In the early morning of April 6, 1941, Axis armies began their Balkans campaign. Originally aimed only at Greece, the operation was officially expanded a week earlier to include the kingdom of Yugoslavia. By the end of April, all of the Balkans was in Axis hands.
Hitler’s official excuse was that the British had landed in Greece, seeking to repeat the Great War scenario on the Salonika front. Back then, the British, French, Greek, and surviving Serbian forces joined in a great push in September 1918 to roll up the Central Powers’ weak southern flank and knock Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary out of the war. Obsessed with the British and nursing a grudge against the Serbs — whom he blamed for causing the Great War — Hitler decided to invade.
Another consideration was shoring up Mussolini, whose forces had suffered a string of defeats. The Italian invasion of Greece in October 1940 had failed, with the Greeks counterattacking deep into Italy’s staging area in southern Albania. In Africa, an entire Italian army had surrendered by January 1941, leaving the British in control of Cyrenaica. Germany responded by dispatching to Africa an expeditionary force under General Rommel, and making plans for the invasion of Greece, codenamed "Marita."
A Kingdom Divided
Complicating the plans to attack Greece was Yugoslavia — a neutral kingdom sitting on top of key Balkans transportation routes, railways, and rivers. Created in 1918, as southern Slavic-inhabited regions of the collapsing Austria-Hungary joined the liberated Kingdom of Serbia, it was renamed "Yugoslavia" in 1929, by King Aleksandar I.
Aleksandar believed that Serbia could repeat the nation-building successes of Piedmont and Prussia, and embraced the theory that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were "three tribes of one nation."
Nation-building ambitions failed to take into account the sheer devastation wrought on Serbia by two major wars in a decade. His father’s kingdom had never had a chance to recover from a major conflict with the Ottoman Turks (1912) or the follow-up war with Bulgaria (1913) before it was attacked by Austria in 1914. The Great War completely devastated the Serbian economy and caused enormous loss of life (over 16% of the overall population of Serbia). Neither the German nor the Italian unification had significant internal opposition. They also took decades — time which Yugoslavia ended up not having.
Stjepan Radić, leader of the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) rejected unification and remained one of its most outspoken opponents. Tensions between Croats and Slovenes (Catholics and former Austro-Hungarian subjects) and the (largely Orthodox Christian) Serbs grew worse by the day. In June 1928 one Serb parliamentarian responded to a Croat’s insult with gunfire. One bullet critically injured Radić, who died several weeks later. The king responded by dissolving the parliament, banning all political parties and proclaiming autocracy, on January 6, 1929. This royal dictatorship lasted till 1934, when Aleksandar was assassinated during a state visit to France.
One of the measures the king enacted was to abolish the previous regional sub-divisions, and reorganize the country into nine regions (banovina). In 1939, Serb politicians gave in to demands of the re-established HSS, and created the Croatian banovina, thus recognizing the failure of Yugoslav nation-building project.
The Pact and the War
Yugoslavia had been a founding member of the "Little Entente," an alliance with Czechoslovakia and Romania established in 1921 to counter the Habsburg restoration. It began to unravel under aggressive German diplomacy following King Aleksandar’s assassination. Hitler had dismantled Czechoslovakia by the spring of 1939. France had surrendered in June 1940. Romania turned to Hitler for protection when portions of its territory were seized by the USSR in August — as secretly arranged by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. At German insistence, Romania ceded territory to German allies Hungary and Bulgaria, and in November 1940 officially joined the Tripartite Pact.
This left Yugoslavia and Greece isolated in the Balkans — and indeed, in Europe — and Greece was already at war with Italy. The Yugoslav government knuckled under and signed the pact on March 25, in Vienna.
A strategy of appeasing Germany made sense for a government aware of its hopeless strategic position. Memories of the Great War were still fresh with the people, however. On March 27, Serb crowds took to the streets, denouncing the pact and the government. A cabal of generals overthrew the regency of Prince Pavle and installed Aleksandar’s 16-year-old son Petar II as the new king. Yet the new government did not renege on the pact, hoping still to avoid a war.
Hitler would have none of it. Infuriated by the coup, which he saw as an insult to the German Reich and himself personally, he ordered the army to amend the Greek operation with a Yugoslavian sideshow (Unternehmen Straftgericht).
Bloodbath
The conquest of Greece and Yugoslavia was quick. Axis forces quickly crushed the Yugoslav royal army, singling out Serb officers and enlisted men for captivity while releasing others. Yugoslavia was dismembered, parts of it annexed to or occupied by Germany, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria. On April 10, Croatian Ustasha terrorists declared the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Italians administered a pre-1912 Montenegro, while Germans set up a collaborator government in Serbia that was reduced to its pre-1878 borders. Today’s Kosovo was largely annexed to the Italian-allied regime in Albania. By April 30, Greece had fallen as well.
After the initial shock of the invasion had worn off, Greeks and Serbs began to resist. In Greece, organized resistance first began in Bulgarian-occupied areas, spreading later to the rest of the country. In the shattered Yugoslavia, the royalist resistance began coalescing in May, led by Col. Dragoljub "Draga" Mihailović. Communists set up their own resistance movements in July 1941, following the German invasion of the USSR.
Four years of horrific bloodshed followed. The NDH engaged in a systematic genocide of Jews and Serbs. Germans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians also persecuted the Jews, though some managed to find refuge in Italian-controlled territories. In German-occupied Serbia, the resistance was crushed with utmost brutality, with Germans executing up to 100 civilian hostages for each of their soldiers killed, and up to 50 for each soldier injured. Ideological differences and Communist disregard for civilian suffering quickly caused a rift between them and the royalists; they fought against each other till end of the war, when Soviet armies helped the Communists prevail.
The What Ifs
The Italian invasion made Greece’s eventual confrontation with Hitler inevitable. Its postwar fate was decided by a deal British PM Winston Churchill proposed to Stalin during an October 1944 meeting in Moscow, giving the British and the US overwhelming influence in Greece. As part of the deal, the Soviets would also get 90% of influence in Romania, 75% in Bulgaria, and 50% in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Stalin later denied it, and secured 100% influence in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Greece became a member of NATO.
The British had already thrown Mihailović and the royalists under the bus by 1943, and their fate was sealed when Soviet forces crossed over from Romania in 1944, in pursuit of the retreating Germans. But the Communists broke with Stalin in 1948, and the Yugoslavia re-established on their terms remained neutral throughout the Cold War.
Seven decades after the March coup and the April war, two decades after the Communist Yugoslavia drowned in another bloodbath, a question haunts modern Serbia: was it possible to avoid the war in 1941? Historians and politicians who argue that it was tend to be motivated by hindsight, claiming that anything should have been done to prevent the horrors of war, genocide and the eventual Communist takeover (none of which anyone at the time could have foreseen). They point the accusing finger at the British, whose intelligence operatives encouraged the coup. Had the Serbs not provoked him, they say, Hitler would have honored the treaty.
The Right Thing To Do
Yet Hitler had never honored a single treaty he’d signed. Addressing the troops on April 6, Hitler claimed that German consular staff was "daily being subjected to the most humiliating attacks" and that "innumerable German nationals were kidnapped and attacked by Yugoslavs and some even were killed." He alleged that Yugoslavia was planning a general mobilization "in great secrecy." These are obviously fabricated excuses, on the same order as the "Polish attack" at Gleiwitz. Furthermore, Hitler described the events in Belgrade using the language of 1914:
"When British divisions were landed in Greece, just as in World War days, the Serbs thought the time was ripe for taking advantage of the situation for new assassinations against Germany and her allies."
In the May 4 address to the Reichstag, Hitler condemned the coup in Belgrade as a personal insult, a "provocation emanating from the State that once before had set the whole of Europe on fire and had been guilty of the indescribable sufferings that befell Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria in consequence."
Knowing how much his grudges about that war motivated Hitler to seek power in the first place, how likely was he to embrace the people he saw as the "element of tension" as allies? Given that the logistics of the Greece invasion simply demanded transit of at least supplies through Yugoslavia, why else would Hitler have wanted Belgrade to join the Pact? For the sake of international friendship and peaceful, prosperous development? Please.
From a purely practical perspective, defying Hitler in March 1941 was indeed suicidal. So, for that matter, was defying Austria in June 1914 — or the Ottomans in 1804, or 1389. But for a people who built their very identity on dignity and freedom, it was the only right choice.
Any similarities to present circumstances are definitely not accidental.
Read more by Nebojsa Malic
- The Serbian Job – May 18th, 2012
- Tyranny of Good Intentions – May 3rd, 2012
- Between Hope and Despair – April 20th, 2012
- Hunger Games – March 29th, 2012
- Reality Rift – March 9th, 2012





andy
April 8th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Hitler wasn't interested in the Balkans. Had that clown Mussolini not invaded Greece (which proved a disaster) or had Churchill not forced Commonwealth troops upon the Greeks it wouldn't have happened. Also the British might have cleared the whole of north Africa in 1941 instead of 1943.
bogi666
April 9th, 2011 at 4:53 am
The invasion of Greece and the Balkans delayed for at least a month the NAZI invasion of the USSR. This may have been crucial since it interrupted the NAZI's timetable for the conquest of the USSR as it resulted in the onset of the Russian winter and the relocation of some 36 divisions of the Soviet army from Asia to the defense of Moscow. Soviet intelligence revealed that the Japanese wouldn't attack the USSR which allowed for the redeployment of the Soviet Eurasian troops which were the best troops of the Soviet army.
MvGuy
April 9th, 2011 at 7:35 am
If those of you who are thoughtful enough to give andy a thumbs down, why not take a moment to tell us what your problem with his post is…?
Stanislav Kalenic
April 9th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Don't forget the glorious participation of the Waffen SS Skanderbeg division of now temporarily independent Albanians from Serbian Kosovo. They are good at dodging questions, changing topics and NOT explaining how come most of Kosovo places (river, towns, hills) have pure Serbian names, but they are ready to join the fascists at a drop of a hat.
MvGuy
April 9th, 2011 at 8:00 am
Malik's 1941 left my head spinning….WOW…… "Any similarities to present circumstances are definitely not accidental." Too difficult for me to piece together, but thanks for the most compact history ever…
MichaelKenny
April 9th, 2011 at 8:04 am
This looks like pot stirring! Trying to hype ex-Yugoslavia without actually saying anything. The history is broadly accurate. "Yugoslavia" was the dream of Serb nationalists and none of the other peoples of Yugoslavia ever wanted anything to do with it. They were annexed without any sort of democratic process and fought to escape from day 1 right down to the collpase of Yugoslavia. Beyond that historical point, It's hard to see what the author is saying. In fact, he seems to be saying nothing!
Mike
April 9th, 2011 at 8:46 am
I hope Malic or anyone else isn't stupid enough to think tiny Germany could possible have conquered the great mass of Soviet territory no matter when Germany invaded.
robt
April 9th, 2011 at 9:12 am
The Germans were in the suburbs of Stalingrad and Moscow, a few feet away from shelter, and victory…the 5 weeks obviously made a difference.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 9th, 2011 at 10:01 am
I don't know what Serbs have done you, but you obviously aren't shy of blatantly distorting historical facts. Slovenians voted to join the newly formed kingdom in a referendum and though it is true that there was popular opposition to the union in Croatia heartland, and that there were demonstrations in Zagreb that were brutally repressed, that was not the case in other parts of what is today Croatia, on the contrary. As a matter of fact, the decision to join was made by the Croatian assembly, because otherwise they would never have got the territory they have today. As for Bosnia, your claim is simply ludicrous.
What happened in 1991, happened because of the policy "a weak Serbia, a strong Yugoslavia" that has actually crippled Serbia, divided the most numerous nation in the country and turned 25% of the Serb into a de facto minority in their own country, a country they paid a steep price to create in order to all live under the same roof..
conumishu
April 9th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
According to Erhard Milch, who was deeply involved in Germany's military build-up, Germany wasn't prepared to invade Russia sooner than 1943, preferably in 1944.
Since war would have continued even with Moscow fallen to Germans, the outcome would probably have been the same.
I think the German divisions needed to control Yugoslavia was a more important factor for the "economy" of the war than the delay.
Also, the Vienna diktat made Romania keep at all times at least one third of its full operational units ready to enter Hungary to regain the lost territory. More, in fact, since, in order not to upset the Germans too much, many combat ready units were assigned "instructors" role at home. If continuing the fight against Russia after Romania took back Bassarabia wasn't quite popular and after the terrible losses at Stalingrad, preserving the most of human power became a necessity, nevertheless Hitler's diktat managed to deprive him of another good number of divisions right from the start (poorer technical quality but willing to fight). Not to mention the lasting resentment against Germany.
andy
April 9th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Why don't YOU tell me?
andy
April 9th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I disagree strongly. The Germans were never close to "victory" in the east.
Mechanized
April 9th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
It is folly to imagine that the capture of Moscow would have resulted in a German victory. Napoleon Bonaparte discovered this painful reality after observing many thousands of his troops die in the Russian winter after his successful capture of the city in the previous century.
Additionally, the offensive toward Moscow by the Wehrmacht in the latter half of 1941 was destined to fail in any event due to a number of factors. Perhaps the most significant reason is related to the weather itself. Germany simply did not possess the manpower, supplies, fuel, nor the manufacturing base to sustain the size of the Nazi Empire by late 1941. It was simply too large. Worse, Hitler grossly underestimated not only the Russian will to resist but also underestimated the sheer size of the Soviet army, erroneously believing the latter could raise only 3.5 million soldiers.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 9th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Tiny Germany? An 80 million people nation – not counting the Germans living outside the Third Reich formal borders -, that had "pacified" the whole of Europe with the exception of the Soviet Union, with superior weaponry, with superior military tactics – Stalin had sent all his best generals into gulags -, aided by Baltic, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Romanian, Croatian units, on a flat terrain, make your calculation.
The Russian prevailed because they fanatically love their country; any other nation in Europe would have capitulated. Actually, France for instance did twice, in 1871 and in 1940, with far lower losses.
It did matter when they invaded. Because meteorological conditions annulled their technological superiority.
Would they have won if they had attacked earlier? Nobody knows. But the Russian winter did impede them.
gary
April 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
hitler did not want yugoslavia,..even he was reluctant to go into a hellhole of ethnic conflict..but he needed to secure his southern flank…the delay did work against him that winter but he really had little chance of beating the russkies..you can take all the cities you want but if the enemy still has a large army and the leadership is intact eventually superior numbers would win… russia is many times larger than france and was not going to quit just because they lost 5 million men in the first year,no democracy could take such losses and survive but russia was no democracy , the german economy were not able to sustain a long offensive battle his, initial success was in areas not truly russian…and as unpopular as the commies were,they looked good compared to the brutal huns who looked at slavs as untermenchen..declaring war on the u.s.was the final nail in his coffin..within six months he went to war with two countries with a total poulation of 300 millions…the germans were good but ot that good
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 9th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
About tiny Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Germany#18…
How many square miles did the British Empire, or the French Republic for that matter, rule over? Less or more than Russia's surface?
The population of Great Britain and France combined was roughly equivalent to that of the German Reich, and they didn't have the mobilising power of Nazi Germany and they didn't have the technology either. And we're not speaking of troops scattered around the globe, on often difficult terrain, we're speaking of a continuous front line in a vast plain, morphing according to the belligerent's units advances and retreats.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 9th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Gary, France was no democracy in 1870. It was an empire. And the German declaration of war to the US only started to have an impact from 1943, but at that time the war in Eastern Europe was already lost for them.
In my opinion, what really made the difference is the inept air war against England, a lot of idiotic terror bombing that wasted resources instead of focusing on real targets, and the invasion of the Balkans.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 9th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
I didn't give him a thumb down yet I have a problem with his post: he's contradicting the author of the article on one essential point but he offers no substantiation for his claim.
And about Africa, my opinion is that it wasn't as clear cut. Rommel landed in Tripoli on Feb 12th, 1941. That's fairly early in the year. Pretending that a general of his calibre could have had his troops routed so fast is a bit pretentious, don't you think?
cloakmanor
April 9th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
"Would they have won if they had attacked earlier?"
No. Not possible. And yes, compared to the 2nd largest nation in the world Germany is tiny.
cloakmanor
April 9th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Sorry….It should say:
1st, 2nd, and 3rd largest…
angelsliberty
April 9th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
It seems to me a mistake to think about war as a series of stragic maneuvers toward ends that may or may not be achieved due to luck, technology, manpower, and planning. When planning a war, it might appear as someone like Samantha Powers conceives of it: having some predictability and rationality. However, as soon as the cup of violence is drunk, war immediately devolves; the thin skin that seperates us from our worst selves is ruptured. As Zinn would say, "War corrupts". Presenting counterfactual scenarios where different choices were made, leading to a more successful outcome for somebody or other forgets that war becomes its own logic–and that senselessness, brutality, and hubris are invariably the inside story of a war. Bertolt Brecht's "Mother Courage and Her Children" captures this sense. Something resembling profit might be achieved for a day, but the children are always forfeited.
andy
April 9th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
I do believe the British could have cleared the Italians out of north Africa altogether in 1941. They were stopped by CHURCHILL PERSONALLY, against military opinion, because he wanted to have a large force available to deploy in Greece, should the Greek government ever give in to his "offers" of "assistance". The interevntion proved disastrous for just about everyone.
andy
April 9th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I disagree. The USSR would have defeated Germany all by itself. Perhaps the French might have fought harder had the Germans done to them what they did (and planned to do) to the sub-human eastern Slavs?
andy
April 9th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
May i suggest you read the book BRUTE FORCE?
Observator
April 9th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Can't figure out why the Serbs are still denying that well known and established fact to ALL who care to know.
Observator
April 9th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
What happened in 1991, happened because of the policy "a weak Serbia, a strong Yugoslavia" that has actually crippled Serbia, divided the most numerous nation in the country and turned 25% of the Serb into a de facto minority in their own country, a country they paid a steep price to create in order to all live under the same roof..
===================================
Can you point to some facts that the Serbian grunts were told in 1914 that they were shedding their blood and wasting lives to live under one roof with Austro-Hungarian Serbian brethren who were fighting on side of the Empire alongside Croats, Slovenes and Muslim against them?
gary
April 9th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
vojkan…you are correct..most people don't realize that the germans lost something like 2000 airplanes and many crews over england during the blitz also it showed that the germans could be stopped…almost everyone thought russia would fold under th german attack,but never,never underestimate the russians…whatever you say about stalin he managed to crush a german army that was twice the size of the one that beat the russians in 1917
Hrebeljanovic
April 9th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
"even he was reluctant to go into a hellhole of ethnic conflict."
There was no ethnic conflict before Germany invaded Yugoslavia.
".you can take all the cities you want but if the enemy still has a large army and the leadership is intact eventually superior numbers would win.."
Hitler was not fighting Russia, he was fighting USSR. Big difference. Stalin was not Russian and he was not defending Russia, he was defending his communist ideology. Kutuzov couldn't care less about losing Moscow to Napoleon but Stalin had to defend it with everything he had because it was the major symbol of his ideology. Had Moscow fallen to Hitler's hands USSR would've imploded.
Nazi military had a huge technological advantage over Soviet forces, so yes, the delay had a big impact because of the oncoming Russian winter. For example, German soldiers were dying from cold going number two.
Hrebeljanovic
April 9th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
""Yugoslavia" was the dream of Serb nationalists and none of the other peoples of Yugoslavia ever wanted anything to do with it."
Check historical facts before you spew your hatred for Serbs. The idea of "Yugoslavia" was dreamed up in 17th century in Dubrovnik, present day Croatia.
Jovan M.
April 10th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Vojkan- I wouldn't waste your breath on such an ignoramus. Obviously he doesn't know sh*t about Yugoslav history. Hey MichaelKenny, ever hear of the Illyrian movement? No…. I didn't think so! Or how about the fact that the Serbs of Croatia were known as the most fearless, resilient, and bravest fighters of the Austrian army in WWI (who fought against their brothers from Serbia!)? That's called loyalty jack**s, not nationalism! And how did they get rewarded for such loyalty? Ever hear of a little place called Jasenovac? Of course not!
Let's also not forget that the Croats begged the Serbs to let them join them….Corfu ring a bell? Again the answer is an emphatic NO! And then to finish off the Serbs let a Croatian dictator rule the country for almost half a century, during which oppression of Serbs was standard practice. Maybe, just maybe, you heard of Tito? Most likely not. Or how about the 1974 Constitution, or how everyone except Serbs were allowed to go back to their homes after WWII, or Tito's philosophy of "a weak Serbia equals a strong Yugoslavia"….all of this done in the name of "brotherhood and unity"? MichaelKenny you are an ignoramus, plain and simple. Learn some facts before you start spewing such ignorant comments!
Observator
April 10th, 2011 at 1:26 am
Nobody is stupid enough to reward traitors to his own, Serbs of Krayina were mercenaries fighting to preserve their possessions, it is called instinct not bravery.
Nikola The Serb
April 10th, 2011 at 4:33 am
Creation of Yugoslavia in 1918 was a huge mistake, a catastrophe for us Serbs. The south Slavic "brothers" whom we supposedly liberated "thanked" us with Jasenovac and with the stab in the back. Slovenes "thanked" us with contempt for us, Balkan Byzantines, and with constant scheming to betray us and to join the Germanic bloc again, after they have used all the advantages of the South Slavic unification.
Nikola The Serb
April 10th, 2011 at 4:33 am
The year 1941 was the logical outcome of the year 1918, just like the war 1991-95 (with new mass killing of Serbs and expulsions, see Operation Storm) was the logical outcome of 1945, Titoism and "brotherhood and unity". Having all of this in mind, I am sometimes appalled and even enraged when I see how many yugonostalgics and even nostalgics for the Comunism there are among Serbs. To celebrate Tito, that swindler from Hrvatsko Zagorje, who hated Serbs and favoured "weak Serbia for a strong Yugoslavia"? Who imported Albanians into Kosovo? Who separated Macedonia from Serbia? Who created the inexistent "Montenegrin nation" (an insult to all brave Montenegrin Serbs from the past, like Njegos and others)? These people (Tito nostalgics) are insane, they are worse than ustashas.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 5:23 am
John Ellis's "Brute Force"? May I suggest you read some more books on WWII. Actually, as long as the Soviets relied solely on "brute force", the Germans slaughtered them.
What do you think, was one of the decisive battles on the Russian front, the battle of Kursk, won by "brute force" or were there also some military tactics involved?
Montgomery did indeed defeat Rommel using far superior fire power, but did the British have that fire power in 1941 to sweep out the Italians and the Germans who have come to the rescue of the latter? Even with the troops committed to Greece?
How will it all have turned out if German elite para-troopers haven't been decimated in Crete?
The Allies won because Hitler's megalomania sent Germans to fight a war that was unwinnable from the beginning. Ask yourself for how long they could have afforded to occupy the countries they occupied. The German, just like Napoleonic France, would have lost even without US involvement. Even though they could have been temporarily victorious in Russia.
Ottomans have occupied the Balkans for five centuries, and now, with the notable exception of Constantinople, they're gone. In the mean time, they only managed to impoverish the people they occupied and themselves.
No war of occupation is winnable, unless the occupiers commit outright genocide, like European colonists did in North America.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 5:54 am
I agree with your first sentence. But can you explain us where your hatred of Krajina Serbs comes from? Are you Croatian, or are you one of those civic folks for whom Serbian borders are delimited by the tollbooths surrounding Belgrade? Do you think conscripts had choice? How many of them did indeed fight? How many deserted?
Do you think for instance that Nikola Tesla was supportive of Austria-Hungary's war against Serbia? Have you heard of the volunteers who came from as far as the US to fight for Serbia? Dividing Serbs doesn't work any more. The vast majority of us has learnt the lesson. We only differ with regard to the means.
bogi666
April 10th, 2011 at 7:45 am
The fact of the matter is that the USSR ended up saving the capitalism of the UK and USA. The opportunity for Hitler to invade the USSR was prime as Stalin had sacked his generals and Finland defeat a Soviet invasion killing some 70,000 Soviet troops. The USSR invaded again and Finland had to sue for peace. This is what inspired Hitler. The truth is that the NAZI's were capable of prevailing in the Soviet invasion and their are reports, kept from the public, just how close they were to winning in the USSR. The NAZI's had superior troops and generals. This according to those I've met whom served in Europe, the troops on the ground there. They were just overwhelmed, simple as that. It wasn't god or the supposed morality of the American troops, it was sheer numbers. Hitler by not listening to his generals was a WW1 corporeal leading the NAZI armies continuously making extremely bad decisions which is why he was never assassinated because he was so incompetent. Stalin, whether he liked it or not, listened to his generals. Believe the USG propaganda machine, or the troops on the ground. It's a no brainer.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 8:37 am
There truly are people who are obsessed with Serbs, or how else explain that all not Serb hating people who left a comment got a thumb down in, what, a fifteen minutes period, the arguments in the comments being apparently irrelevant? So pitiful.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Even if I definitely dislike the oxymoron in your pseudo, I also think we definitely agree about how Hitler's delusions, thank God for that, hindered maybe the most competent band of uniformed folks ever.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Actually, the Germans applied more or less the same lex talionis in France as they did in Serbia. The thing is that the two Saint-Cyr mates leading resistance movements in the two countries, De Gaulle and Mihajlovic, considered that their compatriots' lives were valuable, so disabling the occupier through sabotage rather than through killing enemy soldiers seemed a more reasonable approach.
Communists cared more for achieving their ideological goals than they did for human lives. If the Serbs victims of the Ustasha genocide are substracted from the final toll, it appears that the German, though far from the number of Poles, Russians or Serbs, have actually killed a lot of French folks, over half a million. With regards to the total population, besides the three nations I mentioned, only Greeks suffered heavier losses.
Incidentally, those were the only five nations with real resistance movements.
Rad
April 10th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Vojkan, I want to add some facts to this 'OBSERVATOR':
I have a long list of 'Solun's Front' volunteers from the
small area of Krayina called Bilogora, my fathers side of ancestry came from. My father also left the memoirs on the subject of the condition of the Serbs conscripts in A-H army.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 10:42 am
A lady from NYC, Brooklyn, Floral Park, drove me crazy a year ago, so I set up a little software that did something very simple, refresh periodically a page and compare it to a previous version based on some predefined parametres, and, since I owned the page, I could track the origin of the IP.
I don't know whose taxpayers' money is wasted on paying morons to click "thumb down" here, but, guess what, the lady in question was beautiful, hence my interest, you are simply too ludicrous to be worth any effort.
Jovan M.
April 10th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
"Nobody is stupid enough to reward traitors to his own"…so they deserved to be killed?
That's pretty pathetic on your part that your only response to my comment was that "Serbs deserved what they got and that it was instinct and not bravery that drove them". That's it buddy! That's all you've got?!?
Observator
April 10th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Mr. Milosavljevic I didn't post these FACTS seeking your approval, just a reminder that emotions have no place discussing history.
Facts wouldn't change if I were Croatian or Reptilian.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
My approval? Thank you for the consideration you are according me. I never sought anybody's approval. I just state my opinion.
The nicest guy I ever met was a Croat from Sisak. But then, if you feel like a reptilian, I can't help it. Btw, using capitals to emphasise a concept betrays your unconscious doubts about what you are writing. I have answered you with verifiable facts, documented in History books and on the Internet.
Emotions indeed have no place when we discuss History. Be kind to tell me which of my comments was, according to your sensitivity, motivated by emotions rather than logic.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 10th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
What facts? And as I told you, using capitals to type words in order to emphasise your opinions only make you pass for a primitive. Try again.
Milorad
April 10th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Nebojsa, a correction in your article.
it reads…"led by Col. Dragoljub "Draga" Mihailović"
The Chetnik leader was promoted to the rank of General when the Yugoslav army was dissolved and was known as "Draza".
andy
April 10th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
I disagree. The Soviets would have defeated Germany without any help at all from anyone. The war would only have lasted longer. The war was lost for Germany the day they invaded the USSR.
andy
April 10th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
To compare the occupation in France to the USSR is ludicrous. Again I see no way at all Germany could have prevailed.
Observator
April 11th, 2011 at 12:11 am
If myths were FACTS Orthodox Croatians from Krayina wouldn't have left on the tractors, and wouldn't need Croatian army to liberate them from A-H Corporal.
It was Croatian soldiers who cut out the Red Star from the flag of Graveyard of Nations aka SouthSlaviyA.
Observator
April 11th, 2011 at 12:14 am
Mother Nature gave you a gift between your ears and freedom to use as you see fit.
Would you reward/support a Nation which supported its enemies?
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 11th, 2011 at 3:56 am
Pal, you stink arrogance. Will you please inform us simple mortals what achievement it is based upon?
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 11th, 2011 at 4:02 am
If it weren't for my name, hardly anyone would guess I'm Serb. You could invent any pseudo you want, hardly anyone would miss you're Croatian. When it comes to the thing between the ears, don't travel, because you could poison a cobra.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 11th, 2011 at 4:12 am
I am not comparing. France got beaten almost as fast as Yugoslavia, and they didn't even have quislings in their ranks. What I'm saying is that WWII history is much more complex than how conventional thinking represent it. Again, look beyond John Ellis.
Were the Finns or the Slovaks or the Romanian truly bad guys? How more evil than the Albanians or the Croats can you get?
conumishu
April 11th, 2011 at 11:07 am
You are probably right about their error, but aren't you uselessly antagonizing those of good faith? I guess some of the nostalgia is dictated by the memory of a time when Serbs and Serbia, while subject to all the titoist scheming, weren't open hunting & looting ground like today. Tito was just another non-Serb internationalist who wanted power for himself, mainly. Your current leaders are what? Do you think yugo nostalgics are fools? Wait for the euro fanatics then.
Enemies of nations were there when nations came into existence and a nation will always have the "weakness" of nostalgics and all other kinds of "ineffective" people populating them. But that's exactly what makes a nation superior to any kind of ideolgical or imperial manufacture. Bear with it.
conumishu
April 11th, 2011 at 11:25 am
When was Finland invaded twice!? It was costly for the Russians alright, but they won and got the territory they wanted.
I will have to mention Milch once more. It wasn't a matter of debate, Germany just hadn't and couldn't build enough military material and of the types already drawn but just entering production BEFORE 1943. From a military planner view there was no hesitation, you attack before, you gamble more than you can afford.
Talking about singular events, one could speculate that if the Skoda factories would have been thoroughly destroyed, razed, before Germans took over, there would have been no USSR invasion at all. The capacities there made the difference for the 1941-42, otherwise even the feeble models of panzers which made the bulk of German army in 1941 would have been in terrible short supply.
conumishu
April 11th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Plus, they needed the oil fields and/or to forbid the Russians acces to them. Which meant the main thrust should have been in the south. Since from Stalingrad graveyard to Baku there's a lot of territory left, being at the outskirts of Moscow but so far from the oil fields, looks like a task far from being accomplished.
Nebojsa Malic
April 11th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Believe me, I did have it as "Draza" in the original, even with the proper "z", but it ended up getting changed for some reason. Could've been the spell checker on the editorial end. I'll see if we can get that fixed.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
April 11th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Oh really? That wasn't the feeling I got when I got over fences to steal pomegranates from local farmers. The feeling I got was that they'd rather have Serbs than Albanian organised crime, the option of being fully independent from Serbia, Bulgaria or Albania being somewhat as an unachievable ideal.
justine
April 11th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The premise, that the Serbs have to fight all their neighbors in perpetuity until all of them are dead is absurd and so is the idea that any Serbs that use any other tactic are traitors. Thus the tunnelvision view of history.
Stanislav Kalenic
April 12th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Exactly so. The plan Barbarossa was first laid out in December 1940, just after the annexation of the Sudetan Lands and Austria and shortly after marching into Poland. The idea of attack on Russia can be found in 1925.
As early as 1925, Hitler suggested in Mein Kampf ("My Struggle") that he would invade the Soviet Union, asserting that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials) and that these should be sought in the east. Nazi racial ideology cast the Soviet Union as populated by "Untermenschen" ethnic Slavs ruled by their "Jewish Bolshevik" masters.
The operation Barbarossa was badly delayed by the unplanned attack on Yugoslavia which pushed the start of the operation from April 1941 to June 22, 1941, resulting in German troops advancing in their Summer uniforms including short sleeved shirts and shorts. By September first snow in Russia started and the advancing German forces were not even half way to Moscow.
The above facts are irrefutable and easy to check, for any objective and reasonable individual.
Stanislav Kalenic
April 12th, 2011 at 6:52 am
To be absolutely precise it was December 18, 1940 when the Operation Barbarossa plan was proposed here is the original document: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6…
Obviously the attack on Yugoslavia must have had some serious effects in the delay of the plan's execution.
Nebojsa Malic
April 12th, 2011 at 10:38 am
There is one major flaw in this argument, but it's a pretty big one. Namely, the attack on Yugoslavia was a sideshow in the Greek campaign. It was tacked onto Operation "Marita" after the March 27 coup (unless there was a contingency plan, simply updated for the occasion). The conquest of Greece took till the end of April. Yugoslavia was done with by April 17. So to claim that Yugoslavia is to blame for the delay of "Barbarossa" requires us to completely ignore Greece.
Jovan M.
April 12th, 2011 at 11:28 am
So what you're saying is that it was the Serbians fault that they suffered genocide at the hands of the Ustaša (because the Ustaša only formed as a result of Serbian policies)? Besides justifying, and thus condoning, genocide, which shows the kind of person you are, the rest of your article is riddled with lies, tired propaganda, and the same old diatribe of pointing an accusative finger: "they (Serbs) don't like to admit the reality of their crimes" and "Serbs use Hitler to whitewash their own crimes"; with out ever actually mentioning any crimes.
And your theory that the Ustaša was formed as a direct result of Serbian (Alexander's) policies, is incorrect. One of the major ideological influences of the Ustaša movement was the 19th century Croatian activist and nationalist Ante Starčević. Starčević promoted Croatian unity and independence and was extremely anti-Serbian. His goal was a Greater Croatia that included territories inhabited by Bosniaks, Serbs, and Slovenes (Bosnia, Slovenia, as well as Serbian territory, basically from Croatia all the way to Belgrade). He considered Bosnian Muslims and Serbs as Croats who had been converted to Islam and Orthodox Christianity. As Sabrina P. Ramet states in "The Three Yugoslavias: State-building and Legitimation, 1918-2005", "the Ustaše deliberately sought to represent Starčević as being connected to their views".
Furthermore, Ante Pavelić, the leader of the Ustaše, "had been in negotiations with Fascist Italy since 1927 that included advocating a territory-for-sovereignty swap in which he would tolerate Italy annexing its claimed territory in Dalmatia in exchange for Italy supporting the sovereignty of an independent Croatia ("Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritarian Rulers of South-Eastern Europe, Bernd Fischer"). This shows that Pavelić and the Ustaša movement was at work years before the assassination of Stjepan Radić and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Your lack or historical knowledge is nauseating and your stupidity annoying, but your eagerness to justify genocide is just plain shameful!
Stanislav Kalenic
April 12th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Another major major point (closely connected with the Greek campaign "Marita". In the words of Greek supreme commander General Papagos:
"This, incidentally, disposes of the German assertion that they were forced to attack us only in order to expel the British from Greece, for they knew that, if they had not marched into Bulgaria, no British troops would have landed in Greece. Their assertion was merely an excuse on their part to enable them to plead extenuating circumstances in justification of their aggression against a small nation, already entangled in a war against a Great Power. But, irrespective of the presence or absence of British troops in the Balkans, German intervention would have taken place firstly because the Germans had to secure the right flank of the German Army which was to operate against Russia according to the plans already prepared in autumn 1940, and secondly because the possession of the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula commanding the eastern end of the Mediterranean was of great strategic importance for Germany's plan of attacking Great Britain and the line of Imperial communications with the East."
This demonstrates very clearly that the Russian offensive was a key point for the Nazis and all other (minor and inconsequential factors/countries, were to be neutralized or conquered – therefore the German entanglement in Yugoslavia and Greece both DID exactly as I postulated earlier. Forced the Germans into an unpredictable delay.
In a more ancient sense "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" (Latin: Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius)".
Where was the German Wermacht to see that they were making the same error Napoleon made? They were full of themselves and got accustomed to quick painless victories.
Stanislav Kalenic
April 12th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Another few key points, we both overlooked.
a) Hitler's closeness with Hajj Amin al Husayni The Mufti of Jerusalem
b) the internal Fascists in Yugoslavia (the Ustasi and Domobrani)
c) the Bosnian Muslim formation of the SS Waffen Hanjar division
d) the Albanian Muslim formation of the Waffen SS Skanderbey division
No wonder German command was so relaxed about the attack on Yugoslavia and an easy passage to Greece.
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti's nephew, regarded until his death in 2001 as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories.
That ought to be enough from the geopolitical standpoint in 1941 – which is a very difficult topic that you presented most intelligently and with relative ease (I hope). Some of our major difficulties today (in more ways than one) do have roots in 1941. But in all truth we must be aware of the fact that many of the Nazi plans were made in 1933, 1935, 1937 and 1940 – many of which were just put to use in 1941. So the causative element can not be over-stated.
Stanislav Kalenic
April 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
The "tiny Germany" had over 80 million people after at the end of 1941 – I can't think of a country much tinier than that. Where did you get the word "tiny"? What are you talking about – do you have any idea what you are saying?
Stanislav Kalenic
April 13th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Nebojsa,
I think it's time that you and I agreed on the German military need to keep Yugoslavia and Greece from a possible Russin outflanking them from the south (through Bessarabia, the Black Sea fleet could have sailed into Greece and Bulgaria, so it was vital to their military goals to secure their right flank as in Hitler's Blitz-krieg tradition the attack on Russia was frontal and full force from today's Poland, Checkoslovakia and Romania.
This move could have been neutralized by a strong Russian deployment from the Germany's south (their right flank) going north from Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia (Yugoslavia) – therefore a serious need was established to pin the local Balkan countries down as much as possible.
Small Greek army was badly underestimated by the Nazi's since they drove the Italians back to Valona (their port of disembarkation), and proved difficult to control – resulting in operation Marita – and (in your words) Yugoslavia was added as a sidekick to the operation Marita which had far larger importance than only to conquer Yugoslavia and Greece.
Even as "secure" as the Nazi General Staff thought they would be – it shows a major blunder – their southern front consisted of only one division (first panzer Grenadiers under Von Kleist/von Runstedt) – but Russians were more concerned with the fall of Moscow and resistance at Smolensk, Kiev and Novogorod (prior to entering Leningrad. As it turns out those were indeed the fiercest battles, and the Germans proved to have been astute planners. Combined with the bitter winter and Russians assessment that there will not be much of a war on their far Eastern front (Japan, Manchuria – under Japanese occupation) – the Russian troops were slowly deployed to the Russia's western front and caused the first German collapse.
conumishu
April 13th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@Stanislav Kalenic
(tried to post this as a reply to one of your previous comments but there was some malfunction)
Nothing was so clear cut. Not by far.
The "pro-fascists" countries were very pro-their own interests. On one hand you have traditionally siding with Germany countries, like Hungary and Bulgaria or one like Romania who had to choose between the devil, to fight devil's brother, or the other way around. But neither Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria were so "pro-fascist". Horthy was Hungary's solution after trying the red revolution card in 1919 and failed. But Horthy's was a mild right-wing version compared with Salazsy, installed in 1944 by a German backed coup and only as a desperate measure. In Romania, the Iron Guard was part of the government for 5 months until it "rebelled", in January 1941, and was crushed instantly by the army with the Germans (already present with troops in Romania under agreement) watching idly. They had no choice, they needed the army not the ragtag "enthusiasts".
Observator
April 13th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Serbians helping Serbians
Tanja Topic, a political analyst in Bosnia-Herzegovina’s second largest city Banja Luka accused Dodik of “trying to destabilize the country.”
RVucko
April 14th, 2011 at 12:55 am
What is your point ? You are out of line as usually.
Stanislav Kalenic
April 14th, 2011 at 9:51 am
If you know the political background, the source of ethnic frictions, the geopolitics and the prior history it is pretty Clear cut. Neither Italy, nor Japan had any common benefit from Germany yet they were an integral part of the Axis powers. Even the "white Russians" who were under German attack had plenty of German sympathizers. What point is NOT clear cut exactly – I bet I can illustrate it and explain it in fine detail.
conumishu
April 15th, 2011 at 10:10 am
You probably can, but I honestly didn't understand the Italian and Japanese comparison. No one put a gun to their head, they voluntarily aligned with those who perceived as useful allies for achieving a goal. Smaller countries didn't have this luxury. Italy after the successful allied invasion was a better example.
It is not clear why "pro-fascist" (according to you) regimes in several countries were so fanatical devoted to "the cause", while Yugoslavia and Greece had the liberty to hesitate, obviously because they weren't so "pro-fascist". Constraints were present in all these countries and they came from more than one direction. Falling under one influence or another doesn't automatically transform the dominant political trend into a genuine adherence to the master's ideology. Too easy to explain the sides picked in those circumstances by presumed genuine adherence or aversion to an ideology. Real politik, anyone?
Stanislav Kalenic
April 15th, 2011 at 11:35 am
Excellent point, in that case you should rephrase that "to you it not clear cut why some pro-fascist countries elected that route" – although the evidence is abundant. The Mufti of Jerusalem Husseini was also very strongly pro-fascist (his hope was to get rid of the Jews in the Holy land. Mussolini was hoping to keep Ethopia and Lybia as their colonies under German alliance once the Allies were defeated, while the Japanese needed a constant and UNinterupted supply of raw materials so they needed to be on the winning side as they already colonised Manchuria, and were on the move to grab Burma, Malasia and other South Asian lands. Is that simple, or is that simple? When something is unclear to you, limit yourself to the issues that you can support and argument, never mind any blanket statements "there is no CLEAR CUT this or that" – there is plenty of CLEAR CUT everything in life.
Chas
April 15th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Sure the the extra 5 weeks not invading Yugoslavia and Greece might have allowed more time to Barbarosa. But then the African campaign which, but for an absence of any airforce at Alamein, would have had the Germans walking to the Suez and the oil fields, would have never occurred at all. Italy would have been out of the picture by 1942. (And anyway the winter might have started 5 weeks earlier for that matter) What nobody has mentioned that even though the Germans got to the suburbs of Moscow they lost nearly half a million from an veteran army getting there, an irreplaceable loss as it turned out. The individual and combined skill of the Germain soldiery would never attain the same high level in subsequent years whereas the Red Army would keep getting better as well as bigger. Oddly, the oil wars the "West" is currently waging around the Mediterranean and the Mid East recall a similar strategy that Raeder and the German Admiral staff proposed to Hitler instead of his suicidal plunge into the Soviet Union: to occupy the whole of France, force a reluctant Franco to join Germany, capture Gibraltar and Malta and thence the Suez and the war would have been his
conumishu
April 17th, 2011 at 10:23 am
"Is that simple, or is that simple?"
No, it isn't. The Japanese were desperate. The general consensus among their military and political leaders was they can't win against US and attacking British and Dutch possesions in SE Asia would result in US intervention. They only hoped the speed of their conquests and the costs for US woud allow them to grab a favorable peace.
They also had no intention to attack USSR, they didn't seem to care about a German victory which their attack in the far east would have certainly helped. They kept a massive military force to defend themselves while the Russians recognised the logic of their secret informations and moved a lot of their troops against Germany.
Japan was under embargo. What uninterrupted supply when they had major difficulties, including fuel for their fleet enough to last only for a few months?
The winning side? The Germans defeated only France and only on the continent. Japan was worried about Russia, was involved without hope for decisive victory in China so it surely had nothing better to do but get on the winning side attacking US!?
They indeed had the choice not to. With a price – giving up their great power status. They didn't give up, no one ever does, authoritarian or democratic.
Of course Italy wanted to keep its colonies or even grab more. What's different about Sarkozy and EU behind him? The language.
So don't sell me the "pro fascist" stubborness as a substitute explanation for imperialism, ideologies may vary, the greed and hubris of those who use them don't.
Observator
April 18th, 2011 at 4:09 am
The point is that Tanja Topic is for continued occupation and enslavement of her fellow Serbs.
Correct, I have been out of line for as long as I can remember in-spite of the very best efforts on the part of the regime to enlighten me. Perhaps I am unteachable and never managed to obtain conformity license. Will keep trying.