Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Wars and Conflicts  permalink

British Red Army meeting

• Message 1. 

  Posted by eoinrob (U2320075) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  
  I know that the Americans and the Red army met at Torgau on the Elbe but where did British troops meet up with the Red Army and who were the British troops?

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  where did British troops meet up with the Red Army 
  
  If by 'Red Army' here the reference is to the Soviet Army then the British and the Soviets met up at Sanandaj in Iran on 30 August 1941.
  
  
  who were the British troops? 
  
  9th Armoured Brigade

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Did they meet anywhere in '45 Vizzer?

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  Did they meet anywhere in '45 Vizzer? 
  
  
  Well from what maps I've seen it must have been somewhere near Rostock - but it doesn't seem to have attracted ther attention that Torgau did.

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009

  As far as I can tell it was at Wismar on 2nd May, troops from 6th Airborne Division, 11 light tanks laden with Canadian paratroopers, met Soviet troops belonging to the 70th Army.

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  The reason I questioned which 'Red Army' was being referred to here is that also on the 2 May 1945 the Yugoslav 'Red Army' of Josef Tito's Communist Partisans met the 2nd New Zealand Division of the British Eighth Army in Trieste.
  
  Unlike in Germany in 1945 and in Iran in 1941, however, the erstwhile allies had not pre-agreed the post-war status of this city with its mixed Italian and Slovene population. In Trieste there then ensued a tense stand-off between the Yugoslav Partisans on the one hand and the Kiwis (backed up by the UK 7th Hussars) on the other.
  
  The city was effectively partitioned between the New Zealanders and the Yugoslavs (literally at the places they met) but this fall of the dice made all the difference for the inhabitants. Over the next 40 days the Partisans are believed to have summarily killed thousands of people who were unfortunate to find themselves under their jurisdiction.

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Saturday, 4th April 2009

  Indeed Viz,
  As reprisal for the 800,000 slaughtered by the Croat Ustashe.
  Doesn't make it right, but it's definitely a reason.
  
  I see your still not giving any references for your information.

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 6th April 2009

  Hello delrick
  
  As obvious as your suggestion might seem to be at first glance it is actually flawed for several reasons.
  
  Firstly if these were revenge attacks against Croat Ustashe then why would Italian people in Trieste be targeted? Trieste was in Italy as was recognized by Yugoslavia in the Treaty of Rapallo 1920. The city wasn’t in Slovenia and it certainly wasn’t in Croatia. Why would the Yugoslav Partisans blame the Italian residents of Trieste for the acts of the Croat Ustashe which occurred 2 countries away.
  
  Secondly the Yugoslav government was already prosecuting those responsible for atrocities in Croatia through the courts. If they had evidence against any inhabitants of Trieste regarding this then surely they would have arrested them and removed then to Croatia to await trial. In fact they did just this with many people in Trieste and the surrounding areas. This was so that justice could be seen to be done both in Yugoslavia and internationally.
  
  The extra-judicial killing of people, however, would strongly suggest that the killers had no such evidence against the victims which is why they were not given a fair trial.
  
  Thirdly without due process the Croat Ustashe hypothesis further falls apart. Another motivation needs to be looked for. When we appreciate that Trieste was part of Italy and not part of Yugoslavia then we need to ask ourselves what were the Partisans doing in that territory in the first place. While they were still in Yugoslavia the Partisans were bona fide guerillas fighting for their own state. As soon as they crossed over into Italy, however, the equation changed. Suddenly they had gone from being Yugoslav patriots to being aggressors in breach of international law.
  
  Why would the partisans have wanted to occupy Italian territory around Trieste? The answer is that Tito had wanted the chance of the end of the Second World War to redraw the Italo-Yugoslav border in Yugoslavia’s favour. This was an understandable as major European wars have nearly always resulted in the redrawing of state borders – and in favour of the victors.
  
  Tito had hoped to gain a western border for Yugoslavia based on the natural boundary of the Isonzo (Soca) river. This was a reasonable objective as Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic state and so natural boundaries (rather than ethnic boundaries) would make sense. In fact the Partisans had even crossed over to the western bank of the river to improve their bargaining position.
  
  The murders, revenge attacks and general bad behaviour of the local partisans, however, seriously undermined Tito’s position. He, therefore, could no longer present himself and Yugoslavia as a responsible state in which its ethnic Italian population would be safe and entitled to the protection of the law.
  
  This was in sharp contrast with of the experience of those Trieste inhabitants who found themselves under occupation by the New Zealanders. There is no evidence that the New Zealanders committed any extra-judicial killings or ‘revenge’ attacks on the local population. Quite the reverse. The Kiwis were noted for being extremely popular and they kept the honour and good name of their uniform and their country intact.
  
  Fourthly the Yugoslav forces in Trieste were divided. There was the ‘regular’ 4th Yugoslav Army which had come from outside the region and was directly controlled by the Tito regime in Belgrade. Then there was also the 9th Slovenian Corps (which was made up of local Slovene Partisans) and also the Liberation Front of the Slovenian People as well as other smaller groups. The Slovenes of the 9th Corps and the members of the Liberation Front etc had been subjects of Italy and subjected to varying policies of Italianization over the previous 24 years. It’s in this experience where you might find the ‘reason’ for the inter-ethnic antagonisms in Trieste at the time.
  
  The ‘Manchester Guardian’ correspondent Sylvia Sprigge in Trieste wrote ‘One sees the most miserable of spectacles: groups of civilians, escorted by Yugoslav soldiers, advance with a tired gait towards who knows what destination. One also sees single individuals their hands tied behind their back with steel wire led away by armed men.’
  
  It was Tito’s inability (or unwillingness) to control the Slovene Partisans which resulted in the bad publicity and his consequent loss of moral authority as far as Trieste was concerned.
  
  Added to this was the rapidly shifting international diplomatic situation with the Allies (and Tito) beginning to seriously distrust Stalin. This caused Tito to seek better relations with the British and the Americans and so to cut his losses in the game of brinkmanship concerning the border which he had hoped to play with them with the backing of Stalin. Not only did he thus order Yugoslav forces to pull back from the west bank of the Isonzo but also to withdraw from Trieste etc.
  
  Your ‘references’ comment is puzzling and particularly your use of the word ‘still’, as previously on this thread you haven’t made a request for a reference. In fact that was your first post.
  
  You’ll find that on the history boards requests for references are normally only really made by posters when disputing a particular comment or other. Alternatively posters may often volunteer references when, for example, quoting from a published document or book etc. It is certainly not expected for references to accompany every posting. This could be confusing, perhaps, but - don’t worry - you’ll soon get that hang of it.
  
  You can read a first-hand account of a New Zealand soldier’s experiences in Trieste here:
  
  
  
  For non-online references then you might want to get hold of a copy of ‘Trieste Diary’ (1945) by Sylvia Sprigge.
  
  A more recent (secondary) publication would be ‘The Problem of Trieste and the Italo-Yugoslav Border’ (2001) by Glenda Sluga which includes references to contemporary American and British military intelligence reports etc.
  
  Now – that said - let’s see the evidence to support your assertion that the events in Trieste in May 1945 were as ‘reprisal for the 800,000 slaughtered by the Croat Ustashe’.

  Link to this forum: British Red Army meeting

  Report message8

Back to top