What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?

Yugoslavia itself would have been MUCH better off in this scenario, avoiding both the Holocaust and the mass murder of Serbs that occurred in Axis-allied Croatia during World War II in real life. I do wonder, though: Had the Soviet Union still survived Operation Barbarossa in this scenario, would Yugoslavia have still ended up under Communist rule after the end of World War II in this scenario, similar to the rest of its neighborhood? Bulgaria got invaded by the Soviet Union in 1944 in spite of it NOT waging war against the Soviet Union, after all. Could Yugoslavia have shared the same fate in this scenario? Also, would most Yugoslav Jews have subsequently immigrated to Israel and would Yugoslavia have still eventually broken up--possibly in an EXTREMELY bloody fashion--after the collapse of Communism in this scenario, as it did in real life?

Any thoughts on all of this?

> WolfBear
>
> Any thoughts on all of this?

Italy still had plans for the Balkans to be a part of their empire and
seeing as how they got their ass handed to them by the Greeks in
the OTL, if they make a move against Yugoslavia then Germany is
going to have to bail them out, as they can't risk the Allies defeating
the Italians which would leave southern Europe open to be used
against them.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Italy_aims_Europe_1936.png

If Yugoslavia somehow remains neutral throughout WWII, I’m thinking
the Soviets still try to incorporate them into their empire but this time
around, the Yugos will have rearmed during the course of the war and
this will make for a very hard nut for the Soviets to crack.

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > WolfBear
> >
> > Any thoughts on all of this?
> Italy still had plans for the Balkans to be a part of their empire and
> seeing as how they got their ass handed to them by the Greeks in
> the OTL, if they make a move against Yugoslavia then Germany is
> going to have to bail them out, as they can't risk the Allies defeating
> the Italians which would leave southern Europe open to be used
> against them.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Italy_aims_Europe_1936.png
>
> If Yugoslavia somehow remains neutral throughout WWII, I’m thinking
> the Soviets still try to incorporate them into their empire but this time
> around, the Yugos will have rearmed during the course of the war and
> this will make for a very hard nut for the Soviets to crack.

Didn't Prince Paul's Yugoslavia allow Axis troops to enter it in order to get to Greece, though? If so, that excuse to invade Yugoslavia wouldn't actually exist if Prince Paul were to remain in power there.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
>
>Yugoslavia itself would have been MUCH better off in this scenario, avoiding both the Holocaust and the mass murder of Serbs that occurred in Axis-allied Croatia during World War II in real life. I do wonder, though: Had the Soviet Union still survived Operation Barbarossa in this scenario, would Yugoslavia have still ended up under Communist rule after the end of World War II in this scenario, similar to the rest of its neighborhood? Bulgaria got invaded by the Soviet Union in 1944 in spite of it NOT waging war against the Soviet Union, after all. Could Yugoslavia have shared the same fate in this scenario? Also, would most Yugoslav Jews have subsequently immigrated to Israel and would Yugoslavia have still eventually broken up--possibly in an EXTREMELY bloody fashion--after the collapse of Communism in this scenario, as it did in real life?
>
>Any thoughts on all of this?

Even if Yugoslavia had remained neutral could it have STAYED neutral
given Hitler's desire to punish the Greeks after their repulse of the
Italian invasion?

No question staying out would be heavily in Hitler's interest but this
is Hitler we're discussing and logic didn't always enter into it.....

On 6/17/21 12:39 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul
> was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This
> would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also
> had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
I believe that Paul agreed to allow German forces
to cross Yugoslavia to to get at the British in
Greece. Even if no Yugoslav forces participated,
Yugoslavia would thereafter be seen as a German
puppet or satellite.

After the start of BARBAROSSA, Communist forces
in Yugoslavia would take up arms against the
Germans and their apparent royalist stooges.

I'd say the outcome for Yugoslavia would be
about as OTL.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:12:31 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/17/21 12:39 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul
> > was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This
> > would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also
> > had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
> I believe that Paul agreed to allow German forces
> to cross Yugoslavia to to get at the British in
> Greece. Even if no Yugoslav forces participated,
> Yugoslavia would thereafter be seen as a German
> puppet or satellite.
>
> After the start of BARBAROSSA, Communist forces
> in Yugoslavia would take up arms against the
> Germans and their apparent royalist stooges.
>
> I'd say the outcome for Yugoslavia would be
> about as OTL.
>

Minus the mass murder of Jews and Serbs that occurred in Yugoslavia during World War II in real life.

> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:12:29 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/17/21 12:39 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul
>> was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This
>> would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also
>> had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
>I believe that Paul agreed to allow German forces
>to cross Yugoslavia to to get at the British in
>Greece. Even if no Yugoslav forces participated,
>Yugoslavia would thereafter be seen as a German
>puppet or satellite.
>
>After the start of BARBAROSSA, Communist forces
>in Yugoslavia would take up arms against the
>Germans and their apparent royalist stooges.
>
>I'd say the outcome for Yugoslavia would be
>about as OTL.
>
I agree - I had not heard that Paul had agreed to German free passage
in 1941. If that's the case there's no way Stalin doesn't take all of
Yugoslavia in 1945 (assuming the campaigns of 1943-44 go the same as
OTL)

It might make the postwar Greek Civil War rather problematic.

> Rich Rostrom
> > WolfBear
> >
> > What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul
> > was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This
> > would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also
> > had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
>
> I believe that Paul agreed to allow German forces to cross Yugoslavia
> to to get at the British in Greece. Even if no Yugoslav forces participated,
> Yugoslavia would thereafter be seen as a German puppet or satellite.

According to the Wiki page on Prince Paul, he spent the entire pre-war
period desperately trying to get the French and British to do something
about Nazi German and Fascist Italy and while the French at least gave
lip-service to the idea of a Balkan front in the event of war, the British
undermined him at every opportunity and when in 1941 the Yugos were
forced to cut a deal with the Germans, the treaty specified that the Axis
would not invade Yugoslavia, nor request transit across the county and
the Yugos would provide no military assistance.

Despite this, the British instigated a coup against Paul and put him under
house arrest, with Churchill labeling him a traitor and war criminal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Paul_of_Yugoslavia

The older I get and the more I read about British actions prior to WWII,
the more I'm inclined to give them equal responsibility for the war along
with the Germans…

On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 7:24:43 AM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Rich Rostrom
> > > WolfBear
> > >
> > > What if Yugoslavia would have avoided its 1941 coup where Prince Paul
> > > was overthrown and King Peter II was declared of age to rule? This
> > > would mean no Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, but would this have also
> > > had any effects on the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
> >
> > I believe that Paul agreed to allow German forces to cross Yugoslavia
> > to to get at the British in Greece. Even if no Yugoslav forces participated,
> > Yugoslavia would thereafter be seen as a German puppet or satellite.
> According to the Wiki page on Prince Paul, he spent the entire pre-war
> period desperately trying to get the French and British to do something
> about Nazi German and Fascist Italy and while the French at least gave
> lip-service to the idea of a Balkan front in the event of war, the British
> undermined him at every opportunity and when in 1941 the Yugos were
> forced to cut a deal with the Germans, the treaty specified that the Axis
> would not invade Yugoslavia, nor request transit across the county and
> the Yugos would provide no military assistance.
>
> Despite this, the British instigated a coup against Paul and put him under
> house arrest, with Churchill labeling him a traitor and war criminal.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Paul_of_Yugoslavia
>
> The older I get and the more I read about British actions prior to WWII,
> the more I'm inclined to give them equal responsibility for the war along
> with the Germans…

Equal responsibility for WWII in general or for WWII in Yugoslavia in particular?