|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 31, 2024 13:14:47 GMT
You know how it went: After diplomatic pressure, prince regent Paul finally gave in to the Axis and joined the Tripartite Pact. But then, the army putsched against him, made Peter king, and declared war on the Axis, after which they were defeated pretty quickly, however.
But maybe things might have gone differently? Some suggestions: - Croatians (who gained some rights in 1939, but still weren't content) break away with the Axis' help, form their own state without making war.
- No putsch. Now the agreement with the Tripartite Pact said that they wouldn't even have to make war, or let the Wehrmacht march through it - but they'd still get to take Saloniki.
- The putsch happens somewhat later, when the Wehrmacht invades Greece.
- Same as 3, but with the Soviet Union instead.
What do you think?
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,733 
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on Jan 31, 2024 17:51:07 GMT
A lot would depend on the British will to guarantee - and the Yugoslav perception of it. As the British didn't the Army still seemed to be willing to go down fighting as was the want of the British to deliver.
So seems to me to depend upon the perception of the Yugoslav generals (Serbs).
If the Yugoslav generals realize that British help is not forthcoming or will be too long to matter:
1. As the Croatians didn't meet generally for mobilization I don't see this an impossible. There was a rather long history of Croatians wanting independence.
2. seems a possibility too - Saloniki was certainly a prize for the Serbs - though joining the Axis would put the Serbs in the boat with the Croatians - Italians - Hungarians etc. which might be a stretch - more than a stretch. Less possible.
3. Because then the British would be more or less forced into it? Difficult to decide - but a now the Brits must do something might prevail.
4. That would be sometime like late 1944 early 45. Being royals would they really risk it. The Soviets did invade Romania and Bulgaria to force a change of regime - why shouldn't they in Yugoslavia. More or less whatever they do it will upset somebody.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 31, 2024 19:06:11 GMT
Britain can't give any guarantees worth anything to Yugoslavia in the current situation. It made a mistake having given one to Greece - and Greece quite possibly made a mistake asking for it and then accepting it.
The best bet for Yugoslavia would be to lie low and have Greece continue to reject direct military aid from Britain in which case Hitler might not intervene in the Italian-Greek war. Of course this means that Barbarossa might start a week or two earlier - not much before because of the weather and spring mud - and with slightly larger forces and there's a lot of arguments about how that might have gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 31, 2024 21:06:23 GMT
Britain can't give any guarantees worth anything to Yugoslavia in the current situation. It made a mistake having given one to Greece - and Greece quite possibly made a mistake asking for it and then accepting it. The best bet for Yugoslavia would be to lie low and have Greece continue to reject direct military aid from Britain in which case Hitler might not intervene in the Italian-Greek war. Of course this means that Barbarossa might start a week or two earlier - not much before because of the weather and spring mud - and with slightly larger forces and there's a lot of arguments about how that might have gone.
Unless if Britain and the rest of the allies had invaded the Balkans rather than Italy, it was chances of success as a different discussion. perhaps they could’ve use Italy as a stage in ground for invasion, because the Italian campaign didn’t cover a whole lot of ground at a fast pace. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 1, 2024 6:34:57 GMT
Having Italy not invade Greece would keep the Balkans quiet, which would help the Yugoslavs for sure, as there won't be a need for a coup. Yugoslavia lays low, but sends volunteers to help the Germans fight the Soviets, bloodiest Barbarossa occurs with larger Soviet losses, but costlier Allied victory in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Feb 3, 2024 22:52:20 GMT
After reading up, I wonder whether any of these PoDs would work. Britain wasn't really able to project power, but that didn't stop the (mostly Serbian) officers from putsching. The terms for joining the Tripartite Pact were unusually generous, as said - but it didn't help either. So I expect that the putsch will happen in any case, as the pact was that unpopular. Which would kill #2/3/4 immediately.
Or might the putschists hesitate e.g. in a TL where Britain lost at Dunkirk, so the Empire looks weaker?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 3, 2024 23:35:29 GMT
After reading up, I wonder whether any of these PoDs would work. Britain wasn't really able to project power, but that didn't stop the (mostly Serbian) officers from putsching. The terms for joining the Tripartite Pact were unusually generous, as said - but it didn't help either. So I expect that the putsch will happen in any case, as the pact was that unpopular. Which would kill #2/3/4 immediately. Or might the putschists hesitate e.g. in a TL where Britain lost at Dunkirk, so the Empire looks weaker? There was an actual fascist movement that existed in Yugoslavia, prior to the German invasion: ZBORSaid movement was led by Dmitrije Ljotic, though the movement was heavily funded by the Germans, making it unpopular with the Serb majority. On the other hand, you also have Milan Stojadinovic's Yugoslav Radical Union that actually ruled Yugoslavia until the German invasion, although Stojadinovic's government collapsed in 1939. The main problem with keeping Yugoslavia neutral in reality is that the Serb majority there have an antipathy towards the Germans for historical reasons, but the Croats and Slovenes have a different view. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Feb 15, 2024 1:40:41 GMT
It made a mistake having given one to Greece - and Greece quite possibly made a mistake asking for it and then accepting it. Well *when* the guarantee was made, *spring 1939*, it did not seem that ridiculous or mistaken. Britain offered guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in that March-April 1939 timeframe, a the guarantees to Greece and Turkey actually appeared the most realistic of them given geographic and naval realities. Now if there was some new promise made or reiterated in 1940 after the fall of France and Dunkirk, or in 1941, well then that *was* just Britain selling, and Greece buying, a bill of (worthless) goods. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Feb 15, 2024 9:37:19 GMT
It made a mistake having given one to Greece - and Greece quite possibly made a mistake asking for it and then accepting it. Well *when* the guarantee was made, *spring 1939*, it did not seem that ridiculous or mistaken. Britain offered guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in that March-April 1939 timeframe, a the guarantees to Greece and Turkey actually appeared the most realistic of them given geographic and naval realities. Now if there was some new promise made or reiterated in 1940 after the fall of France and Dunkirk, or in 1941, well then that *was* just Britain selling, and Greece buying, a bill of (worthless) goods.
Ah hadn't realised that the offers were made then. Going by the fact that Churchill offered troops when Italy attacked Greece and the Greek leader of the time rejected it because he feared it would prompt a German invasion, which was probably the wisest move. Unfortunately after his death in Jan 41 his successor reversed the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Feb 16, 2024 23:52:56 GMT
Well *when* the guarantee was made, *spring 1939*, it did not seem that ridiculous or mistaken. Britain offered guarantees to Poland, Romania, Greece, and Turkey in that March-April 1939 timeframe, a the guarantees to Greece and Turkey actually appeared the most realistic of them given geographic and naval realities. Now if there was some new promise made or reiterated in 1940 after the fall of France and Dunkirk, or in 1941, well then that *was* just Britain selling, and Greece buying, a bill of (worthless) goods.
Ah hadn't realised that the offers were made then. Going by the fact that Churchill offered troops when Italy attacked Greece and the Greek leader of the time rejected it because he feared it would prompt a German invasion, which was probably the wisest move. Unfortunately after his death in Jan 41 his successor reversed the decision.
Some important tidbit to consider! - Regarding his death, I checked WP and they don't know the exact reason - some sort of disease. Hard to tell - if he hadn't caught it, he might have survived longer (70 isn't extremely old), but we don't know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Feb 22, 2024 8:08:52 GMT
Thinking back and forth: - The Serbs had disproportional influence in Yugoslavia, which ticked off some people - but only few Croatians sided with the Ustasha. Even the Croatian peasant party leader Vladko Maček didn't want to become their puppet, and that was after the Axis invasion. Until the invasion, they just had a few thousand men. Hence, a break-off seems very unlikely. And the "führer" actually needed the country for its resources (copper, bauxite, antimony). Scratch Option 1. - Fighting against all its neighbors at the same time would kill Yugoslavia, anyone can see that. Then again, they were willing to fight in OTL as well. Better death than dishonor. - The situation was tense. 1939 the Croatians got their own Banovina, which included some Serbs - and those didn't like that. - We haven't mentioned one important factor yet: The Special Operations Executive! They had planned a putsch for months, but when Yugoslavia signed, they decided that this was the moment to strike. However... if Britain had lost at Dunkirk, they'd have very few elite veterans to spare for such a difficult mission. Would there be a putsch even then? Maybe 4 is the best option? If they have a fellow orthodox nation which is a superpower at their side? That'd be pretty crazy... the Wehrmacht invades the Soviet Union, and in that moment, Yugoslavia decides to strike in their back? I may have to read more about the topic, already earmarked some books online: archive.org/details/dermittelmeerrau0003schrarchive.org/details/kroatien194119440000fricarchive.org/details/spyingforfuhrerh0000jorgarchive.org/details/the-brandenburger-commandos.-germanys-elite-warrior-spies-in-world-war-ii-franz-kurowski-z-libraryarchive.org/details/palgraftelekiund0000czet |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Feb 26, 2024 1:21:55 GMT
After reading up the one or other book, I think there might be an option 5:
5) There is a putsch, but it's more disorganized, so everything gets messy. Croatia declaring independence before other countries invaded, the one or other important guy being killed (I'm thinking of prince regent Pavle - not personal!), because SOE has fewer resources, but Churchill still insists. The result is quite, albeit not totally similar.
(I also had wondered whether Pal Teleki would survive, but given the fact that he knew his wife would die from a disease, even if things went a bit better, the man still had a hard time. And since British realpolitik would still have the result that they'd consider Hungary at war with the Empire for this, he'd still have to conclude that his politics have failed.)
|
|
