Draft talk:Uprising in the Independent State of Croatia (1941)

synthesis risk

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo uprising (1945–1951) I'm not comfortable just letting this through unreviewed.

Was there a single coherent uprising described in the sources, or a series of them, or an assorted combination of them?

@Peacemaker67 @Griboski if possible, please check this out. --Joy (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This looks like synth to me, and possibly also a Serb/Chetnik-centric POVFORK. We already have the overall WWII in YUgoslavia article and articles on the two major uprisings mentioned in this article. Let's not do this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, recently I fixed the issues with the article that Joy pointed out. I would also like to point out several things.The article is neither synthesis nor a content fork, since the term “uprising in the NDH” is mentioned in the works of Petranović and Enver Redžić (i can even give quotes if needed).The article is also not a “Serbian/Chetnik POV” article. I simply wrote what the sources state. The only thing that could make it seem like Serbian POV is that i didn’t write about crimes committed by insurgents, if thats the issue i can easily fix it then.Furthermore, the two major uprisings that have the articles does not cover everything that happened in other parts of the NDH. This was a problem with the article earlier, as I had largely focused only on the Srb and Drvar uprisings. However, I have since addressed this issue and added coverage of the uprising in other areas as well. If the article still has some issues let me know. SpeedyHaste (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what is fixed in the diff.

Yes, specific citations from Petranović and Redžić to support this would absolutely be a good idea, and coverage in other relevant sources as well. "Mentioned" is too broad a term. --Joy (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I added the exact pages that mention the uprising and expanded the events in Bosnia since article mostly talked about Srb and Drvar uprisings. The uprising is also covered pretty much in the books of Redžić and Petranović that’s why i used them the most. Also wrong selection of words, when I said “mentioned”, I meant that they talk about the uprising and use that title. SpeedyHaste (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you please specify on what pages Redžić and Petranović use the term "Uprising in the Independent State of Croatia" thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Redžić: pages 14, 16, 17, 18.

Petranović: page 228. SpeedyHaste (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joy @Peacemaker67 SpeedyHaste (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

So Petranović p. 228 should be in https://znaci.org/00001/92_4.pdf which has a paragraph that says:

Nemci su prihvatom izbeglica pacifikovali eksplozivnu situaciju u NDH, jer su Srbi, umesto bekstva u šume i planine, prelazili u Srbiju, dolazili pod kontrolu vlasti, a tek onda kada je ustanak u NDH uzeo velike razmere, nastojali u svom interesu da smire ustašku politiku kako se Srbi ne bi dalje razjarivali i podsticao ustanički zamah.

This is a vernacular use of ustanak u NDH, not a definition of it. The author describes a state of rebellion the extent of which varies, not a single coherent topic.

Which isn't to say that this isn't worth documenting, rather it's not clear why we shouldn't just describe it in the same article where we describe the NDH and its authorities, as these historical stories are inherently interlinked.

For reference, as I'm writing this, Independent State of Croatia#Partisan resistance is only two paragraphs. Why wouldn't we simply include these three paragraphs over there? At the more concise article title that is more likely to be found by readers.

Keeping them separate sounds like we want to keep things more distinct than they actually were. Indeed, there's a whole weird subculture of editors who seem to love to massage articles into "proper" country articles with infoboxes and flags and whatever paraphernalia, which effectively promotes those topics, instead of actually just describing the history of these entities. Splitting off this information away from those articles doesn't make sense. --Joy (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I was able to see a preview of Redžić in Google Books now. Page 12 starts a subchapter called "Surprised by the uprising" within the chapter "German and Italian occupiers", which says:

The NDH repressive measures began under the guise of of taking hostages to prevent a supposed 'great Serb rebellion' on Vidovdan. Dozens of distinguished Serbs were arrested in Sarajevo, [...] These actions triggered a Serbian uprising. Serbs rose in opposition to Ustasha terror, first in June in eastern Herzegovina, and then in western and eastern Bosnia in late July and early August. Surprised by the uprising, the Germans and the Italians responded differently, conditioned by their different positions regarding the NDH.

So here again we see much of the same - the topic is introduced in pretty general terms. While it does build up the individual sites into an overall uprising (esp. later), contributing to the idea of a coherent single topic, the description of the events is actually from the perspective of the occupation - so again there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason to distinguish the history of the uprising from the matching history of the events which directly caused it. --Joy (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

BTW the paragraph on page 14 provides an interesting analysis of how contemporary German reporting on the uprising was egregiously biased, and how it inherently tried to absolve them of the responsibility for it by artificially sequestering the topics of establishing the NDH and then the NDH regime being genocidal. Hint, hint. --Joy (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is not whether the phrase “uprising in the NDH” is sometimes used descriptively, but whether reliable and academic historians treat the events as a coherent historical phenomenon.Redžić does more than merely describe scattered local revolts and rebellions. He explicitly links the outbreaks in eastern Herzegovina, western Bosnia, eastern Bosnia and parts of modern day Croatia into a broader Serbian uprising caused by Ustaša terror. Likewise, Petranović refers to “the uprising in the NDH” as a phenomenon that could expand, influence German policy, and affect the overall situation in the country . That suggests a level of historical coherence beyond isolated local events. Some historical topics aren’t defined by a single command structure or unified leadership yet are still treated as distinct subjects in historiography. The question is whether sources discuss these events collectively as an uprising in the NDH, and as we can see the cited sources appear to do exactly that.As for article structure, the existence of relevant content in the NDH article does not necessarily argue against a separate article. SpeedyHaste (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you using AI to communicate? --Joy (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No? Both Redzic and Petranović indeed talk about the event which proves the article is nor OR or synth which was the main reason why this conversation started in the first place. SpeedyHaste (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

My principal issue with this is the idea that 1941 should be in a separate article. Which authors treat the 1941 uprisings in the NDH separately from the uprising against the Axis within the NDH throughout the war. The causes were the same. This just looks like a POV fork to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The large response above looked to me like it was pasted from LLM output, with odd missing spacing after full stops, and the general style. But okay, let's continue to assume good faith and say it's not. It doesn't matter that much. The failure to take the hint indicates the source isn't really properly understood. --Joy (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)