Talk:Balkans campaign (World War II)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

romania ?[edit]

why is romania included in the combatants section? as far as i know it wasn't involved in any fighting in the balkans in ww2.

It joined in the invasion of Jugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:9DFC:B593:FC87:E369 (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn’t. The invasion was launched from its territory, but Romanian troops did not cross the border. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 17:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They did. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:A5EA:52CC:F2EB:18CD (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the Greek invasion[edit]

It says "The German Invasion of Greece (...) was the direct result and continuation of the Greco-Italian War."

However, the Greeks had pushed the Italians back far behind the Albanian border already by January 1941, four months before the German invasion.

According to Lidell Hart's History of the Second World War, the German invasion was a direct result of the British sending their contingent to Greece in March 1941 - a threat to their southern flank they couldn't ignore, and more so in view of the fact that the 50,000 troops couldn't hope to fend off a serious German effort.

If you subscribe to his view, the above statement is wrong and should read "The German Invasion of Greece (...) was the direct result of Churchill's ill-advised attempt at uniting the Balkan states against Germany" or something like that.--Cancun771 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Germans had decided upon intervention already in November 1940, when it became clear that the Italian invasion had failed. Partly that was because of the fear that the British would establish a foothold in Europe through Greece, but largely it was a decision necessitated by the need to salvage Italian and Axis fortunes in the area. The Greek government for many months refused to let British troops land in the mainland, unless they came in force (10+ divisions), able to withstand a German offensive. When they finally were let in in March 1941, it was because the Greeks were desperate, knowing that the German attack was impending with German troops massing in Romania and Bulgaria. There was therefore no longer a reason to keep the British out. Churchill's error was sending too little, too late, while pinning his hopes on Yugoslavia and Turkey entering the war, creating a "Balkan Front". But the Germans would have attacked Greece, regardless of the presence of British troops on its soil. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer divisions involved[edit]

In another wikiarticle it is mentioned that 5 Panzer Divisions participated in this campaign. However, in the Balkan Operations Order of Battle (created and maintained by Dr. Leo Niehorster) the following are mentioned: 5th, 11th, 16th; 8th, 14th; 13th. Can anyone confirm this with a different verifiable source? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you that the 8th and 14th (XLVI Panxer Corps), 9th (XL Panzer Corps), 5th and 11th (First Panzer Group) all participated in the Invasion of Yugoslavia. There are plenty of reliable sources, see Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia (an A-Class List article) for details. Several of the sources used in that article also mention the divisions that attacked only Greece. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The tito resistance and the subsequent soviet invasion shouldn't be included here? Uspzor (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkan Campaign is about the two major invasions, Marita and 25, rather than the ongoing fighting in Yugoslavia (or Greece). For Yugoslavia, see World War II in Yugoslavia. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was this decided exactly? Uspzor (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Uspzor. Limiting this two the events of April–May 1941 seems somewhat arbitrary insofar as the Greek war had been ongoing since the previous fall and Operation Marita was impending before the Yugoslav invasion was even contemplated. In other words, this seems to be a Germanocentric interpretation: the Balkan campaign is the German Balkan campaign. Srnec (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources refer to the invasions plus the ongoing guerilla/civil wars across Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece as the "Balkan Campaign"? The suggested approach would mean that this article would then combine essentially separate guerilla campaigns with what were three largely separate invasions. What reliable sources do that? There is also the issue that we already have a separate article for the ongoing fighting in dismembered Yugoslavia. What problem are we trying to resolve here? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Uspzor, whose motives might be entirely different, but the problem I want to solve is the bad shape of this article and its redundancy to our other, much better articles on the individual invasions. Given the decent state of our other articles, what purpose does this interposing level of coverage add? Reliable sources do not demand a placeholder article with one citation! If this article were actually in good shape, and primarily dealt with German strategy, planning and preparations, then I would be appeased.
Here is one source that uses "Balkan campaign" à la Churchill (i.e., for the Allied "front" in occupied Yugoslavia, mainly). Anyway, I'm not disputing that sources mainly use the phrase "Balkan campaign" in a WWII context to lump together Hitler's two invasions of April 1941. But just because they do it, doesn't mean we have a reason to create an article for it. I think similarly about Western Front (World War II). —Srnec (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, AfD it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this article should be slimmed down to just the German involvement in Spring 1941? Srnec (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snerc, why is the German Balkans Campaign any difference from the Soviet Balkans Campaign? Nether Western Front (World War II) or any other article I'm aware of made this distinction. ~~
I don't see how Western Front is relevant. Regardless, this article is so poorly sourced that we could rather brutally trim it down. But it would need to be based on the reliable sources, ie what grouping of operations is included. On face-value, the Greco-Italian War seems out of place to me. But I haven't really look at the literature to determine a position. I'll have a look at the sources and drop back here over the weekend with some ideas. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balkan Campaign (World War II). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over FYROM/Republic of Macedonia[edit]

There has been some edit-warring recently over the use of the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). All editors should be aware that this article falls under the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions regime, meaning that any admin can impose discretionary sanctions on editors breaching Wikipedia policies on this article. Please read the naming convention guideline for the Republic of Macedonia at WP:MOSMAC, which reflects the current community consensus is Republic of Macedonia for the state as it exists now, not FYROM except in very specific circumstances which are not met in the context of the edits being made recently, as they are about the current name of the state. Further edit warring will result in a block. No doubt there will be a change to the MOSMAC once the new name of the country is ratified, but until then, we stick with Republic of Macedonia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence “including... republic of Macedonia” is redundancy. It is also vague because it contains the phrase “most of” and before that the word “areas”. The first editor if he is not from FYROM (biased intention to use disputed name) he tried to describe territory or geographical area. The whole article is a description of the invasion from north to south. For that reason I suggest two solutions. According to WP:MOSMAC a clear disambiguation has to be made using FYROM as country name so the reader is not confused that Yugoslavian invasion included the whole geographical Macedonia which is mostly Greek. In reality Bulgarians took control of some vague territories (or use a map if you like to use Republic of Macedonia) within modern day FYROM. I don’t find the reason to make such a distinction for a region of Yugoslavia since other regions are clearly described and this one is very poorly explained. Second and favorable solution for me is to take out the whole sentence “eastern areas of Yugoslavia, including most of modern-day Republic of Macedonia.” and replace it with “areas of south eastern Yugoslavia.”Vagr7 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the current country (with its current correct name, Republic of Macedonia, not FYROM) as a point of reference is completely legitimate, and is used in many articles to provide context and indicate locations within now defunct countries like Yugoslavia. A word of warning, this is an area that will quickly get you blocked if you persist with edit warring about the country name. The Wikipedia position is that this country is referred to as Republic of Macedonia. Until the change to Republic of North Macedonia is ratified, I suggest you stay away from this area if you have strong views about the name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who is “Wikipedia” who decided that Republic of Macedonia should be used almost everywhere? There was a vote of editors or simple dictation of a sole paid editor ? I don’t have illusions that Wikipedia endorses free speech, I just try to make it better place to read something. I am not terrorized of blocking threats. Vagr7 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBMAC2, and a generalized index and list of links to the various discussions here. --Taivo (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Taivo. If you read the links that Taivo and I have provided, you will understand that it was a community decision. And we do such things as a community, not as individuals, because they are contentious. Blocks are quickly handed out when editors ignore community consensus and are disruptive to make a point. So, as I say, best to take a break from this area if you feel passionately about it. There is no deadline, and when the new name is ratified, it will be revisited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines provided on WP:MOSMAC over Macedonia name use are biased and fully inline with oficial Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia thesis and propaganda over the name dispute. The decision over name use is not clear because it was decided by a bunch of arbiters in closed doors with the mask of open discussion page. Keep dragging down Wikipedia guys Vagr7 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. You've been amply warned. Mind how you go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever" that a solid answer. 4 replies with 4 threats, that's what I call structural discussion in civilized world according to Wikipedia guidelines on interactions between editors. I know who is the top dog so start doing some more big-brothering also guys, something you may have missed for sure.Vagr7 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read any of the links that I provided if you think that the decision was made by "a bunch of arbiters in closed doors". You're completely ignorant of the process and refuse to become educated about it. The answers are there and if you weren't so lazy and so blinded by your nationalism then you would find them easily. As User:Peacemaker67 has said, proceed at your own peril, but pushing your POV is going to eventually result in your being banned from Wikipedia. You might as well go away now if that's your ultimate goal. --Taivo (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what is the blue box peacemaker added to my page? Do you think I can be threatened?Vagr7 (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a threat, it is a notice drawing your attention to the fact that admins can impose discretionary sanctions on anyone breaching Wikipedia policies on articles associated with the Balkans. This includes disrupting Wikipedia over the naming conventions regarding the Republic of Macedonia. For such discretionary sanctions to be imposed, you must have had them brought to your attention. Which is what I have done, via your talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balkans_campaign_(World_War_II)&oldid=1216238614"