File talk:Serbia1918.png

Imbris...

Unification was "ratified" by the King in 1918-12-01. This map is a construct it has no historical value, hence it should not be used. Many could object to this map. For instance Montenegrin historians. There should be only historicaly proven maps, namely the map of the 1^st December 1918 of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Imbris 01:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On 1918-12-01 was ratified unification between Kingdom of Serbia and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. This map show borders of the Kingdom of Serbia BEFORE it united with the state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Here you can see very similar map: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF PANONIAN (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are showing a fabrication. If the proclaimed alliance of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs happended in 1918-11-24 and the union proclaimed (not ratified) 1918-12-01) then when were "ratified" Bačka, Banat and Baranya's unification, and the unification of Syrmia. On the same day 1918-12-01. So another of your maps is a fabrication. Imbris 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate it for deletion. Imbris 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not on same day - according to my history book for secondary school the unification of Kingdom of Serbia and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs happended on 28.11.1918. i.e. two days after Kingdom of Serbia already united with Srem (24.11.), Vojvodina (25.11.) and Montenegro (26.11.), so this map show borders of the Kingdom of Serbia from 26.11.1918. The map from the external link that I showed to you prove that this is correct, no matter that this map have a slight mistake in the case of Srem. In another words: you should not delete facts simply because you do not like them. PANONIAN (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I said that I will nominate it for deletion not delete it. Your history book, where was this book published, where. And they could have proclaim what they want in the Bačka, Banat and Baranya (they were not Vojvodina then, but Bačka, Banat and Baranya in the alphabetical order. We should not use any mistification about Banat, Bačka and Baranya and its statehood.

To conclude: Central comittee of the Peoples council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs had a session on the 23.11. they discuted until midnight had passed and it was 24.11. They were the governoment of the State and had under the Statutes power to decide for the Peoples council (when the Council itself had not been sessioning). They have decided for the State (but not for the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia with Rijeka, Medjimurje, Istria, Bay of Cuttaro, etc.). They have set to travel on the 28.11. but departed from the Main Station in Zagreb in 29.11. (Then they have traveled for 27 hours, at the time).

The unification has been proclaimed by the King (who had not abaided the Constitution of Serbia, only The Peoples Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbia had such a power). Delete the map yourself - it will only save time It's a historical construct not a fact. Imbris 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about one thing: the historian Drago Njegovan also mention that State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs decided on 24.11. to unite with the Kingdom of Serbia, but the official unification was on 1.12. and that is why Serbian historians claim that Vojvodina, Srem and Montenegro united with Serbia before State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and that in the time when State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united with Serbia (on 1.12.), Vojvodina, Srem and Montenegro were part of Serbia in this unification. Tomislav Bogavac in his book "Nestajanje Srba" also provide similar map of Serbia (that include Vojvodina, Srem and Montenegro), and similar map could be also seen here: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/193818BK.GIF - you will notice there that border between Serbia and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is marked with black colour, while borders of Vojvodina and Montenegro are marked with white colour marking them inside Serbia. Regarding Vojvodina, its official name was Banat, Bačka and Baranja (Banat was first in the name, no matter of alphabetical order), but Vojvodina was also unofficial name used for it. Also, the statehood of Banat, Bačka and Baranja was de facto reality - it had its own army, government, etc... PANONIAN (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can lie all you want. I hope that the future will bring an another kind of a generation in Serbia, a democratic one. You clearly are not one of the inhabitants of Serbia that the World and Internationall community neads in this heavy time. The future will bring your people to the truth, to the chatarsis. They will delete all of your disinformations. Mark my words. No Greater Serbian project will succedde. Imbris 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look my edits, you will see that I mostly edit articles about "small" Serbia and therefore you have no single proof to accuse me for "Greater Serbian project". However, it is nice that you posted this racist opinion about Serbs which is simply another confirmation who you are and why you are here. Regarding "my lie", I lie nothing, just quote books, and if you do not like what those books say, it is your problem. PANONIAN (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To me that sounds just political, and not a racist condemnation of all Serbs. He was complaining about anti-democratic Serbs as opposed to democratic ones. Perhaps (indeed I hope so) he has simply gotten a false impression of your political views, and misunderstood.K. Lásztocska

Condemnation of ALL members of one nation is one of the descriptions of racism. Also, according to his definition, "democratic Serb" should be a Serb who give most of his country to his neighbours and left in Serbia only some small land between Belgrade and Kragujevac - sorry, but that is not democracy. The true democracy would recognize right of Serbs who live as majority in their land to choose in which country they would live, so when he learn something about democracy, then he can talk about it. PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who condemnated you. Funny. And it is clear that you deliberately write something that is not the truth. When I said anything about giving up territories. Shameful. You twist every thing someone other than you say. Even you twist yourself. Abolishing the Autonomy of Vojvodina, as Belgrade did 1989-2001 is just wrong, and majority will decide to separate them selves from Belgrade just like Kosovo --- Imbris 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you say that somebody "write something that is not the truth", then you also have to say: 1. what exactly is not truth, and 2. to provide proof that it is not truth. And tell me, if as you claim, "the majority of Vojvodinians will decide to separate them selves from Belgrade" then why Serbian Radical Party is the largest party in Vojvodina and why there is no single political party in Vojvodina that support "separation from Belgrade"? On what planet you live, man? PANONIAN (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written above in this discusion what is correct. On December the 1^st, 1918. unification was proclaimed by the King. This is the day from which we count. Not your constructs and constructions. 1912-1913 Kosovo were returned to the motherland, and 2012-13 will reach full independence. This was the fault of Belgrade's. In 1945. Vojvodina attached itself on its free will. If Belgrade continues to act like it acted in the past Vojvodina is bouded to leave the union. Vojvodina must become, and will become the federal republic of Serbia. That is if Belgrade want to keep the status of attachment. Radical option must be defeated if Serbia and Vojvodina want to acheave peace and prosperity. And that is in everybodies best interest, don't you think so. -- Imbris 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Radical option must be defeated"? I am sorry, but exactly you represent this radical option. Your claim that "majority of Vojvodinians will decide to separate themselves from Belgrade" is highly provocative and insulting, in another words, since majority of Serbs in Vojvodina will never decide this, you in fact imply that you want to kill and expell Serbs, and that some other future non-Serb majority will decide to separate Vojvodina from Serbia. There is one thing that all of us learned between 1990 and 1999: the Yugoslav wars will really stop only when people like you who spread hate are locked in jail or in mental hospital. If you dream to kill or expell Serbs from Vojvodina you really belong there. PANONIAN (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, on December 1, 1918, we count unification of Yugoslavia, not of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Map

This new map is horrible, ugly and completelz incorect compared to the previous one.

No, it is not incorrect. Problem with previous map was that it showed situation in 1918, but with borders that were defined only in 1920. This map show situation in 1918 with borders as they were in 1918, thus it is correct. PANONIAN 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is incorrect. The map shows the lands controlled by the Serbian army at a certain point in the year 1918. Just before the neutral zone between the Serbian and Romanian army was established in 1919. Timisoara, Pecs were never part of Serbia. --fz22 08:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But I do not claim that these borders were internationally recognized. As you said, these lands were controlled by the Serbian army and proclaimed official unification with Serbia, thus "de facto" it were borders of Serbia from November 26 1918 to December 1, 1918. We have many other maps with "de facto" borders of various countries in Wikipedia, so I do not see why this one would be different. PANONIAN 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If this map about we speak is OK then in I will create map of Romania in august 1919 where Romania will be all international accepted territory of Romania + Hungary under Romanian occupation. Can somebody say something about that sort of map ? Rjecina 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that would make you happy, by all means... PANONIAN 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And another one with Austria-Hungary in 1916 when the southern "border" of Hungary will be around Skopje and Bitolj. Lets make wikipedia as confusing as possible. Zello 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's our goal, why not put them all on one single map, with undecipherable little lines that all run together? Surely no one will be able to take any meaningful understanding from it ;) Parsecboy 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point is that these 3 historical situations are not same. There are some basic differences between them:

• Vojvodina in 1918 was controled by Serbian army and also proclaimed official unification with Serbia which Serbian government accepted (Serbs never regarded this area as occupied part of other country, but as northern part of their country liberated from foreign rule. Indeed, in the territory of Vojvodina (in the borders defined by 1920 peace treaty) Serbs were largest ethnic group in 1918 and even in territory defined by demarcation line from 1918 Serbs were largest ethnic group in the 18th century. For Serbs, that area was always seen as their own country temporary occupied by Habsburg Monarchy).
• Different to previous case, Romanian army in 1919 did controled much of Hungary, but Hungary did not proclaimed official unification with Romania.
• Regarding the last case (Austria-Hungary in 1916), I am not quite sure whether territory of the Kingdom of Serbia that was conquered by Austria-Hungary was administered by the Hungarian or Austrian part of the Monarchy, but there is difference between first case where Serbia aimed to liberate members of Serbian nation that lived under foreign rule and this case where one empire wanted to destroy whole country and enslave its people. PANONIAN 10:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is objectionable in itself to depict these areas on a single map based on the rationale that these were the de facto borders of an internationally recognised state called Serbia, but then some of the territories contained within had very different statuses. Even if we came to an agreement that the assembly that proclaimed the union of Vojvodina with Serbia was representative of the people living in Vojvodina and had the power to proclaim such a unification (an agreement hardly reachable, I guess; even I would have objections), we cannot say that the area around Pécs was "an area where Serbs were the largest ethnic group and were liberated by Serbia" – this simply doesn't hold. I think the map could be made right by colouring the various territories and adding a clear legend explaining the status of the different areas. KissL 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the territories within Serbia in this time did not had different statuses. For example, Vojvodina proclaimed unification with Serbia as an autonomous region with its own government. However, Serbian government recognized only unification, but Vojvodinian autonomous government was never recognized by Serbia. Also, I do not remember that I said or wrotte that "area around Pécs was an area where Serbs were the largest ethnic group and were liberated by Serbia". Map does not say anything about "liberation" or "occupation" question - it simply show areas de facto controled, administered and annexed by Serbia on November 25, 1918. Nothing more and nothing less. PANONIAN 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This assembly has been farse. Can anybody neutral think that Hungarians, Germans and Romanians which are making 54.5 % of population (in 1910) has voted for union with Serbia. Similar situation has happen in Montenegro in november of 1918. "Neutral" parlament has voted for union with Serbian then around 45 days it has started military revolt against Serbian occupation ! Normal Serbian way of doing things is occupation after which come wish of local population to become members of Serbian state. Example we can find in Yugoslav wars when Krajina after it has been "liberated" from Croatia has voted for union with Serbia (Serbia has not accepted or refused this union). ----Rjecina 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The assembly did had representatives of German people as well as one representative of Hungarian people. It did not had representatives of Romanian people, but we may say that majority of ethnicities were represented. Regarding Krajina, do you want to say that Serbs from Krajina would rather live under pro-fascist Tuđman government instead within independent Krajina? PANONIAN 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Pécs + Timoşoara

I'm really curious why do you use terms Pécs and Timoşoara on a map containing Serbia. Why don't you use Pečuj and Temišvar instead? (Or, why are you using let's say Subotica, why not Szabadka?)

Fcsaba 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia naming conventions say that most common names used in English should be here, thus I followed the conventions... By the way, I also used name Skopje instead Skoplje. PANONIAN 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

Rjecina 1st time...

This image is on list for deleting from 29. July. Reasons given is unencyclopedic image. (Serbia borders which has never been international accepted). This map can be OK if different regions with different political situations are having different colors. Example for that is:

• Kingdom of Serbia red color (color is only example)

Wikipedia have many other articles and maps about territories and countries whose borders were not "internationally accepted". Some examples: Independent State of Croatia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Western Bosnia, etc, etc. If we did not deleted such articles and maps because these borders were not "internationally accepted" then we have no reason to delete this one as well. Second, I do not understand why you proposed this for deletion if you by yourself said that "map can be OK if different regions with different political situations are having different colors" - by this you admitting that map is not wrong and that mean that you have no right to propose it for deletion. Regarding map colour that was already discussed on this talk page: map does not show "different political situations", but only one political situation from November 25, 1918 to December 1, 1918. PANONIAN 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Montenegro which has declared union with Serbia in november 1918 yelow color

Map show Montenegro AFTER unification with Serbia, thus there is no reason to be in different colour. PANONIAN 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Serbia after peace agreements 1919/20 blue color
• Teritory of Hunagry under Serbian occupation given to Romania after peace agreements 1919/20 black color
• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Hungary after peace agreements 1919/20 purple color.

Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and therefore these areas were not internatially recognized as parts of Hungary. Also, the map show these territories AFTER they officially united with Serbia when occupation was officially ended. Peace agreements from 1919 abnd 1920 only defined exact borders, but did not changed genertal status of these territories, which were in 1919 internationally recognized as parts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Also, as I said, the map show political situation only from November 25, 1918 to December 1, 1918 and in this time territories that were assigned to different countries by 1919/1920 peace treaties did not had different political status and would not be correct to paint them in different colour. PANONIAN 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only this type of map will show real situation in november of 1918. This map which is now on wiki is false map because of what I have given her nomination for deleting. ----Rjecina 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No. As I said, peace treaties were in 1919/1920, not in 1918, so how can what you proposing to show "real situation in november of 1918"? PANONIAN 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina 2nd time...

If you have not see that first (on now deleted page) and second time (now) this is 3rd time:

• Kingdom of Serbia red color (color is only example)
• Kingdom of Montenegro which has declared union with Serbia in november 1918 yelow color
• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Serbia after peace agreements 1919/20 blue color
• Teritory of Hunagry under Serbian occupation given to Romania after peace agreements 1919/20 black color
• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Hungary after peace agreements 1919/20 purple color.

I told you already: the map show political situation only from Novermber 25 1918 to December 1, 1918, so you cannot show on that map political situations from 1919 and 1920. Also, as I said, Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and therefore these areas were not internatially recognized as parts of Hungary. Also, the map show these territories AFTER they officially united with Serbia when occupation was officially ended. PANONIAN 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is needed I will write this 10 times or everytime when you change my editing on this discussion page. Why Montenegro in different color. Because declaration of union during occupation is farse which is best shown in Montenegro revolt against Serbia/Yugoslavia occupation. ----Rjecina 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is just your opinion that unification was farse. Montenegrin society was divided among issue about unification with Serbia. The people that started this revolt were not same people that voted for unification. PANONIAN 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina sold...

If you have not see that first (on now deleted page) and second time (now) this is 4rd time:

• Kingdom of Serbia red color (color is only example)
• Kingdom of Montenegro which has declared union with Serbia in november 1918 yelow color
• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Serbia after peace agreements 1919/20 blue color
• Teritory of Hunagry under Serbian occupation given to Romania after peace agreements 1919/20 black color
• Teritory of Hungary under Serbian occupation given to Hungary after peace agreements 1919/20 purple color.

If it is needed I will write this 10 times or everytime when you change my editing on this discussion page. Why Montenegro in different color. Because declaration of union during occupation is farse which is best shown in Montenegro revolt against Serbia/Yugoslavia occupation. Only person without any culture is writing between words of other people. ----Rjecina 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, writte this 1,000 times if you want (if you think that you are an parrot whose purpose in life is to repeat same things to death, who am I to claim opposite?), it is obvious that you making farse from this talk page, but anyway, my answers for you are in two previous sections and you just have to read them again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serbia1918.png#Deleting PANONIAN 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment 24 July 2007

Dispute is over question if territory under control Serbian army (under occupation/protection are Pecs, Timisoara, Novi Sad, Bačka, Banat and Syrmia) can have color like Serbian home territory. Comments wanted, thanks 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I already explained that map show time period when occupation was officially finished.

I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --PBS 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This picture really has to be deleted.--Wallak^Talk 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? PANONIAN 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Western Syrmia?

On my map it's included... --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that is common mistake. For example book named "Nestajanje Srba" (Tomislav Bogavac, Niš, 1994) show Syrmia without its south-west part (Šokadija) and the map in the book named "Spomenica oslobođenja Sombora 1918-1998" (Rade Šumonja, Sombor, 1998) show a detailed map of Syrmia with all places from which deputies were sent to assembly in Ruma and, according to this map, no single deputy from Šokadija was not sent to this assembly. PANONIAN 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

macedonia in that map of serbia of 1918? are you kidding us? stop propagating here!

gosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feta (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia was included into Kingdom of Serbia in 1912 and remained part of it until 1918 when Kingdom of SCS was created. See the map with situation in 1913 as reference: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/Balkans1913.jpg PANONIAN 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Temišvar

And eastern Banat were occupied by Romanians no? Can you fix that error ? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in November 1918. My map represent only situation in November 1918 and in this time most of Banat was under Serbian control. Central Banat was later turned into neutral zone and assigned to Romania (but that happened in 1919). See a map as reference: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif PANONIAN 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

original research?

I saw many maps on Serbian history but I never saw this map. Not in the single book or article on the History of Serbia. Can you please show us any other map similar to this one, from some reliable source? --Mladifilozof (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not repeat same question in several places. This map is located in Wikimedia Commons and I already gave you an answer to this question there: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbia1918.png#original_research.3F PANONIAN 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)