Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia

List of commanders

Should Sekula Drljević really be listed as a military commander ? He was pretty much out of the picture after the July 1941 uprising - he was not even in Montenegro anymore, as the Italians had deported him - and the actual military leader of the "Greens" was Krsto Popović. Montenegro wasn't even a "proper" belligerent during the war since the Italians had given up trying to establish it as an independent State. The Greens might be listed as a belligerent like the Slovene Home Guard is, but from what I read in Tomasevich, Popović just had about 1500 men under his command, which make them a pretty minor factor, probably even more than other "ethnic" units like the Sandžak Muslim militia. Anyway, since Drljević himself represented a fairly minor side of the conflict (with no Independent State and no armed forces under his command except for the so-called Montenegrin People's Army during the very last weeks of the war), I don't think he should be listed. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But he was one side of the conflict, and also it was discussed on some other article, I don't remember which but he shouldn't be removed. Please revert yourself. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't bother commenting on the original post, as I pretty much agreed with the thrust of it. He wasn't terribly important, and there are already plenty of people there that probably shouldn't be. We should have some criteria for who goes in the infobox on this article, as it could do with a trim. Pecanac shouldn't be there, he wasn't a major player, Horthy had little to do with Yugoslavia (should be the chap who commanded the occupation forces in Backa and Baranja), von Horstenau was a bit player, but German Army commanders are not mentioned. Kalafatovic surrendered the Yugoslav armed forces, but that doesn't qualify him to be in the infobox. Not even sure about Kvaternik. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both. And that infobox is already monstruous -- it's a bloatbox rather than a source of information. I encourage whoever is bold enough to trim it excessively, particularly the list of commanders. Since this has been (IMO rightfully) reframed into a broader historical article rather than the one on the military conflict, it is questionable if we need an infobox at all. No such user (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We do need an infobox, since it was a military conflict - and a terribly brutal one at that - but we should be a bit restrictive about who is included and who isn't, precisely because the infobox must not be too bloated. The Greens were militarily speaking, very minor players (1500 men under Krsto Popović's command, none under Drljević's, except for the Montenegrin People's Army which was formed very belatedly and whose recruits were actually fighting under duress) : if we include them, we should include every ethnic militia which participated in the conflict. The Slovene Home guard deserves a mention IMHO. I'd say Slavko Kvaternik can be included since he was minister of the armed forces. Not sure about Pecanac, he was admittedly a bit player... Probably not Horthy and Filov : if we include them, we should include Hitler and Mussolini, or even Churchill, which would seem a bit silly. On the other side, shouldn't Paul Bader be included ? Maybe Henry Maitland Wilson also deserves a mention as allied commander (since he was directly in command of the aerial operations in the Balkans)...

BTW, I'd say that the Tchetniks should be included as "Allies" for the 1941-1943 period instead of 1941-1942, since they kept receiving allied supports and carried some operations at the British's behest in late 1943 (they were also under attack by the Germans during Case Black, which the current version of the article does not mention, even though the Partisans were the main target). Listing them in the infobox as "Allies 1941-1943" (or maybe even 1941-1944 if we take their 1944 attempts into account) and "Axis 1942-1945" would give a more accurate idea of their position, since they managed to be Allies and Axis/aligned at the same time in 1942-43 (which may seem weird, but that's what happened~). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should limit the "national" leaders to those actually involved, not the leaders of nations engaged in Yugoslavia, so not Horthy and Filov. As far as military commanders are concerned, the main German ones were Franz Böhme who put down the 1941 Uprising in Serbia, Bader who was Military Commander in Serbia for a couple of years and was in overall command of a lot of smaller operations in the NDH, and Lothar Rendulic who commanded the Second Panzer Army for a couple of years. Perhaps it would be best to put a list of names here and agree/disagree on each one? I agree re: Slovenia, Leon Rupnik is probably the right man for that job. I'd leave the "handling" of the Chetniks to one side for now, it will just get in the way and we can deal with it at the end. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what we have now:

Axis +Paul Bader +Franz Böhme +Lothar Rendulic Maximilian von WeichsNSU Alexander LöhrNSU Edmund Glaise von HorstenauNSU Mario Roatta Miklós HorthyNSU Ante Pavelić Slavko Kvaternik Milan Nedić Kosta Pećanac Leon Rupnik Bogdan FilovNSU Xhemo HasaNSU

Kingdom & Chetniks Dušan SimovićNSU Danilo KalafatovićNSU Draža Mihailović Ilija Trifunović-BirčaninNSU Dobroslav JevđevićNSU Pavle ĐurišićNSU Momčilo ĐujićNSU Zaharije OstojićNSU Petar BaćovićNSU Vojislav LukačevićNSU Jezdimir DangićNSU

Partisans & Allies Josip Broz Tito Milovan ĐilasNSU Aleksandar RankovićNSU Kosta NađNSU Peko DapčevićNSU Koča PopovićNSU Petar DrapšinNSU Svetozar Vukmanović Tempo Arso JovanovićNSU Sava KovačevićNSU Ivan GošnjakNSU Boris KidričNSU Franc Rozman StaneNSU Fyodor Tolbukhin Vladimir StoychevNSU + Henry Maitland WilsonWilliam Elliot or Fitzroy Maclean

Not sure how to structure this, but I marked all those whom I consider removing with _NSU, reserving the right to change opinion. Peacemaker's suggestions added with leading "+" No such user (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the issues is whether we include the invasion in this article. If we do, I think some of those like Simovic need to stay, and we may have to add some more Germans. Personally, I'm not sure why we are including the invasion in this article. We could just define it in the lead about being everything after the surrender. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But the invasion was a part of the war. It did not happen before 1941 or 1939. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to open that can of worms again. But if that is the case, we need to cover the main players during the invasion as well as those involved in the insurgency. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We also need to take into account those German officers with both invasion and occupation responsibilities. Both Lohr and von Weichs commanded OB Sudost (with overall Wehrmacht-level responsibility for Yugoslavia, as well as being airfleet and army commanders (respectively) during the invasion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should definitely include the invasion in the article, especially as it's called "World War II in Yugoslavia". If we want to have an article about the whole situation, mentioning the invasion is absolutely indispensable since nothing would have happened in Yugoslavia without it. On a sidenote, it also avoids unnecessary bickering about "who started first" the resistance (arguably, Mihailovic was the first to officially create his organization, but Tito was the first to start an active uprising). I saw a previous version which started the action in Yugoslavia in July 1941 (i.e. at the start of Tito's uprising) and it was pretty unsatisfactory as it evacuated not only Mihailovic (who started his organization in may although he didn't do much) but also the Serb uprising in Bosnia and Croatia against the Ustashe, which started in June and was pretty active. And none of these things, of course, would have happened without the invasion. So I'd say that if we want a complete picture about "World War II in Yugoslavia", we definitely cannot do without the invasion. Every single book about the subject deals with the invasion, anyway, unless they are about a very specific aspect of the conflict (and even those ones obviously mention the invasion).

I tend to agree that we could do without Danilo Kalafatović in the infobox : his role was fairly minor as he was chief of staff for just a few days. We can add Böhme, although if I'm not mistaken he was just in Serbia during late 1941 as he was sent from Greece to crush the Serbian uprising. I think von Weichs and Löhr are pretty much necessary, juste like Roatta. If we take both chronological order and importance into account, Von Weichs should come first since he commanded the invasion, so he was in Yugoslavia before Böhme, and he later came back as overall German commander.

Overall, I'd say the infobox is long but not that bloated : it might be necessary to remove just the name of a few minor players like Kalafatović, Pećanac or Hasa. We can keep the major Partisan and Chetnik military leaders. Ranković, Vukmanović, Popović, Đilas, Kidrič, Jevđević, Đurišić, Đujić et. al deserve a mention in the infobox, I think : at least their roles in the conflict were important enough so their presence in the infobox is helpful to the reader. (including Stoychev without including people like Popović or Đurišić would be a mistake, I think)

By the way, if this can help, I have a book that lists the Soviet casualties in Yugoslavia as 19000.

I took the liberty to add Wilson : the british aerial support (supplies, but also bombing) was fairly important. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Wilson is too broad in terms of his direct involvement. It was almost entirely an air war from the Western Allies perspective, so the chief of the Balkan Air Force from its creation until March 1945 (AVM William Elliot) is probably the right level IMO. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem about Elliot. I won't put a fight over Wilson, but as Allied commander he also oversaw all the help and supplies to the Partisans, decided the creation of the Balkan Air Force, etc : he was pretty much directly involved. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd start culling the Chetniks with Ilija Trifunović-Birčanin, who was a Split-based armchair general at best. Another option for Western Allies is Fitzroy Maclean due to his central role in SOE, influence over Churchill and role in kick-starting the BAF. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We might indeed dispense with Trifunović-Birčanin, as he was essentially a commander "on paper" only. Still, he was official Chetnik commander, although the real leaders in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were people like Jevđević, and Đujić. Maclean was important, but that brings us back to Wilson who was more important, in terms of sheer military firepower under his command.

BTW, I agree about the inclusion of Rupnik as commander of the Slovene collaborators (but that brings us back to the Chetniks and we should keep in mind that people like Đurišić actually commanded more men than Rupnik. Not including them would also give the impression that Mihailovic was the only Chetnik commander, which is far from true, not to mention the fact that their "polycentric" leadership - or bad organization, if you like - was one of the major reasons for their defeat) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd favour Elliott over Maclean, who was of course influential but had just SOE missions under his command.

We might add Mario Robotti, who succeeded Roatta as Italian military commander in February 1943 until the September surrender. Are you sure about Glaise-Hortenau ? As plenipotentiary in Croatia he was fairly important, pretty much like Bader, although maybe not in terms of direct military command. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Elliot it is. von Horstenau didn't have any troops and had little if any influence over what happened. He's so well known probably because he wrote the German history of the southeast. In the territory of the NDH, I think the main Axis players were Bader (initially), Roatta (who was responsible for the bulk of the Italian mess), and Rendulic (later).

Yes, I read a lot of things about von Horstenau's disgust as the Ustashe, his comments about the NDH, etc, but very little about his actual military role (if he had any). That would mean he was just a leader "on paper", pretty much like Trifunović-Birčanin or Đukanović in Montenegro. Robotti might be justified since he succeeded Roatta as overall Italian commander, and was military commander in Slovenia before that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Von Horstenau's role was nothing like Bader's as plenipotentiary, Bader had four divisions and actually had operational responsibility for the German part of the NDH at the beginning. I reckon the Slovenia angle gets Robotti over the line. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Djilas qualifies. Yes, a Politburo member, but he fluffed his only real military command and was a propagandist for the rest of the war. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia angle and overall command after Roatta. Unfortunately, Robotti's article is currently very poor...

I have some doubts about Djilas, too. He was important but his role was more political than military. Jovanović qualifies more than Djilas as military commander. Ivan Milutinović, maybe ? (but he actually fluffed his command just like Djilas did...)

Good thing if we can dispense with Glaise-Horstenau : indeed, what I read about his role always made him look more like some sort of ambassador rather than a military commander. It might help me to alleviate the infobox in the French article which I recently rewrote. I kind of copied the English page for the infobox, but if I can trim it a bit it might be welcome. (I used Wilson as British commander especially since we don't have a page about Elliott) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd dispense with Rankovic too. My view is yes, he was a Politburo member, but his real influence was as UDBA/OZNA chief, which was much more relevant after the war ended. Jovanovic was the chief of staff, so he has to stay, surely. Nađ commanded at all levels including army, as did Dapčević and Drapšin. Kovačević is more a hero than a person of significant influence, his main claim to fame was commanding the rearguard during Case Black, even then he was only a divisional commander. Perhaps he would have risen higher if he'd lived, but that doesn't mean we should include him. Tempo, Gošnjak and Kidrič/Rozman were in effect territorial commanders (over B-H, Croatia and Slovenia respectively), but I'm not sure if that gets them across the line. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rankovic might get across the line precisely because of his role as OZNA commander, since OZNA was relevant well before the end of the war, not only because of the purges (in Serbia et al, not to mention the foibes) but also because of its role in actual military actions like putting down the Albanian uprising in Kosovo.

Using the "territorial commander" criteria is tricky since Yugoslavia was fragmented at the time : the fact that Kidrič, for example, was commander in occupied Slovenia, makes him a quasi-national commander, pretty much like Rupnik on the opposite side. As for Tempo/Vukmanović, he was involved in several territorial commands (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo) which makes him even more relevant IMHO. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, what about Kovačević and Rozman? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rozman : not sure he is indispensable. He was important as a military commander but maybe not enough to be in the infobox : Kidric might be enough for Slovenia. Maybe Kovačević is more famous but, then again, I'm not sure that his presence in the infobox is indispensable either. I may be wrong, though. Same for Bacovic and maybe Dangic or Ostojic on the Chetnik side. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Alessandro Pirzio Biroli may qualify as Italian commander for Montenegro, by the way... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we could drop Rozman, and Dangic's role in eastern Bosnia was pretty short-lived although significant in the break between the Partisans and Chetniks. Bacovic was a regional commander (although not as important as others) and Ostojic was the operational leader of the Chetnik part of Case White as well as being DM's chief of staff for quite some time. I agree about Biroli, he should be included. Kovačević I think we can lose. What about Gošnjak? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if Dangic's role had been less short-lived he would definitely qualify, but he was rather soon out the picture. His presence is not indispensable, although it does no particular harm either. You may be right about Ostojic. I'm not sure about Bacovic, who was important but - if I'm not mistaken - less than Jevđević, Đujić and especially Đurišić. Not sure about Gošnjak either, though as commander of the Partisans in Croatia he may qualify. On the Chetnik side, Bajo Stanišić may deserve to be included as an important commander for Montenegro (his influence lasted definitely longer than Dangic's). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(Just dropping by to say that you can safely ignore my initial assessment, I'm fine with whatever you guys agree.) No such user (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no definitive opinion about Rozman : he might not be indispensable, but if he is considered important enough as a territorial commander, his presence would do no harm either. Not sure about Lukačević either. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

World War II in Yugoslavia: Revision history

(Moved from User talk:No such user) "Đilas going to cinema is not important for "WWII in Yugoslavia"

Why is this picture important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#/media/File:Stahl,_Ustase_officer_and_Radic.jpg and mentioning that Djilas went to cinema in Nazi held Zagreb while negotiating with Germans unimportant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dds737 (talk • contribs)

@Dds737: This talk page is the right place for discussing the article, not mine.
Yes, I maintain that Đilas going to cinema is unimportant for this big and important article about a 5-year war with a million casualties. Do you seriously argue otherwise? Comparing unimportance of that factoid with unimportance of something else from the article is not a particularly convincing argument (it's known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in Wikipedia jargon). Further, we do have (featured) article about the event, German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations which could be a proper place to add that particular piece of trivia, but as far as I see it, it does not mention it either, presumably as too trivial. You can take that up at that article, but I doubt it would be accepted. It is one thing to mention something in a 400-page book, and quite another to have it in a 3-page Wikipedia article. No such user (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to moving page to right place. As far as I can see, word "Chetniks" shows more than 20 times on page like "Chetniks" did this and that. What's wrong to write that Djilas went to cinema in the Nazi Zagreb? He went to the cinema while negotiating with Germans. Why is this trivial? It can only cast balance on predominately biased text? If my small addition to wikipedia article blows some already established concepts in your head (Like "Ceaseless and undisputed heroic struggle of heroic Partisans against invading German hordes"), it's okay with me, but you cannot hide the truth. And the truth is: Tito and his inner circle (Not peasant Serb fighter - who care about him!) was more interested in personal power and hidden Kominterna communist agendas, not in "Liberation". Otherwise he will not ban political parties in Serbia, will not steal first "free" elections after 1945 (Against advice of close adviser Djilas) , not made concentration camps, the list is huge, and you know it very well. But this is another topic, off course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.247.248 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)