Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Yugoslav coup d'état


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav coup d&
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

The 1941 Yugoslav coup resulted in the Axis invasion and dismemberment of that country, and the internecine civil war and Axis counter-insurgency campaign that followed. I've worked on this on and off for several years, but think it is now ready for A-Class. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle
Always a pleasure reading your work, Peacemaker. My comments:
 * It could be made clearer in the lead that the government installed by the coup was more anti-Nazi than its predecessor and that the Germans decided to invade because of this. It should also be made explicit that the new government was an unstable all-party coalition with different factions.
 * With regard to the first point, it isn't clear that it really was more anti-Nazi, perhaps that it was less practical? Have addressed the second point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead says "coup" a lot. Perhaps mix it up with "putsch" or "overthrow"...
 * mixed it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The 1 "accidental" death caused by the coup is not explained in the body of the article.
 * added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In the wake of the coup, Simović's new government refused to ratify Yugoslavia's signing of the Tripartite Pact Was ratification a vote by the ministers, or did it have to shepherded through the National Assembly?
 * The source (Milazzo) just refers to the Simović government, so I assume only the cabinet was involved. Given the royal dictatorship since 1929, I doubt the National Assembly would have had much of a role. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Were there any specific reactions to the coup by the National Assembly?
 * Not that I've read. They may not have sat in the period between the coup and the invasion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Would a photo like this be suitable for "The new government" section?
 * While it is PD, it is pretty poor quality and we have a reasonable pic of Simović in the infobox, so I'd prefer not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This source (p. 17) says that Hitler was surprised by the coup and delayed Operation Barbarossa to invade Yugoslavia. That seems important. Julian Amery says that because of this delay, "The coup d'etet of 27 March may well have been a turning point in the war."
 * This is a matter of some dispute, as the wet spring was also probably a factor in the delay of Barbarossa, and some have argued that there was still sufficient time for the Germans to reach Moscow before winter, even with the start date of 22 June, but I've added some material from Playfair about the postponement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The "Development of the coup" section needs to make it more explicit in the body that Peter II was installed as King.
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Several other sources are saying Hitler was so taken aback by news of the coup he initially thought it was a joke.
 * Playfair says that the coup delayed the German intervention in Greece by five days.
 * Yes, but this was more than compensated for by the ability to invade Greece via Yugoslavia, which Playfair notes. Added to the Legacy and historical evaluation section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This source (p. 72) says that in the aftermath of the coup not only were German officials withdrawn from the country, but also most German nationals (encouraged to leave by the German government). It also states that immediately after the coup the Germans initiated a press campaign accusing the Yugoslav government of perpetrating atrocities against German nationals and stirring up tensions between the Croats and the Serbs.
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This source states that the Polish and Czech governments in exile praised the coup.
 * I'm only getting that in snippet, so don't feel confident about adding it. I'll try to find it in another source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Found it in a contemporary Australian newspaper. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Prusin explains that Stalin's intentions with the pact with Yugoslavia was to signal Soviet strategic interest in the Balkans but avoid antagonizing Germany, hence the failure to provide military aid to Yugoslavia.
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Prusin also states that Viktor von Heeren tried to convince Hitler that the coup was merely an internal power play and that military action was unnecessary.
 * Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This source (the shoddy translation makes me question its reliability, but I'm sure other sources can confirm) says that the day before the coup Leo Amery made a broadcast from London appealing to Serb nationalism. It also says that on the day of the coup the streets of Belgrade were occupied by tanks and that General Simović and some air force officers took the Ministry of War. It also says that Peter II was surprised that he was being crowned (this isn't made explicit in the article). It also discusses the complexities of trying to represent the Croats in the new regime.
 * I have added this source, as Iaremko was an assistant professor of history at Lviv Uni and it seems to have been reliably published, but it is rather hard to follow due to the rather rough translation. I'm a little leery of using some of what she says where it runs against other sources and isn't cited. I'll pick out what I think is unique and useful material, but I'm loath to use it across the board, especially for some of the more exceptional claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I've used it a bit more to add detail other sources don't provide, and a little bit of interesting analysis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Indy beetle. Now kicking myself for not checking Prusin before nominating. Will get onto this shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I've addressed all your points now? Some great additions thanks to those new sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed, now supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support: well done, IMO. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the ext links work (no action required)
 * in the lead, Prince Paul and Peter II are overlinked
 * there is a typo here: "reserves throughout 1939–40.}}—and the"
 * "wasn't set" --> "was not set"
 * in the Axis invasion section, Yugoslav government-in-exile is overlinked
 * "The coup was essentially a brave gesture of defiance...": I think potentially this statement should be attributed in text
 * "Czechoslavian": typo?
 * there is a mixture of US and British English, for instance "defenses" (US) but also "organisers" an "polarised" (and others) (British)
 * in the References, "Yugoslavia in crisis, 1934–1941" --> "Yugoslavia in Crisis, 1934–1941"
 * place of publishing for the Shirer work?
 * "Boston, MA" --> "Boston, Massachusetts" for consistency
 * Thanks for taking a look, . All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks. Please check you are happy with those, and revert as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, I missed a couple of things... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Factotem
On prose:

Background
 * I didn't really understand parts of this paragraph. If I understand correctly, Yugoslavia's main problem was that it was an amalgamation of diverse national and religious groups, and maybe something could be stated about this as a way of setting the scene for what follows? In particular, I don't really understand what ...the strong association between each national group and its dominant religion... means or why it was a contributory factor that made the country weak. You also talk about the dominance of the Serbs without really establishing that there was a significant(?) non-Serb population. I also don't understand what you're trying to say with ...this state of affairs was maintained by subverting the democratic system of government; in what ways was the democratic system subverted and how did this maintain the state of affairs?
 * Added a new para to start, including the national breakdown and distribution of the dominant religions, and added that political bribery was the main method of subversion. Also a bit on the Vidovdan Constitution and control of patronage and government appointments by Serbs. Is this an improvement? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Pressure builds
 * No need to restate the year of Anschluss here.
 * ... which undermined the hard-won balance in Yugoslav politics that government represented When you write "that government", are you referring specifically to the Cvetković government? If so, it should be "that that government" (double "that"). As currently written, you're referring to the institution of government (as opposed, say, to anarchy) and not any specific government.
 * Good points. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Responsibility for the coup
 * Simović's response to Mirković's claims was published posthumously, he claimed... "he claimed" is the start of a separate sentence. It needs either a full stop preceding it, or a conjunction.
 * Split it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of the third para, Stafford appears to be denying any British involvement beyond support (which I read to be only moral support). Then in the second sentence it states that Radoje Knežević vehemently denied any British involvement... (basically agreeing), as if it is contradicting Stafford's position, and that Stafford apologises for an error that, by my reading, never existed. We then read about Tasovac's assertions of British involvement. All a bit confusing.
 * Stafford says the British supported the plot (perhaps with intelligence and encouragement if Tasovac is taken into account), but that they weren't involved in initiating it or carrying it out. I imagine that Radoje Knežević was sensitive about the suggestion that the British were in any way involved or should receive any credit for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a little unclear to me. Would "...although supported with British intelligence, the "[i]nitiative came from the Yugoslavs, and only by a stretch of the imagination can the British be said to have planned or directed the coup d'etat."[76] Radoje Knežević vehemently denied any British involvement at all in a series of published letters between himself and Stafford, until in 1979, Stafford apologised for his error and for any offence caused to Radoje Knežević. In 1999, Ivo Tasovac criticised Stafford's revised conclusion, pointing to evidence that the plotters were dependent on British intelligence..." be an accurate representation of the sources? This makes it clear how British support was rendered, the nature of Knežević's opposition, and that Tasovac is then weighing in on the dispute between Stafford and Knežević in favour of Stafford's original position. I also think that there was an incorrect use of the personal pronoun "he", which I've amended above to "himself". Factotem (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Suggestion adopted, except I included encouragement as well as intelligence in the first bit. Thanks, sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The new government
 * 5th para, ...holding its position at the countries' border Do you mean countries' (plural) here, or was Romania asked only to hold at Yugoslavia's border (i.e. "country's border")?
 * On 4 April, Maček travelled to Belgrade and accepted the post,[65] on several conditions; that the new government... Not sure that that comma before ref #65 is correct, and "on several conditions" introduces a list, so I think that the semi-colon should be a colon and each of the conditions then listed should end with a semi-colon.
 * Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think I might have addressed your comments thus far? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. No issues on prose here now. Factotem (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Partial source review (spotchecks not completed)
 * I scanned through (rather than completed a detailed review of) the English language publishers and could find nothing obviously amiss with the reliability of sources used. Cannot comment on the foreign language sources.
 * You identify two refs as Novosti, which I initially could not find in the references section. I wonder if it would be better to identify these by the authors instead? Not a huge issue.
 * This was an italicisation problem. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We use in the list of sources used, which places the author's last name first in the listing, and then name the author in the inline citation. I looked through the sources thinking Novosti was a person and could not find it until I used a page search function. That's all I was referring to. Like I say, not a huge issue. Factotem (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, this one is, but I've changed it to use the author's names instead. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Location info for Pickle Partners Publishing lacks city, but when I searched for this Google gave two suggested searches for finding this info, neither of which actually did.
 * Yes, I struck that too, my copy is electronic, and they don't appear to have a home (other than the US) based on what I have. Their business seems to be reprinting older out-of-print books, so perhaps that is why? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I googled both web and books for "yugoslavia coup 1941" and parsed the first three pages of results. The web search did not reveal any significant sources not already used. The books search revealed the following:
 * Yugoslavia's revolution of 1941 by Dragiša N. Ristić (1966) Appears to be a significant, if somewhat dated source. Is there a reason why it is not used?
 * It is a little old for specific details, but I believe when I looked at it in snippet it said something about Ristić being Simović's aide, so I think I put it aside as insufficiently independent of the subject. Nonetheless, I have asked at WP:RX for a copy of a book review from 1968 just to see what it concludes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have this now, and it is equivocal to say the least, and confirms that Ristić was Simović's aide de camp, so pretty close to the action himself, even if the reviewer says he maintains some distance and objectivity. Apparently it has a lot of detail on the post-coup period to 6 April, but apparently whatever it provides on the background is covered adequately in Hoptner etc. I won't get a chance to head to a local uni that holds a copy for a week or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm not inclined to make an issue of it here given the age, proximity to events and what you say about Hoptner et al, but I imagine it needs to be addressed one way or the other if it's not to cause problems at FAC, if that's where you're going with this article. Factotem (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945 by Jozo Tomasevich (2002) ISBN 9780804779241 (you actually use a 2001 edition with different ISBN) From Gbooks preview, pp. 47–49 has a little more detail about the German attitude to Yugoslavia which is not fully brought out in the article. It states that Germany was content to leave Yugoslavia be as long as it served German aims, that Yugoslavia was an important trading partner, and that Hitler regarded the the Yugoslav army as too strong to justify the effort to subdue it militarily. This attitude changed as a direct result of the coup, which prompted fears that the British would use bases in Yugoslavia to harass the southern flank of Germany's attack on Russia. Tomasevich also adds a little more detail on the German thinking about Croatian independence than you appear to have in the article.
 * Have just self-administered an uppercut for not checking Tomasevich 2001 before nominating (I have a hard copy...). I think I've added everything of relevance from it now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Swastika over the Acropolis: Re-interpreting the Nazi Invasion of Greece in World War II by Craig Stockings and Eleanor Hancock (2013) ISBN 9789004254596. On pp. 128–130 there are some details about how the coup was received in the UK and the potential impact on its war effort, which aren't really covered in the article.
 * Have added some material from this based on the preview pages available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's me done now. Factotem (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day. This is progressing pretty well, so would you mind having a look at the images? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Banovine_Jugoslavia.png is based on a file deleted for copyright issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've deleted it for now, as I've asked a mapmaker on Commons to do me a new one with proper sourcing. Was that it? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.