Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia

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 and Cohen  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)
 * 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. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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,


 * "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 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. 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 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, : 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 . 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)
 * 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 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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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. 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)

After the surrender and before the invasion was even over
, somehow I just knew you weren't going to abide by WP:BRD. I reverted you because you created a terrible sentence: After the surrender, Yugoslavia was subsequently divided amongst Germany, Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria, with most of Serbia being occupied by Germany and Croatia occupied by Germany and Italy establishing the joint puppet sate the Independent State of Croatia putting in power the Italian-backed fascist leader Ante Pavelić and his fascist terrorist organization the Ustaše before the invasion was even over. Where to begin? It's overlong. We start with "After the surrender" and end with "before the invasion was even over". We say "fascist" twice. It was originally two sentences and you've made it worse. It isn't my job to clean it up. It is your job to make your every edit improve the encyclopaedia. This doesn't. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * “, somehow I just knew you weren't going to abide by WP:BRD. I reverted you because you created a terrible sentence:”


 * It’s clear you aren’t looking for a good faith discussion. I came to the talk page as you asked before even seeing your comment written in parallel to mine. So you are wrong. Also I am not-under 1RR. I didn’t revert and walk away I explained my edit here. Proof is in the edit history on the talk page. Follow BRD and EXPLAIN why you see an issue with my edit. Practice what you preach. You reverted me without any explanation other than a generic “not an improvement”. Ot seems you are nitpicking on very minor things. OyMosby (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ” We start with "After the surrender" and end with "before the invasion was even over". I didn’t add those. In your revert you can see. So really instead of removing the extra “fascist” which is used to describe two different things you could have just deleted the “extra” instead of this passive aggressive spectacle.OyMosby (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It was two sentences before. As I said, it isn't my job to clean up your mess. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is your job to be constructive and “clean up people’s messes” rather than act like this. Editors constantly improve upon each other’s work rather than road block. You could have simply said these few things in the diff. We all constantly improve each other’s edits not wipe them out and go “nah not good” with any clue as to what wasn’t good. But it seems you specifically have a bone to pick with me considering how you greeted me on this talk page. I will fix the complicated three second catastrophe I apparently caused.OyMosby (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. OyMosby (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You are only making it worse. Read my initial edit summary: "please explain the issue". If you explain what you think was wrong with the original wording, perhaps I, a native speaker of English, can fix it. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it worse? No longer the conflicting "After the surrender" and “before the invasion is even over being in the same sentence. Fascist only mentioned once. What else is there? My edit added extra information from the source. Evidently that was what I saw was missing...OyMosby (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I am a native speaker of English as well. Do I make mistakes and not proofread? I am guilty of that yes. But I do abide by BLD and believe in respectful discussion. I’m editing on a phone so I am prone to grammar or misspellings so please pardon mistakes I make at the moment. I agree with you about the conflict sentence. Not sure about the fascist part. Italy did not establish NDH on their own nor appoint Pavelic on their own. The section was a disaster to begin with. OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to make it known you are incorrect in your negative preexisting view of my character. You don’t seem to know me as I edited on the talk page the same time you did. I got blocked as the page changed. We were two minutes apart. I don’t walk away when someone asks to talk on the talk page. So yes, I take such assumptions personally as an insult. And tend to act passive aggressive in return myself. OyMosby (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Without German military presence on Croatian territory, no proclamation of a Croatian puppet state would have successfully formed" -> did Tomasevich say that?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC))
 * It’s a fact. Issues? Also why hound? OyMosby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s a fact. Issues? Also why hound? OyMosby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Improving this article
I plan to get this article to GA sometime in the future. So, I have read the article in detail and I have taken notes on how the article can be improved. I've probably missed several things but here are my notes. I split problems I have noticed into two groups, a quite small group about problems with the text and a larger group concerning references. Problems with the text Problems with the references
 * In the Preparation section there is this sentence: "On 1 April, Yugoslavia redesignated its Assault Command as the Chetnik Command, named after the Serb guerrilla forces from World War I, which had resisted the Central Powers. The command was intended to lead a guerrilla war if the country was occupied". This needs to be clarified, what was the Assault Command and what did redesignation mean for the command.
 * I believe the Aftermath section should be expanded to include better summary of the resistance and end of the war in Yugoslavia
 * In summary of Royal Yugoslav armed forces section article says: "Yugoslav forces consisted of more than 33 divisions", while in the Equipment and organization subsection it says: "Yugoslav Army fielded 28 infantry divisions, three cavalry divisions and 35 independent regiments", but 28 plus 3 is 31. Meanwhile, Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia article says that VKJ consisted of 33 divisions. This needs to be clarified and made consistent.
 * Terzić 1982 references: There are two of them and two volumes are cited in the books section but it's not specified which footnote refers to what volume
 * Niehorster 2013 references: There are four different footnotes citing four different (I am guessing this because 2013a, 2013b etc is used) by Leo Niehorster, they do not have corresponding work in Books or Articles sections. I searched the web and I haven't found any work by Niehorster published in 2013. Fixed.
 * Fatutta and Covelli 1975 reference: One of the footnotes needs a page so I tried to search for the cited article (1941: Attack on Yugoslavia in The International Magazine of Armies and Weapons) but I have not even found anything about this journal on the internet, any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
 * I have hard copies of this journal. I will retrieve them and update the footnotes.Oz Cro (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Conways 1980 footnote: I am suspecting this refers to Chesnau's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 which is cited once on the page, I might be wrong tho so this needs to be investigated.
 * I have a hard copy and can confirm that Roger Chesneau was the editor of the 1980 publication Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946.Oz Cro (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition, there are a few unsourced parts that have all been labeled with cn. I believe this is pretty much it, I will work on this but I will appreciate any help and/or opinions. I would also appreciate any other suggestions on improving this article Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Geschichte footnote: Geschichte simply means "history" in German so it's likely that this footnote refers to Gretschko's Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges but this needs to be checked before it's changed.
 * Robert J Edwards's Invasion of Yugoslavia-waffen ss Captain Fritz Klingenberg and the capture of Belgrade during World War page 173 of this work is cited but the only thing I managed to find is an article of the same name on historynet.com but that article is written by Colin D. Heaton, this is quite confusing
 * Enrico Cernuschi, Le operazioni aeronavali contro la Jugoslavia, 6–8 aprile 1941, in Storia Militare reference: Storia Militare means Military History in Italian (according to google translate) so that's probably a journal but I didn't manage to find anything about it online so I'd appreciate help from someone who speaks Italian. There are is one more similar reference from the same journal (if it's a journal).
 * I wish you good luck with promoting this important article to GA status. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, OakMapping (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Invasion of Yugoslavia lines of attack Why We Fight no. 5.jpg

Unfinished conversation
Hi, Per your edit diff and explanation I looked at the talk page discussion which spanned a few years and was all over the place with older users who have been now banned. So maybe this discussion can be simpler and focused on one topic. Second look at the talk page and that old section, and cited sources, Terzic is the only one claiming this theory of Croat/Slovene fifth column being one of the major reasons for the failings of the Yugoslavian army to keep hold of it’s defenses and instead fall untimely. Tomasevich and others state that the Fifth-Column were not a good reason for the failure of Yugoslavia’s defense efforts. (I am not debating if they are sizable but if they were a part or more reason for the Yugoslav army’s failings, as this seemed to have been a derailing confusion few years back) So staying “scholars” is misleading as one says they were a reason but multiple scholars say otherwise. If I am missing these other historians stating otherwise then please do correct me and add them to the article then as well. If it was said on the talk page, then it should be cited on the article not just the talk page then. Otherwise, it should not be given undue weight in the intro. Terzic is a reputable source though it is cited even on the historians Wikipedia page that they may have biased tendencies including this very claim. So again seems like a WP Weight issue. I’ll tag as well since they were part of that original discussion too. I think the three of us would be able to come to a conclusion. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The current wording is a neutral, balanced and accurate representation of what is written in the reliable source material used in the article. See, for example, Vuchinich (1969), who happens to argue against the fifth column hypothesis: "...as many writers and defenders of the old regime would like us to believe." Note the term "many", not simply "Terzić". And Terzić certainly wasn't a defender of the old regime, meaning this hypothesis has been advanced by scholars across the ideological spectrum. I'm really not sure why this debate is being reopened. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I didn’t see this mentioned in that older talk page discussion. At least not from my skimming of it. Still. Terzic is the only cited scholar. “ many writers and defenders of the old regime” could refer to anyone. How can that be concretely deemed as “Scholars” (multiple) as written in this article?. For the off-the-cuff statement, Should it then be “ Vuchinich writes that “Writers and defenders of the old regime” propose that..” then if being neutral and transparent? The last discussion on this talk page was all over the place and never had a conclusion as it seemd to get derailed by the Mikola user. What I really don’t get is how citation of a number of these “writers and defenders” are not needed then? It seems like a reach. Doesn’t seem neutral or balanced given one cited scholar vs multiple opposing. It doesn’t appear as a common point proposed by multiple scholars or historians. So seems incorrect to state multiple scholars propose it. FYI, I am not disregarding Terzic. Just the appearance of him being the only mentioned proponent. OyMosby (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the wording of the section is very good and it probably doesn't prioritise the causes very well. The reality is that the Yugoslavs were doomed from the outset, regardless of what they did or didn't do. They had no more chance than the Belgians or Dutch against the Germans. But if you have an alternative wording (with citations) I suggest you propose it here and we can workshop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree wording is not well done. My point is the lack of citations supporting the claimg that plural “Scholars propose” that the fifth column was one of the reasons for the failings of the Yugoslav Army when only one source, Terzic is cited claiming so and multiple historians say otherwise, one even criticizing Terzic’s motives on his claim. So saying multiple scholars propose it is misleading and seems like undue weight. In fact undue for mentioning the fifth column in the intro in general. As for another notable aspect as mentioned in your reply, In fact going further by your example of the Belgians or Dutch, It may make more sense not to mention general theories for the failings at all in the intro. I was not proposing a new intro, but correcting the plural Scholars supporting the fifth column theory and that it seems odd to put in the intro. It’s all fine for the aftermath analysis section of the article. But intro seems overly focused on the column considering the balance weight of the opposing views. Of course still fine for the article as one source doesn’t erase the other. But for the intro again seems undue. My edit yesterday seemed simple enough an edit (also the “questioned” part would not be needed as well) but held off for this talk. Do you agree with going forth with my edit? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what AB has to say first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I take it you agree with AB in that there are multiple other scholars besides Terzic that propose blame on the Fifth Columns as a (or the) reason for the military loss? OyMosby (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but the Tomasevich (not Vucinich, he was the editor of the 1969 book not the author of the chapter in question) bit on the fifth column bears discussion. There are no footnotes to this statement in the book, so there is no indication that any academics were advancing that theory, just "writers and defenders of the old regime". They could well have been various Serbs in the post-war diaspora justifying their performance post-facto. I certainly think a passing mention of this in a 1969 book isn't deserving of the weight it is currently being given. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are on the same page then. Yes, as I stated Tomasevich goes into discussion about that Fifth column and states that it had little effect on the outcome. I see it is well discussed in the article. But seems to be given in the intro the weight as if multiple historians push this theory as if a common mainstream idea when I see only one RS cited historian claim it as a factor. That was all. It seems undue for the lead itself. I was not saying to remove from the article in total just to be clear that is. Absolutely not. It does deserve discussion in the article as that sizable column was there as Tomasevich goes in detail about. So looks like we agree. Indeed, let’s wait then on AB’s input on this and how to go about the matter. OyMosby (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the belated response, was away for a bit. In short, yes. There are other scholars who shares Terzic's view. For example, France Friedman writes: "Some analysts blame a Croatian fifth column for weakening Yugoslavia and aiding Germany's advance." She cites W. Victor Madej as an example of such a scholar. Again, this suggests that it isn't merely Terzic who proposed this hypothesis. I don't see how it is undue to compare and contrast the views of some scholars (Terzic, Madej, etc) with the views of others (Tomasevich, Vucinich, etc). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional Photograph
I added a photograph taken of King Peter II during the evacuation the Yugoslav government on the 14th or 15th April 1941. He is seated with the Vazduhoplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije (VVKJ) or the Royal Yugoslav Airforce. This photograph was taken on the day King Peter II was flown out of Yugoslavia.

I am not certain of the exact date, and would like to know if this was the 14th or the 15th of April 1941. I am also uncertain of the location, I presume it is at Belgrade Airport, however it may have been a different airfield.

If any historians can elaborate with details from other sources please add further information to this image. ANTHRO2022 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The photo isn’t properly licensed. Where did you get it from? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)