Talk:Banat (1941–1944)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

[edit] References and accuracy

As I mentioned it on the Nedic's Serbia talk page, the occupied Serbia is not recogised by the international law nor by historians as a puppet state. It was just an occupied territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia completely (military and economically) controlled by Germans. Also, Banat was a part of that occupied territory and Serbian dinar was a valid currency in Banat, Nedic's gendarmerie and police was present in Banat, too. I see that the two very respectable references Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews, 3 vols, Holmes & Meyer, New York 1985, Volume 2, and the Guttman's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust are not separating Banat from the occupied territory whose military and civil rule was subordinated to the supreme German command and rule in Belgrade. All the article is full of forgeries and unsupported claims about that time occupied Serbia. Also, the very article name is nonsense. The Nedic's regime did not have full control over the occupied territory - it was rather a puppet regime executing commands of the occupiers and respecting fully the occupier's wishes.

So, my proposal is - to completely delete this article and, if anything should be useful to be mentioned at all, shall go into an article whose name shall be Serbia 1941-1944--Guivon 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong - Nedić's Serbia was not "completely controlled by Germans" because it had its own government and security forces. In Banat, local Germans were in power and controled the territory and the fact that references that you mentioned "are not separating Banat from the occupied territory whose military and civil rule was subordinated to the supreme German command and rule in Belgrade" does not contradict to what I said that Banat was an autonomus territory within Nedić's Serbia. Also, what exactly here you claim to be "forgeries and unsupported claims"? And there is no single reason for this article to be deleted because there are numerous sources that confirm that this is valid encyclopaedic subject. See this map: http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/194145fc.gif - if you are right then why this map show what it show? PANONIAN 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Also see this: http://homepage20.seed.net.tw/web@3/flags/wfh/pg-eu-4.htm If there was no any difference between serbia and Banat, why this source say this: "1941 Serbia and Banat occupied by Germany to 1944."? PANONIAN 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See also this: http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/collapse.html Quote: "The eastern half of Vojvodina (Banat) had a separate German military administration, in which members of the local German minority played the chief part." And the source for that is: Encyclopedia Britannica, edition 1971, Volume 23, pages 921,922 entry: Yugoslavia, 6. WWII. PANONIAN 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See this too: http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/staticpages/257.html Quote: "Following their invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans divided the country into several regions. They placed Serbia and Banat under their direct control and initiated actions against the Jewish population." PANONIAN 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See this: http://www.barnesreview.org/Jan_2003/Ethnic_Germans/ethnic_germans.html Quote: "The Balkan campaign of 1941 against Yugoslavia resulted in a confused new split-up of Yugoslavia. There were diplomatic struggles for the Banat between Horthy’s Hungary and Antonescu’s Romania. There was the danger that these two countries would go to war against each other to gain the fertile plain east of the Theiss River. In order to prevent such a war, the German government decided to place the Yugoslavian part of the Banat under military administration. The Germans in the Banat were highly satisfied to come under German administration after all." PANONIAN 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See this: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filmtv/msavkovic-1941-1945.html Quote: "Banat was occupied by Germany – the civil government was organized by the members of the German national minority (Folksdeutschers)" PANONIAN 21:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
One more: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia.html Quote: "Banat nominally under Serbian government but under German administration". PANONIAN 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious editorial work???

These 'references, are simply nonsense. Just click them to see what they are about

[1], [2]

Which way THIS might be a reference here???

  1. Slobodan Ćurčić, Broj stanovnika Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 1996.
  2. History of Europe, The Times, London, 2001.

--Guivon 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why you claiming that these references are nonsense? It is not important what is main subject of these references but what they say about Banat and Serbia and they confirm that data written in this article is correct. PANONIAN 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you click these links? If not - do it and tell us what is there. Also, if this Slobodan Ćurčić, Broj stanovnika Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 1996. is a reference - which way it supports the text? I can't believe my eyes that someone could claim such a nonsense!
I am not going to argue with you anymore nor I am going to revert any of your 'edits'--Guivon 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course that "I click these links" - why else would I use them there? And if you want description about them, no problem:

[edit] What shall be fixed here

  • 'autonomous' region

When talking about autonomy of a region - it must be clear: who granted that autonomy, what kind of autonomy it was, and what scope. German military and civil administration in Belgrade was strictly hierarhically organized. Also, it is pointless even to talk about autnomy of a conquered and occupied region. Occupation and autonomy are mutual exclusive notions.

    • If you see sources that I provided on this talk page, you will see that Banat was formally part of Serbia but was de facto ruled by its German minority. So, if you object to word "autonomy", what other word you propose for usage to describe a status of Banat? PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've already told you - use valid international law and scholar terms. Belgrade was ruled by German minority (Herrenvolk) and was by no means autonomous.
We speak about Banat, not about Belgrade. But, yes, Banat was ruled by its German minority, so how would you describe this (autonomous? self-governing?). Just tell me what description you proposing because we will not go anywhere if you just "attacking" statement without saying your opinion how it should be changed. PANONIAN 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • the map of 'autonomous' Banat is not from a valid scholar source.

It is just a misinterpretation of a map that depict inner organization of the occupier's administration of this region and drawn by an amateur. Calling upon Encyclopaedia Britannica does not make sense here - the text is too old and is removed twenty years ago from this encyclopaedia

    • Same question as before: what other word instead "autonomy" you proposing for usage? PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Demographic data are from the year 1931 which does not fit into 1941-44 time interval
    • 1931 is the last census conducted before 1941, thus we do not have another one to reflect population of the region - the next one was not conducted before 1948. PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The references selected here do not have any data supporting the text of this article
    • This claim is just ridiculous - if you just read these references, you will see that they have such data. PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did read these two books. They can be found in the in any bigger public library across the USA. Did you read them???
I read them - so what they say about status of Banat according to you? PANONIAN 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. History of Europe, The Times, London, 2001.
This title uses full-colour digital mapping to chart 3000 years of European history. The subjects covered range from the difference between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire to the origins of Europe's states. Not a single map supports the idea about autonomous Banat in the years of 1941-44
Try page 181 with map of 1942 Europe which show Banat as autonomous area within Serbia... PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it did not show nor say anything abou non-existent autonomy.
Ok, should I ask you again? - what other term should be used according to you? PANONIAN 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. Richard Overy, History of the 20th century, The Times, London, 2003. (1996 and 2000)
The sixteen well known academics who contribute essays cover the century in six chapters:
The End of the Old World Order,
The World between the Wars,
The World at War,
The Cold War World,
Towards the New World Order and
The Revolutionary Century
Not a single essay ever touched Banat nor supports claim that Banat was an autonomous region in 1941-44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.72.121 (talk) 21:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Try page 85, which contain a map that show Banat more-less separatelly from Serbia and page 94 as well (same issue). Also see other sources that I showed to you on this talk page. PANONIAN 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to try anything. Please, state which essay this page belongs to and who wrote that essay
I do not understand a question - I speak about maps, not about essays. PANONIAN 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: I tried to locate the questionable reference and discovered that they do not exist in any university or public library database here in the USA or any publisher's database worldwide. My closest guess that it is about these two books:
1. The "Times" History of Europe by Mark Almond (Author)
  • Paperback: 208 pages
  • Publisher: Times Books; 3rd Ed edition (November 5, 2001)
  • ISBN-10: 0007131615
2. The Times History of the 20th Century by Richard Overy (Editor)
  • Hardcover: 256 pages
  • Publisher: Times Books (1999)
  • ISBN-10: 0723010285
  • ISBN-13: 978-0723010289
My comments are about these two books. If I am wrong - please, correct the books titles, the publisher house name, and/or provide the ISBN for both of them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.9.118 (talk) 02:21, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? You just said that you read these books: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABanat_%281941%E2%80%931944%29&diff=154514272&oldid=154058915 And now you want to say that they do not exist? Just decide first what of these two you will claim and then post a comment here because this is just ridiculous. PANONIAN 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, now let me to be stratiforward with you. When I saw your 'references' I tried to locate them. I discovered immediately that under those titles, publisher name, and edition years they do not extst - as I already explained the same above. I did not want to be harsh with you and I pretended that you simply were careless when entering these 'references'. So, I stared with locating the books whose titles are the closest match to those you gave and wrote what I had written. The closest matches cannot confirm any of your claims. Due to the fact that you stubbornly insist on your claims and throwing into discussion some pages as a 'serious proof' of nonextstent things - I simply stepped up - please, give us the ISBN identifications of both 'references' - if you dare.--4.249.6.197 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, two things:

  • 1. references: The Times History of Europe (ISBN 0-0071-3161-5), The Times History of the 20th century (ISBN 0-0071-6637-0). And what my claims these books do not confirm? - do you saw these maps and way in which Banat is presented there? PANONIAN 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 2. I made changes in the article and removed word "autonomy" from both, article and map, so please say is there anything else that you do not agree with in this article. PANONIAN 08:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What you are writing about is not the historical region of Banat. The Banat is a part of the Pannonian plain bordered by the River Danube to the south, the River Tisza (Theiss, Tissa, Tisa) to the west, the River Mureş to the north, and the Southern Carpathian Mountains to the east. More than 60 % of the banat-area has been part of Romania since the end of World War I. Its historical capital was Timişoara, now in Timiş county in Romania. You write about victims and war crimes. What do you think about the concentration camps in Knicanin and sremska mitrovica? At all, what hapened to the 350000 German people who had been living in Banat for 200 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.212.13 (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)