Tito and Yougoslavian Partisans

I seriously question whether or not it was really stable. The state fractured so quickly and thoroughly that your attribution of "foreign influence" sounds more like an excuse than the actual case.

If you can't look beyond labels like "fascism" or "communism" then you are allowing yourself to be blinded by emotion and bias. Try to step outside the situation and look at it from both (or more properly all) view points. This case is actually a vary graphic one if you look at what words originally meant rather than what they have come to mean. The Spanish, Italian, and Nazi regimes were considerably different. Indeed by their original definition the Nazis weren't fascist and certainly the Japanese weren't yet all the Axis powers are labeled as such. By the same token Communism as it was practiced in most if not all countries bore little resemblance to what Marx postulated and indeed the various Communist regimes have varied tremendously from each other and in some case over time themselves. Allowing a label like "fascist" or "communist" to dominate your views on people or organizations is rather nonsensical.

 

Please, let us stay on-topic. If you feel irresistible desire to politicize, simply go to the "Stump".

 

His point is actually pertinent to the subject. It's the quoted part that is problematic and not necessary...and maybe non-sense.

 

His point was as pertinent as mine was no more no less. Both could be considered problematic and or not necessary I wouldn't consider either non-sense.

 

The opening post (not counting the transfer message) has a significant political component. Furthermore I'm not sure you can reasonably discuss Tito or the warfare in the Balkans and avoid politics. The impression is that I get from the above is that you don't want to see your political opinions challenged and are using the "on-topic" excuse to try and control the thread.

 

We still have possibility to discus that matter in the stump, but, please, leave politics out of this absolutely military subject.

 

Not sure how discussing partisans and Tito can be void of politics of the times and making modern comparisons. That is different than discussing modern politics separately.

 

Is your point of view clouded with politics to that extent that you cannot see anything else? Iron curtain "has descended across the continent" after the partisans have won and went home. Can you understand that partisans were just ordinary people fighting for freedom, not for ideology?

Why can we talk about Winston Churchill and British army without bringing up imperialism and the fact that Britain wanted to "deliberate" Poland and at the same time had enslaved many countries across the globe? But you would say: that's different. Indeed, that's different.

 

Jeez did I open the Pandora box?

 

No, Skip, you have done the right thing - the subject is really interesting. If the guys still want to open that tin of worms it is HERE.

 

Well that escalated quickly.

 

If you are talking to me then you have badly missed my point. Once someone started praising Tito and referring to his opponents as "fascist" (a term widely used by Communist for any of their opponents) and dismissing comparisons with Franco because he was a "fascist" politics was introduced. I was merely pointing that out. Then there's the fact that politics especially those of WWII countries and populations are critical to understanding the period and events. It only becomes a problem when we let modern political perceptions interfere with a discussion. As for the partisans being "ordinary people fighting for freedom, not for ideology". Some undoubtedly were but may of their opponents were "ordinary people" as well nor would the above description fit all partisans. Indeed "fighting for freedom" can be viewed as fighting for an ideology. Blanket statements and oversimplifications don't lead to the greatest understanding of history.

As for discussing WC and the British army relative to the topics you mention it is both period and worth doing. Not sure that Britain was "enslaving" countries at the same time they "wanted to 'deliberate' Poland" though. Indeed Britain was divesting itself of its colonies at that point in time. So indeed lets discus that all be it in a different thread.

 

@lwd

Just a hint: as a young man, my career was seriously endangered by my opposition to the former communist regime but I don't spend my time in nursing grudges. I will always think of Tito as a great womanizer and a working class hero who lived more extravagant life style than any crowned king. His victims were predominantly other communists so I don't give a stuff if he has stuffed quite few of his own "comrades". R.I.P Tito but never come back again. Ever.

PS: And, by the way, it is great pleasure to talk to you, my friend.

 

So be it, I'll leave it open for now, but please keep it gentle. If this thread unfortunately becomes political, it'll go to the stump. If it's getting a troll thing I'll have to flush it . It would be a shame because your initial ideal to have a topic about this is a good one.

 

But of course this topic is good and important: Yugoslav partizans were for long time the only considerable force in Europe who opposed Nazis and Fascists on the battlefield. All others were either willing collaborators or waiting for others to fight their war.

 

Tito is certainly an interesting character and maintaining the balance that kept Yugoslavia from becoming another Soviet satellite was quite a performance. I admit I don't know much about his actions during the war. Reading Balkan history is a lot like reading Irish history or at least it was. The various historians usually seam to take one side or the other as being without blemish and the other without virtue. The Balkans are considerably more nuanced though as there are usually more than two sides with even nominal allies more committed to their own goals than anything else. Or at least that's my impression. What are some good sources in regards to WWII in the Balkans and/or does someone want to post an overview or two. Details of particular actions might be good as well. Let's steer this conversation into more productive lines maybe we can delve into the politics later in a more dispassionate vein although that's often not easy.

 

I posted an overview about the 3 sides in Yugoslavia in this topic. It was the 18th reply. You can ask me or Tamino whatever you want to know about the WWII in Yugoslavia.
The worst source from which you can read about this topic is the Croatian version of wikipedia. It is edited by neo-nazis and it's denying the victims of the holocaust as well as the nazi crimes. For the good source I'd like to go with the English version of wikipedia since it's based on the facts and not the personal opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#Final_operations
There are maybe a better sources but this one is the best that I know.

 

Thanks. Reading the wiki article you recommended it's even more complex than I realized. Does anyone know more about the impact of Spanish Civil War veterans besides the passing mention in that article?

 

Now, let us start with an overview, by numbers:

1. The first unit “Sisački partizanski odred” was formed on June 22nd 1941
2. Headquarters of Peoples Deliberation Army was established in Belgrade
3. During the war Peoples Deliberation Army fought seven larger campaigns against Wehrmacht, SS-units, Fascist Italy, Bulgaria and domestic traitor armies
4. According to Abwehr estimates, in 1943 Peoples Deliberation Army had strength of 100.000 soldiers
5. Until 1944 autumn Peoples Deliberation Army fought without any external support.
6. In October 1944 PDA consisted of 18 corps, with 50 divisions and 500.000 armed soldiers. These forces have engaged 19 German divisions, 24 regiments, and other in total 1.000.000 Axis soldiers.
7. In autumn 1944 PDA held own front between the Red Army in Hungary and the Western Alies in Austria and Italy.

From the cited data it is clear, that PDA was not a bunch of gangs in civil suits fighting guerilla war - PDA was a regular army, a capable military force confronting larger formations and was able to defeat all aggressors on own soil.

Taking into account relatively small size of a country, poor technical and economical capabilities, lack of arms and equipment, contribution of PDA to the common Allied victory was considerable.

PS: of-topic but I will reply to this:

Here yo may find a short article with basic data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_volunteers_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War

 

No problem. There were around 1664 Yugoslav volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. 545 of them were killed in combat, many more died in Nazi concetration camps and some of them were imprisoned and killed in the Great Purge. Only 250 of them were alive in 1956 when Tito gave them commemorative medals for 20 years of the Spanish Civil War. Considering that there were only 250 recipients of this decoration, it is the rarest Yugoslavian medal.




They were recruited by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia just like the partisans and were the parts of the International Brigades. Half of them were from Croatia and more than a 23% were Slovenes. The others were Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians. By the political affiliation 1/3 were communists, 1/3 weren't politically affiliated and the rest were affiliated with the other political parties like Social-Democratism and such.

Many of the Spanish Civil War veterans held a high rank and were organisers of operations later in the National Liberation War of Yugoslavia.