Talk:1918 annexation of Vojvodina

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

As we've had an anonymous editor already claim "npov" just with the mention of this loaded term, it would be good to demonstrate a wider consensus of reliable sources discussing it in this context. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

"The western South Slavs were constrained by their fear of Italy as well as fear that Serbia itself might conduct a narrower form of unification – Great Serbian rather than Yugoslav, as per Simović’s threat – that would leave a vulnerable rump Croatia along with Slovenia outside the union." (Hoare, Serbia: A Modern History, p. 457) Tomobe03 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

As a side note on exact phrasing: Hoare uses "Great Serbia" rather than "Greater Serbia" consistently throughout the book dealing with Serbia specifically.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources Ingrao & Vrkatić 2001, p. 114, Matijević 2008, pp. 75–76 and Hoare 2024, pp. 448–449 doesn't use the term "Greater Serbia", but "Strong Serbia" and "Great Serbia" with all dfferent meaning. So it's just POV.

The title is just wrong and also feel a CIA anti-serb ustasha war cry POV. Because it's not an annexation, It hasn't a military operation, but an election. The correct title should "Unification of Kingdom of Serbia and Vojvodina" or related.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26412 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the different meaning, pray tell?

With regard to the second paragraph, well, this is a good time to remind that this is not a forum. --Joy (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked Matijević 2008, and this claim is simply wrong, as that article has this on page 42:

Drugo se rješenje ograničavalo na stvaranje tzv. Velike Srbije, tj. države koja bi u svojim granicama obuhvaćala sve one dijelove Monarhije u kojima su Srbi, navodno, imali "izrazitu" ili "pretežnu većinu".[42]

42 B. KRIZMAN, "Stvaranje jugoslavenske države (Referat)", 170.

The term is prefixed with "so-called", so it's a very specific reference to that.

The latter reference is:

Bogdan Krizman, “Stvaranje jugoslavenske države”. (Referat na drugom kongresu historičara. Jugoslavije), Historijski pregled, 4 (1958), no. 3-4

So that was Bogdan Krizman [de; sr; hr], a reputable historian, in a journal published by the historical societies in Zagreb and Belgrade. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

An important note, "Annexation of Vojvodina" also refers to the annexation of Vojvodina most by the Nazi Hungary, NDH and others during WWII, as part of the Axis campaign destruction of K. of Yugoslavia, the Genocide of Serbs, and the Holocaust in the Balkans. Therefore, the title is still problematic and needed decent renaming.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-29820 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Ingrao & Vrkatić extensively analyse legal aspects (and Vrkatić has PhDs in law and history) and conclude it is an annexation. The term is used extensively and consistently throughout. For example here's a quote from p.128: "Since occupation is a factual state in war, that is, an interim seizure of a territory, and under the 1970 Hague Rules of Procedure civilian authorities of occupied country were to continue to discharge their functions, one can say that the Belgrade truce confirmed occupation of part of Hungarian territory by Allies. That occupation was effected by the French and Serb troops. Occupation is not a legal, but an interim state, that is the act of occupation does not mean that the territory may be considered an integral part of the state-occupier. Occupation may end when an occupied state resumes its military actions, which then evolve into a real war. But an occupied state may establish military power, and then occupation ends in a legal state. Moreover an occupier may permanently keep the territory via an inter-state agreement or peace conference, and then we are speaking about annexation. Serb army by interfering into civilian matters indicated its disregard for the Hague Rules of Procedure. The Novi Sad Assembly laid the groundwork for annexation or legitimisation of occupation, or annexation." Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

During World War II in Yugoslavia, the constituent components of the Danube Banovina and by extension Vojvodina were occupied by three different entities, so there was no singular annexation of Vojvodina to talk about during that time. --Joy (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

BTW the Matijević 2008, pp. 75–76 reference doesn't make sense because the linked paper ends at page 66. @Tomobe03 can you check that please? --Joy (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Joy thanks, good catch. A case of copy-waste, the source details were to the same article except published in Croatian. It is now switched to the English version for which the page numbers were correct all along. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

If there's ambiguity with the partial Hungarian annexation in 1941, should the title be 1918 annexation of Vojvodina?

This also relates to Talk:1918 occupation of Međimurje. --Joy (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure, the hatnote probably clears any ambiguity, but the year could be added to the title if there is a consensus that there is still ambiguity. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

It seems like a lot of focus is placed on the internal politics of Yugoslavia, but we should probably also summarize any Hungarian points of view, as this is part of the story of Trianon, was later reversed in WWII, etc. --Joy (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That is certainly possible, but there are some issues in that regard.

(1) The annexation did not formally change situation on the ground, i.e. it was not "a part of the story of Trianon". The borders formally shifted here (and in Međimurje and Prekmurje) through the Treaty of Trianon as only the Paris Peace Conference was empowered to do such things. At least that's what Ingrao and Hoare explicitly say. To illustrate this point: Regardless of 1 December proclamation of the Kingdom of SHS, the Allied Powers did not recognise the new state diplomatically - insisting until signing of the Treaty of Versailles that the Kingdom of Serbia is still in existence and participating in the PPC.

(2) The annexation did not practically change situation on the ground. The Armistice of Belgrade did that, allowing the Royal Serbian Army (and formally other allied powers) to occupy still formally Hungarian soil up to defined demarcation lines.

(3) The reason for the focus on the internal politics of Yugoslavia is the following: The annexation was an internal policy issue because of it impacted the way in which the proclamation of 1 December took place and influenced the style of rule by the Regent (later King).

There are lots of sources on the Hungarian responses to the Armistice of Belgrade, as presented in that article. There's even more on the Hungarian responses to the Treaty of Trianon - but that treaty took shape only a year and a half after the Novi Sad Assembly and its outcomes. If there were any Hungarian reactions to the activities of late November 1918 or 1 December 1918, they seem to be indistinguishable from those to the Armistice of Belgrade. Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but that article title seem far more specialized, implying a narrower scope that deals with military history, whereas this one implies a more general political history. I don't know that we should expect the average reader to go depth first into that article in order to get a more complete picture about the political aspects of this. Both articles deal with the same month of history and the same territory in this regard, it doesn't make sense that this one points out so much resentment in the intra-Slavic politics while actually talking about regions largely populated by Hungarians and Germans at the time and not pointing out the resentment there.

For example, there's a paragraph there about Many Hungarians grew bitter, not only because they found the terms of the armistice unjust, but also due to the real and perceived breaches of those terms. - surely something of the sort could find a place here, too, to provide a context beyond the politics of Zagreb and Belgrade. Especially if historical sources talk about the specifics of the situation in e.g. Bačka. --Joy (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I must ask though: Why don't you start the GAN review in situations similar to this and and ask the same questions there? Tomobe03 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I actually forgot you nominated it :) I just randomly stumbled upon the article again and noticed this. --Joy (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)