Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia

Führer Directive No. 25

I have just created Führer Directive No. 25, mostly using the layout of already existing Führer Directive No. 30 as an example. If someone wants to change/add/remove something in the new article, and to somehow improve it, they are more than free to do so. Especially when it comes to this section, which I didn't really have enough time to work on. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Short description

Until recently, this article's short description read "Resistance to Axis occupation, 1941–1945". Fellow editor @Llikesruff changed it to "Resistance to Axis partition, 1941–1945" before I reverted the change with the following edit summary:

Undid revision 1353356076 by Llikesruff (talk) it was partitioned but more so it was also occupied. Partition happened early on in the war. Resistance was against occupation, which took place over a span of 4 years. "Resistance to Axis occupation" is a much better and more precise descriptor.

— Special:Diff/1353388908 (Vipz)

Afterwards, Llikesruff changed it to "Resistance to Axis partition and occuaption, 1941–1945". I don't think this is an improvement. Partition is a series of state and border changes in the aftermath of the invasion of Yugoslavia; it was not occurring persistently throughout the whole war. It forms part of the wider occupation, which took place over a span of 4 years. Yugoslav Partisans and the Allies fought against occupation of Yugoslavia, not against partition specifically. I think the previous wording needs to be restored. – Vipz (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The article title "World War II in Yugoslavia" is sufficiently self-explanatory, and so a short description is not needed per WP:SDNONE (or, alternately, "1941–1945 conflict in Yugoslavia"). Summarizing/describing the article as "resistance" or "occupation" or "partition" places the focus on only one aspect of the events of 1941–1945. Compare "none" at Algeria in World War II, Argentina during World War II, World War II in the Basque Country, Belgium in World War II, etc., etc. Doremo (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. There were supporters, there was resistance, and other stuff. The title is self-explanatory. @Llikesruff needs to stop edit warring, there will be consequences. Ponor (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Fifth column attribution

Hi @OyMosby, Your edit here replaced the direct Tomasevich p.63 attribution potential fifth column risks existed among Ustaše sympathisers with an anonymous "some scholars have proposed" construction without citations. Tomasevich p.63 makes a specific direct observation that should be attributed to him directly. The "some scholars" and "others state" constructions fail WP:V as neither is attributed to a named source. Terzić (1982) has been removed as redundant, the same point is covered by Tomasevich. I have reframed the Djilas passage using his exact words from p.138, "enthusiasm for defending the country was greater among Serbs", which accurately represents his argument and is consistent with Tomasevich and the Italian military intelligence report cited in Sidoti. Thank you KeystoneUEA (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I replaced it as it implies only Ustase sympathizers when other sources including Tomasevich 2001 and Terzic 1982 bring up Slovenian and Croatian in general. As not all of them that were unsatisfied with Yugoslavia were necessarily pro Ustase. Also it is important to note that there isn’t a direct agreement on how much this 5th column is at fault for the failed defense. They both mention a host of other reasons the Yugoslav Army struggled. Your addition of “ enthusiasm for defending the country was greater among Serbs” while removing “states that Croatian desertion is overplayed,” seems redundant as you already added Tomasevich’s point on that fact. This is why I didn’t see the need to add it again. However there was no mention of Croatian sizable contributions in the paragraph or counter to claims laying blame on large Croatian and Slovenian desertions so I added that with sources. It’s important to ensure we follow WP:V as well, I agree 100%, but also ensuring there is some balance as the paragraph was missing some context. Currently you removed a number of sourced additions that don’t seem redundant or irrelevant so I’m a bit puzzled. Also mentioning Djilas’assessment about Croatian actions isn’t arguing against Tomasevichs statement on Serbs having the strongest drive to defend Yugoslavia compared to others at all so your implication of that is confusing me too. I was not looking to downplay Serb contributions at all as very much self-evident in my edits.

To quote from Djilas’ writings: “ Despite the considerable evidence he supplies in support of his thesis, he seems to exaggerate the importance for the deteat of Yugoslavia of Croatian unwillingness to fight. Some Croatian units did desert the Royal Yugoslav Army, but many demonstrated their readiness to resist the Ger-mans. 48 The majority of Croatian officers in the armed forces remained loyal until 10 April, when the NDH was proclaimed. After that they judged that Yugoslavia had ceased to exist as a state and no longer commanded their loyalty.”

“Enthusiasm for defending the country was greater among Serbs, but defeatism spread quickly through the higher ranks of the Serbian-dominated officer corps. The chief reasons for the defeat were lack of energetic political and military leadership, the army's comparatively poor equipment, and its old-fashioned approach to strategy and tactics. The army reflected the weakness of the entire political system''.”

Also I am struggling to find an online acces to Tomasevich’s 1975 book on The Chetniks. Do you happen to know where I can find it? Pinging @Peacemaker67: who has extensive experience with his works for access tips as well. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply @OyMosby.

On the fifth column wording: Tomasevich p.63 identifies the fifth column risk as coming from the Ustaše organisation and its sympathisers, the pro-Bulgarian Macedonian population, the Albanian population in Kosovo, and the Volksdeutsche in Vojvodina. He does not use the term "Croatian, Slovenian and German fifth column". That said you raise a fair point that not all Croats and Slovenes unsatisfied with Yugoslavia were necessarily Ustaše sympathisers. I am open to refining the wording to reflect that provided it is sourced to specific pages.

The "some scholars have proposed" and "others state" constructions have no citations and no named scholars. The fifteen pages across three sources on the following sentence makes basically the claim unverifiable.

"Croatian desertion is overplayed" does not appear in Djilas p.138. Djilas is critiquing Terzić, not making an independent claim about desertion being overplayed.

"Enthusiasm for defending the country was greater among Serbs" is Djilas's own conclusion on p.138 and is not redundant with Tomasevich, it is an independent scholarly confirmation from a different source.

The passage about defeatism in the officer corps and generals seeking cessation of hostilities is already covered by the existing sentence "Most senior commanders, convinced that resistance was hopeless, focused on surrender rather than continued defence." The passage about subpar equipment and outdated tactics overlaps with the structural weaknesses already established in the opening sentences of the paragraph. KeystoneUEA (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn’t your initial point in your second to last paragraph of “independent scholarly confirmation from a different source” apply to what you said in your last paragraph? Also copyright issues arise if we copy sentences exactly from the source aside from using quotations from certain parts. They can be rewritten so long as the meaning is faithful to the source. So for example, the sentence from Tomasevich about Serbs having the strongest resistance drive can be sourced to both him and Djilad as they both affirm the same point. Much like not needing to reiterate Djilad’s points about equipment, tactics and other weaknesses even though he is a separate independent confirmation. The “some scholars” portion I will have to double check as I pulled it from another article. OyMosby (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

On copyright: "Ustaše sympathisers" is Tomasevich's precise ideological characterisation, replacing it with "Croatian fifth column" substitutes an ideological category with an ethnic one. These are not equivalent terms and the article should reflect what the source actually say.

On the consistency point: you are right, I will remove "enthusiasm for defending the country was greater among Serbs" since Tomasevich already covers that. KeystoneUEA (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t mean two words being copyrighted, I was referring to the Djilas passage. I was under the impression you felt that the whole sentence in the article had to word-for-word match the sentence in the book. Like a direct quote without the quotation marks. For example changing “increasing over time as Italian influence waned” to “growing at Italy's expense.” to match the words directly of Tomasevich seems not required per say. Your example about the fifth column is the opposite of what I mean as Ustase sympathizers and croatian fifth column are not directly interchangeable. We agree on that. OyMosby (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)