Talk:Belgrade offensive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

One sided

This is very one sided if I say so myself, but at this time I have no time to do the research on Germans and their allies, notable the Serbia AG on which I have virtually no information--

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, this article is very one-sided. There are some good information about the German side in the German Wikipedia article, using Google Translate I could get a better English translation (and information) than the Russian article. I'm not sure how to fit them here, though. Someone else might take a look and improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaBravoCharlie (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Wow, this is a lot of info, but please be more careful with the grammar. It's hard work cleaning up and preserving all the information, I'll do my best. --

TALK) 09:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I would appreciate if you did not. I am tossing around reverting you completely ot just undoing your edits partially--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
What! why? I'm "tossing around" rewriting the whole article because it's full of unreferenced info. The article is at least readable now, though I'm not sure how correct it is. I really doubt, for example, that two whole Soviet Fronts were engaged in the liberation of Belgrade, I'll look it up. --
TALK) 10:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, you shoudl have looked to see who and when edited last and contact that person if it was recent. Secondly, you are not adding referenced material. This article needed a complete rewrite. You should have seen it before my previous edits. Thirdly, it was not the the Yugoslav Partisans, bu the Yugoslav Army that was formed shortly prior to the operation, one of the reasons Tito went to Moscow. The Croats were not some collaborators like local police but fully fledged armed forces in units and such. I would like to collaborate on editing, but do little bits at a time and try to reference as much as you can, ok?--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
(Well, sources I found say that the 4th Guards Mechanized Corps, the 75th Rifle Corps, and the 5th Independent Motorized Rifle Brigade are the only Soviet units engaged in the actual battle.[1])
Ok, I don't want to sound "aggressive" here or anything, but
1) who's talking about unreferenced info!? The whole article is completely unreferenced, and you're criticizing me for adding unreferenced info. I mostly only rewrote sentences in English grammar, the first section was unreadable and packed with mistakes (as is the rest of the article) here's an example:
"against Nazi Germany and its Croatian and the Serbian and Chetniks during the Great Patriotic War"
The "Serbian" wikilink actually leads to the Croatian Home Guard, while the "Chetniks" wikilink leads to the Serbian State Guard (their bitter enemies). This is completely wrong even if we ignore the fact that the Croatian Home Guard and the Chetniks had almost nothing to do with the Belgrade Offensive. Furthermore, the whole text is written as if it was a bad translation from the Russian Wikipedia.
2) why should I have contacted you, are you in charge of the article? Third, the Yugoslav Army was formed on March 1 1945,
3) the
People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia
are far more widely as the "Yugoslav Partisans" (or just "Partisans").
4) I am a Croat and know exactly what the Independent State of Croatia was, the simple problem is that those genocidal bastards were not involved in the defense of Belgrade, as weren't the Chetniks.
I suppose I should apologize for not immediately corroborating my edits with sources, but I first wanted to make the thing readable, and then improve it. The generals I added (and that's all I basically added), are referenced here as well [2].
I suggest we both stop editing until we can clear up our misunderstanding. (Would it be agreeable to you if we used "Soviet" in some places and "Red Army" in others, I remind you that "Soviet" is by no means a pejorative and is perfectly correct in this context, and that "the Red Army 57th Army", for example, does not sound very well.) --
TALK) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, the Yugoslav "partisan" is a commonly used term by Germans and in English, but officially they were the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, and that is what should be used.
"Soviet" is commonly misused, but is meaningless. Soviet Union was a state. However the military activities were conducted by the Red Army. There was no Soviet Army until after the war. I also discourage use of "Soviets" which in Russian refers to village councils.
The Croat fascist formations did participate in the withdrawal to Belgrade, and remnants of them did fight allegedly in and around Belgrade although I have not found a good source yet.
A lot more Red Army forces were involved then just these formations you mentioned.
I'm not criticising you, but it is really the hard way of editing the way you do it. If you make it readable first, are you creating a better article? It may be readable, but still not worth reading! What I do, if I may share my experience, is go paragraph at a time and insert references. This means that anyone coming after me has something to base their edits on. I had not done this because did not expect so much furious editing on the article all of a sudden, so maybe my fault. I was also looking for a good source on the Yugoslav side which I lack.
I'm not in charge of the article, but I do accept a certain responsibility for it because I am upgrading the entire Eastern Front range of articles (see my user page). I have collaborated with two other editors on the operations in the Baltics and Belarus, so have no problems working with you. Just don't make huge edits, and reference every statement you make if at all possible.Cheers--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


1) Take that up somewhere else and out of this particular article, the common name for the movement in English is the "Yugoslav Partisans", that's been established [3].

Quite frankly I don't care what the common name in English is. Partisans do not operate divisions, Corps and Armies. If you look here[4] you will see that the Yugoslav forces were an Army officially from December 22 1941, and partisans only as a mode of operations and doctrine given their operational circumstances. Being partisans also allowed the Germans to shoot them rather then imprison as POWs, so the distinction I make is not trivial.

2) "Soviet" is used perfectly normally in English (do i need to quote a dictionary?), your personal feelings about the adjective are not relevant here.

Usage of "Soviet" is not perfectly normal in English, and feelings have nothing to do with it. While ultimately the troops of the Red Army were citizens of the Soviet Union, and the Red Army itself was subordinated to the government of the USSR, calling it Soviet is as wrong as calling the Royal Navy "British ships". The ground forces participating in combat operations were those of the Red Army, and not "Soviet", as in Soviet 57th Army. For this reason the formations were red-tagged 57th Army (Soviet Union), a system adopted before I started editing, and not worth changing even if wrong.

3) Find sources about the "a lot more units", I also think that there might have been more, but I can't find any reliable sources confirming your assumption. And I seem to remember something about the Partisans having more troops on the ground in Belgrade than the Soviets (as a prearranged concession from Stalin), but I'm not sure.

I have Soviet sources on the operation and the two Fronts involved in general.

4) Well I am especially careful when correcting grammar, I do not leave out information unintentionally, only when I have a source (for example, my source says there were no NDH, or especially Chetnik, forces on the Ground there). Like I said, I'm sorry I did not list the source immediately, but the entire article is unsourced, so I can't see why you're holding it against me.

Not holding anything against you. I may have assumed that others look at the article edit history before editing as I do. Most of the Eastern Front articles have not been edited extensively in ages, in some cases years. I'm still going through the list and reviewing what needs to be done and how, gathering sources, etc.

I'm sure we'll be able to work any problems out, for now I hope we can agree, per English usage, that "Yugoslav Partisans" are the most common short name for the movement, and that "Soviet" can be used in the article. Also, we really need sources for the troop numbers in the infobox, they seem realistic but this sort of info should be referenced. --

TALK) 11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see above on the partisans and use of "Soviet". English usage is not the dominant factor in writing reference articles. The dominant factor is informing the reader and the information should be more accurate then what the reader could have gathered him or her self, which is the entire point of a reference work. I am currently trying to prove this to some gentlemen in Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov.
At this stage I am not dealing with statistics; too much to do in the narratives as it is. As far as I'm concerned any numbers that are not referenced can be deleted.
A note on the use of flags. I will probably ask someone to remove all of them from the articles in the relevant categories since they are contrary to a reasonable MOS. There is actually no need for them.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


1) The Yugoslav forces were an "army", 800,000 strong, but this is irrelevant. Their name does not refer to their strategy (partisan or otherwise), but to their name (which is determined not by your personal feelings, but by English usage). The "Partisans" was their name, most used in English (notice that Partisans is always written with a capital "P"). But this is your problem: "I don't care what the common name in English is" I do not care what your personal idea of what a movement should be called is. We will not use some approximations of a proper name for the organization, we will use the actual common name (per Wiki policy).

I'm not sure what you understand to be a reference work, but it is not for promotion of Wikipedia policy. The forces that cooperated with the Red Army were referred to by the Red Army sources as the Yugoslav Army. It was officially referred to in this way by the Western Allies also. It was organised as an Army Group for the operation. As they say, "if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck". Wikipedia policy for use of common English names does not preclude the proper names of organisations despite other commonly used names being available. Given that the Yugoslav Army of the period the article deals with has a clear date of creation, and the Yugoslav Partisans does not, the matter is academic. As academics do, I deal with facts and not common assumptions about what may or may not apply. If this article can be written by a common term user, what is the point of it being a researched article?

2) ffs! "Soviet" is the official adjective for the state known as the "Soviet Union". It is not a pejorative, nor is it incorrect in any sense, the discussion is kind of silly. It's the same as "Russian" or "Croatian" or "Yugoslav". Are you actually trying to ban the use of a perfectly normal English word here!?

Not sure what "ffs" means. Soviet may have been the official adjective for Soviet Union, but its application to military operations is inappropriate in this article. That, is why the name of the Red Army was changed after the war to Soviet Army. That is also why prior to that the common reference to service personnel in English was Reds, and subsequently to renaming became Soviets. However, in a reference work it is inappropriate to use adjectives when referring to organisations because they actually represent not only the military personnel, but the wider society of the state. It would be wrong to say that "Croats committed atrocities during the war" because most did not, and not all Americans fought in the Battle of the Bulge, nor were all the airmen in the Battle of Britain Englishmen. Therefore they are US Army troops and RAF pilots.

3) Ok, but you should get some sources for the troop numbers. I can't read russian, so I have to believe what you say, I would appreciate, however, if you could provide English sources.

I can also read Russian, but at this stage I am not going to get into statistics. You can either delete the numbers or source them using your own research. I simply do not have the time.

4) Ok. I was just correcting the confusing grammar (cleanup), I removed and changed very little.

(What flags?) I'm sorry, but you'll find that "Yugoslav Partisans", as the most frequently used short name, and "Soviet", as a perfectly normal state adjective, can be used in any context, no matter how confusing you personally feel it would be for a reader. Let me put it in simpler terms: the "

TALK) 13:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


I refer to the flags in the infobox.

We don't want the most frequently used short form or anything. What we want is the complete, explicit and sourced form appropriate for the subject matter. Neither Yugoslav Partisans nor Soviet ate explicit. Wikipedia naming conventions are not policy. Nor do they preclude use of proper organisational names regardless of there being a "common" English term. In fact it is encouraged as a matter of the general intent of Wikipedia to provide the reader with best quality reference possible, which includes provision of as much verifiable data as can be reasonably included in the article--

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


("Soviet" is the normal English language adjective, I do not know what more to say. How would you say "of the Soviet Union"? "Red Army" is not equal to "Soviet Union". Please do not remove the adjective)

"Yugoslav Partisans" is correct, "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia" is correct. Your names and abbreviations are not. You cannot simply create a name for an organization because you personally happen to believe it will be more "understandable", or whatever.
On Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, we use the most common correct name in English, "People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia", though correct, is not the most common name. "Yugoslav Partisans" is both correct and the most common name (it is also used by many reliable English sources, see Britannica [5]). I am fully supported by policy in this, and will go to the Admins if you insist on pushing your "more understandable" name. "

TALK) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please NOTE: Britannica is not a 100% reliable source. Plenty of Wikipedia editors have found mistakes in its articles, so you do need to look at several sources before you start editing. In nay case, the article this refers to is on Tito and not the Belgrade Offensive!--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am fully aware of that, but let's just assume in this case that Brittanica and the general public are right, and that you may be wrong. --
TALK) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Text organization (Joint offensive)

We must remember that this was by no means a Red Army operation only. We are talking about an (excellently) coordinated joint operation by both the Yugoslav Partisans and the Soviet forces ("Soviet" is a normal adjective of "Soviet Union", I have to use it). The article's sections are organized with mainly the Red Army operations in mind, and need to be reorganized, I suggest by the time of each operation. --

TALK) 12:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The most important thing here now is to see where all this comes from: can anyone find reliable English sources to corroborate the info here? we need the troop numbers and non-Soviet related info (i.e. Yugoslav and German). --

TALK) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I sympathise with your patriotism, but the operation was planned and executed under Red Army's command. That was the other reason that Tito flew to Moscow. That is why the article is predominantly organised from the Red Army's planning point of view. --
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Allied order of battle section

The 'Allied order of battle' section, while being the only referenced text, is a complete mess, could someone organize it properly? I can't read Russian and I'm having trouble getting heads or tails of it. If it helps, this is the 'order of battle' we used up to date [6]. Furthermore, it might be a good idea to leave out all the commanders, that seems like just a little too much info. --

TALK) 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Please STOP

undoing my hard work, you will start an edit-war. I removed no information, I merely fixed grammar, sentence structure, and organized the article. I did not change, add, or delete the content meaning. I went on to fix the article organization

1) Joint operation: [7], a very well known fact around here. Tito made a point of that when he visited Stalin. The CPY were very careful about that point, believe me. (please do not patronize me, see

Tito-Stalin split
)

2) "Soviet":[8]

"... - adjective
4. of or pertaining to a soviet.
 5. (initial capital letter) of the Soviet Union: a Soviet statesman."

Use of "Soviet" in the 5. sense is perfectly normal. You cannot forbid its use on any grounds whatsoever.

3) "Yugoslav Partisans" (initial capital letter "P"): used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica [9].

4) One sided: the article and its organization is written almost exclusively about the Red Army. You yourself admitted it [10], I endeavored to make the section organization more neutral, as the text CLEARLY deals with more than the title Soviet Armies.

5) Remove the infobox flags!? What's with you!? Just look at any other conflict infobox! [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] --

TALK) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

How editing works

Tell you what DIREKTOR, you bring sources, and we can talk about your editing. For now you can go and read about the history of the Yugoslav Army in other Wikipedia articles to get an idea of what it was called. You can also read the article on the Red Army. The reason it is written predominantly from the Red Army perspective is because it was a Red Army operation in which the Yugoslav troops played a supporting role. You really need to look at the map to at least appreciate the role played by the 4th Mechanised Corps. It was not a "joint" operation, but one where the Yugolsav Army Group was under direct command of the 3rd Ukrainian Front. There is no source for a "joint" operation.--

comms
) ♠♥♦♣ 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I'm not sure waht you refer to by "What's with you?", and what I am supposed to be looking at in the other infoboxes, but if you refer to flags, I suggest you look at the MOS for use of national flags.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

the sources for all my points are above. That's your perspective and I respect it (and I have looked at the maps), but according to sources, it was a joint operation. I'm calling in an admin, btw, this is crazy --
TALK) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
if I removed all your unsourced info, we would not have an article to talk about. --
TALK) 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No DIREKTOR, they are not sources. Please read up on what is a verifiable source. I mean books and articles written the subject, and not the first thing you can pull up on a Google search. You can try Google Books if you have no sources of your own on hand. And I can assure you I can use dictionaries, in several languages. I was not the original author of this article. Yo go and look at my TWO edits prior to your involvement and see how much was done before you make accusations. I am unable to immediately comply with your request because I am working on several existing and new articles, but you go and invite an admin. Maybe he/she will cool you down, sit you down and explain how articles are edited, improved and properly referenced.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Vojska.net is a perfectly reliable source, and has been used all over Wikipedia for Yugoslav military operations. Look around. I'm sorry if once again you personally do not like it, but I hope you can be flexible on this matter, considering the fact that you have no sources for your claim, and I do for mine. --
TALK) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If you take a look above you'll find that I mentioned vojska.net earlier as a source, which is to say I didn't just find the site now in a few minutes. --
TALK) 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
DIRECTOR, you may be shocked at this, but anything referenced to your "perfectly reliable source" is subject to question because is is not a source! It is unreferenced, and lacks authority of an accepted published source. No one would have any idea where all that information came from if they wanted to do their own research, so it is not acceptable. You need published reliable verifiable sources, not hobby sites online--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My website is fully referenced, there is very big section called bibliography if you haven't noticed, I was only little lazy in early articles since I never expected website to grow this big so now I have to rewrite many articles both to fix broken English of the early days and update reference list. Bigger issue should be the fact that my work could be considered original research since several of my articles at Vojska.net have information discovered from individuals who contacted me directly in order to correct errors which have been published in history books.
If you have problem with hobby sites online used as source please start with uboat.net,
BOV (APC). So if my website is not reliable source how can then all these other websites be one? >:-) --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand your point, but frankly I'm starting to wonder if an acceptable "reliable" source exists (you just said Britannica is unreliable). Due to a general lack of English web sources on the Yugoslav Front, involved Users tend to agree that info from vojska.net is not "invented" and is generally correct.
However, I have stronger reasons for claiming the matter was a joint operation: I like to think that I generally have a good understanding of Yugoslav politics (if I may be so bold), and it is crystal clear that Tito and Stalin were very cautious of one-another (mostly Tito of Stalin;). In other words, Tito flew to Moscow for the purpose of ensuring (among other things, of course) that Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia, would not be liberated solely by the Red Army, but through the course of a joint operation. Why? because self-liberation was a very important matter to the Partisans, because it obviously brings forth eventual political independence (see
TALK) 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Look, I really don't care about your political views. This article is also NOT about the relationship between Tito and Stalin. I just note that Tito was not there for the start of the operation. The owner of the site you used for "referencing" is now claiming possible copyright violation, and has done nothing to add to the verifiability of the data found on his site, correct though it may be. The thing about Wikipedia is that we prefer to do our own research rather then rely on other reference works! In your case, the article in Britannica was not on the subject of the article. Did I say that Belgrade was not liberated without participation of Yugoslav forces?! I even provided a referenced list of the forces that did participate in its liberation. The full name of the operation is Белградская наступательная операция and comes from one of

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Be careful

As someone who stumbled onto this article, I'd like to ask people (especially mrg3105) to be careful with links: for example, there's no reason to replace Presidium of the Supreme Soviet with Presidium of the Supreme Council of USSR. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and the only fault of mine was linking without checking the Wikipedia usage since the wording was already there. It happens, but I was a bit tired after revision of the article.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You appear to be in the habit of reverting edits just for the sake of making a point. That whole edit was merely spelling, grammar and link fixing. --
TALK) 00:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Dispute

Ok, cease fire. Let's try to reestablish organized discussion once again and go through the dispute here (add points if there are more):

1) Grammar. First of all, let's agree to be careful not to revert the grammar cleanup improvements. I am sure we'll agree a legible article is paramount here.

2) Sections and titles. The text of the article deals with both Soviet and non-Soviet formations and their movements. In order to allow for a more balanced article, the subsection titles should be removed or remain in a completely neutral wording. This is not the Russian Wiki, and the section titles should not have only with the Soviet units' names. (The title of the "Allied forces" section should not be "Belgrade Assault", because that title is incorrect as it has nothing to do with the actual text of the section).

3) Joint operation. Ok, we'll both apparently try to find sources on whether or not this was a joint Soviet/Partisan operation. --

TALK) 00:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There is not such thing as a "cease fire" in Wikipoedia editing. I don't have a dispute. You may not know it, but I have an editing shadow called
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It would appear that User:Buckshot06 arrived a little late, though I'm glad someone keeps an eye on your edits. If fixing sentence structure is "reshuffling words" then so be it. I remember a sentence in the text actually stating that the Soviet 17th Air Army "took control over an area with support" from one of the Partisans army corps(!) This article's original text was probably (badly) translated from the Russian Wiki, and any impartial observer can see that it is not balanced (which can be expected), even you yourself said so.[16] I merely tried to balance the article by removing some of the overwhelming emphasis on Soviet units and their participation.
As for the "joint operation" dispute, please present these reliable sources of yours confirming that the Partisan units involved in this operation were not under the command of Tito and the Partisan supreme HQ on a strategic level. I do not care about liaison officers, I am talking about military command structure. Noone is denying the importance of the Red Army and its pivotal role to the success of this operation, but, once again, we are talking about command. (Also, please cease addressing me in that patronizing tone, I dare say I may even know a bit more than you about the Yugoslav front.) --

TALK) 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

As for my source, I refuse to accept your personal "interpretation" of the reference. If you choose to believe that "joint Partisan-Soviet force" actually means "Soviet force with Partisan support" that is your problem. I do not mean this as a threat, but removal of verifiable sources is vandalism, you are edit-warmongering. --

TALK) 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

All I can say is that if you know more then me about the Yugoslav Front as you put it, then you should have no problem proving referenced sources from which this knowledge is derived. If you think that four Red Army Armies provided support to a partisan (not Partisan) Army Group, then all I can say is - good luck proving it --
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You're twisting my words, I said no such thing. It would be stupid to say the Red Army was here in a supporting role. What I said was that the involved Partisan units were not under the command of the Red Army, but were merely coordinating their efforts. I remind you that you've given nothing but your word in proving otherwise. In any case, the current sentence:
"The Belgrade Offensive (Croatian, Serbian: Beogradska ofenziva/ofanziva) (September 14 1944 - November 24 1944) was an offensive military operation conducted by a joint Partisan-Soviet force.[1][2]"
is sourced fully in accordance with

TALK) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Look, so far as I'm concerned you clearly do not understand either the concept of
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh I'm not pretending to be as much of an expert as you. Indeed I hardly think anyone on Wikipedia should contradict you, you being so wise and all knowing. However, I do have some limited knowledge of Wikipedia policies, far beyond my understanding though they may be.
I will repeat: the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ref is fully in accordance with

TALK) 13:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay I've read the books I have and added some more info at my website from memories of the Partisan veterans and commanders it sounds as if the two armies merged, while there was general plan agreed with Tito and Stalin nobody seems to have informed lower ranked Soviet generals like Zhdanov or given them other instructions then take Belgrade (probably not expecting such large Partisans force to reach the city in time) and in the confusion of battle improvisation was normal with Peko Dapcevic giving orders to commander of 4th Corps Rear Area colonel M.I. Toropko to withdraw while Partisans hold the enemy. Errors and chaos on German side were probably also great aid since there were several occasions in which offensive could have been stalled allowing Germans to withdraw in good order and regroup. --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but, according to your sources, were the involved Partisan units under the command of the Soviets, as mrg asserts, or were they simply coordinating their efforts? --

TALK) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There are no evidence of Partisans being under direct Soviet command (they were very picky about that and British often got annoyed beacuse of it), Soviet actions in Yugoslavia look more like they got orders from Stavka, carried them out and left - if there were Partisans (some Chetniks also initially welcomed Russians) in the area they would cooperate otherwise they would simply carry out their orders and move on. --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were very particular about that, yes. I agree that it is highly improbable that Partisan forces were under the command of the Soviets at any point, particularly during the liberation of their own capital. Their situation was somewhat unique, and they are certainly a different matter altogether from the Bulgarians and Romanians. I already have something to this effect from the Library of Congress, but I wonder if you have any further sources that can be used to clarify this point? --

TALK) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd say the US Library of Congress is a very good quality source, plenty good enough to meet the requirements of
WP:RS. However, other sources would of course be most welcome. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There is nothing contradictory about what Ivan presents, except that a Red Army officer would never take orders from a Yugoslav Army officer, regardless of the rank. There was probably a great degree of coordination between the 4th Gd. Mech Corps and the Yugoslav troops because the 4GMC as the 3UF mobile operational group was inserted into the 57th Army front and advanced to Belgrade making use of the havoc created by the Yugoslav troops attacking German units from the west. Even without reading the accounts, just by looking at the map it is clear there was very little combined operations going on until the very last phase of the operation, the city assault. So far as the Red Army was concerned it was a by-the-book operation, and the cooperation with Yugoslav troops was minimal, most notably working out the interaction between Yugoslav and Bulgarian forces that came into contact first, and the obvious implications of having Bulgarian troops in Yugoslavia. Soviet forces smashed the AG Serbia, cut the railroads from Greece, and assault-crossed the Morava by the time they met with the Yugoslav troops and only some divisions of the 14th Yugoslav Corps actually interacted with the 4GMC in its race for Belgrade by securing the corridor for it to Polanka. Given the Yugoslav troops were not motorised, as is depicted on the well known photo of their entry into Belgrade, how could they have kept up with the 4GMC? There were Yugoslav troops operating south-west of Belgrade, but they (I believe) had their hands full with German troops trying to withdraw via the rail from Bosnia.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Peko Dapcevic was commander of 1st Army Group and in Partisans they didn't pay much attention to who was giving the orders but how much sense they made, of course this all changed once they become army. If Partisans couldn't keep up with Soviet motorized columns then how did they constantly avoided German motorized/tank units all those years? :-p Partisans were light infantry well familiar with local terrain, traffic network in prewar Yugoslavia was ridicules (that is why Germans fought so hard to keep Belgrade-Salonica railroad open) and any motorized army would have more problems with terrain then the enemy, also there are numerous photos of Partisans taking a ride on Soviet T-34's and Soviet and Partisans fighting together. Big part of 1st Army Group was already in position NW of 4GMC so they didn't have very big distance to cover to reach Belgrade plus Germans sent half of their forces to intercept 75 Rifle Corps and got cut off by 4GMC and Partisans from Belgrade. According to the Yugo map only 1st Proletarian and 5th Krajina Division traveled with 4GMC to Belgrade with other division moving in directly from SW while 5th Division moved to 4GMC's right flank. --Ivan Bajlo (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, sorry I missed this contribution from you. Look, there is a vast difference between joint or combined operations between two armies, and being in the same place at the same time. I had not at any time suggestet that Red Army and Yugoslav troops did not participate together in some actions/fighting, but that is a far throw from claims that the entire operation was planned as a combined operation from the start. What I have also said is that do not have the sources that state this, and asked DIREKTORTO offer these sources, repeatedly; you know, dated agreements, issued higher staff command orders, etc. I will endeavour to find such sources that for now only suggest very broad agreements on Red Army's operations when entering Yugoslav territory, notably including Bulgarian troops, coming from Shtemenko following negotiations/discussions between Stalin, Tito and Antonov as the Stavka representative. Shtemenko states, and details the insertion of Stavka liaison team going to the Tito's HQ, and the setting up of a radio transmitter to enable communications between the Head Quarters of the Yugoslav Army and the 3UF. At this time I have no further evidence of a planned and executed operation that qualifies under the definition of "joint operation". The 4GMC did encounter Yugoslav troops, and they did cooperated tactically, that much I know, but this is not he same as stating that the operation was planned as such from the start by the 3UF, all based on what is in my opinion a misinterpretation of a single sentence in the very general statement on Yugoslaving history by of the country data record in the Library of Congress. If you have better and more explicit sources, I would certainly welcome it.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
All in all, I hope that mrg can be more flexible and agree to treat the Partisans and the Red Army as equals in this article. Noone is of course comparing the might of the Red Army (undoubtedly the strongest army in the world) with that of the Partisans, but if the forces had equal status, then they should be treated equally. Also, it is highly disputable who was on the whole more significant in the liberation of Belgrade, and we do not know if the Partisans or the Soviet Union would be able to execute the operation on their own (the Red Army probably would, but not while facing conflict with the Partisans as well). In any event we must stay out of all that speculation and simply treat the forces as equals. --
TALK) 10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd say that if involved Partisan units were not under the command of the Soviets, that the matter was not a Red Army operation on the whole (as mrg asserts). Rather I'd call it an offensive conducted in cooperation between both the Partisans and the Red Army, with neither actually commanding the other. (once again, mrg, the

TALK) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll repeat that I propose a simple compromise by using the current, well referenced wording:
"The Belgrade Offensive (Croatian, Serbian: Beogradska ofenziva/ofanziva) (September 14 1944 - November 24 1944) was an offensive military operation conducted by a joint Partisan-Soviet force.[3][4]" --

TALK) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Now positively noble of you. It is a compromise because it does not counter your research, however mysterious that may be (no mention of a "joint operation"), while also being in accordance with other people's research and knowledge. --

TALK) 11:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You have no idea what a joint operation is! You think country data from a library of congress article is a source that backs your suggestion. I think I will end this conversation because its pointless--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Mrg3105, "country data from a library of congress article" most definitely is a
WP:OWN. It is perhaps a little unreasonable for you to expect others to listen to you when you show no intention of listening to them. Please desist. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Listen pal, I don't know where you are from, and how you found your way here, but I suggest before telling me to be civil, you actually go and read that "reference" if you can speak English. I do not claim ownership of this article, but I do claim the right to delete anything that is substandard in it according to Wikipedia policy. And I most certainly have the right to be uncivil to anyone who insults my intelligence. The editor DIREKTOR claims that Soviet and Yugoslav forces were operating in this offensive based on the
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Where do you find the temerity to treat other editors like dirt when you yourself, the all-knowing mrg, have brought forth NO sources corroborating your point of view! Were Partisan units under Soviet command? Were they merely in a "supporting" role? No, and there are sources that prove it, therefore they should not be represented less equally than Soviet units. You're obviously some kind of Red Army/Russian "aficionado" whose POV obviously fosters a typically uncompromising attitude.
Furthermore, I repeat: the text of the sentence, besides being FULLY referenced, does not counter your research, nor does it state any incorrect information. --

TALK) 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No words or actions from the admins? AlphaBravoCharlie (talk 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Let me make clear for all sides that this article most certainly fits under the editing restrictions enacted by

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction
. This means that editors not following behavioral guidelines and sticking to civil discourse will be blocked. I wish to strongly remind everyone involved in this that incivility and tendentious editing including edit warring and blind reverting will not be tolerated. If this starts again, as edits have suggested it will, then I will have to enforce the remedy again.

Let me also make it clear that Administrators have no power or bearing on content; they simply have their opinions. I have distinctly tried to avoid getting involved with the content dispute, though I have and will continue to offer my opinion on policy and its interpretation by any side. Woody (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that Mrg3105 be blocked for a period as a warning. This is the umpeenth example of incivility on his part. Buckshot06(prof) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Buckshot06, your are not an admin, and can get involved in content assessment, so before I get blocked according to your wish, would you care to give us your opinion of the validity of the references used by DIREKTOR in his claim that the article as he had edited is now fully referenced according to
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no doubt as to your continued incivility, mrg. It is just plain obvious. --
TALK) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Better for me to concentrate on what I can see: your repeated rudeness, Mrg, rather than something I know next to nothing about - the details of the Belgrade offensive. Buckshot06(prof) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I am not asking for your opinion on the contents of the article. I have politely asked you to evaluate the merits of the provided reference from your impartial point of view. I know you deal wit using references as part of your studies, so who better to ask then a graduate of the Kings's College. What exactly is so uncivil about asking for an opinion on the verifiability of the reference as it says this is an article policy on the recently added template? How am I being uncivil?--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Right now, you're not being rude - and you'd be advised to remain that way. But I'm not capable of making a neutral evaluation at this point. Buckshot06(prof) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it would be ok with you if I asked another impartial editor to make this assessment?--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's never struck me that you've asked permission of me before doing things. You're free to ask whoever you wish, of course. But be civil to people and do not claim you have a right to insult them - that's part of the rules under which we edit here. Buckshot06(prof) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+yu0031)
  2. ^ "Belgrade operation (1944)".
  3. ^ http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query2/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+yu0031) The reference is from the Library of Congress Country Studies and cites "information from Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919-1945, Arlington, Virginia, 1976." stating that: "...Soviet troops crossed the border on October 1, and a joint Partisan-Soviet force liberated Belgrade on October 20."
  4. ^ "Belgrade operation (1944)".

Text improvement

I fixed a bit of the wikilinks and spelling, but I'm not sure about three things:

  • "...to threaten the Belgorod - Novi-Sad railroad." "Belgorod"? This is "Belgrade - Novi Sad", right?
Didn't think it had a dash
No no, its the railroad direction; "Belgrade - Novi Sad railroad", instead of "Belgorod - Novi Sad railroad"? Is "Belgorod" the untranslated Russian name for Belgrade?
Yes, its the section of the railroad between Belgrade and Novi Sad--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, fixed it. --
TALK) 15:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The original sentence was n't mine, I expanded it, but obviously didn't fix the sentence structure. I'm still not sure if the correct name was 1st Army or 1st Army Group
Me neither, will look it up a bit.
The text I had just said Morava (typo). I think Velika Morava is a tributory.
In Serbia there are
Velika Morava
(or Great Morava), could you look it up in your source which one of them it was?
It would appear that it was
TALK) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. mrg, if it bothers you, I will use "Red Army" instead of "Soviet" wherever possible. However when referring to

TALK) 12:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no need to use either Red Army or Soviet in 99% of the cases. It is very rare that Red Army and their opponents have same numbered units or formations. The country to which the given unit or formation belongs should be evident from the context to avoid constant word repetition. Eventually that is the plan, to make the content readable without constant use of Soviet or German. The reader need not be reminded which forces participated after the introduction paragraph, particularly with an infobox present. That applies to the Yugoslav units since they are very distinctly named. To add to this, there is an order of battle also included, so no need at all to repeat either Red Army, Soviet, Yugoslav or German. Its overdoing it. When I started to re-edit I was also doing this, but will be going back and removing it from other articles. The article is telling a story, not trying to indoctrinate.--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, usually there is no need, even here, but in some cases Red Army formations need to be distinguished from those of the Partisans. In the original versions of the article the "Partisan" adjective was used for the Partisan units, but not "Red Army" or "Soviet" for the Red Army units. The purpose of the addition of "Red Army", or "Soviet", besides the obvious distinction, was to balance the emphasis of the article somewhat. --
TALK) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The original version of the article was unreadable! You truly do not have to copy every part of a bad style. What is more, there is a vast range of editorial quality even in the publishing world. Some books are so badly edited, sometimes by the authors to save on costs, that I routinely find a page-full of errors. The two key words to remember about editing is keep it simple, and be consistent.
There is absolutely no reason to use the word Partisan with the Yugoslav army units. Aside from the obvious reason of their very distinctive names, I had already made the point that by the time this operation took place the troops were part of the recreated Yugoslav army. There were no partisans, or Partisans. While it may have made sense to change the article to the to
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me explain once more: they are known on Wikipedia (per
TALK) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To put it differently: disregard what tactics they used (disregard the fact that they did not use
TALK) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Latest edits

mrg, will not engage in another long, physically exhausting insult-filled discussion here, please note these simple, plain facts:

  • 1) The operation included units of both the Yugoslav Partisans and the Red Army.
  • 2) Involved units of the Yugoslav Partisans were not under the command of the Soviet Red Army. (you think they were? prove it)
  • 3) There is no doubt that the Red Army was far more essential than the Partisans, but the operation was nonetheless conducted in cooperation between the two.
  • 4) You removed very much valid sources because you personally consider them irrelevant, please don't do that again. That is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy.
  • 5) Your quote:
"The Russians had no interest in the German occupation forces in Greece and appear to have had very little interest in those retiring northwards through Yugoslavia...Stalin was content to leave to Tito and the Bulgarians the clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy"
Does not even closely show that the Partisan units which were involved in the operation were in any way subordinate to the Red Army. As you say "both forces had divergent strategic goals", this is correct and was never disputed so I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. If you're saying that the liberation of Belgrade was not a strategic goal for the Partisans, then I can tell you that, as the capital of the country, it most certainly falls under the strategic objective your source describes as "clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy", that at least is obvious.

Like I said I've tried time and again to reason with you on these simple points. I'm going to call in an RfC on this if you do not become more flexible in your position. Though I must admit that, judging from past experiences, I do not think that is very likely. --

TALK) 10:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Beogradska ofenziva/ofanziva

DIREKTOR, you betray yourself with your bias by placing the Russian name for the Red Army operation after Serbo-Croatian one. The reason this article exists is because it was a Red Army operation. Do you have sources that suggest the Yugoslavia partisans also conducted strategic offensives?--

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Would like to see some sources for this name. The only Yugoslav name I see used is Beogradska operacija, derived from the book of the same name. Ironically the Serbian Wikipedia article [18] only covers the liberation of Belgrade judging from the dates, and typically gives precedence to Yugoslavian forces.--

comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh yes I'm "biased", while you actually placed the Russian name in front first after I simply wrote the name in the brackets. Look Mrg, Belgrade was the CAPITAL of Yugoslavia, in Yugoslavia. Therefore the Croatian and Serbian names are just a little more important than the Russian name here. Can you imagine the title of the Battle of Berlin being first translated into Russian?
Once again, I do not need "sources that suggest the Yugoslavia partisans also conducted strategic offensives", I have a source from the US Library of Congress that calls this an operation conducted by a joint force. You on the other hand have absolutely nothing backing this claim, other than your unparalleled "experience" and "degrees". I do not believe you, source your claim of Red Army control. --
TALK) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Request of coment

(Request for Comment?)


Mrg, Direktor, I placed an attempt at a compromise lead section on the page last night, which as far as I can see covers both your points - loose cooperation & coordination at the greatest. Please consider this. Buckshot06(prof) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for an RfChist anyway, but loose cooperation is what I have been saying all along--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
'Loosely coordinated' was my exact wording. If you're happy with that, why did you revert it? Buckshot06(prof) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert one word of your edits! Only added Russian to the intro. See my edit summary and edit history--
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not think Mrg believes in compromise. I qoute: "I do not do compromises - I do research". Has this research proven that the Partisans were under Red Army command, Mrg? A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice.
Another point: exactly how does the sentence
"The Russians had no interest in the German occupation forces in Greece and appear to have had very little interest in those retiring northwards through Yugoslavia...Stalin was content to leave to Tito and the Bulgarians the clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy"
prove that the involved Partisan units were operating under the command of the Red Army? It actually emphasises the independence of the Partisans more than anything. --
TALK) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This area is generally reserved for RfC comments and resolutions.
comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry Mrg, but I will not "have to" do anything. You do not have the authority to tell me when I have to wait or not. If you actually do not have the sources, I must inform you that it is perfectly within my right to remove unsourced edits. I respect the fact that your research needs time, the article will still be here when you're done. When you actually have a satisfactory reference for your claim, I will remove the wording myself. For now I will be crazy enough to believe the present sources that do actually address the matter at hand. --
TALK) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Date

At us the official date of liberation in Oct 20th, there might be some minor fights occured in the sewers, but as I know 20th is the right date and on Oct 22th a famous line was said "Provereno nema mina" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.85.129.195 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LiberationOfBelgradeMedal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LiberationOfBelgradeMedal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
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 --

talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Spliting the article

I propose splinting. We have here described fighting around Niš, Macedonia.. Events that took place weeks prior and few hundreds kilometres away. This article should bear name Battle of Serbia, and Belgrade Offensive should cover events from October 1944. -- Bojan  Talk  03:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two formal names used in reliable sources for the Soviet/Partisan/Bulgarian offensive conducted in September and November 1944, the other being Belgrade Strategic Offensive Operation. It doesn't just relate to the capture of Belgrade, but to all the combined operations across a number of Axis-occupied Yugoslav territories. See [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The communist purges article.

the article Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–1945 does not discuss the murders or rapes the soviets did after the Belgrade offensive, instead it talks about the atrocities that the partisan movement did in the years 1944 to 1945, therefore it has no place in the article because it's not about the fucking soviets. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peacemaker67 and Death Editor 2, this link from the article Communist purges in Serbia provides info to the Partisan harassment held in Belgrade. And there obviously were such ones, despite these done by the Soviet soldiers. Jingiby (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is true however it still isn't about the soviets, it's about the partisans. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, obviously the Partisans did a lot of rounding up of remaining collaborators, suspected or otherwise, and dealt with people who opposed them. That should probably also be an outcome in the infobox. My issue was with the ridiculous piping of murder and rape by the Red Army with the purges article. They weren’t connected.. Put them on seperate lines in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that's the issue I have with it. Because the purges article isn't about the soviets it's about the partisans. Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belgrade_offensive&oldid=1206228275"