Talk:Croatian Peasant Party during World War II

Notes on copyedit

• The lead briefly discusses the prewar situation of the party, so this should be covered in the body as well. Equally, you should introduce what HSS is, its paramilitaries and political situation, rather than introduce them after bringing up the 1941 coup.
• In the second paragraph of "Invasion of Yugoslavia", it was left unclear if Axis powers planned to annex parts of Yugoslavia or all of it.
• Didn't Mussolini want to directly annex parts of Yugoslavia for himself? I believe that's accurate, so I rewrote the sentence to be more direct.
• Foreign language terms, I would avoid these unless it's the direct subject of the article. Instead, "Independent State of Croatia (NDH)" is fine as the reader will know it's a foreign language acronym.
• "even though it was made under duress" can you be more specific?
• Are the HSS paramilitary organizations notable (I expect so)? If so they should be redlinked.
• How would Croatia benefit from the war as implied "He expected the country to be restored..."? (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review and copyedit the article. I'll try to implement your suggestions for improvements. As regards your questions above:

• The initial Axis plan seems to have evolved from a plan regarding annexation: Initially, Hungary and Italy were expected to annex larger parts of the country, but the sources I have consulted don't seem to indicate there were any plans to annex all of Serbia to anyone - so it may be concluded that the plan(s) never called for annexation of all of Yugoslavia, just a really big or a somewhat smaller part of it. The switch came when Hungary declined German offer to annex large parts of what was once the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Then the Germans decided to have NDH instead, reducing Italian territorial expansion in the process.
• Yes, Mussolini wanted to annex parts of Yugoslavia and did it through annexation of a part of present-day Slovenia adjacent to prewar Italian norteast border areas, and in Dalmatia through the Treaties of Rome (1941).
• Re Maček acting under duress - if I recall correctly Tomasevich just says that the statement was made under duress and that Maček was confined to his Kupinec village residence. I'll check again and get back though.
  • Update: at p.740, Tomasevich source just says "...the Germans forced Macek to issue this statement of support..."
  • Update 2: at p.52 the same source says that Veesenmayer did the persuading
• Tomasevich does not specify what was expected as the benefit. I would expect Maček to think Yugoslavia would be expanded at the expense of the aggressor states to reverse losses to Italy stemming from the Treaty of Rapallo (1920). If that were to happen, Banovina of Croatia could reasonably be expected to be enlarged westwards. This actually happened after the defeat of Italy/end of WWII, except Banovina was replaced by the Federal State of Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, the claim is referenced to Radelić pp.444-445. There (p.445) Radelić says that Maček believed Yugoslavia would gain territory, and that Croatia would receive a share of such expansion. On the same page, Radelić talks about a memo written by Krnjević and other HSS ministers in the government-in-exile citing expectation of addition of Istria (Italian pre-WWII) to Yugoslavia and Croatia. I have tried to clarify this by explicitly mentioning territorial expansion. Buidhe could you please take another look at this?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I will continue the copyedit probably tomorrow morning. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Peasant Guards seem notable, so I added an ill to them. Civic Guards seem to be an expansion of the Peasant Guards (PG predating the CG by few years), and their wartime actions do not seem that different. Croatian wiki has an article covering both (in a single article). I assume the same arrangement could be expected of the English wiki, so I have determined the Croatian Peasant Guards (literal translation of the PG's formal name Hrvatska seljačka zaštita - common name does not necessarily include "Croatian" bit, but I think the disambiguation might be helpful after all) as the title of a hypothetical article covering both forces where the CG links can be redirected (if they ever come to exist in isolation).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Yes, the PG/CG seem to be notable with reliable sources (for example [1]) specifically on the topic, with the two forces treated as a single topic or very interlinked one, so I presume a single wiki article would be justified for both.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Re removal of foreign-language terms ahead of foreign-language acronyms: I assumed it was necessary to introduce them as some sort of explanation of how the acronym relates to the relevant English term (if initial letters are different). I'm perfectly happy to see them go if they're not necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• buidhe, I have added a brief introduction of the HSS's position and the paramilitaries in the body as suggested (as the first paragraph of the first section). Could you take a look at the paragraph?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Background looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the Ustaše regime still thought the party had significant political power." Does this mean "popular support"? I would expect that being banned and rather quietist would tend to limit the power that the HSS could wield. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have written "popular support".--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• "since limitations imposed by the Treaties of Rome expired with surrender of Italy" I think this needs more explanation on what these limitations are. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Treaties of Rome made the NDH a de facto Italian protectorate. Two treaties specifically addressed military and economic/political matters requiring the NDH to rely on Italian military assistance and requiring the NDH to subordinate its economic and political interests to Italian ones - at least not to depart from the letter and the spirit establishing the quasi-protectorate. I added few words on this, but wanted to keep it to the minimum since the treties are linked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with minimizing background information on the treaty but I'm struggling to understand how this agreement would require the NDH not to collaborate with the HSS. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • According to the provided sources: The Italians were keen on maintaining NDH regime solely in Ustaše hands because they were their clients and the Treaties of Rome required the NDH regime to check with Italians regarding anything. On the other hand the Ustaše were justifiably suspecting (especially in 1941-1942) Maček could be installed by the Germans to replace them. Such proposals were indeed made to Maček by Veesenmeeyer and Glaise-Horstenau. Italians were also keen on denying German access to the Adriatic and the Treaties of Rome specifically provided that only Italians could field armed forces in Zone II (stretching along the Adriatic and Zone I annexed outright by Italy), preventing German and even NDH troops from accessing the area. For this reason, Italians were quite keen on maintaining status quo in Zagreb. On top of all of this, nobody likes to share the position of government, so I assume nobody really tested the restrictive nature of the Treaties until Italy was out of the war and cooperation with the sole potential political competitor would prevent any further German-backed regime changes now that the Ustaše sponsors (Italians) were gone. (The last sentence is just my view of the above.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The HSS expected to achieve a position of strength allowing it to negotiate with political rulers of Serbia on equal footing after the war." Appears to contradict the lead, "The plotters expected an Allied landing in Dalmatia, which they intended to use to negotiate from the position of strength" A position of strength is the opposite of equal footing in negotiations.
  • Yes, I agree. The aim was to strengthen their position and obtain at least equal negotiating power as the KPJ, so I modified this accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• "kept in isolation" does this mean "imprisoned"? If not, something like "sidelined or ignored" might read better.
  • Well, according to Tomasevich and Boban [2] two out of three were held in a prison camp: (1) Tomo Jančiković arrived (October 1943) in Bari where he was interrogated by the British; After he wrote to Knjević (after landing in Bari) to inform him of his arrival he was held by the British in a prison camp and prevented from going to Cairo or London to see Krnjević or even to write to him or receive letters from Krnjević. There was some back-and-forth involving the British Foreign Office, Yugoslav government in exile, HSS representatives in London and Cairo, Yugoslav Partisans and the SOE whether to allow him to travel or not, but he remained in the Bari camp. Šubašić met Jančiković in Bari in June 1944 en route to meet Tito on Vis, and Jančiković was allowed to travel London in July (which he did); (2) Zenon Adamič went to Istanbul (November 1943) and was transferred by the British to Egypt and kept there until the end of the war. It is unclear if Adamič was prevented from contacting Krnjević by mail or otherwise, but Tomasevich tells he became the commanding officer of the Yugoslav naval forces in Alexandria, so I imagine he could establish contact with whomever he wanted at some point, but the sources are unclear on this; (3) Ivan Babić flew to Bari (January 1944) and was allowed to talk to Jančiković there, but not with HSS officials in London. He was kept in a prison camp for Axis prisoners in Bari until September 1946. I don't know if so much details would be helpful in the article, or if there is a better way to summarize this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Buidhe I added a bit more details on those three envoys. Could you have a look please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• boycott the election "due to restriction of freedoms"—can you be more specific? (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Formally, the election were to be free, but informal ways of suppression were applied by the KPJ. For example, after the HSS re-started issuing of party newspaper in Zagreb, the workers of the printing shop refused to work if another issue was to be published. Officially, it was their own idea, unofficially they were persuaded to do that. HSS affiliated bookshop was bombed, Democratic Party offices in Belgrade were destroyed in an arson attack etc. The authorities either ignored the problems or dragged their feet. On a more formalistic side, political parties were allowed to stand in the election if they register or join the People's Front (i.e. become allies of the KPJ). Nobody actually tried to register, so it is hard to tell if that was a real option, but at least it was perceived as a condition favouring KPJ allies. All this spans multiple sources, so I'm wondering how to better summarize this. I'll think about this (and the preceding item) some more and try to come up with something clearer in a day or two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, thank you very much for the comprehensive copyedit and very helpful remarks. I'm confident the article was improved significantly as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The changes you made look good. It's possible that some of the details on envoys should be kept in a note, to avoid cluttering the text too much. As for BBC, at the time all of its non-English programming was broadcast on BBC European Service or other external broadcasting, see here[3] But that's a fairly unimportant detail. Please ping me if this gets to ACR or FAC, I'd be happy to comment. (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the copyedit and helpful pointers for improvements. I'll take you up on the offer re ACR/FAC.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)