Talk:History of Yugoslavia

message: FYROMs HISTORY IS NOT HISTORY OF MACEDONIA !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.35.238 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 November 2002 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. --Shallot 14:02, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Macedonia 

message: The original Republic Day, the one that was celebrated for half a century, was about the events of 1943. In 1992, Serbia and Montenegro decided to continue using the same date but with the explanation that they're now commemorating the 1945 event. Apparently, a new law came in effect on November 26, 2002 that officially terminated this holiday there, too. --Shallot 18:41, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are wrong on this one. It is true, that the holiday was mostly about the events in 1943, but republic was pronounced on 29th November 1945, so that's the day it was really commemorating. Up to then, Yugoslavia was officially a kingdom - there was no republic to commemorate. I'll try to look for sources. Where did you hear about the change in 1992? Zocky 19:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I wouldn't put it that way, Yugoslavia was de facto inexistent before the socialist state was established, it was really chopped up among the various invading/quisling forces. I am inclined to believe the above explanation because it has been a publically known issue in FRY/SCG for a while now, and I read several Serbian press articles describing it exactly as such (google for 29 novembar dan republike or something like that). I also vaguely remember my history classes from elementary school back in Yugoslavia, where we mentioned the second congress in Jajce prominently enough for me to remember it, whereas I don't recall anything of the event of 1945. I know that the 1945 explanation also makes a lot of sense, but that's probably simply the reason why it was used in FRY/SCG up to recently. --Shallot 20:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic Day 

message: There is a web-chatting forum called Cyber Yugoslavia, popular among those nostalgic for the defunct union.
There are many other such forums, web chat or otherwise, there's not much point in mentioning just that one without any explanation. (Or is there?) --Shallot 15:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web forums 

message: I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal (note: this is still a sandbox version of the title) User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I need someone to drop in and add some info on the meaning of the term in Yugoslavia. I'd especially focus on the withdrawal of Allied support for Mikhajlovic and supporting Tito. Anyone?Halibutt 09:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihajlovic's Chetniks were royalists, not democrats, so the change of support did not indicate western betrayal as implied by what you wrote. In fact most historians would agree that that change was the best option available at the time. --Shallot 15:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm perfectly conscious of what Chetniks were and what they were not. However, whatever their opinions or thoughts were, they must've felt somehow allied to the Allies and abandoned later in the course of war when Churchill stopped supporting them and started supporting Tito. Since they must've had some support in the society, there must've been some sort of resentment or sense of betrayal (note that the article does not deal with the betrayal per se since it's not encyclopedic and definition of betrayal is somehow tricky. What it deals with is sense of betrayal in the (Yugoslavian, in this particular case) society. Could anyone help?Halibutt 05:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Betrayal

message: The article mentions Kosovo and Metohia two times: in 1990 and in 1998. While I'm not sure about the later, I think that the official name of this province in early 1990s was still Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo (without explicitly mentioned Metohia). This was also written in the 1974 Yugoslav constitution. Did the name really change before 1992? --Romanm 08:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Constitutional amendments that limited provinces' authonomy were passed in March 1989. I'm not completely sure, but think that the names were changed then as well. Nikola 06:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo and Metohia

message: Shallot, you renamed section "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" to "First Yugoslavia" because (quote) "the first and the second weren't called that way at the time of their founding so used simply "first" and "second" in the heading".
Note that the problem was not in the "Kingdom" part of the first section, but in the "Yugoslavia" part, so IMHO the problem still remains, as there was no first *Yugoslavia* in 1918. Personaly I don't see no harm if we would just leave it as "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", although it is not historicaly 100% correct, and we could say "Socialist Yugoslavia" for the second one. --Romanm 19:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course correct that the first one wasn't named Yugoslavia between 1918 and 1929, but I think "first Yugoslavia" a bit better than "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" because the term KoY is an exact name for the 1929-1941 state. "Royal Yugoslavia" could work, if that sounds good to a native English ear. The problem with the word "Socialist" in the second one would be native English speakers which might prefer "Communist" instead... this nuance was already discussed elsewhere. --Shallot 22:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section names 

message: The word "extraordinary" doesn't seem to fit. While the congress itself can be described as ending in an extraordinary manner, the word vanredni refers to the fact it was convened out of the regular calendar (at least I think?). There should be a more suitable word for that... --Shallot 08:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "emergency congress"? --Romanm 11:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''vanredni kongres''