Good luck to our community managers dealing with the comment section on this one! But, more seriously, this story forces us to look at the war from a different angle. Here, in the Balkans, we have a civil war built on centuries of ethnic, religious, and political tensions. A civil war which is nested within a world war. Add in the Allied and Axis powers battling friend and foe for influence and you have a cauldron that’s just waiting to boil over. If you know your Balkan history, you’ll know that this story is far from over and that the legacy of this war will contribute to much more bloodshed in the future. Never forget.
A sad fact of European history is that the Balkans has been a problematic region throughout the 20th Century. Heck, it was problematic during Roman times, too.
You ought to try and make a decent video, not some slapstick history info show ("mixing frogs and grandmothers" is what we call it) do the extra work, trust me, it will pay of, because Serbs, former Yugoslavs, don't like to be fucked over, that's 80% of the reason why we fidget so much.
I wonder if the reason the allies skipped the whole Balkan Peninsula in their liberation battles (Italy, France…) was that they knew it was a massive clusterfuck of people of different ideologies who were in no way willing to compromise and that they would have found themselves there in a situation similar to that of the Germans had they entered and attempted to restore some resemblance of pre-war statu quo.
In connection with the war between the Chetniks and the Partisans, a phenomenon was widespread in many Serbian regions. In a family where there were at least two male children, one went to the Chetniks and the other to the Partisans.
This is an old technique in many societies. Scottish Highland chieftains sometimes had sons fighting on both sides of a conflict. Since loss of property - attainder - tended to be inflicted on the loser, having one or more sons on the winning side raised the possibility that they might get the property from attainder instead and it would still remain in the family.
In the first months of the rebellion. But over time as it became obvious who is fighting the Nazis and who was merely massacring the local civilian population, partisans became the only choice which is why they ultimately won the civil war.
Thank you Sparty & team as always for this episode of the War Against Humanity. It can sometimes not be easy trying to navigate and cover through the multi-faceted complexity of this part of the war.
The interesting thing about the Allies is that the British broke off relations with the Chetniks while the Americans supported them. They did not withdraw people from the Chetnik headquarters in Serbia. They even sent new delegations. Regardless of everything, the Partisans at that moment in Yugoslavia were already a serious army that was armed by the Allies and with weapons taken from the Italians. They had under arms over 200,000 soldiers, organization, officers, commissars, politicians. From central to local level. They also had a lot of territory in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro. For example, at this time, the Partisans, with about 50,000 soldiers, were leading a serious campaign and hard fighting to break into Serbia since March. Which at that time was a strong stronghold of the Chetniks. The action itself was coordinated with the allies, who in April massively bombed Belgrade and other major cities in Serbia to help them.
You bring up a good point--that the Allies were at cross-purposes in the underground wars raging across occupied Europe. You left out Soviet support and influence--though with British and American shipping weapons and arms taken from Italy, the Soviets only needed to send token supplies to maintain influence. The USA had an anti-colonial policy. Britain had its empire. America had a stated goal of dissolving the imperial powers--that included France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and of course the British Empire. There was strong support for the USSR in America at the time and Churchill was openly hostile to Stalin. Backstabbing is a feature in guerrilla campaigns--routine and expected. Which uneducated person dubbed World War Two "the Good War?" As this "War Against Humanity" illustrates, it wasn't all that good.
@@stevekaczynski3793 You think right--but British foreign policy probably isn't lockstep with US policy today, either. Different countries, different goals.
@@alancranford3398 The last time British foreign policy seriously deviated from that of the USA was Suez 1956. And that ended disastrously. Britain managed to stay out of the Vietnam War, though rumours were circulated that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent, perhaps as revenge for the relative lack of cooperation. In 1983 the USA invaded Grenada without bothering to consult Whitehall first, even though Grenada was a Commonwealth country. Thatcher was miffed with her friend Ronald but what was she going to do?
Nice job Spartacus. I have always been interested in this particular front in WW2. You made a good concise description of the infighting in the Balkans during the war. Thanks for this information on what led up to the post-war history of this area.
Imagine growing up in a big, borderless, nationally unified country of six republics, to then watch it deform to battlegrounds. A civil war, as a means to settle reignited historical feuds, growing divisions among it's citizens on basis of nationality and everyone's desire for a unilateral transformation of the federation of republics, back to national states. These new borders could have all been negotiated, agreed and gradually implemented, without a single fired shot...but, people lacked trust, wanted immediate full control, by deadly force if needed. So, here we are. Never forget!
11:23 - I saw this photo on a display in an Athens museum a few years ago. The hanged man was an ELAS courier. The soldier is a member of one of the Greek security battalions. They were generally dressed like Evzones, elite Greek infantry, in an attempt to give the units more credibility.
@@WorldWarTwo As shown here the woman at the bottom right is partly out of frame. In the full photo (taken by a German) her expression is horror-stricken.
The Chetnik actions in '44, the ones misattributed to the Partizans by the press, were a case of too little, too late. In other words, they only came when the Chetnik command saw that, due to their (at best) inactivity against the Axis forces, they had lost the support of the Allies in favour of the Partizans. As has already been covered on this channel, the Chetniks started cooperating with the Axis, against the Partizans, as early as autumn of 1941, a mere six months since Yugoslavia was occupied (the fall of the temporarily liberated territory of the Republic of Užice). Ever since then, they increasingly took the "pragmatic" stance that it was "too early to fight the occupiers" but, instead of laying low, they actively participated in the civil war. They occasionally protected some Serbian civilians from the Ustaša regime on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia while terrorizing civilians of other ethnicities and they collaborated with the German and the Italian occupiers against the Partizans. (Again, all as covered on this channel, for those who missed the episodes.) This course of action was what lead to the Allied support shifting from them to the Partizans. That shift, and the desire to reverse it, was what prompted the blowing up of those bridges. Unfortunately for them, by the second half of 1944, either at that point nobody on the Allied side counted on them any more, to the point that it never occurred to them that it would be Chetniks who did it, or, after all the time and resources wasted on them over the previous years, they were no longer seen as a desirable and reliable partner: the acts were publicly attributed to the Partizans and they did nothing to restore their relationship with the Allies.
Also, by mid-1944 the Chetniks started to openly collaborate with the Germans again. As in, they literally fought battles together with the Germans against the Partisans.
Chetniks are a complicated story, to be fair, and I would not apply a label to an individual based on belonging or not belonging to them. However, the growth of the Partisans throughout the war, as well as the shift in the attitude of the staunchly anti-communist west are a testimony to who the more active resistance was, as a whole. To that end, one of my grandfathers was an orphan in the custody of the church before the war and, since they liked him, they were preparing him to become a priest one day. When the war started, nothing could have been further from his mind than communists and partisans. By 1943, he was very disappointed in Chetniks, whom he could see "cohabitating" with the Germans in that particular part of Serbia and, one night, he and the other boys from the home fled together to the woods, to the partisans (he never told me the details, but since there was a larger group of them that left together, I guess that they were approached by them somehow).
Can you recommend a good book in English on the war in Yugoslavia? My impression from watching this series is that Tito was no saint but was probably the least bad of the resistance leaders who, at least, was focussed on fighting the Germans and holding together a multicultural state. (I might be wrong though.)
Nicely recited history textbook, goy. You definitely said something new. Main goal of chetniks was to protect serbian civillians, and the ones standing in their way were partisans and ustase, not the axis. British supported commies because they both have a same master 👃.
Another episode that brings home the fact that the war against in humanity is one that is engaged in by so much of humanity, regardless of good or malicious intent ! Thank you as always for this amazing series.
Thank you for your kind words on our series. The stories from World War II indeed illustrate how humanity, in all its facets, played a role in shaping that period of history. Thanks for watching.
There's a great book called Rogue Male: Sabotage and seduction behind German lines with Geoffrey Gordon-Creed. The memoirs of a British soldier who was with a unit operating behind enemy lines and with the resistance in Greece. Written in the 50's but never published till shortly after he died in 2008 so I suspect it may not be well known. But it's well worth a look.
Hoxha's name is pronounced Hoja. It is derived from a Turkish and I think also Persian word for "teacher". When Hoxha was born in 1908, Albania was still part of the Ottoman Empire.
Thank you for the lesson. This a part of the greater war that I know little about. Seems like a free for all. Pick a side or pick a target. Edit Thank you Frances good luck on your PHD and Happy Octoberfest.
Great show, Sparty. I am really glad that you jump into what is happening in the Balkans because these actions continue to effect the region even today(.i.e. Kosovo, Bosnia)
I hope that you guys will eventually cover all the atrocities commited inside the Independent State of Croatia by Ustashe. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I haven't seen that you guys have covered extensively these crimes against humanity, and according to my research there were a lot of crimes against humanity throughout 1941-1945. I would love to see a special about this. Thank you for everything that you are doing on this channel.
One of those cases where it becomes really hard to make sense of things and all parties seem to be of a variety of shades of grey other than the Nazi's, seemingly hell-bent on remaining almost cartoonishly evil. Thanks for trying to educate us and accepting the consequences of doing so.
Evil indeed. The Balkans was the destination for a number of the worst murder crews in Himmler's army of thugs. After gassing about 140,000 people at the Chelmno extermination camp, Hauptsturmfurhrer Hans Bothmann and his gang were shipped out to the 7th SS Mountain Division Prinz Eugen in May 1943 and spent the next year fighting partisans. The same fate awaited the officers and men of Aktion Reinhard. After the murder campaign ended in November 1943, the men who ran Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were shipped off to the Trieste area. "We were an embarrassment to the Brass." said Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl in a prison interview. "They wanted to find ways and means to incinerate us." He may have been right. Quite a number of these men died there. Among them were Gottfried Schwarz, deputy commandant of Belzec, Franz Reichleitner, second commandant of Sobibor and Christian Wirth, the architect of the entire system of murder, the heart and soul of Reinhard and one of the most monstrous figures of the Nazi era. As you have pointed out, most of the players in this twilight game are various shades of grey. But not when discussing the fates of these men. I think we can unequivocally say that in this case the Yugoslav and Italian Partisans did the world a service. Peace and best wishes!
With a nod to Sparty's multilingualism, I am intrigued by his pronunciation of the verbs "contribute" and "attribute" with an emphasis on the first syllable, in contrast with the general emphasis in English on the second syllable in the verb form for these and similar verbs. He uses the noun-form pronunciation in the pronunciation of these verbs. Verb form pronunciations are conTRIbute and atTRIbute.
I’m not sure why I do that… I mean, I know how it’s supposed to be pronounce, but when I say it, this is how it comes out. It could be a crossover from my French, where both words have initial syllable stress. I know something similar happens with some other words like guerrilla, and bomb… acquiring a native language in a country where it isn’t the native language does funny things to the language. Both my English and Swedish pronunciation is full of idiosyncrasies. For instance I really only learnt how to pronounce Swedish like a modern person when I finally lived there during my studies, before that I apparently sounded like a 1940s newsreel (copying my grandparents).
Sparty, just a quick reminder about pronunciation of names in Yugoslavia - c is pronounced ts, ć is pronounced ch, č is pronounced tch, š is pronounced sh. So, Kruševac is not pronounced Crewshevak but Crewshevats, Šubašić is Shubashich and so on. Otherwise, great work! Will you mention the spring allied bombing of Belgrade and other cities in Serbia and Yugoslavia?@@spartacus-olsson
@@lord1vlada thank you - I will try to remember that. I will probably go back and make an overview of all bombing events at some point, but it will be a while before I have space for that.
@@spartacus-olsson thanks - my grandmother lived in Belgrade during those times, and told me stories how ground was shaking when bombers flew over. Luckily, she was staying at the moment with some relatives in a village next to Belgrade (now a part of Belgrade), because her apartment building was hit.
Finally, an objective episode about the resistance movements in Yugoslavia. In the past few years, you have done some damage because you were not aware of the big differences between the various Chetnik movements in Yugoslavia and misinformation about the national composition of the main resistance movements. But this episode is something that the peoples of the Balkans need today, because to this day there is a great political, ideological, and even cultural conflict in those nations between the supporters of one side or the other. Good work!
War Against Humanity should do an episode on Operation Deer. The CIA operation with Ho Chi Minh in 1945 at the end of WW2. Including the interviews with Archemdes Patti the OSS agent that worked with Ho Chi Minh. Good stuff.
It's interesting that if only the US had thrown France under the bus in Indochina they could have won a loyal ally against China and the USSR, instead they got a chance to bloody nose their nose for no real gain.
No cover of the Slovak National Uprising? Indy Didn't cover it that much either... I hope you guys will eventually cover it, since it gets like no attention from foreigners. Anyways, this was another amazing and hauting video, thank you Sparty!
> Indy Didn't cover it that much either... It only just started. The uprising lasted two months until the end of october, so it gets coverage as it happens, not all in one go.
@@Broken-bj8ly yeah but the fighting already took place at the very beginning. I hope they will cover it more, maybe a re-cap episode or a special episode would be nice too.
It was covered (or at least mentioned) in last week's episode of WAH, along with coverage of French, Belgian, Netherland, and Italian partizen activities.
Very interesting and well- informed approach to these difficult themes. I only have some issues with your approach concerning Greek Resistance. It seemed to me that you consider ELAS the agressor against the rest of the partisan movements and stated that 'ELAS tried to ignite the first part of the greek civil war'. You forgot to take account of the numerous EDES attacks in Epirus, assisted by the British gun shipments to Zervas. Also, you portrayed EKKA as an innocent force swept by the ELAS. In reality, just before Psarros was executed, EKKA was launching devastating attacks against the flanks of ELAS, even executing one of its most prominent and beloved captains, a priest called Barba- Koumpouras. Also, Psarros was shot by an angry ELAS partisan when squabbling with him, and the leadership of ELAS was devastated with the news. They certainly didn't order his execution. I only say this because in these polarised themes, historiography should be completely neutral and recognise the mistakes on all sides. Also, on the Beirut conference, communists wholeheartedly gave their support on the government, not only on paper. Much on the dismay of many lical captains such as Velouchiotis. The idea proposed by Stalin was the creation of a united democratic front and communist leaders blindly followed on this order. Great video, nonetheless 👍
1. It is undeniable that EAM, especially its local branches, attempted to monopolize the Resistance, especially Aris Velouchiotis was in favor of that tactic. On this, I quote communist Thanasis Hatzis, the General Secretary of EAM: "(the men of the Security Battalions) were ordinary people of toil and deprivation, who were blackmailed, forcibly conscripted […] bought off, got carried away, succumbed to famine’s relentless pressure”, and there was no lack of those who joined the Security Battalions “because only through them could acquire weapons to ‘protect’ themselves from EAM’s ‘pressures’ and ‘arbitrariness’, or to ‘avenge’ a damage or a humiliation” (Thanasis Hatzis, The Victorious Revolution that was Lost - The National Liberation Struggle of 1941-45, vol. 3, Athens, 1983, p. 97.) 2. By April 1944, EKKA was split, between Psarros and Captain Thymios Dedousis. It was the faction of Dedousis which targeted and attacked EAM/ELAS members. Also, Spartacus clearly said on 10:42 that local ELAS forces, i.e. Aris Velouchiotis, acted on his own initiative, without orders from EAM's Central Committee. 3. After the backlash from the National Pact of Lebanon, in Free Greece, EAM yielded, for a number of reasons, on August 6. The main reason was that the 8-manned Soviet military delegation, which arrived in Greece on July 26, remained, from what we know, evasive, equivocal, and persistently avoided to give EAM a clear directive.
@WorldWarTwo I agree on point 3. The reason for EAM's reluctance on full-on civil war was the lack of Soviet Union's influence. But the fact remains the same, EAM fully agreed on forming a government and did not pursue civil war. Clashing with rival partisans is a completely different story, as everyone, not only EAM, tried to monopolize the resistance. So it is wrong trying to frame only EAM as an aggressor. On point (2), Psarros fully knew Dedousis's actions. Competing for power doesn't mean that they acted seperately. Psarros even backed militarily Dedousis' actions, thus being captured. I find point (1) completely off, though. What do even security battallions have to do with this matter? These were collaborationost forces and were dealt with as such. It is not something new
@WorldWarTwo also you have to mention these things in your videos, especially point (2) because it seemed to me (maybe wrong idk) that EKKA was a mere 'few hundred men' force, not bands capable of inflicting serious casualties on ELAS
We stand for our position. 1. EAM delegation in Lebanon, pressed by the mutiny and the onslaught against EKKA, yielded in May, but EAM did not accept the National Pact, and did not recognized the signature of its delegation until early August. 2. EAM gave an ultimatum to Psarros, for controlling Dedousis, but Psarros and his forces weren't capable to restrain him. 3. EAM and EDES on local level never stopped fighting. Indicatively, in June EDES attacked EAM and persecuted pro-EAM civilians in Preveza and the area of Zalongo. EAM/ELAS retaliated in July 12-13, when it captured Amfilochia, and in one day killed collaborationists and pro-EDES civilians alike. 4. Security Battalions are related, because EKKA andartes who managed to escaped from capture, went to Patras with their British weapons and uniforms, and joined the Security Battalions. Many of the tagmatasfalites, were former andartes of groups dissolved by EAM/ELAS, who wanted to take revenge or were feeling insecure. The late Ilias Nikolakopoulos supported that, by September 1944, the armed forces of Collaboration in Greece were roughly 20.000 men, while 12%-15% of the population is estimated to be collaborationist or associates (I. Michaelidis, I. Nikolakopoulos, H. Fleischer (ed.), “‘Hostis’ intra portas”, Athens, 2006.)
@WorldWarTwo I really don't understand how you stand on your opinion when you fully agree on my view. You JUST stated numerous occasions where EDES and EKKA savagely attacked ELAS forces and even joined the traitorous tagmatasfalites. That was exactly my point, that ALL the factions of the greek resistance instigated tensions, not only EAM as you said on your video and on your comments. If we agree, why this stubbornness? Also, in 1. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that EAM as a whole did not recognise the signatures. Of course, there were many ELAS captains that were outraged (and even mutinied) such as Velouchiotis and Orestis, but the leadership of EAM fully backed the treaty. You can see the practicals of the Central Comittee of the KKE, where Secretary Siantos forcefully stood by the treaty. The reason for the dealy of the recognition was the fact that the EAM and KKE HAD to vote on that matter (which is extremely difficult when you are an outlaw).
Fitzroy McClain: Why do we support the partisans? They are sworn communists and will turn to the Soviet Union. Winston Churchill: Do you intend to live in Yugoslavia after the war? Fitzroy McClain : No, sir. Winston Churchill: Me neither.
History is a teacher. The Balkans are the perfect history lab for WWII. This episode was thin compared to everything on the channel. And it is here from where we go into the future, which, hey, brings us back into the first post WWII wars in the EU. Kudos on the coverage of WWII. And do not be offended by the comment. Just look at today.
Being remined of the ongoing and ubiquitous atrocities carried out against unarmed and defenseless villagers in this horrific war solidifies the resolve of those of us who not only say "Never Forget", but also "Never again". A murderous force will not attack my community with impunity. As Yamamoto observed : "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass". Your safety and security must reside firmly in your hands. You cannot depend on a government or entity to protect you and those you love. These people did, and it cost them everything........
That Yamaoto quote is fake, he never said that. He never said the Sleeping Giant one either. The Japanese wanted to make a beachhead in the US and Manchuria their way to the Capitol.
@@shadow50011 The quote can be classified as "Apocryphal" as the document that so many respected historians referenced in its retelling is missing or lost. Nevertheless, the statement, whether written or uttered by the Admiral is still true. The United States is unique in the world in that no other nation seeks to possess its lands, despite abundant resources and treasures. Why do you think that's so?
There is no easy way a civilian base who had their government easily toppled is going to easily deal with an army on the level of the German army regardless of how well they are equipped.
Glad you returned to the Balkans. Hope the comment section isn't the reason that keeps you at distance but I also know you don't shy away from the truth. Thank you! Never forget.
@@Pavlos_Charalambous In the Greek Civil War, some support to Communist guerrillas came from Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. I have seen a photo of Enver Hoxha at the bedside of a Greek guerrilla being treated in an Albanian hospital. (Hoxha, who was from southern Albania, could speak Greek.) But it did not offset the considerably greater support the USA and Britain in particular gave to the Greek right.
As the legend says the last thing @dirkbonesteel'S eyes saw were the flaming eyes of Astrid the Designer, the Architect, the Force. May his bones of steel find peace some day.
Chetniks were sitting on two chairs, they represents themself in west ( England and USA) as Nazi fighters, but in reality they were backed up by Germans and Italian army in weapons and ammo to fight Partisans. Also Chetniks as Serb nationalistic movement commited attrocities in Croatian and Bosniak (muslims) villiges through Yugoslavia, killing in some parts thousands of civilians. It is very difficult for foreigners to fully understend Chetniks role in Yugoslavia during WW2. 1943 Chetniks were destroyed ( Chetniks division) by Partisans during Fourth enemy offensive ( German offensive on Partisan movement-Case White) and through the rest of war only small units remains. Today Serbian nationalistic goverment is trying to abolish Chetniks movement as freedom fighters but in reality they were Nazi collaborators and Draza Mihajlovic ( Chetnik's leader) was captured by Partisans or better new established Yugoslav people's army after war, trialed and executed. Death to Fascism-Liberty to people.
I would really appreciate if this channel did dedicated video of German occupation rule over Serbia in WWII and how insanely psychotic it was, pretty much there was lots of infighting among Germans as well and no clear hierarchy of who is in charge.
Ain't nothing clear in the Balkans. Let me try to clarify. This side is supported by that side against the other side that was once supported by that side against this side. I think that's clear enough.
Some outlandish things were penned in the (for Yugoslavia) shitty 90s - that Tito was a son of Winston Churchill and a Polish countess - to explain why UK backed his communist partisans (IRL it was agreed with Stalin in 1943. due to war necessities) and perhaps why the communist Yugoslavia had an almost identical anthem as Poland.
Stalin made a tick in blue pencil next to the proposal. This was taken as assent. However, one biography I read stated that this was his habit to show that he had read a particular document, not that he necessarily approved it.
@@stevekaczynski3793 I think that, given Churchill was in the room in the time, and given that the Soviets and the British subsequently honored this setting up of spheres of influence in eastern Europe, in this case this was an assent.
Please bear in mind that the Nazis would murder 100 Serbian civilians for every Nazi killed and 50 Serbian civilians for every Nazi wounded. This had a stultifying effect on Chetnik anti-Nazi combat operations. Tito, as a half Croat/half-Slovenian dedicated communist could care less how many Serbs were killed. Mihajlovic did care and adopted a more cautious policy that favored sabotage over open conflict with Nazis.
This is a based on a willful misconception. The threat to kill a multiple of civilians for every German killed applied to _all_ ethnicities, across _all_ occupied territories. So the idea that this was some kind of ethnic idea by Tito doesn't hold up. You might say he didn't care about civilian casualties resulting from resistance activities, but you can't make it about Serbs only.
In 1943, the top Tito representatives met the Nazis and the Ustashas in Sarajevo to negotiate cooperation in case the Allies land in the Balkans and not in Italy.
Interesting to see how Churchill and the British Foreign affairs have tried their hand at containement a few years before the Truman Doctrine. Funny to see how incompetent they were, blinded by their colonialist background, their royalist preference, their paranoia against socialism - and the cynical utilitarianism that liberal democracies are still guided by today. Romania, Bulgaria : ceded as property to Moscow. 50 year lost. And in Greece the civil war, the many years of polarization, the military dictatorship. 30 years lost. Tito did brilliantly, considering the odds against him. If you don't have a De Gaulle, buy yourself a Tito !
I wonder if your last line was spoken as a historian addressing the extremists of the past or directed at the present day extremists who have been on the march against democracy in many places in the world?
An well-put video as always, but I feel the tone of some of the facts a bit strong. The establishment of British-backed government simply was not possible, as it did not have the backing of the people. They were viewed as traitors and frankly forgotten by most Yugoslavian citizens who had to endure years of terror. Hence why partisans were also so strong and numerous, they did not simply divide based on enthic lines like Ustashe or Chetniks, but rather wanted to remain a unified and independent organisation. Their efforts would have not been so fruitful without Allied help, but it is a bit arrogant that Churchil expected that he would be able to install a government to his control simply on their own whim. Chetniks were also Axis collaborators as spoken previously (but not mentioned in this video), and there was a threat of Soviet influence that honestly could only be leveraged by an already communist government, which would, at least at the beginning, agree to collaborate. It was a mess of an affair, but one honestly that could have turned even much worse after the war.
Partisans were the majority in the Dinaric regions (Montenegro, Herzegovina, large parts of Bosnia, parts of Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun) and this is not because of ideology, they were people with extremely poor education, there was no industry, and agricultural areas were extremely poor. The tradition of the monarchy was weak, it lasted there only since 1918, in contrast to Serbia, which was tied to the crown. The communists promised the people from those Dinaric regions a better life and they fulfilled the promise, after the war several tens of thousands were given military status, high salaries and early retirement, they were given houses and apartments whose owners were previously expelled as enemies of communism, often shot . more than tens of thousands of people from the Dinaric regions got houses and agricultural land of exceptional quality in the north of Serbia, whose owners were Germans (over 300,000 expelled, around 50,000 killed). Tito knew how to thank the people who brought him to power.
What do you mean exactly? The civil war of the nineties was indeed in some way a continuation of ethnic conflicts that were happening during the Second World War, but the wise rise of the communists at least put that temporarily on hold. Unfortunately, as socialism was crumbling, the peoples of Yugoslavia "rediscovered" nationalism and some of the first atrocities of the war were committed in the name of avenging what happened during WWII.
Shouldn't the "Marocchinate" be mentioned after the battle of Monte Cassino ended? Or was this issue actually fake? Or... this will be mentioned alongside with similar crimes done by other Allied powers?
Following Marocchinate, 207 soldiers were tried for sexual violence but 39 of them were acquitted for lack of evidence. 28 soldiers caught in the act were also executed.[16] In January 1947, France authorized the compensation of 1,488 victims of sexual violence for crimes committed by French colonial troops.[16]
Saw the New Zealand flag there. Of course NZ got caught up in all this when they captured Trieste and Yugoslav partisans got upset when German soldiers began surrendering to the Kiwis. Yugoslavs began firing on their NZ allies, killing a soldier. The NZ’ers who had seen action in Greece, North Africa and Italy very nearly set their artillery on the Yugoslavs. It got so bad that the Germans offered to ally themselves with NZ against the Yugoslavs. It was the start of the Cold War. Fortunately the Yugoslavs withdrew under leadership.
The name is pronounced Shu-bash-ich. We actually have two "ch" sounds -- a shorter, chirpier "ch" and a more pronounced "tsch". The chirpy one is with the acute diacritic, the more pronounced one is with the caron diacritic.
Kind of a history repeats itself thing. And I'll try to use an analogy here. When father ( Tito's Yugoslavia) died, the children (Serbia, Bosnia, etc...). Fought amongst themselves for the estate. Kinda like when the Nazis had control. I don't know. Maybe the life of Brian makes more sense with the Judean people's front and the people's front of Judea. Edit:. If the Carthaginians supported both factions. And the french drew lines on the map. Does that make any sense? It's getting complicated
Sparticus. I really do think your hearts in the right place here... But have you ever worried about coming off as "raising awareness" rather than reporting history? I know you may try to do both; But I've yet to see if it is really possible. Sometimes superimposing shock value and emotionalism to history, has lead to some really bad history. ..The reason I think it's relevant to say this here is because I hear more than a few subjective/pejorative/loaded terms. I'm not trying to troll you, I'm just trying to make a suggestion that will help you/us all out here. I don't mean to be solely negative though, you are in many other respects doing very well, please keep up the good work. All in all, I must say, damn good job on all of your parts, and big up TimeGhostArmy.
We’re pretty clear on the limitations on “opinion” we set ourselves. We do not venture outside either to the left or the right from one specific trench; the values defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The rest is just the facts of events as best known by us historians, verified through the principles of epistemologically.
OK, I'm glad you said that, because it clears somethng up really neither of us has yet said. But since I am at the lower risk, I'll say it, and please just try and take it for what it's worth, I'm really in support of you overall... Let me say that I have never once thought or said that I thought you weren't being down the line. Everyone thinks they are being down the line. But doesn't this draw into where "history" by definition splits (as it should) with being either by def.1: " The way we look at the past, generally speaking today as being "history" . (so the grand narrative rules the day (and I'm not postmodernist or any ism in fact I'm just a classic liberal) And' then their's also Def.#2 History,' meaning: The study of the record of the past, which is quite a different thing sometimes than the concurrence of most people at the given moment. My point is that the story of the present and the record of the past don't often fit. ..And to introduce myself, this is where my studies lead me. I don't claim to be an expert on anything however. ..But back to the subject at hand. Another way I may put it is, even by trying to be straight down the line/fair, doing so ignores the political distortion we all acknowledge, even though we try and offset it with terms like "primary source" even though they are important qualities of source to know. Some of the most varied accounts are from primary sources, and don't get me wrong, I haven't a better source other that the facts on the ground after the dust has settled, which often reveals differences [by then[ far too entrenched to remove. If you could even get a little deeper into this (and I admit you already are somewhat into it) you could really improve our understanding as a species. distorted by "X" party and got away with it. I don't think this was helpful to anyone but them and I want to get to the bottom of it. Of course there's the awful "Conspiracy Theorist" Marker you still must be cognizant of. It still kills. Please forgive me Sir. I appreciate your thoughts on this, believe me sir, I have no gripe with your capability or your scruples. ..I really think this could be a quite constructive debate if we had it rationally and that's why I was really encouraged by your reply. I seriously love you guys, and for that reason, even when I have a little gripe with you I have to say something. I don't mean to annoy you at all, I just want to help add to the great service I think you are providing to so many people. Also, Apologies for not having the time to proofread please be kind...I tried to fix some things and just made it worse I think.
@@davidmasner not annoyed at all, and always glad to discuss. Here’s the thing; the way historiography is written professionally in 2023 is not anywhere close to what you’re describing. It’s the difference between using dialectic method and the scientific methods. Dialectics used to be the method. That entails what you suggest - choosing a source that makes the “best argument” or having a dialogue between experts to weed out the best argument for what happened. In that game secondary and tertiary sources play a big part, and invariably it leads to problematic historiography. 1. Errors or distortions get perpetuated and carried forward. 2. Accuracy or “truth” is arbitrary as it’s based on rhetorical conviction, rather than hard evidence. 3. The opinion of the author will flow freely into the historiography. 4. The result is often a forgone conclusion. In other words anything that contradicts the story the author wants to tell tends to be ignored. But that method - dialectics - is dead and buried in academic history studies. Instead we adhere to the scientific method. The testing of a thesis against all available evidence to prove or disprove it. Secondary or tertiary sources can only be used as reference to proof, not as proof themselves. Instead primary sources play the essential part. If a researcher manages to prove a thesis it is then subject to peer review. This is not a review of the historiography itself, but of the proof and method that was used to arrive at it. This is an open, transparent process that involves many, many scrutinizing eyes. Only when it passes that test does it become accepted academic historiography. You can safely assume that much of what you were taught in primary and secondary school, and a lot you have read, heard, or seen in popular history works, has not been subject to that method, and will be tainted the way you fear that all historiography is. For academic historiography it simply isn’t. Now, we’re popular historians for sure, not primarily researchers. However, for our chronologies we proof them against academic historiography, not other popular historiographies. That means that although we’re not infallible, you will find that our work is many steps closer to verifiable fact, than most other popular histories.
@@spartacus-olsson Thanks for that Spartacus. I'm very honored that you have given me your time and consideration. ..I like that you bring up the Dialectic model, or as I call it 'Diversity-Equality-Inclusion History' which gives a medal to everyone giving input (whether right or wrong) and throws Aristotelian logic out the window. When I think about how this method was used, I can't help but fear for the credibility of some of our most common narratives. ..Let me try and be a bit more concrete. V. Putin a few years back was giving some sort of speech and remarked somewhat casually that the Second World War was started by Polish Aggression. ..He didn't even bat an eye as he said it, It seemed he really believes this. .. If a Russian head of State believes this and says it as though it were Gospel, I have to wonder how much disparity exists between the different Historical Narratives of people from different nations, ideologies, religions etc. ...Now I'm not about to be a Dialectic myself here and take some sort of position that all of these histories have 'their own truth' and they can come together to elucidate some higher truth rather than contradict one another. But I can't help but wonder how people in Russia can think Poland Started the war. ...I can't help but think about why in some parts of the world it's illegal to even think the Holocaust didn't happen, meanwhile events like the Holodomor aren't even recognized or taught in schools. ..Over and over it seems to me that politics is the chimera of history. I've seen politics shape one's view of history, and conversely I've seen History shape one's politics. I've seen brilliant historians fall from grace by going Left, Right or to another place altogether and I think that is a major pitfall of the study of History. I don't think any one other factor influences the main ideologies people subscribe to than History. ..For this reason as historians I think we have an obligation to remain both politically emotionally neutral in our efforts towards studying the record of the past. I think we are in agreement here and I think you (TG) all do very well as Historians from this point of view. ..Wars, in the concrete, are men fighting and killing each other. However in the abstract and longer lived, perhaps more real sense, they are conflicts of ideas and visions. So it only makes sense to me that everyone's Weltanshauung is going to differ from one to the next, but when the actual accounts of History differ/contradict, then there is a problem. This is where I break completely from the dialectic. e.g. I don't think Poland could have been both victim and the aggressor in 1939 which perhaps a dialectic might argue. (Not saying this is an actual dialectic belief, but just a hypothetical example) ..What I might argue however, is firstly, the self-evident matter that nearly nothing is ever black and white, and I think maybe here, is where some of those bifurcations in history begin; Especially if they find politically convenient 'traction.' ...I think it would be fascinating and illuminating to look into some of these divisions in Historical though around the world. Not to prove/disprove them or take any side, but just to see where they come from and what they might point out that perhaps we of another mind, never saw or thought of. On the surface, this idea itself sounds dialectic itself which I don't like. However my Aristotelian brain revolts equally to the idea that we should take our own ideas as being right on faith. ...Do you think that there is any way that someone can walk a line either apart from, or perhaps between the popular/dialectic methods of history and maybe find out what really was the case in some of the areas of history we might find incomplete? ..Going back to the Putin, and considering all the talk about Russia and borders that's in the news, I can't help but see how the most formidable divisions between the West and Moscow come from two very different ways of seeing the past. ..What I mean is, all these concrete problems like war in Ukraine today, to me seem like naturally occurring products from two incongruent sets of ideas. I think this begs the perhaps naive thought of, Why doesn't an independent, peer reviewed body that is held to historically accurate standards look into what actually happened on some of these discrepancies or mysteries? I'm not saying this would be an easy enterprise to create and maintain, but do you think that if we really stuck to solid source material and methodology and didn't get too far out into the weeds that we could look at some of these strange anomalies in history and learn something from them without going full on Dialectic? I don't have a problem with the methodology we use in the West now, and I'm not looking to revise or subvert any part of history. I just think there are a lot of questions out there which are not being asked, and I can't help but wonder why. ...Often it seems that there is a political issue, and so [I think] historians shy away from it for the obvious reasons of not wanting to become embroiled with the fickle ephemeral nature of politics. But I think this misses the forest for the trees, because often the very politics themselves are a glaring aspect of history as well. ...Again, thank you so much for taking the time Spartacus. I didn't mean for this thread to carry on so long. I'm setting up a Patreon account with you. Perhaps we can chat there later on, just don't let me talk your ear off, I know you're busy. You've definitely done a sufficiently worthy job to receive my support. Again, I love your work. Hopefully I can show you some of my own work as well some day soon.
Long before the Allies, the Germans and Italians realized that the partisans represent a military factor of first-rate importance, before which the modern army is helpless in many ways. In the course of three years, they launched no less than seven large-scale offensives against them, each employing more than ten divisions with all the supporting branches of the army. Once or twice larger partisan forces were close to being surrounded and exterminated. The enemy's aviation, against which they had no protection, played a significant role here by discovering their positions and tying them up until the ground army units arrived to deal with them. But every time they managed to get away, disappear and reappear in another place, attacking the enemy where he least expected it. During each of these offensives, extensive troop movements exposed the enemy, more than ever before, to partisan attacks and ambushes. Because of this, all these offensives failed and the partisans, although exhausted, hungry and poorly equipped, continued their resistance undisturbed.[1]“ (Fitzroy MacLean)
When Churchill had a meeting with the senior British officer in Yugoslavia, he was informed that the Partisans were a Communist movement and intended to impose it after the War. Churchill replied, "Do you intend to settle in Yugoslavia after the war?". The officer, stunned, replied, "No, of course not!" "Neither do I, so I suggest we let the Yugoslavs settle their political matters themselves"
the german Eltite surly know that the war is lost. But what about the normal german soldiers? They retreating away from greece and the balkans, from france and from the USSR. Were there aware that the war can not be won?
Probably the most aware were already trying to surrender or desert, and execution commandos will soon be formed to deter this. However, open statements like "we've lost the war" were precisely the kind of thing that could lead to a drumhead court-martial and swift execution, and soon German soldiers would not even get that amount of due process - they could be hanged from trees or telephone poles with signs around their neck like "He who fights may die. He who refuses to defend his German Fatherland has to die. We had to die!"
@WorldWarTwo it's all good new school year new school for my youngest high school as the would say in the US As I'm in the uk it's called secondary school🧡💛❤️
I got no dog in this fight. But I gotta say that one thing that always boggles me is the amount of time and energy the different partisan groups spent fighting and undermining each other for control when they could’ve been devoting all those resources towards expelling the Germans. It’s a fight that’s only understandable at the political level since whoever wins that fight will ultimately become that country’s new government, but it’s also sort of like fighting for a control of a sinking ship (or a ship that would be sinking if not for Allied aid). I can just feel the raw frustration of the Allied command, who could only have seen these petty squabbles for the impediment they were to the ultimate goal of defeating Germany and liberating Europe, even though they (ie the Soviets and Western Allies) are in large part responsible for inserting their own great power games into so many local struggles. To say nothing of the civilian populace; caught between a brutal occupation and these squabbling “freedom fighters” who sometimes behave just as badly or whose actions invite the retribution of the Axis.
Speaking of the Allies helping the Communists. I can't wait to get to the part of this series when we talk about how the "Allies" surrended Poland to the USSR. Which totally negated their justification to declare war on Germany in 1939. Hitler, you can't steal Poland's sovergnty... only Stalin is allowed to do that.
I'm, sure glad the Western Allies learned their lesson about how arming and supporting extremist resistance movements against a greater foe is a risky move. I'm sure that will never happen again. On a somewhat related and less sarcastic note, is there any interest in covering Southeast Asia and specifically Ho Chi Minh's movement (and conflicts with the Chinese and Japanese) during the war?
Good luck to our community managers dealing with the comment section on this one! But, more seriously, this story forces us to look at the war from a different angle. Here, in the Balkans, we have a civil war built on centuries of ethnic, religious, and political tensions. A civil war which is nested within a world war. Add in the Allied and Axis powers battling friend and foe for influence and you have a cauldron that’s just waiting to boil over. If you know your Balkan history, you’ll know that this story is far from over and that the legacy of this war will contribute to much more bloodshed in the future. Never forget.
A sad fact of European history is that the Balkans has been a problematic region throughout the 20th Century. Heck, it was problematic during Roman times, too.
A civil war is always the worst as it pits brother after brother and father after son ........it's personal
You ought to try and make a decent video, not some slapstick history info show ("mixing frogs and grandmothers" is what we call it) do the extra work, trust me, it will pay of, because Serbs, former Yugoslavs, don't like to be fucked over, that's 80% of the reason why we fidget so much.
Lmao. I'm scared to scroll down. Probably a blood bath down there 😂
I wonder if the reason the allies skipped the whole Balkan Peninsula in their liberation battles (Italy, France…) was that they knew it was a massive clusterfuck of people of different ideologies who were in no way willing to compromise and that they would have found themselves there in a situation similar to that of the Germans had they entered and attempted to restore some resemblance of pre-war statu quo.
In connection with the war between the Chetniks and the Partisans, a phenomenon was widespread in many Serbian regions. In a family where there were at least two male children, one went to the Chetniks and the other to the Partisans.
This is an old technique in many societies. Scottish Highland chieftains sometimes had sons fighting on both sides of a conflict. Since loss of property - attainder - tended to be inflicted on the loser, having one or more sons on the winning side raised the possibility that they might get the property from attainder instead and it would still remain in the family.
In the first months of the rebellion. But over time as it became obvious who is fighting the Nazis and who was merely massacring the local civilian population, partisans became the only choice which is why they ultimately won the civil war.
@@lessimcdowell9897Turns out how? Elaborate please...
Also: What does capitalism have to do with this discussion?
@@lessimcdowell9897 You shure brought a howitzer to the knifefight...🤣 Great and, may I say indeed an elaborate answer.
@@mnemonijaPartisans killed more people then Chetniks
Thank you Sparty & team as always for this episode of the War Against Humanity. It can sometimes not be easy trying to navigate and cover through the multi-faceted complexity of this part of the war.
Thank you so much for watching, never forget.
The interesting thing about the Allies is that the British broke off relations with the Chetniks while the Americans supported them. They did not withdraw people from the Chetnik headquarters in Serbia. They even sent new delegations. Regardless of everything, the Partisans at that moment in Yugoslavia were already a serious army that was armed by the Allies and with weapons taken from the Italians. They had under arms over 200,000 soldiers, organization, officers, commissars, politicians. From central to local level. They also had a lot of territory in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro. For example, at this time, the Partisans, with about 50,000 soldiers, were leading a serious campaign and hard fighting to break into Serbia since March. Which at that time was a strong stronghold of the Chetniks. The action itself was coordinated with the allies, who in April massively bombed Belgrade and other major cities in Serbia to help them.
You bring up a good point--that the Allies were at cross-purposes in the underground wars raging across occupied Europe. You left out Soviet support and influence--though with British and American shipping weapons and arms taken from Italy, the Soviets only needed to send token supplies to maintain influence.
The USA had an anti-colonial policy. Britain had its empire. America had a stated goal of dissolving the imperial powers--that included France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and of course the British Empire. There was strong support for the USSR in America at the time and Churchill was openly hostile to Stalin. Backstabbing is a feature in guerrilla campaigns--routine and expected.
Which uneducated person dubbed World War Two "the Good War?" As this "War Against Humanity" illustrates, it wasn't all that good.
I think at this point British foreign policy was not yet in lockstep with US.
@@stevekaczynski3793 You think right--but British foreign policy probably isn't lockstep with US policy today, either. Different countries, different goals.
@@alancranford3398 The last time British foreign policy seriously deviated from that of the USA was Suez 1956. And that ended disastrously. Britain managed to stay out of the Vietnam War, though rumours were circulated that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent, perhaps as revenge for the relative lack of cooperation. In 1983 the USA invaded Grenada without bothering to consult Whitehall first, even though Grenada was a Commonwealth country. Thatcher was miffed with her friend Ronald but what was she going to do?
@@alancranford3398 Was i t really called "the Good war" First time I hear about it.
A comment to show my support for the channel, and to help boost it's RUclips algorithm. Never forget
Thanks you!
Nice job Spartacus. I have always been interested in this particular front in WW2. You made a good concise description of the infighting in the Balkans during the war. Thanks for this information on what led up to the post-war history of this area.
Imagine growing up in a big, borderless, nationally unified country of six republics, to then watch it deform to battlegrounds. A civil war, as a means to settle reignited historical feuds, growing divisions among it's citizens on basis of nationality and everyone's desire for a unilateral transformation of the federation of republics, back to national states. These new borders could have all been negotiated, agreed and gradually implemented, without a single fired shot...but, people lacked trust, wanted immediate full control, by deadly force if needed. So, here we are. Never forget!
11:23 - I saw this photo on a display in an Athens museum a few years ago. The hanged man was an ELAS courier. The soldier is a member of one of the Greek security battalions. They were generally dressed like Evzones, elite Greek infantry, in an attempt to give the units more credibility.
That is correct, it is, propably the photo in 11:21
@@WorldWarTwo As shown here the woman at the bottom right is partly out of frame. In the full photo (taken by a German) her expression is horror-stricken.
Another highly researched episode. Best wishes to Francis for his ongoing adventures in academia.
The Chetnik actions in '44, the ones misattributed to the Partizans by the press, were a case of too little, too late. In other words, they only came when the Chetnik command saw that, due to their (at best) inactivity against the Axis forces, they had lost the support of the Allies in favour of the Partizans.
As has already been covered on this channel, the Chetniks started cooperating with the Axis, against the Partizans, as early as autumn of 1941, a mere six months since Yugoslavia was occupied (the fall of the temporarily liberated territory of the Republic of Užice). Ever since then, they increasingly took the "pragmatic" stance that it was "too early to fight the occupiers" but, instead of laying low, they actively participated in the civil war. They occasionally protected some Serbian civilians from the Ustaša regime on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia while terrorizing civilians of other ethnicities and they collaborated with the German and the Italian occupiers against the Partizans. (Again, all as covered on this channel, for those who missed the episodes.) This course of action was what lead to the Allied support shifting from them to the Partizans. That shift, and the desire to reverse it, was what prompted the blowing up of those bridges. Unfortunately for them, by the second half of 1944, either at that point nobody on the Allied side counted on them any more, to the point that it never occurred to them that it would be Chetniks who did it, or, after all the time and resources wasted on them over the previous years, they were no longer seen as a desirable and reliable partner: the acts were publicly attributed to the Partizans and they did nothing to restore their relationship with the Allies.
Also, by mid-1944 the Chetniks started to openly collaborate with the Germans again. As in, they literally fought battles together with the Germans against the Partisans.
Chetniks are a complicated story, to be fair, and I would not apply a label to an individual based on belonging or not belonging to them. However, the growth of the Partisans throughout the war, as well as the shift in the attitude of the staunchly anti-communist west are a testimony to who the more active resistance was, as a whole. To that end, one of my grandfathers was an orphan in the custody of the church before the war and, since they liked him, they were preparing him to become a priest one day. When the war started, nothing could have been further from his mind than communists and partisans. By 1943, he was very disappointed in Chetniks, whom he could see "cohabitating" with the Germans in that particular part of Serbia and, one night, he and the other boys from the home fled together to the woods, to the partisans (he never told me the details, but since there was a larger group of them that left together, I guess that they were approached by them somehow).
Can you recommend a good book in English on the war in Yugoslavia? My impression from watching this series is that Tito was no saint but was probably the least bad of the resistance leaders who, at least, was focussed on fighting the Germans and holding together a multicultural state. (I might be wrong though.)
Nicely recited history textbook, goy. You definitely said something new.
Main goal of chetniks was to protect serbian civillians, and the ones standing in their way were partisans and ustase, not the axis. British supported commies because they both have a same master 👃.
@@plisskin117Tito is the worst one.
I didn't know anything about Greek, Italian and Albanian resistance before WaH. Thank you for dedicating these special episodes to them.
Another episode that brings home the fact that the war against in humanity is one that is engaged in by so much of humanity, regardless of good or malicious intent ! Thank you as always for this amazing series.
Thank you for your kind words on our series. The stories from World War II indeed illustrate how humanity, in all its facets, played a role in shaping that period of history.
Thanks for watching.
There's a great book called Rogue Male: Sabotage and seduction behind German lines with Geoffrey Gordon-Creed. The memoirs of a British soldier who was with a unit operating behind enemy lines and with the resistance in Greece. Written in the 50's but never published till shortly after he died in 2008 so I suspect it may not be well known. But it's well worth a look.
As a serbian, I have just been waiting for this episode.
Thanks for watching.
As a Greek me 2
Good job Spartacus, it's time to expose some parizans dirty laundry
as a Serbian ...how is it? like it?
Great video!
Btw, would you make a video for the rest of the Balkan countries?
Romania and Bulgaria are very interesting stories.
I second this request.
Great idea.
Thank you!
I actually already discussed Romania over on our Twitter, in case you'd be interested in some extra reading!
-Will
Hoxha's name is pronounced Hoja. It is derived from a Turkish and I think also Persian word for "teacher". When Hoxha was born in 1908, Albania was still part of the Ottoman Empire.
careful, they might think J as in jalapenos, it's the J from Jacques.
@@KristijanRisteski-zp7bx It's neither,more like J in Jack.
@@5tgfwjf5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha - the top of the article has a voice clip showing the pronunciation for his name.
@@KristijanRisteski-zp7bxthat would be like wacques my arm pits for me!!..
Thank you for the lesson.
This a part of the greater war that I know little about.
Seems like a free for all.
Pick a side or pick a target.
Edit Thank you Frances good luck on your PHD and Happy Octoberfest.
All the best on your academic endeavor Francis! As anyways, great episode, and appreciate Sparty pulling no punches in the outros recently.
“I’m not killing the messenger, I’m merely beating the life slowly out of him
Another excellent episode!! Keep up the good work!!
Thanks a lot! Never Forget. -TimeGhost Ambassador
All the best, Francis! ❤
Start the clock boys, how long until RUclips censors this one....
Outstanding narration of very intricate events at this juncture or Ww2 in the Balkans
Great Video as always ❤
Thank you so much!
Great show, Sparty. I am really glad that you jump into what is happening in the Balkans because these actions continue to effect the region even today(.i.e. Kosovo, Bosnia)
Have to make sure to watch these videos before the censor's knife touches them.
Save the link to a list.
The uncensored videos are still available.
Just not pushed by the algorithm.
Hi Sparty
So much details covered.
This information I couldn't find anywhere.
Never forget
I hope that you guys will eventually cover all the atrocities commited inside the Independent State of Croatia by Ustashe. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I haven't seen that you guys have covered extensively these crimes against humanity, and according to my research there were a lot of crimes against humanity throughout 1941-1945. I would love to see a special about this. Thank you for everything that you are doing on this channel.
You can check multiple episodes about the topic in our past episodes of the War Against Humanity series
They’ve talked about it at multiple times in the 1941-42 episodes.
One of those cases where it becomes really hard to make sense of things and all parties seem to be of a variety of shades of grey other than the Nazi's, seemingly hell-bent on remaining almost cartoonishly evil. Thanks for trying to educate us and accepting the consequences of doing so.
Evil indeed. The Balkans was the destination for a number of the worst murder crews in Himmler's army of thugs. After gassing about 140,000 people at the Chelmno extermination camp, Hauptsturmfurhrer Hans Bothmann and his gang were shipped out to the 7th SS Mountain Division Prinz Eugen in May 1943 and spent the next year fighting partisans. The same fate awaited the officers and men of Aktion Reinhard. After the murder campaign ended in November 1943, the men who ran Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were shipped off to the Trieste area. "We were an embarrassment to the Brass." said Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl in a prison interview. "They wanted to find ways and means to incinerate us." He may have been right. Quite a number of these men died there. Among them were Gottfried Schwarz, deputy commandant of Belzec, Franz Reichleitner, second commandant of Sobibor and Christian Wirth, the architect of the entire system of murder, the heart and soul of Reinhard and one of the most monstrous figures of the Nazi era. As you have pointed out, most of the players in this twilight game are various shades of grey. But not when discussing the fates of these men. I think we can unequivocally say that in this case the Yugoslav and Italian Partisans did the world a service.
Peace and best wishes!
Thank you guys for the best videos.
Thank you!
With a nod to Sparty's multilingualism, I am intrigued by his pronunciation of the verbs "contribute" and "attribute" with an emphasis on the first syllable, in contrast with the general emphasis in English on the second syllable in the verb form for these and similar verbs. He uses the noun-form pronunciation in the pronunciation of these verbs. Verb form pronunciations are conTRIbute and atTRIbute.
I’m not sure why I do that… I mean, I know how it’s supposed to be pronounce, but when I say it, this is how it comes out. It could be a crossover from my French, where both words have initial syllable stress. I know something similar happens with some other words like guerrilla, and bomb… acquiring a native language in a country where it isn’t the native language does funny things to the language. Both my English and Swedish pronunciation is full of idiosyncrasies. For instance I really only learnt how to pronounce Swedish like a modern person when I finally lived there during my studies, before that I apparently sounded like a 1940s newsreel (copying my grandparents).
Sparty, just a quick reminder about pronunciation of names in Yugoslavia - c is pronounced ts, ć is pronounced ch, č is pronounced tch, š is pronounced sh. So, Kruševac is not pronounced Crewshevak but Crewshevats, Šubašić is Shubashich and so on. Otherwise, great work! Will you mention the spring allied bombing of Belgrade and other cities in Serbia and Yugoslavia?@@spartacus-olsson
@@lord1vlada thank you - I will try to remember that. I will probably go back and make an overview of all bombing events at some point, but it will be a while before I have space for that.
@@spartacus-olsson thanks - my grandmother lived in Belgrade during those times, and told me stories how ground was shaking when bombers flew over. Luckily, she was staying at the moment with some relatives in a village next to Belgrade (now a part of Belgrade), because her apartment building was hit.
Finally, an objective episode about the resistance movements in Yugoslavia. In the past few years, you have done some damage because you were not aware of the big differences between the various Chetnik movements in Yugoslavia and misinformation about the national composition of the main resistance movements.
But this episode is something that the peoples of the Balkans need today, because to this day there is a great political, ideological, and even cultural conflict in those nations between the supporters of one side or the other. Good work!
Chetniks were colaborators and traitors, no better than ustashe in any regard. Its just that they suit more than communist to western propaganda
BRILLIANT ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT VIDEO
Will there be any videos on the Resistance in the Philippines?
Good question.
I would like to see that.
Most likely going to see that from October onwards, as that is when the liberatuon of the Philippines will begin.
Tito accepts the Terms of Service with no intention whatsoever of sticking to them; a tale as old as time.
War Against Humanity should do an episode on Operation Deer. The CIA operation with Ho Chi Minh in 1945 at the end of WW2. Including the interviews with Archemdes Patti the OSS agent that worked with Ho Chi Minh. Good stuff.
It's interesting that if only the US had thrown France under the bus in Indochina they could have won a loyal ally against China and the USSR, instead they got a chance to bloody nose their nose for no real gain.
Good luck and Congratulations Francis. This was an excellent and well-written episode! Are we getting a preview of a probable Doctoral Thesis?!!
A great video.
Thanks Predrag!
No cover of the Slovak National Uprising? Indy Didn't cover it that much either... I hope you guys will eventually cover it, since it gets like no attention from foreigners. Anyways, this was another amazing and hauting video, thank you Sparty!
> Indy Didn't cover it that much either...
It only just started.
The uprising lasted two months until the end of october, so it gets coverage as it happens, not all in one go.
@@Broken-bj8ly yeah but the fighting already took place at the very beginning. I hope they will cover it more, maybe a re-cap episode or a special episode would be nice too.
It was covered (or at least mentioned) in last week's episode of WAH, along with coverage of French, Belgian, Netherland, and Italian partizen activities.
Great script, thank you Frances and good luck with your PHD.
Obligatory comment to feed the yt algorithm.
That aside powerful and great as always.
Thank you very much for the comment!
Another great episode!
Thank you!
Very interesting and well- informed approach to these difficult themes.
I only have some issues with your approach concerning Greek Resistance. It seemed to me that you consider ELAS the agressor against the rest of the partisan movements and stated that 'ELAS tried to ignite the first part of the greek civil war'. You forgot to take account of the numerous EDES attacks in Epirus, assisted by the British gun shipments to Zervas. Also, you portrayed EKKA as an innocent force swept by the ELAS. In reality, just before Psarros was executed, EKKA was launching devastating attacks against the flanks of ELAS, even executing one of its most prominent and beloved captains, a priest called Barba- Koumpouras. Also, Psarros was shot by an angry ELAS partisan when squabbling with him, and the leadership of ELAS was devastated with the news. They certainly didn't order his execution.
I only say this because in these polarised themes, historiography should be completely neutral and recognise the mistakes on all sides.
Also, on the Beirut conference, communists wholeheartedly gave their support on the government, not only on paper. Much on the dismay of many lical captains such as Velouchiotis. The idea proposed by Stalin was the creation of a united democratic front and communist leaders blindly followed on this order.
Great video, nonetheless 👍
1. It is undeniable that EAM, especially its local branches, attempted to monopolize the Resistance, especially Aris Velouchiotis was in favor of that tactic. On this, I quote communist Thanasis Hatzis, the General Secretary of EAM: "(the men of the Security Battalions) were ordinary people of toil and deprivation, who were blackmailed, forcibly conscripted […] bought off, got carried away, succumbed to famine’s relentless pressure”, and there was no lack of those who joined the Security Battalions “because only through them could acquire weapons to ‘protect’ themselves from EAM’s ‘pressures’ and ‘arbitrariness’, or to ‘avenge’ a damage or a humiliation” (Thanasis Hatzis, The Victorious Revolution that was Lost - The National Liberation Struggle of 1941-45, vol. 3, Athens, 1983, p. 97.)
2. By April 1944, EKKA was split, between Psarros and Captain Thymios Dedousis. It was the faction of Dedousis which targeted and attacked EAM/ELAS members. Also, Spartacus clearly said on 10:42 that local ELAS forces, i.e. Aris Velouchiotis, acted on his own initiative, without orders from EAM's Central Committee.
3. After the backlash from the National Pact of Lebanon, in Free Greece, EAM yielded, for a number of reasons, on August 6. The main reason was that the 8-manned Soviet military delegation, which arrived in Greece on July 26, remained, from what we know, evasive, equivocal, and persistently avoided to give EAM a clear directive.
@WorldWarTwo I agree on point 3. The reason for EAM's reluctance on full-on civil war was the lack of Soviet Union's influence. But the fact remains the same, EAM fully agreed on forming a government and did not pursue civil war. Clashing with rival partisans is a completely different story, as everyone, not only EAM, tried to monopolize the resistance. So it is wrong trying to frame only EAM as an aggressor.
On point (2), Psarros fully knew Dedousis's actions. Competing for power doesn't mean that they acted seperately. Psarros even backed militarily Dedousis' actions, thus being captured.
I find point (1) completely off, though. What do even security battallions have to do with this matter? These were collaborationost forces and were dealt with as such. It is not something new
@WorldWarTwo also you have to mention these things in your videos, especially point (2) because it seemed to me (maybe wrong idk) that EKKA was a mere 'few hundred men' force, not bands capable of inflicting serious casualties on ELAS
We stand for our position. 1. EAM delegation in Lebanon, pressed by the mutiny and the onslaught against EKKA, yielded in May, but EAM did not accept the National Pact, and did not recognized the signature of its delegation until early August. 2. EAM gave an ultimatum to Psarros, for controlling Dedousis, but Psarros and his forces weren't capable to restrain him. 3. EAM and EDES on local level never stopped fighting. Indicatively, in June EDES attacked EAM and persecuted pro-EAM civilians in Preveza and the area of Zalongo. EAM/ELAS retaliated in July 12-13, when it captured Amfilochia, and in one day killed collaborationists and pro-EDES civilians alike. 4. Security Battalions are related, because EKKA andartes who managed to escaped from capture, went to Patras with their British weapons and uniforms, and joined the Security Battalions. Many of the tagmatasfalites, were former andartes of groups dissolved by EAM/ELAS, who wanted to take revenge or were feeling insecure. The late Ilias Nikolakopoulos supported that, by September 1944, the armed forces of Collaboration in Greece were roughly 20.000 men, while 12%-15% of the population is estimated to be collaborationist or associates (I. Michaelidis, I. Nikolakopoulos, H. Fleischer (ed.), “‘Hostis’ intra portas”, Athens, 2006.)
@WorldWarTwo
I really don't understand how you stand on your opinion when you fully agree on my view. You JUST stated numerous occasions where EDES and EKKA savagely attacked ELAS forces and even joined the traitorous tagmatasfalites. That was exactly my point, that ALL the factions of the greek resistance instigated tensions, not only EAM as you said on your video and on your comments. If we agree, why this stubbornness?
Also, in
1. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that EAM as a whole did not recognise the signatures. Of course, there were many ELAS captains that were outraged (and even mutinied) such as Velouchiotis and Orestis, but the leadership of EAM fully backed the treaty. You can see the practicals of the Central Comittee of the KKE, where Secretary Siantos forcefully stood by the treaty. The reason for the dealy of the recognition was the fact that the EAM and KKE HAD to vote on that matter (which is extremely difficult when you are an outlaw).
I can imagine sparty doing the next episode from october fest while under the influance i know it wont happen but a man can dream
Fitzroy McClain: Why do we support the partisans? They are sworn communists and will turn to the Soviet Union.
Winston Churchill: Do you intend to live in Yugoslavia after the war?
Fitzroy McClain : No, sir.
Winston Churchill: Me neither.
I have the utmost respect for this channel and what you do but could you please work a bit on the pronunciation of the names of people and places?
Thank you for all your hard work, and you're balanced delivery. Truth is complicated, war involves evil. few emerge with "clean hands".
Thank you.
In Serbia even today no one knows what is going on same as back then, beating the messenger to say mind your own business
😂
Great video.
Thank you Indy, Sparty and the rest of the crue of this phenomenal educational series for telling the sole truth!
Now that was something to think about. Not just with what Sparty said at the end of the video but about what was in the video itself.
History is a teacher. The Balkans are the perfect history lab for WWII. This episode was thin compared to everything on the channel. And it is here from where we go into the future, which, hey, brings us back into the first post WWII wars in the EU. Kudos on the coverage of WWII. And do not be offended by the comment. Just look at today.
Being remined of the ongoing and ubiquitous atrocities carried out against unarmed and defenseless villagers in this horrific war solidifies the resolve of those of us who not only say "Never Forget", but also "Never again".
A murderous force will not attack my community with impunity. As Yamamoto observed : "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass".
Your safety and security must reside firmly in your hands. You cannot depend on a government or entity to protect you and those you love. These people did, and it cost them everything........
That Yamaoto quote is fake, he never said that. He never said the Sleeping Giant one either. The Japanese wanted to make a beachhead in the US and Manchuria their way to the Capitol.
@@shadow50011 The quote can be classified as "Apocryphal" as the document that so many respected historians referenced in its retelling is missing or lost. Nevertheless, the statement, whether written or uttered by the Admiral is still true.
The United States is unique in the world in that no other nation seeks to possess its lands, despite abundant resources and treasures.
Why do you think that's so?
There is no easy way a civilian base who had their government easily toppled is going to easily deal with an army on the level of the German army regardless of how well they are equipped.
Glad you returned to the Balkans.
Hope the comment section isn't the reason that keeps you at distance but I also know you don't shy away from the truth.
Thank you! Never forget.
Will there be something about Jasenovac concentration camp and Ustashe genocide?
Greece, the never ending story of what could have been
What do you mean about my coutry? I'm still watching the video
Since Stalin agreed that Greece would remain in the West, it was practically impossible to think about alternative scenarios...
@@Pavlos_Charalambous In the Greek Civil War, some support to Communist guerrillas came from Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. I have seen a photo of Enver Hoxha at the bedside of a Greek guerrilla being treated in an Albanian hospital. (Hoxha, who was from southern Albania, could speak Greek.) But it did not offset the considerably greater support the USA and Britain in particular gave to the Greek right.
what? another backward totalitarian government instead of the one they got instead before the democratic revolution?
23:24
Is that a pocket handkerchief OR is it a surgical rubber glove? Honest question
As the legend says the last thing @dirkbonesteel'S eyes saw were the flaming eyes of Astrid the Designer, the Architect, the Force. May his bones of steel find peace some day.
@@gregrefon Think I saw him in the backyard just waiting to avenge his rubber glove handkerchief
NEVER FORGET.
What is the point of beating up the messenger guy. Barbaric.
I hope I never forget.
Good luck, Francis- go forth and conquer!
Never forget.
Chetniks were sitting on two chairs, they represents themself in west ( England and USA) as Nazi fighters, but in reality they were backed up by Germans and Italian army in weapons and ammo to fight Partisans. Also Chetniks as Serb nationalistic movement commited attrocities in Croatian and Bosniak (muslims) villiges through Yugoslavia, killing in some parts thousands of civilians. It is very difficult for foreigners to fully understend Chetniks role in Yugoslavia during WW2. 1943 Chetniks were destroyed ( Chetniks division) by Partisans during Fourth enemy offensive ( German offensive on Partisan movement-Case White) and through the rest of war only small units remains. Today Serbian nationalistic goverment is trying to abolish Chetniks movement as freedom fighters but in reality they were Nazi collaborators and Draza Mihajlovic ( Chetnik's leader) was captured by Partisans or better new established Yugoslav people's army after war, trialed and executed. Death to Fascism-Liberty to people.
Death to Fascism-Liberty to people
I would really appreciate if this channel did dedicated video of German occupation rule over Serbia in WWII and how insanely psychotic it was, pretty much there was lots of infighting among Germans as well and no clear hierarchy of who is in charge.
Ain't nothing clear in the Balkans. Let me try to clarify.
This side is supported by that side against the other side that was once supported by that side against this side. I think that's clear enough.
And that goes only for Thursday. Today is Friday...
Some outlandish things were penned in the (for Yugoslavia) shitty 90s - that Tito was a son of Winston Churchill and a Polish countess - to explain why UK backed his communist partisans (IRL it was agreed with Stalin in 1943. due to war necessities) and perhaps why the communist Yugoslavia had an almost identical anthem as Poland.
Well, the the music for the Yugoslav (and later the Polish) anthem was penned much earlier by a czech composer during the late 1800s iirc.
22:00 The blue tick on a piece of paper.
Stalin made a tick in blue pencil next to the proposal. This was taken as assent. However, one biography I read stated that this was his habit to show that he had read a particular document, not that he necessarily approved it.
@@stevekaczynski3793 I think that, given Churchill was in the room in the time, and given that the Soviets and the British subsequently honored this setting up of spheres of influence in eastern Europe, in this case this was an assent.
@@marshalleubanks2454 It was like Stalin to maintain an element of ambiguity.
@@stevekaczynski3793 Indeed
Please bear in mind that the Nazis would murder 100 Serbian civilians for every Nazi killed and 50 Serbian civilians for every Nazi wounded. This had a stultifying effect on Chetnik anti-Nazi combat operations. Tito, as a half Croat/half-Slovenian dedicated communist could care less how many Serbs were killed. Mihajlovic did care and adopted a more cautious policy that favored sabotage over open conflict with Nazis.
This is a based on a willful misconception. The threat to kill a multiple of civilians for every German killed applied to _all_ ethnicities, across _all_ occupied territories. So the idea that this was some kind of ethnic idea by Tito doesn't hold up. You might say he didn't care about civilian casualties resulting from resistance activities, but you can't make it about Serbs only.
Never forget!!
They’re getting ready for uprising 4:51
Good luck Francis
In 1943, the top Tito representatives met the Nazis and the Ustashas in Sarajevo to negotiate cooperation in case the Allies land in the Balkans and not in Italy.
finaly more content about yugoslavia hopefully a special about rosselsprung or case white and black.
I covered that as it happened - go back to the episodes staring January this year (1944 / 2023).
At least I know my $9 is going to good people
Thank you so much for your generosity!
You're directly keeping this project alive!
Interesting to see how Churchill and the British Foreign affairs have tried their hand at containement a few years before the Truman Doctrine. Funny to see how incompetent they were, blinded by their colonialist background, their royalist preference, their paranoia against socialism - and the cynical utilitarianism that liberal democracies are still guided by today. Romania, Bulgaria : ceded as property to Moscow. 50 year lost. And in Greece the civil war, the many years of polarization, the military dictatorship. 30 years lost. Tito did brilliantly, considering the odds against him. If you don't have a De Gaulle, buy yourself a Tito !
German reprisals are getting more and more savage.
I wonder if your last line was spoken as a historian addressing the extremists of the past or directed at the present day extremists who have been on the march against democracy in many places in the world?
Extremism is extremism now and then. If we don’t learn from our past, we’re doomed tk repeat it.
An well-put video as always, but I feel the tone of some of the facts a bit strong. The establishment of British-backed government simply was not possible, as it did not have the backing of the people. They were viewed as traitors and frankly forgotten by most Yugoslavian citizens who had to endure years of terror. Hence why partisans were also so strong and numerous, they did not simply divide based on enthic lines like Ustashe or Chetniks, but rather wanted to remain a unified and independent organisation. Their efforts would have not been so fruitful without Allied help, but it is a bit arrogant that Churchil expected that he would be able to install a government to his control simply on their own whim. Chetniks were also Axis collaborators as spoken previously (but not mentioned in this video), and there was a threat of Soviet influence that honestly could only be leveraged by an already communist government, which would, at least at the beginning, agree to collaborate. It was a mess of an affair, but one honestly that could have turned even much worse after the war.
We know about famous napkin from Teheran. Grecce: 90,%British -10%Soviets, Yugosavia: fifty-fifty.
Not Tehran. Moscow Conference (9-19 October 1944)
@@dragosstanciu9866Thanks. But same thing
They’re getting ready for the uprising 4:29
Partisans were the majority in the Dinaric regions (Montenegro, Herzegovina, large parts of Bosnia, parts of Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun) and this is not because of ideology, they were people with extremely poor education, there was no industry, and agricultural areas were extremely poor. The tradition of the monarchy was weak, it lasted there only since 1918, in contrast to Serbia, which was tied to the crown. The communists promised the people from those Dinaric regions a better life and they fulfilled the promise, after the war several tens of thousands were given military status, high salaries and early retirement, they were given houses and apartments whose owners were previously expelled as enemies of communism, often shot . more than tens of thousands of people from the Dinaric regions got houses and agricultural land of exceptional quality in the north of Serbia, whose owners were Germans (over 300,000 expelled, around 50,000 killed). Tito knew how to thank the people who brought him to power.
One could make the point that this sets the stage for the Yugoslav Civil War and Kosovo Crisis of the 1990s
What do you mean exactly? The civil war of the nineties was indeed in some way a continuation of ethnic conflicts that were happening during the Second World War, but the wise rise of the communists at least put that temporarily on hold. Unfortunately, as socialism was crumbling, the peoples of Yugoslavia "rediscovered" nationalism and some of the first atrocities of the war were committed in the name of avenging what happened during WWII.
@@ocudagledam One could argue that war in the 1990s was the Second Yugoslav Civil War, the first being from 1941-45.
Does anyone else think David Wallace looks a little like David Wallace?
Shouldn't the "Marocchinate" be mentioned after the battle of Monte Cassino ended? Or was this issue actually fake? Or... this will be mentioned alongside with similar crimes done by other Allied powers?
Following Marocchinate, 207 soldiers were tried for sexual violence but 39 of them were acquitted for lack of evidence. 28 soldiers caught in the act were also executed.[16] In January 1947, France authorized the compensation of 1,488 victims of sexual violence for crimes committed by French colonial troops.[16]
The punchline at the end was perfect. It really got me. "The color of blood." Never forget.
Saw the New Zealand flag there. Of course NZ got caught up in all this when they captured Trieste and Yugoslav partisans got upset when German soldiers began surrendering to the Kiwis. Yugoslavs began firing on their NZ allies, killing a soldier. The NZ’ers who had seen action in Greece, North Africa and Italy very nearly set their artillery on the Yugoslavs. It got so bad that the Germans offered to ally themselves with NZ against the Yugoslavs. It was the start of the Cold War. Fortunately the Yugoslavs withdrew under leadership.
The name is pronounced Shu-bash-ich. We actually have two "ch" sounds -- a shorter, chirpier "ch" and a more pronounced "tsch". The chirpy one is with the acute diacritic, the more pronounced one is with the caron diacritic.
Kind of a history repeats itself thing. And I'll try to use an analogy here. When father ( Tito's Yugoslavia) died, the children (Serbia, Bosnia, etc...). Fought amongst themselves for the estate. Kinda like when the Nazis had control. I don't know. Maybe the life of Brian makes more sense with the Judean people's front and the people's front of Judea. Edit:. If the Carthaginians supported both factions. And the french drew lines on the map. Does that make any sense? It's getting complicated
Sparticus. I really do think your hearts in the right place here... But have you ever worried about coming off as "raising awareness" rather than reporting history?
I know you may try to do both; But I've yet to see if it is really possible.
Sometimes superimposing shock value and emotionalism to history, has lead to some really bad history. ..The reason I think it's relevant to say this here is because I hear more than a few subjective/pejorative/loaded terms. I'm not trying to troll you, I'm just trying to make a suggestion that will help you/us all out here. I don't mean to be solely negative though, you are in many other respects doing very well, please keep up the good work. All in all, I must say, damn good job on all of your parts, and big up TimeGhostArmy.
We’re pretty clear on the limitations on “opinion” we set ourselves. We do not venture outside either to the left or the right from one specific trench; the values defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The rest is just the facts of events as best known by us historians, verified through the principles of epistemologically.
OK, I'm glad you said that, because it clears somethng up really neither of us has yet said. But since I am at the lower risk, I'll say it, and please just try and take it for what it's worth, I'm really in support of you overall... Let me say that I have never once thought or said that I thought you weren't being down the line. Everyone thinks they are being down the line. But doesn't this draw into where "history" by definition splits (as it should) with being either by def.1: " The way we look at the past, generally speaking today as being "history" . (so the grand narrative rules the day (and I'm not postmodernist or any ism in fact I'm just a classic liberal)
And' then their's also Def.#2 History,' meaning: The study of the record of the past, which is quite a different thing sometimes than the concurrence of most people at the given moment.
My point is that the story of the present and the record of the past don't often fit. ..And to introduce myself, this is where my studies lead me. I don't claim to be an expert on anything however. ..But back to the subject at hand.
Another way I may put it is, even by trying to be straight down the line/fair, doing so ignores the political distortion we all acknowledge, even though we try and offset it with terms like "primary source" even though they are important qualities of source to know. Some of the most varied accounts are from primary sources, and don't get me wrong, I haven't a better source other that the facts on the ground after the dust has settled, which often reveals differences [by then[ far too entrenched to remove. If you could even get a little deeper into this (and I admit you already are somewhat into it) you could really improve our understanding as a species. distorted by "X" party and got away with it. I don't think this was helpful to anyone but them and I want to get to the bottom of it. Of course there's the awful "Conspiracy Theorist" Marker you still must be cognizant of. It still kills.
Please forgive me Sir.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, believe me sir, I have no gripe with your capability or your scruples. ..I really think this could be a quite constructive debate if we had it rationally and that's why I was really encouraged by your reply. I seriously love you guys, and for that reason, even when I have a little gripe with you I have to say something. I don't mean to annoy you at all, I just want to help add to the great service I think you are providing to so many people.
Also, Apologies for not having the time to proofread please be kind...I tried to fix some things and just made it worse I think.
@@davidmasner not annoyed at all, and always glad to discuss. Here’s the thing; the way historiography is written professionally in 2023 is not anywhere close to what you’re describing. It’s the difference between using dialectic method and the scientific methods.
Dialectics used to be the method. That entails what you suggest - choosing a source that makes the “best argument” or having a dialogue between experts to weed out the best argument for what happened. In that game secondary and tertiary sources play a big part, and invariably it leads to problematic historiography.
1. Errors or distortions get perpetuated and carried forward.
2. Accuracy or “truth” is arbitrary as it’s based on rhetorical conviction, rather than hard evidence.
3. The opinion of the author will flow freely into the historiography.
4. The result is often a forgone conclusion. In other words anything that contradicts the story the author wants to tell tends to be ignored.
But that method - dialectics - is dead and buried in academic history studies. Instead we adhere to the scientific method. The testing of a thesis against all available evidence to prove or disprove it. Secondary or tertiary sources can only be used as reference to proof, not as proof themselves. Instead primary sources play the essential part.
If a researcher manages to prove a thesis it is then subject to peer review. This is not a review of the historiography itself, but of the proof and method that was used to arrive at it. This is an open, transparent process that involves many, many scrutinizing eyes. Only when it passes that test does it become accepted academic historiography.
You can safely assume that much of what you were taught in primary and secondary school, and a lot you have read, heard, or seen in popular history works, has not been subject to that method, and will be tainted the way you fear that all historiography is. For academic historiography it simply isn’t.
Now, we’re popular historians for sure, not primarily researchers. However, for our chronologies we proof them against academic historiography, not other popular historiographies. That means that although we’re not infallible, you will find that our work is many steps closer to verifiable fact, than most other popular histories.
@@spartacus-olsson Thanks for that Spartacus. I'm very honored that you have given me your time and consideration. ..I like that you bring up the Dialectic model, or as I call it 'Diversity-Equality-Inclusion History' which gives a medal to everyone giving input (whether right or wrong) and throws Aristotelian logic out the window. When I think about how this method was used, I can't help but fear for the credibility of some of our most common narratives. ..Let me try and be a bit more concrete. V. Putin a few years back was giving some sort of speech and remarked somewhat casually that the Second World War was started by Polish Aggression. ..He didn't even bat an eye as he said it, It seemed he really believes this. .. If a Russian head of State believes this and says it as though it were Gospel, I have to wonder how much disparity exists between the different Historical Narratives of people from different nations, ideologies, religions etc. ...Now I'm not about to be a Dialectic myself here and take some sort of position that all of these histories have 'their own truth' and they can come together to elucidate some higher truth rather than contradict one another. But I can't help but wonder how people in Russia can think Poland Started the war. ...I can't help but think about why in some parts of the world it's illegal to even think the Holocaust didn't happen, meanwhile events like the Holodomor aren't even recognized or taught in schools. ..Over and over it seems to me that politics is the chimera of history. I've seen politics shape one's view of history, and conversely I've seen History shape one's politics. I've seen brilliant historians fall from grace by going Left, Right or to another place altogether and I think that is a major pitfall of the study of History. I don't think any one other factor influences the main ideologies people subscribe to than History. ..For this reason as historians I think we have an obligation to remain both politically emotionally neutral in our efforts towards studying the record of the past. I think we are in agreement here and I think you (TG) all do very well as Historians from this point of view. ..Wars, in the concrete, are men fighting and killing each other. However in the abstract and longer lived, perhaps more real sense, they are conflicts of ideas and visions. So it only makes sense to me that everyone's Weltanshauung is going to differ from one to the next, but when the actual accounts of History differ/contradict, then there is a problem. This is where I break completely from the dialectic. e.g. I don't think Poland could have been both victim and the aggressor in 1939 which perhaps a dialectic might argue. (Not saying this is an actual dialectic belief, but just a hypothetical example) ..What I might argue however, is firstly, the self-evident matter that nearly nothing is ever black and white, and I think maybe here, is where some of those bifurcations in history begin; Especially if they find politically convenient 'traction.' ...I think it would be fascinating and illuminating to look into some of these divisions in Historical though around the world. Not to prove/disprove them or take any side, but just to see where they come from and what they might point out that perhaps we of another mind, never saw or thought of. On the surface, this idea itself sounds dialectic itself which I don't like. However my Aristotelian brain revolts equally to the idea that we should take our own ideas as being right on faith. ...Do you think that there is any way that someone can walk a line either apart from, or perhaps between the popular/dialectic methods of history and maybe find out what really was the case in some of the areas of history we might find incomplete? ..Going back to the Putin, and considering all the talk about Russia and borders that's in the news, I can't help but see how the most formidable divisions between the West and Moscow come from two very different ways of seeing the past. ..What I mean is, all these concrete problems like war in Ukraine today, to me seem like naturally occurring products from two incongruent sets of ideas. I think this begs the perhaps naive thought of, Why doesn't an independent, peer reviewed body that is held to historically accurate standards look into what actually happened on some of these discrepancies or mysteries? I'm not saying this would be an easy enterprise to create and maintain, but do you think that if we really stuck to solid source material and methodology and didn't get too far out into the weeds that we could look at some of these strange anomalies in history and learn something from them without going full on Dialectic? I don't have a problem with the methodology we use in the West now, and I'm not looking to revise or subvert any part of history. I just think there are a lot of questions out there which are not being asked, and I can't help but wonder why. ...Often it seems that there is a political issue, and so [I think] historians shy away from it for the obvious reasons of not wanting to become embroiled with the fickle ephemeral nature of politics. But I think this misses the forest for the trees, because often the very politics themselves are a glaring aspect of history as well. ...Again, thank you so much for taking the time Spartacus. I didn't mean for this thread to carry on so long. I'm setting up a Patreon account with you. Perhaps we can chat there later on, just don't let me talk your ear off, I know you're busy. You've definitely done a sufficiently worthy job to receive my support. Again, I love your work. Hopefully I can show you some of my own work as well some day soon.
@@davidmasner thank you, and welcome to the TimeGhost Army, happy to have you on board.
Long before the Allies, the Germans and Italians realized that the partisans represent a military factor of first-rate importance, before which the modern army is helpless in many ways. In the course of three years, they launched no less than seven large-scale offensives against them, each employing more than ten divisions with all the supporting branches of the army. Once or twice larger partisan forces were close to being surrounded and exterminated. The enemy's aviation, against which they had no protection, played a significant role here by discovering their positions and tying them up until the ground army units arrived to deal with them. But every time they managed to get away, disappear and reappear in another place, attacking the enemy where he least expected it. During each of these offensives, extensive troop movements exposed the enemy, more than ever before, to partisan attacks and ambushes. Because of this, all these offensives failed and the partisans, although exhausted, hungry and poorly equipped, continued their resistance undisturbed.[1]“
(Fitzroy MacLean)
When Churchill had a meeting with the senior British officer in Yugoslavia, he was informed that the Partisans were a Communist movement and intended to impose it after the War. Churchill replied, "Do you intend to settle in Yugoslavia after the war?". The officer, stunned, replied, "No, of course not!" "Neither do I, so I suggest we let the Yugoslavs settle their political matters themselves"
Fitzroy Maclean
Francis is very handsome.
Good luck future dr handsome man
Ay Carmela!
Smrt fašizmu - sloboda narodu!
the german Eltite surly know that the war is lost. But what about the normal german soldiers? They retreating away from greece and the balkans, from france and from the USSR. Were there aware that the war can not be won?
They knew the war was lost, that is why the German soldiers were more willing to surrender to the Americans than to the Soviets.
Probably the most aware were already trying to surrender or desert, and execution commandos will soon be formed to deter this. However, open statements like "we've lost the war" were precisely the kind of thing that could lead to a drumhead court-martial and swift execution, and soon German soldiers would not even get that amount of due process - they could be hanged from trees or telephone poles with signs around their neck like "He who fights may die. He who refuses to defend his German Fatherland has to die. We had to die!"
Dad duty called I missed the live
I can't win em all hey 😉🙃
Hopefully see you on the next one like usual!
Thanks for watching ❤
@WorldWarTwo it's all good new school year new school for my youngest high school as the would say in the US
As I'm in the uk it's called secondary school🧡💛❤️
I got no dog in this fight. But I gotta say that one thing that always boggles me is the amount of time and energy the different partisan groups spent fighting and undermining each other for control when they could’ve been devoting all those resources towards expelling the Germans. It’s a fight that’s only understandable at the political level since whoever wins that fight will ultimately become that country’s new government, but it’s also sort of like fighting for a control of a sinking ship (or a ship that would be sinking if not for Allied aid).
I can just feel the raw frustration of the Allied command, who could only have seen these petty squabbles for the impediment they were to the ultimate goal of defeating Germany and liberating Europe, even though they (ie the Soviets and Western Allies) are in large part responsible for inserting their own great power games into so many local struggles.
To say nothing of the civilian populace; caught between a brutal occupation and these squabbling “freedom fighters” who sometimes behave just as badly or whose actions invite the retribution of the Axis.
The Balkans have been a complicated area of political, religious and social strife for millennia.
I wonder how many of those rifles and machine guns that were dropped in during the second world war were used in the Serbian many years later?
I wonder how many are still being used.
Firearms properly looked after can be functional even a century later.
@@stevekaczynski3793 or more.
My uncle has a pumo action shotgun from 1913.
Speaking of the Allies helping the Communists. I can't wait to get to the part of this series when we talk about how the "Allies" surrended Poland to the USSR. Which totally negated their justification to declare war on Germany in 1939.
Hitler, you can't steal Poland's sovergnty... only Stalin is allowed to do that.
Any ideas of how the Allies could have forced Stalin to give up Poland?
I'm, sure glad the Western Allies learned their lesson about how arming and supporting extremist resistance movements against a greater foe is a risky move. I'm sure that will never happen again.
On a somewhat related and less sarcastic note, is there any interest in covering Southeast Asia and specifically Ho Chi Minh's movement (and conflicts with the Chinese and Japanese) during the war?