Talk:Invasion of Yugoslavia

message: 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
* 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. 
Problems with the references
* 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 
*  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I wish you good luck with promoting this important article to GA status. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, OakMapping (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article  

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'd like to hear what AB has to say first. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Unfinished conversation  

message: 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)
replies: text: The photo isn’t properly licensed. Where did you get it from? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Photograph