Jump to content

Talk:History of Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Stupid changes

Some idiot decided to change the word "Kosovo" to (quote) "Kosovo for fuck's sake" (non-literal translation, literally "Kosovo jebo im ja mamu")

Recent History

No recent history here? Not even a link to the Kosovo / KiM stuff?


The Map of Early Serbia is wrong. The map it too pretending. The serbia has not ever had any agreement with the lands west of the river Vrbas and Neretva, and for the sea it had only Dioklea. The problem is that Constantin Porfirogent claimed that all the people on these theritory are servents to the Byzant empire. Furthere on, by the term Serbs it is associated not the nationality but rather the servents.


I agree with the above statement. Also, from a 3rd party perspective this article is most definitely written by a serb, it needs serious re-writing by a non-balkaner. It has been copied+pasted from several sites but it makes the facts look more beautiful than they actually are. Serbia was never an empire and there were officially no "emperors", this is false propaganda spread in serbian schools (read the original articles on the internet, it puts 'emperor' in sitates because such did not exist at any time.) There is a huge number of flaws and errors in this article.

For some reason, it also completely dismisses the parts of history where it was a part of the Banate of Bosnia (later Kingdom of), at least parts of it. I have studied this topic deep and there is no question about this, it further convinces me that the author of this topic is very biased.

-Erik

Serbia was self-proclaimed empire during the rule of Stefan Dusan and his son Stefan Uros V. Dusan proclaimed Serbian archbishop to patriarch and then Serbian patriarch proclaimed Dusan to emperor. However, I think that medieval European countries (except Byzantium) accepted Dusan as emperor. --Millosh 08:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
However, I agree that the article should be rewritten by some person which is not from Balkans. I can help. --Millosh 08:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Every empire is self-proclaimed --estavisti 19:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbia became an official kingdom and later an empire according to official medieval documents which can be found in Venetian, Greek and other Byzantine archives. These are all facts already established by historians. --SGS 10:51, 06 Aug 2006 (UTC)

That was Monte Negro, they had a empire, not Serbia. It needs to be rewriten before people get hurt. By every party involved, the only ones who can get burned by this look of history are Serbs because the county on the map that is there shown was at that time also known as Red Croatia. I feel sad for the Monte Negro people, Serbs are using their history in thier propagadna.

Now you will say that Montenegrins are actually Croats, right? We do not have to listen Croatian nationalistic crap here... PANONIAN (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs, even DNA research concurs with that. The fact that they choose to live in a different State doesn't change their ethnic background. --SGS 10:52, 06 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Serbia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's working. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif

Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion

I've deleted a paragraph - quite a big chunk of text - from the chapter about Serbia in WWII, so I feel obliged to explain my action. The paragraph dealt exclusively with the crimes perpetrated by the Independent State of Croatia within that state. Therefore, it was irrelevant for the history of Serbia (not for the history of Serbs, mind you). If that paragraph had been kept, it would have been only consistent to include Serb activities in Croatia and Bosnia in the '90s, which also wouldn't make any sense in this article. --Zmaj 13:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Mirko Cvetkovic left.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mirko Cvetkovic left.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

After this battle Hungary ceased to be independent state ... Emperor Jovan Nenad was assassinated and his state collapsed.

this is crap ... Hungary only split into two in 1529, in three parts after 1541 ... The Black Man was an ordinary bandit ...--fz22 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The correct fact is that Kingdom of Hungary was not independent after 1526. After this year there was a civil war in the Kingdom between king Zapolya (who was vassal of the Ottomans) and Ferdinand (who was vasal of the Habsburgs). Jovan Nenad used that civil war between them to create his own state. Whether he was bandit or not is a matter of opinion; for you he was bandit, for some other he was national hero. Same could be said for many other leaders in history, for example, the Horthy Miklos, a WW2 leader of Hungary for some was leader and for some was fascist and war criminal. PANONIAN (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling this "carpet-bagger" national hero is nothing but exageration or a history "re-factoring" :)
In the other issue you have right Hungary was not independent until 1867-1918--fz22 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the people who erected monument to him in Subotica did believed that he was national hero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emperor_Jovan_Nenad.JPG This monument was in fact erected after First World War and was destroyed in 1941 during the Hungarian occupation, but was rebuilt later. I think that people who destroyed monument in 1941 were those who wanted to re-factor history. By the way would you also say that Attila the scourge of God and Arpad were bandits too? I do not see the difference between these two on one side and Jovan Nenad on another. If you ask the citizens of ancient Rome, Attila for them was the greatest bandit that ever walked on Earth, while for many of modern Hungarians he is national hero. And Hungary was not independent in 1867, because status of Hungary after 1867 is correctly called internal autonomy, not independence. PANONIAN (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Come'on ... Arpad versus the Black Man?? :) you know what it is up to you ... if you want to be proud of Cserni Jovan, please do.--fz22 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Theodosian Line sentence

The Theodosian line will help people to understand better the history of Serbia, its political implications etc. --SGS 10:53, 06 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Also added Stari Vlah entry point, that is the location they were first signaled in the 7th century. --SGS 12:12, 13 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Guys, what's going on here? It looks like User:PANONIAN and User:Rjecina are playing pingpong with a section of the article. The section in question seems rather suspect, and at the very least needs to be rewritten for grammatical purposes.--AgentCDE / Talk / 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing pingpong? I just reverting bad faith edits of user who has strong political attitude, not to mention bunch of inaccurate statements in his edits. Let go one by one: PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"During break-up of Yugoslavia the position of the Serbiaian government was that any region of the other republics in which Serbs were a majority had to be be annexed to Serbia (or new Yugoslavia)."

This is completelly wrong because Serbian government never officially declared something like that. PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"On the other hand, in regions region of Serbia where another nation was in the majority, those regions had to stay inside Serbia on the grounds that they were part of Serbia's historical territory."

This is also ridiculous because position of the Serbian government in the case of Kosovo was based on International law that do not support border changes of current states, not on "Serbia's historical territory" claims or something like that. PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"During Croatian War of Independence Serb forces which has wanted to create border on line Virovitica - Karlobag

The only person who "wanted to create border on line Virovitica - Karlobag" was Vojislav Šešelj and he did not had command over military units, not to mention that military units were Yugoslav and not Serbian (Serbia did not had its army before 2006). PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"War in Bosnia and Herzegovina has finished much better for Serbia because Serb soldiers which has recieved wages and other help from home country has taken half of state."

This is also ridiculous - these "Serb soldiers" were soldiers of Bosnian Serb army and they did not "taken half of state" because they live in that half for centuries. PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"During this conquest Serb forces has make genocide and other similar crimes for which Republika Srpska (name of territory taken by Serbs during war) has been declared guilty"

This is not article about Republika Srpska, is it? PANONIAN 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was using "playing pingpong" to refer to the way the article was going back and forth, like a pingpong ball. That said, you make several good points, and I agree with you.--AgentCDE / Talk / 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but for me is not possible to accept Serbia version of history which is like:

"Despite the civil wars in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia remained peaceful until 1998, although part of its leadership and institutions supported Bosnian and Croatian Serbs who were one of the sides in these wars by arming and directing their troops."

Simple this is not truth and I can give you how much sources you need which will tell something like:

"The first European head of state to be prosecuted for genocide and war crimes, he emerged to embody the dark side of European endeavour, and to sully the hopes generated by the eastern European and Balkan revolutions of that momentous year. In short, he became Europe's chief menace, the most dangerous figure in post-cold war Europe.

From 1991 to 1999, he presided over mayhem and mass murder in south-eastern Europe. In a long list of villains. he was the central figure. To the civilian victims of Srebrenica and Vukovar, Sarajevo and Dubrovnik, Pristina and Banja Luka, he was the chilling embodiment of the evil men can do." This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1729646,00.html. about Serbia president Slobodan Milošević. There are milion similar pages.

User Panonian say that "only" Vojislav Šešelj has demanded border Virovitica - Karlobag. This not important man has been vice-president of Serbia goverment.

To make long story short Wikipedia is only international (English,German, Italian, French) Encyclopædia which say that Serbia has nothing to do with wars in Croatia and Bosnia..--Rjecina 21:35, 3 June 2007 (CET)

1 other point. I write sources for my statements. What sources is writing user Panonian ? ..--Rjecina 22:04, 3 June 2007 (CET)

But what exactly is wrong with paragraph that say "Despite the civil wars in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia remained peaceful until 1998, although part of its leadership and institutions supported Bosnian and Croatian Serbs who were one of the sides in these wars by arming and directing their troops."?

  • wars in Bosnia and Croatia were civil wars (fought between citizens of these countries that belonged to different ethnicities)
  • Serbia indeed remained peaceful place before 1998 events in Kosovo.
  • part of Serbian leadership (including Milošević whom you mentioned) supported Bosnian and Croatian Serbs.

So, if you say that something of this is not truth, please say why and prove your claims. Also, using quotes from POV internet articles that you can find on google search would not help us to determine correct facts and NPOV ways in which one Wikipedia article should develop. And yes, it is only Vojislav Šešelj who demanded Greater Serbia (or you know any other political leader that demanded this?). PANONIAN 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your sources like this one: http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/3/t3-1.htm The fact that this source mention "Serbian army" does not mean that Serbian army existed - it just mean that author of that text was an IDIOT who did not know the difference between terms Serbia and Yugoslavia. So, what exactly you do not understand here? Do you still claim that Serbian army existed before 2006? (Please answer this question). PANONIAN 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, a suggestion: Calm down, and take two steps away from the Wikipedia. Try to work together. You could look into mediation from WP:RFM.--AgentCDE / Talk / 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

It is not possible to work together. Sources are on my side so... His only defense is that Serbia is not guilty because she has not existed. If she has not existed why in article history of Serbia is writen about period 1918 - 2006. Then this all must be deleted (only solution). I have writen demand for mediation. Now is time for him. Rjecina 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's never said Serbia didn't exist, just that a Serbian army didn't. Rather than trying to convince each other that only one version is the correct one (which obviously isn't going to happen), how about agree that neither is perfect, and compromise on a new version? I just wrote it up quickly, and without really looking at anything else, so I'm sure there are problems with it, but as a starting point how about something like this?
Despite the civil wars in neighboring Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia remained peaceful until 1998. Part of its leadership and institutions did, however, support the Serbs in those countries by arming and directing their troops. During the Croatian War of Independence, some nationalists, most prominently Vojislav Šešelj, supported the Croatian Serbs' opinion that the Serbian border should be extended to the Virovitica - Karlobag line, though this never came to fruition. Following the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska were accused of genocide and tried before the International Court of Justice. Serbia was found not guilty, though it was determined that more should have been done to prevent the actions of the Bosnian Serbs.
There are some key questions that should be clarified so this can be resolved:
  1. Who, specifically, supported the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs? I'm assuming Šešelj was one, who else?
  2. I'd imagine Šešelj wasn't the only one to support that line, though perhaps the only high-ranking person. If I'm wrong in that assumption, the line saying that it was a nationalist opinion should be fixed/removed.
  3. Were the accusations and trial after the war, or was it still going on?
  4. Were the Bosnian Serbs found guilty?
  5. I'm not quite sure what to do with the whole sanctions thing, but that could probably be worked in there somehow.
I realize that several of those questions are probably very easily answered by looking around a bit, but I don't have the time at the moment. Hopefully the paragraph is decent enough that the two of you can use it to work something out. -Bbik 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To make long story short I have taken this from discussion page of user Osli73 (I have writen that):

To not look very long for sources I will give you 3 of them from english wikipedia. Articles are Battle of Vukovar, Ratko Mladić and War in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • In first is written how JNA has come from Serbia to attack Vukovar. During "trip" they have commited ethnic cleansing so that only Serbs stay in taken territory. Do you agree that doing this JNA has become Serbian army ?
  • In second is written On May 2, 1992, one month after the Bosnian Republic's declaration of independence, Mladić and his generals, acting under orders from Belgrade, blockaded the city of Sarajevo, shutting off all traffic in and out of the city, as well as water and electricity.
  • 3rd article is must important. There is writen how in perion march - may 1992 Bosnian Serb Army was able to take over 70% of the country during these months. . This is another Serbian POV which I will now change. Why ?

Bosnian Serb Army is created only in middle of may 1992. Before that name has been JNA which is under total control of Belgrade and Serbian president Slobodan Milošević. My point is that Serbian army under name of JNA (they are making ethnic cleansing of non serbian population)has taken 70 % of Bosnia and now somebody tell that they have not been in war ??? Only after that conquest they have started to give only "supplies". Conclusion: Serbia has been in war with Croatia (september 1991 - january 1992) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (march - may 1992)! User Panonian will say that this is done by Jugoslav army not by serbian army, but this army has been controled by Serbia (Serbia president), 90 - 95 % of soldiers has been Serbs and they have make ethnic cleansing of people of other nationality. Because of all that Serbia (population around 10 000 000) and Montenegro (around 680 000) has recieved sanctions. Rjecina 4:43, 4 June 2007 (CET)

You know, I really think you're arguing against your own point here. No one is saying there was no Serb involvement. It's just a matter of how, where the Serbs were from, and how neutrally it's explained.
To your second bullet, Part of [Serbia's] leadership and institutions did, however, support the Serbs in those countries by arming and directing their troops. This is taken directly from the version of the page that you are against. I'm not quite sure what the problem is there, as it's already stated that "orders from Belgrade" were given to the troops in the other countries, though it doesn't specify that they were given to Mladić.
As for that last paragraph... Also taken from Osli73's page, also left by you (emphasis mine):
Court in Hague:
"The Hague tribunal has indicted former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic for atrocities in Croatia, saying he was the head of a conspiracy to commit war crimes there between August 1991 and 1992.
The tribunal's latest indictment also names 15 other members of the plot. Apart from Milosevic and two alleged members who have been killed, all those listed are still under investigation for involvement in the conspiracy.
According to the indictment, the war against Croatia, at least formally, was not waged by Yugoslavia, then in process of dissolution, nor by Serbia, but by Milosevic and his fellow conspirators who had hijacked the country's institutions and used them for the purpose of a joint criminal enterprise."
Your own arguements and what you're trying to use to support them don't even agree with each other. Perhaps rather than arguing whether it should be called the Yugoslav Army or the Serbian Army, it should be clarified whether it was the Yugoslav/Serbian Army, or simply Milosević misusing the army (with whichever name) while he had the power. At least that way, it will be clear what the debate is about. Right now, it sounds more like it's just an argument over whether inflammatory POV should be allowed over still accurate if slightly less detailed neutrality. -Bbik 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

About statement of who has been in war with Croatia my only answer is that about WWII is possible to say something similar about Hitler because he has in coup (Reichstag Fire, and president election after Hindenburg death) hijacked country's institutions and used them for the purpose of a joint criminal enterprise.

I have writen about question Yugoslav/Serbian army because user Panonian is saying that Serbia has not been in war but Yugoslav army has been. Other point of this sources has been that army has been controled from Belgrade (Serbia). Do not forget paramilitary units from Serbia which has entered territory of Croatia and Bosnia. Next 2 days I will not be on wikipedia but before I go there is 1 little question. If Serbia has not been in war why has Serbia president (Slobodan Milošević) signed peace agreement with Bosnia and Croatia in 1995 and why has Serbia been under UN sanctions ? If you can find any realistic reason for that I give up. Before I go I must say that realistic reason (for peace agreements) is not that president of Serb in Bosnia (Karadzic) has not been in situation to come. -Rjecina 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several important things here:

  • 1. Before 2006 there was no Serbian army - the name of the army was Yugoslav army, no matter if most members of that army were Serbs. Also, when war in Croatia started, not only Serbs, but people from other republics, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Bosniaks fought in that war in Yugoslav army against Croatian separatists. So, by all means, it indeed was Yugoslav army, not Serbian one. After Bosnia and Macedonia became independent Yugoslav army was composed of peoples from two republics, Serbia and Montenegro, so it again was not only Serbian army. And this army was not "controled by Serbian president" - it was controled by "defence council", which included president of Yugoslavia and presidents of the republics (Milošević included, but he was only one person in that council).
  • 2. Bosnian Serb army was separate army of de facto independent Republika Srpska and therefore there is no single reason that we writte here about this army because we have separate articles about both, Republika Srpska and its army.
  • 3. What is the relevance of the fact that "army was controled from Belgrade?" - it was Yugoslav army and Belgrade was capital of Yugoslavia (what is hard for understanding here?).
  • 4. Regarding "paramilitary units from Serbia", they again were not forces of Serbia, but were in fact parts of Yugoslav army.
  • 5. Also, in the time when Yugoslav army was involved in these wars in Croatia and Bosnia, these two countries were not yet recognized as independent and were still de jure part of Yugoslavia, thus, Yugoslav army in fact fought against separatists on its own soil. Once these countries were recognized as independent, Yugoslav army left from Croatia and Bosnia - all of this is well known and documented.
  • 6. Regarding question why "Serbian president (Slobodan Milošević) signed peace agreement with Bosnia and Croatia in 1995", it is because Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia gave him authority to sign peace agreements in their name. And one more important point: he did not signed these peace agreements in the name of Serbia, but in the name of Bosnian and Croatian Serbs (who gave him authority to sign in their name) and in the name of Yugoslavia (which was one of the guarantees of the peace agreements - as I said, Milošević was member of the defence council of Yugoslavia).
  • 7. And again, Serbia was not under UN sanctions, but Yugoslavia. PANONIAN 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Security council and UN about Yugoslav and Serbian aggression on Bosnia

  • 91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their non-compliance with existing resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the London Peace Accords of August 1992;

3. Demands that Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately cease their aggressive acts and hostility and comply fully and unconditionally with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 752 (1992) of 15 May 1992, 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, 770 (1992) and 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, 781 (1992) of 9 October 1992 and 787 (1992) of 16 November 1992, General Assembly resolution 46/242 and the London Peace Accords of August 1992;" ......


For intelligent person which do not have POV thinking this is enough but for others I will return clock few months more in history to Security council resolution 752 and later 757.

  • Resolution 752 (1992)

..."Demands that those units of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and elements of the Croatian Army now in Bosnia-Hercegovina must either be withdrawn, or be subject to the authority of the Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina, or be disbanded and disarmed with their weapons placed under effective international monitoring, and requests the Secretary-General to consider without delay what international assistance could be provided in this connection;"...

Demands also that all irregular forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina be disbanded and disarmed;

  • Resolution 757 (1992)

...that action be taken as regards units of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the disbanding and disarming with weapons placed under effective international monitoring of any units that are neither withdrawn nor placed under the authority of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ...

..."Decides that all States shall adopt the measures set out below, which shall apply until the Security Council decides that the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), including the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), have taken effective measures to fulfil the requirements of resolution 752 (1992); ""....

If to somebody is still not clear resolution 757 from 30 may 1992 it is speaking about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and if somebody maybe think wrong that this is not having anything with Serbia Serbia name is writen !.

If to somebody is still not clear UN 91st plenary meeting from 18 December 1992 speak about Serbia and Serbian forces (not Yugoslavia) which are making aggressive acts against Bosnia and Herzegovina

I am sure that person with POV thinking will again say that all world has been in 1992 thinking very bad about good Serbia which has not attacked or done other bad things to anybody. -Rjecina 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, but what you presented is a forgery - the text that you presented simply do not say "Serbia", but it say "Serbia and Montenegro". Although, State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was formed in 2003, name "Serbia and Montenegro" was used long before that by US government to designate Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. See for example this map from 1995, which say: "Serbia and Montenegro have asserted the formation of a joint independent state, but this entity has not been formally recognized as a state by the United States": http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/europe/serbia.jpg PANONIAN 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look again this because her nobody speak about Yugoslavia or Serbian and Montenegrin forces in Bosnia. They speak only about Serbian forces and not about Serbian and Montenegro forces (or Yugoslavia forces). Do you understand difference ?

  • 91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their non-compliance with existing resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the London Peace Accords of August 1992;

3. Demands that Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately cease their aggressive acts and hostility and comply fully and unconditionally with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 752 (1992) of 15 May 1992, 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, 770 (1992) and 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, 781 (1992) of 9 October 1992 and 787 (1992) of 16 November 1992, General Assembly resolution 46/242 and the London Peace Accords of August 1992;" ......

Only possible solution for our problem before others come to our war (they will come do not be afraid) that in article history of Serbia nothing is spoken about wars in Bosnia and Croatia. Text will be similar to:

"Two remaining republics of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, formed in 1992 a new federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" -this is from article. After that will come something like: "War actions during breakup of Yugoslavia has come to Serbia territory (territory must be writen) in 1998 with clashes on Kosovo" and after that will come text from article: "between Serbian/Yugoslav security forces and the K.L.A in most of the western media led to NATO aerial bombardment, which would last for 78 days......"

In this way nothing is spoken about wars in Croatia and Bosnia ! Do you agree ?

Rjecina 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not have to spam this talk page by repeating whole text - text clearly mention Montenegro everywhere where Serbia is mentioned which clearly show that it in fact speak about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Also, it is really not clear whether term "Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" refer to army of Republika Srpska or to Yugoslav army (they used name "Serbia and Montenegro" to designate FR Yugoslavia, thus it is not surprising that they also use term "Serbian forces" to refer to Yugoslav army. Such usage of the terms came from their political opinion that they did not recognized FR Yugoslavia under that name, thus they also did not used that name. PANONIAN 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


You have not answered on my peace offer? Rjecina 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What offer? You still did not proved that Republic of Serbia and its non-existing army was directly involved in these wars. PANONIAN 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This offer and do not say again that this is spam because you have asked to see offer: Text will be similar to:

"Two remaining republics of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, formed in 1992 a new federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" -this is from article. After that will come something like: "War actions during breakup of Yugoslavia has come to Serbia territory (territory must be writen) in 1998 with clashes on Kosovo" and after that will come text from article: "between Serbian/Yugoslav security forces and the K.L.A in most of the western media led to NATO aerial bombardment, which would last for 78 days......"

In this way nothing is spoken about wars in Croatia and Bosnia ! Do you agree ?

Rjecina 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You proposing that we writte this paragraph? But how exactly "war actions during breakup of Yugoslavia has come to Serbia territory"??? - the war in Serbia was started by Albanian terrorists in Kosovo, it did not came "from outside". This paragraph is ridiculous. PANONIAN 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For me this is more or less OK. Only thing which is important in my thinking is that nothing is spoken about wars in Bosnia and Croatia because for us (and many others from Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia)is not possible to come to agreement. This will be OK ? You can write her in discussion page this part of text. Maybe something like : "war actions during breakup of Yugoslavia on Serbia territory has started in 1998 with Albanian revolt on Kosovo" .It is not OK to write terrorist because you will have revert war with Albanians, but then this will not be my problem anymore (so if you want you can use word terrorist. I will not say anything !) Rjecina 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether we would use word terrorists or not - the important thing is that war in Kosovo was not connected to wars in Bosnia and Croatia, it was completelly separate event and we cannot see it as "continuation" of wars in Bosnia and Croatia. PANONIAN 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All this time again and again you are speaking why is something not possible. Can you say something to resolve this problem ? Can you propose changes in text so that nothing is spoken about wars on territory of Croatia and Bosnia ? I wait your example of text. Rjecina 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I do not see a problem with current sentence. What exactly you want to delete and why? You cannot simply delete whole history part from 1991 to 1998 - something must be said about it. I will try to change a sentence to "please" you anyway... PANONIAN 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine article needs more citations

This is an excellent article, but it needs more citations truly to qualify for the B-class rating it's been given. I've stuck some citation tags around. I also tagged a few weasel words ("Many see..." Many say..."). Once these issues are addressed, I think History of Serbia is a good candidate for A-class or Featured. J M Rice (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"A Serbian principality was restored a few years after the fall of the Serbian despotate by the Brankovics and existed as a Hungarian dependency situated in what is now Vojvodina and northern Hungary/Romania."

Any source for that? Vojvodina yes, but about northern Hungaria or Romania i couldn´t find anything.

Serbia and Vojvodina

There are two images of Serbia and Vojvodina.

First one shows Serbia and Serbian Vojvodina (serbian autonomy under Austria) in 1848.

Second one shows Serbia and Serbian Voivodeship and Banat of Temeschwar, austrian province named after two former provices: Serbian Vojvodina and Banat of Temeswar. It was not form of Serb autonomy because Serbs was 22.52% of its population.

For the history of modern Serbia, first image is of greater significance, because Serbian Vojvodina was precursor of modern Serbian Autonomous Province Vojvodina. Banat of Temeswar was not exclusivly Serbian, but it was also important for modern Romanian history.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we can post both images into article - the second image is important because it show province with name "Serbia" and title of this article is "History of Serbia". Also, that province was a form of ethnic Serb autonomy since it was formed in accordance with document from 1691 and with decisions of the may assembly from 1848, both of which were exclusively related to Serb autonomy within Habsburg Monarchy and Serbian language was official in the province, together with German. Also, Serbs initially were not largest ethnic group in the province, but until 1860 (just before province was abolished) Serbs became more numerous than Romanians. Also, both provinces were precursors of modern Vojvodina (and you are only person in this World that think otherwise). As for Banat of Temeswar, that province was abolished in 1778, so please do not mix things from completelly different time periods because 1849-1860 province only used in its name words "Banat of Temeswar" but was something completelly different. Also, what is a point of a claim that province was "not exclusively Serbian"? Modern Serbia is not exclusively Serbian as well since there are municipalities and settlements in Serbia where other ethnic groups are in majority but that does not mean that we should not use map of modern Serbia anywhere, does it? Finally, it is ridiculous that basic things should be explained to somebody like this, no matter if reason for that is trolling or just ignorance... 81.18.52.169 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Also regarding first map, it is made very bad: it does not contain a legend that describe what is what in the map, it does not mention a year to which that map refer to and it is also made in a way to create a false impression that Serbian Vojvodina was not part of Austrian Empire and that Principality of Serbia was not part of Ottoman Empire, which is wrong. 81.18.52.169 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Can somoeone explain the map. It's a little cofusing. The statement days that sebria comprised of 6 or so tribal areas, yet the map shos one large are simply labelled serbia

Yes the map is unclear. The central area marked Serbia is meant to be the 'state' of Raska, and depicts is 'dominant' status in the theme of serbia

Actually, I found two maps (from a German source) showing the serb lands c. 1000 and 1097 AD.

With the issues surrounding map of Serbia's supposed medieval territories, these maps illustrate the realms encompassing Serbia and croatia

The map focuses on Germany, but one can see Croatia and Serbia clearly. Being German, it would have no reason to be biased. This would surely help confirm the claims of editors regarding Serbia's and Croatia's territories, and their varying influence over Bosnia at different times. Hxseek 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Look this maps [[1]]---Rjecina 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, very good

dangerous and illegitimate practice

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992-1995. The War Crimes Tribual accused Milošević and other Serb leaders of "attempting to create a Greater Serbia, a Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia, and achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes.[1]

I noticed that some contributors remove images with referenced description without prior discussion on talk page. This dangerous and illegitimate practice leads us to edit warring and should not be used on Wikipedia. I repeat, please use talk page if you are disputing something. Edit summary is not enough for dispute resolution. --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done map description reinstated.--Dans (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8

post-war imprisonment of German and Hungarian minorities

I'm a little disappointed that both the history article and the excerpt on the main Serbia article has no mention of the post-war imprisonment, fleeing, and/or expulsion of the entire German minority of nearly 500,000, and a great deal of the Hungarian population, even though it has paragraphs worth about Yad Vashem, Ustashe, and the treatment of other minorities like Jews. I don't see why one minority is more important than the other, especially since the Jewish population was so much smaller. Now if anyone is going to say these jailed civilians were Nazi sympathizers, then you should balance it out by analyzing the German minority's support for German nationalist movements in Serbia.

Unless you're treating Vojvodina (where most Germans lived) as a separate history, although I doubt the average curious reader would know the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire (14th – 20th Century)

That section needs improving, and a neutral POV is needed. Battle at Maritsa was clearly serbian defeat, but the statement of "Drunken Serbian knights" need verification. It also mentions some "rebels",in contest of Serbs. The state of Mrnjavčević was independent and most powerfull serbian realm at that time, and surely they were not rebels.

Also, the map of Serbian realms [2] was incorrectly labelled as "Ottoman empire". In the same section, battle of Pločnik [3] 1386. was mentioned as Serbian defeat, instead of victory. Below that is really confusing text about battle of Kosovo, that needs to be rewritten.

Also, in part "Modern Serbia", the picture of leader of Serbian uprising in 1804. was incorrectly labelled, probably by some vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.96.44 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1991-2006

There is practically nothing in this article about Serbia between 1991 and 2006. Surely the 1996-97 protests in Serbia, Kosovo War, 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the 5th October (Serbia) deserve at least some mention?! :) --Joy [shallot] 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of 20th century history of Serbia

Ok, since several users expressed a view that certain parts of the history of Serbia (for example World War II) are not well covered by the sub-articles, I will start discussion about that.

Besides this main article named "History of Serbia", there are several sub-articles related to some specific periods of history of Serbia. Such articles are including:

It is evident that post-1918 history of Serbia is not well covered with proper sub-articles. Existing articles related to some parts of 20th century history of Serbia are articles about former countries and republics and are not proper coverage for post-1918 history of Serbia.

So, I have 2 proposals how this could be solved:

  • 1. Article named "History_of_modern_Serbia" could be expanded to include history from 1918 to 2011,
  • 2. or, we can create new article named "History of Serbia in the 20th and 21st century", which would cover entire post-1918 history of Serbia.

Some users suggested that there should be an separate article that cover WW2 period only, in which case, we could create 3 new articles:

  • 1. History of Serbia (1918-1941)
  • 2. History of Serbia (1941-1945)
  • 3. History of Serbia after 1945

Opinions? PANONIAN 16:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


One thing must be carefully avoided: duplication of material, i.e. WP:CFORKs. Kingdom of Serbia covers Serbian history up to 1918, SR Serbia covers the period from 1943 to 1990, while the remaineder is covered by Republic of Serbia (1990–2006). The gap is between 1918 and 1943, which is logical since no Serbian state (or any other South Slav state) existed during the period.
It must also be remembered at all times during this discussion that Nedić's Serbia was an illegal Nazi puppet created during wartime, and is not included or recognized within the succession of Serbian states. The same is true for the Croatian NDH, which is also not included in the succession. For Croatia the succession is Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1943) -> SR Croatia (1943-1991). For Serbia the succession is Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1943) -> SR Serbia (1943-1990).
I'll copy-paste my proposal in Serbo-Croatian (along with its brief argumentation) from Umjetnik's talkpage (User talk:Слободни умјетник):
"Eh sad, treba li nam "Srbija u Drugom svjetskom ratu" na enWikipediji? To je sigurno interesantno pitanje, a zavisi prvenstveno o načinu na koji je povijest Srbije obrađena na ovom projektu. To je dosta zastarjeli format za obrađivanje povijesti država (ima ga još ali se pokušava ukinuti). Npr. postojali su brojni članci "Croatia in the Habsburg monarchy", "Croatia in a personal union with Hungary" itd, međutim sada je noviji trend da se povijest obradi u obliku kontinuiranih država. pa tako imamo na primjer
Zašto je to "elegantnije"? Zato što povijesne države i onako moraju imati svoje članke, a posebni članci ala "Hrvatska u Austrijskom Carstvu" bi u suštini pokrivali isti period kao i oni. E sada dolazimo do problema unitarističke Kraljevine Jugoslavije, i kao predstaviti Srbiju u periodu od 1918-1945. Tu nije bilo ni "Srbije" ni "Hrvatske", pa su članci poput "Croatia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" opravdani. Kako onda najefikasnije pokriti taj period? Prateći kontinuitet država najefikasniji je sistem da imamo:
Dakle drugim riječima, predlažem da obradimo period povijesti Srbije od 1941-1943 u sklopu novog članka Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (kad već stvaramo novi članak), a što se tiče zadnjih godina rata predlažem da se proširi članak SR Serbia koji i onako već pokriva taj period. Ne smije se zaboraviti da je nacistička okupacija bila ilegalni akt kojega bi trebalo izbjegavati obraditi kao neku "cjelinu" u kontekstu sistema koji je baziran na sukcesiji država."
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we discuss this in English? I am not against that proposal either, but instead "Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" we should use title "History of Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia", so that somebody do not think that Serbia was an administrative unit of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. By the way, Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed until November 29, 1945, which is official date when monarchy was abolished and republican system proclaimed instead. PANONIAN 19:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No. In all modesty and objectivity I am a lot more familiar with this period. That is a common misconception - you are forgetting the Tehran Conference and the Tito-Šubašić Agreement. The monarchy was abolished in 1945, yes, but the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was gone in late 1943 (or early 1944 depending on your point of view). It was replaced during WWII by the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", which was universally recognized by the Allied powers, including the King of Yugoslavia and his government in London under British pressure (formally with the Tito-Šubašić Agreement). The "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" was the result of a compromise and, while it was not organized as a monarchy, it was also not organized as a republic and had Peter II as a de jure king (a good direct example is the King's own speech from September 1944, where he calls his country "Our Federal Yugoslavia").
The DFJ also had two recognized governments for a period: the AVNOJ (i.e. the NKOJ) and the government-in-exile were both valid and dually represented governments of the Allied state of "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" during the 1943-44 period - up until the Belgrade Agreement which merged the two governments with Tito as Prime Minister.
In 1945 the monarchy was abolished and the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" was reorganized as a republic - the "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


State succession proposal

Elaboration

Serbian history is thus far covered in a very disorganized way. What we have are dozens of articles that cover the same things. We must carefully avoid duplication of material, i.e. WP:CFORKs. There must be a clear succession of articles discussing Serbian history, a well organized procession. Wherever possible, Serbian history should be covered in the relevant historical country articles. Why? Because country articles are always necessary and cannot be merged, while it is entirely up to us to institute or merge a generic "Serbia in XY" article. Of course, where its is not possible to cover history through the historic Serbian states, we can implement the "Serbia in XY" format.
When I say we have a disorganized coverage of Serbian history, I refer primarily to the fact that we have two parallel successions with many articles that cover the exact same subject from a slightly different angle. Notice:

Prehistoric Serbia (prehistory) -> Ancient Serbia (which covers the Iron Age of prehistory) -> Roman era Serbia (168 BC – AD 476) -> Byzantine Serbia (330 - 610) -> Serbia in the Middle Ages (610-1540) -> History of Ottoman Serbia (1540-1804) -> History of modern Serbia (a very badly conceived article covering from 1804 on)

but we also have:

Principality of Serbia (medieval) (768–1217) -> Kingdom of Serbia (medieval) (1217–1346) -> Serbian Empire (1346–1371) -> Moravian Serbia (1371–1402) -> Serbian Despotate (1402–1540) -> followed by History of Ottoman Serbia (1540-1804) -> Principality of Serbia -> Kingdom of Serbia -> GAP (1918-1943) -> SR Serbia (1943-1990) -> Republic of Serbia (1990–2006)

Here is how we can solve this:

And this is the end result, a single succession of 13 articles covering the entirety of Serbian history with a succession of historic state articles:

Prehistoric Serbia (prehistory) -> Roman Serbia (168 BC – AD 660) -> Principality of Serbia (medieval) (768–1217) -> Kingdom of Serbia (medieval) (1217–1346) -> Serbian Empire (1346–1371) -> Moravian Serbia (1371–1402) -> Serbian Despotate (1402–1540) -> Serbia in the Ottoman Empire (1540-1804) -> Principality of Serbia (1817–1882) -> Kingdom of Serbia (1882–1918) -> Serbia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1943) -> SR Serbia (1943-1990) -> Republic of Serbia (1990–2006)

It must also be remembered at all times that Nedić's Serbia was an illegal Nazi puppet created during wartime, and is not included or recognized within the succession of Serbian states. The same is true for the Croatian NDH, which is also not included in the succession. For Croatia the succession is Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1943) -> SR Croatia (1943-1991). For Serbia the succession is Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1943) -> SR Serbia (1943-1990). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment These 13 Serbian states which you have listed above, are not all states. Besides, I have question. Why was Nedić's Serbia an illegal Nazi puppet created during wartime which is not included or recognized within the succession of Serbian states, and Serbia in the Ottoman Empire is OK. Like Serbs wanted the Ottomans to conquer them??? Kebeta (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Serbia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Serbia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SC209":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

no source given to support name Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. show this source here. HuHu22 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Axis occupation of Serbia be merged into History of Serbia. I think that the content in the Axis occupation of Serbia article can easily be explained in the context of History of Serbia, and the History of Serbia article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Axis occupation of Serbia will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The History of Serbia article is obviously a parent article, with the Axis occupation of Serbia being too specific. A summary would be sufficient to be included in the parent article and History of Serbia since 1918.--Zoupan 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The source article is ahistorical and was created in August 2012 by a suspected sockpuppet of Warhammer76 who was subsequently indef'd. The Axis did not occupy Serbia, it occupied part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia a bit like what was the Kingdom of Serbia until 1918, but that happened 23 years after the Kingdom of Serbia became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. There is more than enough room in this article to accommodate the content of the source article, which has not changed significantly since it was created nearly a year ago. It was always a WP:POVFORK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker, but I also think that Axis occupation of Vojvodina should be merged with History of Vojvodina or History of Serbia as well. 23 editor (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Zoupan, are you saying you would support merging Axis occupation of Serbia into History of Serbia since 1918, or you don't support any merging at all? I agree with 23 on Vojvodina. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you believe that Axis did not occupy Serbia then propose deletion of the Axis occupation of Serbia. Although I think you are wrong because all territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were occupied by Axis, including Serbia. There are numerous sources on this topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hold on, think about it here. How many articles on Wikipedia are titled "Axis occupation of..."? The only other one is Axis occupation of Greece. As part of Operation Bora, we're going to create an article titled Occupation of Yugoslavia. You said yourself that Serbia was part of Yugoslavia then. I don't see what the problem is. 23 editor (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
good point, 23. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of Serbia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The paragraph about the Serbo-Bulgarian war is not fact-based. Ed8r (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd use of "evolved"

Small nitpick, but the "Prehistory" section says "The Paleo-Balkan tribes evolved in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC." Would it not be more accurate to say they "arose", are "first known" or "arrived" in the 2nd/1st millenium as the word "evolved" evokes biological evolution, which would have happened long before the 2nd/1st millennia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.111.29 (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1136272535"