Talk:World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia

title

This seems to be a conflation of the Yugoslav Partisans' term "national liberation war" or "people's liberation war", and Macedonia, but the phrase can't be found in many sources as such. If we're going to use a descriptive title, a more common English phrase would be more suitable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to have been a history of improper page moves. One of the remnants of that is that the title Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II doesn't redirect here, which seems counterproductive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The title and the whole aricle are based on biased Macedonian nationalist views. Guerrilla movement in Macedonia was the weakest in Yugoslavia and in practice until 1943 it does not exist. Until then, pro-Bulgarian feelings were very strong. Only after the capitulation of Italy and the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943, Tito sent his personal envoy, the Montenegrin Serb Tempo and he initiated the resistance movement on Yugoslav base. This article itself is based on communist time written nonsenses. Jingiby (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've previously suggested this article be merged into Yugoslav Front in the short term, and ultimately included within proposed Operation Bora articles Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, and Albanian occupation of Yugoslav territories. I believe @Srnec: is on the same page. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The idea of a Macedonian national liberation war is a relic of wartime politics and the pragmatic historiography created for federal Yugoslavia post-1945. I find the notion a little ironic in 2013, after the "national liberation wars" of the 1990s. The Bulgarian occupation article, on which I am periodically working off-wiki, is badly needed. Srnec (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker67, more in the Bulgarian Wikipedia the topic is developed in the article Bulgarian administration in Macedonia, Pomoravlje and Western Thrace (1941-1944). Jingiby (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Absent an actual solution, I've moved this to "World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia" which seems sufficiently innocuous yet descriptive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support the move. It's an interim solution rather than a considered consensus-based one, but it'll do for now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous article.

This is a badly biased POV article based mostly on FYROM 'sources' dating 2002 or newer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.247.54 (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A kind reminder that wikipedia is not an image gallery

To certain users pumping imagery with Nazi symbolism, I remind that wikipedia is not an image gallery. For what picture remain, please try to diversify the imagery between left-leaning and right-leaning Macedonians to avoid POV/cherry picking territory. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am not pumping imagery with Nazi symbolism. I have uploaded 2 images for balance: a left-leaning and a right-leaning. Also keep in mind that a resolution by the European Parliament from September 19, 2019 has equated Communism with Nazism in Europe. It also calls for the erasure all memorials of totalitarianism across Europe, including memorials dedicated to the Red Army and related guerilas. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as there is a fair representations from both "evils".--Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Division Macedonian region of southern Yugoslavia

The description of the image of protesters in Sofia, needs to be corrected. The Map that is the main focus of the image clearly says Independent Macedonia and it is not praising unification with Bulgaria but quite opposite, Macedonia stands alone. The poster banner left of it, says the words One Nation, One King, One Kingdom, that can be referred as some unification but that is just point of view of the viewer. Therefore please make the proper changes of the description.--Forbidden History (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea of Independent Macedonia was interchangeable with the idea about the unification with Bulgaria then. Would yo like just to read the article Independent State of Macedonia. Jingiby (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The role of the Yugoslav partisan army in the liberation of today North Macedonia.

Per lot of reliable secondary and primary sources it was just symbolic. General Erich Schmidt-Richberg did not mention any Partisan units that fought the Germans as soon as they entered Yugoslav territory in Macedonia. Schmidt-Richberg who was chief of staff of Army Group E, only mentioned Bulgarian divisions, which had changed camps and were now fighting the Germans. Stalin told Tito at a meeting then that the Bulgarian army was much superior to Partisans, praising the professionalism of its officers. The Russian officers also treated the Yugoslav Partisans as unknowledgeable and as a second-rate army. The British general Walter Oxley confirms for example that Skopje was liberated by Bulgarian forces, while the Macedonian Partisans remained in the surrounding hills, and came down only to celebrate their entrance to the city. Please stop pushing former Yugoslav and current North Macedonian propaganda here. It is just a fringe view. Jingiby (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kosta Tsarnushanov and his book Macedonism and Macedonia's resistance to it. Sofia, University Publishing House "St. Kliment Ohridski", 1992.

Hi, User:19999o. Kosta Tsarnushanov was a Bulgarian public figure, born in what is today North Macedonia. He was a member of the Macedonian Youth Secret Revolutionary Organization, historian, publicist and folklorist, author of historical studies, historical novels and memoirs. He really returned to Macedonia with the establishment of Bulgarian power in the region in the period 1941-1944 as a school inspector of the Bitola region. The book in question that you dispute is an university publication that went out of print after the fall of communism in 1992 and is cited in many places on Wikipedia, including by Western researchers of the Macedonian question. Of course, this author has some flaws and therefore his citation should be careful. In this particular case, he refers to a Yugoslav source - Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, which you also have deleted as unreliable source before. Once two sources from different periods and from different countries support the same circumstance, it cannot be arbitrarily questioned. By the way, Chavdar Marinov also has mentioned Bane Andreev's pro-Bulgarian activities in Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Two on p. 537. Marinov, I think, has indisputable authority as a neutral author. Try on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ Jingiby (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, a source, with an ending statement such as, and I quote " But is everything really like that? Is there nothing left of that resistance of the Bulgarian spirit in Macedonia, which in various forms was active since those times when Kliment Ohridski consolidated his great work of cultural fusion of Slavs and proto-Bulgarians into a single Bulgarian people from Danube to the Aegean and from the Black Sea to Devol and Morava? To this day, the neighbors they robbed us of large parts of our national strength: North Dobruja, serbianized Moravia and Timoshko, de-Bulgarianized Edrine and the White Sea, a huge part of Bulgaria spread around the Bistrica River, Kostur Lake and Lower Prespa. Huge waves destoryed the millennial Bulgarian breakwater called Western Macedonia.."

and various more distinct statements of Bulgarian irredentism, nationalism and possible chauvanism, as well as the use of terminology in a clearly derogatory manner (such as "Serbocommunist" or "Macedonist"), cannot be RS, no matter how "carefully" it is used. The only places I've seen it being referenced is either by other Bulgarian authors or in Wikipedia articles, where you have primarly inserted it. So I support 19999o it removing it, as it is clearly not RS. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

All Macedonian historians, especially from the older generation in their research even after 1990, support the old Yugoslav communist narrative on the Bulgarian fascist occupiers, and also on the Greater Bulgarian chauvinists as Tsarnushanov and their activity in Macedonia, as well as on the national traitors as the pro-Bulgarian Vrhovists from the right-wing of the IMRO, who denied the Macedonian nationality, etc. However, this does not prevent us from quoting them carefully for some circumstances, especially when their opinions overlap with those of their Bulgarian counterparts in their publications after 1990. The case here is similar, moreover, Tsarnushanov's conclusions about pro-Bulgarian activity of Andreev in this case, is supported by contemporary English-language University publication, which are authored by authoritative historians. Jingiby (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so it's not two sources it's basically the same source from Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia, you deleted a lot of content on this page because it was "dubious info backed by outdated sources from Communist Yugoslavia" so this source should be deleted as well. 19999o (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, in the first case we have a direct reference to a communist era source from 70 years ago. In the second case, there is a secondary academic source, much more contemporary than the first one, i.e. after the fall of comunism, which has analyzed the first source, as well as other similar sources, and then refers to them, making a conclusion. Check WP:RS, please. Jingiby (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)