Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation format used[edit]

I propose converting this article to shortened footnotes per [1] in order to simplify citations, avoid the clutter when citations are inserted into the article text and automatically combine all the identical citations rather than having to do it manually. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Going to assume assent by silence and go ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers of combatants[edit]

The infobox says 1,200,000 Yugoslavs. This is a massive overestimation that reflects only the mobilisation plans the Yugoslavs had, not the numbers of armed troops available at the time of the invasion. Tomasevich (1975, p. 57 confirms this and on p. 64 further states that "at the time of the invasion, Yugoslavia had only about 700,000 men under arms, 400,000 of which were poorly trained inductees of four weeks or less." I will change the figure to 700,000. Fattuta et al, (in The International Magazine of Armies and Weapons) which is the reference, is unlisted on Google Books or Google Scholar, and I am a bit concerned we are relying so heavily on it in the early parts of the article. The same or similar information is available in Tomasevich, which is available on Google Books, so I intend to substitute Tomasevich for Fattuta et al where possible and seek alternative sources if not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslav generals in infobox[edit]

The list of generals doesn't appear to have any pattern to it, and seems excessive, particularly given the questionable notability of some of the generals concerned. At most, I suggest that the commanders of each of the three Army Groups be listed (1st Army Group - Milorad Petrović, 2nd Army Group - Milutin Nedić, 3rd Army Group - Milan Nedić), along with the commanders of the independent 5th Army (Vladimir Čukavac) and 6th Army (Dimitrije Živković). Whilst Petar Nedeljković and Dusan Trifunović were Army commanders, they were under the command of Petrović. I think we should also include the commander of the Air Force, Boro Mirković. --Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. Srnec (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Italian occupation of Slovenia and Croatia section[edit]

This section is not actually part of the Invasion of Yugoslavia and appears to be a WP:COATRACK for material already existing in the Province of Ljubljana and Independent State of Croatia articles. I propose removing it forthwith. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD, Peacemaker; if you're reverted, then discuss. -- Director (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Spank you very much, D. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Romania[edit]

Neither Bulgaria nor Romania actually invaded Yugoslavia. The Germans used their territory to launch part of the invasion. The Bulgarians occupied/annexed part of Yugoslavia, but that was after the invasion was complete and the Yugoslavs had surrendered. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Bora[edit]

G'day all, PRODUCER and I have decided to put some structure around our work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles by creating a special project we are calling Operation Bora, the first stage of which is setting the scene for what happened in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 through Yugoslav coup d'état, this article and a new article provisionally titled Occupation of Yugoslavia, which we intend will be the first of a series of Good topics. 23 editor and Thewanderer have already joined us, and we are keen to identify other editors who may be interested in contributing, with the idea of eventually formalising the special project as a joint endeavour of WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Yugoslavia. So feel free to let either of us know if you are interested. The more the merrier! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatutta and Covelli[edit]

G'day all, most of the citations to this article lack page numbers and I have been unable to find this article online. Even the journal itself appears to be pretty obscure. I'm considering removing it completely from the article on the basis of lack of verifiability. Can anyone access a copy? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys. I've got both the January and May 1975 issues of the Swiss International Magazine of Armies & Weapons. Fatutta and Covelli's article provided scarce English language detail of the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941. The articles contained primary (mainly Italian)sources and detailed Yugoslav and Axis forces, including the obscure Albanian and Adriatic theatres. I was a newb editor at the time, so I'm happy to dig them out and update/correct the referencing. Oz Cro (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That'd be great. Nothing against them, we're just going to need pages in the citations. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav tank and aircraft strengths[edit]

There appear to be conflicting sources on the numbers of tanks and aircraft on the Yugoslav ORBAT on 6 April 1941. However, that is not an excuse to impose the numbers from one source over another. If there is a range in reliable sources we show the range and provide all the conflicting sources. On face value I can see no reason why numbers provided by Shores, Cull and Malizia or Tomasevich would be superior to Zajac (or other reliable sources). I will be revising the infobox to reflect the ranges. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Query for Serbo-Croat language editors re: abbreviation for Royal Yugoslav Air Force (JKRV or VVKJ)[edit]

G'day all, just a query about the change of abbreviation for the Royal Yugoslav Air Force. Shores, Cull and Malizia (in [2]) use the term JKRV (ie Jugoslovensko kraljevsko ratno vazduhoplovstvo), however,I understand Ciglic uses VVKJ (ie Vazduhplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije) (in [3]). I am not really fussed which one we use, as they both appear to be used in reliable sources, but we should probably agree on one and those who can speak the lingo should probably achieve some consensus on their relative grammatical merit. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Looking at the list below, I noticed that Shores' 1987 work used JKRV whilst Ciglic, Savic and Frka all used VVKJ in their later (2007, 2002 and 2001 respectively) works. Also, they have been published in different countries by different publishers. My understanding is that VVKJ literally tranlated means Royal Yugoslav Army Airforce, analagous, I suppose, to the USAAF.
  • Ciglic, Boris; Savic, Dragan (2007). Dornier Do 17: The Yugoslav story, Operational Record 1937-1947. Belgrade: Jeroplan. ISBN 978-86-909727-0-8. 
  • Frka, Danijel; Novak, Josip; Pogacic, Sinisa (2001). Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Države Hrvatske 1941-45. Zagreb: Krila.  (Croatian)
  • Savic, Dragan and Boris Ciglic. Croatian Aces of World War II (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces - 49). Oxford, Osprey, 2002. ISBN 978-1-84176-435-1.
  • Shores, C., B. Cull and N. Malizia. Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete – 1940-41. London: Grub Street, 1987. ISBN 978-0-948817-07-6.

Oz Cro (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears you and I are the only ones looking at this, so I think we go with VVKJ. Problem solvered. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
WJ Crowhurst indeed!Oz Cro (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Restructure[edit]

I am proposing to restructure the Operations section chronologically rather than functionally using the commonly used divisions of the invasion between the first decisive phase from 6 – 11 April, and the post 11 April phase that included Italian and Hungarian ground forces. This division is quite common in academic sources. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

going ahead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Belated agree on my part. The article is rather confusing to read as is. I've wanted to flesh out some of the activities of the Fourth Army and local Croatian rebellions, but the article really needs a reorganization first. Also, if there's a drive again to improve this article, I'd propose adding rebelling KofY citizens and institutions to the infobox. The Banovina's Croatian Peasant and Civic Guard should likely be included, as well as mutinous Croatian soliders in the army. Fifth-column minorities might also be applicable, although the article doesn't really deal with this as of yet. Cheers.--Thewanderer (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in World War II needs editing[edit]

This article, rated high-importance by wikiproject Yugoslavia, is extremely stubby. All help appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 14:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav commanders in infobox (again)[edit]

The addition of Peter II, Petar Bojović and Bogoljub Ilić to the infobox is really just clutter. Peter, at 17, would have been about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike as a commander. I note we haven't listed Adolf Hitler or Mussolini in the infobox. Bojović was 83 at the time of the invasion, and was some sort of "advisor" to the King who had no impact on events whatsoever (like Peter). Ilić was the Minister of the Army and Navy, but was appointed a week before the invasion, and had no impact on the events that followed. The point about infoboxes is to list the key commanders, not clag them up with people who didn't command anything during the fighting. That is why the decision was previously made to limit the commanders to the overall commander, army group commanders, independent army commanders and air force commander. Kern, the Chief of Navy Staff isn't even listed, because the Navy's role was so minimal. Please stop edit warring over the contents of the infobox. This type of behaviour, with no discussion on talk, is disruptive. So far as I am concerned, these edits are against the previous consensus, and should be removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And when you're done here, I'd suggest proposing an overhaul of the WWII infobox, which includes such utter military non-entities as Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Cuba, and Mexico. They might as well have listed Austria, or the Free City of Danzig. There's also the British Raj under the name "India" as a supposed "puppet state". -- Director (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Cuba, and Mexico should all be removed from the WWII infobox, but labelling them "military non-entities" suggests that they don't even count at all—an attitude that is a big problem in the study of WWII (in my opinion). I do not mean to imply that you, Direktor, actually have that attitude. Srnec (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It can easily be argued that they don't really "count", depending on what you mean by "count". -- Director (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
"Non-entity" means "not existing". A military non-entity has no military to speak of. I meant by "count" just what your own terminology implied. Cuba sank a German submarine. Mexican aviators bombed the Japanese in the Philippines. Some Danish soldiers put up a few hours of resistance at least on 6 April 1940. The Ethiopian Patriots most certainly fought the Axis in the name of their emperor. If we were making a count of military events (as opposed to non-events), we would certainly have to count these. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
What I meant was, virtual military non-entities, to all intents and purposes. But where do we draw the line? Does blowing up a Japanese fishing trawler make you notable on the scale of the entire war? Do some volunteers, gathered, trained, equipped and commanded by the US and UK, nominally fighting for this or that country, constitute an actual military involvement on the part of said country? That thing is just full of everyone trying to push their own countries in out of national pride rather than good editing. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The specific issue here is whether the people listed had any impact on proceedings, and therefore should be highlighted in the infobox. I would argue that they should be mentioned in the text of the article (in background), but there is no reason to make the infobox enormous by including people that had no impact on proceedings (King or not). No-one is suggesting listing the Governor-General of Australia (the titular commander-in-chief) in the infobox for the Kokoda Track campaign, because it's just, well, anyone doing that would be likely to get slapped with a trout.
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree! :) Not trying to be sarcastic, I really think they are superfluous, as well as the countries I mentioned. Off with their heads.. or entries, rather. -- Director (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Albania as combatant?[edit]

Srnec just reverted my edit to add Albania to the infobox. Not listing a country just because it is not an independent belligerent is just silly - by that argument, India and even Australia would be removed from World War I. I'm not denying its status, but it still makes sense to include it for clarity's sake - especially considering Albania's involvement in the campaign detailed in the article itself. Would Albania, bulleted under Italy, not be a reasonable inclusion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

At least India and Australia had armies of their own. Albania did not. Srnec (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Srnec. Albania (effectively an Italian protectorate) was represented by Italy in its foreign policy after the personal union and did not have an army of its own in 1941. All Albanian armed forces were amalgamated into the Italian armed forced in 1939. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviation for Royal Yugoslav Army (VKJ)[edit]

I've noticed a number of articles, including this one and Royal Yugoslav Army, using "VKJ" as an abbreviation for the Royal Yugoslav Army in Serbo-Croatian (Vojska Kraljevska Jugoslavije). However I'm not entirely sure about the usage of this abbreviation - a Google search doesn't bring up many results using VKJ/"Vojska Kraljevska Jugoslavije" in reference to the Yugoslav army, and the equivalent Serbo-Croatian article for the Yugoslav army sh:Jugoslovenska vojska uses "JV" (Jugoslovenska vojska) instead. Is Vojska Kraljevska Jugoslavije and the abbreviation VKJ actually used in any sources? I'm concerned that they might be an unofficial name and made-up acronym being used in place of the official name/acronym. Alcherin (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have a point. I had a quick look at Terzić and he refers to jugoslovenska vojska throughout, so perhaps the abbreviation should be JV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasons of Yugoslav loss[edit]

Philip J. Cohen and David Riesman, two Western scholars argue the reasons in a different way from Terzić and Tomasevich. 23 editor, your edits are WP:UNDUE, you add the Yugoslav claim for a Croatian fifth column and you countinuosly delete western scholars stating that generals, almost all Serbs opposed fighting the Nazis. Stop WP:I don't like it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are the very definition of pushing a POV, rejecting any notion of nuance and the contrasting of sources in the process. This goes for other articles as well. Stop. 23 editor (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You cited the wrong page number. The page you cited did not contain the information supporting your additions; however page 28 of the same source does specifically state that the army was poorly trained and equipped, giving specific examples of equipment as well (which could be added into the article somewhere), and supports your statement about Serbian generals not wanting to fight the Nazis. However there are still minor changes to be made; it needs to be specified that the Serbs wanted an armistice, not that they harboured Nazi sympathies (as could be interpreted from the unclear "opposition from almost all commanding generals, almost all Serbs, to fight the Nazis"), and Terzic and Tomasevich's views still need to be discussed in the article. Alcherin (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, it needs to be made clear that there is controversy over this topic; this is where contrasting of sources comes in. Terzic may well be a nationalist source, but per WP:BIASED, that does not preclude his book from being a reliable source. And Riesman does not make this argument, because he only wrote the foreword. Alcherin (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Alcherin, the discussion here is held if this edit of mine solves the problem of explaining the reasons of loss [4]. The version proposed by me:
1. explains the reasons
2. gives specific examples of equipment as well
3. specifies that the Serbs wanted an armistice
4. Terzic and Tomasevich's views are discussed in the article
Riesman and Cohen give a number of reasons and mention some of the equipment used by Yugoslav forces to help the reader to better understand the reasons. So they are giving arguments. This is my proposed version which was not accepted by 23 editor without any clear reason. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Terzic has been accused of a anti-Croat bias, and IMO he does overdo the fifth column argument, but he is reliable. Personally, I believe Tomasevich 1975 gives the most balanced summary of the situation, which is that despite everything, the Yugoslav Army just did not have the capacity to withstand a modern combined arms approach as practised by the Germans, and the Yugoslav defence strategy went out the window on Day 1 when the attack was launched from Bulgaria and cut-off any hope of linking up with Allied forces or retreat as per WWI. By the time the fifth column really took any action, such as at Bjelovar, the war had already been lost elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant Riesman as in specifically Riesman and not "Riesman and Cohen". Riesman is not the author of the book, only of the foreword to the book. Alcherin (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, much of what you want to include was merely moved by 23 editor to the third paragraph of Invasion of Yugoslavia#Armistice and surrender. Alcherin (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I had not seen Riesman not being the author of the book, Google Books present two authors, the book presents arguments and facts that is the important thing here. Much but not all. Much of sourced stuff was deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in numbers of modern aircraft[edit]

This article and Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia can't seem to agree on what the source by Shores, Cull & Malizia 1987 say on the numbers of modern aircraft the Yugoslav air force had. In the infobox here, p.260 is cited as saying that they had 340 modern aircraft, while under aircraft types on Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia it is said they had 107, citing p.173 of what appears to be the same source. Can someone with this source verify the number of modern aircraft the Yugoslavs had?

As a separate but related issue, under Invasion of Yugoslavia#Royal Yugoslav armed forces it is stated that the Yugoslavs had less than 120 modern fighter aircraft, but with no citation and contradicting the range given in the infobox. Alcherin (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The range of numbers as cited in the infobox needs to be copied and mentioned in the article proper as well, since the numbers of aircraft are relevant and shouldn't only be found in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alcherin (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
What Shores et al say on p. 174 is that only about 340 aircraft (not modern aircraft) were available to the fighter and bomber regiments, with 120 more totally obsolete types serving with the army reconnaissance squadrons. p. 260 deals with the Greek campaign, and has no reference to the numbers of Yugoslav aircraft. The figure of 107 in the order of battle refers to "modern fighter aircraft", which is self-evident from the figures in the table there, but for clarity, includes the IK-3s, Hurricanes and Bf 109s. The IK-2s, Fury's and Avia BH-33E fighters were all obsolete by 1941 standards. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also taken a look at Zajac (also cited in the infobox) and it doesn't support the lower end of the number of modern aircraft (220 currently), mostly due to his incorrect addition of totals of fighters/inconsistent classification of obsolete vs modern aircraft. In the text separate from the appendix he does also state they had 300 modern aircraft without clarifying exactly how he reached that total. I'll change the numbers on this article to match the sources, but I'm not entirely sure how to include Zajac's numbers in the order of battle given they contradict those of Shores et al. Alcherin (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
There's aircraft numbers in Invasion of Yugoslavia#Equipment and organization using Shores et al as well, but giving different numbers to those on the order of battle. Perhaps to clarify the situation it would be helpful to just have all numbers of all types of aircraft as given in Shores et al verified so that the incorrect numbers can be removed. Alcherin (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)