|
|
Post by kesterj on Oct 17, 2015 11:28:55 GMT 1
Folks: only partly on topic for this forum, but I expect Anna will allow this.
I was in conversation the other day with two friends about post WW2 Yugoslavia.
Now I know more about it than them (even though one was a diplomat responsible for some successor countries)- but there is no way I pretend to be an expert on the subject, so I tend to be guarded in what I say.
And then one of them asked: So why did the Russians (he meant Soviets - not quite the same thing) pull out after WW2?
Hmmmm, said I. Probably because "Yugoslavia" was invaded by the axis powers, and was therefore an allied power (even though that only really applied to Serbia after 1941), so legally speaking, the Soviets had no right to remain.
But there again, Romania was - after it deftly switched sides - an ally from 1944 (I think it was). So, sort of, was Poland - but I think Soviet forces stuck around for some time to ensure 'friendly' governments were solidly in power.
Returning to Yugoslavia, of course, I don't believe Stalin cared one smashed vodka glass for legality, so the real reason was probably that, at the time, he trusted Tito to be a good boy, and obey his orders. (He was mistaken on this point, as it turned out.)
But I wondered - does anyone on here know about this facet of Yugoslav history?
As an addendum, I was told, either by a Croat or a Slovene, that the first "liberating" troops in much of Croatia/Slovenia were Bulgarians. I asked if they had a better reputation than the Red Army, especially in regard to their treatment of "liberated" local women - sadly, apparently not.
rgds, kesterj
|
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Oct 19, 2015 0:26:59 GMT 1
I didn't know the Russians actually liberated Yugoslavia i.e. there were Russian boots on Yugo soil? The way the Croats tell it, they chased the Italians out town by town, which is why they all have different liberation holidays.
I know that until 1948(?), Tito was a very loyal communist. Then he went to Moscow and something changed. After that he played a middle game between the USSR and the west of openly pondering which side the country should align itself with (a little like Ukraine did more recently between the EU and Russia). The answer it seemed would be whichever side next was willing to give the most money, or failing that lend on good terms.
It doesn't through an awful lot of light on the situation but as an anecdote, we knew a woman called Etka, short for Sovietka, who was born in 1946. Apparently, being communist was extremely popular for about three years, until that 1948 conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesterj on Oct 19, 2015 19:41:44 GMT 1
I didn't know the Russians actually liberated Yugoslavia i.e. there were Russian boots on Yugo soil? The way the Croats tell it, they chased the Italians out town by town, which is why they all have different liberation holidays. Carol - I didn't say exactly that the Soviet forces (sorry to appear pedantic - but they were Soviet, not Russian - I say that out of respect for the many other nationalities involved) "liberated" Yugoslavia. From Wikipedia, it seems there were a variety of forces involved - most notably (as my Croat/Slovene source said) Bulgarian troops. But yes, Soviet forces most certainly provided the steel, I would say. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_YugoslaviaIt seems clear that Soviet and Bulgarian forces, along with Tito's Partizans, were key to ousting the Germans from Nis-Belgrade and southern Yugo. The Axis forces then set up a line of defence seemingly along the Vukovar/Vinkovci region - which the Soviets and allies penetrated to march towards (and into?) SW Hungary. It would seem that in Southern Slavonia, the Partizans were left to defeat the German lines - which did not fit their experience, and they had a tough time. So it is not clear how much Sovient/Bulgarian forces actually "liberated" the areas towards Zagreb and Ljubljana, or whether it was largely Yugoslav Partizan forces. As for the Croats liberating Dalmatia - it may be true - although some of that may be Ustase forces, I'm not sure. I know that until 1948(?), Tito was a very loyal communist. Then he went to Moscow and something changed. After that he played a middle game between the USSR and the west of openly pondering which side the country should align itself with (a little like Ukraine did more recently between the EU and Russia). The answer it seemed would be whichever side next was willing to give the most money, or failing that lend on good terms. I think Tito would say he was a "loyal communist" till the very end - just he was not loyal to Stalin, which is a different matter. As I understand it, Tito was not interested in being a Stalin sidekick, assuming the great Georgian was the infallible interpreter of the ideal Marxist-Leninist system of government [or terror, as others would have it]. I think, from the 1970s onwards, when it sunk in that the west was not out to wage war, he rather enjoyed his so-called non-aligned star role on the world stage. It doesn't through an awful lot of light on the situation but as an anecdote, we knew a woman called Etka, short for Sovietka, who was born in 1946. Apparently, being communist was extremely popular for about three years, until that 1948 conference. Ha ha! Yes, funny anecdote. All of this is very interesting - just it does not answer my friend's rather innocent, yet telling question. |
|
|
|
Post by justapixel on Oct 20, 2015 10:16:53 GMT 1
The brunt of the fighting in Yugoslavia fell to the partisans. Soviets made a detour with a couple of divisions to aid in battle of Belgrade and then continued to Hungary where they were needed more. They actually proved useful in Serbia, because Tito didn't have the means to conduct a push across plains of Vojvodina against well entrenched tanks and artillery. Well, the Soviets did...
Elsewhere, the terrain was much more conductive to the guerrilla ways of partisans, so they progressed steadily. On the coast, the partisans were pretty well equipped, because retreating Italians had left lots of heavy weaponry. Also Brits helped there with air support.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Oct 20, 2015 16:02:54 GMT 1
The Communists were firmly in power by 1944 and the Russians were in a race to Berlin. It made a lot more sense not to keep forces here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carol on Oct 21, 2015 11:25:35 GMT 1
Didn't Roosevelt make a deal with Stalin - at the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945 - that Stalin's forces may liberate Berlin? Roosevelt wanted Stalin to agree to join the UN, which the dying Roosevelt wanted to be his legacy to the world, and Stalin getting to Berlin first was the quid pro quo.
Churchill was sidelined completely by the other two - Stalin didn't like him because of his imperialst background and Roosevelt maintained a grudge from having been snubbed by Churchill on a London visit when he was an up and coming politician decades earlier.
If that's right then Stalin had no need to race to Berlin, as it was being kept waiting for him.
I've never studied WWII or anything, this is just what I've picked up as general knowledge. I think its correct, but am happy to be told its completely wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Oct 22, 2015 20:23:00 GMT 1
Didn't Roosevelt make a deal with Stalin - at the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945 - that Stalin's forces may liberate Berlin? Roosevelt wanted Stalin to agree to join the UN, which the dying Roosevelt wanted to be his legacy to the world, and Stalin getting to Berlin first was the quid pro quo. Churchill was sidelined completely by the other two - Stalin didn't like him because of his imperialst background and Roosevelt maintained a grudge from having been snubbed by Churchill on a London visit when he was an up and coming politician decades earlier. If that's right then Stalin had no need to race to Berlin, as it was being kept waiting for him. I've never studied WWII or anything, this is just what I've picked up as general knowledge. I think its correct, but am happy to be told its completely wrong! I don't know the details either, but the first reason would be enough, there was no need to spread communism in Yugoslavia because it was already there. The Communists would never have let the Serbian king return or anyone else challenge their power even without Stalin. And with the deal with Roosevelt it still makes militarily sense to keep the maximum pressure on the Nazis and finish the war as soon as possible just to eliminate any possible surprise (somebody opportunistically changing his mind for example). |
|
