Talk:Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia

# of deputies

How many deputies did it have?

Its not writen in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:AVNOJist (talk • contribs)

Yugoslav Citizens and Germans

The Danube Swabians, who called themselves Shwoveh, and were called by their ethnic Hungarian and ethnic Serbian countrymen Shwabeh, remained Yugoslavian citizens even when they were expelled or plaed in internment camps. The AVNOJ resolutions in 1942, 43 or 44, did not have the force of law and the laws of 1945 and 46 did not include removal of citizenship. This is thoroughly discussed in Janjetovic's books and papers, which should be referenced in the article.

== Absence of appropriate references.

The lack of apprpriate references in this article underlines the general looseness and inaccuracies of the comments. References to all sides of the dispute, the Shwovish, German, Hungarian, Serbian, and Croatian, are now possible and a thoroughgoing revision of this article from all perspectives is needed. The historical inaccuracies in this version (July, 2012) are appalling. Imersion (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324191704/http://www.vloe.at/geschichte/downloada.htm to http://www.vloe.at/geschichte/downloada.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Translation in lead

The matter of translation in the lead is not something related to history. It's simply a translation to relevant languages. Fkp, you can't go over articles and replace Croatian translation with Serbian. Just add Serbian translation next to Croatian or Croatian next to Serbian. I don't know what's the deal with Wikipedia and pushing of Serbo-Croatian as one language, but that's another matter to discuss. Just don't go removing Croatian translations. 89.164.229.190 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then dont remove the ORIGINAL naming in Serbian Cyrillic and Latin, and feel free to add translation of the minorities. But you know perfectly well SFRY institutions used in its naming Serbian ekavian. So stop removing it and replacing it with Croatian. Also, stop calling Serbian ekavian version a "translation". Translation is the Croatian version you are adding, Serbian ekavian version is not a "translation" but the official name as seen in all documents. FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I don't want to go over numerous articles and correct mistakes you leave after such edits, so let's come to agreement on what to do in this situations. You already had Director correcting you. The name is a translation since this is English Wikipedia. Translations can be done for multiple relevant languages. If you feel that Serbian translation is missing, please add it, but don't replace Croatian translation with Serbian. Can you agree with that? I'll revert you again, and please don't remove translations in the future, but add Serbian ones.89.164.229.190 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, you clearly dont even know what "correct/mistake" means and what "official name/translation" is... or you play not to understand on purpose. FkpCascais (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I will clarify:

• There was a political organisation in Yugoslavia called "Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije – AVNOJ / Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ"
• We have an article about it here on en.wiki. We traslated the original native name to English and used it as article title.
• So things are the other way around, I am adding the ORIGINAL name of the organisation, while you insist in missleading readers that the original name was in Croatian. To push in your edit, you insist calling the original name "translation".
• Conclusion: official documents and sources such as britannica confirm my edit. Official native name must be present. While translations can be added. So stop removing the official name and replacing it by the Croatian translation. FkpCascais (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I get that. I have nothing against Serbian official name, but if Croatian translation had existed before, don't remove it. I saw your two recent edits where you removed Croatian for Serbian translation. I can correct that by adding Croatian translation, but come, on. I can't watch over you all the time. Just don't remove Croatian translation if it had existed before. I know that Serbian was preferred in Yugoslavia. That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia, but that's another discussion. The fact is that Serbian language was preferred and Wikipedia can reflect that. It would be interesting to see whether ZAVNOH had official name on Serbian. 141.136.246.131 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this source, [1], I can see that Croatian name is used. This is a valid source, so I guess that each nation used their own language. I'm not so sure about your theory, but that's ok, since my stand is that each translation can stand in the article.141.136.246.131 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Invalid source for what you pretend. Of course a Croatian author in its book in Croatian will write the name in Croatian, but find non-Croatian source which calls AVNOJ vijece istead of vece. That source only confirms that in Croatian the organisation was known that way, but Croatian version of S-C was not used for official names of the organisation anywhere out of Croatia, while Serbian was. FkpCascais (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia..." exactly. So at least now dont play the card that Croatian names were the official ones, or, as Director does, pretends Yugoslav Air Force was named Zrakoplov and so on. Yugoslavia recognised regional languages and variants and allowed its use. However, on national level, nattional institutions were named in Serbian variant of Serbo-Croatian. Why? Because Serbs were majority in Yugoslavia. So, that is why we had duing Yugoslavia TAZ (Tvornica Autobusa Zagreb) and no one will certainly add "Fabrika" translation for "tvornica", but regarding national level, institutions were named in Serbian ekavian. The issue is about the native official name. Yugoslav regional institutions and companies were officially named in its regional language, but Yugoslav national official institutions were named in Serbian ekavian (which when presented displays both variants, Cyrillic and Latin). Resumingly, I have nothing against the addition of the other languages versions, however, I have against presenting it as official native name. FkpCascais (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To try to make it clear. A Yugoslav national institution such was the Yugoslav Air Force was named RV PVO (Ratno vazduhoplovstvo i protivvazdušna odbrana / Ратно ваздухопловство и противваздушна одбрана). The amblem of the institution confirms it. So saying it was named RZ PZO is nonsense. RZ PZO is just a translation to Croatiann, but not the official name. I know Director, a Croatian editor fan of Yugoslavia would have liked it to be RZ PZO, but it wasnt. Same here with AVNOJ. Official documents and the official name of this political organisation are the initials of the Serbian variant of S-C version of its name. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I never did try to impose that Croatian names were official nor did I try to remove Serbian ones. I reverted you so that you notice and stop removing Croatian translations if they are already present in the article. I think that Director's point is that the lead on English Wikipedia just list translations on relevant languages. It doesn't state what was the official name. I also don't know what's the deal with Wikipedia pushing Serbo-Croatian as one language. I'm not a linguist but, not am I familiar enough, but somehow it seems to me that neither Croatian nor Serbian colleges are teaching "Serbo-Croatian" language. The distinction between those two languages made is present as seen in this disputes with official names. 141.136.246.131 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Technically, I am not even in the dispute of S-C being one language or not. From what I know, for a long period there was an atempt to make it one language. Even then, each variants didnt ceased to exist. It is more than obvious that within S-C language there are plenty of differences. Direktor and some other editors insist in adding S-C for aticles that deal with subjects from Yugoslav time when S-C was being imposed as single language. I am personally OK with that.

However, the issue here is the native official name which needs to be pointed out. We have the English translation as title, and then what we need highlited is the native official name. At Yugoslav Air Force article that is notorious. What happends? That official names of institutions of Yugoslavia were in S-C. So the problem comes when editors want to replace Serbian spelling version with Croatian one. However, in practice, nationally, we know namings and names with initials were created from the Serbian variant of S-C which was dominant. Right? That is why we have national air force called RV PVO and not RZ PZO. Yes, I am aware this Serbian dominance in Yugoslavia was a factor for many Croatians wanting independence, but that is a fact to be dealt with all its repercusions.

What I am saying here is that if you look at plenty of articles troughout Wikipedia, you will see that they all start with article title and then subjects official name in native language. In this case, AVNOJ needs the native official name, and original documents and also other sources confirm the political organisation named AVNOJ is called after its Serbian spelling of S-C language (same as RV PVO for Yugoslav Air Force). We need to inform the reader what is the official native name. That is where confusion comes, if you claim organisations native name was in Croatian version of S-C, that comes to be incorrect, as widely seen at RV PVO exemple clearly not being RZ PZO. I understand that for Croatian editors AVNOJ meaning Serbian "vece" instead of their "vijece" may be stone in the shue, but, as you said "That kind of Serbinization of Yugoslavia made many Croatians want to Croatia to leave Yugoslavia".

Result, lets make readers see what were the names of the Yugoslav institutions in native language (Serbian variant of S-C, tough luck for Croats, sorry, and also Serbian variant uses and displays both, Cyrillic and Latin version, so both should be displayed and none replaced). For instance, Parliament of Yugoslavia was known as "Savezna skupština/Савезна скупштина". We know skupština/скупштина is a Serbian variant of S-C for naming "Parliament", and not Croatian version "sabor". Serbian simply had predecent and whenever a name was needed for national institutions, Serbian variant of S-C was used for its name. So, Direktor, sneakingly, tried to remove Serbian Latin variants of the names and replace them by Croatian ones, making readers beleave that the original name of the institutions was in Croatian. It is wrong, there is a much more used Serbian variant which is being removed, and replaced by a hardly-used outside Croatia, Croatian variant. The excuse for eliminating Serbian version by saying "Serbian officially uses Cyrillic" is ivalid, because Serbian, back then, and nowadays, uses both.

To finalise. When we have an article like Tvornica Autobusa Zagreb (TAZ) we are obviously going to add the native name explaining TAZ. We dont need Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian translations despite probably finding in Serbian sources the mention of the company as "Fabrika" and not "Tvornica". The issue is the difference between the name and traslations. At TAS we dont need translatins, just the mention of native original name, at AVNOJ or RV PVO we can add translations, but we need to know what native official name is, and what tanslations are, and dont mix the two. AVNOJ official documents were written as "Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ" (in Cyrillic, even toughest luck for Croats) so we must indicate to reader the article is about "Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije – AVNOJ / Антифашистичко веће народног ослобођења Југославије – АВНОJ". This shouldnt ever be removed or replaced. However, the organisation is refered differerntly in other minoritarian languages or variants of S-C, that is OK, it can be mentioned, but dont misslead readers it was the official native name, add it properly. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok.89.164.105.24 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 00:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• It might be more helpful to introduce the Yugoslav government-in-exile and King Peter in the background.

Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• The move went against explicit Soviet advice instructing Tito to avoid antagonise the exiled government and King Peter II; I'm confused as to why the Yugoslav government would take issue with "Anti-Fascist" being in the name of the council. Furthermore, is it known what the exiled regime actually thought of the AVNOJ at the time of its creation?

Re "Anti-Fascist" label - Hoare says that the body was expected to be named "Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia" and the "Anti-Fascist" attribute was added only after prompting by the Soviet concerns that this might cause them unnecessary friction in relations with the western allies who might see the KPJ's move as Soviet-endorsed proliferation of communism while the USSR was recipient of allied aid. Specifically, the "Anti-Fascist" label was meant to emphasise temporary character of the body and/or its designed purpose of struggle against the Axis rather than revolution. Do you think I need to clarify this in the prose?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a short paragraph on Soviet response to clarify this. Please take another look to see if further clarification is needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw what you ment - fixed... One sentence was misplaced.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Re regime's stance on the AVNOJ at the time of its creation: I found nothing in particular explicitly dealing with the relationship. However, Calic says that the only thing unifying the government in exile was their opposition to communism. Furthermore, the government in exile supported Chetniks (I have clarified this in the background now), so the one possible view of the issue of government response to the AVNOJ (at least the 2nd session) would be through organisation of the Ba Congress which is noted in the prose. At the time of the 3rd session, the government in exile was already disbanded following the Tito-Šubašić Agreement. This is also already in the prose. Nonetheless, I'll have a look if anything else can be reliably souced regarding the first session.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have investigated this further, and there seems to be virtually no response to either of the sessions. I'm aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but from Đilas (referenced in the article now) it appears that the government was consumed by infighting during the Bihać session, and reduced to clerical work during the 2nd session - so it appears logical they would either offer no response or nobody would bother to notice what they had to say.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

At any rate, I added a more detailed introduction of the govt in exile (and king's role re government) allowing the readers to conclude that the government was not quite functional.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• In January 1943, the executive council of the AVNOJ started a scheme to raise money for the Partisan struggle The executive council has not been introduced before this point. I presume it was established at the first session? Is it the same as the presidency?

No, those were different. The presidency was (at least formally) in charge of the session, sort of the speaker and deputies of the "parliament", while the executive council was appointed to carry out the decisions and be accountable to the AVNOJ (similar to a government). For the 1st session the presidency consisted of Ivan Ribar (president), Nurija Pozderac, Moša Pijade, Pavao Krce, Kata Pejnović, and Jevstatije Karamatijević (i.e. former president of the original Yugoslav Constituent Assembly, a Yugoslav senator, a KPJ member, a HSS member, a representative of an anti-fascist women organisation, and a Serbian Orthodox priest). The executive council appointed at the same session had some overlaps, but not much: Ribar (president), Pavle Savić, Pozderac, Edvard Kocbek (vice-presidents), Mile Peruničić (internal affairs), Simo Milošević (healthcare affairs), Mladen Iveković (welfare/social affairs), Ivan Milutinović (economic affairs), Vlada Zečević (religious affairs), Veselin Masleša (propaganda). I found these lists in a 1953 publication issued by the Presidium of the People's Assembly of the People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (pp 10 and 135). I have noted specifically that the AVNOJ appointed two separate bodies. Do you think it would be useful to list members of the executive council too (the president and vice presidents of the presidency are named in the prose)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been tackled through the action regarding the issue listed immediately below. Please take another look if more is needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• an all-Yugoslav executive body wielding powers that are normally granted to national governments. Powers such as? Also, what gave the body this level of authority, was it self-anointed or did it get recognition from the Allies?

Re the matter of powers/authority: The authority was granted by the AVNOJ and the executive council was at least formally accountable to AVNOJ. It is quite difficult to distinguish what was actual power and what was declaratory in nature only - but I could list executive council members with portfolios assigned to each and let the readers draw conclusions. Perhaps I could make a short table for the purpose... how does that sound to you?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, knowing who was on the exec council would be very helpful, a table sounds like a good way to organize it. -Indy beetle (talk)

Ok. Took another look at the 1953 publication [2] - it looks like a Hansard of the 1st and the 2nd session. I can see that each session had its own presidency, but let me take moment to see if there were any changes to the Exec Comm. I'd list presidency President and 4 VPs only here (the body had 60-ish members in the second session) and would be more inclined to make as separate list article with all other members if necessary than to clutter this one. Let me check for Exec Comm changes (if any) first. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I have a dillema here: The ExecComm was indeed replaced by NKOJ. Now, if I add a table specifying ExecComm members, it seems as if there should be another for NKOJ members. But, wouldn't that be a forking the content meant for the NKOJ article? The article already mentions Tito became the president of the NKOJ and lists one of three VPs. Should I just list the VPs or all 17 (that's including the pres and VPs) members specifying their portfolios?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Strike that - I'll do a minimalistic table and link the NKOJ article for details as the simplest solution.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Allied recognition: The Allies recognised the Partisans as an Allied force two days after conclusion of the 2nd session of the AVNOJ (at the Tehran Conference). I have added this information now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• The AVNOJ also denied the authority of the Yugoslav government-in-exile and forbade the return of King Peter II to the country. The obvious reason being that they were communist, of course, but if the AVNOJ said something specifically about its opposition to the pre-war government that would be nice to include.

I'll add further information, including from the source you suggested below and get back to you on this shortly. Except of course regarding the 3rd session where this issue was mooted after the government in exile was dissolved. --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UitTC)

This has already been tackled by use of Tomasevich 1969 source you suggested below. Please take another look now if more is needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing as the body only held three sessions, the particular buildings they met in, if known, would be nice to include. Especially if the third session was held in the old parliament building.
• According to this tourism guide, the site of the second AVNOJ meeting has been turned into a museum. This should be included if confirmed by a reliable source. Perhaps this will do?

Re this and the preceding question: Yes there are only three sessions, and the 3rd session was indeed held in the Parliament building. I'll mention the Parliament building in the section on the 3rd session. The other two buildings still exist despite efforts to the contrary - the 1st session building in Bihać was hit by artillery fire and the 2nd session building in Jajce was looted and damaged during the Bosnian War. Both have been repaired since. Museums were established in Bihać and in Jajce buildings (on the 10th anniversaries of respective sessions) and restored - in 2008 in Jajce and at an undetermined time after the war in Bihać - at least according to museum websites (self-correct: the Bihać one is local tourist board website). [3] and [4]. I'd like to put together a short paragraph on the museums in the "legacy" section. Do you think the two websites would be reliable enough for establishment of relevant dates? I'll see what else is to be found, but I'm just thinking out loud here. --Tomobe03 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Added a sentence explaininig existence of the museums (without going into details on dates of establishment, subsequent damage and restoration - not sure details on museums histories should be here or in a hypothetical museum article) and a sentence to note the 3rd session took place in the Yugoslav Parliament building.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• On the whole I think the article is pretty much sufficiently broad per GA criteria, but there is definitely more info out there, such as here which could be included. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Information offered by the suggested source is included now. --Tomobe03 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time to review the article. I'll try to address your concerns shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed a couple of issues and provided comments/asked for feedback on a couple more above. I'll add more information on the remaining issues as soon as possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed a few more issues now. I'll see what can be found and sourced reliably on any response the government-in-exile and address the museums/parliament building issues next.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Indy beetle, I believe I have addressed all the issues you have raised. Could you take another peek at this please.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've conducted some copyediting, but this article now certainly satisfies GA requirements. Great work! The museum info is good enough for this article. I will now promote it to GA. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your time taken to review the article and many helpful comments. I believe the article has greatly profited from this process. CHeers --Tomobe03 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is the mention of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in the emblem?

The emblem consisted of five lit torches burning as one flame representing five united nations; this was framed by sheaves, topped by a red five-pointed star, and crossed by a blue stripe bearing the name of the country, Democratic Federal Yugoslavia.

• Hoare, Marko Attila (2013). The Bosnian Muslims in the Second World War. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-70394-9.

Where is the name "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" in the emblem? Radutalk 13:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)