Template talk:Yugoslavia timeline

Add

I couldn't figure out how to add the Free State of Fiume to the template. Can anyone do it, please? --Djordje D. Bozovic 11:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also missing the Principality of Pindus. --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is difficult to read because it does not fit into the screen. Is it read chronologically rightwards or downwards? I guess it's about how the different states of Yugoslavia joined or departed, but I can't decipher it. Maybe a bar diagram, such as this, would be much clearer. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Trieste feature on this time line as it was independent briefly and apart of Italy previously? Ijanderson (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NDH vs Fascist Italy

I am sorry if it seems that I am tampering with this template, but there is one obvious mistake in the template. Dalmatia was also a part of the Independent State of Croatia. From 1941, smaller part was annexed by Fascist Italy (larger was in NDH), and from 8 September 1943, whole Dalmatia (except one city - Zadar) was under NDH. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you for adding the correct information. I only started learning about Balkan history this week. I saw the template in the state it was before and decided to completely revamp it, making it more inline with Template:Czechoslovakia timeline. In the process I have learned a lot about Yugoslavia, but I am still just a few days into learning about it. Please, feel free to correct any of the errors I made.

I do want to include Banat, Bačka and Baranja in there somewhere, but I don't know where it will fit. I barely was able to get the SAOs in there, and it isn't as consistent as I'd like. It also left enough of a space deficit that I couldn't expand it for the entities during the Bosnian war, just leaving them as "see also". If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. — MK (^t/_c) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a better idea to leave you alone with this one, so yo will learn much more...It's never ending story... just joking, of course.--Kebeta (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can put 'Banat, Bačka and Baranja' under (1918 – 1941), just above 'Free State of Fiume', for now at least. --Kebeta (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Banat, Bačka and Baranja should be in same place with State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Wherever you think that these two could belong. PANONIAN 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of Montenegro annexed by NDH?

That seems incorrect. Parts of Montenegro were annexed by Italy and Albania: http://www.svetskirat.net/slike/razbijanje/zazbijanje_jugoslavije_1941.jpg PANONIAN 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where I have read that parts of Slovenia (around Bregana), and parts of Montenegro (northwest) were at some point in NDH, that is if compared to the republican borders established by Yugoslavia. Shortly, small part of today's northwest Montenegro was in NDH. But, as I have said, I am not sure. What I do know is that on 13 May 1941, the NDH signed an agreement with Germany which demarcated their borders, and on 19 May the Rome contracts were signed between the NDH and Italy. So, from 13 May to 19 May, Bay of Kotor (part of today's Montenegro) was in NDH. Of course, we are talking about nominal control. --Kebeta (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your map doesn't have modern borders on it, to compare with presented occupied territory. --Kebeta (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NDH had annexed the Bay of Kotor in 1943, after Italy's capitulation, but only in declaration. No Ustashi force had managed to gain a foothold in the Bocca, in which a tiny civil war had raged between Chetniks and Italians (the latter being the ones who switched sides in the war to the Allies, hearing the news from Italy, rather than just surrendering/evacuating) on one side and Partisans and Germans on the other (the former allying themselves with a German expeditionary force in an attempt to drive the Chetniks out of the Bocca). NDH had troubles of its own and was unable to send its own forces to the already very murky situation in the Bay. I also think that Zagreb was not fond of the Partisan-German coalition in Boka.

Are you perhaps thinking of that? --AVNOJist (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Croatia

Republic of Croatia shouldn't have 3 SAO's boxses in front of it, since SAO's were only a part of Croatia. This way it looks like SR Croatia was dissolved only into SAO's, and than after into Republic of Croatia with RSK. --Kebeta (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter; the Independent State of Croatia or "Kingdom" of Montenegro were only parts of Yugoslavia. Recognition here is not a specific matter, but the state on the ground; that is why Croatia is depicted as if independent since 1991, when SFRY became legally recognized and it an independent nation only in 1992, or Kosovo depicted as if independent since 2008, regardless of the fact that it still lacks international recognition of its independence from Serbia. --AVNOJist (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Istria and Slovenian Littoral

The biggest shortcoming of this template at the moment is that it doesn't cover the largest territorial change between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFRY -- the transfer of Istria, Slovenian Littoral, Zadar and several Croatian islands from Italy to Yugoslavia between 1943 and 1954, with the Free Territory of Trieste playing a role during the transition. – Miranche ^T C 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbia during WWI

A smaller comment -- I've noticed the template says "Metohija controlled by Austria-Hungary 1915-1918". However, all of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia were occupied by A-H during this time, see Serbian Campaign (World War I) and Salonika Front. Is there a reason to single out Metohija, or is this an oversight? – Miranche ^T C 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Bulgarian Kingdom had occupied eastern and southeastern Serbia (centered around Nish), as well as Vardar Macedonia. Originally, Kosovo and Metohija too were occupied by Bulgarian forces, but in accordance to the Treaty of Amiti, Bulgarian forces withdrew from Metohija and most (but not all) of Kosovo in 1916, leaving those territories to be occupied by Austro-Hungarian armed forces. This reminded me, this should be somehow put in this timeline.

The precise reasoning for individualizing Metohija is because Metohija had been a a part of Montenegro, while Kosovo a part of Serbia (hence also comes their historical division into two parts, which geographically does not completely correspond the territorial division on the Serbian and Montenegrin parts of Kosovo).

Speaking of this timeline, it is quite awful. I understand if the division is done in accordance to modern countries, but the division at the beginning seems provisional and without any specific criteria. Why are there regions of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia separate? What then with the region of Istria, once known as Austrian Littoral, of which the greatest part (excluding Trieste) had become a part of Yugoslavia in 1947? Why is Slovenia mentioned, if there was no Slovenia back then, but it's composed out of three parts of three different Cisleithanian crownladns? Again, a similar thing with the totally unnecessary division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Kosovo and Metohija.

The horrible mess should be rearranged, I suggest in accordance to modern states - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia, while leaving also slightly different italicized part for Kosovo just under Serbia, and all problems should be solved. I bet no foreigner could make heads or tails of the current situation. --AVNOJist (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional info - Bulgaria had kept until the Allied offensives in 1918 under its occupation eastern and southern Kosovo, leaving the western portions to Austria-Hungary. Priština was a bordering control town between Bulgarian and Austro-Hungarian occupation zones in Serbia. --AVNOJist (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The unilateral problem

What is this crap? Apparently Kosovo "Declared unilateral independence, which is since then only partially recognised". It looks like one side is so desperate to get their POV on every mention of Kosovo that any hope of NPOV, or indeed readable English, has fallen by the wayside. bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the standard Kosovo note FWIW. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks better. bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Article?

This is a great template and a very thorough timeline, I believe, But it would be very useful to have an article to go with it. This is a very complex topic, and we don't really have a comprehensive overview of the development and disintegration of Yugoslavia. Perhaps it could simply be in a timeline format? Jmj713 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)