Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Editing redirects

I don't know how to edit redirects, but this invasion was codenamed both Operation Punishment and Operation 25. Operation 25 has a redirect to here, but really all three articles should be combined. 216.242.114.115 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No. the Invasion of Yugoslavia (Operation 25) was an act of invasion, and Operation Punishment was only the bombing of Belgrade.--TheFEARgod 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

no,i created the article and italy under mussolini forces defeated yugoslavia and the british army without any hewlp from any other axis countries smoking dude

Wait a minute....

"Italy: 50,000 Fascist troops 10,000 planes completely destroyed 34,000 tanks completely destroyed

Allies:

70,000 Yugoslavian troops 23,000 Yugoslavian tanks completely destroyed 16,500 Yugoslavian planes completely destroyed 80,000 Yugoslavians civilians dead

48,000 British troops dead 16,000 British planes completely destroyed 40,000 tanks destroyed

Strength:

Italy:

   * 99,990 Italian troops
   * 11,700 Italian planes
   * 56,000 Italian tanks

Allies:

   * 97,000 Yugoslavian troops
   * 20,000 Yugoslavian planes
   * 34,000 Yugoslavian tanks

   * 52,000 British troops
   * 24,000 British planes
   * 42,000 British tanks"

These figures are nonsense. Kurt.

I know,it's Dark-Hooded Smoker who did it and that dude is completely stupid and he's been blocked permanently shame on him!

In the last paragraph, the link to the "independent state of Croatia" links to nothing while it should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_State_of_Croatia

The true Italian role in the Yugoslavian Campaign!

The troops of the 2nd Italian Army took Ljubljana on April 11 and then the Dalmatian coast.The troops of the 9th Italian Army, from Albania, occupied Montenegro and Dubrovnik. Ljubljana became Italian on May 3 and Dalmatia on May 18. Montenegro became formally "independent". The statements above are ridicolous and don`t help the historical research.

German air losses

Yugoslav sources (including the Belgrade Aviation Museum) claim around 100 axis aircraft destroyed or damaged beyond repair in air battles, by th AAA and bombed on the ground (at least one raid on an airfield near Sofia was carried out by 4 Yugoslav Do-17k s). The losses would be mostly German and at least 3 Italian bombers. While these claims may be exaggerated (not uncommon amoung other air forces as well - see Flying Tigers for instance), the "two fighters only lost over Belgrade" claim is certainly false. Stukas and Do-17s fell in that fight too. In battles over Belgrade 12-40 German aircraft were lost (depending on the source). Additionally the first attack wave did NOT wipe out the Yugoslav air force. Many Yugoslav pilots as Milutin Grozdanović or Milisav Semiz made multiple take-offs and intercepted succeding waves as well.

Casus belli

Could someone please define correct casus belli? Would anyone object "military and a coup d'etat in Yugoslavia" as casus belli?

Axis garrison

Can anyone tell me the size of the axis garrison in Yugoslavia after the invasion?--Nwinther 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There Is a book called Hold The Balkans: German Anti Guerrilla Operations In the Balkans , 1941-1945 By Robert M. Kennedy ISBN 1-57249-228-7 It Should Contain The neccesary Information regarding the size and disposition of the axis forces.

Decisive Axis Victory

Although we can argue over this, the way I see it, defeating a relatively large European power (in terms of population, landmass ect Yugoslavia is overall comparable to Poland, and the defeat of Poland in World War II is considered decisive) in just 11 days with the attackers suffering minimal casualties is decisive. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg

Image:Eleventhday-AdvancingGermanArmoredU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical, equipment and operational detail.

I have added some technical, equipment and operational detail to the article in order to enhance the pre-existing text.Oz Cro (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, if only more people actually edited Balkans articles with the intent to improve them :) There's a whole array of Yugoslav Front battles articles if you would like to contribute further on the topic. (see the Yugoslav Front campaignbox for links.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to help.Oz Cro (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Albanian Operations

I have added a section on the Yugoslav Army's Albanian Offensive to the article in order to enhance the pre-existing text. The abortive offensive has been alluded to in many sources, so I thought it prudent to bring the various threads together as an addition the main article.Oz Cro (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Reverting Edit of 27 June 2008.

Reverted edit by 75.89.12.18 on 27 June for the following reasons.

• The Greek Army had not been defeated, it had actually counter-attacked the Italian Army following their invasion of Greece in 1940 and had advanced into and occupied one-third of Albania.
• Yugoslavia was not "hated" by Germany, who was Yugoslavia's most significant trading partner and source of a number of Germany's strategic raw materials (ie copper and bauxite, among others). It is generally acknowledged that Hitler actually respected the fighting qualities of Yugoslavia, and especially saw the Yugoslav Army as the heirs of the Serbian Army of World War One.
• It is generally acknowledged that Hitler himself "became enraged" at the Yugoslav Coup, not the whole "Axis".
• The Regia Aeronautica only deployed its aircraft over the Albanian, Bosnian, Montenegran and Adriatic areas of operation during the Yugoslav campaign. There are no references at all of Italian aircraft bombing Belgrade during the April 1941 campaign.
• Similarly, there are no references at all of the Hungarian Air Force bombing Belgrade. The Hungarian 3rd & 4th Bomber Regiments had been despatched to bomb Novi Sad on 12th April, but were recalled when it was learned that the Luftwaffe had already attacked this airfield. Instead they bombed frontier forts.Oz Cro (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Air Force Operations

I have added a new section on Air Force Operations. This is a little known aspect of the Invasion of Yugoslavia, but there are now enough published references to warrant detailing this part of the Yugoslav campaign.Oz Cro (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav Front?

Right to the point: should we consider this conflict as part of the Yugoslav Front or not? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A tough question. The Invasion of Yugoslavia and its aftermath caused the subsequent Yugoslav Front to come into being. The two are inexorably linked in a cause and effect relationship. Having said that however, the Invasion of Yugoslavia article probably now has "enough legs" to stand on its own.Oz Cro (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On its own? But it has to be classified into "campaigns". Operation Overlord certainly "has enough legs" but its still classified. The Invasion of Yugoslavia belongs in the Balkans Campaign, my question is, does it belong to the Yugoslav Front as well? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"On its own" as in separate from the Yugoslav Front. I agree that it should certainly stay classified as part of the Balkans Campaign.Oz Cro (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I myself am not sure... what convinces you? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not just for one or two to decide. What do others in the Project Group think?Oz Cro (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia?

Was only Serbia invaded? Forgive me if I'm wrong but this concerns all of Yugoslavia, not just Serbia, and is thus part of WikiProject Former Yugoslavia. Or should we now add all the six other ex-Yugoslav WikiProjects?! (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Kosovo, and maybe even more, I'm not sure) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Is there some guideline which states that we can't add applicable Wikiproject templates because there will be "too many"?--Thewanderer (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

None at all. You go ahead, then. That's not all of them, you know: you forgot Slovenia, Macedonia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. I'm sure you'll get to work on all the other history articles concerning both of the former Yugoslavias, since I know you want to keep Wikipedia consistent, and are surely not going through with nonsense just to spite me personally. (Interesting how you didn't forget Kosovo, I guess you're one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of guys, ha?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply argued that they should potentially all be included, by those who are interested in doing so. I'm not a part of all these projects and I have no interest in working on all their taskforces. You're removal of the Serbia WikiProject tag is by your own admission not based on policy or guidelines. But obviously I must be the one with the POV problem.

As for the Kosovo issue, your insinuation that I have something against Serbs or Serbia is rather offensive. Addition of a WikiProject template of Kosovo is apparently some great politicial show of support? You can remove it for all I care. But again, you do so based on your own POV and not any Wikipedia rules.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My "hidden" point was that it is obviously editor consensus not to include the WikiProjects of every country that was ever going to emerge from the other country in the future. (Yugoslavia and Austria-Hungary being the obvious examples, but with many, many more.) What you're doing would be similar to adding something like eleven (or more!) WikiProject templates in the Austria-Hungary article's talkpage just to show that it does not exist in modern times.
I replaced the Serbia template with the Former Yugoslav template because that's how Yugoslav history articles are classified, its standard. Look around. You, the very personification of NPOV, are trying to add seven more templates (in my experience a unique sight on Yugoslavia-related articles) to prove a politically motivated point. Oh, and you're still missing WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that such a consensus exists. As for the Austria-Hungary article, it is tagged with the Austrian and Hungarian WikiProject tags. There's no reason that the article doesn't belong to other projects. I've added the Croatian WP tag, so we'll see whether a commotion arises from its addition.

Projects concentrating on contemporary states cover their entire history. Thus, while not all articles about Yugoslavia are relevant to all of its successors, the Axis invasion of the country is certainly significant to each one.--Thewanderer (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WPs Austria and Hungary are to be expected in an article called "Austria-Hungary", so you may consider them as the standard (like WP: Former Yugoslavia) but why don't you try adding to that article not one (Croatia), but the WPs of ALL the states that emerged from that state up until the present moment. Why should Croatia be so special? Is it more of a state than, say, Poland? Besides Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Croatia, please also add the WPs of Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. You might consider also adding Italy, Romania, and Serbia, since they also have substantial territories from the former Austria-Hungary. I'd really love to see the response.
Furthermore, I'd also like to see you point out ONE other Yugoslavia article that incorporates all these WikiProjects. The most I could find is SFRY, but that one is also missing almost half of the WP templates you're proposing. You stated you added Croatia as a "constituent kingdom" of Austria-Hungary. I'm not going to go into the legality of that statement, as the matter is too complicated, but answer me this: what do Kosovo or Macedonia have to do with the constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? (and the article is still missing WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Axis

Move this page to Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. 71.107.79.64 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

Where is Hungary's role (for example Teleki's suicide)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.208.220 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the invasion of Yugoslavia

can some one please tell me the names of the German general that invaded the country from Austria all i know is one of the generals wife's went with him her name was Ingrid he did not trust her apparently she was a nympho maniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.202.31 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Axis combatants

I haven't seen any material to prove a Romanian involvement in the invasion, any part did it take against Yugoslavia? Also when reading about the history of Kosovo, a part of then-Yugoslavia, I got sth like "Albanian nationalist troops" were amony the occupation forces in Kosovo, so should Albania(the puppet state under Italy) be included as an Axis combatant?115.170.130.223 (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NDH as a combatant

This battle lasted 6 April 1941 – 17 April 1941. The NDH was proclaimed by Slavko Kvaternik by radio broadcast on April 10 1941, and exerted no control over those Croatian formations of the Royal Yugoslav Army which refused to fight the Germans for the next 6 days. Indeed the NDH's existence prior to April 17 amounted to little more than the one radio broadcast. For those six days neither Ante Pavelić (who arrived from Italy on April 17) nor Slavko Kvaternik exerted any control over any military formations that engaged in any sort of fighting whatsoever. The NDH is not a combatant.

The point is to differentiate between some Croatian rebel formations of the Royal Yugoslav Army (which anyway did little more than refuse to fight) and the Independent State of Croatia as a combatant authority. In particular, to list Slavko Kvaternik or Ante Pavelić as "commanders" with any kind of control over the progress of the battle is little short of comical. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The source used states that about 300 armed Ustash accompanied the Italian army during the invasion via Rijeka under the command of Pavelić, and that about the same number accompanied the Germans/other countries. It also says that immediately after the proclamation Kvaternik "assumed power and the command of the armed forces in Pavelić's name." Lt.Specht (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(English language singular: "Ustaša", plural: "Ustaše")

Oh brother. Each of these points on their own explain.

• 1) The Ustaše movement ≠ Independent State of Croatia. The Ustaše party volunteers included in the Italian and German armies do not constitute troops of the NDH (or any other country) which did not even exist when they were formed. The military of the NDH (the Croatian Armed Forces) was formed much later after the occupation. Ante Pavelić had no control over any military operations or units whatsoever, and neither did Kvaternik (understandably since they numbered a few hundred token Ustaše party volunteers).
• 2) Even if the above is disregarded for some reason, volunteers within the military commands of other countries do not even constitute a separate combatant authority by any standards, even if there were more than a measly 600. Far larger formations were excluded from infoboxes on such well-justified grounds. The idea that they somehow constitute an entire country is simply unimaginable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

The section of the article blanked was inserted in full by serial copyright violator De Administrando Imperio.[1]

It is sourced to two references: an article by Fatutta, not available online, and this work by Blau. The Blau work has clearly been plagiarised; I just can't tell whether it is public domain. The author was part of the US Center for Military History but it is published by "Burd Street Press". I therefore doubt whether it is a "work of the United States Government" for the purposes of the US statutory copyright exception for government works. The Fatutta article certainly doesn't seem to be public domain, but being offline, I can't tell whether it's a plagiarism. Because of the contributor's copyright record, I have blanked it for assessment over a seven day period.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that you will find that the parts of the article referenced as being sourced from Fatutta were not inserted by De Administrando Imperio. The magazine articles by Fatutta and Covelli, which provide the source of part of the blanked text in question, were published 35 years ago and provided rare English language detail of a hitherto little-known campaign. Oz Cro (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid some of the part of the article referenced as being sourced from Fatutta were inserted by that user. For instance, the article currently says:

Despite unfavorable weather, numerous road blocks, and tough resistance by the Yugoslav Fifth Army, as well as air attacks by the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, the 11th Panzer Division, effectively supported by strong artillery and Luftwaffe forces, quickly gained ground and broke through the enemy lines on the first day of the attack. The Yugoslav 3rd Army Group commander, General Milan Nedić was so greatly impressed by this initial German success that he ordered his forces to withdraw behind the Morava. This manoeuvre could not be executed in time because, as early as April 9, the German lead tanks rumbled into Niš and immediately continued their drive toward Belgrade. From Niš north westward the terrain became more favourable since the armoured columns could follow the Morava valley all the way to the Yugoslav capital.<ref name="Fatutta, et al., 1975">Fatutta, et al., 1975.</ref>

That user inserted the following (without reference)

Despite unfavorable weather, numerous road blocks, and tough resistance by the Yugoslav Fifth Army, the 11th Panzer Division, effectively supported by strong artillery and Luftwaffe forces, quickly gained ground and broke through the enemy lines on the first day of the attack. The Yugoslav army commander was so greatly impressed by this initial German success that he ordered his forces to withdraw behind the Morava. This maneuver could not be executed in time because, as early as April 9, the German lead tanks rumbled into Niš and immediately continued their drive toward Belgrade. From Niš northwestward the terrain became more favorable since the armored columns could follow the Morava valley all the way to the Yugoslav capital.

While somebody later added references, the bulk of the content was placed by him, although somebody did add a few words. This content was actually sourced to this, but though it is hosted on a mil website, it does not have a general site copyright release as many .gov websites do. It says, "Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes." This is not compatible with Wikipedia's license, which requires commercial reuse. Unless we can prove that this content is public domain, we can't use it, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==January 2013== Assessment as a part of 2012/2013 WP:CRO drive, performed on 19 January 2013: B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though B-class does not require so, I'd urge use of {{harvnb}} template for refs in the article if it is to progress beyond B-class later on, and there is a single inconsistent ref - Berić - which should be handled as others - once again, not needed for B-class alone. B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Even though the article goes into considerable detail on Yugoslav forces deployed, hardly any information is present on specific Axis forces involved in the invasion. B3 (article structure) - criterion (currently) met but further sections may be needed to accommodate material missing per B2 above. B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met. B5 (supporting materials) - criterion met. B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion met. A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation format used

I propose converting this article to shortened footnotes per [2] 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

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

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

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

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)

@Havsjö: The article is about the invasion of Yugoslavia and that section of the infobox is titled Belligerents. Why muddy it by including supporters who did not invade? And why Bulgaria but not Romania? Srnec (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec:Because during the invasion Yugoslav Dornier Do17 bombers flew into Bulgaria and bombed airfields, train stations and some smaller towns. Bulgarian AA-fire shot at them and Avia B-534 fighters tried to intercept them. This was, as mentioned, during the invasion, so I feel at least mentioning them as "supporting" because of this and that they used their bases for axis to attack from. If a country lets another uses its bases to invade from, fires at and intercepts aerial attacks into its territory during said invasion (and then steps in and makes a big land grab right after the invasion), I feel at least mention them as "Support". I dont really know the situation about Romania here to well, but it was more the combined fact of bases and that Bulgaria and Yugoslavia even exchanged fire to support the invasion going on and protect itself that made me add them as support. --Havsjö (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I know there was a Yugoslav raid on Arad and Timisoara in Romania. I don't know if the Romanians fired any shots. The problem, to me, is that the infobox cannot capture any of these subtleties. Best to leave it to countries that actually invaded Yugoslavia. @Peacemaker67: Thoughts? I noticed that the Battle of Greece infobox does include Bulgaria, which surprised me. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with including Bulgaria and Romania. The attacks on them were aimed at concentrations of German forces, not aimed at Bulgarian and Romanian forces. In any case, neither country actually invaded Yugoslavia, Bulgaria only occupied it after the armistice was signed. And I also agree that the infobox is not for including incidental aspects such as this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Operation Bora

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

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

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)

G'day all, just a query about the change of abbreviation for the Royal Yugoslav Air Force. Shores, Cull and Malizia (in [3]) use the term JKRV (ie Jugoslovensko kraljevsko ratno vazduhoplovstvo), however,I understand Ciglic uses VVKJ (ie Vazduhplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije) (in [4]). 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. (in 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

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

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)

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.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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?

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)

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

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 [5]. 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

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)

Codenames and translations in the lead

The burgeoning number of alternative names and translations in the lead is getting out of hand. There really are only three things needed there. "Invasion of Yugoslavia" (the common English descriptor), "April War" (the Yugoslav version), and Operation 25 (the German one). Everything else can go in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bulgarians didn´t occupied Yugoslavia?

Sources clearly indicate they were part of Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. A simple exemple: here, saying "The Axis invasion, involving German, Italian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian military units, commenced on April 6, 1941. Eleven days later, after the Simovic government and King Peter fled to London via Alexandria, Egypt, Yugoslavia surrendered to the Axis powers."

Is there any sources saying Bukgaria didn´t invade or occupied Yugoslavia? FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact it didn't. Take a look here, please: Despite the fact that Bulgaria was not participating militarily in the campaign against Yugoslavia,...On April 15, Bulgaria officially broke diplomatic relations with the Yugoslav government on the grounds that Yugoslav soldiers had made a number of unprovoked attacks on Bulgarian border posts since the first of the month, that air raids had been made on Bulgarian towns despite Bulgaria’s neutrality, and that members of the Yugoslav Embassy in Sofia were in contact with subversive elements. On the same day, Germany recognized the independence of Croatia and declared the state of Yugoslavia dissolved... Jingiby (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the invasion, not the occupation. It didn't invade, Fkp, because it is not listed on any orders of battle for the invasion. Just take a look at Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia, which uses a range of reliable sources, none of which say Bulgaria invaded. It occupied parts of Yugoslavia after the surrender. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On 6 April 1941 Adolf Hitler gave the order for German forces - backed by Italian, Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Axis allies - to invade Yugoslavia and Greece. - BBC.co.uk/history. Bulgarians occupied Yugoslavia without any international treaty giving them that right, so peacekeepres they weren´t for sure. FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Just beacuse they coordinated with Hitler to enter Yugoslavia after Germans finished their operations, doesn´t mean their invasion is not part of Axis invasion. Also, Yugoslav government having surrendered doesn´t give any other country the right to invade as they wish wuthout any international agreement. What logic is that? Bugarians invaded a huge portion of Yugoslavia just after Germans did, excluding them just because some of you want to limit the scope if this article to just German invasion itself while many sources do include all Axis intervienents seems POV. Lets see what m,ajority of sources says about it, shoudl we? FkpCascais (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Because I see Jingby adding in other articles that Bulgaria didn´t invaded Yugoslavia, and you Peacekeeper67 supporting the ides, all based in the excuse that Bulgarians only invaded huge chunks of Yugoslavia when Germans already beat the shit out of Yugoslavs and cleared the way for Bulgarians and other of their Axis allies. Sort of "I didn´t stole the candy because the owner of the shop was already killed, so the store grouceries were no ones by then"... Give me a break, and please start using non-local sources, because we all know Tomasevic, a Yugoslav historian writting in middle of communist Tito rule in Yugoslavia, or Macedonian and Bulgarian sources are unecessary when we have plenty of foreign historians writting on WWII. If anything, WWII is certainly covered by historians making needless some obscure local sources. FkpCascais (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That IS what the majority of sources say about it. That Bulgaria did not invade Yugoslavia (they did invade Greece, which is why they are included in that list from the BBC). I reviewed a whole bunch of different sources when I wrote the order of battle article, and none of them said the Bulgarians invaded. If they had, I would have included them. The invasion was over and the Yugoslav armed forces had surrendered by the time the Bulgarians occupied parts of Yugoslavia. Invasion and occupation are two different things. We need an Occupation of Yugoslavia article which covers this stuff, but this one is about the invasion, which ended when the Yugoslavs surrendered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

FkpCascais, then look at cited above "Bulgaria during the Second World War", by prof. Marshall Lee Miller from Stanford University Press, published in Stanford, California in 1975. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a very good source on this specific issue, and I have copies of a couple of chapters, but Fkp's attempt to sideline Tomasevich, who is a widely recognised expert on Yugoslavia in WWII, and was published by a leading American university press, is obvious POV-pushing and must be resisted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I found some sources that say that Bulgarian forces participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia or helped Germans to do that [6][7][8][9]. On the other hand, Chery says that Bulgarian troops did not participate on the fronts during the invasion but enterted into some regions as an occupation force [10]. As far as I can see, those sources that say Bulgarian troops invaded Yugoslavia or helped Germans to invade are a minority. However, should the article somewhere say sth like "Although the majority of the historians say that Bulgaria did not invade Yugoslavia, some others support the contrary"? Or should we just ignore the latter since they are a minority? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no Bulgarian source supporting the direct participation of Bulgaria. I didn't find Serbian sources in support of that view too. I have the journal of the Bulgarian prime minister at that time - Bogdan Filov day by day. It can be uploaded from here. There is no such information. Jingiby (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have checked the site Second World War Day by Day from Rickard, J (28 December 2007), 19 April 1941. The result for 19 April 1941 was: Bulgarians invade Macedonia, i.e. Yugoslavia had already capitulated. Jingiby (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am failing to understand exactly what is this all about. The Axis invasion started on April 6, Yugoslavs were crushed and surendered on April 17, and Bulgarians invaded on April 19. Seems you found there some technicality allowing Bulgaria to be excluded from the group of Axis countries which invaded Yugoslavia. Whatever it is it is impossible to turn it into "Bulgaria didn´t invaded Yugoslavia". By all means, Yugoslavia only surrendered, but was still the internationally recognised country. Bulgarians action had no aproval or international legitimity. Is the issue here questioning Bulgarians action was an invasion, or questioning it was Yugoslavia that they invaded? Saying what Jingby´s last source says, that Macedonia was invaded, is totally incorrect. Not only Macedonia as such didn´t existed at that time, but even if we have in mind the territory that was known as region of Macedonia would again make the statement incorrect because Bulgarians invaded as well territory which was never included in any historical interpretation of Macedonia. Same happends if we assume the author was refering to the territory that became SR Macedonia in 1945. I can understand Bulgarian authors naming the 1941 action as invasion of Macedonia as sort of giving it legitimacy as ammong Bulgarians exists the idea that Macedonia should have been Bulgarian and that was unfairly taken from them. But, as far as I noteced, foreign scholars would refer to Invasion of Macedonia only when dealing strictly with Macedonia as topic, but not to refer to the Bulgarian military action in Yugoslavia as hole. Invasion of Macedonia can only be part of the Bulgarian invasion of Yugoslav territories in 1941.

Regarding Tomasevic, he was a Yugoslav (Croatian) historian who wrote his books about WWII in Yugoslavia in the 1960s and 1970s. Thinking that Yugoslav communist regime was so liberal those decades to allow an historian to freely write about the subject which the regime was fully relied on and because of which killed and persecuted millions of citizens just decades earlier, is naive. WWII was by far the most important subject of Tito regime and citizens were arrested and sent to camps such as Goli Otok by even questioning any event from the official version of the story. Censorship was strong, lists with forbitten foreign authors and books existed. Tito communist regime was much more liberal than other communist regimes in many aspects, but on the issue of the control over what people knew and talk regarding WWI and Partisans, their tolerance was zero, specially during these first decades after the war. Tito built a strong cult of personality which relied very much preciselly on the WWII narrative. Regime propaganda was very strong. Unfortunatelly, today many understand propaganda by the most obvious, posters, simbols, statues, songs, but they were only a small visible part of it, because where propaganda was most strong was in controlling and manipulating public opinion over the major topics, and the major one in Tito Yugoslavia was the WWII story. Even in the 1980s with Tito already dead, in Yugoslavia in schools children were still being indoctrinated since 1st class by learning Partisan songs and inging them in the class. By the age of 10 children would already know all important events from the war and how Partisans came to power and saved all Yugoslav nationalities from evil Nazis. Special accent was given on the shaming of all other local intervenients in WWII with their labeling without exception of all of them as collaborators and enemies of the people and the proletarian revolution. There was absolutelly no dialogue. Tito regime on this aspect was as totalitarian as it can be. Considerable ammount of intellectuals were either killed or became dissidents. The ones that stayed had either to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime, or otherwise were sent to labor camps and prisons where were "educated". The slightest indication that a person was not simpathetic, disagreed, or questioned some aspect of the official version the regime propagated, was enough to get that person his life ruined. Neighbours would report neighbours, co-workers would spy ones anothers, even school teachers would demand personal information from their students about their parents, and keep record of it. It is in this environment that Tomasevic writes his books. It is inimaginable to even think that he was free to write about WWII. He writes his books in a time when a new generation appeared demanding more freedom and the questioning of the regime became apparent, so the regime needed this kind of backing to restore its legitimacy while simultaneously making a phalse impression of allowing more freedom. To gain reliability, a historian like him covering this subject had to give the impression of beeing free to write as he wants, however, no one was free in communist Yugoslavia to publish nothing that would overall conclude something different from the regime´s official version of those topics. Peacemaker67, you elaborated on several ocasions how post-war US high condecorations are unreliable because they can be politically motivated, despite the fact that USA, although not perfect, is a free and democratic society, but you claim an historian in communist Yugoslavia writting about the subjects that are the most important to the regime and by which they base their very legitimacy upon, is free and has no political motivations? WWII and Chetniks, topics Tomasevic wrote about, were political topics of highest importance for communist regime in Yugoslavia. There was no political freedom in Yugoslavia during its communist regime. You cannot disagree on this. FkpCascais (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to learn to make your points more succinctly and stay on topic, Fkp. This discussion is about the invasion, which is the scope of this article, and invasion means attacking a country from without. Bulgaria did not attack Yugoslavia, it merely occupied part of it after other countries had attacked and defeated it. Yugoslavia had already surrendered when the Bulgarians moved in. Therefore they were not involved in the invasion, unlike the Hungarians and Italians, as well as the Germans, who did cross the border using force prior to 18 April. Perhaps this is an issue with English not being your first language, but invasion and occupation mean different things, which you seem to not grasp. BTW, you clearly know nothing about Tomasevich, who lived in the US from 1938, and wrote his books in the US and had them published by a notable university press, and so was not subject to any censorship by the Yugoslav government whatsoever. Just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Serbian nationalism

There is a claim on the article that the war was lost due to some Croatian "fifth column". It is sourced to two Serbian authors who wrote during the nationalist era (during which people in Yugoslavia blamed each other for real and invented events). Other sources, like Cohen (page 29) and Donia (page 156) say that claims about a Croatian "fifth column" are part of the Serbian nationalism. Hence, the article should elaborate more on the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you elaborate which claims you refer as "invented" and can you be more precise about which was exactly the nationalist era? FkpCascais (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As concluded by Tomasevich, the fifth column had little effect on the ultimate outcome. The defeat in the southeast between 6-10 April was the primary cause of the collapse, and there was little to no fifth column there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I had forgotten this. Donia [11] and Cohen [12] say that Serbian nationalists blamed a Croat "fifth column". Donia says also that many Croatians blamed Belgrade politicians and the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army. Donia links this with the wider complex of interethnic problems Yugoslavia had during its existence. I will return soon to this and some additions of content to the article are warranted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Being that Tomasevich claims the fifth column had little effect, why is he being cited twice for the opposite claim? Should it be removed? OyMosby (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: in your recent revert of mine you claim the opposite of what you said on the talk page of the fifth column barely having an impact. @Ktrimi991: followed up with two sources that aligned with Tomasevic. Seemed concluded based on this talk page. Why the 180 flip? As for it being well documented, Tomasevich is sited twice and Cohen omce and they appear to argue the fifth column barely was a factor for the failure of the army. Are there other well documented sources? OyMosby (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems perfectly consistent to me. The fifth column was sizeable, but Yugoslavia would have lost even if it hadn't been. The sentence in question merely asserts that "scholars have proposed several theories for the Royal Yugoslav Army's sudden collapse". It does not assert that the fifth column was in fact the primary cause. Perhaps Peacemaker can tell us what role Terzic assigns to it. (I do not know.) Srnec (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Terzic isn't a great source for this, as he is a bit of an apologist for the state of the army, the lack of unity caused by Serb hegemony etc, he was a Serb after all, and quite Serb-centric in his views. Tomasevich provides the best overall summary, and he does mention the fifth column. Whether that is enough to be included in the lead is the key question, and on that I don't have a formed view. Perhaps it could be included because it is a bit of a trope among the apologists, but we could add that Tomasevich doesn't consider it a major factor? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Srnec, if it consistent to you then why did you revert me? As it stands now, the intro and section of the article imply almost equal cause. Not to mention the body of the text says “and non-Serbs”. That is what I meant by weight. A number of theories can be proposed, but as Peacemaker mentions “ The defeat in the southeast between 6-10 April was the primary cause of the collapse, and there was little to no fifth column there.”. Are we really being “consistent”, Srnec.... Also I dont see these many strong sources claiming otherwise. OyMosby (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Tomasevic mentions the fith column having little effect as does Cohen another cited source under Armistice. That just leaves Terzic. Again doesn't seem perfectly consistent or fair weight. As it implies it an equal or major probable cause. It seems only a trope among Serbian nationalists according to Cohen. I don’t see who these “apologists” are or the logic of inclusion to stick it to these “apologist”? Is there a source stating denial of fifth column Croats being a major factor being a common trop among apologists? Of which I hope it isn’t being insinuated I am one of those apologists. I go by the books. I don’t get that last part of your comment above. Ktrimi991 sums it best above. Also you state in your diff “ Hardly, it is well documented. The 4th Army basically fell apart due to Ustase fifth column activities.” instead of Tomasevich’s take of it barely playing a role. So which is it? OyMosby (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop editing your comments half-a-dozen times in quick succession? It causes no end of edit conflicts and discourages people from discussing things with you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry my thought come as I type. Then after edit another pops up. A flaw of mine I try to work at. Also looking at the cited Tomasovich book, he talks about a German fifth colum, a google book search doesn’t show Croatian fifth column under pages 204-207 either.OyMosby (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: the floor is yours, I will keep my hands behind my back now ;).OyMosby (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• "and a sizeable Croatian and other non-Serb fifth column" First we must see which specific sources claim this. Otherwise where are Slovenes, Muslims, Hungarians, Volksdeutsche etc? Mikola22 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The sizeable Croatian fifth column is just a fact. Read 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for an explanation about what went on in that army (drawn from Terzic), for example, the revolt of the 108th Infantry Regiment in Bjelovar. Also 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) tells the story of the Slovene fifth column. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As was mentioned Terzic is one source and a bit controversial. Also why single put Croats specifically and not the other 5th columns? Also again Tomasevich pages 204-207 mention German Volksdeutsche. I could not find in a Google search of the book “Croatian Fifth Column”. The intro is another matter. Perhaps stating the view of Terzic, he views the Croatian Fifth olimn to be the reason for the army’s failings. You had said “The 4th Army basically fell apart due to Ustase fifth column activities.” instead of Tomasevich’s take of it barely playing a role. As you also said “ As concluded by Tomasevich, the fifth column had little effect on the ultimate outcome. The defeat in the southeast between 6-10 April was the primary cause of the collapse, and there was little to no fifth column there.” So is it due weight to have it in the intro? Especially focus on one ethnic group? I’m not sure I follow the logic here PM. Were they significant or not, based on your revert diff? As for the Armistice section of the article I think that is a fair place to air out the variouse theories. Even if held by specifically Terzic. Cohen and Donia both biew the fifth column title as a Serbian pov. OyMosby (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Terzic is one important source, as I've stated. JT talks about various fifth columns on p. 63. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps context can be given, as you suggested before, some of the theories why these fifth columns formed and the reluctance of these groups to patriotically defend The Kingdom of Yugoslavia from Axis invaders. And also the amount of impact these fith columns had in comparison to other shortcomings of the Yugoslav army. Again to address apologists such as Terzic as you agree Terzic isn't a great source for this, as he is a bit of an apologist for the state of the army, the lack of unity caused by Serb hegemony etc, he was a Serb after all, and quite Serb-centric in his views, as you said. I agree with going with Tomasevich above all as he has always been consistent and fairly neutral in his academic works and respected by many scholars. I will look over the page you mentioned as the citation pages seem wrong then in the article.l currently. For the intro perhaps it should just say Non-Serb Fifth Column or just Fifth Column instead of singling out one ethnic group to avoid apologists’ desires. As it was multi-ethnic.OyMosby (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't just use one source, where sources diverge, we compare and contrast. I'll think about a formulation that will reflect the academic consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't researched it in detail, but it's a bit of a strange that only Croatian fifth column is mentioned in the article as one of the possible reasons. I knows that many Germans lived in Croatia and Vojvodina also Hungarians and they were also part of that army. Mikola22 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

PM, I wasn’t implying to only use one but to compare multiple in the Armistice section as I stated. Exactly. Which is why Terzic (again one we both agree to be treated with caution) shouldn’t be a focused single source as was in 2017 by an editor who used his work to add the Fifth Column mention. Especially not the intro. I trust you will create a better formulation that is faithful to historical accounts as you usually do for these articles. Also I agree with Mikola22 about the singling out. And side note the armistice section is a good place for all the various authors to have their views compared. And should be noted in the section it is a controversial or contested subject. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Some information from Croatian historiography

• Source from Goran Hutinec, [13]

• "Zbog toga se kao jedna od dominantnih teza, osobito u povjesničara iz korpusa srpske historiografije, još uvijek ističe mišljenje o krivnji nesrpskih naroda Jugoslavije za njen vojni poraz i okupaciju zemlje od strane članica Trojnog saveza. Prema toj teoriji, jedino je srpski narod doživljavao Kraljevinu Jugoslaviju svojom državom i jedino su njegovi pripadnici bili spremni braniti je oružjem, dok su ostali narodi, a ponajviše Hrvati, odbijali boriti se, sabotirali njen ratni napor i u konačnici omogućili njezinu propast...Therefore, one of the dominant theses, especially among historians from the corpus of Serbian historiography, is still the opinion about the guilt of the non-Serb peoples of Yugoslavia for its military defeat and occupation of the country by the members of the Triple Alliance. According to this theory, only the Serbian people experienced the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as their state and only its members were ready to defend it with weapons, while other peoples, especially Croats, refused to fight, sabotaged its war effort and ultimately allowed its downfall.(page 194)

• "Kako je jugoslavenska vojska prije Drugoga svjetskog rata imala velik ugled, stvoren na temelju zasluga srpske vojske u Prvome svjetskom ratu, tako brz poraz izazvao je u mnogih promatrača šok i nevjericu. Zbog toga je ubrzo nakon poraza i okupacije Jugoslavije započela potraga za krivcima odgovornima za takav rasplet događaja. Nađeni su na mnogim mjestima – od vlade, vojnog vrha i vladajućih političkih stranaka, do petokolonaša, sabotera i izdajnika iz redova manjinskih naroda. U tim teorijama česte su optužbe da su Hrvati bili ključni faktor jugoslavenskog poraza, i te su se teorije s vremenom ukorijenile u jugoslavenskoj, ali i stranoj historiografiji...As the Yugoslav army had a great reputation before the Second World War, created on the merits of the Serbian army in the First World War, such a quick defeat it caused shock and disbelief in many observers. Therefore, soon after the defeat and occupation of Yugoslavia began a search for the culprits responsible for such an outcome events. They have been found in many places - from the government, the military top and the ruling political parties, to five-columnists, saboteurs and traitors from the ranks of minority peoples. In these theories there are frequent accusations that the Croats were a key factor in the Yugoslav defeat, and over time these theories took root in Yugoslav and foreign historiography."

• "Kako je srpski nacionalizam bujao i u samom Savezu komunista Srbije, nije moglo biti govora o potpunom napuštanju dotadašnjih povijesnih dogmi, već su one vješto modificirane da bi mogle poslužiti novim potrebama. Stoga su srpski povjesničari počeli dokazivati kako je za slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije bilo ključno proglašenje Nezavisne Države Hrvatske nakon čega je jugoslavenskoj obrani onemogućeno držanje zapadne obrambene linije. U travnju 1941. ustaše nisu imali masovniju podršku u hrvatskom narodu, pa su zbog toga učestali pokušaji srpskih povjesničara da dokažu vezu ustaša s Katoličkom crkvom i vodstvom HSS-a, prije rata najbrojnijom hrvatskom strankom, kako bi se Hrvate prikazalo razbijačima Jugoslavije...As Serbian nationalism flourished in the League of Communists of Serbia itself, it was not possible be talking about the complete abandonment of previous historical dogmas, but they are skillful modified to serve new needs. Therefore, they are Serbian historians began to prove that the proclamation was crucial for the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Independent States of Croatia, after which the Yugoslav defense was prevented from holding western defensive lines. In April 1941, the Ustashas did not have mass support in to the Croatian people, and therefore attempts by Serbian historians to prove it have become more frequent the connection of the Ustashas with the Catholic Church and the leadership of the HSS, the most numerous Croatian before the war"(page 199) (Terzić, 1982)

• Kako samo s labavim dokazima nije bilo moguće kompromitirati cijeli hrvatski narod korišteni su i falsifikati i temeljito prerađeni dokumenti kojima su se jugoslavenske sigurnosne službe nakon rata koristile u propagandne svrhe i u političkim procesima i suđenjima kolaboracionistima. Knjiga Velimira Terzića “Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941.” izdana 1982. godine, očit je primjer takvog revizionizma u srpskoj historiografiji osamdesetih...How only with loose evidence it was not possible to compromise the whole Croatian people it is also used and forgeries and thoroughly reworked documents by which they Yugoslav security services after the war used for propaganda purposes and in political trials and trials of collaborationists. Velimir Terzić's book "Breakdown Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1941." issued in 1982, is an obvious example of such revisionism in Serbian historiography of the 1980s party, in order to present the Croats to the breakers of Yugoslavia"(page 200-201) there is more information about Terzic in that pages.

• "Svaljivanje krivnje za tako slabu pripremljenost jugoslavenske vojske za rat na nesrpske narode Jugoslavije samo je izgovor kojim se nastoje zamagliti pravi uzroci postojećeg stanja. Prema mom mišljenju, neadekvatna vanjska politika i zapuštenost civilno-vojnih odnosa su bolja objašnjenja pozadine jugoslavenske nespremnosti za rat u koji je uvučena 1941. Višenacionalna zemlja poput Jugoslavije, s gorućim nacionalnim pitanjem i nekoliko jakih skupina političkih nezadovoljnika nije si 1940-tih mogla priuštiti luksuz sudjelovanja u ratu protiv Njemačke..Putting the blame for such a weak preparation of the Yugoslav army for war on the non-Serb peoples of Yugoslavia is just an excuse to try to obscure the real causes of the current situation. In my opinion, inadequate foreign policy and neglect of civil-military relations are better explanations for the background of Yugoslavia's unpreparedness for the war in 1941. A multinational country like Yugoslavia, with a burning national question and several strong groups of political dissidents could not afford luxury in the 1940s. participation in the war against Germany" (page 203)

• "Činjenica da je u Bjelovaru 8. IV. došlo do pobune i dezerterstva u jednom jugoslavenskom puku popunjenom većinom Hrvatima te neobično srdačan doček njemačkim vojnicima u Zagrebu uzimaju se kao najčvršći dokazi navodne krivnje Hrvata za raspad jugoslavenskog obrambenog sustava. Navodna sabotaža koju su izveli zrakoplovni časnici hrvatske nacionalnosti u Makedoniji također je omiljeni leitmotiv zastupnika te teorije..The fact that in Bjelovar 8. IV. there was rebellion and desertion in one the Yugoslav detachment filled with a majority of Croats and the unusually warm welcome to the German soldiers in Zagreb are taken as the strongest evidence of the alleged guilt of the Croats for the disintegration of the Yugoslav defense system. The alleged sabotage carried out by Croatian air force officers in Macedonia is also a favorite leitmotif of the proponents of this theory." (page 204)

• "Naime, na zemlji nisu uništeni samo zrakoplovi u bazama na jugoistoku zemlje kojima su zapovijedali navodni izdajnici Hrvati, već i oni u Kragujevcu kojima su zapovijedali Srbi, i to nekoliko dana nakon izbijanja neprijateljstava. No začudo, kad se o tom slučaju piše u srpskoj historiografiji i publicistici, nema ni spomena izdaji, već se sugerira kako je njemačka nadmoć bila presudna..Namely, not only planes in the southeast bases were destroyed where commanded by alleged Croat traitors, but also those in Kragujevac commanded by Serbs, a few days after the outbreak of hostilities. Surprisingly, when this case is written in Serbian historiography and journalism, there is no mention of treason, but it is suggested that German supremacy was crucial." (page 204)

• "Probijanje fronte u Podravini 10. IV. smatraju dokazom slabe uèinkovitosti jedinica popunjenih Hrvatima (Terzić, 1982: II 522), iako je poznato kako je u tom trenutku već izdana naredba o povlačenju jugoslavenske vojske u brdovitu unutrašnjost. Ne napominju da je ključni obrambeni položaj u Makedoniji izgubljen već prvoga dana rata i da su Nijemci ovladali Skopljem već 7. IV. Time je onemogućeno povlačenje jugoslavenske vojske u Grčku..Breaking through the front in Podravina(Croatia) 10. IV. considered evidence of the poor efficiency of units filled by Croats (Terzić, 1982: II 522), although it is known that at that time an order had already been issued to withdraw the Yugoslav army into the hilly interior. They do not mention that the key defensive position in Macedonia was lost on the first day of the war and that the Germans took control of Skopje as early as 7. IV. This prevented the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army to Greece" (page 205)

• "ZAKLJUČAK Često korištena teorija o krivnji nesrpskih građana Kraljevine Jugoslavije za njezin neslavni slom 1941. godine odveć je simplificiran prikaz katastrofe Travanjskog rata. Iako su međunacionalni sukobi dominirali predratnom jugoslavenskom svakodnevnicom, pretjerano je u njima tražiti jedine uzroke brzog raspada jugoslavenske monarhije, a još je manje opravdano prebacivati krivnju na jedan, u ovom slučaju hrvatski narod... CONCLUSION The oft-used theory of the guilt of non-Serb citizens of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for its infamous collapse in 1941 is an oversimplified account of the catastrophe of the April War. Although interethnic conflicts dominated pre-war Yugoslav everyday life, it was an exaggeration to look for the only causes of the rapid disintegration of the Yugoslav monarchy, and it is even less justified to shift the blame to one, in this case the Croatian people." Mikola22 (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Also being that this is not the 4th army article, and it was an Ustashe sabotage that was a part of the 4th army’s failure, that doesn’t make all Croats that were fifth columns, Ustashe supporters and this article is about the invasion in general. Again not hyper focuses on the 4th army. Else put Ustashe Fifth column in the intro to be concise to the readers. I still think non-Serb 5th or just 5th column in general as I’m sure there were some Serbs not necessarily against the Axis. If I recall Tomasevich correctly. Also do we have more than one source confirming it was “sizeable”?OyMosby (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22's quotations seem to support the claim in the article that "scholars have proposed several theories for the Royal Yugoslav Army's sudden collapse, including .. a sizeable Croatian nationalist fifth column". The article does not say that that theory is correct. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No where in Mikolas quotations is mentioned “ a sizeable Croatian nationalist fifth column”. Where did you see it? Mikola22’s quotes seem to not support the claim in the article, but instead to be a Serbian nationalist trope. Should that be noted in the article?

Also there is the matter of singling out one group and not Slovenes, Germans, Hungarians, etc. I don’t understand this hyper focus on Croats only when sources mention multiple ethnic groups. I am baffled no one sees anything wrong with only mentioning one ethnic group and given it was a pov edit made in 2017 in a tit for tat with another editor. There are also Cohen and Donia that go agains the sizeable Croatian fifth column theory which I have yet to see anyone acknowledge. Perhaps @Mikola22: could clarify their point from all these mass quotes.OyMosby (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Srnec please look at the end Conclusion portion of the quotes. OyMosby (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) See my response to Mikola below. (2) The fifth column is not really a matter of dispute, only its effect on the war as a whole. The article at present does not in fact lay the blame for defeat on the fifth column. Why can't you see that? (3) There were a lot more Croatians in Yugoslavia than Germans or Hungarians (or Slovenes, for that matter). (4) You would perhaps make a better case for a change if you could demonstrate that you even understand what the article is saying. Currently it says, "Many Serbian nationalists blamed the loss on 'fifth columnist' Croats who stood to gain from Italian and German rule, ignoring the primary failure of the Yugoslav Army and its almost entirely Serbian leadership." Srnec (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me but I think I am understanding the article better than yourself. For (4) none of that is mentioned in the intro. Hence the impression it gives, equal weight to failures of the army and leadership. That is my point.Also this is not an article only about Serbian nationalist but the invasion. Croats are not the only ones part of the theory also. You can’t just ignore Tomasevich because you say “there were a lot more Croatians in Yugoslavia” There were plenty Slovenes too. Germans and Hungarians in Northern Serbia. You cannot ignore RS that doesn’t suit you. It was a multi ethnic fifth column effect. It’s pretty straight forward if you understand the article is about the invasion of a whole and not a specific army outfit or region or just about Serbian nationalist theories which I don’t understand being the prime focus in the intro. I don’t know how to be any more clear. Peacemaker even discussed the Slovene fifth column as well. This mile long thread is such an unnecessary waste of time over the obviouse. I feel like I’m losing my sanity. OyMosby (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"fifth column" fact is not mentioned in this(Croatian) source. @Srnec: It's like saying that Croats in JNA(Yugoslav Army, 1991) when fleeing from it, from Slovenia to Macedonia, it is becouse fifth column. Yugoslavia in time of WWII also has many minorities in their army including Hungarians and Germans, also Slovenians are here, but we have only "Croatian fifth column" fact in the article? "Croatian fifth column" fact is in general promotion of Serbian historiography.

In this source[14] are mentioned "fifth column" and Serbian, Muslim and Croatian elements. Mikola22 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The fifth column is mentioned in the source you cited, Mikola22: petokolonaša. Whether or not it is in general a promotion of Serbian historiography is neither here nor there. We do not get to just throw out Serbian historiography in favour of Croatian! In any case, all the article says is that the fifth column has been blamed, not that it was in fact the cause of the defeat. Why is this so hard? Srnec (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We have and this source which mentione just fifth column, not Croatian fifth column [15]. It is hard because Croats are not only soldiers in that army, also at that time there were national differences between them and for this is not blame Croatian fifth column.Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: We don’t ignore Croatian historiography in favor of Serbian historiography either! All must be taken into account. I don’t think Mikola is asking it to be thrown out but introducing other sources. As inconvenient as it may be as it shows conflicting historical accounts. But we can’t just ignore one to simplify. Sadkos edit was best for now. I don’t get this dead set objective to having “Croatian Fifth Column” ignoring other sources, even Tomasevich who Peacemaker67 mentioned as well.OyMosby (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the current version after that edit by @OyMosby: is a good one and acceptable to all sides. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. We don't choose whatever we like from the sources, like on a buffet. And dissming Serbian sources because they wrote "during the nationalsitic era" is completely irrelevant unless you can offer something real and less vague. Croatin fifth column is sourced properly and it should stay. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You did that by going with one Serbian source speaking of Croats and ignoring others stating Slovenian, German and Hungarian Fifth columns. Like you said we don’t pick and xhoose what we like from sources. OyMosby (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Ktrimi991: as it abides by not just the one source but by Tomasevich as well. Again as you said Sadko we don’t just chose one source we like.OyMosby (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: would’t it be cleaner to just state “Fifth Column Citizens” instead of listing them all out? Looking back, sorry for the snarky attitude. Not a good day today.OyMosby (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Well we could do that, but considering that we have precise information I think that this is good as well + "citizens" is vague and this one and other related articles are going into details. Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: What edit warring? And agreement was reached going by source...OyMosby (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• If fellow editors Srnec insists on this version, I do not oppose it, and I am okay with the other one as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko:, it would be singling out one ethnic group. Why would you be okay with that? It would be based on cherry-picking sources to go with the current version. Ignoring all other fifth columns. Tomasovich is RS. @Peacemaker: even gave example of the 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) tells the story of the Slovene fifth column. You edit seemed best for the time being...OyMosby (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)