The whole narrative and the process behind the subject of collaboration is dictated by the british/anglo-saxon establishment.
But its interesting, these same arbiters, actually have some of the lowest casualty rates both among its people and military during the second world war. Particularly when fighting frontally against nazi germany.
One possible explanation for this phenomena, is possibly its military, had the minimal direct confrontation with the nazi war machine.
In those circumstances, when the british actually faced the germans directly, they were never fighting alone, but with a amalgamation of different people and their military’s.
When the british did actually face the nazis directly and alone, the germans were never in those concentrations like they were in the Soviet Union and eastern europe. It will be interesting to see, what % of the Nazi war machine was actually concentrated against the Soviet Union, in comparison to all other war fronts.
It would interesting to find what kind of military strength was actually use to subdue the french, belgium, dutch, spanish, swedes, norweigans, finns. italians, austrians, british etc etc. In comparison to that used inthe eastern europe.
Another interesting finding would be focused on various military contributions made to the Nazis war machine by each of those occupied countries in Eastern and western europe. I think we are all aware of what contribution the Croats, Albanians, Slavic muslims, Hungarians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Galicians Ukranians, Russians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians had for the Nazi cause. But we have never seen an equivalent manifestation in western europe. Or the research and media focus, on what kind of collaboration existed in these countries or how subservient and compliant there were.
It appears most of western europe was incredible passive, particularly prior to the battle of Kursk. Which probably is reflected in the allied v german casualties, particularly in western europe.
But when you look in actual direct frontal fighting the british exclusively had with the nazis, examples being Greece, Dunkirk 1940 they loss.
As for the battle of britain taking place in the english channel. I would like to point out, that at least a third of the pilots were not british. In fact an substantial part of the RAF was foreign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Britis...of_Britain
As you can see a significant number were Polish.
But what we do not get to talk about is the financial contribution made both by britain and the USA in financially supporting hitler and nazis through their embryonic stages all the way up to the second world war.
But what also fails to get mentioned is the allied avoidance of bombing their own facilities within germany. Particularly those commercial factories contributing to the Nazi war machine. The chemical factories supplying gas, being an excellent example. As for supplying the nazis with technology to enable the pursuit of war, this also rarely gets a mention.
But I still find it strange how Dresden was the most systematically bombed city in germany. Which coincidentally just happens to be an historical Slavic centre in centuries pass.
But it never occurred to the british to actually free their channel islands from the germans, there remained occupied until mid 1945.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DcGllUPg40
But they almost exclusively demanded that from the Serbs sacrifice themselves for the british, after newly acquiring oilfields in northern africa.
A good proportion of their own aristocracy was pro-nazis germany including the “Windsor” that abdicated. Lets not forget about the nazis plans for the invasion of france, which the french managed locate, after a german military plan crash. These plans manage to find their way back to hitler by the same Windsor.
A coup could not have happen in any other cenrtral/eastern capital apart from Belgrade. With plans to kill the royal family should they step in the way. Appears Royal assassination has some history with the british.
I believe the so called “collaborist” doctrine is the central theme for british foreign policy inparticularly to the Serbs, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It is essentially, the backbone to providing strategic military support to the croats, who were Nazi collaborators and executioners of the Serbian people, which the british and the americans were totally aware of.
The collaborist theme if it did not exist, had to be invented, as it is with only this narrative, that you arrive at building forces that are opposed to the Army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
If you look at the number of military people that are present in all ethnic groups in the Kingdom, and how many could be mobilised should the need arise. It is abundantly clear the Communists could not in any conceivable manner raise the troop numbers amongst its own following plus the ethnic minorities to overthrow the Royalists/Serbs.
Therefore, there has to be colloborist doctrine, purely to recruit from the Serbian population, and to force the Serbian population into an open civil war, killing its own people.
Genocide was advocated by Karl Marx, the second cousin of the german Rothchilds in the middle of the 19th century. With the Serbs being identified as victims, so killing Serbs via Communism has some roots. So does Karl Marx, who just happens to be relative of the Rothchilds in england via his relatives in germany, who are both incidentally, financiers of war.
The collaborist doctrine is totally present in the british narrative of the second war, when applied to the Serbs, as the british were fundamentally behind its staging.
From a recruitment aspect, the so-called mole type “Communists” in Bletchley, Cairo, SOE, who were instrumental in inflating COMMUNIST PARTIZAN troop numbers. These same SOE british officers were instrinsic to the recruitment drive on the ground, they took part in the COMMUNIST presentations.
But the intention of creating a COMMUNIST force within Yugoslavia must have been conceived prior to the war. The roots of that thinking are possibly 90 years old, as its originally Marx, who promotes the thinking, but was he just the mouth piece, for those that pull the strings in the shadows? Marx just happened to have residency in both england and germany.
But another factor, was that the british were operational on the ground for the overthrow the the monarchy in october 1940 as they had MI6 agents in the D section in belgrade, working on the project of removing an anglophile “Yugoslavian” Regent.
The question one begs to asks is to what point were the Serbs compliant in their own self destruction working for the british prior to the war? Were there these amongst these sponsored facilitators, men/women with communist sympathies, within the Royal Yugoslavian Army that carried out british destructive work on behalf of the british?
At what point was the removing of the Regent an idea in british policy? We know the logistics and planning certainly require some time.
To arrive at removing the Regent, you need to kill the King! Maybe this needs to be looked under a different prism.
The british have full operational history of removing a monarchy with Communism. I would be interested to see if they were any attempts to weaken the Serbian/Yugoslav Monarchy following the bolshevik revolution. To actually see if there are any roots and patterns there, we know socialism certainly has a rooting towards the end of the 19th century. You therefore have almost 40 years of co-operation.
Here you are basically establishing groundwork for destabilisation and the overthrow of the monarchy, and replacing it with something that favours your own commercial and geopolitical interests. Which is what all wars are all about!
I understand there were student demonstrations in the Belgrade in the interwar years, are they linked with these socialist groups that obviously have sponsors from abroad.
The mere factor that the british had a D section in belgrade, suggests something was in the planning, either before the war, during or after.
This would explain, why bailey, who incidentally is MI6, has orders to establish a camp in Canada recruiting NON Serbs, with Communist backgrounds and links. Spanish veterans being the first recruits, to be infiltrated into the country! But this only happens months after the coup in the Belgrade.
At what point is this an idea within british intelligence, its foreign and commercial policy?
When there is a directive to develop another group/organisation months after the coup in belgrade, it is logical to believe that this plan had already existed somewhere in the planning infrastructure of british foreign policy and their intelligence services.
Therefore at what point is Tito selected, why and who by?
How convenient is it that most Serbian Communists are actually killed, some by arroneous circumstances, either at home or in Spain. Where is the source for this thinking, ordering, and operational activity? So this is already pre war planning?
As here there are obvious aspirations for establishing COMMUNISM in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and it can only happen via a civil war, and internal killing amongst the Serbs. So who is preparing the groundwork, and under whose directive?
All talk of Collaboration is basically a marketing recruitment tool for the COMMUNIST PARTIZANS, and the intentional weakening of the Royal Yugoslavian Army by the british. It provided the platform for the british and the americans to provide complete support for essentially what can be described as CROATIAN WESTERN COMMUNISM.
