"

 How about an RFC then? 

Can we try an RFC?  I'd like to start with a brief neutral statement of the question and have others here respond with one statement each, link prior discussions if you like, limited to 1000 words, no rebuttals or arguments, then wait for comments from others, at least two days before any reactions.  The neutral question would be ""Should the title of this article be Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, or Serbia under German Occupation, or something else; consider the prior talk sections above.""  I will not be making a statement myself, but I may respond after two days, or sooner if others decide not to respect the proposal.  OK?    
No. An RFC while there's an RM going on? Just list the RM on various noticeboards. And an RfC for what exactly? If someone wants to move the article - let him post an RM, that's what its for. We'd probably go through the whole annoying song and dance to no effect. And where's the sense in having an RM for a move to one title, while posting an RfC (of all things) for a move to another title??

I'm sure Antidiskriminator & Co. will jump at this, since for them whatever you (their perceived new-found ally )) propose and I oppose must be a good thing. But it makes no sense. I certainly won't accept any title that has not been agreed-upon in a proper RM, whatever the outcome of the RfC - indeed, if any. Additionally, an RfC may not be the most useful and effective means of DR here, since the dispute is immensely complex, obscure, and thoroughly bogged-down in misleading rhetorical nonsense. A ""vote on-the-fly"" would not be very helpful, and would probably be drowned in far-more-knowledgeable retorts from long-time participants.   (talk) "