>>>And had it lasted for just another twenty years, it would have worked. A generation such as mine grew up as a tabula rasa, blissfully unaware of who did what during the war, and even the descendants of the brotherly slaughter victims were willing to let it go, seeing that peace brought prosperity.
>>
>>I've been reading a book on the origins and exploits of the Parachute Brigade (The Red Berets) an the Commandos (Green Berets) during the WWII. I'm just on the chapters where the Commandos were involved with Tito's partisans in the islands (eg Vis). Makes very interesting reading. It has been mentioned only en passant that Tito's alliance to the British Commandos was strong and convivial, but only up to the end of the war, when all changed. I have no further details.
>
>The breakpoint may have been the allies' bombing of Belgrade - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Belgrade_in_World_War_II#Allied_bombing - several times during 1944 for no good reason. The Germans were retreating already, the Soviets were coming to help. About 70% of the country was liberated already by fall - I know my city was on 2nd of October, Belgrade on 20th, but there was the regrouped German force forming northwest of Belgrade - so why bomb the city?. It was mostly civilians and some Germans scattered around it. That didn't sound like something a good ally would do. And 60+ years later the reasons for this are still not clear.

My God, I never knew that! As I said, not much I've heard about that part of the war, although to you Y's that would be YOUR history thereof. That's absolutely shocking. What a way to treat your allies.

>
>The other reason for the cooling down of the relationship was the deal on Yalta, where the allies agreed to split Yugoslavia 50:50, the west part being in the British sphere of influence and the east going to Soviets. Which is why Tito arranged establishment of the Republic during the war, forcing recognition by allies and making that deal moot. But that doesn't mean it was forgotten by any of the sides.
>
>Then there's the period of the first three years after the war when the then DFY was enamored with USSR until the breakup 1948 (the message to Stalin could translate into "we liberated ourselves from the Germans on our own, so you aren't our boss"). After that, Tito would start as any other pretty lamb, sucking two sheep, i.e. getting aid, concessions etc from either side by picturing the danger from the other. He was quite good at that game.
>
>>This has been a part of WWII that is more or less ignored in the majority of histories (what with the big theatres such as S Pacific, Normandy, et al). Before this the only ref I had was the film "Force 10 from Navarone" :-)
>
>You may find Fitzroy McLean(or McClean?)'s book. Also, I think Churchill's son was delegated into the mission.

Curiously there was another, Jack Churchill - he who went into battle with his sword and bagpipes, colonel of the commandos in Y - not Winston's son, although Randolph Churchill, also involved with commandos and SAS and all that (also served with Evilyn Waugh) and was in the diplomatic mission.

>I also remember some medical treatment was provided by the British (and/or Americans, maybe) to Tito's partisans in Brindisi and Biserta.