker67: thoughts on the jointly run significance. Given comparatively only a “small” number of Jews were killed there? Honestly if naming the camp is the issue, could be stated in general that “one of which camps was jointly run with the collaborative regime”. That way it is clear that Nazi Germany was calling the shots but the small collaborative forces also not only assisted but in a case helped run a camp. I’m not going to make a big back and forth on it. Just wanted to explain my reasoning and see what the consensus is. Perhaps Milhist folk can chime in.OyMosby (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I was referring only to what their leads say. But anyway, I don't have an issue with the lead mentioning the largest camp, or if you prefer, reinstating Banjica's joint running if no one else objects. As an aside, I'm not an expert on concentration camps but I don't think that local collaborators (excluding the Axis powers) assisting the Nazis in the guarding of camps was a rare phenomenon. --Griboski (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust_in_German-occupied_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1142779958"