Talk:Serbian campaign

Alfred Redl
Any comment on the effect his betrayal had on the initial campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.104.63 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cause
there were many contributing factors which caused WWI. Beginnig a paragraph by placing the blame on Serbian officials when this argument has never been proven is not entirely encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.233.168 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Atrocities
Atrocities

This is not propaganda. Reiss is a German. The other source is the Austrian historian Anton Holzer(click on "Download Article (PDF, 173 KB)" for the whole article). The photos were taken by the Austrian army itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.104.99 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Orders of the Austro-Hungarian army
The Austro-Hungarian army ordered the massacring of the Serbian civilian population.

"K. u. K. 9 Korps Kommando. Ruma, 14th August 1914. By order of A. O. K. Op. Kr. 259. In consequence of the hostile attitude of the population of Klenak(1) and Chabatz, hostages will again be taken in all the Serbian villages, etc., even those situated on this side of the frontier, which are or will be occupied by the troops. These hostages are to be killed at once in case of any crime being committed by the inhabitants against the armed forces (treason) and the enemy villages are to be burnt. The Commander of the Army Corps reserves the power to burn the villages on our own territory. This order is to be communicated without delay to the population by the civil authorities. Hortstein, general.

(1) Klenak is in Hungarian territory."

"K. u. K. 9 Korps Kommando. Directions for conduct towards the population in Serbia. The war brings us into a country inhabited by a population animated by fanatical hate against us, into a country where murder, as the catastrophe of Sarajevo has proved, is recognised even by the upper classes who glorify it as heroism. Towards such a population all humanity and all kindness of heart are out of place; they are even harmful, for any consideration, such as it is sometimes possible to show in war, would in this case endanger our own troops. Consequently I order that during the whole course of the war the greatest severity, the greatest harshness and the greatest mistrust be observed towards everyone. In the first place I will not allow inhabitants of the enemy's country, armed but not in uniform, who are met either alone or in groups, to be taken prisoners. No consideration is to prevent their execution. ... In going through a village, they (i. e. the hostages) are to be conducted if possible until the queue (sic) has passed through, and they will be executed without any question if a single shot is fired on the troops in the neighbourhood. The officers and soldiers will keep a rigourous watch over every inhabitant and will not allow him to put his hand in his pocket, which probably conceals a weapon. In general they will observe the greatest severity and harshness. The ringing of bells is absolutely forbidden and the bells arc to be unhung; in general every steeple is to be occupied by a patrol. Divine service is only to be permitted at the request of the inhabitants and only in the open air in front of the church. No sermon is to be permitted on any condition. A platoon ready to fire will be kept near the church during divine service. Every inhabitant who is found outside a village, especially in the woods, will be looked upon as a member of a band who has hidden his weapons, which we have no time to look for. Such people are to be executed if they appear in the slightest degree suspicious. Once more discipline, dignity, but the greatest severity and harshness." http://www.archive.org/details/howaustriahungar00reis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.91.20 (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Losses in 1914
Austria-Hungary: 227,000

Serbia: 70,000

Source: Spencer C. Tucker, The Great War 1914-1918, p. 49.

Nope, true numbers for losses (roughly) A-H: 260.000 Ser:170.000 Source:Savo Skoko&Petar Opacic "Vojvoda Stepa Stepanovic" Austro Hungarian force against Serbia in 1914 mostly numbered just over 200.000 and was at no time over 250.000 strong. Exception to this is perhaps the very first weeks of the war when the AH. 2nd army was in the area, before being sent to Gallicia against the Russians, but only 3 of it`s divisions (4.th corps) saw action against the Serbs during the battle of Cer. The A-H 6. th army wasn`t engaged due to bad plan, so the numerical advantage over the Serbs was hardly felt at all. Perhaps if all troops rotated through the theatre+reinforcements were counted it would ammount to 450.000 troops.

Veljko Stevanovich 30. 4. 2006. 21:07 UTC+1

 I understand your point, Austrian armies 5 and 6 added together are around 200,000 but it is the case that the "swing" Austrian armies (Keegan identifies it as "B-Staffel") were involved, briefly, at the start of the campaign. Austrian 2nd Army was involved in the fighting up until August 20 before heading to Galacia. Fighting started on August 12. Should 2nd Army be counted? Should only part of 2nd army be counted? Anyways as to numbers:

T.N. Dupuy (Encyclopedia of Military History, 1975) lists: Austrian losses of 227,000 out of 450,000 engaged. Serbian losses: 170,000 out of 400,000 engaged.

Cyril Falls (The Great War, 1960) same as Dupuy (and likely the source for Dupuy).

John Keegan (The First World War, 1998): Austrian side: 40,000 "lost" out of 200,000. No figures for Serbs. Note Keegan's use of 200,000 (the size of Austrian Armies 5 and 6).

When Keegan says "lost" I think he means dead. When Dupuy says "Casualties" I'm sure he means: dead, wounded, sick, POW, and missing. So both figures could be correct. 40,000 dead out of 220,000 injured/sick/dead/POW/missing isn't an unlikely ratio for WWI. I must say, that the figures quoted by Dupuy and Falls do seem high to me. But Falls did the research, not me. Since losses in 99% of the articles about wars are casualty rates NOT just dead, I think it is reasonable to leave the figures at the high side, unless you think the 40,000 IS casualties not the dead in which case there has been a serious down-grading in the numbers over the last 30 years....

User:Cglassey May 3, 2006 

Yes, B Staffel = 2nd AH army. Unfortenutely, I have only the mentioned (Serbian) source and it is possible that AH casaulties are inflated (270.000 vs 227 000), but that doesn`t have to be the case. However the Serbs certainly suffered far more than 70.000. Even the sources you stated say 170.000, and that matches my source. So, I`ll correct the number.

You did a great work writting this article.

Only, I`ll have to disagree with the statement that the fighting after 1916. was "senseless". If the Allies withdrew their forces, the consequences would most probably be:

1. The Allies would be 140.000 Serbian soldiers short in their wer effort. (bear in mind that the Serbian army was arguably the most battle-experianced army at the time having been in almost constant warfare since 1912) And also there wouldn`t be any of the 30.000 Serbian volounteers from Russia, the US and other countries (emigrants and former POWs of Serbian, Croat or Slovenian descent from AH-army).

2. Bulgarian army of at the very least 300.000 would be free to help the Central powers elsewhere. Also count in the AH and Ger contigents

3. Romania would perhaps stay neutral.

4. Greece would almost certainly not wage war against the Central Powers (still 150.000 soldiers less for the Entente), and perhaps even joined the CPs (though this is less likely)

5. The same source claims that the post-war comission of the German high command established to find the causes of the German defeat concluded that the capitulation of Bulgaria was the real reason for the defeat (the forces on the western front had better chances to stop the Allied offensive than the Balkan forces had to stop the Salonika breakthrough after the Bulg. capitulation). The source has "Der Weltkrieg" in it`s bibliography. Have you found confirmation of this claim?

And, would the 14 Allied divisions really make such a big differance in the meatgrinder of the western front?

PS Why is the 1916. section disputed?

Veljko Stevanovich 14. 5. 2006. 02:00 UTC+1


 * And another thing - Bulgarian army attacked Serbia in 1915. with two armies: 1.st army - across the pre 1912 (roughly current) Serbo-Bulgarian border, 2. nd through Macedonia. The first army was completely stopped by the Serbian 2.nd army commanded by voyvoda Stepa Stepanovic. Only the Bulgarian 2.nd army broke through the Serbian "Trupe novih oblasti" (ser:Troops of new areas - troops of lesser quallity that defended Macedonia and other areas taken from the Turks in the First Balkan War). This Bulgarian brakethrough proved to be decisive since it cut the railroad to Salonika which used to bring supplies to the Serbian army. This section of the front was left so inadequately guarded since it was agreed with the Allied expeditionary army that they should defend it, but they were unable to do so because of long delays in shipping the troops to Salonika.

Veljko Stevanovich 15. 5. 2006. 22:15 UTC+1

Not out of Keeping?
Could someone explain what is meant by the following sentence, in particular by the "not out of keeping..." part: the first phase of the war against Serbia had ended with no change in the border but the casualties were incredible compared to earlier wars, though sadly, not out of keeping with other campaigns of this war." As such, the sentence doesn't make much sense and I strongly reccomend rewording it. I would do it myself, but do not want to tamper with the original meaning.--Bora Nesic 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article
Heh, there's the word "stupidly" in this article - it's not encyclopedic. :) Also, the article lacks the mention of Montenegro. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WARNING! CASUALTY LIST WAS VANDALISED! A-H LOST MORE THAN 215.000 MEN IN 1914. ALONE! SERBIAN ARMY LOST NEARLY 170.000 IN THE SAME PERIOD!

I Agree
The "stupidly" thing did strike me as a bit overly editorial.

The Battle of Doiran, narrated by a eyewitness
At the beginning of 1918, the Allied troops in Salonika were prepared for a major offensive intended to end the war in the Balkans. The Greek Army had been reorganised and joined the Allied force. The offensive began in July 1918, but the British contingent did not play a significant part until early September. Then the British attacked a series of fortified hills. The final assault began along the whole front on 15 Sep 1918; the British being engaged in the Lake Doiran area. This Battle was really on the 18th and 19th September 1918 and was a disaster for the British Divisions. They had to frontally assault 'Pip Ridge' which was a 2000 foot high heavily defended mountain ridge with fortresses built on some of the higher mountains, notably Grand Couronne. (This was what the Bulgarians had been working on in the first months of 1916 and early 1917.) They sustained very heavy casualties.

The following report from one involved gives some idea of what the men went through. By 'An Unprofessional Soldier' on the Staff of 28th Division. He entitled his paper: "I saw the Futile Massacre at Doiran". It is from Issue 46 of "I Was There" published 1938/9 ''"The Battle of Doiran is now a forgotten episode of the Great War, overshadowed by the doings of Haig in France and Allenby in Palestine. There was no full contemporary account of the Battle in any British Newspaper. Sir George Milne's dispatch was not published and did not appear in the Times until January 23rd 1919, and then only in truncated form. The very name of the battle is unknown to most. Yet, in singularity of horror and in tragedy of defeated heroism, it is unique among the records of British arms. The real work of the assault was entrusted to the men of the 22nd and 26th Divisions, who were to attack the Doiran hills, co-operating with the Cretan Division of the Greek Army and a regiment of unreliable Zouaves. In the early light of an almost unclouded morning the British and Greek forces advanced in order of battle. The noise of our guns had abruptly ceased before daybreak, and there came that awful pause in which defenders and attackers are braced up to face the ordeal, with fear or desperation, with cool courage or with blazing ardour. Slowly the pale grey smoke lifted in layers of thin film above the ridges, blue shadows deep in every fold or hollow and a dim golden glow on scrub, rock and heather. No one could tell what had been the effect of our gunfire upon those fortified hills.''

''The infantry soldier relies upon the guns behind him, trusting in their power to smash a way for his advance by killing or demoralizing the enemy and cutting up his defences. In this case, if he had any hopes or illusions, the infantry soldier was quickly un-deceived. Our attack on ' Pip Ridge' was led by 12th Cheshires. The battle opened with a crash of machine-gun fire, and a cloud of dusty smoke began to blur the outline of the hills, Almost immediately the advancing battalion was overwhelmed in a deadly steam of bullets which came whipping and whistling down the open slopes. Those who survived were followed by a battalion of Lancashire men, and a remnant of this undaunted infantry fought its way over the first and second lines of trenches - if indeed the term " line " can be applied to a highly complicated and irregular system of defence, taking full advantage of every fold or contortion of the ground. In its turn, a Shropshire battalion ascended the fatal ridge. By this time the battle of the " Pips" was a mere confusion of massacre, noise and futile bravery. Nearly all the men of the first two battalions were lying dead or wounded on the hillside. Colonel Clegg and Colonel Bishop were killed; the few surviving troops were toiling and fighting in what appeared to be inevitable and immediate death. The attack was ending in a bloody disaster. No orders could reach the isolated cluster of men who were still trying to advance on the ridge. Contact aeroplanes came roaring down through the yellow haze of dust and smoke, hardly able to see what was going on, and even flying below the levels of the Ridge and Grand Couronne.''

''There was only one possible ending to the assault. Our troops in the military phrase of their commander, " fell back to their original positions" Of this falling back I will say nothing. There are times when even desperate heroism has to acknowledge defeat. While the 60th Brigade was thus repulsed on the ridge, a Greek regiment was thrown into disorder by a counter attack on the right. At the same time the Welsh Brigade was advancing towards Grand Couronne. No feat of arms can ever surpass the glorious bravery of those Welshmen. There was lingering gas in the Jumeaux Ravine ( probably ours!) and some of the men had to fight in respirators. Imagine, if you can, what it means to fight up a hillside under a deadly fire, wearing a hot mask over your face, dimly staring through a pair of clouded goggles, and sucking the end of a rubber nozzle in your mouth. At the same time heat is pouring down on you from a brazen sky. In this plight you are called on to endure the blast of machine-gun fire, the pointed steel or bursting shell of the enemy. Nor are you called on to endure alone ; you must vigorously fire back, and vigorously assail with your own bayonet. It is as much like hell as anything you can think of. Welsh Fusiliers got as far as the Hilt, only half a mile below the central fortress, before being driven back by a fierce Bulgarian charge. Every officer was killed or wounded. Following these came the 11th Welsh, who were also compelled to retire fighting. For a time, however, a few of the enemy's trenches, full of dead or dying men, remained in our possession. A third Welsh battalion was offered up, to perish, on that awful day. The 7th South Wales Borderers nobly stormed up through the haze of battle until they had come near the hills of The Tassel and The Knot, Then, all at once, the haze lifted, and they were left exposed in the open to a sweeping and overwhelming fire. Melting away as they charged, a party of Welshmen ran up the slopes of Grand Couronne itself and fell dead among the rocks. Of the whole battalion, only one officer and eighteen men were alive at the end of the day. All night, unheard in the tumult of a new bombardment, wounded men were crying on the hillsides or down in the long ravines.''

''Whatever Sir George Milne now thought of his own plans, he must have been gratified by the behaviour of his own troops. Those troops had been flung against positions no infantry in the world could ever have taken by a frontal attack, and they had proved themselves to be good soldiers. Two entire Brigades had been practically annihilated. Only on the right was there a temporary gain of ground by two Hellenic regiments in the neighbourhood of Doiran Town. My own troops (if I may speak of 28th Division) were in support of the Cretans under the Krusha hills east of the Lake. These people were intended to make a " surprise " attack on the high positions to the north, though I do not see how anyone can be surprised by an attack which has to be launched over three or four miles of perfectly open country - unless he is surprised at the futility of such a thing. The Cretans had lined up during the night along a railway embankment, which is immediately below the hills. At dawn they advanced over the plain of Akindzali, breaking through the enemy's outpost line. Our artillery, owing to a failure in co-ordination, did not properly support the advance, and our guns were eventually withdrawn under a heavy Bulgarian fire. There were casualties in the neighbourhood of Akindzali village (the scene of unmentionable Greek atrocities in the war of 1913). The attack rapidly collapsed, and by evening the Cretans were back at the railway line from which they had started. At nightfall the 28th Division took up a purely defensive attitude, overlooking the plain. It may well be asked why this Division was never given the chance of throwing its full weight into the battle. The enemy himself, as we afterwards learnt, was very much astonished by the absence or concealment of so large a body of troops. One of the first questions put to a captured British airman near Petrich was "can you tell us what has become of your 28th Division?" A fresh and equally futile massacre on the Doiran hills was arranged for the following day, in spite of the total breakdown of the general scheme. It was now the turn of the Scotsmen - Fusiliers, Rifles and Highlanders of the 77th Brigade, undismayed by the dreadful evidence of havoc, ran forward among the Welsh and Bulgarian dead. Artillery demoralised the regiment of Zouaves on their left. A storm of machine-gun fire blew away the Greeks on their right, in uncontrolled disorder. Fighting on into a maze of enemy entanglements, the Scotsmen were being annihilated, their flanks withering under a terrible enfilade. A fine battalion of East Lancashires attempted to move up in support.''

''The 65th Brigade launched another forlorn attack on the Pip Ridge. The broken remains of two Brigades were presently in retreat, leaving behind more than half their number, killed, wounded or missing. We had now sustained 3,871 casualties in the Doiran battle. Our troops were incapable of any further effort. A terrible high proportion had been lost or disabled. We gained only the unimportant ruins of Doiran Town and a cluster of small hills immediately above it, never of any value to the enemy or strongly defended. The fortress of Grand Couronne was unshaken, with crumpled bodies of men and a litter of awful wreckage below it. No one can view the result of the operation as anything but a tactical defeat. Had it been an isolated engagement, there would have been every prospect of disaster. The whole plan of the battle and its conduct are open to devastating criticism; but so are the plans and the conduct of a great majority of battles. ( The Cheshires, South Wales Borderers and the Argylls were awarded the French Croix de Guerre for their part - the Royal Scots Fusiliers lost 358, the Argylls 299 and the Scottish Rifles 228 men) Luckily, the Franco-Serbian advance was being continued with extraordinary vigour. (elsewhere) Before long the Bulgarian Army was cut in two and a general withdrawal began to take place along the entire front. Our Doiran battle was now regarded as a contribution to victory for had we not been effective in pinning down the enemy reserves? British commanders are wonderfully philosophic after all."''

In other words a waste of lives.

Link

Jackanapes 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Problematic unbalanced name of the article
In fact there are two different campaigns, included in present article - a) Serbian campaign of WWI (events up to the fall of Serbia) and b) subsequent Macedonian/Salonica front up to 30. IX. 1918. The second part is much broader than the present name presumes. The Serbian Salonica army wasn't the main factor on the Macedonian front, which name I prefer. There fought bigger Bulgarian, French, British, Greek forces, and also several other smaller national troops. From geographic and ethnographic points of view Macedonian front embraced territories, which were considered as a part of Serbia only from serbian perspective, check article Macedonian. Furthermore, it comprised lands which spread far away from Vardar Macedonia, temporarily occupied by Serbia. Another example - the same problem occures in the Categories menu, which includes only World War I and History of Serbia. So I think the name "Serbian campaign" should be changed if the contents remain the same or the article should be split into two separate articles. Best wishes, Jackanapes 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it would be best if it is split in two, the "Serbian Campaign" proper until 1916 and the "Macedonian Front", from the landing of the Allies at Salonica in 1915 until the end of the war. Regards, Cplakidas 10:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, there aren't counterarguments, so I will register new article Macedonian front (World War I) with the same text from point b) subsequent Macedonian/Salonica front up to 30. IX. 1918, which could be edited and expanded in the future. Regards, Jackanapes 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting World War 1
I softened the first sentence of the article because it implied that the Austrian invasion of Serbia started World War 1. The first hostilities of the war were when the Germans invaded Belgium on 4 August, 8 days before the Austrians crossed the Drina and Sava. A small point, but it makes the article that much more accurate. --Iacobus 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not correct in a way, because the first shots were fired agaist Begrade on the same day of the war declaration just under the Citatell of Belgrad over the river. I have the original reports. But what i find funny of the artikel ist that they write The allys had a delay because of the greek view of the war. Greece was neutral and the allies landed and forced the greek into war simelar like the Germans invaded Belgium. Strange how the same action is explaned very differently. Belgium had by the way a secret militaryallience with the frensh and was by now way neutral.

Johann

Casualties
Numbers in this article do not correspond to these cited from relevant resources. Moreover, it appears that referenced sources are not existing any more. Are/were they relevant at all? For numbers please see Wiki article World War I casualties. Plantago 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Constantin I wasn't a commander. He abdicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.115.249 (talk) 17:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The causalities are contradictory:

It says "58% of the regular Serbian Army (420,000 strong) has perished during the conflict."

Then, just a few lines down says:

"The Serbian Army had been decimated towards the end of the war, falling from about 420,000 at its peak to about 100,000 at the moment of liberation."

If 58% of the 420,000 army died, then that would leave 176,000, not "about 100,000."

NEXT PROBLEM: "The Kingdom of Serbia lost 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses), which represented over 27% of its overall population"

LATER: "The Kingdom of Serbia lost 1,100,000 inhabitants during the war (both army and civilian losses: of 4.5 million people, 275,000 were military deaths, while 450,000 were civilian - mostly due to food shortages, epidemics and the Spanish flu - and there were 133,148 wounded), which represented over 15% of its overall population - a demographic disaster that is still obvious today."

So is it 15% of the overall population or 27%???

Lastly, saying that it is "a demographic disaster that is still obvious today" is unnecessary and obvious. All massive population die-offs have long term impacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.35.16 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

For your first problem. Are you really going under the assumption that the army was at no point in the course of two years reinforced??

And your second problem. Its 15%, if you read through it, you'll realize that the 15% refers only to civilian casualties. Not really sure what was so confusing there.

Lastly, not many countries are still experiencing demographic disaster from WWI, those that are should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.169.78 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Result
The result that was in the infobox was the result of WW1 not of the Serbian campaign

Where's the Strength and Death List on the Info-Box?
There really should be a strength and death list. I usually just look at the info-box and get the participants, strengths for both sides, the casualties, and the result of the battle. In this article, there are the participants and the result but no strength or death lists. I would consider puttind one. Thanks -Apr.26,08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.232.209 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA
Is this article still good one?--Vojvodaeist 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a GA review and I don't see this article listed at Good articles, so I'm removing the GA assessment. GregorB (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Shelling of Belgrade, July 1914
The article says the Austro-Hungarian artillery shelled Belgrade on July 29, 1914; however, as the Wikipedia article on the city of Belgrade itself points out, the shelling was acutally undertaken by monitors of the Austro-Hungarian Navy which had navigated down the Danube. Will correct this if no one objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.246.93 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Franz Ferdinand
I just skipped through the article, so I might be wrong, but at the introduction, where the circumstances are explained (from 1909-1914), I see no mention of the Franz Ferdinand assasination... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.88.169 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul, not Constantinople?
In the second paragraph of the "1915" section, it talks of Constantinople. DDidn't the Ottomans change the name of this city to Istanbul when they conquered it? I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure this is right. Borg*Continuum (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I don't think the name change was official until after the expulsion of the Greeks in the 20s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Attacks against ethnic-Serb civilians
That part of the article looks a bit propagandistic, for example, it talks about a "system of extermination", "executions of prisoners of war", "mass murder" and "rape" of civilians, it says "Villages and towns were burned and looted. Fruit trees were cut down and water wells were poisoned in an effort on the Austro-Hungarian part to get the Serb inhabitants to not return". Though the war was surely awful and war crimes should be highlighted, still this part pictures the army of the Central Powers as worse then the Nazis in WWII. Plus, I doubt that the Allied Powers did not commit any war crimes in that region (it was not "goods" vs "evils"). Moreover, lot of other ethnicities were also affected by this campaign, as it was also fought in Montenegro, Greece, and Albania, but there is nothing about war crimes against them. Therefore, the section looks a bit unbalanced. Any suggestions how to make it NPOV? K&oelig;rte F a { ταλκ'' }  13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What's POV in presenting the facts about the committed atrocities? Do you have a counter argument it didn't happen or it just doesn't suit you? Clanedstino (talk)


 * Yes, biased, unbalanced presentation of events/accusations does not suit me. It is without question that this campaign (and the whole WWI) caused terrible sufferings to many people. But it is also clear that not only to Serbs. Also, it is quite likely that some soldiers of the Central Powers committed crimes, but again: it is quite likely that some soldiers from the Allied Powers also did. This presentation reads like a propaganda text and does not look neutral at all. Primarily, because it only speaks about crimes committed by the Central Powers (especially Austria-Hungary) against Serbs, which is only one side of the coin. A neutral unbiased approach would be to enumerate that during this campaigns X civilians died, out of which X[1] Serbs, X[2] Albanians, X[3] Croatians, etc. There were Y people raped, Y[1] Serbian, Y[2] Albanian, Y[3] Croatian, etc. Soldiers from army A[1] committed crime C[1] in N[1] cases. P[1] percent of these soldiers were sentenced for this. Soldiers from army A[2] committed crime C[2] in N[2] cases. P[2] percent of these soldiers were sentenced for this, etc., etc.


 * The current way of just cherry-picking some of the atrocities against only one of the ethnic groups of the region gives opportunity to a serious POV-pushing and an unweighted presentation. K&oelig;rte F a { ταλκ'' }  18:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, present us the facts and references about Allied Powers committing atrocities against civilians in the Serbian campaign and and maybe we can talk about this article being biased, even more present the facts and references about Serbian army committing the crimes against A-H civilians, although I can't figure out how Serbs even reached A-H civilians when they fought in Serbia all the time and hardly ever crossed to A-H territory which, ironically, was populated by the Serbs too. Your assumption that Allied side must had commit atrocities because the Central powers commit it is not a evidence, it's a nonsense. Just as well we can charge Jews that they committed holocaust against Germans in WW II by that logic. So bring up the neutral evidences or don't stop making this unsubstantiated remarks. Clanedstino (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be a quite twisted, weird logic: for example, Jews did not have an army in WWII, they did not have a dedicated country (Israel was founded after WWII), they were simply citizens of Germany and other countries. Comparing Serbs in WWI and Jews in WWII is like comparing apples with bananas (not even oranges, since the situation was complately different). Moreover, notice that I did not simply talk about citizens of Austria-Hungary, but *other* ethnic groups of the area. And since you have asked for sources, here, take a look at this: "... in 1918, the Serbs regained Kosovo and took revenge, indiscriminately killing their Albanian neighbors – including women and children – and destroying their homes", or here is another source about this from Oxford . So, you can see that not only Serbs suffered during WWI in that region, therefore, that section is quite biased. K&oelig;rte F a { ταλκ'' }  18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the examples you provided have anything to do with Serbian campaign, one is about some alleged crimes that happen after the WW 1 and the other speaks about alleged crimes after the First Balkan war. Anyway I don't see how this is even remotely related to the issue, the case of the Albanians is about the alleged actions of one side taken against its own citizens, not related with the war in general nor Serbian campaign in particular. If so we would have to take into account the mass executions, deportations and detentions of ethnic Serbs living in Austria-Hungary during the war.


 * Clearly the request to clean up the section is what lacks neutrality. Nikoloz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clanedstino (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Where's the references?
About half the sources listed in the numbered citations don't seem to appear in any reference list. ??? Saintonge235 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Military Forces
The part "''The standing peacetime Austro-Hungarian army had some 36,000 officers and NCO's and 414,000 soldiers. During the mobilization this number was increased to a total of 3,350,000 men of all ranks. The operational army had over 1,420,000 men, and a further 600,000 were allocated to support and logistic units (train, munition and supply columns, etc.) while the rest - around 1,350,000 - were reserve troops available for replacing losses and the formation of new units. These wast manpower allowed Austrian-Hungarian army to regularly replace its loses and keep the units at their formation strength, according to some sources during the 1914. there were average 150,000 men per month sent to replace the loses in the field army. During the 1915. these numbers rose up to 200,000 per month. According to the official Austrian documents in period from September til end of December of 1914. some 160,000 replacement troops were sent to Balkan theater of war, as well as 82,000 reinforcements as part of newly formed units. " is a bit confusing, as it is not clear whether this "3,350,000 men of all ranks" and these "150,000 men" / "200,000 men per month" were all sent to fight in the Serbian Campaign (the current sentence gives this impression), or it was the total strength of the army / replacements fighting in all fronts / campaigns. In this latter case, it is not very relevant for the current article, since the army fighting in this particular campaign should be mentioned, instead. These numbers are dubious, since they contradict other sources, e.g., the one cited in the infobox. Also, the supported "source" is way too obsolete (it is from 1933), so its reliability is questionable. Modern scholarly works should be cited instead. K&oelig;rte F a { ταλκ }  14:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked the date of publishing isn't a criteria for reliability. The multivolume Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914 -1918 is an official war history published by Austrian war ministry and written by former Austrian-Hungarian high ranking officers ( mostly generals ) using the official war documents. It's still regarded as a referent work for A-H military and participation in War world I in the same level as German  Der Weltkrieg 1914 bis 1918  , French  Les armées françaises dans la Grande guerre  or English  History of the Great War Based on Official Documents . Only a complete ignorant would declare it obsolete or dubious. In fact all  modern  works concerning the A-H participation heavily depend on Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914 -1918, it's cited in more than 4000 works presently available at Google books, not to mention load of wikipedia articles. It's good for all of them, but for some reason it's not good for Koertefa. If you insist on deleting referenced material or references themselves it would be polite to provide some references on your own, instead declaring state-of-art works like Österreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg 1914 - 1918 dubious or questionable! Clanedstino (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Clanedstino, thanks for your answer, but please, refrain from making personal attacks. Let's try to be civilized. Historical works published in the 1930s are usually obsolete and might not be reliable. If it was published by the Austrian war ministry, then it looks like a primary source, which should be avoided on WP. Furthermore, I am curious what is your opinion about the numbers this part mentions. Are they (e.g., the "3,350,000 men of all ranks" and the "200,000 men per month") related to the Serbian Campaign or the whole army of A-H, participating in all front and campaigns? Could you provide the exact quote that supports these numbers? Thanks, K&oelig;rte F a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{ ταλκ'' }  15:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

End date
Someone claims that the end date in this article is incorrect. I have reverted his edit, and am noting the issue here. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

austrian and hungarian war crimes against serbian civilians
I am pretty surprised I can not find anything about war crimes and genocide of serbian civilian population commited by austrian and hungarian troops! Very first european genocide in 20th century and wiki is empty??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.151.21 (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kosovar Albanians ?
From what importance is the data that Kosovar Albanians served in Serbian military during WW1...I mean there were other nationalities that served in Serbian army, for example Roma or Gypsy served and were postman, that is written in Živoin Mišić's book ,,My memories'', or Jew, Stanislav Vinaver was a Jew who fough bravely in WW1 on Serbian side...Or Cincars, like son of Branislav Nušić...But you never mentioned those nationalities...Why are Albanians so important for this article...For latest politics I guess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.202.149 (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A map would be helpful.
Also, at the end of the introduction, it lists the casualties as a %age of population for the various combatant nations. Do we have the figure for the UK? Ganpati23 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Italy
Italian troops were involved in the campaign, occupying southern Albania for the entire duration of the war and holding Durres and its area during the evacuation of the Serbian Army. Italian ships also played a major role in the rescue of the Serbian Army. Shouldn't Italy be included in the Infobox among the belligerents on the Entente side? --2.36.89.156 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Breaking down this big monster
This article is way too long and confusing, it should be divided into three articles: As an example, this is the way it is on the French wiki and it works pretty well (in my opinion): Aeengath (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Serbian Campaign of 1914
 * Serbian Campaign of 1915
 * Serbian Campaign of 1918
 * This article looks at the 1914-1915 (which is more or less a "continuous") campaign. The 1918 liberation (not really much fighting) is covered in Liberation of Serbia, Albania and Montenegro (1918). Only as an "epilogue" is the post 1915-fate of Serbia mentioned in the english 1914/15 article (with a link to the 1918 liberation). So I dont see how this article is confusing at all since it follows the battles in Serbia from the start of the hostiles in 1914 to the end of the campaign in 1915, with a mention of Serbia's aftermath at the end, also linking to the 1918 liberation)... --Havsjö (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect for all the work you have put in this article there is still room from improvement... this was far from a continuous campaign...read Buttar, Hall, Dinardo, Glenny...just the defeat of the Austro-Hungarian army in 1914 ranks as one of the great upsets of modern military history and deserves its own article Aeengath (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbian campaign → Serbia during World War I – The current title is too vague and doesn't even mention the war in which Serbia was involved. The current proposal mimics the WWI-related articles of adjacent countries (Bulgaria during World War I, Romania during World War I, etc.) Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  BD2412  T 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * But this article is about the 1914-1915 "Serbia campaign", not Serbia internal workings and overall situation of WW1. A more proper title could be "Serbian campaign (World War I)" --Havsjö (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We would need a merger between this one and the related article, and renaming could take place afterwards.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It would make total sense as this article looks at the whole war period from beginning to end not just at the different campaigns, I re-wrote the whole intro a few times. As I have stated before there was more than one Serbian Campaign, right now it feels like a big macédoine with everything that happened before after and in between; not surprising since the Campaign of 1914 took place between July and December, the Campaign of 1915 from October 1915 to January 1916 and the last campaign aka the liberation of the country from September to November 1918, hardly one continuous event. With the appropriate title, it will finally be easier to work on this period and turn this page into the quality article it deserves to be. I agree with Sadko that a merger would be best. Aeengath (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this article became "Serbia in WW1" it would have to focus on Serbia's internal situation a lot and so on as well, not just the military campaign which took place on Serbian soil. The article as it is now is obviously about the campaign(s) in the beginning of the war that eventually led to its conquest, with only a footnote about the later liberation, which has its own article as part of the battles of the Macedonian front. Compare the "Bulgaria in WW1" article, its about Bulgarias military situation and internal workings/politics. Not the same type of article as this. A "Serbia in WW1" article about Serbias situation specifically and probably with a lot of info regarding the path towards the creation of Yugoslavia seems like another type of article than what this article is about... This is about the 1914-1915 campaign(s)/conquest taking place in Serbia (+ Montenegro), but not "Serbia in WW1" --Havsjö (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per earlier comments. An article "Serbia in World War I" might be a good idea (akin to Romania during World War I) but it'd be a new article, covering the political / social situation as well, and maybe a bit of the Salonika front as it related to Serbia in 1918.  If there's a feeling the current title is confusing, then a hatnote should solve that?  Or at absolute worst, a move to Serbian campaign, 1914–1915 or the like.  SnowFire (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this would change the scope of the article, which hasn't been agreed. The Serbian campaign ran from 1914 to 1915, Serbia in WWI would run for the whole war and include a lot of stuff not currently within scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support That’s exactly where the confusion is, at the moment this article runs from 1914 to 1918 ie the whole length of the war. There wasn’t one Serbian Campaign but three: July to December 1914 the failed Austro-Hungarian invasions, October 1915 to January 1916 the successful Central Powers invasion and occupation and September to November 1918 the Franco-Serb offensive that liberated the country. Therefore we could call it Serbian Campaigns of WWI or break it down into three articles, one for each campaign, like on the German and French wiki and turn Serbian Campaign into a disambiguation page. To make it into Serbia during WWI would not require much change, there are two consequent articles about occupied Serbia that can be used to add the missing stuff to start with.Aeengath (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article clearly does not runt form 1914 to 1918 at the moment... It runs from the start of war with Serbia in 1914 to its full conquest at the end of 1915 (with a footnote about the aftermath), i.e. what is commonly referred to as the "Serbia Campaign". The 1918 liberation was not a "campaign", and barely even a "battle". Just armies marching in and liberating Serbia without much opposition following the collapse of the Macedonian Front (and that front has its own article and is not part of the "Serbian Campaign" talked about in this article). Sure you can say the 1914-1915 invasions were 2 campaigns, but its not exactly confusing currently, since the article clearly divides up the 2 "phases" in both the article and the infobox. Those "2 campaigns" could be divided up, but its not exactly "wrong" to present this as two phases of the same overall campaign (i.e. Central powers attack to conquer Serbia) (with aforementioned distinction between them in the article already). Nevertheless, the article is not about Serbia 1914-1918 currently, as you claim. And to just add info about the occupation between 1915 and the footnote about the 1918 liberation does not create a "Serbia in WW1" article, as it lacks a ton of info about Serbia's internal political situation and which led to the creation of Yugoslavia at the end of the war. And if that was then also added, the very "non-Serbian" perspective from the battles is out of place. It becomes just an article about battles occurring on Serbian land or a strange mix --Havsjö (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the article clearly used to say 1914-1918 in the infobox until a few days ago… you must be aware of that… what you call a footnote about the aftermath is a subsection going all the way to 1918, it's hard to understand how this massive period classified as an aftermath of the campaign. Just adding about the occupation would not create a "Serbia in WW1" article it would only be something to start with, obviously it would require a lot of work, maybe Amanuensis Balkanicus has a better idea since he is the one who requested that change, not me. I could explain the different Campaigns here but this is not the topic. Aeengath (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support current title fails WP:CRITERIA as a recognisable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't fit the scope and there is no consensus to change the scope. Not opposed to a rename, since the current title is rather opaque. We could use an article on Serbia in World War I. Srnec (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment the confusion starts with having two campaigns crammed into one infobox. It's so hard to understand and link other articles to it. I suggest breaking it down into two articles, one for each campaign. This article could be renamed Serbian campaign (1914) (since most of its content concerns that first campaign therefore the same scope) and a new Serbian campaign (1915) would cover the second campaign and could be expanded.  Just like it is on the French Wikipedia: Serbian campaign (1914) &  Serbian campaign (1915)  and on the German Wikipedia: Serbian campaign 1914 &  Serbian campaign by the Central Powers. Havsjö is probably not going to like that but it was hardly a continuous campaign: in 1914 the Strafexpedition was planned, controlled and concluded by Austria with the goal of punishing Serbia, almost a year later, the Second campaign was planned and conducted with Germany, it was the idea of German chief of staff, Falkenhayn under German commander August von Mackensen, with the goal of opening a land route to the Ottoman Empire, it involved the combined efforts of Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Bulgaria. it was different planning, conduct and conclusion. In my humble opinion it makes total sense to separate them. And yes Srnec is right a proper article about Serbia in WW1 is badly needed Aeengath (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We could split the article, but I fear that events between the 1914 and 1915 campaigns may get lost (as in, where would they belong?). This article is not really about a singular campaign (another mark against the current title), but it is about a singular front (at least as unified as the Eastern Front). I support some sort of rename and would not object to a split, but splitting should probably happen only in conjunction with the creation of a general article on Serbia in WWI. Srnec (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no events between the 1914 and 1915 campaigns in the article right now, it only has a prelude about the buildup to the 1915 campaign. There is nothing about the coalition government of Pašić, the Skupština, the diplomatic efforts to revive good relations with Bulgaria, and more important the talks about postwar borders for a South Slav state. Serbia’s government was also pushing for the creation of a Yugoslav committee in exile. At the beginning of 1915, they found out about the promise made to Italy by the Entente, the treaty of London…etc all that important stuff belongs somewhere yes but it is not there so it wouldn’t get lost. Aeengath (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support renaming to "Serbia during World War I" because that would be a recognizable and unambiguous title, while present title ("Serbian campaign") has many different meanings. Sorabino (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a purely military article about military campaigns.  I expect "Serbia during World War I" to be a political and social history.  There are better ways to disambiguate, e.g. "Serbian campaign (World War I)" or, if you want multiple campaigns, then either "Serbian front (World War I)", or split by date (as proposed earlier). Walrasiad (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal
As discussed in the discussion above, it would make great sense to split this article in order to distinguish the two, related but separate, Serbian campaigns thus giving these events the space they each deserve. Here is a quick summer-up of why:

The Serbian Campaign of 1914, aka the failed three Austro-Hungarian invasions, took place between July and December 1914. It was planned, controlled and concluded by Austria with the goal of punishing Serbia. Austro-Hungarian forces by Austrian General Oskar Potiorek numbered around 460,000 men, Serbian troops, numbered 400,000. The country was briefly occupied, It ended with a Serbian Victory. The defeat of the Austro-Hungarian army in Serbia in 1914 is probably one of the great upsets of modern military history.

The Serbian Campaign of 1915, the successful Central Powers invasion and occupation, took place almost a year later from October 1915 to January 1916, after other countries became involved in the Austro-Serb conflict. That Second campaign was planned and conducted with Germany, it was the idea of the German chief of staff, Falkenhayn with the goal of opening a land route to their Ottoman ally, it involved the combined efforts of Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Bulgaria. It was led by German commander August von Mackensen, with more than 600,000 men, Serbia had half that number. On the Entente side it also involved British and French units, it was a complete different planning, conduct and conclusion. It ended with the great serbian retreat and the occupation of Serbia by the Central Powers.

The aftermath subsections contain links to the main articles where that content can be moved.

Here is an example of the different campaigns on the French Wikipedia: Serbian campaign (1914) & Serbian campaign (1915) and on the German Wikipedia: Serbian campaign 1914 & Serbian campaign by the Central Powers - Thank you Aeengath (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support --Havsjö (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support, however, I think that we need three articles:
 * Serbia in World War I – WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article outlining prelude, 1914 and 1915 campaign, Macedonian Front, and side events.
 * Serbian Campaign of 1914
 * Serbian Campaign of 1915
 * No such user (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it makes sense to have a Serbia in World War I article, as stated in previous discussion. Aeengath (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment while I am supportive of the creation of the two new articles, in terms of the mechanics, I strongly recommend this article is renamed Serbia in World War I as it already has most of the content, and the 1914 and 1915 ones should be created as new articles using the material in this article as a starting point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The 1914 and 1915 campaigns are different enough to warrant their own pages. UncleBourbon (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There is enough content for each campaign ReidMoffat (talk 04:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Serbian campaign split
I think it should be split — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.63.65 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)