Talk:Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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 [1] - 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). [2] and [3]. 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)