Talk:Yugoslav Front of World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yugoslav Front of World War II article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Needs More Content

I personally think that this article is way, way too short for something this relevant to World War II. Perhaps we should merge some other articles that have to do with the war into this one? (Bavor 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

you see the "expand" template? It says everything. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatently Biased Title

I request that the name of this article be revised, as it is biased to the Communist interpretation of events, as the "people" were enslaved by the "liberators" Tito and the Partisans (and NO, I WILL NOT rephrase that, before anybody asks, because if somebody cannot recognize that Tito was a despotic tyrant, they probably have not heard of him to be VERY generous.). And, it could also be confused with other Peoples' Liberation Wars, like the Russian Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Indochina Wars etc. And thus could be confusing to those who use those terms. ELV

Ithink you should note the fact that the Yugoslavian region DID, in fact, achieve it's economic highpoint during the reign of this so called 'tyrant'. His regime was THE most liberal of all communist regimes and he maintained political and (perhaps even more importantly) ECONOMIC stability in this troubled region. The nations of Yugoslavia were granted their independence from Belgrade to a very high level. More importantly the standard of living was the highest during his (very capable) reign. I WOULD NOT CALL THAT ENSLAVEMENT! dIREKTOR

It is easy to achieve an "economic highpoint" with an unsustainable fiscal policy such as that of Tito's communist regime. The title is POV. MMDROk

OK than, the definition of Tyrant is (thanks to http://www.thefreedictionary.com) is: 1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. 2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. 3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person The Definition of Enslavement is (thanks to answers.com): The act of reducing to slavery; state of being enslaved; bondage; servitude. Tito may not be the first name to pop into one's head in this situation, but it DOES fit him. Firstly, the state of the economy, as the dictionary shows, is NOT used in defining a tyrant. Most of the great tyrants had some modicum of skill, as the inept-in-every-respects leader would be overthrown by somebody. One can run a rich tyranny, and one can even run a genuinely popular tyranny, and some, like Nasser and Sadat, have even managed to run both at the same time. The deciding factor is who gets the power. Nasser and Sadat, despite having a genuine widespread popularity with the Egyptians, still killed any who spoke out against them unless they (for whatever reason) decided to allow it (usually to draw critique from the Western Democracies off of them.)

And Tito could not even claim to be nearly as genuinely popular.

The only reason Yugoslavia existed to collapse as late as it did was due to a combination of absolutism, strong leadership, foreign allies, and a large military. This is true for both Royal Yugoslavia and for Communist (or Titoist, the difference is minor) Yugoslavia. In Royalist Yugoslavia, the Serb royal government was STRONGLY intolerant of ANYTHING outside their own little niche. They kept their unpopular regime afloat by quickly and efficiently crushing any threat to the throne. However, they could not stifle everything, as they were unpopular outside of their little niche.

They were also, in the grand scheme, when measured against the other European nations, quite backwards, as even tiny Switzerland had more heavy industry present in a 1928 survey than large Yugoslavia had in a survey in February in 1940. The only thing that kept it afloat was the lukewarm support of the old Allies in its various political misadventures, such as its "Little Entente" against Hungary. It also had to make due with a large , poorly trained and equipped army. Many have wondered why the Serbians of WWI, who smashed the Austrians despite gross numerical superiority on the later's side, as well as equipment advantages, became the Yugoslavian Army, Which collapsed so utterly that in some cases, the Yugoslavians took more casualties than the Axis in the entire campaign did. The Answer: Serbia, as the name implies, was primarily Serbs, and no such tension existed amoung them, or in any great scale with their smaller neighbors and allies the Montinegrins. The "Land of the South Slavs," on the other hand, had many ethnicites, Croats, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians etc, all of whom the Yugoslavian Royal Gov't discriminated against.

Things under Tito did not change as much as many would like you to think: The "ecconomic highpoint" which you mention, was built on the back of massive loans from NATO, with most of it coming from the old Western Allies, and that was not because of any great love for Tito, it was because, with Greece isolated in the Balkans as the only Democratic Capitalist Republic, they could not afford to loose the vantage point a neutral Yugoslavia, or one even sided with NATO, could offer.

And speaking of which, you mention that Tito "was the most Liberal of the Communist Regimes." To which I say TAKE A LOOK AROUND!!!! Lenin, Hitler, (Yes, look up what NAZI is shorthand for, and some of his speeches about Capitalism) Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Kruschev, Pol Pot. Ceauseceau. When we say that he was the most "Liberal" Communist Regime, are we really saying anything? That he did not kill Millions of people in (among others) executions, genoicide, purges, ethnic cleansings, and loose Millions more in Wars that they USUALLY (though not always, I will concede that the Japanese in the case of Mao could not give two tripes about the regime of China when they launched their invasion) caused, and immediatly began backstabbing those who helped them survive WWII before it even ended (I am looking at the First Six)?

And What of the men who tried to blackmail an entire continent and Millions of lives (most of which would be termed under the articles of war as "civilians") with instantaneous nuclear holocaust in order to force their demands upon the world while simutaneously keeping their people oppressed? (#7 and #8, I MEAN YOU!)? And the thug who overthrew his countries' government (which, granted, was an opressive Royalist regime) and replaced it with a even more despotic regime that was so Orwellian (Don't believe me? "Democratic Kampuchea" mad "Brother Number One" and "Year Zero" float yer boat?) that if one didn't know better it would seem like he was attempting to parody 1984, all the while criminalizing everying up to AND including the family itself while killing off more than 30% of his own countrymen (Mr. Pot, I am pointing to you)?

And of course, the last absolute Communist despot in Europe, the man who, along with his evil wife; banned all abortions and counter-conceptives, and than sent thugs around harassing women to make sure that they were being followed (I may not be fond of abortions, but I would not simply go about banning the whole thing entirely and than send a terror squad after women simply to ensure it is followed, and I am from the so-called anti-abortionist party in the US) while declaring "The fetus is the property of the entire society?" IN THE MIDDLE OF A FAMINE!!!!! And than dragged his nation so far into poverty that it became law that no ambulances were to be dispatched to people over the age of 70, and that 3 watt bulbs were the legal max? Than arrested dozens of thousands for the least offensive crimes and forced them to work in gulag-like camps on a massive canal (granted, said canal was started by the old communist Romanian Regime, but it was still the bulk that was done under this man) that killed thousands (Nicolae Ceauşescu, please stand up and against the wall.)

My point is that, with contemporaries like these, the bar is so low it has burrowed into the core and than came out the other side of the planet. All Tito has to do is to equally kill everybody regardless of race, religion, or dissident group, kill hundreds of thousands instead of millions, and maintain a human rights level that is somewhere above trying to run his own country to extinction, and he suddenly becomes the "most Liberal Communist Dictator."

As for autonomic relations from Belgrade, they did not really exist. The "autonomic" relations were pretty much having Tito order a parade in Zagreb, a crackdown on Student Rights Group X in Sarajevo, and a monument of "The People's struggle" created and unveiled in Ljubljana, and having people in those three cities carry out his orders. This is old hash, as no dictator I can think of carried out everything personally, and had Yugoslavia not been so inherently multi-ethnic, we would not even be hearing about any "autonomous" relations with Belgrade, as Belgrade IS running the show. One of the main differences between the Serbian Royal Regime and Tito's Communist one was that the Royal family pushed the Serb Nationalist Card. Hard. Tito, as the article mentioned, based his regime on the Communist ideology. This freed his support from racial bounds, and it ensured that, while he would meet at least some dissidents in any corner of the country, he would also meet at least some supporters in any corner too. But the power lay with Tito and Belgrade, and he allowed his agents in the other 'capitals' to do what they wanted SO LONG AS THEY DID NOT SET ONE CENTIMETER-LONG FOOT AGAINST THE PARTY LINE! And believe me, he was more than willing to smash anybody to death who tried to win even the smallest bit of actual freedom. The only area that really escaped his total control was Macedonia, which was practically independant for decades, and was guarded by occasional Western Allied, or later, NATO incursions to ensure that Tito could not maintain a solid hold on it, though he must have considered it a "price to pay" in order to keep the Western Powers relativly friendly.

The 1948 Slaughters crackdowns in Croatia, the Executions of ethnic Albanians, primarily in the Kosovo region, but also elsewhere, to supposidly curb Hoxha's power, it was not an utopian nation, there was blood spilled. Lots of it. Aided by modern machinery and new weapons, it was not a pretty sight.

"The Standard of Living in Yugoslavia was the highest it has ever been?" Even if we were to toss out the evidence disputing this, are we really saying ANYTHING? From the Austrian-Ottoman opression to the Royalist dump to the current post-Yugoslavia wars, is it really much to say that? Also, in some areas of the dead country, there are places where SoL is higher than ever, like Slovenia, some areas in Croatia, and Macedonia.

My point is that YES Tito was a Tyrant and Yugoslavia was enslaved by the top "crust" of the communist party. I do not doubt that he was capable; in fact it would have been far more suprising is he was NOT capable, as most dictators, and certainly all of the "greats" were very capable, in order to maintain absolute rule over a population for so long. Hitler and Stalin were capable, but very malicious, rulers, but you would not call them tyrants?

But now back on topic. Asides from any personal misgivings about the title, it is worth realizing that, for people who use such terms, there could be MANY "Peoples Liberation Wars." Chinese Civil War, Japanese invasion of China, the Cuban Revolution, among others, and THAT is what could cause confusion. ELV


[edit] POV title

Title sounds quite POV in my opinion.--Staberinde 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the Campaignbox for PLW (aka NOR)... I agree that "PLW" is a POV title. It should be changed to something neutral like "World War II in Yugoslavia" or "Yugoslav Front of WW II" as in the article.
However, the discussion whether Tito was a tyrant or an "enslaver" is completely beside the point. Just check out the competition, and anyone whose judgment is not biased by direct association (eg. if one's family was persecuted or executed by the communists) will realize that the partisans were the only relatively consistent antifascist resistance movement on the ground (Chetnik wishful thinking notwithstanding). This is not to deny that they were hopelessly ideologized and had plenty of innocent blood on their hands in the war and the aftermath.
The article needs another title. -- Miranche 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agree with that, and that long triade above was in response to that, though I guess I did invite it looking back as I am more than a little bit biasesd in my beliefs, and I will never try to hide or deny that fact. In the Yugoslav front of WWII, as with most wars, no side has no blood on its hands, though this is true even moreso than usually, as due to the ethnic cleansings purpotrated by the Chetniks and the Axis, and due to the massive persecutions of non-Communists by the Partisans. My point is that the title is biased, and that those who would use such honorific titles could get it confused with (Amoung others) the Chinese Civil War, the Northern Expidition, WWII, the Second Sino-Japanese War etc. and Thus the title must be changed. ELV

[edit] Campaign Box

I applaud the recent changing of the title to a fairer one is quite good news. However, osme work remains to be done, as the Campaign box underneath the warbox still shows "People's Liberation War" along with the Greco-Italian War, Greece Campaign etc. THis must be changed. ELV

Didn't notice before, but I've changed it now. Why didn't you change it yourself? I myself was quite shocked when I saw the way things were presented, but I only came across this article by chance, and I'm a heavy contributor to Serb-related articles (8000+ edits). If you see something that's wrong (and there's a lot of it, especially pertaining to Serbs and Serbia), just change it yourself. If you don't, chances are no one else will.--Еstavisti 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't I change it myself? That is because when I went into the edit menu here to change it, the thing only says (something to the effect of) [[Balkans Campaigns Box] ]. Since it was that and only that, I could not find a way to change it, as I know of no other way to change it. If somebody could tell me HOW to change things on the campaign boxes, I would be MORE than glad to do it in future instances by myself. I simply do not know how, however. ELV
ELV, you edit the page "Template:" + the text you find in the braces; turn all spaces into underbars. This means, if the page says {{Campaignbox NOR} } you need to edit the page "Template:Campaignbox_NOR". Miranche 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of the campaign

Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa? Yugoslavia firmly belongs to Europe, and doesn't even touch Mediterranean - only Adriatic.

Very good question. Yugoslavia is, as always, hard to classify :). The 1941 Invasion of Yugoslavia was classified into the Mediterranean theater as a part of the German Balkans Campaign, which was fought in Greece as well. After 1941, Yugoslavia was not linked to any larger European front (Eastern or Western) very tightly. For the Western Allies it was strategically more closely connected to the Mediterranean (Italy, Greece, air-raids in Romania etc). For the Soviets it was an important diversion off the Eastern Front, but was a part of it only briefly, in 1944, when Soviets participated in the liberation/capture of Belgrade after taking over Romania and before continuing to Hungary.
When I classified this article into the Mediterranean, this made sense to me as the Western Allies, it seems, played a more active role. Although Tito was ideologically closer to Stalin, the Brits and Americans were the ones who "decided" that the Partisans were more legit than Chetniks, and started training and equipping their forces long before they got any material help from the Russkies. Most of this equipment and support came by way of the Mediterranean. Also, the Partisans' influence outside of Yugoslavia during the war was to the south, collaborating with Greek and Albanian communist-led resistance movements.
No strong feelings either way -- it makes as much sense to consider Yugoslavia a "third front" of the European theater, simply by geography.
Miranche 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The battle of the Tarnova Forest (1945).

A rather forgotten battle of WWII was the battle of the Tarnova Forest (December 18, 1944 - February 10, 1945) between the IX Army Corps (of the 4th Yugoslavian Army) and the troops of the Italian Social Republic. The target of the battle was the control of the Isonzo River.

About what are you talking ? Yugoslav army has come to talian border only in april- may 1945 !
The units of the Slovene Army as a part of Yugoslav Army operated not only in what is nowadays Slovenia, but also in the parts to the north and west of it in the territories that were considered part of the Slovene ethnic territory. For instance, they formed a partisan brigade and send it, together with some English and/or American agents which parachuted into liberated parts of Slovenia, to the north of the Drava/Drau river into Austrian Carinthia, but had not much success there, it was soon destoyed by German police.
As far as Italy is conserned there was a march in february 1944 of the 9th Corp to the west into Beneška Slovenija (Venice Slovenia), today a small part of Italian province Friuli (on the east of Friuli bordering Slovenia), and they fought there the Axis' armies, so probably also the units of the Italian Social Republic. NikNovi 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of article

The current name is POV. People's Liberation War has gone out of favour with most source except for certain socialist and Partisan-friendly ones. The article should be renamed to a generic term "Yugoslav Front of World War II", which is already in use in the intro. "Narodnooslobodilački rat" only gives 694 search results. Also, the term is inherently biased to the Partisans who coined the term, while the Chetniks who were the recognized "liberators" until 1944 never used this name.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tito or Mihailović

The paragraph on recognition of Tito rather than Mihailović by Britain & America rather cursory and warrants expansion on a separate page, particularly some mention of Fitzroy MacLean and Ultra needed. This article is rather long already. The Draža Mihailović page too, with unsubstantiated claim that Churchill influenced by his son Randolph Churchill. Randolph Churchill was with Evelyn Waugh; Waugh put in a report about Tito’s persecution of the clergy, which was buried by Anthony Eden. Call the new expanded page what? Yugoslav Allies in WW II ?? Hugo999 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seven anti-Partisan offensives

I have sources that show the use of this organization, you do not have sources that show they are "not used in modern historiography". Such a claim must be corroborated. In either case there is no reason why the Partisan (Allied) names for the operations should not be used alongside the Axis ones in this manner, and this is how these seven offensives are organized on Wiki, there are among them offensives that do not have any one specific German or any other name, which makes this the more practical of the classifications (of course not excluding the German names for Fall Weiss and Schwartz). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're supposed to discuss after labeling something "POV". (I'd rather say you're the one making POV edits, but let's discuss to determine this...) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by R-41

woah woah woah, discuss this! point by point. Some of your edits are ok, but you really need to engage in dialog here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Fascist Chetniks? There were some fascist Chetniks, those of Kosta Pećenac, but the rest of the Serbian Military Administration (Nedić's Serbia) were not Chetniks. All Chetniks except those were not officially declared as fascists, but were increasingly collaborationist troops, again this is well referenced and there are numerous sources in the text (look them up). What the personal ideals of "most of them" cannot be known nor is it relevant, it is their actions (who exactly they fought) that determine their allegiance.
  • Flag. The flag of the Chetnik movement is not the flag of Yugoslavia, though the Kingdom of Yugoslavia should probably be added to the "Allies:" as an early combatant.
  • Chetniks Axis. The Chetniks were increasingly Axis throughout the history of the Front. Especially after 1943 when they engaged in open combat with Allied troops, not only the Partisans, but also the Red Army (this is why I placed them as Axis only after 1943). And the western Allies do not belong under "Yugoslav Royalists:" they didn't switch sides. What "most of them" (Chetniks) believed or didn't believe is irrelevant, they were eventually openly collaborating with the Axis, hence they are Axis collaborator troops. (this is very well referenced in the text.)
  • Image caption. We do not know whether the Chetniks in the pic were openly pro-fascist or not (Kosta Pečenac's men), the only thing that is certain is that these are Chetniks, and that they are posing for a picture with Germans.
  • Good Chetniks, bad Chetniks? The Chetnik troops of Kosta Pećenac were officially supporting the Serbian Military Administration, hence they were open collaborators in "official" agreement with the fascist occupation forces. Other Chetnik troops were not officially supporting the occupation, but increasingly ended up a collaborationist force, what their official ideals and the thoughts "of most of them" were is not relevant, they were in practice increasingly a collaborationist force (especially so after 1943). Just to make my point clearer:
    • Draža Mihailović was the commander-in-chief of all Chetnik forces for the vast majority of the war (with the possible exception of Kosta Pećenac).
    • The entire Chetnik movement collaborated with the Axis, i.e. joined them and cooperated to a degree in military operations against internationally recognized Allied resistance forces.
    • Certain factions within the Chetnik movement were indeed more friendly with the Axis than others, but in general considerations, this is trivial (see above). No faction of the Chetnik movement actually fought the occupation forces throughout the war contrary to Mihailović's orders, certain exceptions exist only as a desperate bid for recognition at the very end of the war. No faction of the Chetnik movement abstained from conflict with recognized Allied resistance forces (after 1943).

Mihailović's excuse (the text you added). So now we're quoting Mihailović's excuse for collaboration as the official version of history? I'm not saying his point of view should not be added, but it should be formulated while taking into consideration 1) that it is only his personal POV (whether sincere or not), 2) that he did not lose the support of the western Allies for no reason, and 3) that he was found guilty of collaboration (high treason) by the post-war tribunals (questioning Allied post-war verdicts is something I will not discuss). Furthermore, it should not be added in such depth here, an article which deals primarily with actual military operations and fighting, but in the Chetniks article, which deals (or should deal) with their motivations for collaboration, whether humanitarian or not (the collaboration of the entire Chetnik movement is a well known and referenced fact).
(Personally, I somehow think that the prospect of their own possible annihilation at the hands of the Germans (since their power base was much more limited than that of the Partisans) was more motivating than "humanitarian" concerns, since they did slaughter non-combatants all over Yugoslavia. Also, I'm sure they found that Germans and Italian giving them supplies and munitions was much more easier than stealing them.)

A part of the text is ok should be included, though in a shortened version, we should agree on a formulation. The current one is very lenient (POV) towards the fact that the all of the Chetniks decided not to fight the occupation forces, and joined them in destroying troops who actually did fight the occupation. See how differently it sounds when stated plainly? Also, Draža was the commander-in-chief of all Chetniks in 1941(-1943), he ordered them to stop fighting Germans (again, see the difference?). The text is obviously somewhat POV, and should be altered in that respect. Also, it deals with the Chetniks in depth, which should be left to the Chetnik article, it is easy to surmise it in a sentence or two. Also, what are "genuine collaborators"? you either collaborate with the Germans or you don't. The entire Chetnik movement most certainly did so (in varying degrees, i.e. Pećenac), if not by receiving large shipments of Axis munitions, then certainly by fighting Allied troops. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Firstly, the Partisans were not a "communist movement". The post-war Yugoslavia was communist for a number of years before it increasingly became socialist. The Partisans were a pan-Yugoslav communist-led movement, this is an extremely important distinction. That being said, there is absolutely no need to keep mentioning their political affiliation at every reference to them in the article, the only possible purpose of which would be to somehow make the Allies look like "bad guys"(!) because they were communist-led.
Second, Tolstoy is a significantly biased source. This issue was addressed numerous times on Wiki, so if you want to use him as a reference, please avoid controversial statements. Finally, please discuss edits of a controversial nature before including them, as they will likely be challenged and that may lead to revert-warring. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point of view. I was only going for consistency (another possible purpose). Didn't mean to offend.
With regard to the tank "gestures" in Austria, I felt that recounting an incident cited from a published source would add some flavour and depth, serving to reinforce the existing style of that paragraph, as well as providing a "look behind the scenes" at the reason for the note from the British Ambassador to Tito.
I looked to add some balance to the following paragraph "Partisan General Offensive" with some key, eminently verifiable, words that would countervail any perception that the partisan forces were facing, in the winter of 1944-45, annything more than the husks of Axis units. Also, by this stage of the war, any remaining light Axis naval units were living a fugitive existence being hunted by Allied naval and air forces throughout what little Dalmation coast-line remained under Axis control.
Therefore I propose "Set against the Yugoslav Partisans was German General Alexander Löhr of Army Group E. This Army Group had seven army corps (the XV Mountain, XV Cossack, XXI, XXXIV, LXIX, and LXXXXVII). These corps included seventeen weakened divisions (1st Cossack, 2nd Cossack, 11th, 41st, 104th, 22nd, 181st, 7th SS, 373rd Croat, 392nd Croat, 237th, 188th, 438th, 138th, 14th SS Ruthenian, and the Stefan Division). In addition to the seven corps, the Axis had remnant naval forces (under constant attack by the Royal Navy and RAF) to defend the coast, strong police forces to secure the rear, and roughly twenty weak, remnant divisions of local Croatian and Serb units. The Croats included Ustaše and Croatian Home Guard units of the Independant State of Croatia."
(Oz Cro (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC))


Ok, I apologize if I sounded gruff, you would not believe the number of biased "weekend-editors" we get on this and related articles. Anyway, Tolstoy, while published, is not an NPOV source. Here are a few quotes about his works from an article about the Aldington v Tolstoy libel case:

  • "Trying to weave a way through the tangled cobweb of truths, half-truths, and downright inaccuracies woven by Tolstoy proved to be one of the longest and most arduous tasks I have ever undertaken as a writer."
  • "...his writing came increasingly to reveal a fanatical obsessiveness that was more Slav than Anglo-Saxon. Appalled by the injustice inflicted upon his fellow White Russians, and dedicated to the cause of seeing that it should be requited on a public platform, Tolstoy progressively persuaded himself that the repatriations had flowed from an evil conspiracy."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-8313967.html

As for your proposal on the paragraph, its ok with me. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)