This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
My changes consisted of three classes.
First of all, various POV issues that actually speak for themselves:
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:
Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 21 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)
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.
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)
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) 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)
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)
Why did you ( User:Babaroga) remove the additional info on Broz's funeral? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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><sup>as [[List of Heads of State of Yugoslavia|Chairman of the Collective Presidency of Yugoslavia]]</sup> }} {{end box}}
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Like what? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:18, 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Finally Petricek, please, please hold your edit until discussions are complete. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:16, 5 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)
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)
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) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
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.
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)
I would like to add this to the Josip Broz Article if I may:
TITO By Jasper 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 at Magdalen 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)
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:
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)
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.
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.
Referenced from www. britannica.com Sir Floyd ( talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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”.
Would like some feedback on this please. Kind Regards Sir Floyd ( talk) 03:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ivan! Sir Floyd ( talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
My changes consisted of three classes.
First of all, various POV issues that actually speak for themselves:
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:
Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 21 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)
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.
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)
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) 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)
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)
Why did you ( User:Babaroga) remove the additional info on Broz's funeral? DIREKTOR ( TALK) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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><sup>as [[List of Heads of State of Yugoslavia|Chairman of the Collective Presidency of Yugoslavia]]</sup> }} {{end box}}
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Like what? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:18, 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Finally Petricek, please, please hold your edit until discussions are complete. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:16, 5 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)
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)
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) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
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.
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)
I would like to add this to the Josip Broz Article if I may:
TITO By Jasper 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 at Magdalen 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)
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:
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)
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.
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.
Referenced from www. britannica.com Sir Floyd ( talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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”.
Would like some feedback on this please. Kind Regards Sir Floyd ( talk) 03:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ivan! Sir Floyd ( talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)