Talk:Battle of Poljana

More information

I wish I could get more information on this battle; what exactly happened, how many troops were involved, etc. All google results for "Battle of Poljana" just redirect to either wikipedia or some knockoff like Answers.com with the exact same information. --Stevekl 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no historical records. World War II ended. Nazi Germany should be deleted since it surrendered. These are local hardcore nationalist quislings that simply refused to surrender to Partisans, and after numerous attrocities those forces did (see Independent State of Croatia for example) as they were puppet state forces, not a regular side in the war, they just couldnt be treated so. Plus they refussed to surrender after official end of WWII and were part of "Blainurg repatriations"

Such unimportant small battles are of any values just to neonazis who adore those forces. 109.93.252.170 (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The role of XIV. division and TWO battles of Poljana

It is actually not completely true, that only 3rd Army was the only participant in the battle from Yugoslav side.

As a matter of fact, the XIV. division was in charge of all the operations in the region of Carinthia prior to 15th of May. The XIV. division was administratively joined with 3rd Army only after all the major events happened, and it was clear at all times that XIV. division is under direct command of Yugoslav army and not under command of 3rd Army.

Secondly, there were two major battles in Poljana:

On the 13th of May, a part of E Army, 104th motorized division was defeated, advancing from West (Mezica, Crna na Koroskem). On the 14th of May, Ustaše (+ others), advanced from east (Sele -> Prevalje -> Poljana) and they acctualy broke through Partisans lines and managed to get to Bleiburg (or, Libuško polje, specifically). These units were rejected in Dravograd, when they struggled to get across Drava river earlier. Partisans and Bolgarian artillery pushed them back, and their only way to get to Austria was through Sele.

These are all the facts from the book Veliki finale na Koroškem or Grand Finale in Carinthia (Franci Strle), for which the acclaimed slovenian historian dr. Božo Repe claims that it is factographical correct.

Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infern00 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

axis forces destroyed?

uh... 350 deaths, and 250 wounded isn't exactly destroyed.--75.63.2.206 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the last battle of ww2 in Europe/HOS not Ustasi formations

The last battle of ww2 in Europe is the Battle of Odzak, between Yugoslav partisans and HOS (Croatia) from 19. april to 25. may 1945.

---

And in the text the correct word for Croat army is HOS (English: Croatian armed forces) not Ustashi or Domobran. Ustashi and Domobran units in 1944. and 1945. are all marged into one army the HOS (Croatian: Hrvatske Oružane Snage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Canic (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

General Canic (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia "vs" Yugoslavia

It started at Poljana, near the village of Prevalje in Yugoslavia (now Slovenia), ...

That language could be read as meaning that a border between Yugoslavia and Slovenia has since moved across Prevalje and/or Poljana, or that Slovenia absorbed Yugoslavia. I changed to

It started at Poljana, near the village of Prevalje in Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, ...

This was reverted with the comment

We talk about what the country was called then, it wasn't called Slovenia then, it was Yugoslavia.

So far as I can tell, Yugoslavia throughout its existence (except 1941–43) had a first-level subunit named Slovenia. Why Poljana is "what the place was called then", and Slovenia isn't, is beyond me. Does anyone insist on "Chicago, USA" rather than "Chicago, Illinois, USA"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that It started at Poljana, near the village of Prevalje in Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, ... is accurate because it means It started at Poljana, [which is] near the village of Prevalje in Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, ... and not It started at Poljana, [which was] near the village of Prevalje in Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, .... That is, Tamfang's version correctly identifies where Poljana is and also correctly identifies the country that it was in at the time. The old version could also be misread as "Yugoslavia became Slovenia" but Tamfang's version is unambiguous that "Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia." Doremo (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. For the 12 years from 1929 until immediately prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was subdivided into banovinas (provinces), and the banovina in question was the Drava Banovina, which included most (but not all) of modern-day Slovenia. Use of the term "Slovenia" with a link pointing to the article of modern-day Slovenia is essentially ahistorical. It is very common in this area of WP for editors to substitute the modern-day territorial entity for a period in which that entity did not exist under that name or with those boundaries. In some cases it is ignorance, in some cases it appears to be because they believe their country has always existed as a sort of "Eternal (insert name of modern-day state here)". It is much more useful and historically accurate for readers to use the name of the correct entity from that time period (in this case, from a German perspective it was actually a part of Yugoslavia that had been annexed to the the Third Reich called Südsteiermark, or from a Yugoslav communist perspective it was located in the People's Republic of Slovenia in the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia), and explain what entity it is in now in parentheses immediately after. Thus "It started at Poljana, near the village of Prevalje in the People's Republic of Slovenia of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (modern-day Slovenia),..." Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't Slovenia existed as a region for as long as the Slovenes have been counted as a distinct people? At the time in question, it was a political unit as well as a region, if that's important.

Given that Slovenia has more words about history and geography than about the present regime, calling the link "ahistorical" strikes me funny. And "the People's Republic of Slovenia [...] (modern-day Slovenia)" is clumsy.

How about "Slovenia, which was then a People's Republic within Yugoslavia"? Have there been boundary changes, making it horribly wrong to equate these two Slovenias? —Tamfang (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about being "horribly wrong", it's just wrong. It wasn't in Slovenia (which points to the article for the current nation called that). At the time, the place was either a German-annexed district of the Third Reich (pretty untenable at that time, given the war was essentially over, the German had lost, and it wasn't even recognised by non-Axis countries), or a largely theoretical nascent republic within a new Yugoslavia with an unclear form of government. IMO, my suggestion is no more clumsy that yours. I don't even think Slovenia is needed at all to place this battle in context. I could live with just "in the People's Republic of Slovenia within Yugoslavia". That way, readers are taken to the actual political entity at the time, and if they want to know more about Slovenia there is a link in that article to the History of Slovenia article. It is a natural flow that respects the historical context at the time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Even the "socialist" links are misleading. I'd prefer just plain vanilla Yugoslavia, since the country was obviously in transition at the time between kingdom–occupation–[socialist] republic. No need to mention Slovenia at all, but if we do I'd slightly prefer Peacemaker's piped link. (Frankly, I think this ought to be restored.) Srnec (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If the standard is that a region doesn't exist unless it has its own stable government, who wants to help me expunge Normandy (abolished in 1790) from articles about 1944? —Tamfang (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

get serious. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tamfang has a point here in that the current formulation may be pragmatically deficient. By Peacemaker67's logic, article like John Cornforth, Fanny Durack, Moyra Fraser, etc. should be changed to read "in Sydney, British Empire," which would also be deficient from the perspective of information value for readers today. Doremo (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How does my logic imply that, exactly? No separate article exists on the British colony of New South Wales (in which Durack was born), the history of NSW as a colony is included in the article which relates to the current Australian state of that name. If there was one, I would assert that her place of birth should link to that article, not the current NSW one. However, there is a separate article on the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, which includes the period in which it was called the People's Republic of Slovenia. So, for reasons of precision and historical context, I believe the link should be to the most appropriate article, the one relating to the status of that territory at that time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase your comment above: Use of the term "Australia" with a link pointing to the article of modern-day Australia is essentially ahistorical. It is very common in this area of WP for editors to substitute the modern-day territorial entity for a period in which that entity did not exist under that name or with those boundaries. In some cases it is ignorance, in some cases it appears to be because they believe their country has always existed as a sort of "Eternal (insert name of modern-day state here)". It is much more useful and historically accurate for readers to use the name of the correct entity from that time period (in this case, it was actually a part of the British Empire that was located on the mainland of the Australian continent), and explain what entity it is in now in parentheses immediately after. I don't agree with changing it to "Sydney, British Empire," but that would seem consistent. Doremo (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding previous political formations, both the Australia and Slovenia articles cover history from before their statehood, so it doesn't seem problematic to me to link pre-1931 material to the Australia article or pre-1991 material to the Slovenia article when the element in the text is simply identifying the geographical location of a place. Doremo (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

as far as the paraphrasing goes, I'm with you. Go ahead and create a New South Wales (colony) article, change the Durack place of birth link to Sydney, New South Wales, and we'll be on the same page with Durack (and I'll support you). But we aren't at the moment, because your argument is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is an article for the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, it is the most precise geopolitical link for the time period relating to this article, so that one is the one this article should link to. It is not just about the geographical location of a place, it is about the geopolitics at the time in question. I seriously have no idea why some editors are so sensitive about this stuff. You'd think some people were dead keen on putting in a work-around on any suggestion that they were ever part of a larger country, a socialist country, or something... BTW, I have no idea where you get 1931 from, the UK made Australia independent by Act of the British Parliament in 1900, and it came into force on 1 January 1901. ;-) Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1931 is a fairly frequently cited watershed year; for example, here, presumably referring to the Statute of Westminster. But it's certainly not my area of expertise. Doremo (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

More WP:OTHERCRAP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The battle no more took place in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia than it did in the Republic of Slovenia, but both articles cover that period in Slovenia's history. Why is one more precise? The latter is only one more change of name removed from the Slovenia that actually existed (on paper) at the time. In any case, the best link is probably just Yugoslavia, since both the kingdom article and the socialist republic article could be misleading. Srnec (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How is that exactly? The Socialist Republic of Slovenia (actually called the People's Republic of Slovenia at that time), existed in essentially that form (as a socialist republic within a larger country) for nearly fifty years after this event. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The socialist republic did not exist at the time of the battle of Poljana. What do the next 50 years have to do with anything? Srnec (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

the People's Republic did exist at that time, so that is what should be used in the article (piped to the Socialist Republic article, of which it is its alternative name in that article). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The People's Republic did indeed change its name to Socialist Republic, which then changed is name to just Republic. So if a link to the one is good, then a link to the other is good too, no?

I can't find any reference to the name "People's Republic" before the adoption of the Slovene constitution on 15 January 1947. Do you have one? Certainly the Slovene Liberation Front began forming a government in 1943, but I don't think it is correct to call it any kind of "republic". It was a provisional wartime thing, and the territory was technically still part of the internationally recognised kingdom of Yugoslavia. Srnec (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic. However, it appears I am in the minority here. Go ahead and change Ratko Mladic's place of birth to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I withdraw from the field. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic. You admitted that the Socialist Republic of Slovenia was "actually called the People's Republic of Slovenia at that time", i.e., in 1945. (I am not sure of that, but it doesn't affect the logic.) But the current Republic of Slovenia was actually called the Socialist Republic of Slovenia in, say, 1986. If a link to the Socialist Republic is okay because its the same thing with a different name, the same is true of the Republic of Slovenia: same thing, different name. You cannot object on constitutional grounds, because the Socialist Republic was operating under a different constitution from that of 1945 as well. In other words: both links would be wrong.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is an entirely different case because there was no such entity in 1945 under any name or constitution. Of course, I don't want to link to Slovenia in this article either. I want to link to good old Yugoslavia. Srnec (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Poljana. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014852/http://www.safaric-safaric.si/lokacija_slo/poljana/xPoljana.html to http://www.safaric-safaric.si/lokacija_slo/poljana/xPoljana.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)