Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My changes

My changes consisted of three classes.

First of all, various POV issues that actually speak for themselves:

• wordings like "self-evident" and "with good cause" immediately show that the author did not care about NPOV
• I changed a wording that basically labelled all ethnic Germans as Nazis
• I changed a wording that assumed the accuracy of the verdict against Stepinac
• I removed a jibe at Yugoslavia's demise put into Tito's mouth (who could have known nothing about this in 1946) and which was part of an editorial comment by the author (which might be true or not - it doesn't belong here)

Secondly, correcting the date of Tito becoming President for life and the adoption of the new constitution to 1974 - this should have been detected much earlier as putting 1963 violates the sequence of the narrative. Also, if Tito was elected in 1971 he cannot have been "for life" in 1963. Also, the article President for life does confirm this, as does this, this and this. (Confusingly, I did also find links dating his election "for life" in 1963 but, as I said it sits more well in 1974, after his re-election in 1971, and in conjunction with the new constitution).

Finally, a few minor changes:

• articles should be written in an appropriate form, hence I changed "not as many as was common in post WW2"
• the correct English term is People's Republic, not "National Republic"
• it is nonsense to say that Yugoslavia's being expelled caused a rift with Moscow - this was the rift with Moscow
• the titles in the succession box are unnecessarily complicated. The SFRJ is linked often enough in the article. We should have one link for each office.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) At the end of WW2 the massive support for Tito was self evident (as reprted by British and German observers and contemporaries, check sources).

2) If you are going to remove the section about the Volksdeutchers forming the Prinz Eugen volunteer division, you should remove the entirety of the text concerning them. It is an important fact.

3) The Stepinac matter is far more complex than that. If you can produce evidence (doubtful) that the trial was "innacurate", you may remove this, otherwise first read the Aloysius Stepinac article.

The rest is good (great work, I didn't even notice the constitution thing!). DIREKTOR 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) the self-evident was about something else: the complicity of all (note this) ethnic Germans because many (not all) served in this unit

2) I did not remove the Prinz Eugen section. I just trimmed it down and dePOVed it.

3) it is complex but we shouldn't endorse the accusations.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) This was certainly not meant. Perhaps it is possible to simply show that the complicity of very large numbers (I believe the majority or nearly all of the able male population) of this ethnic majority in hideous crimes against humanity (I'm not exaggerating) stereotyped them in the eyes of their erstwhile Yugoslav victims?

3) Hmmm, we should not endorse accusations? These are not accusations, a high court ruled that the man was guilty for treason. There is nothing to disprove the prosecutions' evidence. The man did nothing at all to stop and/or punish the military vicariate for commiting incredibly disgusting crimes (I'm not exaggerating), read the articles Involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime and Friar Majstorović. DIREKTOR 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1) But the problem with the now current wording (though less so than with the one I changed) is that it portrays the events that those Germans guilty of crimes were deported when in fact the involvement of many with the collaboration (including crimes) led to the stigmatisation of all ethnic Germans (as in other countries).

2) We should endorse accusations or even verdicts. Courts are not infallible and lest we forget: this was no ordinary court in a perfectly free and legal state but a political trial under a dictatorship (as positive as Tito may seem when compared to others). However, I will add in that place the wording employed by Time in the Tito interview. It reports the charges without endorsing them. (PS. And see how you already twist things around: yesterday he was guilty of crimes, now it is "he did nothing at all" (whether that is accurrate or not is another issue.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I think we may be finally getting somewhere, I will rephrase the whole thing and you see how you like it.

2) All I'm saying is that we should simply state facts and no speculations as to wether he was really that guilty or not: he was accused of this, this and this, he was convicted (an extremely mild sentence for treason, its not like he was sent to a gulag), period. I DO NOT "twist things around", he was guilty, (at least) because he did nothing to stop or punish his subordinates that commited crimes horrendous even for WW2 standards. DIREKTOR 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1) It seems we are not getting somewhere as your version needlessly complicated matters. Remember this is about Tito.

2) The former version did this, my new version (copied from Time) does not. It simply gives verdict and charges. Your strange observation that sixteen years in a labour camp for supposedly not doing enough to stop forced conversion (treason is a strange accusation from a government who had just deoposed the King Stepinac allegedly committed treason against - by merely cooperating with the powers that be) is mild is thankfully irrelevant to editing the article so I won't have to elaborate further. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1) First of all, we are talking about the addition of a few words, second of all, I will not allow you to partially display information in such a biased way and without clarification of the issue, you may rest assured of that.

2) Let me repeat myself, simply read the Aloysius Stepinac article. Not only was his sentence mild, it was commuted, and what little of it he did serve, he served in Lepoglava prison (not a labour camp) where he enjoyed special treatment.

"treason is a strange accusation from a government who had just deoposed the King Stepinac allegedly committed treason against - by merely cooperating with the powers that be..." I hope you realise the full implication of your statement. You obviously are not fully familiar with the enormeously complicated WW2 Yugoslav mess.

Read carefully: When we say "forced conversions", we mean mass murder (only on a few occasions at the beginning of the war were the converts allowed to go free). The fact that Yugoslavia as a state changed its form of government from constitutional monarchy to republic (92% by the internationally accepted referendum voted for the republic) means nothing, the treason was commited against the state. And finally, you contradict yourself, "merely cooperating with the (Axis) powers that be" IS COLLABORATION, I.E. TREASON. Do not attempt to debate on matters you clearly do not understand. DIREKTOR 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1) First of all: I cannot see how my version is partial. But anyway: what items do you insist on? Please briefly name them and I will include them in a proper way.

2) Please don't repeat yourself and don't tell me to read carefully since I have. The sentence is 16 years - commuting afterwards don't change that. I am aware with the Yugoslav mess - it is not I that am unaware of the mess, but I wonder how an involved party can put this in legal terms.

My point is simply that accusing the Bishop of treason for holding an ecclesiastical post under the Ustasha government is a bit rich when the accusers themselves have just deposed the sovereign. What actually is the accusation? Did Stepinac bring about the Ustasha take over? No! Against what could he have committed treason? Sure only against the government he lived under until 1941. That was Peter II whom the Communists had just deposed. I am not saying that they were wrong in this - just that this sounds like double standards. Or maybe everyone that was not a partisan should have been imprisoned because they after all collaborated.

As for the other charge - I know what horrid things happened (though I cannot agree with your nonchalant way of dealing with forced conversions) - but I am asking: has every anyone shown (or even alleged) that Stepinac himself committed these acts? Or that he proposed, accepted, condoned them? To my knowledge he did the opposite! Not with great success and maybe too little (but who is to say what too little is?) But that simply does not amount to the charge you are bringing against. As for selective presentation and reading carefully: the trial was a political trial aiming not at Stepinac the alleged criminal before 1945 but against Stepinac the political opponent after 1945, instigated by a Communist regime. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But refocusing, as all this is not important to the article. We can have our differences. The article should report neutrally. That's all I am asking for.

Regarding 2) I think this is achieved.

Regarding 1) please answer my question. Or put this way, would accept this version:

"... deportations of ethnic Germans. The entire minority was labeled as Nazi collaborators since many had volunteered in the notorious SS Division "Prinz Eugen"."

I think it sufficent to mention "to volunteer" once, and don't think we need to characterise the division as exclusively "Danube Swabian" as all such divisions were taken from one ethnicity (see Charlemagne in France). Str1977 ^(talk) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Include them in a proper way"? What makes you think I did not include them in a "proper" way. I wonder what gives you the right to assume that patronizing tone and arrogant attitude. Back to the matter at hand, though.

1) do not have anything in particular against the version, but I do not see why removing, literraly, a few words is so important to you? (also it must be noted that the division was notorious, as it, without a shadow of a doubt, was).

2) Like a military commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, so is a Catholic bishop. Fact is he virtually ignored what was going on. The frequently quoted letters were few (the war lasted 4 years), meek, and did not achieve anything. I'm not saying that's strictly his responsibility, but as any other responsible individual, he might have stepped down (temporarily, most likely) when ignored (after strong requests) rather than be associated, even in the slightest, with the worst (1,200,000 dead, at least and 1,700,000 by some estimates) bloodshed of civilians in Europe, short of the Eastern front, perhaps.

Now back to your warped ideas concerning treason, simply this: treason is commited, not against a particular government, but against the state. The government fell, the king was deposed, the state of Yugoslavia remained. And cooperation with the NDH would probably have been treason in King Peter II's government as well. Had they come to power after the War they probably would have liked to prosecute a Catholic prelate even more than the communists, do you realise this? DIREKTOR 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What gives me the right? The same right that you take when you fence the article against any changes (consider WP:OWN.

But back to the matter: if it is just a few words we do you fight so bitter to keep them. My reasons why I adressed this in the first are clear: the former version was basically racist. Since you don't object, I will now institute my proposed version.

Notorious is a valid choice as it was (note that notorious is relating a reputation, which is a fact).

I never heard of the absurd notion that a military commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates (not morally or in regard to damages but) in regard to penal law, unless he ordered these actions. And we are talking penal law here (16 years, to be exact). And for the way he ran his office he is certainly not responsible to the government.

Treason cannot be committed against an abstract notion like a nation (which Yugoslavia never was) but only against a polity - by moving against the constitutional order or by aiding outside enemies (and I see Stepinac doing neither). Of course constitutions can be changed but how can it be changed without the consent of the sovereign? In (most) monarchies, the King is the sovereign, not just another government. Note that at the time they deposed the King, he was the King and the state a monarchy. Also note that it is you who is emphasizing treason here, as the other charge is merely one of omission. I did not bash Tito for moving against his King but that is what he did.

What Peter's men would have done is perfectly beside the point as it was the Communist regime under Tito that did these. Don't try to hide this. But maybe I forgot that Tito is right ... always. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote on my userpage was more or less a joke, so do not try to mock me.
I was talking about your attitude, not your edits!
You are right, treason cannot be committed against an abstract notion like a nation, BUT IT CAN BE COMMITED AGAINST THE STATE. Maybe you do not realise this, but the kingdom of Yugoslavia was more or less a dictatorship of the king (literally for a while, then de facto). Now, as the SFRY is the succesor state to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia it has the right to file treason charges against any and all individuals whom it beleives have actively collaborated with those powers that held it under occupation, period. This is not debateable, this is fact. This is not double standards! If you collaborate with the Nazis you are commiting treason, you are not commiting treason against the King, or his government, but against the sovereign allied state of Yugoslavia. Why am I even debating this... its obvious! They removed the hereditary dictator/king by an INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED referendum (by the USA and even the UK), not by military coup. This referendum was held after an agrement with the royal government. I keep telling you, Yugoslav matters are never simple and there is never a "good side". I'm also not gonna talk to you anymore about Stepinac, he was convicted with good evidence on an appropriate time period, corresponding with his level of guilt (not 20 years, not 18, but 16 years, note that the usual punishment for treason is death, or life imprisonment). DIREKTOR 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not interested anymore in discussions that go nowhere and will henceforth focus only on issues relevant to the article. Just this much: I am not here to cheer for the King of Yugoslavia but your double standards are of course ridiculous. I think it more treasonous to topple the government than to work under a treasonous government put in place by someone else. Also, it is not me that claims a "good side" - you are claiming that the good side is Tito and everything he did must have been fine. Probably this is the source of all the "buts" and "howevers" whenever anything negative pops up. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the "Prinz Eugen Division": it was not at all times made up from volunteers so I removed that. Your insistence on the unit taken exclusively from Volksdeutsche (the normal practice among Waffen-SS) only serves to push a certain POV (that the deportations are justifiable). I also added Waffen-SS to the title to clarify this. Finally, I think the number is not needed but do not object to its inclusion. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You just can't seem to understand that a government is not equal to the state! Fine, you will not: remove the (Volksdeutsche) in brackets (there is nothinh Nazi about that name) because that is the name they were going by during WW2 and many people will not understand who the Danube Swabians are; remove the sentence that states THAT THE 7th SS Division WAS A VOLUNTEER DIVISION COMPRISED MOSTLY OF THIS MINORITY. If you remove my correct and ubiasely written objective facts you will be reported. This is not a threat, I just do not know how else to protect the (objective) information I add into the article... If you can prove that this information I add is somehow incorrect, remove it, otherwise do not. Also do not add your own incorrect little words to the names of WW2 divisions. DIREKTOR 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't seem to understand that there's more to editing than ideology. It also must be written well and not cluttered with constant addition of information not germane to the article's topic.

• I did not removed anything about Volksdeutsche (and the reasoning about Nazi terminology reveals more about your than about my thinking.)
• The linked article about the "Prinz Eugen" Division says that there was conscription into the unit. By saying "exclusively ... volunteers" you are are introducing error into the article.
• For some reason you also removed the fact that it was a "Waffen-SS" division.

That doesn't sit well with a supposedly "correct" and "ubiasly" (sic) writing. Looking for reference for the fact tagged passage would suit that better (as without them they will eventually be removed).

Also, you have no right to order other editors around telling them what they will or won't do. We are not in the SFRJ and you are not Tito. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I DID NOT say "exclusively" but "for the most part", wich is an accepted historic fact, do not change or try to rewrite history (why, I cannot imagine), the division was comprised by volunteers for the most part, and they were for the most part Volksdutsche. This wording I strongly support.
• If you feel you may add words like "Waffen" (some SS divisions had Waffen- in their names, mostly panzergrenadier, some did not) or remove words like "Volunteer", from the UNCHANGEABLE historic name of the division, you are quite arrogant. Also understand this: if a division's name is the "7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen", and I by some chance write the word "Volunteer" in its mentioned name, you have absolutely no right to edit that in this Wikipedia. Let's stick to historic documented names, is that ok? DIREKTOR 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry that I mistook your "for the most part". But still, your insistence on repeatedly saying "volunteer" creates the impression that all members were volunteers. Don't accuse me of rewriting history, see the article on the division.
• The Waffen-SS is quite distinct from other branches of the SS, whether the division had the term in their name or not. We should reflect that. It is hypocritical to insist on the full name when you had no problem with leaving out "Mountain" - in fact, we don't need the entire name here but a comprehensive reference to the unit. Hence Mountain is expendable as is the number.
• You have no right to boss me or other editors around. Is that okay? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have read nearly every article on the Second World War (especially concerning Yugoslavia). The full and correct name of the division will be mentioned (it is a matter of 2 words) to avoid selective adding of information. Troops were recruited in the division only towards the end of the war (read the article again), until then, they were volunteers. "for the most part comprised of volunteers" is absolutely correct and if you want to go to the admins about it, I would be more than happy to oblige, as your version creates the illusion they were conscripts "a unit recruited for the most part from that minority". Do you even know what you are saying? It was a volunteer division, FFS! Even Nazis didn't make conscript divisions and call them "volunteer". I assure you, I would defend historic fact equally if this was a partisan division we were talikng about.
• I am fully aware of the organisation of the SS. As I clearly stated, my edit was in protection of the correct and exact name this unit held in WW2: 7.SS-Freiwilligen-Gebirgs-Division Prinz Eugen. Had there been the word Waffen (they did belong to the Waffen SS, I know this, believe me) I would certainly have supported its inclusion (mostly SS Panzergreadier divisions actually held the waffen Waffen in their proper names). There was not. All I'm saying is let us use the proper name for the unit. Why you are opposed to this I do not know. I can only imagine you are in favour of selectively adding information to make the unit sound conscripted, something wich it was most certainly not.
• I am bossing YOU around!? MY good fried, refrain from accusations. I did not come here and start making "proper" edits all over the place, without consideration to actual historic information.
• Let us forget our grievances for 10 seconds so that you may answer this quaestion objectively: would you object to your "Socialist Yugoslavia", changing into "SFR Yugoslavia" (note that this is, after all, the objective, unbiased name of the state, that the S stands for Socialist anyway, and that there are other important thigs in that name, such as Republic, that identified the new state from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). DIREKTOR 09:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Part 1:

• Again you are bossing. You tell others what that "The full and correct name of the division will be mentioned". Not "should" but "WILL". You also told me above what I will or won't do. So it is not an accusation but a fact. If you refrain from that behaviour I would be glad to drop that observation. As for using "my coming here" as an argument - maybe it didn't occur to you but you don't WP:OWN this article. It is free to be edited by anyone with a computer, certainly to long-standing Wikipedians. When you submitted your edits you were shown a disclaimer which told you about this.
• Apart from that I have nothing against the full name expect that I don't think it is needed. Why do you suddenly espoused a "full name" policy when before you had no problem with omitting parts of it (and had no problems with purely colloquial terms like "Second Yugoslavia")?
• "Recruited" is a neutral term and does not denote conscription. It covers both volunteers and conscripted recruits. If you dispute that there were conscripts, why don't you change the article on the division, if this is all an illusion. "Even Nazis" (won't start a squibble about the overuse of that term) can set up units as volunteer forces and latter adopted conscription without changing the name. Whether they did this I do not know (the other article says so) and I am open to being educated about this. What I am not open to is a wording that contains the word "volunteer" twice - are you willing to accept the full name while dropping the volunteers from the later sentence for stylistic reasons. Remember, someone has to read all this stuff.

But grievances aside:

• I have no objections of changing "Socialist Yugoslavia" to the full title of the state and the linked article (I wouldn't like acronyms for stylistic reasons). The only reason I wrote "Socialist Yugoslavia" is because the name change occuring in its history - but I am sure if you are okay with it nonetheless it is okay. My point here was that "Second Yugoslavia" is a bit undescriptive. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So summing up:

1) Please moderate your tone and it will help everyone here. Especially consider WP:OWN and WP:AGF.

2) Educate me about the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the WP article on the Prinz Eugen division. I am open to that.

3) Please consider stylistic reasons, avoiding repitions and tangential information

4) We agree on the name Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on your edit summary:

1) I omitted the years because they do pose a problem. Sure Tito was a leader since 1943 but the Yugoslavia he led only became a state in 1945 with the partisans victory, earlier declarations notwithstanding.

2) I am aware that the Volksdeutsche in Yugoslavia were the Danube Swabians - that is why I think it so utterly superfluous to mention them side by side. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Very well, I think we should both moderate our tone somewhat... Despite what you may think, I m not some Titioist fanatic.
2) Prinz Eugen Division. When I say Nazis, I am certianly not overusing that term, since all SS divisiond were put together by and made up of NSDAP members (Waffen-SS branch of the SS branch of that party). Here's the thing, I do not deny that the division had a number of conscripts towards the end of the War (later half of 1944), however, during the (greater) majority of its existance, the division was not only volunteer, but exclusively volunteer, and even recieved volunteer replacements (like other Freiwillige SS divisions, Nordland, for example). To say merely that the people were "recruited" into this SS unit (keep that in mind, this was not the Heer with its conscription habbits) gives out a very incorrect impression that people were actually drafted into the unit. I hope you see why this is unacceptable, by any standards. I support therefore, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, that we place the full name of the Division into the article, and that it must be clearly stated (once more, I'm afraid) that it was made up for the most part of Volksdeutsche volunteers.
3) When the word volunteer is stated in the context of the name of the division, it seems to me it is not repetitive to write the word once more in the surrounding text. Especially when it is virtually unavoidable, as in this case.
4) We agree.

Commenting on the edit summary:
1) The country is generally considered to have begun in 1943, with the first AVNOJ sessions. If you find the coat of arms of the republic, you will see a date of the internationally accepted beginning of the SFRY.
2) I am not gonna go into that, I do not mind the Volksdeutsche version.
DIREKTOR 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Okay.

2) Well, it is certainly more appropriate here than with "Nazi invasion", "Nazi officer" (for a Wehrmacht officer) and the like. As I said, I don't want to squibble about it.

3) As I said, I oppose the word volunteer for reasons of repitition. Also, it is not "unavoidable" - recruited from ... just means that the recruits were from ... not that they were conscripted. Every army/force, whether conscripted armies or volunteer armies, has recruits.

4) Good.

edit summary:

1) The country? You mean the state? Anyway, before 1945 Tito was a party and a partisan leader and not a state leader. Therefore I think 1945 is a better date, regardless of what later terminology proposed.

2) Okay.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Finished.
2) I could not agree more, there is a strong difference between the Heer (definetly NOT Nazi) and the SS. The SS was comprised of NSDAP (Nazi) members, however.
3) I know what the word "to recruit" and a "recruit" means. It does however, undoubtably make it sound like they did not mostly use volunteers. If repetition is the problem, I think that shortening the name may be acceptable to both sides in order to prevent it: "7th SS mountain Division "Prinz Eugen" was comprised for the most part by volunteers from this ethnic minority.". Acceptable?
4) Finished.
Edit summary:
1) I suppose you're right. I have no objection to 1945 replacing 1943. Please don't remove the whole thing.
2) Finished.
DIREKTOR 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement on all items. :) Str1977 ^(talk) 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have another question for you: Do you know when did the party switch from "general secretary" to "President of the Presidium" as its leading officer? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is something new? I thought President of the Presidium concerned the state of Yugoslavia, while General Secretary concerns the Communist Party. There is a difference... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of some additional funeral info

Why did you (User:Babaroga) remove the additional info on Broz's funeral? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

President a military post???

I think that box on the end of the article needs some serious rewrite. All of the posts here are named military?!? Here is what should be there, I ask some non-anon user to replace current box with this:

{{start box}} {{s-mil|}} {{s-bef|before=Rank established}} {{s-ttl|title= [[Marshal of Yugoslavia]] <br> [[29 November]] [[1943]] – [[4 May]] [[1980]]}} {{s-aft|after=Rank absolished}} {{s-off}} {{s-bef|before=Position established}} {{s-ttl|title=[[SFRY|Federal]] [[List of leaders of communist Yugoslavia|Prime Minister of Yugoslavia]] <br> [[29 November]] [[1945]] – [[29 June]] [[1963]]}} {{s-aft|after=[[Petar Stambolić]]}} {{s-bef|before=Position established}} {{s-ttl|title=[[SFRY|Federal]] [[Defence minister|secretary of people's defence]] <br> [[29 November]] [[1945]] – [[14 January]] [[1953]]}} {{s-aft|after=[[Ivan Gošnjak]]}} {{s-bef|before=[[Ivan Ribar]]}} {{s-ttl|title=[[List of Heads of State of Yugoslavia|President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]]<br> [[14 January]] [[1953]] – [[4 May]] [[1980]] <br>[[President for Life]] from 1974}} {{s-aft|after=[[Lazar Koliševski]] <br>^{as [[List of Heads of State of Yugoslavia|Chairman of the Collective Presidency of Yugoslavia]]} }} {{end box}}

Tito the "President"

After going through this article there are many many views that lean towards Tito's side and I personally find this very insulting and revisionary. Tito was not an elected president, he was a self proclaimed president and was most definitely a dictator - those who are prone to the illusion of some type of democratic aspects to Tito's Yugoslavia are blind - communists do not work like that.

The big deal made out of Tito's funeral is laughable - typical Balkan babble, "The more people that show up, the greater you are" - people were forced to mourn the death of this bloodthirsty monster for 5 straight days - all of Yugoslavia was shut down. The reason the 'world' showed up to Titos funeral is simple. Yugos'slave'ia was a country pawn in the geopolitical gamble of the cold war, it was a buffer state between east and west and Tito skillfully played off both for his own survival. His war crimes were hidden because cold war geopolitics was of only importance in that age. When his role became obsolete so to did his state.

Post war massacres and genocide (Bleiburg), highest number of political prisoners per capita in the world, rigged political processes (Stepinac), death penalties, gulag style long term imprisonment in hell holes such as goli otok, assassinations (Bruno busic and 68 others), imposed underdevelopment of 'nationalist' regions, kidnappings, blackmail and slander, purges (Croatian spring 33,000 loose their livelihood), a bipolar split of Godless communists and have-nots, all but some of the measures tito used to preserve power in his paranoid dictatorship. To think that there is barely any mention of this is despicable.

Tito takes 9th place with 1.17 million dead of the top 10 killers of the 20th century with such esteemed company as Stalin, Hitler, Mao , Lenin, Hidecki etc. This can all be verified by professor Rummel - a specialist on genocide in the United States. I would like to see non-'balkans' take the initiative to find this all out for themselves and to be very critical of everything they read - note I am trying to be as neutral as possible, just bringing some extra flame to the topic at hand to make it more neutral.AP1929 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tito was elected numerous times, and elections were held. No one "forced" people to mourn, that is the most absurd and anti-Tito statement that I have read thus far. Your personal opinions cannot suffice in this article, as you provide no facts other than plain ustasa propaganda. Show us the links where "people were forced to mourn", I'd love to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the only thing laughable here is you. What do you know about Tito? Your not neutral, where’s your source to say that the mourning was not genuine? Yugoslavs were genuinely saddened by the death of Marhsal Tito, who was regardless of what you think a major world statesmen, and whose loss was mourned by many around the world. The fact that Tito himself ordered the mass killings of many cannot be proved by some professor, infact it is widely known that the leadership of Yugoslavia and the partisans in the early years was disputed, with Serbs, Croats and extremist commanders in the partisans carrying out justice in their own ways, many would like to simply put the blame on the most popular and widely known partisan. Go read a book. Sloveniaiscool (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Brozović??

Hi to all! I am a historian from Croatia and I wrote something about Josip Broz Tito before. I know well that there are still so strong emotions about him in ex-Yugoslavia, negative and positive. I know it's very hard to write calmly about him - he deeply influenced lives of everybody older then 40. (I was 22 when he died.)

However, I can start with corecting some clear mistakes in the article. The first one: "Josip Broz Tito was born Josip Brozović". No chance! Nobody from Croatia could write it. His family name was Broz - an usual family name in Croatia. During the WWII, some reports in western media, when his original name was the first time make known (1943.- before that, everybody known him only as "Tito"), wrote his family name wrong as "Brozović" (The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 7. X 1943.; Evening Standard, London, 14.X.1943.). I supose it's an original source of later citations.--Fausto-Ilirik (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself was skeptical towards the incusion of that name, could you comment on the sources mentioned as confirmation of the claim? They were the main reason that name was included. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Links were here for three books in English and Spain, any of them primary about the subject of Josip Broz, Yugoslavia etc., and without original sources. You will not find this claim, that he was "Brozović", in Croatian / Yugoslavian literature. It's a simple mistake.--Fausto-Ilirik (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In either case, I'll remove the claim until R-41 can provide any fully verifiable scholarly sources on this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, looks like you already removed it :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A few corrections about childhood and youth

Then: "After spending part of his childhood years with his paternal grandfather" - it was his MATERNAL grandfather - the vilage of Podsreda is in Slovenia, and Josip Broz has problems with croatian language when he started an elementary school in Kumrovec, Croatia.

Then: "failed the 2nd grade" - according to the biography wrote by Vladimir Dedijer, he failed the 1st grade. And he didn't "left" school in 1905, but normally graduated.

His silver medal in fence competition was not in 1912, but 1914. (he was in the Army). (It was a grean success for a son of a peasant - his oponents were mostly aristocrats!) --Fausto-Ilirik (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg

The image Image:NonAlignedMovement.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tito's Dog

It is ridiculous for Wikipedia users to allow a story about Tito's dog loyally 'sacrificing himself' to save his owner's life to appear as part of an otherwise serious description of his life. Such frippery is utterly useless and serves only to make the descriptions sound like they have come from a communist 'history' book rather than an open source project. Please get rid of this evidently stupid detail. 91.143.221.238 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Josip Broz Tito/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to have to fail this article, mainly due to referencing concerns. These are some of the issues I've found in a quick review of the article:

• Severe under-referencing. There are some sections that are completely unreferenced, as well as others that have many unreferenced paragraphs or sentences. There are multiple fact tags.
• It is recommended that pictures be staggered right and left to improve article flow. Also, galleries are discouraged. Pictures that truly improve the reader's understanding of the subject should be included in the main body of the text itself, in the appropriate section, and the rest removed. A link to the Commons category of the article can be added using the {{commonscat|Commons cat name}} template.
• The Further Reading section should be after the references section.
• The note in the Notes section should be explained further and referenced. If there is a discrepency in when he was born, this should definitely be explored in the article.
• You reference formatting needs quite a bit of work:
  • Web references should be formatted with publishers and access dates.
  • Books should be formatted with publishers and publication dates.
  • All references in each category (books, web, etc) should be formatted the same as each other.
• The Miscellaneous section should be taken apart and each section integrated with the rest of the article. The quotes should be integrated into the main text, and any quotes that don't fit transcluded to WikiQuotes. A link to the Wikiquotes can be added by using {{wikiquote|Wikiquote title}}

These are just the issues I found on a quick run through of the article. As I have already stated, the referencing is the most serious issue preventing this article from becoming a GA. I have not done a thorough review of the article's prose, so there may be more issues that I have not listed above. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tito's YU-A Hidden Form of Dictatorship.

There is no doubt that mass political killings were authorised by OZNA with the blessing of TITO. Large scale killings of Individuals who were anti-communist and not necessaraliy aligned with Nazi Fascism were systematically killed, this is fact. Goli Otok was a prime example that having a political opinion in the so called YU was dangerous. Men who were sent to GOLI OTOK were treated to worse conditions then those sent to Siberia. GOLI OTOK had powerful gale force winds that were intolerable,Overcrowding, hard labour and little food and water. Many men never returned home and were systematically assisinated to make room for new arrivals. What the fascists accomoplished during the war Tito took over with greater ferocity. Not only was TITO a dictator he was also trying to implement a system which no one was interested in. The dictatorship was trying to force people to inter-marry Serbs/ Croats etc.Also forcing population shifts during the dictatorship over the last 50 years had caused the balkan wars in the 90's with minorites in other balkan republics wanting autonomy because of the shifts. Tito even went out of his way to exterminate mainly Croats and a minority of Serbs who lived abroad as he seen them as a"threat" to the dictatorship, what a joke. Anybody to say TITO was an angel has no idea about the YU regime and should wake up to reality. A massive amount of so called YU citizens left the country because of its unbearable conditions. It is fact that TITO had a policy of only securing good jobs to those who were party members and were atheists with red books. Tito "MUST" be remembered as the original Butcher of the Balkans and no other world leader could inflict so much pain on its citizens than he has, this was all done hidden under the umbrella of the communist system of YU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL just about everything above is plain wrong... I won't even go into this --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Matica Hrvatska

Since I know you're thinking of reverting my removal, I'll point out that this article is not about everything "Broz's government" did in the 35 years he controlled Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's not about everything Broz's government did, apparently it's only about everything positive it did. Evrything bad that happened must be crazy nationalist POV. Heck, as the article stands it doesn't even make it remotely clear that Broz was a dictator (or whatever cleaned-up word you'd like to use for his rule).--Thewanderer (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Like what? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This article does not contain a single negative about Broz, nowhere is his dictatorship even mentioned. I mention the banning of Matica hrvatska, one of the most significant of the thousands of bannings in communist Yugoslavia, and it's immediately disqualified as irrelevant. If we credit a dictator with his country's victory in WWII, its foreign policy, etc. we should also credit him with his repressions.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is negative and relevant, but has nothing to do with Tito himself. This article is about Tito, not SFR Yugoslavia, mention it there. His status as a "dictator" is disputed, Yugoslavia in 1980 was widely considered a liberal communist state. There can also be no doubt as to the massive popularity of Josip Broz Tito. His public status, though often exaggerated by the media, is indeed comparable only to that of Winston Churchill and Dwight D. Eisenhower (a WW2 "liberator hero"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Decorations

I stumbled upon a book containing the full list of Tito's decorations, both Yugoslav and international. Its called "Bilo je Časno Živjeti s Titom" ("It was an honor to live with Tito"), and its basically a memorial book about Tito's funeral my grandmother got as a present back in 1981. It includes every single award the guy received along with its image from the red velvet display couchins around his casket in the House of Flowers during his funeral. Unfortunately, the images are not properly labeled so I don't know for certain which is which :P, while soem are obvious, like the brilliant-studded Order of Victory, some are completely obscure. Anyway, there are dozens of awards (I'd say about 50, mostly foreign) and it would take hours of careful work to properly introduce them in the article, so I'll be periodically adding some of them from time to time. The book is in Serbo-Croatian and I'm translating the names of the awards, so forgive me if I make a mistake or two concerning details.

For now, I'm not 100% sure as to the proper translation of "Velika lenta najvišeg Ordena krizanteme". Literally translated it means "Great sash of the Supreme Order of the Chrysanthemum". After reading about the levels in the article, I'm not sure if "Great sash" (Velika lenta) corresponds with grand cordon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not sure exactly which British order corresponds to "Orden viteza velikog križa najvišeg reda", translated, that works out to be "Order of the Knight of the Grand Cross of the highest order". The commentary just says its a British award, could the proper translation be be "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The number of awards this guy received is unreal... I'd appreciate any help with proper translation of awards. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads of state receive a lot of orders. Could you shorten the section to just a list, flag images and the year he was awarded? Information about the awards are in the articles about them. When there is no article about the award, create it! --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not like this guy :P, Legion of Honor, Order of the Bath, etc... (LoL a communist knight). Anyway, I'm not going to "shorten the list", rather I believe the creation of a seperate article is warranted for the honors, while only the most significant ones should be listed in the same way as now (something like List of awards and honors of Wesley Clark). For the time being I'll be adding the awards here and when the list is complete I'll transfer them to the new list-type article. There are a lot more I haven't found the time to include properly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

btw, I don't know much about awards and decorations in general, and creating new articles requires extensive research so I don't think I'm the right person to create order articles... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea actually. New articles don't have to be perfect. There are always other who come along later and improve. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stalin1.jpg

Some time recently a portrait of Stalin (that does not include Tito) was added to this article. Removed the same as it is not directly relevant to this article. Instead a picture showing both Tito and Stalin would be preferable. -- Gaston200 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Born Josip Broz

Tito was born Josip Broz, not Josip Broz Tito. Tito is a name he adopted later. It's all there in the article. Note also that he is referred to as "Broz" throughout this section, so it is inconsistent to call him "Josip Broz Tito" in the opening sentence. Rabascius (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction summarises the whole article, not just the early life part. He is most known under the name "Josip Broz Tito". --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in my comment above. I'm not referring to the opening sentence of the introduction but to the opening sentence of the "Early life" section. I am not suggesting that the introduction should be changed. Incidentally, you may find that he is most commonly referred to simply as "Tito" or "Marshal Tito" in the English-speaking world... but that's another issue. Rabascius (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Total nonsense

"Tito's responsibility for the deaths of students on the Syrmian front", its like trying to hold President Roosevelt accountable for all the American students that were drafted into the army and died on the Western front. Those people were drafted into the army to help liberate their country from an invading enemy. By this time (1944) Tito was the legitimate Allied commanding officer of Yugoslav forces and retained the full legal authority to draft people into the Yugoslav armed forces. Don't get me wrong, its a terrible tragedy, and I certainly wouldn't want to be there with them, but WW2 is full of tragedies.
Furthermore, Yugoslavia was occupied by the Soviet Union in a corresponding degree to the American and British occupation of France in 1944. The term we usually use for both in non-ultranationalist history is "liberated". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatian?

Admiral, regarding your edit summary of barring Tito, I have yet to meet a "Yugoslav" of Croatian heritage, perhaps we can start with Vladimir Bakarić or Ivan Ribar, to name just two of the most blindingly obvious that spring to mind. Now, regarding this nationalist stuff about Tito being a Croat, well, he always regarded himself as a Yugoslav, not as a Croatian, as the literature points out. For example Panayi (Longman, 2000) in An ethnic history of Europe since 1945: nations, states and minorities (p. 196) "of mixed Croatian and Slovenian descent, but always regarding himself as a Yugoslav"; or Job (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) in Yugoslavia's ruin: the bloody lessons of nationalism, a patriot's warning (p. 58) "Without denying his Croatian and Slovenian roots, he always identified himself as a Yugoslav". His parentage and birthplace are both adequately covered in the next section; to add this nationalist stuff to the intro is entirely unhelpful. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't express myself correctly. Probably 99% of articles on famous political and other figures of SFRJ start the first sentence along the lines of "Vladimir Nazor was a Yugoslav poet of Croatian descent" or "Jova Jovanić was a Serbian poet in Yugoslavia"; you can check this on the very two articles you mentioned. "Yugoslav" is neither an ethnicity, nor a nationality anymore and IMO shouldn't be treated like one. A formulation such as "Yugoslav of Croatian and Slovenian descent" is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, but his heritage must be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, although the major problem was the obvious attempt to say that he was a Croat, which PRODUCER correctly reverted. It's not relevant that Yugoslav is no longer a nationality. It was at the time, that's what his passport was and that's how he saw himself. If you see it as important to mention this matter in the lead, I'd suggest just quoting Job directly - perhaps 'In terms of his origins, "[w]ithout denying his Croatian and Slovenian roots, he always identified himself as a Yugoslav"' with the appropriate source ref. That should put the issue to bed. Thoughts? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian Etnocide and (according to some historians) genocide

During the WW II Tito was responsible for a long series of atrocities against Italian civilians in Istria and Dalmatia. After the end of WW II, over 350000 italian civilians were expelled from Istria (where Italians were historically the majority of the population) and Dalmatia (where Italians have been a consistent minority since the time of Venetian conquest of dalmatic costs between XI and XV century and where they were the majority of the population in Arbe-Rab, Veglia-Krk, Zara-Zadar, Lagosto-Lastovo and Traù-Trogir): they were not ufficialy expelled but they were forced to abandon their houses and goods because of intimidations and violences from the Titinian army and police. A lot of Italian civilians were killed and their bodies were abandoned in the sadly famous "foibe": their number is estimated between 5000 and 30000. Tito is responsible for the Italian etnocide in Istria and Dalmatia and he is responsible for pursuing a policy of Ethnic cleansing (aka genocide) against Italians too. He minimized these episodes (which are documented by a large number of historical sources) and his supporters tried to justify them by calling the victims "Italian fascists", forgetting that the large majority of the victims were civilians and even anti-fascist italian partisans. This is only one example of the atrocities Tito committed (for example he persecuted croats too). Some sources: an Historical work form historian Raoul pupo(http://www.storia900bivc.it/pagine/editoria/pupo196.html) Giampaolo Pansa, Il sangue dei vinti: quello che accadde in Italia dopo il 25 aprile. From the newspaper il corriere della sera (http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2005/febbraio/06/tragedia_delle_foibe_diventa_piccola_co_9_050206104.shtml) Monzali Luciano Italiani di Dalmazia. Dal Risorgimento alla grande guerra; Editore Le Lettere; 2004 Gaetano La Perna, Pola-Istria-Fiume 1943-1945, Mursia

I wonder why the article doesn't deal with such an important issue and i ask you to introduce this topic in the article. thanks. Andrea

One word: evidence. What evidence can you present from these sources you apparently have, that Prime Minister Marshal Josip Broz Tito, recipient of Italy's highest award for merit, endorsed the foibe killings? Speculation from Italian writers with varying degrees of bias is not worth much in proving that the PM was involved in any way in those events.

Another matter, of these sources, which ones are by professional historians, and which ones can you actually prove contain this evidence? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. Let's take this step-by-step. After WWI, Italy took control of parts of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire, namely the entire littoral region of what is nowadays Slovenia and a part of the nowadays Croatian littoral. These are areas that were historically of mixed population - in many cases, Italians were majorities in towns, and Slovenes and Croats in the countryside (as was the case even while these were parts of Austria-Hungary). As far as I understand, these populations got along ok. Maybe not splendid, but ok enough. Then, fascism rose in Italy, and part of its politics was irredentism (btw, many of the posters on this talk page really need to go and read that article) aimed at the above mentioned regions. This translated into a series of opressive moves, from the beaurocratic (forceful expelsion of Slovene and Croatian names and surnames and their replacement by Italian ones), social (moving of large numbers of Italians to the region, to balance out the number of Italians and Slovenes/Croats), nationalistic (a ban of the indigenous Slovene and Croatian languages), to the primitively brutal (as in the infamous case of the priest who was forced to drink motor oil by the fascist milita for the audacity of conducting sermons in Slovene - he died days later in excrutiating pain). Then, WWII came, and things only got more brutal. Btw, if none of this rings a bell, I believe the way the described methods are known in Italian irredentist circles is "spontaneous cultural conversion of barbaric Slavs to a superior Italian culture". Why am I bringing all this up? It has nothing to do with the debate at hand, or with Tito, as Direktor noted. I bring it up because you seem to be (unwillingly, or worse, willingly) oblivious to it, and because it is instrumental in understanding why the Slovenes and Croats of the region hated the Italians as much as they did and jumped at the opportunity to get some bloody, uncivilised revenge - it wasn't because of an inherent barbarism, or because of a blind following of Communism, as you seem to understand it, it was simply a rejection of this atrocious "superior Italian culture" which caused so much pain and suffering for around 30 years. Were there innocent civilians among the victims? Sadly, the answer is a very probably Yes. But imagine a rage aimed at a heavily opressive fascist regime that had been boiling for 30 years among the Slovene/Croatian populace, and you can probably see that at the point of outbreak, when the enraged people saw the belly of the fascist beast, anyone Italian was (again, sadly) seen as an opressor. The whole murderous rampage is uncondonable, unforgivable, but understandable. You need to understand it has little to nothing to do with Communism or Tito, it was an unbridled delayed reaction to unbridled fascist atrocities. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TommorrowTime, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This guy is demonized in some Italian political circles, particularly the irredentist "exiles" (esuli), as the "architect of all their misery". A dozen of these guys were already blocked for a wide range of attacks and vandalism transgression, and every now and again one guys pops in to tell everyone how he feels.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Genocide, Democide etc. Revisionism on tito page

I knew I would come on here to find user DIREKTOR defending the genocidal maniac known as J.B tito. There is not a word in this article indicating the fact that modern American historians have proven and deemed him as one of the greatest mega-killers of modern history. AP1929 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB9.1.GIF

Baxter, David M. "The Serbo-Croatian Antagonism." In OPERATION SLAUGHTERHOUSE: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF POSTWAR MASSACRES IN YUGOSLAVIA, [edited] by John Prcela and Stanko Guldescu. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Co., 1970, pp. 27-42.

Beloff, Nora. TITO'S FLAWED LEGACY: YUGOSLAVIA & THE WEST SINCE 1939. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.

Paikert, G.C. THE DANUBE SWABIANS: GERMAN POPULATIONS IN HUNGARY, RUMANIA AND YUGOSLAVIA AND HITLER'S IMPACT ON THEIR PATTERNS. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967.

Prcela, John and Stanko Guldescu (Eds.). OPERATION SLAUGHTERHOUSE: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF POSTWAR MASSACRES IN YUGOSLAVIA. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Co., 1970.

Beljo,Ante. YU Genocide. Toronto: Northern Tribune Publishing, 1995.

McAdams, Michael. "Yalta and the Bleiburg Tragedy." May 17, 1994.http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yugoslav-hist1.htm.

McAdams,Michael. Croatia: Myth and Reality. Arcadia, CA: CIS Monographs, 1997.

Now I'm sure - almost positive, you aren't surely going to question the MODERN studies of Harvard Scholar Michael McAdams and Rummel - who are recognized and reputable American intellectuals. The only person who has even tried to refute Rummel's indepth study is some Tomislav Dulic amateur yugoslav journal writer who has yet to make a decent argument.AP1929 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the 'hit' balkan release of Simo Dubajic's (ex chetnik turned partisan) "Zivot Greh i Kajanje" - where he himself admits to the ordered killings of atleast 13 thousand people - which he claim were known of and ordered by JB tito.

Also for the users who are not up-to-date with balkan news, here is the excavation of a mine in Slovenia which is filled with the bodies of Croatian soldiers, some German and civilians - those unarmed and surrendered post WW2, who obviously did not receive trial. Before captain Balkan DIREKTOR denies the Bleigburg massacres - which is right up there with holocaust denial - I would like to remind the civilized western readers that we in the civilized, not balkan war - treat all crimes the same and respect fundamental human rights; therefor everyone is innocent until proven guilty and every single person has the right to a fair trial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-kmu3FkB3s

http://www.javno.com/en/related-topics/index.php?q=Huda%20Jama

AP1929 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to direct the attention of readers to the works of the Yugoslav Secret Police "UDBA" and "KOS" - Thus I would suggest the book "Cuvari Jugoslavije" which is made up of hundreds of actual yugoslav documents and their very own documentations of killing committed by their henchmen in the free and modern world.

Here is also a video from youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2v4118TV8c

No mention of the fixed trial of Kardinal Alojzije Stepinac who was beatified by Pope John Paul II. No mention of the fixed trial which brought the deaths of the members of "Bugojanska Skupina" etc. AP1929 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's your problem, Ante. You're proving that these horrible events took place, but you're not proving Broz's connection with them. This is not the place to list Partisan crimes, imagined or real, in an effort to blacken this guy's reputation. To quote Dr. Tuđman, a historian, Tito likely had nothing to do with the actions of seperate groups within the Partisan movement.

The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence linking the PM with the crimes some commanders within his army might be held accountable for. There is no document, no order, no directive and no witness claiming he saw or heard anything that would link the man to the Foibe killings, Operation Slaughterhouse, the Bleiburg massacre or any similar event.

As for the trial of Stepinac, there is also no proof, only allegations of it being fixed.

In short, this is no place for wild Ustaše supporter conspiracy theories. Unless, of course, your research team has just uncovered Tito's orders to the 3rd Army demanding the slaughter of civilians...

For the record folks, User:AP1929 ("Ante Pavelić 1929") considers Ante Pavelić a "great man", and has named his account after him and the year of the foundation of the genocidal Croatian WW2 fascist Ustaše movement. Ante Pavelić, the "Balkans Hitler", is held responsible for ordering the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav Serbs and Jews during WW2. He is a Ustaše supporter, and is proud of it.

On the other hand, he deems a recepient of the Legion of Honor, personally knighted by Queen Elisabeth II, to be a "genocidal maniac". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to me some one to whom one can talk in a pacific way, because you seem to me a fanatic Tito supporter and because you tried a deprecable action of "reductio ad hitlerum" against an other user (in fact you refuse to analyse his objections -based on books from historians- and simply called him a "croatian fascist", which it's not very educated to say the least). I am registred on Italian wikipedia as "AndreaFox" and all the books and articles i citated are historical works from famous historians, who esplicity blamed Tito for being responsible of these crimes (that happened on the territories controlled by his army and after the end of the war, so you can't really say "actions of seperate groups within the Partisan movement.".) However this works, some of which you can also find on internet for you to control them, esplicity citate (a lot of) witnesses and documents that proved tito's connection with what his army and his supporters did (so you either can't really say "There is no document, no order, no directive and no witness claiming he saw or heard anything that would link the man to the Foibe killings"). Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.137.166 (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He is not someone who can talk in a pacific way and that's what I have been saying for months on wikipedia in many articles related to NDH. In his opinion, my research is skewed and or bias due to these allegations against my user name and thought on NDH related articles; however, he clearly is a supporter of tito, and his opinions and research seem to be the only things that are legitimate on these pages and articles (in his opinion). And if he has even attempted to read scholarly works such as Operation Slaughterhouse, he would know that it is almost entirely made up of documentation proving that tito was well aware of what was going on. There are a ton, a ton - of even partisan primary sources (newer ones) which admit to orders coming directly from tito himself. The fact that Joseph Rummel, a prominent U.S expert on genocide labeled tito as one of the most notorious megakillers of modern history, is surely and basically a point proven. U.S and western intellectuals do not label people without indepth study such as the way the peoples of the balkans label each other as he has labeled me here. For the last and final time, I am not a fascist. AP1929 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is your problem direktore, you are a balkan communist - 60 years behind the rest of the civilized world. My research can only maybe come under the scope due to my name, my nationality and political affiliation in accordance with other so-called facts and works, not because you think I'm a fascist. And even then, in the modern civilized, non-balkan world; pluralism exists and the opinions of both sides are extremely needed to come to a neutral conclusion which is the intention of this very online encyclopedia. If Dr. Tudman, is Dr. Frankjo Tudman, the late and very first president of the modern Croatian state; the same guy who's doctorate was bought; the same way as that of Ante "Magistar" Djapic, the same guy who himself was a communist partisan and member of the communist party - well then I think there is a little problem. Dr. Tudman's jedinica, or unit (for english users) was one of the ones who participated in the Bleiburg slaughters and he himself was there (photo's of him and his unit there, as well as documents exist) - this is why Tudman never ever visited the Bleiburg memorial. Also, Dr. Tudman was a sympathizer of tito (probably primarily to justify his prior actions)until his very death, there is even lovely footage from HRT1 on youtube of Dr. Tudman speaking of tito as if he were Mahatma Ghandi. As for who ordained tito: You balkans are so funny with such idiocy. tito was also friends with Gaddafi, Sadaam Hussien and Fidel Castro. Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King also visited Adolf Hitler (as did many others) and described him in ways that Dr. Tudman described tito. No one cares about who came to his funeral or who blindly gave him some type of award as a type of diplomatic favoritism. Yugoslavia and tito was simply a buffer-zone nobody in cold war politics between the east and the west. Neither of them are coming back ever and no one in their right mind in the free world is going to defend a communist. AP1929 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In "Komunisticki Zlocin Nisu Antifasizam", HIC, 2008/ translate: "Communist Crime is Not Anti-Fascism" - on the 29th of May, 1945, Tito in a speech in Ljubljana (Slovenia) said "l i k v i d i r a l i smo dvjesto tisuća bandita, a još toliko smo ih zarobili. Stigla ih je ruka naše pravde.» "We have liquidated 200 thousand dandits, and have imprisoned just as many. The hand of our justice has arrived". Another from the same states "Od 26. svibnja do 2. lipnja 1945. na Kočevskom Rogu (oko 130 km od Zagreba) izvršen je u osam dana pokolj 30.000 – 40.000 zarobljenika u organizaciji Sime Dubaića. U subotu 2. lipnja u nadgledanje izvršenog 'došla je komisija od šest vojnih osoba iz JA i tri dobro odjevena civila poslije koje je otvor jame višestrukim eksplozijama zatrpan.' (Ivan Gugić - svjedok, i Simo Dubaić)". "From May 6th to July 2nd of 1945, in Kocevski Roh (approx. 130 km from Zagreb) completed in 8 days was the slaughter of 30 thousand - 40 thousand prisoners under the organization of Sime Dubaic. On Saturday July 2nd in the viewing of the committed 'cam the commission of 6 army personnel from the JA (yugo army) and three well dressed civilians after which the pit was closed by multiple explosions". (Ivan Gugic - whitness, and Simo Dubaic). Simo Dubaic's book, "Zivot, Greh..." clearly admits that tito was well aware of these atrocities.AP1929 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I am quite busy with my studies I will not be able to enter into this discussion. Nor is it at all possible to waste hours of my time writing up answers to the massive essays Ante likes to post nowadays.

To IP User: All I did was crefully list only the easily confirmable facts about User:AP1929, so that we do not have a repeat of the situation where a user supported his edits while believing he's not, in fact, an Ustaše supporter. He is quite clearly a Ustaše supporter (undeniable), and is quoted on many occasions as supportive of Ante Pavelić (undeniable).

To Ante: Write sensible, shorter posts that actually concern specific improvments to the article. Try to realize that that is the purpose of this talkpage. Also, please try to answer the points presented in other people's posts. Almost all of your post are ramblings that have nothing at all to do with Josip Broz Tito personally (esp. the annoying supposed "witnesses" of J.B.'s involvment, all unrecognized). Tito's statement clearly refers to the massive Axis casualties that were sustained, and does absolutely nothing to implicate him in any form of genocide. If you hold that there is a "ton of Partisan primary sources" confirming Tito ordered the killing of civs, please feel free to list them here (while keeping WP:V in mind, of course). You should also remember that proving a connection with Slaughterhouse does nothing for Bleiburg and the foibe. As I said before, feel free to fire away! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Changes

I have changed the terms "leader" to "dictator" and "anti-fascist" to "communist". Broz was an undeniable dictator, referring him to anything but is simply softening his image. User DIREKTOR has changed this article so that there is no word of even "supposed" crimes; even though the mass killings of upwards of 300 thousand people by the partisan army (or any comparable mass killing operation that takes a long period of time for that matter) can not be unknown to the head. Broz was a communist, most partizans were members of the communist party and labeling butchers such as tito as anti-fascist is just hiding the unfavorable title of communist.AP1929 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss controversial changes with others before making them. This was already discussed and a consensus has been achieved. The correct term decided upon was "leader". When searching for the most common and the most neutral academic terms in general, Britannica is probably one of the best singular sources around. There, Tito is described in general as "premier (1945–53), and president (1953–80)" of Yugoslavia [1]. The words "leader" and "statesman" are also used, but nowhere do we find the term "dictator". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tito was a communist dictator. There is not one piece of evidence that can deny that fact.AP1929 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your personal view. I've neutralized your extreme right-wing POV and introduced a more WP:NPOV intro based on the terms used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've come here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. I'm not an expert in the subject, but this page seems reasonably neutral. Some mention of the inter-Yugoslav violence of the World War II period could be included, if it were well referenced. The article shouldn't focus on such things, but it is important background. Britannica notes that "reprisals against fleeing Croat and Slovene collaborationists were especially brutal." A similar phrase or two could be added to our article.

As to the term dictator, it is a pejorative term and should generally be avoided. Far more dictatorial leaders, like Ceauşescu and Hoxha, are not titled dictator in Wikipedia. Leader is a neutral term, and if we give a full account of his time in power our readers should be able to decide for themselves if Tito was a dictator. - SimonP (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O, Simon. I agree partially, though I can't agree that unreferenced speculation by biased right-wing authors be included in the article. Particularly so if the authors are members of the anti-Yugoslav emigration (people that fled from Tito's Yugoslavia in 1945 and lost everything in the process), as noone can really expect a neutral approach from there. Also, it is a generally known fact around here that no real evidence linking Tito to 1945 Allied war crimes has ever been uncovered. Either he was very careful or he really had nothing to do with the way his commanders on the ground handled the situation in the last days of the war. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is ok for you, a supporter of tito and srboslavia to write about NDH and Pavelic but my input on tito and srboslavia topics are irrelevant? AP1929 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now AP, you know full well that this is "Srboslavia", that this is "Srboslavia", but that the SFR Yugoslavia is simply not a "Srboslavia". You just wish it was so that your hatred would be justified, sorry...

Your input is, of course, not at all "irrelevant". There are articles that deal with the terrible events of WWII Yugoslavia. Feel free to use your sources there. If you're referring to my cmnt on the Croatian Ustaše emigration, I was taking about the possible bias of authors that may come from a community that has experienced terrible hardship at the hands of Tito's Yugoslavia. I don't know if you qualify, AP... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

SFRJ was blatantly a serboslavia. Serbs made up the largest portions of any force of power even in Croatia. I highly suggest Ante Beljo's book YU Genocide which provides dozens of charts and statistics which prove this fact. There is little or no mention of why such hardships occurred since this article seems to portray tito as simply a revolutionary leader who was praised left and right - even though the western world truly knows that tito was nothing but a buffer in cold war politics. There is no way that tito did not know of the Bleiburg atrocities and the death marches. These are events that spanned across Austria to Serbia for months. AP1929 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

... which explains why 5 out of 9 prime ministers of SFRJ were Croats. Zocky | picture popups 23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito and Bleiburg massacre

No page on Josip Broz Tito may be regarded as authoritative and unbiased without mentioning him in the context of Bleiburg massacre and its aftermath. Although there is still a heated debate regarding extent and nature of his involvement, today, no serious historian (see below) maintains the notion that he did not know about it, and that therefore he could not be put in its context.

Therefore, I was rather surprised when I found absolutely no mentioning Bleiburg in English Wikipedia page on Tito, which should be impartial, authoritative and complete. I ascribed it (and hope that it is still true) to the fact that this page is obviously created and edited by amateurs, and not that this omit is caused by bias.

Some two weeks ago I posted a short addendum to this page, putting Tito in context of Bleiburg massacres. It was removed by DIREKTOR, with the explanation that my assumptions were not backed by primary references.

So, since noone who designed this page bothered to do so, obviously being amateurs as me, I consulted professionals: Croatian Institute of History and Croatian Helsinki Watch. Ms. Ravančić from Croatian Institute of History was kind enough to send me a long mail regarding Tito's involvement in Bleiburg massacres. She is regarded one of the most prominent authorities in postwar Communist atrocities, and was mentioned as such by the president of Croatian Helsinki Watch, Mr. Banac, in Croatian Television (HTV) show Otvoreno on May 22, 2009. Since majority of my references are from her mail, I quote it here in its entirety. It is in Croatian, but I think most of the people interested in this issue will understand it:

Poštovani, zahvaljujem za Vasa pitanja i interes. Iako pitanja djeluju jednostavna, odgovoriti na njih nije bas lagano.

1. Postoji li bilo koja referenca u literaturi u kojoj neka povijesna lic(nost izravno povezuje Tita sa doga?ajima u Bleiburgu, ili koja ukazuje da je on o njima znao?

S obzirom da povijest nije egzaktna znanost, tako i u ovom pitanju nema tocnih odgovora (posebice kada se radi o temama koje su osjetljive i jos uvijek bolne). No, postoji niz navoda, koji izmedju redova upucuju da je Tito morao znati. Prema riječima Pere Simica, izmedju 9. i 12. svibnja, u Bijelom dvoru na Dedinju potpukovnik Jefto Šašić dobio je naredbu vrhovnog zapovjednika, koja je jednostavno glasila: “Pobiti!”. Pero SIMIĆ, Tito. Fenomen stoljeća (Zagreb, 2009.), 221.-222. Primjerice javni tuzitelj FDH, 14. srpnja 1945. upućuje na niz poteskoca nastalih “u danima velikih zbivanja, a i poslije, naredivali i dopustali ubijanje bez suda, javno, čak i po nekim neodgovornim elementima nevine ljude, ubijene ostavljali nezakopanima i sl.” Partizanska i komunisticka represija i zlocini u Hrvatskoj. Dokumenti. Slavonija, Srijem i Baranja (Slavonski Brod, 2006.), 286. Zanimljivo je da Vladimir Bakaric, sekretar KPH, clan CK KPJ i predsjednik vlade FDH, na sjednici CK KPH odrzanoj 6. srpnja navodi: “Strijeljanja zarobljenika se i dalje nastavljaju i pored naših opomena i kaznjavanja”. Nadalje, u izvjescu koje je CK KPH 14. srpnja proslijedilo CK KPJ, takodjer se zakljucuje: “Nepravilni postupci protiv domobrana, zlostavljanje u logorima, gladovanje i sirenje tifusa, izazvali su jos veca negodovanja njihovih obitelji, tako da je pitanje domobrana zauzelo ozbiljne oblike.” Zapisnici Politbiroa Centralnog komiteta Komunisticke partije Hrvatske 1945 – 1952., sv. 1., 65.; Partizanska i komunisticka represija i zlocini u Hrvatskoj 1944.-1946. Dokumenti. Zagreb i sredisnja Hrvatska (Zagreb - Slavonski Brod, 2008.), 485. Zanimljiv je i brzojav koji je 25. lipnja 1945. potpredsjednik jugoslavenske Vlade Edvard Kardelj poslao predsjedniku slovenske Vlade Borisu Kidricu. U njemu zahtijeva da se pozuri s likvidacijama, s obzirom da ne postoji razlog za odgadjanje, a uskoro ce biti, kako se navodi, proglasena i amnestija. Mitja FERENC, Prekrito in ocem zakrito (Celje, 2005.), 18. Slicne brzojave slao je i Aleksandar Rankovic, nacelnik OZN-e za Jugoslaviju, pa mi se cini da posljednja dvojica, kao najblizi Titovi suradnici, nisu mogli donositi takve odluke bez Titove odluke ili odobrenja. Napominjem Tito je bio vrhovni zapovjednik NOV i POJ i predsjednik NKOJ-a, sto dovoljno govori o njegovim stvarnim ovlastima. Svoj komentar o svemu tome donosi i Milovan Djilas, Revolucinarni rat, Knjizevne novine (Beograd, 1990.), 433.

2. Postoji li referenca koja ukazuje na to da je on bilo što poduzeo u smislu kažnjavanja poc(initelja nakon zloc(ina?

Tito izdaje navodni brzojav koji je 14. svibnja dostavljen stabovima I., II., III. i IV. armije, kao i glavnim stabovima Hrvatske i Slovenije, te u njemu trazi da se poduzmu “najenergicnije mjere da se po svaku cenu spreci ubijanje ratnih zarobljenika i uhapsenika od strane nasih jedinica, pojedinih organa i pojedinaca. U koliko postoji takvo lice koje treba da odgovara za dela ratnih zlocinaca, te predavajte na revers vojnim sudovima radi daljnjeg postupka. Tito.”[1] U sljedecem brzojavu navodi se “Naredjeno je Prvoj, Drugoj, Trecoj i Cetvrtoj armiji da predaju sve ratne zarobljenike Glavnom Stabu Slovenije i Hrvatske na reverz. Obezbedjenje dace armija. Naredjenje za dalje transportovanje i raspored zarobljenika sledecom (depešom, op. a.) Javite odmah koliko imate zarobljenika koje ćete primati od armija i u kojim se mestima nalaze.”, J. B. TITO, Sabrana djela, 28., 43. Ovakve naredbe Tito je izdavao vise puta u zavrsnici rata, pa i to jasno upucuje da se na terenu dogadjalo suprotno od naredjenoga. Osobnog sam misljenja da su ove naredbe bile samo za vanjsku upotrebu, dok je sve ostalo bilo dogovarano, osobno, na sastancima sa zapovjednicima armija, s kojima je Tito, vrhovni zapovjednik bio u svakodnevnom kontaktu. No, unatoc svemu, ne postoji trag da je ikada i itko odgovarao za pocinjeno. Slavko Goldstein također potvrđuje: “Tito je itekako znao, o čemu postoje i dokumenti […]. Tito je znao za likvidacije ili je naknadno za njih saznavao; katkad je i negodovao zbog pretjeranosti, ali ništa ozbiljno nije poduzeo ili da ih preduhitri ili naknadno kazni počinitelje.” Miljenko JERGOVIĆ, Intervju. Slavko Goldstein: “Tito je bio vođa zavjere šutnje o Bleiburgu”, Jutarnji list (Zagreb), 11. studenoga 2007., 14.

3. Može li ga se staviti u kontekst zapovjedne odgovornosti, tj., da je trebao znati za zloc(ine, a nije ih sprijec(io ili kaznio poc(initelje?

Ivo Josipović točno je istakanuo da je odgovornost za ratne zločine “bila uvijek predviđena za poražene. Dakle, pobjednici u pravilu nikada nisu odgovarali za ratne zločine.” Oni su bili ti koji su “pisali pravila, organizirali institucije i imali fizičku prisilu te bez suda, sa ili bez odgovarajućeg postupka, kažnjavali zločine poraženih (…)”. Ovakav stav zrcali se kroz sintagmu vae victis (jao pobjeđenima!), koja je upotrebljavana još u doba starog Rima, no ona predstavlja nacelo, ali ne i pravnu odredbu. Na cijeli problem ne mogu se primjenjivati danas važeće pravne norme (nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poene sine lege), pa je tako nemoguće govoriti o zapovjednoj odgovornosti kako je mi danas shvaćamo, no potrebno je naglasiti da su u postojećim uvjetima zanemarene odredbe Haške konvencije (“O zakonima i običajima kopnenog rata”) iz 1899. i 1907. te Ženevske konvencije (“O poboljšanju sudbine ranjenika i bolesnika u vojskama na bojnom polju i o postupanju s ratnim zarobljenicima”) iz 1929. godine, koje su potpisale i Jugoslavija i Britanija i NDH. Prema navedenim odredbama, kao međunarodnom pravnom aktu, određen je status i postupanje prema ratnim zarobljenicima (vojnici i časnici zarobljene vojske, pripadnici dobrovoljačkih i policijskih odreda, te civili koji bi se makar i neorganizirano uključili u ratni sukob, kao i oni koji se ne bore, ali su u sklopu poražene vojne snage). Prema tome postoje pravni instrumenti koji su primjenjivi na bleiburška pitanja. Iz brojnih iskaza vidljivo je da su jugoslavenske snage prekršile članke 2., 7., 10., 11., 18., 19. i 46. Ženevske konvencije. Stoga je njihova odgovornost nepobitno pravne, ali i moralne te individualne i zapovjedne prirode, od najvišeg državnog vrha do jedinica na terenu. Prema linijama zapovijedanja moglo bi se prikazati: Milan Basta – Kosta Nađ – Generalštab JA – Josip Broz Tito; Dušan Ostojić Osman – Peko Dapčević – Generalštab JA – Josip Broz Tito i Simo Dubajić – Aleksandar Ranković – Josip Broz Tito. Pri suđenju za zločine na Dalekom istoku, točnije na suđenju generalu Tamoyukiju Yamashiti (29. listopada – 7. prosinca 1945.), za ratne zločine na Manili (Filipini), utvrđen je presedan u pitanju zapovjedne odgovornosti. Ovaj kriterij preuzeo je i članak 7. stavka 3. Haškog statuta te se uz temelje za odgovornost kakva je zapisana u nacionalnim pravima, navode i šire granice kriterija krivnje i uzročnosti. Kao polazište navodi se činjenica da zapovjednika za vrijeme rata ima velike ovlasti, te zbog toga ima i povećanu odgovornost. “U jednom od oblika navedene zapovjedne odgovornosti zapovjednik nije počinio ni naredio zločin, nije čak ni znao da njegovi podčinjeni spremaju zločin, ali za zločin je mogao znati, a propustio je da se poduzmu razumne mjere da do zločina ne dođe. Štoviše, čak i ako nije mogao predvidjeti zločin, kriv je što poslije njega nije poduzeo mjere iz svoje ovlasti da se počinitelj zločina kazni.” Ivo JOSIPOVIĆ, “Odgovornost za ratne zločine nakon II. svjetskog rata”, u: Bleiburg i Križni put 1945., 41. Ann Marie PREVOST, “Race and War Crimes: The 1945 War Crimes Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita”, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 14., no. 3. (kolovoz 1992.), 303.-338. Vazno je napomenuti da su upravo zlocini cinjeni u Drugom svjetskom ratu uzrokovali znacajne nadopune članaka međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, jer je iz tog rata proizaslo da se neprijatelja mora mrziti. No, sve te odredbe nisu imale veceg znacaja kada je Tito u svom govoru u Ljubljani 26. svibnja 1945. spominjao “ruku pravde, ruku osvetnicu” koja je dostigla “ogromnu većinu”, Vrlo jasno opisuje i sudbinu onog manjeg dijela koji je uspio “pobjeći pod krilo pokrovitelja van naše zemlje”. Za njih predviđa: “Ova manjina nikada više neće da gleda ove naše divne planine, naša cvatuća polja. Ako bi se to dogodilo, onda će to biti vrlo kratkog vijeka”.

Eto toliko, zapravo tek sada vidim da je toga poprilicno puno ispalo. Nadam se da ce Vam nesto od svega toga biti od koristi. Ukoliko imate jos kakvih pitanja, slobodno mi se obratite. srdacan pozdrav Mr. sc Martina Grahek Ravancic

Despite the fact that the extent of Tito's involvement in these atrocities will never be completely cleared, there is no doubt that he did know about them (he himself said so in telegram on May 14, 1945), and that there is no evidence that he, or anyone below him in the chain of command linked to him, condemned or punished any of the perpetrators.

I welcome all interested to edit this chapter, it needs more information about this dark page of our history. I sincerely hope that noone will try to delete it. It is written by the help of the professional historian and is extensively referenced. As Ms. Ravančić rightly said, history is not an exact science, but when sufficient references are gathered, things could not be ignored anymore, but to the unbiased person should be motivation for further exploration. No matter how painful truth may be for some. For others, it may be justification.

Also, since several high profile institutions are alerted to this issue (Croatian Institute for History, Croatian Helsinki Watch, Croatian Television) deleting this article may have some serious and perhaps unwanted implications to all involved. History, and especially recent history in this region, is still very painful issue for many who lost their dear ones because of their political belief, and should not be toyed with by amateurs.

So, let's assume good faith, and cooperate to the benefit of truth and justice. Petricek (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Petricek, I wonder if you could provide a translation for all that stuff so that other users can see how little it actually implicates the Prime Minister. Or, we could defend The Truth^TM and Justice by using unpublished, non peer-reviewed opinions you got via e-mail (see WP:SOURCE). Is this article going to be a list of events Josip Broz Tito personally failed to condemn? For those who can't understand the Croatian language, it should be made clear that the entire e-mail above still fails to present actual evidence that the Prime Minster was involved with the Bleiburg events in any way. Most of it is not actually supportive of the fact that Tito should be blamed in any way.

Furthermore, User:Petricek, your threats addressed to "all involved in deleting this article", specifically that they "may have some serious and perhaps unwanted implications" will not work. Wikipedia does not function with threats, nor does Wikipedia allow external pressure from various organizations to influence its content. Every edit is only as good as its support in primary sources - which is something you've yet to find.

With respect to your efforts, I must again point out that I've yet to come across any online encyclopedia that finds the allegations sufficient to even mention a connection between Josip Broz Tito and the Bleiburg massacre. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am willing to discuss the possibility of adding a neutral text that includes only the proven facts about this matter. However: hostility breeds hostility. If you feel my post was "gruff" and unnecessarily sharp, then I must remind you that you just essentially threatened me with legal consequences and public defamation should I remove your text. This is Wikipedia. Your text invariably will be edited and/or removed by hundreds of users with or without me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The edit by User:Petricek is only "sourced" if we choose to disregard what he's actually saying. A lot of the information there is indeed sourced, but it does not prove the essential point the User is trying to depict. Instead of actual primary sources confirming the connection, we have the user himself writing up sentences and conclusions he drew on his own, along with his own interpretation of command responsibility. Am I biased? Here are my objections to the current text in detail and the sources:

• 1) Pero Simić. Obviously this entire paragraph must be removed. The man's "testimony" is recognized in no scientific historical account or professional publication. The very idea of an order stating "Kill !!!!" is ridiculous and naive at best (all its missing is a sinister laugh: "bwahahahahahaa!!!"). (Even if his testimony is to be believed, the "order" allegedly came from the supreme command, and it is impossible to confirm whether Tito was its author.) His "testimony" is also in blatant contradiction to the contents of the May 14 telegram.
• 2) All of the below are conjecture. Their statements are not properly sourced and these individuals are not somehow "equivalent" to Josip Broz Tito. In absence of actual sources confirming a connection with the Prime Minister, quotes from other people are presented - and long after the end of the Bleiburg massacres. They may not, and probably do not refer (in present tense!) to an event that was long concluded.
  • Vladimir Bakarić. This statement, dated months after the events, that "shootings of POWs occur" and "we are punishing people for them" is completely irrelevant to this entire issue.
  • Edvard Kardelj. His statement, whether authentic or not, has little to do with Josip Broz Tito. Also, June 25 is over one month after the end of the Bleiburg massacres.
  • Aleksandar Ranković. His statement isn't even sourced. Ranković was by no means a "pawn" of Tito's, who supposedly "must have been" acting only on his orders and/or with his knowledge, and was even later to become something of a political adversary to Tito.
  • Finally, a conclusion is drawn for the reader(!) that Tito must have known about the Bleiburg massacre in May. This is pure conjecture and weasel-words.
• 3) The May 14 telegram. This telegram was a standard order given out to field units from the supreme commander in volatile situations against any politically motivated killings that may take place, and instructing them to court-martial the offenders. This by no means proves that Tito knew killings were actually taking place. It actually proves that Tito took precautions and reminded his subordinates to control their troops - its an argument against Tito's culpability. Yet here we find it somehow twisted into a supporting argument. Classic POV.
• 4) Final paragraph. This paragraph is the least POV, but only because it mostly explains the concept of command responsibility. Yet here we have the order by Josip Broz Tito on May 14 which to his knowledge takes precautions against killings in the volatile situation. And we still have NO proper evidence that would lead us to conclude that the Prime Minister was aware of the killings as they took place, and thus could not have stopped them. He may have learned of the afterwards, but this does not make him responsible. The only single valid point in this entire post is that Tito indeed did not publicly speak out against, condemn, or punish the perpetrators of the Bleiburg massacre. Yet, while I was aware of this fact a long time before, I did not include it in the text because this was not his job or duty. Its like claiming President Roosevelt is somehow "responsible" for a crime soldiers of the US Army commit if charges were never filed against the perpetrators. Prosecution of criminal offenders is a job for the military judicial authorities, not for the Prime Minister. It is only speculation that Tito himself actually covered-up these events. I am, however, open to compromise on this issue, as I am aware that he likely did find out afterward.

Finally Petricek, please, please hold your edit until discussions are complete. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we again have a misunderstanding here:

First, about alleged threat. Did I mention treat, legal conquences, or public defamation in my post above? Anywhere? You should qualify your remarks very carefully. Threat is a serious word, and it was absolutely nowhere im my mind to threat anyone. And yes, your post was gruff and hostile, and you should first have asked me for clarification before doing anything further. I think it is the least of what you have done. Do you detect any hostility, is anything negative in my post above? What I meant in the sentence that you perceived as a treat was that I consulted professionals (historians) for help, and that they would like to know what would be the outcome of this discussion, nothing more. And that it may be embarassing if their suggestions would be rejected outright, as it seems to be happening in this discussion. I hope noone sees any treat in this. Everyhing here is open and not top secret, and I see no problem in consulting other people (professional historians), and they have the right to now what was the outcome of their help.

Also, another correction and clarification: I said myself nothing- I quoted Ms. Ravancic from the Croatian Institute of History, and that is why I put her mail in original in the post above so all those who could read Croatian can see it. And it seems that this fact is ignored. So all comments in this discussion actually refer to her, not to me.

Finally, I am open to compromise as well, and have absolutely no reason or will to be abusive or hostile in any way. I will not post anything in the article, but I sincerely hope that at least some mention of these evens will be posted. History is history, no matter what we feel about it.Petricek (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not a "legal threat", yes, but you mentioned that serious and unwanted consequences await those who remove your edit. In such things, even a hint of a threat is grounds for a report, and this is certainly more so. Hostility is not excluded by politeness, in fact, it is amplified by it. "Embarrassment" in the eyes of the professionals you consulted is hardly something one would think of when the Croatian media and serious consequences are mentioned. There is no doubt you tried to use more than arguments in winning this argument, and that you implied external pressure. I also felt very offended by your canvassing (see WP:CANVASS) and encouragement of User:AP1929 ("AntePavelić1929"), an open and proud Ustaše supporter, apparently by the rule "the opponent of my opponent is my ally". If you did indeed mean no harm, I will of course alter my attitude accordingly. Lets leave this for now, however.
If Ms. Ravancic is indeed the author of the entire text, it should be noted that 1) only published works can be considered as sources, 2) that with all possible respect, her opinions do not constitute or replace the sorely needed primary sources required by Wikipedia policy, 3) that this is, after all, an encyclopedia, which is by definition very particular about its content and cannot draw conclusions for the reader - it can only list facts.

If discussion is to take place seriously, your post must be analyzed in detail (as I've endeavored to do above), and then discussed point by point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I see now that this whole issue is a complete waste of my time, and of others as well. I will refrain from labeling people with political tags, as I also have none. After all the data collected, after all refrences, Tito still did not know. Fine. I am absolutely certain that word Bleiburg will not appear on his page. I expect no comment on this post, and will not visit this discussion anymore.

Over and out.Petricek (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

LoL, I am not "labeling" him - he said it himself! :) on numerous occasions... Look, you can think what you like, but I'm not about to let such controversial issues pass as fact without thorough discussion and, finally, a consensus. Did Tito "know"? What do you mean? Are you claiming he knew while the events took place, or afterwards? The only real sources I've seen here only manage to suggest (not prove, mind you) he found out later an covered it up. None, and I mean none of the above proves or even sufficiently hints at the prime Minister having any idea that the events took place while they did. Is he guilty of not prosecuiting the guilty? Well - no. He's not the attorney general of the armed forces.
Wikipedia does not work like you think it does. You don't just add a paragraph and then demand it stays in place. Not only can it be edited - it will be and numerous times. If you are not prepared to discuss your proposed changes with other parties then this was certainly a waste of your time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Petricek, on Wikipedia e-mail is a completely worthless reference, especially if it was given by a Croatian historian payed by the Croatian government (thus de facto representing "country's opinion" on the matter, and we all know by which criteria people get jobs in such state institutions) regarding a topic essential to Croatian nationalist psyche, such as the Bleiburg killings. If you could dig up references by impartial Western scholars that are doubtless supportive of Tito's alleged involvement in Bleiburg killings, it would be a completely different thing. This is a biographical article of one of the most important politicians of the 20th century, and we must not encumber it unduly with overall not that particularly relevant and highly speculative controversial details. Much more appropriate place for the discussion of the actual command responsibility would be of course the article on Bleiburg massacre itself, which AFAICS doesn't mention Tito at all, and is ridden with "citation needed" tags. So I advise you to channel your energy in that direction first. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 16:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be discussing this subject as "Bleiburg massacre". That gives it an unnecessary Croatian angle and drags the discussion towards nationalist misunderstandings. Real and imagined axis collaborators of all Yugoslav ethnicities were executed after the war. The executions were not ethnic cleansing, or ethnically based at all. Evidence exists that each contingent of collaborators was executed by partisan units of the same ethnicity [this was last mentioned by Puhovski in a recent interview for Mladina]. It's a more constructive approach to treat it as a political issue.

There seem to be 4 schools of thought on this:

1. Tito's regime was benevolent, and he was a wise and just person. Therefore it would be out of character for Tito to order the executions, and if he did, they were just and legal.
2. Post-war executions were the final act of WWII, in which the axis side in Yugoslavia did not respect Geneva and Hague conventions. The executed people were largely uniformed traitors, many of them war criminals, who were given several opportunities and orders by the legal government of their country (Royal and Communist) to switch sides, and those who did so did not get executed. Therefore the executions were just and plausibly within the government's prerogative according to then current law.
3. There was nothing wrong with what axis collaborators did in WWII, or they were forced into what they did by the communist rebellion. Therefore the executions were an unjustified pogrom.
4. There are known to have been innocent people, including children, among the victims, and few of the victims were given due process. Therefore Tito presided over extra-judicial executions making him a grave criminal. .

(1) is hopelessly naive, and (3) is nasty fascisty revisionism. Wikipedia shouldn't waste time with either. We're left with (2) and (4). While they are mutually exclusive descriptions of the situation, they represent two well documented sides of the truth (not necessarily sides of the debate - plenty of people would agree with both to different extents). Wikipedia can't decide which side is more right, but it can present both sides and let the reader form their own opinion. Probably not in detail in this article, though.

So, back to Tito: The executions happened while Tito was in charge. Scores of thousands of people were executed, and it would be a factual omission if we didn't mention them at all. OTOH, there is none to little evidence above the level of hearsay or conjecture about Tito's actual role in them, so there's not much to write. Whether or not he ordered post-war executions, or knew about them, it's very unlikely that there would be a written order for them signed by him. He may have been many things, but he wasn't stupid. Some relevant people (e.g. Janez Stanovnik) say that Tito must have known, but AFAIK, there's no credible first-hand confirmation of this.

So, IMHO, this article should mention the executions, and describe them in a short and factual way, without trying to implicate Tito directly in them, since there's no source for that. Don't worry, the reader will be able to make the connection, if they think there's one. Zocky | picture popups 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations For An Article At Lacks NPOV

Dear Wikipedia.Could editors of wikipedia please do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. This article is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this?Sir Floyd (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read above discussions. You see, this guy was smarter than Stalin or Pol Pot - there isn't to this day a shred of evidence linking him personally to any of the crimes you listed (least of all the foibe which were tiny events compared to Bleiburg). In fact, one of the few primary sources is a telegram sent by Tito to field commanders just before the incidents reminding them to keep their troops in control and to prevent any hate-killings. It was, actually, the standard order he gave out to his subordinates in all situations when violence on the part of his troops could be expected (see above). The "feel-good article" was a good article nominee and is based entirely on sources. I see you would like us to call him a dictator (that's a word that Wikipedia does not use - anywhere) that killed hundreds of thousands and ethnically cleansed half of the Balkans... Regards...

P.S. You're not Brunodam or some such are you...? ;)--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Mr Direktor! Interesting quote you made there "You see, this guy was smarter than Stalin or Pol Pot" Your quote just sums it up all so beautifully and it works on so many levels (with a dark eeriness to it). Wikipedia should address this cult of personality worship on it’s site This individual who comes from the Balkan Political scene of World War Two and the Cold War Era needs to be approached with great sensitivity and neutrality. As you have stated your self he’s in the same league as the above mentioned if not better or even smarter than one Comrade Stalin or Dear Mr Pol Pot.

Here’s an interesting thought, does one need a paper trial to prove that a one Balkan Political Leader was connected to massacres or not. Could it be said he was just plainly incompetent and blind to see what was going on around him. That statement that Dictator Tito was not involved in those mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment is naive and is similar to the defense that Nazis launched at Nuremburg.Sir Floyd (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There were summary executions of quisling forces in 1945. They are badly documented, and were probably illegal (though there's a case to be made that they were done in-line with royal Yugoslav law which was valid in the country at the time and according to which treason was punishable by death). It's obvious that Tito must have known about them, but they were summary executions, not "massacres". As for "war crimes", Yugoslav partisans under Tito's command behaved no worse than other Allies during WWII (even though they were not bound by the Geneva convention until November 1943), and much much better than any Axis force. Zocky | picture popups 11:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello yourself Sig. Floyd! It is an interesting note, isn't it? So you believe this person should be treated with extreme sensitivity and neutrality? Well, have a look at the article - your wish is granted! :) There isn't a bit unreferenced crap on that article. Nearly every sentence follows Wikipedia's strict standards for verifiability. Either way, that is our goal. Keep your wild conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations outside Wikipedia, please. Your mode of speech is Italian, by the way, a Checkuser might be in order...

Zocky (Zoran?), Tito "must've known about them" after they took place. That much may be proven. It is not proven, however, that he had any idea what was going on at Bleiburg while it took place. Hence he is exempt of command responsibility. (Not that our knightly friend above gives a damn about the tens of thousands dead there, he's primarily concerned about the couple of thousand in the foibe - its a sock, 99.9%.)

• No evidence suggests the Prime Minister actually knew about Bleiburg or the foibe while those events took place. Everyone accusing the PM of "command responsibility" has to prove that conclusively. All else is speculation and conjecture, more than often politically or personally motivated. It has about as much significance as the three of us talking about it.
• Even if he did (hypothetically!) know about the events while they took place, trying to properly prove (provide primary sources) that he actually gave the order is mission impossible. Highly unlikely that any such claims have any real foundation...
• Even if he (hypothetically!) did know about the events, and even if he actually gave the order - it may even be argued that he's perfectly within his rights to do so (remember, this is a hypothetical situation with no real backing in reality). The punishment for high treason during wartime to any and all Yugoslav citizens (civilians, collaborationist "military", etc.) is death. Not to execute collaborators is itself an act of clemency on the part of the Yugoslav authorities.

On more than one level, this person is pretty far from being an obvious "murderer" as our "sensitive and neutral" friend suggests. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment were part of the agenda of Tito & his Partisans. They even had their own KGB style of organization. Anyone who is sticking up for these types of things I personally just find amazing. We are talking about real people and families who’s lives were destroyed. Testaments of witnesses can be easily provided but there are already two BBC documentaries (that I know of) done in which people testified that the events and proof was provided.

Also the style of writing on Wiki pages about Dictator Tito have strong overtones of worship of the cult of personality which is similar to the old Soviet Union propaganda machine. They really read like they were written by the old communist guard. Some of the personal wiki pages of the writers of the Tito article read like old B-grade movies from the communist eastern block. Are these give aways of their political agenda? This type of thing just doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Is it possible that the old comrades have found a new home at Wikipedia? Are they trying desperately to rewrite history and control historical information? It could be said it’s a form of cultural genocide.

I feel that my first port of call is to point out the article’s flaws in it’s biased writings and lack of NPOV. It’s perpetrating the cult of personality. If I choose to do so, I will try, to my best abilities to stick to Wiki procedures.

On a final note here’s the Wiki’s very own definition of the cult of personality which I think applies nicely to the Dictator Tito article. "A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders. "

Comrades! Have A Nice Day Sir Floyd (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL xD Why are you repeating your personal views? Perhaps you can underline them and write them in italics as well as bold - maybe that way people will start using you as a reference in articles? :) Something like this, or maybe even THIS? *Sigh*... another fascistoid irredentist sock - probably Brunodam, or maybe Luigi 28. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

War crimes Under Tito (Commanded all partisans and Communists)

The Bleiburg massacre occurred near to the end of World War II, during May 1945. It is named after the village of Bleiburg on the Austrian-Slovenian border, near where the massacre began. It involved mass murder of Croatian soldiers and civilians who were fleeing from the defeated Independent State of Croatia, a puppet state of the Nazi regime in Germany. The atrocities were a reprisal against the real or alleged members or collaborators of the fascist regime, by the communist Yugoslav partisan army, presumably with the full knowledge of their supreme commander Josip Broz Tito, who was himself half-Croatian.

Although a still undefined number of Croatian soldiers died during a series of battles and skirmishes, it is generally accepted that the vast portion of violent deaths were the result of executions that lasted at least two weeks after the cessation of hostilities. The victims were Croatian soldiers and civilians, executed without trial as an act of vengeance for the crimes committed by the Ustasi regime in Croatian-controlled territories during World War II — frequently in overtly gruesome manner (mass rape and subsequent killing by stoning of women; beheading of Croatian disarmed soldiers). Murder continued in nearby Slovenia, and it is hard to estimate the number of victims in Bleiburg field, compared to those later found in the trenches in the Maribor area and other numerous pits in Slovenia. Many captives were sent on a death march further into Yugoslav territory.

Croatian political emigration, as well as other sources related to the Cossacks, had published numerous testimonies on the atrocities and British involvement in the affair (interestingly enough, British archives on the Operation Keelhaul tragedy are still sealed), but their publications have received little attention since communist Yugoslavia was the West's protege and the buffer-zone to the Soviets in the post-war period.

Information on www.spiritus-temporis.com

Now how can the leadership of the partisans not be responsible for these events? May be they just had a bad day at one of there Communists Party meetings. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, poor Nazis and fascists. After they've brutally murdered 2 million Yugoslavs in 4 years the partisan's should've simply pardoned them for misbehaving. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The key word in your post being "presumably". :) Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

As I understand it, Tito was a fairly controversial leader, whose political legacy is still under debate by scholars. What I don't understand is why this article is devoid of any discussion of this scholarly contention. It seems this article is more focused towards listing Tito's awards than presenting any meaningful scholarly analysis of the man. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Joisp Broz Tito is a "controversial" leader only to the Balkans nationalists, because his policy was fiercely anti-nationalist (and wisely so). In other words, these are purely political attacks. Do not be fooled by the constant spam to the contrary - it is typical in such Balkans matters. Just because a lot of people in ex-Yugoslavia think the man was "controversial", does not men he actually is. For example, there's the Chetniks article (see talk), where I had endless debates with zealots trying to prove that the Chetniks did not collaborate with the Axis, while in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is because a large percentage of, if not most people in Serbia, consider them not to have collaborated. And therefore, you will still have people coming in and lobbying for the article to state otherwise. The matter is more complex here, since Tito has come to represent Yugoslavia in a sense, and all who are opposed to pan-Yugoslavism therefore must be opposed to him as well. Persons who are opposed to Josip Broz Tito out of political reasons (Balkans nationalists) must, by definition, have a negative bias towards the man and thus do not see the article as neutral.

Is the article neutral? Absolutely. Ideas about Tito's complicity in the post-WWII killings are unsupported by any kind of primary source. At the very best, there are unreferenced opinions of authors speculating that he may have known about them but later covered them up. At best. At worst we have politically motivated pro-nationalist writers from ex-Yugoslavia literally making-up stuff. Therefore, if we are to brand this person a murderer of thousands, I think only proper publications citing primary sources will do.

It is always the No.1 task of any respectable Balkans editor to deal with the bias and POV-pushing coming from all sides (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks). Otherwise, these articles succumb to veritable "lobbies" of politically-motivated nationalist POV-pushers (surprisingly often sockpuppeteering to achieve their goals). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to controversies with Balkan nationalists. I'm referring to controversies brought up by Western historians. I'll start providing some quick Google Books links to show my point. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from a recent book:

Recently published world history and Western civilization textbooks for US college students portary Tito in a more or less positive light and recognize him as globally important statesman during World War II and the Cold War. See, for example, Sherman and Salisbury, pp. 782–783 and 803–840; R. R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World, 8th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 911; Philip J. Adler, World Civilizations, vol. 2, Since 1500, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000), p. 708, and Jerry H. Bentley and Herbert F. Ziegler; Traditions and Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past, vol. 2, From 1500 to the Present (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2000), p. 1013.^[2]

Article should thus follow generally positive tones, and not succumb to nationalist propaganda of Tito that has been flourishing in the last 20 years. Any negative image of Tito on contentious issues (esp. the alleged involvement in massacres following the end of WW2) should be based only on Western scholars' publications unaffiliated with nationalist lobbies, and verified in several independent sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A legacy section might be appropriate. You can detail the positives of the Tito legacy, as well as the few negatives (as reported by unbiased scholars). Although encyclopedias aren't the best source to use, I found this as an example of the cloudiness over some aspects of the Tito legacy: ""Tito's political role and accomplishments as a leader are still a matter of debate amongst scholars. On one hand, he is portrayed as having been a dictatorial opportunist who used the system for personal promotion and the development of a personality cult, building an international image while ignoring internal problems." Of course, that entry later goes on to praise other aspects of Tito's rule that led Yugoslavia to prominence. Some food for thought... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedic ArticleJosip Broz Tito

Wikipedia states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The above-mentioned article is not. Important factual information is missing, thus making it biased and lacking in objectivity. This then results in an overall in-balance.

Josip Broz was the Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII. He then later became Yugoslavia's political leader and was the main decision maker in military and political matters. He was President for Life of Yugoslavia and played crucial if not the main role in historical events of that country. He was considered to be by many, one of the prominent Eastern European Balkan Dictators of the Cold War Era.

Here are five examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (all of this can be referenced):

1. Josip Broz Tito’s failure in the economic management of Yugoslavia;

2. Cult of Personality (He is mentioned in Wikipedia's Cult of Personality article)

3. Bleiburg & Foibe massacres.

4. UDBA’s full role in the former Yugoslavia, which he help established (one of the many notorious police organization) ; and

5. His immensely luxurious life style as a dictator.

I would like to first focus my attention to the economic realities of former Yugoslavia.

All political leaders and their party faithful, be it a one party system that was in Yugoslavia or a Western Democracy, have to make economic political decisions. From the late 1960’s to the 1970’s economic decisions that were made by Josip Broz and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia put the country in a disastrous political situation. Signs of this happening already started in 1978/79 and subsequently became worse in the 1980’s.

“After Tito's death the Yugoslav economy faced catastrophe. Immediately following that event, the federal government realized that it could not repay almost US$20 billion of external debt. Difficult negotiations with international banking institutions continued for years. They were prolonged for political reasons.”

The above is referenced information from Ivo Goldstein’s book, 'Croatia A History', a Mc Gill Queen’s University Press Publication. (Ivo Goldstein is a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb.)

The economic political decisions from the late 1960’s to the 1970’s that were made, laid down one of the foundations that contributed to the tragic break up of Yugoslavia. A well-balanced written encyclopaedic article would have this information in one of its many paragraphs. So, in order to improve the article, I propose that this information would be added to the article in due course. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Tito Nasser Nehru in Brioni.jpg

Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, President Gamal Abdel Nasser and President Joisp Broz Tito. Yugoslavia's excellent diplomatic position, highly beneficial for the economy, can be attributed almost exclusively to the diplomatic abilities of Tito. That much is his personal responsibility.

Yugoslavia broke up because of war-profiteering criminals and blood-thirsty Greater XXX nationalists, not because of bad economical management. Croatia has today twice as large foreign debt than entire Yugoslavia had when Croatia seceded (that would be in less then 20 years!). Perhaps you should visit ex-yu countries, and ask the common people, esp. young people 20-30 years of age, millions of which unemployed, whether they'd be rather living in Yugoslavia than in its modern-day puppet-states ruled by mafia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ivan that’s your opinion & me going to Croatia would be personal research, which is not allowed to be submitted. No original research. Furthermore Ivo Goldstein is a professional and a Professor of Croatian History who works at the at the University of Zagreb (that is his job). Secondly one should keep this in a historical context, please! Thank you. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the Josip Broz Article if I may:

TITO ByJasper Ridley

“He drew close enough to the West to get economic aid, but to Tito economics made sense only in political terms. He did realise that the promised land of communism was not self-sufficient. To get foreign exchange he let Yugoslavs out to work and tourists in. This worked after a fashion until the oil shocks of the 1970s caused Yugoslavia's foreign debts to soar”.

Article from: The Economist (US) Article date: August 27, 1994. Jasper Godwin Ridley (1920 –2004) was a British writer, known for historical biographies. He was educated atMagdalen College, Oxford and the Sorbonne. He received the 1970 James Tait Black Memorial Prize. (He trained and practiced as a barrister & professional writer). Thank You- Sir Floyd (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is... the 1970s oil shocks were Tito's fault? :P Look, why don't you find the Economy of SFR Yugoslavia article and write about this all you want? What you're doing now is listing all the bad things that happened during the 49 years of Yugoslav economy and blaming them squarely on the president in promoting a political agenda. This will not fly.

In fact, Tito's personal contribution to the Yugoslav economy was through his noted abilities as a diplomat. By securing for Yugoslavia the position of "leader of the third world" (alongside India and Egypt), he (personally) insured great economic benefits. But now you're probably going to list every smaller and larger economic crisis in the second half of the 20th century and blame Tito for its effects on Yugoslavia.

Your information is great, it would be excellent for the SFR Yugoslavia or Economy of SFR Yugoslavia articles, the effects of economic crises are very notable indeed, its just the part where you try to make Tito personally responsible for them that does not fit. Unfortunately, making this person look bad is why you're here aren't you? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr Director that wasn’t very encyclopaedic at all. Concerning your comments on the referenced material, they seem to be your own interpretations and could be seen as your own POV (which is fine). Are you qualified in economic political matters or is this your own personal research? I will be asking a third independent view on this because the article needs improving. Things have moved on since 1980 and if wikipedia editors are happy with a cold war era style article (itself a historical item) I’m fine with that. Please don’t take offence and thanks for some of the positive feedback. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My post wasn't "encyclopedic"? LoLz... Let me be simple: this is not an article on the Yugoslav economy. Yugoslavia ≠ Josip Broz Tito. The Yugoslav economy had very many ups and downs during the 37 years this person ran the country. Are we going to list the downs here? Is that WP:NPOV? We'll either leave the Yugoslav economy out of the article, or we will describe it entirely, including its successes as well as periods of economic crisis. However, doing that will take a bit more than your two sentences, and would be exceedingly stupid - as most of it doesn't really have much to do with Josip Broz Tito personally.

Concerning those two out-of-context sentences of yours. I know you picked them because they "sound bad", but lets analyze what facts they actually state:

• "He drew close enough to the West to get economic aid, but to Tito economics made sense only in political terms. He did realise that the promised land of communism was not self-sufficient. To get foreign exchange he let Yugoslavs out to work and tourists in. This worked after a fashion until the oil shocks of the 1970s caused Yugoslavia's foreign debts to soar."
  • "Tito's economics" made sense in political (diplomatic) terms, but Yugoslavia was not economically self-sufficient (big deal - 99% of countries aren't "self-sufficient" :P). The author does not state that Yugoslav lack of self-sufficiency was due to Josip Broz Tito personally.
  • He "did realize" he had to take steps to make the economy self-sufficient.
  • The measures he undertook worked fine until the 1973 oil crisis.
• "After Tito's death the Yugoslav economy faced catastrophe. Immediately following that event, the federal government realized that it could not repay almost US$20 billion of external debt. Difficult negotiations with international banking institutions continued for years. They were prolonged for political reasons."
  • This sentence, again taken painfully out-of-context, has nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito. The author simply states that a period of economic insecurity followed immediately after his death (also known as the Early 1980s recession). No doubt you want to use this as a basis for a piece of text that would make it sound like the 1980s economic slump in SFR Yugoslavia was somehow caused by Tito personally.

User:Sir Floyd, you are here on a politically-driven agenda. More specifically, you are trying to list periods of economic insecurity in Yugoslavia and present them as the fault of Josip Broz Tito personally (omitting any economic successes).

You are free to dismiss everything people write as "their opinion" (as is typical in a situation where a POV-pusher thinks he's actually found a source), but that won't get you far I assure you. Your lack of proper discussion will be noted. Kindly properly reply to people's posts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi DIREKTOR, When I wrote "not encyclopaedic" I was referring to this:

"its just the part where you try to make Tito personally responsible for them that does not fit. Unfortunately, making this person look bad is why you're here aren't you? "

I apologise, (& please lighten up) for not being more specific, but as I've understood, Wikipedia is not about the person looking bad or good, it should be as much as possible about the facts and the truth. Are you worried that I'm making Josip look bad? It is my understanding that editors should not take such an approach.

I've read your writing above, and correct me if I’m wrong, but where are your reliable sources? Where is your referenced information? If you provide them, then we can discuss in more detail and work towards a common goal. I would like to remind you politely that Yugoslavia had a one party system and Josip Broz (President for Life), with the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, had to have made economic political decisions. According to the referenced material (written by qualified professionals) that is provided, the economic decisions that were made were wrong, in the then current economic environment. In order to improve the article those decisions should be in there. If you think this is not the case, then maybe we should obtain a third opinion.

Anyway I’m moving on concerning Wikipedia's article Josip Broz Tito!

“Self -management as system was only slightly more efficient than the Soviet model. It was bureaucratised and cumbersome and could not compete with Western economies. People could obtain so much free or for less than the market price (e.g. apartments) that they could be obtain without work. All this made the settling of accounts in the 1980s and in the post-socialist age more difficult.”

“In Tito’s system no interest or ideas could be expressed in a truly democratic way. This did most harm where feelings of ethnic identity were concerned because their suppression led to growth of extreme nationalism. Furthermore, the economic failure of Tito’s system, most clearly expressed in the protracted crisis of the 1980s, left people who even if they were not poor, were disillusioned and open to manipulation by demagogues. Finally Tito’s practical solutions ensured that he would retain unlimited power during his life time, but foreshadowed the problems would come after his death.”

Dear reader, the above is referenced information from Ivo Goldstein’s book, 'Croatia A History' (Ivo Goldstein is a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb).

Professor Ivo Goldstein’s work, as well as Jasper Ridley’s work (who was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford and Sorbonne) proves that Josip Broz, put simply, was a bad economist and the Communists Party members were bad economists too. According to these and other references, this was one of the reasons that contributed to the break-up of Yugoslavia. As this was such an historical event, this information should be in the Wikipedia article in order to make it more encyclopaedic.

Below is referenced information from R. J. Rummel’s ‘Death by Government’. (Rudolph Joseph Rummel is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.)

"Frank Waddams, a British representative who had lived outside of Belgrade, said he knew first hand of ten “concentration camps” and had talked with inmates from nearly all of them. “ The tale is always the same, he said “ Starvation, overcrowding, brutality and death condition, which make Dachau and Buchenwald mild by comparison. Many Slovenes who were released from Dachau at the end of the war came home only to find themselves in a Slovene camp within a few days. It is from these people that the news has come that the camps are worse than Dachau.” Out of a Slovene population of 1,200,000, Waddams believes that 20,000 to 30,000 were imprisoned."

According to the above referenced material, this shows the inner workings of Josip Broz Tito and his government post WW2. The Wikipedic article does not mention such things. If it had done so, it would show a more balanced and modern view of history. Also it would be a more current scholarly view that was formed after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

I would like to start improving the article’s in-balance, if I can, by adding this information, as well as other similar events concerning Josip Broz Tito and his government’s post WW2 activities. Thank you for your attention dear reader, and Mr DIREKTOR, thanks for some of your feedback (I‘ll take into account your thoughts). Regard Sir Floyd (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors and readers, I would like to give support to Nishkid64’s suggestion, (26 August 2009) of an “A legacy section” in the Josip Wiki article.

My suggestion would be to cover:

1. His failure (& successes) in addressing the ethnic tensions and economic crisis of Yugoslavia; and

2. The issue of Cult of Personality:

The below referenced information is from ‘Discontents: Postmodern and Postcommunist’ by Paul Hollander.

“Virtually every communist system extinct or surviving at one point or another, had a supreme leader who was both extraordinarily powerful and surrounded by a bizarre cult, indeed worship. In the past (or in a more traditional contemporary societies) such as cults were reserved for deities and associated with conventional religious behavior and institutions. These cults although apparently an intrinsic part of communist dictatorships (at any rate at a stage in their evolution) are largely forgotten today.”

“ Stalin, Maio, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Sung, Enver Hoxha, Ceascesu, Dimitrov, Ulbricht, Gottwald, Tito and others all were the object of such cults. The prototypical cult was that of Stalin which was duplicated elsewhere with minor variations”

Paul Hollander is an American scholar, journalist, and conservative political writer. (Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963, B.A. London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate, Davis).

Also, I think a chapter relating to the Bleiburg massacre (Operation Keelhaul) and Foibe massacres which were major historical events. Important to mention would be to UDBA & OZNA’s full role in the former Yugoslavia. These are state police organizations that were set up by Josip Broz’s government which he played a major part in. He was Commander of all Partisans and Communists during WWII, then later became Yugoslavia's main political leader and was the main decision maker in political & military matters. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit it: the only thing you're interested in is getting Foibe and Bleiburg mentioned in this article, of which you have no credible reference? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother Ivan, this is a textbook attempt at defamation and that much is obvious to anyone. :P This User's been out for like a week digging out every single negative-sounding sentence he can find on this person... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys! Since I’ve provided additional information (written by qualified professionals) concerning Josip Broz and there is no willingness towards achieving a common goal, I’ll be asking for a third opinion. As I have written before, if wikipedia editors are happy with a cold war era style article (itself an historical item), so be it.

The below referenced information is from 'Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists: An Encyclopaedia of People Who Changed the World (Lives & Legacies Series)’ by David W. Del Testa.

'Yugoslavia under Tito was a curious combination of relative economic and cultural freedom and total political repression and control. The lack of political freedom made debate on the role of ethnic identity in Yugoslavia impossible. Tito’s regime had created temporary stability in a historically unstable region.

Treated almost as a mythic hero in his lifetime, Tito’s image began to decay in the years following his death, undermining the legitimacy of the regime so connected to his cult of personality'.

David W. Del Testa’s statement succinctly sums up Josip Broz and his political life. One could say it is well balanced in the objective sense. David W. Del Testa has a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Davis.

Is that the best you can do? Casual references to Tito from cherry-picked sources you googled? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The bold is to highlight what is missing in the Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic Article. It’s not to make the individual Josip look good or bad, still one must admit, he had a amazing life.

“The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratisation to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization. He knew that the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others could not be integrated within some new supranational, nor would they willingly accept the hegemony of any of their number; yet his supranational Yugoslavism frequently smacked of unitarism. He promoted self-management but never gave up on the party’s monopoly of power.

He permitted broad freedoms in science, art, and culture that were unheard of in the Soviet bloc, but he kept excoriating the West. He preached peaceful coexistence but built an army that, in 1991, delivered the coup de grâce to the dying Yugoslav state. At his death, the state treasury was empty and political opportunists unchecked. He died too late for constructive change, too early to prevent chaos.”

Referenced from www.britannica.com Sir Floyd (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BBC & Josip Broz Tito/ Summary

Referenced from www.bbc.co.uk/history. Published: 2003-02-04 by Tim Judah

"Tito's Yugoslavia also gained enormous prestige as a founder of the non-aligned movement, which aimed to find a place in world politics for countries that did not want to stand foursquare behind either of the two superpowers. "Despite all this, and although there was much substance to Tito's Yugoslavia, much was illusion too. The economy was built on the shaky foundations of massive western loans. Even liberal communism had its limits, as did the very nature of the federation. Stirrings of nationalist dissent in Croatia and Kosovo were crushed. The federation worked because in reality the voice of only one man counted - that of Tito himself”.

Tim Judah is a journalist for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Judah’s first jobs were at the BBC African Service and BBC World Service. He writes most of the Balkan coverage for “The Economist” but also works for the “New York Review of Books”, “The Observer”, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and others. He is the author of two books on the region: “The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia” and “Kosovo: War and Revenge”.

Source-BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4923466.stm

Dear reader if you compared the Wiki's article on Josip Broz Tito with to the above referenced material & Encyclopædia Britannica's article (that I've referenced above). The wiki article it is not balanced and needs some updating, it is more or less a relic from the cold war. This could be addressed in a new “legacy section”.

Summary of the other qualified professional authors, who have expressed a more current scholarly view:

1. Ivo Goldstein a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb.

2. Jasper Godwin Ridley (1920 –2004) was a British writer, known for historical biographies. He was educated at Magdalen College, University of Oxford & Sorbonne. He received the 1970 James Tait Black Memorial Prize. He trained and practiced as a barrister & professional writer.

3. Paul Hollander is an American scholar, journalist, and conservative political writer. Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963 B.A London School of Economics, 1959 Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate and Davis.

4. David W. Del Testa has a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Davis; and

5. Rudolph Joseph Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.

Would like some feedback on this please. Kind Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking casual references in irrelevant sources, for all of which countless counter-arguments in reliable sources can be found. You should find more substantial reliable references dealing more thoroughly with the issues you mention, offer a draft rewrite of the paragraphs you think are overdue "positive", and then we can discuss. This plain listing of your is unproductive and verges with trolling. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan! Sir Floyd (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)