Talk:Province of Ljubljana

Untitled

Great article! Nevertheless, I think it needs some changes. It needs to be expanded to include also the emergence of the partisan liberation struggle, the Italian repression policies and the "civil war" (or whatever you want to call it, I won't insist on disputed terminology) among Slovenians. German administration should also be included, since the province continued to exist after September 1943. The section on the armed forces in the province also needs to be edited.

About the terminology:

1)I think Slovenska zaveza should be translated as Slovenian Covenant and not Slovenian Alliance;

2) I disagree with the denominations White Guard and Blue Guard; for the former we either use "Village self-defence" or MVAC, for the latter "Slovenian Chetniks", "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland" or the "Nationalist underground".

I don't have time right now, but I plan to continue the edit in the next days. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

I do not know why White Guard and Blue Guard shouldn't be used. It is belittlement to say Village self-defence for the organized political and military structure that White Guard was. As for the Blue Guard it would be on the other hand a overstatement to use "Slovenian Chetniks". And using Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland would be going nowhere. National underground would be belittlement also. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But all of those names should be mentioned in the White Guard (Slovenian) article and the Blue Guard. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would include some of the anti-fascist struggle in the article but not all of it. We have lots of sources that would show almost every step in the war of almost every partisan. This should be in the Slovenian Liberation Front. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Article needs expansion, I agree with that. But this is an article about the Province and not about the entire war, armies would be discussed under White Guard (Slovenian), Blue Guard and Slovenian Liberation Front. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

German authority over the Province should be included in the article, thus expanding the categories in which it should belong. -- Imbris (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of using the terms "White Guarde" and "Blue Guard". They were used by their opponents as a denigratory designation. It's like using "Communist bandits" instead of Partisans or, in the case of the Spanish Civil War, to use "Reds" instead of "Republicans". But then again, in the last 60 years, they have very common. I could yield in the case of White Guard; the reason is that there is no good alternative name - the name Village Self-Defence refers only to the initial phase, while the name MVAC (used in the Slovenian wp) is misleading for two reasons: first, it doesn't cover the first months of the White Guard, when they were formed spontaniously and were not yet recognized by the Italian occupation administration; second, the same term was used for other formation that had nothing to do with the Slovenian White Guard (such as the Chetniks in Italian-occipied Dalmatia). As for the term "Blue Guard", I see no reson to use it, since we have an appropriate alternative name, which is Slovenian Chetniks. This was the informal name they used for themselves, they were known as Chetniks by the local population and also by the Partisans. Only the official OF and Communist propaganda used the term Blue Guard.

I agree that not all anti-fascist struggle can be covered in this article; but the main features should me mentioned. We should concentrate more on the Fascist repression policies that followed the uprising, mentioning the deportations to Gonars and Rab, the summary killings, the barbed wire around Ljubljana etc.

I'll try to do some of this in the next days, but first I would like to reach some basic consensus on the terminology and on other "delicate" issues. I wouldn't like the page become the field of a permanent edit war. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for 60 years now the terms White Guard and Blue Guard have been used officialy. The terms you suggest are unofficial but useful to describe origins of those military/political organizations. I do not object using any of those terms but we cannot demote Slovenian Liberation Front as just oponents. I think that the terms WG and BG are not demeening - they are just terms. We should abide Wikipedia:No original research policy to the best of our abilities.

I do not know what did you mean when said that all main features should be mentioned. I meant that some brief mentioning could occur but not all main features. Simply. The opponents were ..., recognized by the Allied command on ... as Alies, more on the article Slovene Liberation Front maybe even The SLF outgrove to the National Liberation Army and Partisan Units of Slovenia. NOV i POJ had been consisted of NOV & POx of every x=republics.

Imbris (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with this:

"For the defence of Ljubljana Province and collaboration with Axis powers there have been organized several institutionalized guards. The main two were White Guard and Blue Guard. Those guards were quisling political and military organizations.

One of the leaders of different military groups was Lambert Ehrlich who lead Catholic Guards.

The leadership of those armies were before the outbreak of the Second World War members of clerical political parties and certain heads of the Church which were reactionists wanting to closer relations of Slovenes to the First Austrian Republic instead of monarchist Yugoslavia.

Members of those units were recruited mainly from mislead youth and poorest peasants. They came from all political groups.

In between a joint headquarter organization called the Slovenian Alliance was formed which signed contracts with the occupation forces.

After the capitulation of Italy most of the Blue Guard was destroyed and most of the White Guard were captured or destroyed. The remaining parts conjoined into the Slovenian Home Guard corps led by former general of the Royal Yugoslavian Army Leon Rupnik. He become chief of the puppet provincial government of the Ljubljana Province and came into the service of the Third Reich."

This is simplified beyond all levels and should be heavily rewritten (by someone with a better command of the English language, might I add). The naming White/Blue guard was unofficial and used colloquialy. It's also misleading as it interprets both organizations as being set up exclusively for the Ljubljana province. The correct names would be the Slovene Royalists (or Četniks) and the Domobranci. The latter was indeed formed as an Axis auxilliary force in the region, while the first one wasn't and was originally a resistance movement which latter turned to collaboration. I could comment more, as the whole section appears like table talk at a local pub. 213.143.86.19 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the article needs serious edit. About the terminology: I agree White and Blue Guard are not the best options (as I have already argued in previous discussions - see above). On the other hand, I would be careful with terminology. I think we should try to find good solutions for the titles of two separate articles: one that would cover the units and movements called "White Gurad" by the partisans, and the other that would cover the units and movements called "Blue Guard" by the partisans. In any case, domobranci is absolutely incorrect for the period before September 1943, and there is already a separate article for them (Slovene Home Guard) - which also needs a very serious edit. I think "National Underground (Slovenia)" or "Slovene Chetniks" is enough a broad term to describe different units (the Sokol Legion, the Pobratim, the National Legion, the Chetnik units in 1942, the Chetniks units after 1944, etc.) regarded as "Blue Guard". On the other hand, I'm not so sure about the propper substitute for "White Guard". Viator slovenicus (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no need for a single term to replace the White Guard and just mention a few more notable units, as far as I knwo there were quite a few, and going into too much detail would be overkill. 80.95.234.110 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Doremo:,

I would appreciate if instead of full reverts if you have a problem with something, you'd just undo that part or at least it would be very kind of you if you would initiate a discussion, you should know me at least I consider twice everything any of my edit, nothing is done by "quickly/adhoc".

- you reverted Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1946) from two places, although you cannot say that todays Hungary would be the subject of those events, isn it?

- I hope the same way you are aware the speaking about a Slovenia as a "country" in 1941 is fallacious, since then such did not exist, but the territory what is referred was the Drava Banovina of Yugoslavia. having the fact that I did not want ro repeat Drava Banovina twice in the same section; having I wanted to have the reader informer the subject is the present-day territory of Slovenia - but inserting this would be too long - I chose to refer to the Slovene Lands, that seems a proper appelation to the territory and does not cause the confusions I referred. That's why I had to rephrase "to be experienced" because I cannot write down "Slovene Lands country" for obvious reasons.

- similary, as per the arlier argumentation, I put "northern Drava Banovina", of course it could be interchangeable with Slovene Lands, but with Slovenia hardly as that time this status quo was non-existent.

And believe me, I love Slovenia and my edits does not have a difference, shall it be about Hungary, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, the Ottoman Empire or the United States.

Let's find then together a viable solution, tell me how you would phrase better. Thank You for your understanding!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

I'll try to fix it; the edit made no syntactic or semantic sense as it stood. There's nothing wrong with using the term "Slovenia" in this context. Doremo (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at it again and can't see anything wrong with the current version: "... Slovenia was the only country that experienced a further step—absorption and annexation ..." Doremo (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doremo:, shall it be, as long as it is not linked with any anachronistic entity. But rephrase please the "Slovenia was the only country" because Slovenia then was not a country...I still propose Slovene Lands instead and drop the word "country" and there will be no confusion, since Slovene Lands appellate on the territories Slovenians lived, with much resemblance of today's Slovenia.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

That's a common Slovenian misconception. If we can talk about prehistoric Germany, ice-age England, or medieval Slovenia, we can certainly talk about Slovenia in 1941. As for country, I see no problem with the term. England and Scotland have not been independent for 300 years, but they're still called "countries"; it's a polysemous term. Doremo (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doremo:, did you realize that you are bit on the edge of the "truth"? Prehistoric-, ice age-, medieval- are qualifiers that denote that present-day countries with territories are reflected back in an other time, but do you see such qualifier in the current text (i.e. ww2-slovenia, or anything? No. Regarding "country", yes it has in English other meanings also, but in this context it is really confusing since Slovenia as a country did not exist in 1941, we can speak about Slovene Lands, or Slovenia without link to present-day country if it refers to a region as I agreed above, but Slovenia as a country in 1941 is confusing, regardless also the word is used sometimes in other context, by the way we are in Wikipedia where we struggle for consistency, that is not easy in Central-Eastern Europe due to so many changes during history. Also we don't use Hungary for 1/3 of the country lost to the Ottomans, it is Ottoman Empire or at least Ottoman Hungary (you see, fitting your examples regarding qualifiers).

Just see the whole sentence:

"While Greece shared its experience of being trisected, Slovenia was the only country that experienced a further step—absorption and annexation into neighboring Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Hungary."

Greece, Germany, Italy, Hungary are then countries (= states) in these context, while also by this sentence Slovenia is suggested the same way although it is entirely false, since we can speak only about Kingdom of Yugoslavia in this context as a country.

Thus, excuse me, I cannot accept your argumentation because it is fallacious in this context and still assuming you have an objection because you regard it in a way something against "Slovenia", although there is not. It is not my fault that her territory was part of other countries before like Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Kingdom of Yugoslavia and even was renamed the territory as Drava Banovina inside the latter entity. The same way I cannot change history back in time regarding Hungary or Transylvania, I have to accept that once the Ottomans, once the Austrians, once the Romanians had it and have it. That's why my above suggestions would be a perfect solution regarding i.e. the Slovene Lands, considering I have a long time expreience how to properly handle these issues regarding various countries in history.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me. It seems rather overwrought. Doremo (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doremo:, not because of me it is overwrought, since normally you should have already understood and accept a solution. I am sorry you don't have the sense to be precise enough in such questions. Hope once you'll reconsider it and won't object proper development of some articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC))