This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofYugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMontenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, pleasejoin the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
I think I have read somewhere that this state was never functional and that Italians gave it up after the Uprising in Montenegro. According to some sources I read, civil administration of Montenegro was in hands of its military governor. Am I right?--Antidiskriminator (talk)07:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe did not understand Tomasevich (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945, page 141 - "The Italians quickly dropped their plans for a regent and appointed a military governor.... with full control over both military and civil affairs in Montenegro and directly responsible to Mussolini."). If that is so, the uprising in Montenegro ended statehood of this entity because Italians decided to appoint Military commander to govern this territory. On the same page Tomasevich explains that Montenegrin separatists complained to Biroli that he failed to create independent and sovereign state but created military occupation instead. If that is so, after brief period of statehood, this state ceased to exist and it became some kind of theTerritory of the Military Commander in Montenegro.--Antidiskriminator (talk)09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you knew there was a source that explained it, but didn't present it when you asked the question. Why on earth would you do that? Regardless, it is apparent from my reading of that section of Tomasevich that the Italians instituted a military government (under Biroli) over Montenegro after the uprising began. I checked Lemkin, and on p.590 he quotes a proclamation by Mussolini on 3 Oct 41 establishing a "Governorship of Montenegro", and refers to it as the "territory of Montenegro, previously a part of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and now occupied by the Italian armed forces". The article should include the "straight" military occupation post-invasion, the attempt to install a king, the high commissioner Mazzolini, the uprising etc, as well as the eventual military governorship under Biroli and briefly, di Prun. That (of course) ended when the Germans moved in as the Italians capitulated. The German set-up was a strictly "straight" military occupation under Keiper per Tomasevich 2001, p.147. I would support a move toItalian Governorship of Montenegro per Lemkin. TheGerman occupation of Montenegro should probably be called just that. I can find no reliable academic source that usesIndependent State of Montenegro. Bishop[1] while "ok-ish" on German orbat, isn't going to stack up against Lemkin on the political arrangements. Hope that helps. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over)10:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't I present the source when I asked the question? I think that anybody who AGF could assume why. I was uncertain what was the source and I was uncertain if I was right. If I knew what was the source I would present it at once. When you asked me to present source I first searched several other sources I used in another article, including Lampe and Pawlovich. Only when I searched Tomasevich, who was fifth or sixth author I searched, I found this explanation and started using Tomasevich more extensively in article I write.
Almost every single comment you write to me is unnecessarily harsh and contains violation of AGF which made editing of many articles unpleasant for me and discouraged me from further editing. In order to avoid being subjected to this kind of treatment this will be my last comment in this article. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk)10:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, you need to take a long hard look at your own behaviour. Your behaviour on other articles (related to this one) I have edited has been negative, nitpicking and you regularly fail to accept consensus you don't like. And you have been censured for it in the past. If you want to edit in the way you consistently do, you are going to need to expect to be challenged. We have history, Ad. I don't have to AGF everytime I interact with you, the clock doesn't get reset to zero everytime you make a comment. Just the idea that you think it should concerns me. If you were consistently collaborative and positive for a time, I would of course, adjust my responses. Regardless, my response was very helpful, achieved some consensus, and directed you to further sources. I even made a suggestion for a new article title that I assume you would be supportive of. That is the essence of collaboration on WP. If you are that sensitive that you can't see past a gentle questioning of your established modus operandi (asking rhetorical-sounding questions to draw comments you can then treat as aWP:BATTLEGROUND) to the useful part of the interaction, then you should do what you think is best. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over)11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this article be moved toItalian Governorship of Montenegro per Lemkin (see thread immediately above). The current title has no support from reliable academic sources. Lemkin, on the other hand, was an expert of occupied Europe and re-produces Mussolini's proclamation regarding the territory of Montenegro. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over)11:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, it is almost entirely unsourced, that's why it has the captag. I'm not an expert on Montenegro, but I've never read the Italianised bit either. I actually think the really outrageous stuff should just be trimmed and will do that now.Peacemaker67 (send... over)09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the name change? The proclamation of 12 Jul 1941 by the Црногорски cабор (Crnogorski sabor) meeting in Cetinje states: "Проглашава се суверена и независна Држава Црна Гора у облику Уставне Монархије -Proglašava se suverena i nezavisna Država Crna Gora u obliku Ustavne Monarhije" ("There is proclaimed the sovereign and independent State of Montenegro in the form of Constitutional Monarchy"); later in the text of the proclamation, the style Краљевина Црна Гора (Kraljevna Crna Gora) is used.
The 12 July proclamation was shelved (due to the uprising), the high commissioner was recalled, and Montenegro became officially known asGovernatorato del Montenegro, with Biroli as military governor. It's well documented in the text of the article, and supported by Rodogno, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin. Regards,Peacemaker67 (send... over)01:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
