Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia

After the surrender and before the invasion was even over

OyMosby, somehow I just knew you weren't going to abide by WP:BRD. I reverted you because you created a terrible sentence:

After the surrender, Yugoslavia was subsequently divided amongst Germany, Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria, with most of Serbia being occupied by Germany and Croatia occupied by Germany and Italy establishing the joint puppet sate the Independent State of Croatia putting in power the Italian-backed fascist leader Ante Pavelić and his fascist terrorist organization the Ustaše before the invasion was even over.

Where to begin? It's overlong. We start with "After the surrender" and end with "before the invasion was even over". We say "fascist" twice. It was originally two sentences and you've made it worse. It isn't my job to clean it up. It is your job to make your every edit improve the encyclopaedia. This doesn't. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

“ OyMosby, somehow I just knew you weren't going to abide by WP:BRD. I reverted you because you created a terrible sentence:”

It’s clear you aren’t looking for a good faith discussion. I came to the talk page as you asked before even seeing your comment written in parallel to mine. So you are wrong. Also I am not-under 1RR. I didn’t revert and walk away I explained my edit here. Proof is in the edit history on the talk page. Follow BRD and EXPLAIN why you see an issue with my edit. Practice what you preach. You reverted me without any explanation other than a generic “not an improvement”. Ot seems you are nitpicking on very minor things. OyMosby (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

” We start with "After the surrender" and end with "before the invasion was even over". I didn’t add those. In your revert you can see. So really instead of removing the extra “fascist” which is used to describe two different things you could have just deleted the “extra” instead of this passive aggressive spectacle.OyMosby (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It was two sentences before. As I said, it isn't my job to clean up your mess. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It is your job to be constructive and “clean up people’s messes” rather than act like this. Editors constantly improve upon each other’s work rather than road block. You could have simply said these few things in the diff. We all constantly improve each other’s edits not wipe them out and go “nah not good” with any clue as to what wasn’t good. But it seems you specifically have a bone to pick with me considering how you greeted me on this talk page. I will fix the complicated three second catastrophe I apparently caused.OyMosby (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. OyMosby (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You are only making it worse. Read my initial edit summary: "please explain the issue". If you explain what you think was wrong with the original wording, perhaps I, a native speaker of English, can fix it. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it worse? No longer the conflicting "After the surrender" and “before the invasion is even over being in the same sentence. Fascist only mentioned once. What else is there? My edit added extra information from the source. Evidently that was what I saw was missing...OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I am a native speaker of English as well. Do I make mistakes and not proofread? I am guilty of that yes. But I do abide by BLD and believe in respectful discussion. I’m editing on a phone so I am prone to grammar or misspellings so please pardon mistakes I make at the moment. I agree with you about the conflict sentence. Not sure about the fascist part. Italy did not establish NDH on their own nor appoint Pavelic on their own. The section was a disaster to begin with. OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to make it known you are incorrect in your negative preexisting view of my character. You don’t seem to know me as I edited on the talk page the same time you did. I got blocked as the page changed. We were two minutes apart. I don’t walk away when someone asks to talk on the talk page. So yes, I take such assumptions personally as an insult. And tend to act passive aggressive in return myself. OyMosby (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

"Without German military presence on Croatian territory, no proclamation of a Croatian puppet state would have successfully formed" -> did Tomasevich say that?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: It’s a fact. Issues? Also why hound? OyMosby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Improving this article

I plan to get this article to GA sometime in the future. So, I have read the article in detail and I have taken notes on how the article can be improved. I've probably missed several things but here are my notes. I split problems I have noticed into two groups, a quite small group about problems with the text and a larger group concerning references.
Problems with the text

• In the Preparation section there is this sentence: "On 1 April, Yugoslavia redesignated its Assault Command as the Chetnik Command, named after the Serb guerrilla forces from World War I, which had resisted the Central Powers. The command was intended to lead a guerrilla war if the country was occupied". This needs to be clarified, what was the Assault Command and what did redesignation mean for the command.
• I believe the Aftermath section should be expanded to include better summary of the resistance and end of the war in Yugoslavia
  
• In summary of Royal Yugoslav armed forces section article says: "Yugoslav forces consisted of more than 33 divisions", while in the Equipment and organization subsection it says: "Yugoslav Army fielded 28 infantry divisions, three cavalry divisions and 35 independent regiments", but 28 plus 3 is 31. Meanwhile, Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia article says that VKJ consisted of 33 divisions. This needs to be clarified and made consistent.

Problems with the references

• Terzić 1982 references: There are two of them and two volumes are cited in the books section but it's not specified which footnote refers to what volume
• Niehorster 2013 references: There are four different footnotes citing four different (I am guessing this because 2013a, 2013b etc is used) by Leo Niehorster, they do not have corresponding work in Books or Articles sections. I searched the web and I haven't found any work by Niehorster published in 2013. Fixed.
• Fatutta and Covelli 1975 reference: One of the footnotes needs a page so I tried to search for the cited article (1941: Attack on Yugoslavia in The International Magazine of Armies and Weapons) but I have not even found anything about this journal on the internet, any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

I have hard copies of this journal. I will retrieve them and update the footnotes.Oz Cro (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Conways 1980 footnote: I am suspecting this refers to Chesnau's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 which is cited once on the page, I might be wrong tho so this needs to be investigated.

I have a hard copy and can confirm that Roger Chesneau was the editor of the 1980 publication Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946.Oz Cro (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Geschichte footnote: Geschichte simply means "history" in German so it's likely that this footnote refers to Gretschko's Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges but this needs to be checked before it's changed.
• Robert J Edwards's Invasion of Yugoslavia-waffen ss Captain Fritz Klingenberg and the capture of Belgrade during World War page 173 of this work is cited but the only thing I managed to find is an article of the same name on historynet.com but that article is written by Colin D. Heaton, this is quite confusing
• Enrico Cernuschi, Le operazioni aeronavali contro la Jugoslavia, 6–8 aprile 1941, in Storia Militare reference: Storia Militare means Military History in Italian (according to google translate) so that's probably a journal but I didn't manage to find anything about it online so I'd appreciate help from someone who speaks Italian. There are is one more similar reference from the same journal (if it's a journal).

In addition, there are a few unsourced parts that have all been labeled with cn. I believe this is pretty much it, I will work on this but I will appreciate any help and/or opinions. I would also appreciate any other suggestions on improving this article Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish you good luck with promoting this important article to GA status. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, OakMapping (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Invasion of Yugoslavia lines of attack Why We Fight no. 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfinished conversation

Hi @Amanuensis Balkanicus:, Per your edit diff and explanation I looked at the talk page discussion which spanned a few years and was all over the place with older users who have been now banned. So maybe this discussion can be simpler and focused on one topic. Second look at the talk page and that old section, and cited sources, Terzic is the only one claiming this theory of Croat/Slovene fifth column being one of the major reasons for the failings of the Yugoslavian army to keep hold of it’s defenses and instead fall untimely. Tomasevich and others state that the Fifth-Column were not a good reason for the failure of Yugoslavia’s defense efforts. (I am not debating if they are sizable but if they were a part or more reason for the Yugoslav army’s failings, as this seemed to have been a derailing confusion few years back) So staying “scholars” is misleading as one says they were a reason but multiple scholars say otherwise. If I am missing these other historians stating otherwise then please do correct me and add them to the article then as well. If it was said on the talk page, then it should be cited on the article not just the talk page then. Otherwise, it should not be given undue weight in the intro. Terzic is a reputable source though it is cited even on the historians Wikipedia page that they may have biased tendencies including this very claim. So again seems like a WP Weight issue. I’ll tag @Peacemaker67: as well since they were part of that original discussion too. I think the three of us would be able to come to a conclusion. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is a neutral, balanced and accurate representation of what is written in the reliable source material used in the article. See, for example, Vuchinich (1969), who happens to argue against the fifth column hypothesis: "...as many writers and defenders of the old regime would like us to believe." [1] Note the term "many", not simply "Terzić". And Terzić certainly wasn't a defender of the old regime, meaning this hypothesis has been advanced by scholars across the ideological spectrum. I'm really not sure why this debate is being reopened. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn’t see this mentioned in that older talk page discussion. At least not from my skimming of it. Still. Terzic is the only cited scholar. “ many writers and defenders of the old regime” could refer to anyone. How can that be concretely deemed as “Scholars” (multiple) as written in this article?. For the off-the-cuff statement, Should it then be “ Vuchinich writes that “Writers and defenders of the old regime” propose that..” then if being neutral and transparent? The last discussion on this talk page was all over the place and never had a conclusion as it seemd to get derailed by the Mikola user. What I really don’t get is how citation of a number of these “writers and defenders” are not needed then? It seems like a reach. Doesn’t seem neutral or balanced given one cited scholar vs multiple opposing. It doesn’t appear as a common point proposed by multiple scholars or historians. So seems incorrect to state multiple scholars propose it. FYI, I am not disregarding Terzic. Just the appearance of him being the only mentioned proponent. OyMosby (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the wording of the section is very good and it probably doesn't prioritise the causes very well. The reality is that the Yugoslavs were doomed from the outset, regardless of what they did or didn't do. They had no more chance than the Belgians or Dutch against the Germans. But if you have an alternative wording (with citations) I suggest you propose it here and we can workshop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree wording is not well done. My point is the lack of citations supporting the claimg that plural “Scholars propose” that the fifth column was one of the reasons for the failings of the Yugoslav Army when only one source, Terzic is cited claiming so and multiple historians say otherwise, one even criticizing Terzic’s motives on his claim. So saying multiple scholars propose it is misleading and seems like undue weight. In fact undue for mentioning the fifth column in the intro in general. As for another notable aspect as mentioned in your reply, In fact going further by your example of the Belgians or Dutch, It may make more sense not to mention general theories for the failings at all in the intro. I was not proposing a new intro, but correcting the plural Scholars supporting the fifth column theory and that it seems odd to put in the intro. It’s all fine for the aftermath analysis section of the article. But intro seems overly focused on the column considering the balance weight of the opposing views. Of course still fine for the article as one source doesn’t erase the other. But for the intro again seems undue. My edit yesterday seemed simple enough an edit (also the “questioned” part would not be needed as well) but held off for this talk. Do you agree with going forth with my edit? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what AB has to say first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I take it you agree with AB in that there are multiple other scholars besides Terzic that propose blame on the Fifth Columns as a (or the) reason for the military loss? OyMosby (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but the Tomasevich (not Vucinich, he was the editor of the 1969 book not the author of the chapter in question) bit on the fifth column bears discussion. There are no footnotes to this statement in the book, so there is no indication that any academics were advancing that theory, just "writers and defenders of the old regime". They could well have been various Serbs in the post-war diaspora justifying their performance post-facto. I certainly think a passing mention of this in a 1969 book isn't deserving of the weight it is currently being given. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page then. Yes, as I stated Tomasevich goes into discussion about that Fifth column and states that it had little effect on the outcome. I see it is well discussed in the article. But seems to be given in the intro the weight as if multiple historians push this theory as if a common mainstream idea when I see only one RS cited historian claim it as a factor. That was all. It seems undue for the lead itself. I was not saying to remove from the article in total just to be clear that is. Absolutely not. It does deserve discussion in the article as that sizable column was there as Tomasevich goes in detail about. So looks like we agree. Indeed, let’s wait then on AB’s input on this and how to go about the matter. OyMosby (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response, was away for a bit. In short, yes. There are other scholars who shares Terzic's view. For example, France Friedman writes: "Some analysts blame a Croatian fifth column for weakening Yugoslavia and aiding Germany's advance." She cites W. Victor Madej as an example of such a scholar. [2] Again, this suggests that it isn't merely Terzic who proposed this hypothesis. I don't see how it is undue to compare and contrast the views of some scholars (Terzic, Madej, etc) with the views of others (Tomasevich, Vucinich, etc). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional Photograph

I added a photograph taken of King Peter II during the evacuation the Yugoslav government on the 14th or 15th April 1941. He is seated with the Vazduhoplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije (VVKJ) or the Royal Yugoslav Airforce. This photograph was taken on the day King Peter II was flown out of Yugoslavia.

I am not certain of the exact date, and would like to know if this was the 14th or the 15th of April 1941. I am also uncertain of the location, I presume it is at Belgrade Airport, however it may have been a different airfield.

If any historians can elaborate with details from other sources please add further information to this image. ANTHRO2022 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The photo isn’t properly licensed. Where did you get it from? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Command structure again

I recently made a reply on the OOB Invasion of Yugoslavia:Axis for about 5 days with no reply. Peacemaker, I'm going to say it again. Vittorio Ambrosio 2nd Army was the main attacking force for the Italian invasion of Yugoslavia invading from North-eastern Italy. In case for Biroli's 9th Army stationed in Albania had to be subordinated to Cavallero's command. The Comando Superiore dell' Forze Armate Albania had the overall jurisdiction in Albania with the Italian 9th Army facing the Adriatic coast regions and Western Macedonia and the Italian 11th Army facing Greece (not involved in Yugoslavia) under its control. Even though the 9th Army only had 2 Corps participating the invasion of Yugoslavia, while the other 2 were not. The 9th Army was still subordinated to the Comando Superiore FF.AA Albania. It means that Cavallero was NOT the overall commander for the Italian invasion of Yugoslavia. Ambrosio's 2nd Army would lead the main body for Italian invasion of Yugoslavia from Northern Italy. Biroli's 9th Army subordinated to the (Higher Command of the Armed Forces in Albania, under Cavallero) would launch an attack towards Western Macedonia and Adriatic coast regions linking with Ambrosio's 2nd Army. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source that states clearly that Cavalerro had a direct command relationship over the operations of the 9th Army in Yugoslavia? Niehorster dies not provide that. Not even all 9th Army elements fought against Yugoslavia, so Biroli himself obviously had wider responsibilities than just the Yugoslav campaign, but of all the forces in Albania, only those under his command participated. From a military perspective, it makes no sense for there to be no unified command of all Italian forces fighting in Yugoslavia. Who was in command of the 2nd Army and 9th Army elements engaged in Yugoslavia? Clearly not Cavallero, as he had no command relationship with Ambrosio that I'm aware of. Why would we include Biroli (who actually commanded the Italian troops invading YUgoslavia from Albania) and also Cavallero, whose only relationship with those troops was via Biroli. I makes no sense from a military command perspective. IF you can find a reliable source for who commanded ALL Italian forces operating in Yugoslavia, we could include that person as well as Biroli and Ambrosio, but that person isn't Cavallero, so he shouldn't be included. If you don't provide a reliable source for your contentions, don't expect a response in ANY timeframe on any page. Just drop the stick. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Using your logic. That's like saying Erwin Rommel in North Africa acted freely from his Italian superiors in North African Command namely (Ettore Bastico or Italo Gariboldi); the two Italian generals who were Rommel's superior is therefore considered not to be valuable to be listed in a OOB page or in campaignbox. Where in reality, Rommel is officially subordinated to Italian Command in North Africa and Rommel only directed the German and Italian forces in North Africa, namely the (Deutsche-Italienische Panzerarmee Afrika). This applies same for the situation of the Italian OOB in Albania. I am talking on subordination terms, not as operationally. The Comando Superiore Forze Armata Albania under Cavallero had direct control of all Italian forces Stationed in Albania. That includes 9th and 11th Army under its control. In case for the situation of invasion of Yugoslavia. Cavallero was to oversaw the Italian forces in Albania . Biroli only directed the 9th Army and the two Italian Corps of the 9th Army (XIV and XVII Corpo d'Armata) invading Yugoslavia from Albania. And Cavallero oversaw this move. The Italian 9th Army did not act as a independent or autonomous field army because it is subordinated to the Higher Command in Albania. Unlike the Italian 2nd Army who is acting as a autonomous field army and not subordinated to any higher command in Italy. If you continue to claim that Biroli acted freely from the Comando Superiore Forze Armata Albania under Cavallero and claim that Biroli did all the job invading Yugoslavia from Albania. You are already talking on insubordination violation in military terms. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you want a source. I'll give you one later . But not today, because I have other things to do. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I spent 28 years in the Australian Army. I know what command and control is. I also know what administrative command and operational control are. You might think what you are saying is logical. I don't. To include Cavallero, I believe that what is needed here is a reliable source that clearly and explicitly states that Cavallero was directing the operations of Biroli's army in Yugoslavia, ie responsible for carrying out the invasion plan. The principle of unity of command indicates that it would be unusual to not have an overall national land forces commander for an operation as extensive as the invasion of Yugoslavia involving as it did in the Italian case, attacks from the west and south. In the case of the Germans, that commander was Brauchitsch, to whom Weichs, List and Kleist each reported (that is why all four are included in the infobox). He ensured their operations were coordinated and deconflicted, and made key decisions as events occurred. Biroli and Ambrosio must have reported to someone, and given Ambrosio had no command relationship with Cavallero, that person wasn't him. It may have been Mario Roatta, but I haven't been able to find a reliable source that states he was in command of the overall land operation. If it was Roatta, we would include him, but not Cavallero. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw a source that Roatta was involved with the planning of the invasion alongside the Germans in March 1941 , the source was in Italian but I forgot its name. But I will look it up later. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)