Talk:Josip Broz Tito/Archive 1

Wrong image
Sorry Andre the image of Tito is incorrect. It shows a Russian cosmonaut Gherman Titov. Please correct this. Best regard. -- XJamRastafire 13:48 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Poor Grammar
The sentence "Based on the number of attending politicians and state delegations, it was the largest statesman funeral in history. (Big Slavs, 2007)" is beyond bad. It stinks. Not only is it not cited, it is highly unlikely to be true, and the grammar is terrible. I don't know why anyone would lock that statement in. ERASE IT!!!

Actually it is true. Too bad you weren't even born then.


 * It is. Source added. Leonr (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Helpful guidelines for the discussion page
Discussion page for this article tends to get bloated with emotional point of view (POV) content which does nothing to contribute to fact gathering needed to enrich the encyclopedic value of the article. It is used as a venting forum with occasional use of languages other than English. In order to keep the content relevant these simple guidelines may help filter thoughts of those eager to contribute:


 * Unless a thread is directly related to discussion of the facts and sources for the article, it does not belong on this page.
 * Refrain from posting opinions. Opinions almost always raise opposing opinions. Article discussion page is not a forum. It is meant for discussions about constructive improvement of the article content.
 * If you cannot contribute facts supported by references, the chances are your contribution may not bring any value to the article.
 * This is English language article. Please do not use languages other than English. There are Wiki articles on Josip Broz in Italian, Croatian, Serbian, and other pages for which contributions in those languages are better suited. Add only references in English.

Picture
I was wondering what happened to Tito's picture from the WW II wearing regular Partisan hat ? I think that picture underlines that he was a Partisan first, and then everything else.

Important facts are not included in this article about Tito
I don't have time or resources to quote books and articles, but am sure that someone with more persistance can fill in the blanks...

First of all, Tito was a creator of Yugoslav constituion of 1974 which encouraged republics of Yugoslavia to secession. One article of that constitution states that:

"Every republic of Yugoslavia has a right to secession and self-determination ...".

This was immediately followed by unrest in Kosovo started by ultra-nationalists who demanded that Kosovo should become republic (indeed the first Kosovo-Albanian's nationalist slogans were "Kosovo-Republic" for obvious reasons). In additon these nationalistic outbursts, which were not tolerated in any other parts of Yugoslavia (many thousands of people ended up dead or persectued for much smaller offence, like voicing their opinion about Yugoslavia or it's nations in public!), were well tolerated by Tito. This only gave more fuel to rise of nationalism in Kosovo, which was then percieved as a threat in Serbia and logically gave fuel to rise of nationalism in Serbia as well (which was not so well tolerated by Tito).

The seemingly simple move of secession and self-determination was made more complicated by Tito's own policies of moving large groups of people from one republic to another, resulting in ethnicaly mixed republics and regions, e.g. ethnic cleansing of Germans from Vojvodina, places which were later populated by Montenegrins and Slovenes (although even historically there were hardly any "ethnicaly pure" regions). Therefore, Tito was the creator of troubles which started even before he died, and unfolded right after his death, rather then a protector or peace maker. He only earns credit for successfully manipulating people of the country he led into believing that he worked in their best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe the only people he worked for were Albanian nationalists. Tito, through his minister whose name was I believe Lazar Kolisevski (please correct me if I am wrong as to the minister's name), added to Kosovo two more municipalities at the south of Serbia (at the edge of mount Kopaonik under excuse that "our Communist brothers need wood for their stoves") in an attempt to make Kosovo an even larger entity so that it could become a republic, at the expense of Serbian teritory. This was also mentioned in the Milosevic trial in the Hague when a well known historian confirmed that some parts of Serbia were artifically added to Kosovo only in the late 60's. It is really surprising that even today many Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats etc) cannot make a connection between Tito's policies and what followed immediately after his death. Had his policies been any good, they would certainly survive the test of time. Knowing what we know today of troubles that followed Tito's death, we can only conclude that either he was a desparately inapt leader, or even more likely - a manipulator with an agenda of his own.

Secondly: Tito never spoke fluent Serbian or Croatian language. In a true "Emperor's new clothes" fashion, no one ever dared ask this question: how come Tito, of Croatian origin, cannot speak fluent Croatian or Serbian (the two being almost identical languages). The only language he spoke fluently was Russian, and perhaps Polish.

Thirdly: it is claimed by some that Tito's true origin can be seen in his using Polish national anthem as a Yugoslav anthem. This embarrasing move was made 20 yrs after the Polish anthem was created, and many believe was proof that Tito was actually born in Poland!

And lastly: It is said in this wikipedia article, as in many biographies about Tito, that Tito had many brothers, sisters, and other relatives. However, no one in Yugoslavia ever saw or even heard anything about those family members. Such a vast family cannot dissappear all at once (I am not counting his sons and wives here!). I personally visited the little town of Kumrovec, and even the house where Tito was allegedly born, and failed to find any trace of anyone else that knew him there, or anyone from his family. This question was never answered. Needless to say, asking such a question in communist Yugoslavia was a major faux pas.

An outright LIE!
It is stated in this article that Tito started the Partisan movement (and the first armed anti-fascist uprising in occupied Europe) on July 7th 1941 in some village in Serbia. This is not only incorrect, it is INTENTIONALLY incorrect (probably Serb propaganda or something). The NOB (National Liberation War) officially started a full 16 days earlier on June the 22nd in the Brezovica forest near the CROATIAN city of Sisak, where the famous First Sisak Partisan Detachment was formed, the vast majority of which were Croats. This is often publicly resented by the Serbs who like to consider Croats fascist while their Chetniks allied themselves with the Italian black shirts in Dalmatia to fight the National Liberation Army.

Lack of content 1945-1980
The entry at present doesn't say anything of consequence about Tito's role in the formation of Yugoslavia and from then to 1980. It just chops off after the "early life" section. Wikipedia should cover someone as important as this in much greater detail. I'm not qualified to do it, can someone else? Tannin 11:11 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. The history after WWII is basically condensed into the timeline, which is inserted pretty ad hoc. This needs work. --Zivan56 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)--Shallot 23:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a fair bit, though of course it could still be expanded.
 * I think we also have way a disproportional amount of pictures of him with foreign leaders.
 * --Shallot 10:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The 'Tito' page on croatian Wikipedia is quite complete. I'd be willing to work on this page, and combine the existing content with translations from the croatian version. Admins, do you think that's appopriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorfrance (talk • contribs)


 * I'd support that provided you follow this rules:
 * Translating only referenced and objective parts: The article has some nice parts which are well referenced from works of Vladimir Dedijer and Jasper Ridley which are relevant works on the topic. This parts are by all means acceptable. But, sentences like "Sve priče o tome kako «on to nije znao» bajke su za naivne" are, IMHO, unacceptable, since Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. It could be added that "it is disputed whether Tito knew about something", but "stories that he didn't know are fairy tales for the naive" is just not the tone we can accept on english Wikipedia.
 * No weasel words. "Some think", "there is a wide concensus that", "people say"... no such sentences please.
 * Not pure translating. "combine the existing content with translations from the croatian version" - OK, that's fine. But pure translation of Croatian version is not an option. This process of adding info from Croatian version must be done step by step.
 * Ommiting of "Ocjena" section. Wikipedia is not supposed to judge. It is supposed to provide facts. What somebody thinks of Tito's legacy is not a fact, it is a point of view.
 * This rules I quoted here are not something I just made up (except for the point 3). This are guidelines of Wikipedia and should be obeyed anyway. I just stressed those again so I'm sure you are familiar with those. --Dijxtra 13:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Funeral photos
i am writing from Bosnia and herzegovina and i would be very grateful if you could show some photos from Tito's funerel. It is almnoust impossible to find those pics on the web.


 * i have a pictures of his funeral but how can i put it up


 * ther is no uplad file in the side bar, there is no sidebar, i dont see it


 * There are circumstances under which the sidebar will not appear and they depend on which skin Wikipedia displays when you view it. For example, if you use the Classic skin, then you can't see the sidebar when comparing two edits. Tim Ivorson 07:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Classification as a Dictator
Is it right for an encyclopedia to classify anyone as a dictator? That automatically suggests NPOV, because the classification itself is subjective. Clearly many people on this board are opposed to Tito, but what right does that give them to classify him as a dictator? If I edited George Bush's page to classify him as "Dictator of the United States" instead of his official title, just because I don't like him, I certainly don't have that right. I don't think any leader in history- Caesar, FDR, Stalin, Hitler, Reagan, Thatcher, Ceaucescu, Henry VIII- should be classified as a dictator. Their official titles should be used, and their style of leadership should be pointed out in the body of the article. I think then it should be up to the reader whether to classify them as a dictator or democrat. Tito's an interesting case, because while he was President for Life, and often called and "enlightened despot", there was a type of worker's democracy in the SFRJ that made it one of the most democratic governments in history. Just because there was repression doesn't make it "un-democratic". My pro-Tito opinions, just as the anti-Tito opinions, are totally immaterial. This is an encyclopedia, and everything that Tito did, good and bad, should be pointed out, free from any NPOV terms such as "dictator" or "democrat". Cheers. -p1nkfl0yd 19:51, 06 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.148.42 (talk)

Grenades vs. shells
Can someone please fix this sentence? I don't know anything about Tito's life or history beyond what I've learned here, but I do know that grenades are hand-thrown (or at best, rifle-propelled) weapons and that a howitzer shell can not possibly be mistaken for a grenade. Which was it, please? Rossami 03:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, that is a misconception; there is also the contemporary RPG (launched from either a rifle or a special one-person launcher or perhaps sometimes one and other times the other) and is propelled by a built-in rocket engine, hence Rocket Propelled Grenade. (These figured crucially in the Mogadishu Black Hawk Down battle, bringing down the choppers with tactics developed against the Russians in Afghanistan.) --Jerzy(t) 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
 * In Bukovina he was seriously injured by a grenade from a howitzer.
 * That clear, even tho anonymous, statement is helpful but does not fix the problem: everyone who looks at the article text is going to have the same reaction, bcz the apparatus implied by it is so obscure.  Either this was an improvised use of a howitzer, or an unusual item produced by a specific nation, or a fragmenting mortar shell whose native name invites mistranslation.  This has not been shown to be verifiable yet, and further, it will remain confusing (giving the impression, sadly true, that we don't know what we're talking about) until we can explain in the article what it means and why it sounds confusing.  (This is very much like, in its effect, Leon Trotsky, who was assassinated with the pick end of an ice axe, not with "an ice pick" as the common mistranslation has it, and our article used to; it may be, or not, rooted in the same kind of error.) --Jerzy(t) 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

It means a shell, yes. The local word for both is the same (at least colloquially), which is probably the reason for the wrong English term, it's a bad translation. --Shallot 22:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The name Broz
The article leaves me with the impression that my vague recollection is accurate, that he was born "Josip Broz" and that "Tito" was a nom de guerre, alias, or code-name that facilitated his revolutionary work. Much like the grenade issue above, this lack of clarity undercuts the credibility of the article. I'm adding an entry for
 * Broz, Josip, birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president Joseph Tito

at List of people by name: Bro and assuming i've gotten it right, despite the lack of the confirmation i expected here. --Jerzy(t) 15:26, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)


 * Due to an edit which i have now reverted, this page represented, from 2004 Apr 8 until Apr 20, a colleagues' comment as being mine. What i suggested appears, restored, in the preceding comment. I did not suggest that there be an entry reading like this one that i have struck through:
 * Broz, Josip, birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president Joseph Tito Tito
 * --Jerzy(t) 16:08, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Who made the silly decision to call this article Josip Broz rather than Josip Tito or Josip Broz Tito? He is universally known as Tito, regardless of what his legal name might have been. We don't call Lenin Vladimir Ulyanov or Stalin Iosif Djugashvili. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I am going to redirect it. Adam 10:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * At least in former Yu, his real name was well known. Are there guidelines for naming articles about persons with well-known nicknames? (Possibilities might be "Josip Broz Tito" or "Josip Broz - Tito", for example.) If yes, these should be followed. Josip Tito is not a good idea. Nikola 19:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved it back because inclusion of the nickname Tito is indeed the Right Thing to do as far as the Wikipedia naming conventions are concerned. --Shallot 22:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As i stated earlier in this section, i made an entry at List of people by name: Bro for Tito. A colleague (not the one who appropriately edited me at Brox - Broz) editted my discussion of that (without a signature or other indication that modification had occurred, as it happens), making it read
 * Broz, Josip, birth name of Yugoslaw partisan leader and president Joseph Tito Tito

The suggestion that the name "Tito" may stand alone is not particularly harmful, but it is unneeded clutter in a List of people by name entry that links to a full bio, which in this case seems to make the point adequately; LoPbN needs only enough information for people with a name in mind to be, once they've found a link to the bio they want, pretty sure of that fact. Telling them the ways they can (and preferably the ways they can't) use the name properly is the job of the bio article. The apparent suggestion that the entry have two more links that redirect to the same bio is a violation of WP style, and a poster child for why that style almost always calls for avoiding redundant links: the three links in one line would practically demand that the reader explore the differing implications of the three related names by following them each in turn. Fuggeddabowdit. --Jerzy(t) 16:08, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Josip Broz, Vrlo Skroz!

1930s
A new IP edit is awash in vagueness, and on reflection i have moved it here to be worked on, rather than just discussing it here: i think it is so hedged that it detracts more than it contributes. (However, i'd like to see a more precise account of this included.) Removed from the article:
 * During the 1930's Tito worked from the Communist Party and spent some time in Spain. While in Spain he was instrumental is suppressing socialists whose views were opposed to those of the Stalinist Communist Party.


 * Does "from" have the meaning of "through", "within", or the like? If not, then what?
 * Was he in Spain for a whirlwind tour (and if so, when?), or from Jan 1931 until the fall of the Republic?
 * Is this innuendo that he was an executioner, or an informant for executioners? Or did he make dandy speeches about the dustbin of history that embarrassed non-Stalinists into leaving Spain to go home and marry artists?

Please forgive this tone of mine (which comes forth from frustration, despite my distaste for Stalinism), especially if your inarticulateness reflects struggling in a foreign language. If you're a Stalist troll, parodying your opponents within the left, then congratulations; if not, please get your facts together (or be explicit about what things you can't find out), and then speak up clearly. --Jerzy(t) 17:59, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Tito didn't go to Spain in the 1930s. He returned from USSR to Yugoslavia to organize the transport of the communist fighters from Yugoslavia to Spain. This attempt however failed and 500 of them were imprisoned by the Yugoslav police. The reason that the mission failed is the boat which did not come in time to the agreed spot to pick the fighters up.

There has been much speculation about Tito in Spain (Andre Malraux, Hugh Thomas), but every source that I have consulted seems to indicate that he was never there, and he repeatedly denied it. He did spend time in Paris helping to send Yugoslav volunteers into Spain (he used the pseudonym "Otto" on several letters to the Yugoslav functionaries in the International Brigades), as well as back in Yugoslavia. Although the transport of several hundred volunteers off the Dalmatian coast failed when the boat Le Corse was captured by the police, hundreds of others (out of a total of 1,700 Yugoslav volunteers) did make it to Spain from Yugoslavia through networks in Zagreb and Maribor.


 * Participation in the Spanish War is mentioned in a sidebox. --Error (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"communist dictator"
User:GeneralPatton wants to add the phrase "communist dictator" to the first 'graph, and believes it can not be considered PoV.

I don't think my objection to it it is just a matter of that phrase being contaminated by his other phrase, "brutal reign of terror", that OB&G has (IMO wisely) at least deferred re-proposing.

My first reaction is that the phrase has a lot stronger POV than the sum of its two words, and the idea of situating it (or even one and then the other, in separate phrases) in the lead 'graph is PoV in pre-empting the opportunity to bring them in in a more nuanced fashion later in the article, where there's more room for qualifications and the like.

The pairing of those two words, even if they are each accurate, expresses the PoV that they are crucially relevant to each other. If we were writing about Stalin, i, and i think most editors, would be sympathetic: his bolshevik ideology and his realization of the idea "L'etat, c'est moi" seem an awful lot like two inseparable sides of a coin -- or perhaps his paranoia was the weld that joined them against attempts to drive them apart.

In contrast, i see Tito having a tension with Stalin and the Soviet system that in many ways put him outside the Soviet bloc; i see a foreign policy independent enough to involve him deeply in the so-called "unaligned movement"; i see an internal situation of ethnic divisions that probably called for a strong hand to balance the factions (in a significantly pluralistic fashion?), for reasons other than paranoia and megalomania. So i see sort of a communist, and a perhaps fairly dictatorial strongman, with nothing like the firm connection between them that i imagine between Stalin's ideology and his stranglehold on state and society.

So, yes, i find your wordings so far too PoV, but i'm optomistic that you may be capable of working with your colleagues to find ways to bring those two concepts in, in ways you couldn't conceive at first and may even surprise you before we're done. I expect this talk page to be a more fruitful place to pursue that than whole-cloth edits of the article. --Jerzy(t) 05:43, 2004 May 11 (UTC)


 * It is indeed entirely biased to replace "was President between" with "whose brutal reign of terror lasted betwen", at least I don't see much need to elaborate that... but again, the article is missing a huge chunk of content while he was the head of Yugoslavia in which one could elaborate things that make him a president and things that make him a terrorist, without making any such off-the-cuff remarks that are really not encyclopedic. --Shallot 09:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I see User:24.126.189.85's edit with "communist president" as no obvious problem, and likely an enhancement; i'm no expert on Yugoslavia, tho i think i can often be pretty sure about the absence of nuance.


 * I presume the party mentioned in the article was, like the "Social Unity-party of Germany" in the GDR, the local communist-party-in-all-but-name; perhaps someone able state nuances in this context can state this situation with more nuance than i just did. I expect that would enhance the article, by making the connection between "communist" and the later, more nuanced but apparently still incomplete 'graph. --Jerzy(t) 07:59, 2004 May 12 (UTC)


 * Actually the Communist Party was indeed called that way in Yugoslavia. But anyway. --Shallot 09:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! I see now i was referring to the Croatian SDP, and i gather that was an early, minor affiliation. --Jerzy(t) 13:24, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Think about this sentence: Josip Broz Tito was elected to be a communist dictator. Do you see any sense in it? If yes, then you might agree with GP (read GeneralPatton), if no, you might be correct. In fact Tito was elected to be a president of post (2nd WW) war Yugoslavia. He was just a president as are all presidents all around. The same thing happened in the United States where Dwight David Eisenhower was elected as 34th president. Both Ike and Tito fought against Nazi-Germany, and they both showed a lot of succes, so natural way was that they also might won the race for presidency. Yes, the sytem in USA is different since they have presidency which can last twice for 4 years. Tito's one (as a 1st president) lasted for life - what is wrong with this? In fact nothing. We can go into many of his mistakes and such (foreign debts, Goli otok, ... ...), but we must also consider his role in prewar situation in this so hot territory. The same we might designate Haile Selassie to be a 'whatever' dictator - and further on - Tito and Selassie were 'good friends' as it is well known. Every leader/ruler/'?' makes mistakes, so this role takes and needs a lot of responsibility as Mr. Winston Rodney said in many accasions aka songs. Recently one Slovene officer wrote a book about attempts upon Tito's life. It was said he summed up to about 76 attempts. Tito's role was in fact pretty hard - think about what happend after 1990 in Yugoslavia, where botherhood and unity was (as it showed) really just on the paper. Best regards. DζMarshal 13:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Tito was never elected as a president, because in former Yugoslavia, elections were only inside the Communist party, and Communist party came to Rule with force. Aside from his foriegn political succeses, he was a dictator who ruled with the brute force: killing, prosecuting and inprisoning. I think this is the most importat fact about Tito, and it should not be hidden behind his possitive roles in antifascistic movement and "suppressing nationalims" (which was only thanks to his dictatorship). Anyway, I mean the complete article should be rewritten, and the word dictator should be put. --Mestric 07:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There are facts that are true there, but overall this is wrong. The CP came to power after the partisans led by it won the war -- had the HSS done anything comparably useful during the war, maybe they would have had some success like they had before the war, but there was realistically no other option than the CP at the time and it's not really that a lack of the scare tactics at the first and only post-war general election would have made a lot of difference on the result. Further, his regime used all those violent methods, but in general that simply can't be "the most important fact" (I take that to mean "something we should endlessly pontificate over") because otherwise ex-.yu wouldn't have been a fully functional country with by and large a consensus that he was ultimately doing the right thing even when he was doing the wrong thing. The dictatorship stuff is clearly mentioned in my version exactly where it is supposed to be and I don't see much reason to alter it in any more negative fashion. --Shallot 08:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I reverted Mestric's 2nd edit of Josip Broz Tito, in hopes they will bring the arguments implicit in that edit to this talk page in an effort to find consensus before editing it again. IMO the recent, apparently successful, efforts at finding consensus here (which may not be apparent to an editor completely new to the article) deserve such care. --Jerzy(t) 08:08, 2004 May 28 (UTC)


 * I changed the text before seeing this discussion, sorry for that. I should admit that Shallot has right about the 1st elections in after war Yu. Anyway, CP was very brute to his opponets after the war, and Tito's responsibility there is certain. The fact is that in 1945 communists in Yu killed tens of thousends political opponents, including masaccre in Bleiburg. That's why comparing Tito with Eisenhower has no sense.My opinion about the topic is following: the non-tendetious article about Josip Broz should not try to disguise negative (I mean anti-democratic and human-rights-violating) aspects of his rule. When you mention all political succeses he made, you should mention the negative facts too. Tito was a controversial person, and I think everyone would agree about that. So, my suggestion would be not to avoid giving an information of: a) Tito's responsibility for after-war mass-killings 1945.b) the founding of extremly crude penal camp at Croatian island Goli otok 1948 - 1989 (where the defendants of Informbiro-politics ended as well) c) 35 year long violent suppressing of national and religious rights of citizens of Yugoslavia d) the thousends of Stalin-like political "processes" after the Croatian Spring 1971., I would also suggest the erasing or reformulating the sentence "It was Tito's call for unity, and related methods, that held together the people of Yugoslavia." because these were really suppresive methods, together with Western interests who financed the regime.--Mestric 15:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there are a few sentences there that were from an older version and that were unencyclopedic. I amended that particular one to say not just "call for unity" (which sounds more like shallow demagoguery :) but "and related methods" which was supposed to imply that his policy was implemented with the use of force wherever there was resistance. On second look, I should have rephrased that sentence completely, it's way too subtle. I'll have a look at the whole article again and see if I can fix up all such subtleties that border whitewashing. --Shallot 15:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:GeneralPatton. Tito was a communist dictator. That was historic fact. The political system in Yugoslavia was communist dictatorship. In some other communist countries, they at least allowed some other political parties, even without any influence. In Yugoslavia, only one political party was allowed. No democratic elections, no freedom of speech, no freedom of business initiative, no protection of private property. --209.121.69.85 22:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The term "dictator" is not just a personal characterization of Tito, it is description of Tito’s political system (communist dictatorship).

Please check definition of [dictator]. Tito has been characterized as dictator even by his supporters. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia- he ruled Yugoslavia dictatorially: Please read an excellent article about Tito written by Alexa Djilas, published in Foregn Affairs magazine.

As someone who has been born in Yugoslavia, while it was still being ruled by the CP I couldn't keep my mouth shut to this nonesense about Tito!! I don't understand how some of you can be so sure that Tito was a dictator without looking at the FACTS! Fact #1 is that Tito was head of the CP, fact #2 is that the CP allowed no other political parties, fact #3 is that you can argue if Communism works or not but for Yugoslavia it did and most people enjoyed life under the CP & Tito, fact #4 is that only Cetniks ( Serbian facists ) and Ustase ( Croatian facists ) were killed by the CP but it was the end of WW2 where one single facist had caused a disaster, fact #5 is that while Tito was in good health and alive Yugoslavia was one country and the people united and fact #6 is that after Titos death Yugoslavia brutally split. Haha, believe me I don't care a lot about politics or communism or any of that but Tito is someone I really admire because after seeing the misery during the war ( or war's ) in the early 90's and now after the war with todays politicians I realise what the guy actually did for everyone. Tito was the 1st and for his lifetime the only president of Yugoslavia, but Tito was PEACE! Thanks!


 * If I may, I'd like to add my ten cents to this discussion, and just like the anonymous contributor above, I have quite a bit practical experience with Yugoslavia during the Tito era (i.e. from the sixties onward) - and furthermore I have travelled extensively in most of the other "communist" countries in Eastern Europe, both in and oustide of the now defunct Warzaw Pact. These include Romania, Easter Germany (DDR), Poland (where I lived for a while during the Solidarnosc period), Hungary a.s.o. I make this point to stress that I'm truly contributing with "original research", or rather experience.

My aim is to somewhat try and balance the view on Tito, and before I even begin, I must point out that there could be absolutely no comparison between Ulbricht or Honecker's DDR, Ceaucescu's Romania or Gierek's Poland and Tito's Yugoslavia in terms of oppression. Compared to these countries, Yugoslavia (and to a certain extent Hungary) were liberal countries. Thus the "communist dictator", which is thoroughly American and simply nonsensical when used in an unqualified way, cannot be used to characterize Tito, if it can be used at all. (Were Kim Il Jung or Nic. Ceaucescu communists or simply raving lunatics who thrived on totalitarism? Insider books such as Ion Pacepa's "Red Horizons" clearly indiate the latter. But I digress.)

A dictator?

First of all, Tito's regime spanned from the totalitarian to the authoritarian, depending on whatever (internal or external) challenges and threats he faced. He was a master of turning weaknesses into strength: After the detachment from the Stalin era economic and military cooperation within the Eastern bloc, he became the primus motor of the non-aligned movement, making it a force to be reckoned with and "recruiting" powerful allies like India and (I believe) Egypt. (I should add that I'm writing this off the top of my head; this is not meant as an encyclopedic article.) Another example is his mastery of the Yugoslav ethnic and political differences; he was apt to play out the "Croat faction" against the "Montenegrin faction" or "Serb faction" whenever he felt the need and urge to divide and conquer. And, yes, he could be mercilessly brutal, as he was when he gave the Stalinists a taste of their own medicine in the Yugoslav "gulags", of which the Naked Island, Goli Otok, is the most famous. And, yes, he was no doubt an egomaniac; the proof can be seen (and visited) in the nearly one hundred palaces he built for himself.

But even his fiercest and most oustpoken opponent, Milovan Djilas, would hardly paint a picture as black and white as General Patton wants to present. Yugoslavia during the Tito era was a quintessence of the Balkans, multi-faceted, conflicted and fiercely proud. So was Tito. Tito was also a Central European figure, brought up in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and there certainly is some truth to Metternich's saing that the Balkans begin in Vienna!

A communist?

No doubt the CP was instrumental in bringing Tito to power, even though he was a war hero. An it was instrumental in keeping him there. However, Tito was quick to realize that a completely centralized, State or soviet governed economy simply was too inefficient to function, an more so in Yugoslavia, where the economic divide between North and South was, between industrial and rural economy was so obvious. While the bulk of the economy was State-controlled, there was ample room for small private enterprises. If anything, the Tito era economy was mixed, not unlike Western social democracies, albeit centered on a plan economy, socialist model. But it was not an exclusively socialist economy. Remember, too, that the Southern part of Yugoslavia, i.e. Croatia and Slovenia, were dependent on tourist income from the late fifites and onwards. You didn't see a whole lot of Western tourists in Eastern Germany, Romania or the Soviet Union... and that wasn't just a question of the Meditarranean sun. Tourism simply doesn't thrive under "Communist dictators". For one thing, you can't buy foreign papers, like you could in Tito's Yugoslavia.

This op piece is too long already, so I'll just conclude by saying that the last thing Wikipedia needs, are slanted articles built on political views that were obsolete even in Tito's times.

PS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were some token parties other than the CP in Yugoslavia. Wasn't there a Peasant's paryt, foe example? One last word to General Patton: A one party state is pretty bad, but a two party state like the US of A is only twice as good... --ASav

This artical contains some false facts as that TITO lead firs-anti nazi rebelion in europe.True fact is that Tito sited in Belgrade during April war and did not do anything against nazis before nazis attacked Soviet Union and Cominterna commanded him to make uprising.So if Hitler never attacked Soviet Union Tito will never make rebelion against Nazis.Second, here is not mentoned that Tito was an Austro-Hungarian officer who foght against Serbs in I world war.Third Tito had sicret negotiations with Nazis and Ustashe in Zagreb at1943 and made an agreement with them that his forces would attack British forces if they land in Yugoslavia.Your artical does not conatin fact that Tito's Partizans main goal was fight against Chetnicks, that he is repsonsible for civil war in Yugoslavia in II world war and finaly that his forces did great war crimes against Italian and Serbian population like killing meny people in Belgrade after they conquered it with help of Red Army. Tito's anti-Serb policy was not mentioned in this artical too.Example: He gave Authonomy for Kosovo in constitutional act from 1974 which no national minority in world have.Serbia could not make any decision without Kosovo Shiptari agreement and they could made decisions without Serbia. You didn't mentioned that Tito's dictator comunist regime forbided Serbian rafuges ,wich have been expeled during nazi ocupation,to come back to their homes in Kosovo and Metohija and Macedonia and that his decision made diferent etnic structure of that regions.You didnt mentioned that he devided serbian ortodox church,and developed Macedonian church. So your artical is I would say to kind to TITO.

If I were to list the number of atrocities commited on the home front and abroad by those in power in Washington, Tito would be considered a saint. The poster above me makes no actual points that makes Tito an actual dictator. Atrocities and bad actions are not what constitutes whether or not someone is a dictator. Dictionary.com classifies a dictator as:

1. An absolute ruler. 2. A tyrant; a despot.

Tito was neither of these. Communism and Socialism are very intertwined, but they are indeed different. Specifically, socialism is the transformation between capitalism and communism. So are most socialists communists? I would say ultimately yes, but Tito was definately not a communist dictator. In fact, the term 'communist dictator' is oxymoronic as communism does not have a large central government. One needs a state to have a dictator and states do not exist in communism either. I suppose this is an argument against the term communist dictator in general, so Ill talk specifically what is different between Tito and the widely accepted 'communist dictators'. Tito was neither a communist nor a dictator. To debunk the myth of communist, Tito had a form of market socialism, this is very very different from our common conception of what communism is. Profit sharing, and to a large degree market adjusted demand and prices existed. In the case of the USSR, central planning controlled the economy, and profits nor markets exist because of this. Tito was completely independent of the Soviet Union as well as China in this respect, as well as general foreign policy. To debunk the idea that he was a totalitarian and therefore dictator: To a large extent, Yugoslavia was democratic, as in local officials were elected rather than being appointed by the communist party such as in the USSR which is definately a dictatorial action. Dictators also require a sort of personality cult in the culture of the country. Tito did not have this sort of thing going on. But he was 'president for life' which does have a dictatorial ring to it. I dont think that is basis enough to call him a dictator however. Technically, FDR was elected president for life, having served a near four full terms and only ending that once he died. This nearly rivals Tito's presidency but we do not call Roosevelt a dictator.

--Michael Kenyon
 * Well, history is written by the winners, isn't it?. --Bukharin

Hello just wanted to post a few comments
 * 1) 1 Tito was a socialist not a communist, in Australia economy in former Yugoslavia is taught as an example of socialist type rather than communisam, due to the fact that not all businesses were state owned.
 * 2) 2 Word dictator is a bit harsh even though he was a life long leader Yugoslavians enjoyed many freedoms, including religous (my maternal grandmother practiced Catholicism and paternal one was of Ortodox denomination)that many other countries didn't. That would also mean that UK and whole Commonwealth is under dictatorship of the Queen Elisabeth.
 * 3) 3 Goli Otok and his political assasinations at the time did in the end prove well founded due to the fact that separationist Croatian and Serbian throughout the world trained and worked to undermine Yugoslavian government. The example is bombing of the Croatian ambassy or consulate in Australia by Croatian terrorists, this fact was also shown on Australian TV a few times. US and Australia appears to have turned blind eye on the activities in these countries. Another example is the fact that if you go to the clubs of the present day Australian Croatians and Serbs you will see pictures of the former Serbian king and his chetniks or the Nazi supported WW2 leaders in Croatia.
 * 4) 4 I read comments on the state of economy that Tito left country in a bad shape due to massive foreign debt which is kind of funny looking at the US debt, also Yugoslavia had much capital in way of mashinery and was known for its heavy industry.
 * 5) 5 Tito is credited as a villan for killing inocent people on Blaiburg road. There was a minority of innocent people there including my grandfather who managed to escape, but in his own words there were mainly Nazi's and their supporters.

One of his bad decisions was to act heavy handed on the Croatian Spring protesters, which mainly consisted of the local students. Maybe these few comments help people understand a bit better the situation.

//////////////////// I really would like to understand to which extend Tito has been a dictator or not. To be elected for life is not a real reason for calling someone a dictator. See the monarchist systems where the head of state is even not elected, or practically life elected presidents like Mitterand in France and there are other examples of countries being all but dictatorships even if they have a president or a King for a very long time, if not for life.

Has there ever been an independant study (that`s the big problem in FY, revisionism increasingly blur historical analysis) about the killings or torture or subjective emprisonments of opponents under Tito`s period. I think there are methodical grids to analyse the degree of dictatorship in a society. But if already we could start with facts, verified facts of any mass murder or deportations for instance, I would be very interested in it.

Children
Whether true or not, it is very oftenly speculated that he was changing women every few days, which resulted in huge number of children. Various politicians, including Milosevic were rumored to be successful because they were Tito's children. This deserves a mention. Nikola 05:53, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Like I said in the commit log, there's those seventeen documented cases of wives and/or women bearing his children, and that's plenty, by anyone's standard! Vague speculation and rumours aren't particularly useful in an encyclopedia. --Shallot 17:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * But noting that there are some speculations and rumour are. Remember final scenes from "Tito i ja"? People who don't know about the rumours can't understand them. Nikola 17:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to try, but I doubt it's easy to avoid weasel terms :) --Shallot

Oh people, come on, please do some research before implying that something is a fact. The whole claim comes from a book by Filip Radulovic, called "The Loves of Josip Broz" ("Ljubavi Josipa Broza"). He is said to claim that the book was research with Tito's consent, but I have seen no proof of this. It is barely mentioned on the internet outside titoville.com, and where it is, it is always "if we can believe this book...". I have seen no site but titoville.com endorse it as true. What makes me further suspicios is this fine article (in BCMSxyz), in which Radulovic claims that Madeleine Albright is blackmailing him for USD 5 million because he has discovered that she has an affair and a son with a Montenegrin man. Maybe that article should include A researcher has found that Albright has a Montenegrin lover, who is also the father of her son. Zocky 12:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * *chuckle* Perhaps it is just spin, but where's smoke there's usually fire. Something should be written about Tito's reputation as something of a womanizer. I tried to phrase it in a fashion that doesn't expound on the various (unconfirmed?) escapades but instead proceeds to mention his legitimate grandchildren -- indicatively, in both of the two main ex-yu republics. --Shallot 12:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to say one thing, under Tito, Yugoslavia was never United, especially considering he black listed 4 million Croatians to be persecuted. This claim that Yugoslavia was united, during his reign, is false. Additionally i would like to ass Yugoslavia was never United, not before during or after. These claims are always made by Tito Apologists and Communist sympathisers.


 * 4 million croats?? r u kiddin me? where do u find this kind of info?? 4 million...so he would have killed every1 in croatia? nice try...he was a KING!!!

Communist or Socialist?
I think that it is wrong to call this man a communist not a dictator. The first problem is that communism and socialism is a very different politic. Another thing is that people like Hitler and Stalin or Lenin are dictators, this man who was respected, loved and did so much for letting a country exist where all men were brothers and equal, like it should be in a socialistic state. It was a pretty modern and progressive country like no where else and where the people lived with great tolerance to each other, for example the muslims (Bosnians) and the catholics (Croats), where in the rest of the world always was trouble between Muslims and Christians. You can't really judge him if you are not from one of the ex-Yugoslav countries.
 * Actually, Communism and Socialism have the same origin, as both terms were used interchangeably by Karl Marx. Tito was a follower of Marx which makes him Communist, he just wasn't a follower of Stalin's version of Communism.  Unfortunately, Stalin gave Communism a negative connotation.  According to a friend, who studies Communism, Tito was the leader that came closest to Marx's original vision of Communism.  Plus Titoism is considered a form of Communism.  --JFred 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are wrong. Even in marx's own writings, and even more in the subsequent discussion among marxists and the broader left, Socialism and Comunism are two cokmpletely different stages in the revolutionary process, and from that, two political and economic sistems, and even more, two distint historical political possitions.


 * Socialism is the organization of the economy around the state-controlled means of production, and behind the principle "from everyone according to his capacities to every one according to his work". Comunism implies the *abolition* of the state, and the proper colectivization of property: the abolition of State property along with the abolition of preoperty *as such*, and the organization of society according to the principle of "from everyone accoording to his capacities to everyone according to his *needs*". In comunism, there would be no unsatisfied needs, as we wolud be living in an abundant society, hence the necessity for the development of productive forces before any revolutionary transformation in this direction (wich is the base of some of the more lengthy and unproductive debates in the left).


 * In the historical context of the cold war, socialism was disintct form communism and this was directly related to the relation of the different movements (or fracions within the movement if you like) with the USSR and Stalin. Comunists parties around the world were all Stalinists, at least until 1956, end some even until 1968, like the chilean party. Socialists parties were not stalinists, they did not follow the principles of the third international.


 * The above as fact about comunism/socialism, below is my *very personal* opinion in regards to the general discussion, do not take it as argument, and it has nothing to do with the previous post:


 * In this light, TITO was a socialist, and in my humble opinion, the greatest socialist to ever govern any country. His life and his project in Yugoslavia should be an inspiration to the internartional left, in the sense that he tried very hard to organize a country along socialists lines, but with very strong considerations about the tolerance and general freedom it's people should be allowed (there were private bussiness in yugoslavia, and there was production of consumer goods). He, and Allende are among the greatest men of the century, even if they failed miserably in the end. And i say this as a marxists, a socialists, and (disregarding the historical associations with Stalinism), a communist, not as a "friend who studies communism".


 * It's very impressed about how people form the united states (not all of them, of course) have swallowed anti-comunist propaganda to the point where they put all eastern 'comunists' under the same light. Puting together Tito, Stalin, Ceacescu and Nasser (for example) as "comunist dictators" is like trying to put together Ralph Nader, George Bush, Charles Lindbergh, Anne Rand and C. Wright Mills as "capitalists pigs" just becasue they're all americans... just prejudicious nonsense. And forgive my engrish, i'm not a native speaker.


 * Gorgonzola (i forgot my login info, sorry, don't wanted to appear anonimous :S)


 * I said they have the same origin, I didn't say they were the same. The terms have evolved seperately since.  And my friend considers herself a Communist.  And I agree that Americans don't have the proper view of Communism, but their main exposure to it was through Stalin, who I consider to have bastardized the ideology.  Also, many refer to Socialism as working within a multi-party state while Communism enforces a one-party state.  Both terms have been modified many times since Marx.  Maybe refering him as a Marxist might help, instead of trying to decide whether he classifies as a Socialist or a Communist, as they both originated from Marx.  The way I see it, Marx described a process like you said, although he did not name them as such.  And using the definitions you provided, no one can be described as a Communist because no state has reached that point.  Unfortunately, many have changed the definitions of Communism and Socialism along the way, making it hard to define anyone under either of those labels.  Also, many considered the Soviet Union communist, but it had the word Socialist in its official name.  Also, Titoism (on here anyway) is considered a branch of Communism, and we like consistency here.  -- J  Fred  21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Communism and Socialism are very intertwined, but they are indeed different. Specifically, socialism is the transformation between capitalism and communism. So are most socialists communists? I would say ultimately yes, but Tito was definately not a communist dictator. In fact, the term 'communist dictator' is oxymoronic as communism does not have a large central government. One needs a state to have a dictator and states do not exist in communism either. I suppose this is an argument against the term communist dictator in general, so Ill talk specifically what is different between Tito and the widely accepted 'communist dictators'. Tito was neither a communist nor a dictator. To debunk the myth of communist, Tito had a form of market socialism, this is very very different from our common conception of what communism is. Profit sharing, and to a large degree market adjusted demand and prices existed. In the case of the USSR, central planning controlled the economy, and profits nor markets exist because of this. Tito was completely independent of the Soviet Union as well as China in this respect, as well as general foreign policy. To debunk the idea that he was a totalitarian and therefore dictator:  To a large extent, Yugoslavia was democratic, as in local officials were elected rather than being appointed by the communist party such as in the USSR which is definately a dictatorial action. Dictators also require a sort of personality cult in the culture of the country. Tito did not have this sort of thing going on. Dictators also require the classification of authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, where dissent is squashed and liberties are often completely eliminated. This was not the case. But he was 'president for life' which does have a dictatorial ring to it. I dont think that is basis enough to call him a dictator however. If FDR did not die, I'm sure he would have been president for a much longer period than Tito, but that doesn't make him a dictator.

-Michael Kenyon


 * Very good point. I have to agree with you on that.  Your right about Yugoslavia under Tito having an economy that wasn't centrally planned like the Soviet Union.  Tito was more of a Socialist than a Communist then.  And I also agree with the dictator thing.  Just because he headed up a one-party state doesn't automatically define him as a dictator.  -- J  Fred  01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides all that, and considering that the distinction between communism and socialism we have all stated here is almost purely theoretical, or academic, i would like to re-emphasize the *historical* association of the term communism with Stalinism as the best argument against describing Tito as a communist, and of course, i agree with both your last posts: the existence of market socialism (wich is higly controversial among socialist circles) in Yugoslavia certainly cast him aside form Troskyism, Stalinism and certainly Maoism, which would be the major communist movements, historically considered. (Jfred, pardon me if i sounded rude, but the previous argument about "communist dictator" got me heated... that's why i put all that chunk as "personal opinion". i completely take back that quoted comment as totally out of place. sorry. :) ---Gorgonzola.


 * No offense taken. As for the rest of your comment, I'm not exactly sure which conclusion your coming to.  Also, I'm under the impression that Trotskyism is closer to Titoism than Stalinism.  I thought Trotskyism tries to find a balance between Marxism and Leninism, and that Titoism was the closest thing to Marxism in practice.  I know that Marx stated that the first stage on the road to true communism was government owning the means of production, but later on down that "road", the workers, or prolitariat, end up owning everything, which seems to be what Tito was attempting under his "market socialism".  Heck, even Stalin refered to Tito as a Trotskyist, though he did refer to both Trotsky and Tito as Fascist, so I guess we could take his opinion with a grain of salt.  -- Dubh  agan  01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (formerly JFred)


 * But then again, we are talking about dfferent things: historical usage of the terms with the teoritical implications of the terms. Troskyism is, historically, the anti-stalinist marxist movement wich wanted nothing to do with communist parties around the world, with very caracteristic practices. In that respect, Tito *could* be called a Troskyist. But teoretically, tito was very far from Trsokyism. He did not encourage a leninist form of government, and his pseudo-corporativism (wich is how his market socialism was called among leftist critics) was not exactly a Troskyist favorite. But, those are all teoritical considerations, only relevant to very marxist people (like troskyists :P)


 * Now, to get back on track, i think the article should clarify two points in this regard: As always with marxist currents is not easy to separate them clearly nor asociate them with concrete historical movements, wich makes it hard to put tito under one flavor of marxism, and that Tito, teoritically; AND, and this as the real point in this discussion, that Tito wanted, above all, to carve a Yugoslavian way to socialism, and always mantained a strong independece form Chine and/or Russia, developing his own path to the colectivization of property.
 * The historical and teoritical relevance of Yugoslavia s not if he was more or less troskyist, is that he prooved that "there's another way" to socialism, without a centrally planed economy, and burocrats deciding what color to produce every sock or shirt. That in a Socialist country, you could live relatively well, have access to consumer goods, and enjoy a general level of freedom that was just not possible in the chines or russian model of society. He has much more in common with Allende.
 * SO. I wouldn't use the term "communist" to refer to his political/historical possition, and i would use the term socialist to describe what he weas trying to do in yugoslavia. And i owuld keep away form the discussion regarding the diferece in the concept of socialism and the concept of comunism, as this is NOT an article about marxism :) -bukharin (formerly Gorgonzola, seems i definitely lost my login info :

Tito in Argentina
Hey there. I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina.

It's quite well-known fact here in Argentina that Marshall Josip Broz Tito spent a couple of years here before his call to power, around the mid-20s, early 30s. He worked as a constructor-builder in the country's Northern provinces (San Juan, Jujuy, etc), and later on moved to Buenos Aires to continue his political pursuits.  He's even credited to have worked at the world famous 'Tren a las Nubes' (train to the clouds), and he's also very well-known for his fanaticism over a renowned soccer team (Estudiantes de La Plata). The only problem here is hard evidence. I can't find any precise dates on arrival, departure, exploits, anything... So, should I add a paragraph on this part of Tito's life? Should I research a little bit more? Anyone here knows a little bit more about this?

--Txurlo 17:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Josip Broz Tito spent most of his life between 1927 and 1934 in various prisons in Kingdom of Yugoslavia:
 * 1927 by court of Ogulin: 7 months for communist propaganda
 * same year: additional 5 months after for same reason,
 * november 1928: sentenced to 5 years of hard prison for propagating revolution (time spent in Maribor and Lepoglava)
 * Source: Opća enciklopedija JLZ, 1977. Is it possible that there was another person named Tito in Argentina? --romanm (talk) 19:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it IS strange, but all sources quote him as being no other than Marshall Josip Broz Tito... but failing to provide hard evidence. Reportedly he was in Argentina between 1928 and 1931, and years later allegedly (sorry: found and lost the link) he invited the whole soccer team Estudiantes de la Plata (the team he was a hardcode fan of) on a tour of 'his' Yugoslavia later. There are anecdotes like these all over the place here, but all of them highlight (and later dismiss) it as just a curiosity, so the mystery grows and grows. I'll do some real research and get back here...
 * --Txurlo 00:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I found the link! it's in Spanish, but I'll provide a quick translation.
 * 
 * Josip Broz Tito
 * Mihailovic's enemy within was a resistor who called himself Tito. His origins where so much shrouded in mystery that some believed this particular name was in fact something like an acronym (Third International Terrorist Organization). His father was a Croat and his mater a Slovene. In his early years he'd been a locksmith and unioner, and during the First World War he'd got a Sargent rank in the Austro-Hungarian army. He was exiled in many countries, including Argentina, where he worked blue collar at the Berisso's (municipality in Greater Buenos Aires) Swift meat-packing facility. He was an active supporter of Estudiantes de la Plata soccer team, up to the point of personally inviting the team over to Belgrade for an European tour when he was already the leader of Yugoslavia. He also worked as a builder at the construction of the 'Train to the Clouds', in the Northern province of Jujuy. Afterwards while passing over Russia, he became a Communist. He came back home, activated and jailed. AFter that, in 1937, using the alias of 'Walter', he took charge of the Yugoslavian Communist Party (his predecessor had been terminated by Stalin). By that time he recuirted combatants for the Spanish Civil War in the name of the Communist International. 
 * Revista Latina de Comunicación Social
 * La Laguna (Tenerife) - april 2000 - issue 28
 * D.L.: TF - 135 - 98 / ISSN: 1138 – 5820 (year 3º)
 * http://www.ull.es/publicaciones/latina
 * As you can see, this info is focused on General Mihailovic and its relationship with Argentina and Spain, but -again- it doesn't have a lot of hard information.
 * Anyway, I personally think there's too much information available on this subject to dismiss it flatly as just wild rumours... --but it could too had been hyped to death too. As I said before, I'll look into it.
 * --Txurlo 00:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm from Buenos Aires, too. I was looking for some information about Tito in Argentina and I found this article. A lot of years ago, my grandfather told me that someone told him that Tito also worked in harvests in the south of Buenos Aires province, but I've never found information about that. However, what I found is this article from La Plata's newspaper "Hoy". Here they say that Tito arrived from Genova on an italian ship called Principessa Maria, in October 20, 1930. According to that article, he came with a false passport, with the name Walter, because he had run away from a yugoslavian prision. This is the link, in spanish, where you can read this and a few more: hoy.eplatenses.com.ar/99/04/25/c16y17.pdf.

Murdered POWS ?
Someone added the following POV rant to the main page:
 * War in Yugoslavia ended 15 may,1945 seven days later because Tito and his army murdered around 300,000 prisoner of Allied forces-Chetniks and Ustasa(nazi Croat) refuges and other miserable refugee who dont like communist regime. Shooting-range is resume i "clearenced" YU, after may,15 1945.

THE WAR ENDED LATER IN YUGOSLAVIA BECAUSE THE USTASHE (AND CHETNIKS) CONTINUED TO FIGHT IN HOPES OF REACHING THE BRITISH. THEY CONTINUED TO FIGHT HOPING THE BRITISH WOULD RISK WAR WITH YUGOSLAVIA AND GO BACK ON THEIR AGREEMENTS JUST TO SAVE A BUNCH OF FASCISTS. THE PARTISANS CONTINUALLY OFFERED THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SURRENDER. THIS IS IRREFUTABLE HISTORIC FACT. IT ACTUALLY MAKES SENCE FOR A CHANGE. DIREKTOR

Is there any truth/documentation on the claim of murdered POWs &Refugees ? If so it should be mentioned, without the ranting. --Key45 20:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a rant indeed, though there's some factual backing in the Operation Keelhaul and the subsequent Bleiburg massacre. Tito was the supreme commander of all partisan forces, so responsibility is implicit... I'll make a mention of it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It may be a rant but it's a factual rant. Members of my family were some of the hundreds of thousands of Slovenians, Croats etc that were massacred by Tito's partisans in Slovenia at the end of the war. Fascists would have been among those killed but many were just conservatives, anti-communists, German-speakers, or Catholics fleeing the Communists.


 * Harold Macmillan, later UK PM, then political adviser to Field-Marshal Alexander: ‘To add to the confusion, thousands of so-called Ustashi or Chetniks, mostly with wives and children, are fleeing in panic into this area in front of the advancing Yugoslavs. These expressions, Ustashi and Chetnik, cover anything from guerrilla forces raised by the Germans from Slovenes and Croats and Serbs to fight Tito, and armed and maintained by the Germans - to people who, either because they are Roman Catholics or Conservative in politics, or for whatever cause are out of sympathy with revolutionary Communism and therefore labelled as Fascists or Nazis.'


 * Some of my family were caught and summarily killed at that time while trying to flee with their families. My grandmother has never returned to her Slovenian childhood town of Celje, where everyone she knew that stayed was killed. Some in very gruesome ways. Being buried alive with only one's head out of the ground until one died of thirst was one method (yes, like in Merry in Christmas Mr Lawrence). This happened across Slovenia. The Slovenians are still unearthing mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of skeletons in total. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.209.64.177 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

photos
Since we seem to have an overabundance of pictures, I'll put them in a gallery here, in no particular order. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no explanation whatsoever in the text of the Brioni Declaration nor of the people in the picture. --Espoo 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite the little bit in 'Aftermath'
He was a fighter for socialist democracy and equality, a great diplomat.

That's not very NPOV, is it?

yes it is. tito was a fighter for *socialist* democracy, not the tipycal so-called democracy of the united states. In the political discussion *among* socialists, and specially against stalinism and the ortodoxy, his fight was for democracy. And a fighter for equality, of course, as he was, first of all, a socialist. And he WAS a great diplomat, as you can see form the non-aligned movement he practically made form the initial efforts of india and egypt. Gorgonzola.

World War 2
Yugoslav Communist Party decided to start resistance after Hitler attacked Soviet Union, not before that date.
 * On June 22, a group of 49 local men attacked a German supply train near Sisak, thus beginning the first anti-fascist uprising in occupied Europe.

This is not true: on June 12, Serbian chetniks successfully attacked (Croatian) police station in Kazanci near Gacko, Herzegovina.

The goal of communist lead uprising was not only liberation of country – they also wanted to establish communist government similar to Soviet Union. That was the reason they refused to be under supreme command of Colonel Mihailovic’s Yugoslav Army (chetniks) and legal Yugoslav government in exile.

In October 1941, Tito’s partisans started civil war in occupied Yugoslavia, by attacking Mihailovic’s chetnik forces, during the siege of Kraljevo, Serbia. In January 1942, communists in Hercegovina started “the 2nd phase of revolution” by killing kulaks, relatively wealthy peasants in Herzegovina.

During the war, Tito’s partisans sometimes collaborated with Germans and puppet regime in Croatia. In November 1942, he offered them cease-fire so they can fight together against chetniks. In March 1943, Tito’s offer was not just a cease-fire, but promise to fight against Western Allies, in case of invasion at Adriatic coast.


 * You are wrong. The Serbian Chetniks under Mihajlovic attack Tito at Uzice (The Uzicka   Republika) The Partisan lost the battle and were forced into Bosnia. There is a very popular Serbian Folk Song (Narodna Pesma) called "Sumadinski Caj." The song talks about how the Chetniks attacked the Serbs first. And when you say that the Partisans collaborated with the Axis Forces is also wrong. They never worked with the Axis, but Tito in March of 1943 tried to make a "Live and Let Live Deal" with the Germans. At no point did they work with the Axis forces. Churchill's son who was travelling with the Partisans backs this statement up.

You are wrong, especially about the break between partisans and chetniks. Partisans attacked near the city of Kraljevo. Chetniks were fighting back. Germans attacked city of Uzice and pushed partisans out of Serbia - not chetniks.


 * You have to be joking, right? The Chetniks attacked the Partisans, it was the same night that Tito and Mihajlovic met. Like I said that event is like a holy hoilday to parts of Serbia's Sumadija area where they supported the Chetniks. There is a very very popular folk song about the event. It was sung by the Serbian nationalist singer, Era Ojdanic.

I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT THIS GUY IS SAYING. THE CHETNIKS WERE TRAITORS AND COLABORATORS. THE FIRST ARMED RESISTANCE UNIT IN EUROPE WAS FORMED BY THE PARTISANS. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD CHETNIK PROPAGANDA HERE. THEY FOUGHT AGAINST THE PARTISANS IN THE BATTLE OF NERETVA IN CLOSE CONJUNCTION WITH THE GERMANS. THEY DID THE PETTY LITTLE THINGS THE GERMANS WERE CONSIDERED TOO VALUABLE FOR. THEY ARE ROBBERS, KILLERS AND UNORGANISED FLEA-BEARDED BANDITS WHO WERE INTIMIDATED BY THE HARD LIFE THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD HAD THEY ACTUALLY CONFRONTED THE GERMANS. DIREKTOR 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
The POV tag was up for a while. A lot of it seems to have revolved around whether he was a "communist dictator" or not. Can we have a concise line-up of other objections people have, so we can work to have the tag removed as quickly as possible? --Dejan Čabrilo 00:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We are not here to discuss if he was good leader of his people or not. The dispute is about the term “communist dictator”. I’m not sure how anybody can deny that Tito was a communist. He was the leader of Communist Party in Yugoslavia for more than 40 years. Even at his funeral, funeral, his coffin was buried with intonation of communist anthem (The Internationale). Tito’s Yugoslavia was a communist country, according to definition from the article communist state. If somebody wants to dispute this term, that would be the article to dispute. Also, Tito was mentioned in the article dictator.

Indeed During the 1970s the economy began to weaken under the weight of foreign debt, high inflation, and inefficient industry. Also, he was under increasing pressure from nationalist forces within Yugoslavia, especially Croatian secessionists who threatened to break up the federation. Following their repression, Tito tightened control of intellectual life. After his death in 1980, the ethnic tensions resurfaced, helping to bring about the eventual violent breakup of the federation in the early 1990s. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.212.144.52 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 August 2005.


 * Actually those weren't secessionists because they did not actually want to secede, they just wanted more autonomy for their republic. And they made no "repression", quite the opposite. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

euphemism
"Josip Broz's presidency is sometimes percieved as unilateral communist leadership."

there is no reason for the phrase "dictator" to be replaced with "unilateral leadership"

--Henrybaker 15:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is an euphemism, but both "dictator" and "communist" are disputed. It seems that many people here undermind people's inteligence to come to their own conclusion after reading the article, so I did use a weasel term to try to define it in an NPOV way. --Dejan Čabrilo 18:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is more POV to use a euphemism like "unilateral leadership" than it is to use a term like "dictator."

--Henrybaker 02:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed here? That his presidency was a communist dictatorship, or that it was sometimes perceived as communist dictatorship? GregorB 01:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not the sole purpose of pov tag, but yes, some scholars think of it as a dictatorship (since he enjoyed a lot of power for a lot of time), while others don't (since he was essentially elected and did not act in traditional dictator fashion). --Dejan Čabrilo 16:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The other issue here is Western interpretation of Tito's rule vs our own interpretation of his rule. Effectively, to communists (not to those who called themselves communists, but those who follow the pure Marxist theory), communism IS democracy -- the rule of the people in its purest form (yes, of course this is utopian and unrealistic, but a lot of us don't consider the type of democracy existing in the US, Australia, UK -- effectively, the choice between two parties, much more democratic either -- it's all in the spectacle. The fact that no other parties existed around didn't seem to bother Yugoslavs because all the founding councils of the 'socialist republics' during WWII were in fact multi-party (ZAVNOH, ZAVNOBiH, etc). In Croatia, for instance, it comprised the communists, the left wing of HSS, and others. They were united around the idea of anti-fascism and gave legitimacy to Tito's government. Subsequent ideological disputes were generally related to national vs unitaristic interests, and democratic left vs bolshevist orientation of the Communist Party.

copyright in .yu
You wrote:


 * The same image was created in the former (socialist) Yugoslavia and as such does not enjoy any copyright protection.

I don't believe this is correct. Do you have a reference as to the (non-)existence of authorship laws in former Yugoslavia? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

Former (socialist) Yugoslavia did not poses such laws or agreements that pertained to works in the country. The whole concept was considered alien and contradictory to the socialist (i.e. communist) idea. As far as providing any evidence, I duly ask you to provide evidence to the contrary.


 * I googled and found a clear reference to the existence of:


 * Zakon o autorskom pravu ("Službeni list SFRJ", broj 19/74, 24/86 i 21/90)


 * That's from http://www.informator.co.yu/informator/1999/T3_399.html
 * Granted, it may not mean that photos were protected as author's works, but it at least means that we would need to review the language of the 1974, 1986 and 1990 laws to see what exactly they think is the right of an author. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - I know see you are from Croatia, considering you might have lived in those times I suspect you are aware that conditions and economic relationships did not require such laws. What there was was in regard to foreign agreements and it mainly pertained to works by foreign authors. The fact that there were no private mass production/publishing enterprises precluded the need of such contingencies as copyrights in a Western sense or understanding of the word today. There were however regulations that enabled one or other state agency to have absolute right in publishing certain information, however this did not constitute or was not regulated as ownership since theoretically 'the people' owned everything. Also any rights to any works tended to be protected via contractual obligations and not laws per se.


 * However, Zagreb Film, Jugoton etc did exist in SFRY, and I am pretty sure they had some legal basis to protect their authors. It's possible that this was post-1974, but it's also possible that it was applied retroactively. I'd really have to see the text of the old law to state anything with certainty. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

At that time (and place) they didn't have the conception of our understanding of copyright rules. Such issues if they even came-up for dispute were resolved based on contractual obligations according to existing laws in the court of law that had the jurisdiction. But there were no (general) laws against reproducing or copying authored items or for protection of private (i.e. individual) ownership, so any infringement could only be direct based on a contract, and not universal. Essentially there were no laws directly protecting Intellectual Property in SFRY.

Also for a modern (i.e. Western), and evolving, understanding of copyrights see: http://creativecommons.org/ and http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002852.shtml

I see the above discussion, and I wanted to confirm with you that the law does say that they are public domain. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tito's Sins?
Is anyone aware of the multiple crimes he committed? I've only heard things from the internet, i'm currently trying to get a book on tito to solve this mystery. But I've heard a fleeting rumour of him being an anti-serb and to killing a large number of Serbian intellectuals? --Hurricane Angel 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Spring and Tito's Anti-Croatness
Well, if you listen to Croatian grievances, you will conclude that he was in fact decidedly anti-Croat, and overtly pro-Serb! You see, Serbs and Croats work in mysterious ways, to them, Tito was the hand of national oppression led by what they percieved as their respective persecutor-nations. So, these days neither consider him to have been very friendly to them as nations (one of the main problems they both faced initially is that he didn't let them carve up Bosnia, as desired).

However, the argument was that since all the federal institutions were in Belgrade, the Serbs had the upper hand. This was usually illustrated with the number of Serbs in key Army, etc positions. It was also illustrated by the supposed bias in the budgeting process - Croats (and later Slovenes) argued that they were the only two republics opperating budget surpluses, but those srpluses were used to prop up the industries/economies of the less developed states (including Serbia).

The way the economy was run at the time was akin to the Soviet model - investment was supposed to be made into primary resourcers first and foremost, and Croatia was not considered to be rich enough in primary resourcers, and therefore steel-works, coal mining, hydro-electricity, uranium mining were some of the priority investments that saw the division of federal budget in favour of Serbia, etc ...

The Croatian Spring would probably have been one of the key arguments for Tito's anti-Croatness -- an interesting book to reference in this context: "Ljudi iz 1971. - Prekinuta sutnja" (interviews with the protagonists of the Croatian Spring, about their motives, etc), because the CP used a proven formula of branding the leadership of the Croatian CP leadership nationalist for demanding economic reform (ie more economic independence from Belgrade in economic planning), and in this context the democratisation of the CP - ie more regional power. (BTW, Latinka Perovic and others were removed in Serbia for similar demands).

However, this year was the 25th anniversary of Tito's death, and for all it's worth, 60,000 people were reported by the media (various) to have visited his grave to pay their respects, the majority from Serbia (though visits from all over the former Yu states were noted). If you go to the online verision of Sarajevo daily Oslobodjenje and look up 'smrtovnice' for the month of May this year, you will see pages and pages of individual 'in memoriam' notices commemorating Tito's death. T-shirts with the slogan 'Josip Broz - Dobar skroz!' are common in Bosnia. Not bad for a horrible dictator who was anti-this, or anti-that, ruled by murder, etc, etc, etc ... He was just a politician like any other, and he understood the power of his 'brotherhood and unity' message and his own power as the 'father' of the supranation. In homogenous or more supranational environments (Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro), he was not considered anti-anyone, really.

Anti-Croatness blown out of proportion
Croats will nowadays tell you how Tito was anti-croatian, that is not even close to the truth. He himself was a Croat, but proclaimed himself a Yugoslav because he felt that all the former Yugoslav states were essentially one people. Croats, during Tito's rule, enjoyed the power and pay checks they were granted by Tito and Yugoslavia as a whole. Everyone needs to remember that, without Tito, the Soviets would have walked over all Yugoslav states and turned it into what Albania became, a desert in my view. Tito was good, but his sins were more the sins of the people who were blind to see that they were all one people, and still are to this day.

Tito and Serbs
As for the above topic of Tito's sins. Tito had a large number of close Serbian friends and leaders. Many from Aleksandar Rankovic, Cvijetin Mijatovic, Petar Stambolic, Stevan Doronjski, Dusan Dragosavac, Stanoje Simic, Koca Popovic, Milos Minic, Nikola Ljubicic, Branko Mamula, Vladimir Simic, milentije Popovic, Mijalko Todorovic, Draza Markovic and so on.

Date of Birth
If you feel may 25 was not a mistake, then you should reconcile this with the way the issue is framed in Josip_Broz_Tito#Family (though I really think it belongs either under "early life" or "assassination escape"). I have no preference or knowledge about his actualy DOB, but it seems to me that there should not be a conflict inside of one article. -Adammathias

Presidency

 * Churchill wasn't a president. Churchill committed as many sins as Tito, for example, the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.  How does Tito getting support from Churchill, Stalin, and the USA and then shooting US planes prove that he was a great leader?  While we're at it, why don't we just point out that Stalin was supported by the Americans and Brits, then had his struggles with them, and proclaim him a great leader?  The day you die God judges you not by your best moments (if we can call any of that good) but by your worst ones - the people you had butchered, the rivals you had thrown in prison. Why do people reminisce about the man who started them on the path to their current bad situation?  Adam Mathias 19:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the man had actually done more good than bad for the people. It is the people who caused their bad situation in the end. Only ones butchered were the ones who were doing butchering under protection of Germans and Italians during WWII and their families. Germans had a quota of 100 civilians executed for every German soldier killed by guerillas and 50 civilans executed for every German soldier wounded. These civilans would be randomly picked up off the streets, loaded into trucks, and executed outside towns. Germans would often let Ustasha and Chetnik do the dirty work. Families of guerilla fighters were treated much worse. Women and children were often raped, man tortured for days, and murdered, property destroyed. Local nazi factions such as Ustasha and Chetnik would also commit their own acts of ethnic cleansing targeting civilian populations. Terrorism is a powerful weapon but retribution is well deserved. Those sent to labor camps were the ones who insisted on having Stalinism in Yugoslavia. At that time, after the WWII, enemies of any state were not treated kindly.


 * If Tito wasn't a dictator he would have reformed Yugoslavia out of communism (which could have potentially averted the catastrophe of the 90's) and into prosperity. But he didn't want to lose his life-long presidency so Yugoslavia remained under a communist dictatorship, although he was a generally benevolent (to yugoslavs) dictator, unlike Stalin. --Hurricane Angel 03:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If Tito HAD reformed Yugoslavia out of socialism(S.F.R.Y. is socialist by the way, not communist), it would have just ended in an earlier break-up of Yugoslavia, since democracy and capitalism also encourages splitting of countries. It was Tito AND Socialism which kept the people unified and helped the country prosper. I still do agree,however, that Tito could have prevented the Yugoslavian wars. The first bad decision was accepting his president-for-life title. He was too much of a benevolent dictator, which made the Yugoslav people too dependant on him, many people thought that such a man can never die, since he was so good to them. When Caesar was offered title of King, he rejected it on many occasions, and that is why Rome still lived on after Caesar. Tito's second mistake was choosing that after he died, each republic would choose its own president for Yugoslavia for one year. This was already beginning to divide Yugoslavia. What should have been done is encourage the Pan-slavic movement, by encouraging people to be Yugoslavs and lose their old religious titles, since most people of Tito's time were atheist anyways. It was not until the war started that people began becoming religious again. Just comes to show how religion plays an important role in wars. Tito had many great achievements, propelling Yugoslavia into an important great power, and possibly a superpower, however, he did have mistakes which contributed to the splitting of the S.F.R.Y. but we all know that no single man is perfect.--Redemption 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. From the start there should have been only one nationality - Yugoslav. Let's look at the USA. You could be of German heritage born in Ohio. US passport doesn't say German or Ohioan but American. In Yugoslavia you were stuck with nationality you were born with and it was prominently displayed on all your documentation. This made discrimination based on nationality easy. Tito believed lessons of WWII would serve as a deadly reminder of outcome of extreme nationalism. He also believed that by educating the entire population (prior to SFRY very few Yugoslavs had any schooling), discouraging religion, and teaching Socialist values, people would look beyond nationalism and materialism. Unfortunately, he gave these people too much credit. Socialism is working well in homogenic states such as Nordic states in Europe. It is much more dificult to achieve sharing and common good in multinational country. That's perhaps why US is so fiercly individualistic. Your second point about rejecting president-for-life title is on the spot as well. For majority of Yugoslavs, Tito was to Yugoslavia what George Washington was to US, father of the country, a brave general who against all odds had eluded and beaten the foreign invaders and their domestic cooperators ustasa and cetnik. Most people did not want him to step down. His public speaches would reenergize the country. However, this was short sighted. George Washington rejected title of the king for good of the country. It's surprising Tito didn't do the same. If he did, he would be around long enough to help work out any kinks out of the system following leaders would be making.

Origin of the name "Tito" for Josip Broz
I added the origin of the name Tito, according to the testimonies of former Yugoslavs.


 * Though the 'you - there' story sounds believable, I have many people who vouch for the accuracy of "Tito's" Spanish origins. I will not discredit (above persons) statement, though his/her explanation seems to be plausible it is also not probable. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark unicorn (talk • contribs).


 * Ahem, Tito never fought in Spain. --Dijxtra 12:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tito never fought in Spain, but the other story "you-that" doesn't sound very believable to me either. I think it's just an old urban legend. Zocky | picture popups 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I too think that's a urban legend, that's why I put the fact tag. If oyu ask me, I'd remove it completely. --Dijxtra 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tito used many aliases of his own choosing. Tito is the one that stuck maybe because of timing when he used it or the manner in which he used it. Has nothing to do with Spanish origins. Beyond that, Spaniards do not have exclusive rights on latin name Titus from which Tito is derived.


 * The name "Tito" origins from popular Croatian writer Tituš Brezovački. Brezovački was from region of Hrvatsko zagorje where Josip Broz was born. Broz enjoyed reading Brezovački so he named himself after him.

User: Cro ed


 * Just here to mention that I have heard that "you - there" story from many Yugoslavs, and it makes perfect sense as Ti and To really means you and that in Croatian/Serbian. I should also mention that i have never heard the other two possibilities from any Yugoslavs, or anyone for that matter excluding the writer of this article.

I just read this article and talk page, and was a bit surprised about the suggestions about his nickname. I my family tree people named Josep (Catalan), are called Tito by family and friends. I thought it was a common thing. I shall have to ask Tio Tito about it when I go to visit him :) DanielDemaret 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Query
In the section on the Anti-Nazi resistance it mentions very little of the allied involvement with the Yugoslav communists. The Allies were innitially not happy with working with Tito since he was a communist and all, and would have preferred to work with the Serb nationalists, however they were not up for actually fighting the Nazis due to the repriasal policy mentioned in the article. Tito's partisans were actually putting up a fight and the allies came round to working with and through them, supplying them with weapons and money and offering intellegence rather than troops and such-like. Can any-one elaborate on this or confirm the details as my source was a BBC documentary (Timewatch?) from about 1996-8, and though I am a historian this really isn't my field. i think there was an famous novel by a British novelist (Waugh?) that covers this in some detail also.


 * I'd take a look at some wiki articles on British military operations and also the one about Churchill's son. Adam Mathias 07:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Inafmous Revisionism as an excuse to change history?
in my addition that Sisak incident was first Communists uprising in Yugoslavia that was branded as revisionistic there is no room for revisionism.

FIRST organising for uprising against Axis forces was on May 14 at Ravna Gora, there are writen documents and Broz accepted him self this for history facts.

Do you want copies(scan) of documents?

Djenka018


 * Yes, I'd like to see scan of a document proving that people who gathered at Ravna Gora killed Nazi soldiers of blew up railroads or did anything which would be considered as uprising. After that I'd like you to prove that Chetniks 1) did not colaborate with the fascists, 2) did not attack anti-fascists, 3) attacked fascists, which would prove they were anti-fascists. Then we can discuss if that was "the first anti-fascist uprising in occupied Yugoslavia". Thank you in advance. --Dijxtra 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone of your reply, Dijxtra :-(


 * Hm. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I didn't want to insult you or something. It just seems to me that you don't understand diffference between army-parade and uprising, so I tried to be as precise as I could.


 * Are you trying to change subject from Broz and his activities toward who was Mihailovic?


 * Are you suggesting that Ravna Gora gathering was Tito's activity? You mentioned Ravna Gora gathering. I responded to that. I'm just following your subject.


 * Nope, the tone of your voice suggest you have more substance in attacking Mihailovic's life acchievements than deffending your point of view of Broz.


 * I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but tone of my voice does not implicate anything, and what you are doing here is bordering with personal attack on me. You are trying to falsify history, and I think it is perfectly OK for me to be upset with that as long as me being upset does not influence my good faith, which it isn't.


 * If you use wikipedia as refference, word uprising is equal to rebbelion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising and word rebbelion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion means following:
 * "A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements."


 * Therefore there is no need "to prove that Chetniks 1) did not colaborate with the fascists, 2) did not attack anti-fascists, 3) attacked fascists, which would prove they were anti-fascists" and to count how many railroads were blown. A mere organising of resistance groups is considered as uprising.If you wish, Yugoslav Army in Fatherland (often false branded as "cetnik") was internationaly unquestionably accepted as anti-fascist and anti-nazi army up until later (November) 1941 clash with Broz.


 * Excuse me, are you suggesting that bunch of people who gather at a meddow and have guns are necessarily and uprising? They don't have to fight anybody, just have guns and sing songs and that's uprising? Hmmmmm... And, could you tell me, why Allies suddenly decided that they don't like Chetniks just 5 months after they gathered at Ravna Gora? Was it, by any chance because they finaly got the right information? Was it because London finally realised that Chetniks are not fighting fascists, but on contrary, are fighting anti.fascists? If so, they how can you consider Chetnik movement to be anti-fascist?


 * Removed from my text: "( <<< false statement, Allies shifted support only after Yalta meeting years later; edited by djenka018)". Please, do not insert your comments into my text, thank you. And, please, decide whether you will believe yourself or not. It is you who stated that "Yugoslav Army in Fatherland [...] was internationaly unquestionably accepted as anti-fascist and anti-nazi army up until later (November) 1941 clash with Broz". From May 1941 to November 1941, there's 5 months.


 * Excuse you but Wikipedia states what is uprising (rebbelion) and I do not see you challenging above wikipedia statement on what is the meaning of that word. Hence "bunch of people who gather at a meddow and have guns are necessarily an uprising" if Wikipedia say so irrespective of your intimate opinion on uprising in Yugoslavia. . Are you saying WIkipedia is wrong in description of words uprising and rebbelion?


 * No, dear woman, I'm saying that Chetniks did not "refuse to accept authority", as Mihailovic ordered that Germans are not to be challenged. That's what I'm saying.


 * I am working to get scan of the Mihailovic's proclamation document existing at Museum at Cacak http://www.cetnici.cacakmuzej.org.yu/ustanak.htm, however, it is published by many independent historians and historians of Communist Yugoslavia that in fact 14 May 1941 was the day Mihailovic formed Yogoslav Army in Fatherland on Ravna Gora hill thus constituting first anti-fascist uprising in Jugoslavia. Nevermind later years, the question is who was first!


 * Oh, sooooo, it is more important what Draža said than what Draža did? Is that what you are suggesting? So if I go and shoot some black guys, but I state that I'm anti-racist, I'm anti-racist?
 * Nope, asuming that Mihailovic ended up as collaborator with axis (not proven beyond doubt), INTERNATIONALY he was acceped to have started fight against germans and that is not original research. His proclamation was not words of wisdom but affirmation of (first) organised uprising command centre.


 * Let me repeat myself once again: uprising which does nothing is not an uprising.


 * Check following link and tell me do you think Americans would make such article on 25 May 1942 if someone was not fighting Nazi's? http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,766569,00.html ("It has been probably the greatest guerrilla operation in history...")


 * Yes, they would. They attacked Saddam because they thought he had nuclear weapons. They later found out that he didn't have it. Americans supported Draža because they thought he was fighting Germans. They later found out that he didn't and that it was Tito who was fighting Germans.


 * Another non-original research: "Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Micropedia, Vol 8, Page 119 Entry: MIHAJLOVIC, DRAGOLJUB (INTEGRAL quote:) Mihailovic' Dragoljub, byname: Draja (b. March 27, 1893, Ivanjica, Serbia - d. July 17, 1946, Belgrade), army officer and head of the royalist Yugoslav underground army, known as Chetniks, during WWII. Having fought in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and World War I, Mihailovic, a colonel at the time of Germany's invasion of Yugoslavia (April 1941), refused to accept the capitulation of the Yugoslav Army. He organized the Chetniks, who operated mainly in Serbia. He was elevated to the rank of general in 1941 and was appointed minister of war that same year by King Peter's government-in-exile.
 * Both Chetniks under Mihailovic and the Communist-dominated Partisans, who were led by Tito, resisted the occupying German forces..."
 * It must be that thay are wrong?


 * Nope, it isn't wrong. Partisans and Chetniks did some collaboration, but only after partisan uprising. Chetniks did nothing before partisans uprised. After partisan uprised, they collaborated with partisans here and there - therefore, they resisted occupying German forces, but only after they saw that Tito's partisans have success.


 * Do not forget that my argument is not to disqualify Sisak incident but rather to add timeline.


 * Good. But the timeline you are suggesting is original research. You are proposing that Chetniks were anti-fascists. That is not what history books say. There fore, you are performint original research. And that's banned on Wikipedia.


 * Yet another nope. I am not proposing, i am challenging your proposal that Communists were first to uprise in Yugoslavia all by Wikipedia rules. As a matter of fact it is possible to quote wikipedia only to prove you wrong. You seem to have odd sense on what is revisionism and odd way of judging what is original research. Everything I said is linkable to a multiple elsewhere.


 * Please, refrain from personally attacking me. If you do that once again, I will be forced to report you. Attack my facts with your facts. So far, you haven't provided not one proof that Mihailovic attacked Germans, destroyed railroads or did anything useful prior to Tito's uprising.


 * Additionaly, prior to November 1941, Broz cooperated with Mihailovic to some extent and they were both purely anti-fascist at that time.


 * Right. And Tito had a full scale uprising, forming a free teritory and having his man die fighting fascists.
 * And Tito had this than Tito had that... and... Mihailovic never existed?


 * No, he existed, but was hidding in the woods waiting for Allied forces to approach.


 * What did Draža have? How many fascists has his movement killed? Which free teritory did he form? Tell me, which are the consequences of his "uprising", apart from the fact he wrote an proclamation document? --Dijxtra 09:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There were consequences of Broz's uprising: for each wounded german 50 civilians were to be killed and for each killed german 100 civilians. Go to Kragujevac and ask them for consequences of Broz's uprising. Make sure you have life insurance.


 * Good, we proved that Tito fought Germans. But, oh, we knew that already.


 * But since you insist, November 1941, Yugoslav Army in Fatherland liberated Cacak from Germans. Not only by pen and paper.


 * They took it from Germans? They killed Germans as they entered Cacak?

Conclusion:
For proper timeline of uprising, it is not important to prove who had done what later during WW2 as what you insist. You base your challenge of uprising timeline on only one viewpoint, the communist viewpoint and totaly close your self to other viewpoints. None can see less than thou who do not want to look. Pitty, you are supposed to be openminded and unbiased.


 * Thank you for attacking me once again. Here I will end this discussion, as you don't seem to have facts I'm requesting, and now you have descended to personal attacks. The fact that you attacked the very information you provided doesn't look good also. And the fact that you don't think it is necessary to inspect the consequences of what one calls a uprising to determine whether that was a uprising or just a fiest with guns is... well, a Bad Thing. So long, and thanks for all the fish. --Dijxtra 09:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dijxtra quote: "Let me repeat myself once again: uprising which does nothing is not an uprising"
 * I say uprising is an uprising even if it only means organising to see what next to do.
 * Since you are the moderator here, you must be right
 * There are no moderators here. I'm just a plain users, like you. Not even an administrator. --Dijxtra 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * but this does not stop here and today.


 * I challenge your biased opinion and not you.

Please remind me, Sisak incident is mentioned in which world history books?


 * "Opća Enciklopedija Jugoslavenskog Leksikografskog Zavoda" --Dijxtra 09:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why somebody has deleted the article- Comrade Tito's work?

It is obviously that somebody don't like the truth and deleted it! The man who deleted it just want to see the way of lies of the great lider -- Comrade Tito!Djenka018

Tito and Cetnici
Time Magazine 1944--Gbajramo 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Often the deeds of Tito were ascribed to Mihailovich, whose loyalty to King Peter was unquestioned. King Peter's men, through ignorance or fear, or both, would not acknowledge the existence of the Communist leader of the Partisans. They controlled the channels of news coming out of Yugoslavia to the Allied side. For two years the Allied public did not even hear of Tito."

Historical false
This is historical false: In April 1941, the Communists were among the first to organize a resistance movement. I am registered in italian version as Pio and i have enciclopedia UTET: UTET was first editor who translated in Italy Il capitale e manifesto del partito comunista of Carl Marx. In book number X edition 1969 at word Iugoslavia in page 643 you can read I primi partigiani(cetnici) si raccolsero nella Bosnia e nel Montenegro nel maggio 1941 intorno il generale Mihajlovic al quale il governo esule riservò il ministero della guerra: translate First partisans(cetnici) organized themselves in Bosnia and Montenegro in may 1941 under command of general Mihajlovic who received ministry of war by exiled government. In fact Mihajlovic's partisan troops were helped by anti axis armies but later political decisions of Churchill and Truman were a true disaster in Yugoslavia and the great criminal of war Tito was chief killer at Bleiburg and Foibe massacres: where are foibe in this article? Where are OZNA e UDBA organized by Tito in this artcle? Where are numbers of dissidents executed by Tito? For this article Tito was leader of Yugoslavia: historical false because Tito was a criminal dictator! utente Pio
 * Well, the encyclopaedia you are quoting is wrong:
 * partisans and chetniks are two different things; therefore, you cannot say "partisans(cetnici)" - that contradiction in terms
 * nobody organised in Bosnia and Montenegro: partisans organised themselves all around Yugoslavia, and Chetniks organised themselves on Ravna Gora in Serbia
 * partisans did not organise temselvees under Draza Mihailovic, but under Comunist party of Yugoslavia.
 * This sentence from this encyclopaedia of yours is full of uncorrect statements. --Dijxtra 11:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to talk some sense here. It's not really disputed that Mihailović's Chetniks worked on organizing a rebellion since May 1941. They even cooperated with Partisans until the end of that year. It's also quite likely that some of the attacks on Germans in summer and autumn 1941 around Užice that Yugoslav post-war history attributed to Partisans, were actually carried out by Chetniks. Also, it is a fact that there were some Chetniks organized early in Bosnia and Montenegro too, and that in Montenegro they fought together with Partisans against Italians in the initial rebellion.

So, yes, Chetniks did start organising a rebellion in Serbia before Partisans did (what happened later does not matter for this issue). But in whole of Yugoslavia, it was still communists that were first. Liberation Front of the Slovenian People was organized on 27 April 1941, and the first actual physical action against Axis powers after the capitulation was carried out in Maribor on 29 April by local young communists. Zocky | picture popups 19:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, JUST READ THIS ARTICLE: THE FIRST SISAK PARTISAN BRIGADE. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE FIRST ARMED RESISTANCE UNIT WAS FORMED BY PARTISANS AT THE START OF THE BARBAROSSA OFFENSIVE. IT WAS FORMED BY CROATS IN THE BREZOVICA FOREST NEAR SISAK, CROATIA. THERE IS A HUGE MONUMENT THERE TO COMMEMORATE THIS FACT! (THE ITALIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA CRACKS ME UP! ;D) DIREKTOR

Historical truth
pio, Tito was not a criminal dictator. Are you aware of what you are saying? He liberated Yugoslavia and is respected world wide. For more information on the partisans visit: Tito and his People P.S. If you are talking about the Cetniks and the Ustase, they were both enemies of the Partisans.

Propaganda
Zocky, Dijxtra, Darko you make only communist and titoist propaganda: don't disturb collaborators of Wikipedia. Utente Pio
 * I just can't agree with you Italian people. You are very wrong man. I suggest you read some books. And I mean books from the both sides. About Tito I can say that there were bad things done, but when a revolution comes, bad things usually happen. Just look at the French revolutions at the end of 18th century. Bloody. About people beeing killed in foibe, well do you deny that Italian soldiers killed Slovenian civilians in ww2? I think you can't and I also think there were a lot more of them than people in foibe. Neither should have been done, but we can't do anything else about it except telling future generations that it is not good. Not spreading further hatred.
 * About Tito, a communist dictator, that would place him on the same spot as Stalin, but we all know Stalin sent MILLIONS of people to die in camps while Tito did actually hold the Yugoslavia together.
 * The sad part is that 100 years ago Trieste was Slovenian/Croatian/Italian pretty much mixed, but now most of people there don't even know that Slovenia is a few km west over the border! Talk about forcibly assimilating people and respecting international treaties. Slovenian natives in Italia are still considered as garbage. --Neikius 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ma sta italiani pricaju? Tito je oslobodio Jugoslaviju a oni mogu da puse nazisticki kurac. Jebo italiju!  JEBO ITALIJU!

Comunisti slavi volete la guerra? Volete crepare? Danilo

AFTER WW2 YUGISLAVIA COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY PASTED ITALY, IT HAD THE 5th STRONGEST ARMY IN EUROPE. THE ITALIAN ARMY COULDN'T TAKE 200 METERS OF GREEK TERRITORY. IT WAS THE WORLDS MOST COMICAL ARMY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, FAR MORE FAMOUS FOR IT'S RETREATS THAN DEFENCE. :D :D BELIEVE ME, YOU WOULD HAVE A BORDER ON THE RIVER PAD (PO) IF YOU HADN'T COWARDLY BACKED DOWN OVER TRST (TRIESTE). DIREKTOR

Don't disturb collaborators of this site. (YEAH, I'D SAY YOU'RE ALL COLLABORATORS (LOOK IT UP, GREAT COLLABORATOR OF THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, YOU CAN'T SPELL FFS DIREKTOR). Your communist and titoist propaganda are infamous. The great assassin dictator Tito was master of Miloscevic: foibe massacres; the mausoleum of jugoslav dictator is great insult against Italians and a lot of jugoslavs executed by dictator. A lot of slovenes were executed by killer Tito not Benito Mussolini: Mussolini for you was leader or dictator? Mussolini for you was killer of many slovenes more than Tito? Tito was criminal dictator more than Mussolini but now Tito has mausoleum not Mussolini! Do you like dictator as Tito, Mussolini, Miloscevic, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, Gheddafi....? Do you know how many italian soldiers stay now in ex Jugoslavia for criminal dictators as Tito and his pupil Miloscevic? Do you like ethnic jugoslav wars too? Stop titoist propaganda, stop it! collaborator Pio


 * Pio.. Tito defended his country against Italian-nazi puppet state. The Italians are the worst of all. They are scared of everyone and follow everyone who is bigger. Italians committed horrible atrocities against Yugoslav peoples and Tito had the right to execute all of you. Shame on you for being uneducated! DV

I belive that only Yugoslavs of Tito's era know what Yugoslavia was really like. Everyone else can make of it what they'd like.

Excuse me! Helloooooo? Tito wasn't a dictator, he was a great lider! I don't know the wright number of killed Slovenes by Tito or Italians by Mussolini, but I know the yugoslavian standard of living - made by Tito. What Mussolini did for his nazi Italia? 3 or 4 years glory and territorial occupations (for ex. Italian occupation on Yugoslavia)? How many people were hungry during his time? Just to compare to you - in Titos time most of the citizens were employed. (Written by Darko from Macedonia 05.05.2006)


 * I guess it all depends on your definition of "dictator". I realize that Tito doesn't fit the negative connotations associated with the word "dictator", but the fact that he ruled for life and did not hold any national elections for his position definately does fit the description of "dictator", or at least part of it.  --JFred 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ITALY OCCUPIED YUGOSLAVIA, AFTER THE GERMANS GAVE THEM THE TERRITORY (ITALY DIDN'T DEFEAT A REAL ARMY IN IT'S ENTIRE HISTORY), NOT VICE VERSA. ITALIANS KEPT CONCENTRATION CAMPS ON DALMATIAN TERRITORY AND TORTURED AND MASSACRED MANY TIMES MORE INNOCENT CROATS THAN ALL THE FOIBA'S COMBINED. THE FASCISTS HAD IT COMING! DIREKTOR

Recent edits and reverts
A non-registered editor has been inserting changes into the article, and other editors (including me) have been reverting them. Instead of continuing this boring pattern, let's discuss the issues here: Zocky | picture popups 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Leader is a neutral description of Broz's role in post-war Yugoslavia. It doesn't mean that he was good or that he was bad, just that he was in charge. OTOH, the view that Tito was a dictator is disputed by most historians and political scientists. His rule was certainly authoritarian, but that alone doesn't make it a dictatorship.
 * Calling Chetniks "partisans" in an article about Yugoslav history is simply wrong. The word "partisans" is in some languages used as a general synonym for "guerilla fighters", but that isn't so either in English or in south Slavic languages. In fact, it was "chetnik" that originally meant "a guerilla fighter" in Serbian.
 * The youths that set German vehicles on fire in Maribor were members of SKOJ - the youth wing of Communist Party of Yugoslavia. "Young communists" is a perfectly accurate and neutral description.
 * Other issues, like foibe, OZNA and UDBA are or should be discussed in appropriate articles. If you have any sources which talk about Tito's personal role in those matters, please provide citations.

Obscene insults in other Languages
Wikipedia is, in my view, a noble attempt to increase knowledge and understanding and to democratise it. We are all brought up with cultural predjudices, and therefore learning the whole truth about history is often an uncomfortable experience. It certainly has been in my case! There will be facts and events which challenge what we would like to believe. This is why it is so important not to make assertions without quoting evidence. Also, this is an English language page and non-English words and phrases should not be used without translation.

It is totally against the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia rules to make obscene insults like "Jebo italiju!" etc. It does not contribute to the search for what is in Tito's case a complex set of truths. It may well show the unfitness of those concerned to contribute to a project whose guidelines they do not respect! Perhaps a little shame and some apologies are called for?

Incidentally, I would strongly recommend Fitzroy Maclean's book 'Eastern Approaches'. Not only is it an important primary source on Tito, and some of the other key Yugoslav figures; but it also gives a thorough and insightful description of the 1938 show trials in Moscow and life in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Maclean detested communism, which makes his observations about Tito very interesting, He was also chairman of the British-Yugoslav friendship society for many years. In 'Eastern Approaches' Maclean also gives a potted history of Yugoslavia pre-WWII. No doubt most sides in the recent conflicts could find things to be offended about, but it certainly helped me understand what was going on during the dreadful and tragic events of the nineties. Sasha 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear editors
I have been following this page for a few days now, and have noticed the Italian editors seem to have a certain view of Tito. I am guessing it's because of the information provided by Italy to its citizens. I was wondering if any Italians on here have accessed non-Italian sources for info on Tito that might say something about Tito that the Italian sources aren't. --JFred 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it is Italian editors, rather 1 Italian editor (Jxy and PIO). There are other topics which this same person has been editing to put the same information back in.  Thankfully there is an Italian editor who respects NPOV who usually fixes the problems. Recently, he himself has been attacked, along with me (in Italian mind you), where this same users accuses him of various things (please see his user talk page. --Zivan56 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thought there were others further up this page. Any, I just wanted to get a better understanding of where they, or he was coming from (i.e. what has the Italian Government been telling its citizens).  It appears, to me anyway, that Italy has been putting a negative spin on Tito, but considering how WW2 ended for Italy, it's to be expected.  Since I am not ethnically close to the situation as many editors of this article are, I was hoping to be a voice of reason between the different sides.  Just out of curiosity, what sections of this article were the major focus of the POV statements?  --JFred 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; I only recently started visiting this article talk page. The negative spin is probably largely due to both historic and current day events.  I know there was a very controversial film release in Italy (2 summers ago or so) about this specific time period, where members of the JNA were portrayed as inhuman beasts.  There was one part where two soldiers were talking about how they raped women in Italy, and how they want to go back and steal the children.  Facist troops were portrayed as heros and none of the stuff they did, or anything negative, was shown at all.  Obviously this upset mostly Croats and Italians, where Croatia accused the then current right-wing goverment of fostering the development of hate (I believe they funded the film, but don't recall).  On the historical side of things, the region has always had very strong tension between one another.  Trieste, I believe, has recently had a very large rise in the number of nationalists, which is not the case in the rest of Italy further west.  Hope that give you some sort of background of the current tensions.
 * In regards to the article, its probably a combination of nationalism plus many other things which may be "taught" to Italians or just a growing nationalist movement. The main recent problem was to do with the alleged war crimes and calling Tito a communist dictator.  There is not so much disagreement, as there was an edit war going in with regards to this.  If you look at the change log you will see I had to revert it as it was extremely POV and sometimes quite false depending on the change made.   Either way, its not in my scrope to go into details about psycology and current Italian nationalism with regards to this topic. --Zivan56 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, or hvala as they say in Croatian (used to date one). I hadn't heard about that movie.  Maybe with the new Government in Italy it won't be so biased.  Anyway, it seems a shame that Jxy and PIO don't realize how POV their edits really are.  --JFred 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And how tremedously uncivil they are. --Dijxtra 11:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

'''Neutral administrators you can see now: only insults by Dijxtra and Zivan! Again insults! They are two flamers'''. Canadian user is POV very much and asks proof of falsified election of 1945: it's absurd because the answer is in books of history in every language, english and serb or croat too! Concerning films, i know croatian films in connection with Bleiburg massacre: do you know? If you research word Bleiburg in croatian language, you can find a lot of sites and some films! Moreover in article you must citing personality cult imposed by dictator Broz: like Lenin and Stalin, some towns were renamed! For example, Podgorica, capital of indipendent State Montenegro, was renamed Titograd.--PIO 17:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How is asking for proof POV? Excuse me for not having thorough knowledge of of that election.  Heck, I'm not even trying to take sides, I'm just trying to understand where everyone is coming from on the issue.  Are Zivan56 and Dijxtra completely innocent in this?  No, but your edits and your buddy Jxy's edits to the article page are in obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and your comments on this page can easily be viewed as being in violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy (calling Zivan and Dijxtra "flamers" is considered a personal attack).  I suggest you cool down (Jxy too) and read Wikipedia's guide to civility or I will report this ENTIRE page here.  Ciao.  --JFred 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * JFred, if you take a look at his actions on Istrian_exodus and Foibe massacres, you will see that that he was worth reporting long ago. Apparantly, his idea of vandalism is exactly the opposite of the meaning of the word.  This can be seen when he was praising (these changes) someone who clearly vandalised this article some time ago.  Then he again started writing comments believed to be critical of  these  two users.  I would have thought someone like him would have been banned long ago for this, but apparantly it is not the case :\ --Zivan56 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually those edits are more POV pushing than vandalism. --JFred 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Albanians are jealous that Yugoslavia was a strong country with a strong leader, so they come here to relieve their anger.

Missing info
I am doing a small text about Tito as homework and there seems to be no info on the causes of his death here in his article. In the external links, in titoville (http://www.titoville.com/partfour.html), there is some info. Could an experienced editor perhaps confirm and include this info in the article? Also I once had a sound file which was apparently the radio announcement of Tito's death. Althoug it will be of no use for my homework, perhaps it coud be something interesting for the wikicommons page on Tito? I thought that I got that file from titoville but I seem to have lost the file and can't find it again... Thanks 85.138.58.63 02:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag
POV tag needs because some users make only communist propaganda! Josip Broz and communiststs were not first partisans!
 * Could you please provide refenece for that? Are you suggesting there were two movements in Yugoslavia in WWII that were named as partisans?

Josip Broz was brutal dictator who organized OZNA and UDBA who killed hundreds of anti communist democratics!
 * Could you please provide referenec that Tito was directly involved in repressive actions of UDBA and OZNA?

Josip Broz and his collaborators killed hundred of thousands chetniks, ustasa, domobranci and democratic partisans from Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Crna Gora in Bleiburg and foibe massacres! --Jxy 14:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Krasna Gora is in Poland, Tito's partisans didn't operate there, they operated only on Balkans. Apart from that, could you provide reference for existance of a movement which is called "democratic partisans"? Aaaaand, could you provide a reference that Tito is responsible for massacres of occupators? And, it is not "domobranci" but "domobrani". --Dijxtra 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His changes hardly constitute this tag. Even on the Italian Wikipedia his edits have been reverted. The above statements alone strip him of all credibility, not to mention sanity at the same time. --Zivan56 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You announce a lot of lies! My edits in italian version even have been accepted! You, Dixtra and others are only fanatic communists!--Jxy 10:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do not provide references for your statements, I will have to remove the tag you placed. If you do not stop attacking other contributors, you will be blocked from editing. --Dijxtra 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

References are in above statements: see historical false, Josip Broz Tito Was an Evil Communist and others. I don't attack, my are simple definitions!--Jxy 18:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not provided any evidence of any of the stuff you have written.  Furthemore, you have removed a large chunk of credible information from the topic (especially around the subject of the start of resistance) --Zivan56 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you remove my informations, i can remove yours! It's indisposition!--Jxy 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that I did not add any new information to the article which you would be able to delete. You are deleting anything that does not match your POV regardless of who added the information.  I am deleting your incorrect and non factual information, there is a huge difference between the two.
 * Removing "our" information because we are removing "yours" is called disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. That is forbidden. See here: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

My sources are in encyclopaedia britannica and italian enciclopedia UTET: see above again in citated sections!.--PIO 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious, as according to Britannica link his main description title is: "Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivan56 (talk • contribs)
 * Could you please provide links to your references? --Dijxtra 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In primis: you sign your statements because rule it's! In secundis: you consider a simple definition statesman but is not important very much! In britannica you can read about Mihailovic and chetniks! I can propose a new version regaining a sentence from old version of history about this article: this sentence in section post war is not mine! Now remove tag and edit new version,--PIO 11:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are proposing we rewrite history to suit what you think actually happened? Give me a break...  If the sentence in not yours, please see the copyright guidlines for Copyright, as anybody elses work is forbidden from being posted unless it is not copyright.  I would gladly remove the tag, but since you keep editing the article, we have to warn users about non-factual information which you are posting.  --Zivan56 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You take a break but i can revert! Non factual informations are not mine! I can propose section repression under Broz's communist regime as well!Dont't disturb my edit even in the night! Quiet! --PIO 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are admitting that your information is incorrect, but its ok since you didn't write it? I will edit as I see fit and when I see fit in order to maintain wikipedia's reputation. --Zivan56 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra, can you do something to stop this guy from editing this page? It's quite clear his intention is to upset a number of people and get his personal beliefs to be interpreted as facts --Zivan56 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My informations are correct! Incorrect behaviour is only by you! Your psychologism is from OZNA or UDBA? Stop it! --PIO 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have been proven to be incorrect in almost every statement you have made in the talk page; therefore you should stop it. --Zivan56 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have many sources, this is just one:                               []! You can read Tito and his lager in italian language: about Goli otok and many lager.

Removed content in Italian language. This page is intended for English speakers. Please refrain from posting in languages other than English on this page. If you have English translation of the posted article you are welcome to post it as long as it meets copyright criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.46.118 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So some obscure Italian only site which seems to have its own agenda is your "source"? Do you have any valid sources such as acedemic journals? I could probably find many sites which share a wide variety from very negative, to very positive POV on this subject in many languages, but they would not be considered valid at all (just like the site you posted). Furthemore, I suggest once again looking over the copyright rules for wikipedia which I have posted before. --Zivan56 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a reason why you are adding redudant information. Everything you have added to this date has been stated in Foibe massacres minus your own POV. I will remove the tag as soon as you calm down and stop adding this. --Zivan56 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has many informations not accurate!--PIO 17:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to be the one with the inaccurate information. Nobody was executed for wanting democracy, only people who collaborated with the Axis powers.  Furthemore, what you are failing to understand is that most of these executions were carried out by local partisan groups, which Tito had little control over except for the fact that they looked at him for general leadership.  Now, if you had a document with his signature or an account by a partisan group which recieved orders directly from him, I would have no problem with the changes.  Unfortunately, you appear to be writing "folk tales" which you have heard being distributed as rumours.  Either way, this has nothing to do with the article in Tito, rather it is simply a story that appears to be circulatin in Italy as to what happened. --Zivan56 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the sysop who deleted the above text from it.wikipedia because it is very likely to be a violation copyright. I am not sysop here but I still think it should be deleted. As I told Pio on it.wiki, a link would be enough (and text in Italian seems even more out of place here). --Cruccone 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

my objections
Informations not accurate are:
 * Josip Broz was not a leader but a dictator for a lot of years: 35 years! The word leader means who has democratic election by people, leader is a guidance for spontaneous and free supporters! Broz used violence, repression, terrorism, massacres against jugoslav people and a lot of children in Bleiburg and other places!
 * The word dictator is not citated even in the entire article: perhaps Broz was a saint or a religious leader?
 * Some sources mention Mihailovic and royalist Serbs as first partisans while some other sources mention Broz and communists as first partisans: citation needed of both in the article!
 * OZNA and UDBA are not citated even in the entire article: perhaps these organizations were products of Saint Spirit?
 * Terrorism of repression is not citated even in the entire article: perhaps Goli otok an other prisons were in North Pole?
 * Ethnic cleansing against Italians and exodus are not citated about foibe massacres!
 * Repression of communist Broz's regime was valid for unity of Jugoslavia: this is a supposition. Probably democratic system was most valid for liberty of every single Republic of jugoslav federation and now we could see Jugoslavia united and democratic without wars and we could see italian soldiers in their nation not in Kosovo and Bosnia!
 * Broz was not benevolent dictator: he was like Lenin or Castro!

I invite an administrator to edit a version with accurate informations. --PIO 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

counterobjections
You seem to be confusing "accuracy" with what you believe to be true. Most people that are editing this article have experienced his "rule," and have made countless statements here to contradict the ones you are providing. Here is a reply to each single one:

1. That's not what many who actually lived in Yugoslavia would say. He was a well liked leader in general, and the only people who hated his "rule" were in fact nationalists or smallers groups opposed to him for various religious and other grounds. In a general consensus, most people were quite happy with him being a "dictator," as he brought stability and safety for many south slavic people (which can't be said for todays democratic countries). There is no argument that in the early years of Yugoslavia after the war that he used those to control lawlessness and people who wanted to bring instability, but there was definately no massacres of people as you have described under his direct rule. There were many reprisal killings of fasists, no matter what their ethnicity was, which was mostly done by local communities which Tito had little to no control over. In short, he was not directly linked to any of these postwar massacres which you have described. What you put in the article was that he was directly responsible for this, which is quite a contraversial statement at best.

2. Go check any other "dictator" and you will see they all say leader (unless they have been recently vandalised). A leader is a general term for some who "leads." I suggest consulting a dictionary.

3. This is a whole different topic, which was remedied by putting in "among the first." Although the Chetniks may have been the "first," they certainly did not do anything to attack the axis powers (they joined them later in fact).

4. OZNA and UDBA each have their own seperate page. They were quite standard security organizations which all countries around the world have. If you put that here, then go through all the presidents of the USA and mention the CIA. Any usefulness in that? Furthemore, those organizations functions even after his death to the breakup of Yugoslavia, so I fail to see how they were "his organizations"

5. Again, every country has high security prisons. What does Goli otok have to do with him? It was created around WW1 by the Austro-Hungarian empire to house Russian prisoners of war. He did not send people he disliked there personally, those people were chosen by security organizations and League_of_Communists_of_Yugoslavia.

6. Now we get to your nationalistic statements. People were murdered regardless of ethnicity for collaborating or being part of the AXIS powers. Italians were not specifically targetted, and there was no ethnic cleansing. This is a common misconception spread by Italian right-wing politicians who often say communists are "barbaric." In fact, Italian Facist troops killed countless innocent Yugoslav civilians during their occupation, so these were mostly reprisals by Yugoslav people against who their interpreted to be the agressor. Again, Tito signed no order and did not order anybody to attack Italians specifically. What did they think? That everybody would love them and accept them after their fellow countrymen murdered thousands of Yugoslavs? Give me a break...

7. I have yet to see "democracy" work properly in any of the current countries (except Slovenia perhaps). There would have been seperation right away had it not been for Tito, followed by bloody civil wars (which was what happened when "democracy" came). Regardless, he was a crucial figure in holding the country together. It would have stayed to this day had it not been for nationalists like Milosevic coming to power "democratically."

8. That's not what most people would say that lived in Yugoslavia. Living standards were the highest in Europe before the 80's, and people were quite prosporous.

It is quite obvious you have a strong Italian right-wing nationalist sentiment when talking about Tito. However, you do a good job of covering it up. Wikipedia has a very good description of someone who acts like yourself. See POV_pushing

--Zivan56 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

For me is evident that previous user is a great supporter of communist totalitarianism and i am against every kind of totalitarianism! Broz killed a lot of Jugoslavs more than Italians: probably i am italian but jugoslav nationalist because i don't like wars inter-jugoslav Republics! For me is impossible an agreement with a communist who is against personal freedom!--PIO 14:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how can you be against Tito? The Chetnik/Ustasa goverments that would have came, had the Soviet Union not invaded Yugoslavia for some reason (which is a sure thing), would have been 100% totalitarian fasists.  You seem to be contradicting yourself with the wars statement as well, as there would have been bloody civil wars had Tito not held a firm grip on power in the first place, and millions would have been killed.  Yugoslav people hade PLENTLY of freedom during his "rule," which included being allowed to go to any country they wanted for whatever purposes.  Overall, it seem that you have little knowledge of what actually took place, and istead seem to have a fixed idea about communism being "barbaric." --Zivan56 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Democide
I have removed this paragraph from the article for the moment.

There is evidence that there was democide during Tito's rule. Estmates are that about a million people in Yugoslavia were killed.

The references that back this up are as follows:

Prcela, John, and Guldescu, Stanko (Eds.) (1970). Operation Slaughterhouse: Eyewitness Accounts of Postwar Massacres in Yugoslavia. Philadelphia: Dorrance & Co. 557 pp. "This describes much of the democide of Croatians and others by Tito's communist (partisan) forces as World War II ended in their victory, and gives testimonials of eyewitnesses, often survivors of particular massacres. The book ignores the genocide of the Serbs by the Croatians described in the above work. Prcela and a colleague calculated that 600,000 Croats were murdered by the Tito regime (p. 121)."

The second source gives no further information. This is a second hand summary of a source. This is pretty bad. At best we could say something like, "R.J. Rummel reports that John Prcela and Stanko Guldescu calculate that 600,000 Croats were murdered after the end of the second world war."

- FrancisTyers · 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you not see the graph on the second link, which is also on the democide page? -- Dubh  agan  23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This site is not what I'd call a reliable source e.g. It has "Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-1987, but Tito died in '80. We could go with something along the lines of:


 * "According to the book Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder in the Twentieth Century, over one million individuals were killed in Yugoslavia between 1944 and 1987, from 1944 to 1980, Tito was president. R.J. Rummel reports that John Prcela and Stanko Guldescu calculate that 600,000 Croats were murdered after the end of the Second World War."


 * - FrancisTyers · 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, from the democide page, "Note that most estimates for mass murder are more or less disputed", and "Note that Rummel's estimates for mass murder do not necessarily have broad academic acceptance" - FrancisTyers · 23:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a discussion from earlier on in the talk page, in full:
 * IMPORTANT: Tito ordered killings of about 500,000 of his own people (Yugoslavians). Article is not mentioning that. Why not ?


 * <i>Do you have a source for that claim? I haven't seen proof that what you say is true.  If you have a reliable source, then it can be added to the article.  Otherwise, without a source, it sounds POV.  -- Dubh  agan  17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * <i>Of course, here you go: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHARNY.CHAP.HTM where it says: "Prcela and a colleague calculated that 600,000 Croats were murdered by the Tito regime (p. 121)."


 * <i>Ok, it is added, with link to reference ( http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM ). See also democide with same data.


 * <i>New subtitle "Tito as a dictator" should be posted with this data.


 * <i>Since your familiar with it, why don't you write it? Nothing's stopping you.  Just include those links and your set.  I, or someone, can help format it after the fact if your not sure how to do that.  -- Dubh  agan  19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * <i>I wrote it, with references, but user Zocky delete it with all references! Why? Can you please put it back? I just wrote some facts and then someone else can add something ?! Zocky didn't explain anything, he just delete it all without comment?!


 * I've readded it, and rewritten it, and changed the placement of the references. It was probably the way it was worded and the placement of the references that caused him to delete it.  -- Dubh  agan  22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just crazy, guy killed million people and article is not even mention it. In fact whole article is written in a way you may assume he was a great and kind leader to his people. This article is POV just becouse of that.


 * That he himself killed a million people is highly disputed. - FrancisTyers · 21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That anybody killed a million people in Yugoslavia isn't even disputed because no credible source claims such a thing. Zocky | picture popups 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Zocky you are Slovene and you can find in Slovenia this book: Tudi mi smo umrli za domovino in connection with bestial massacre of 15.000 Slovene Domobrani; you can translate for collaborators Slovenian sources report. All collaborators can read these data Stime delle vittime delle persecuzioni per stato: Broz was a criminal? Yes, i think so!--PIO 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Precise number of executed quislings after the war is still disputed, and is unlikely to be close to 15000. Anyway, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it presumes that these people (Slovenian Domobranci) were innocent. Yes, they were not individually tried, but no, they were not civilians and yes, they were nazi-collaborators, and yes, they were still wearing uniforms of an axis-aligned force after WWII had ended. Were they given due process? Clearly not. Were they summarily executed for no reason whatsoever? Definitely not. Zocky | picture popups 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Universities are reliable sources: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM and therefore the number "about million" shouldn't be disputed.
 * Ridiculous claims become no less ridiculous when posted on a university's website. The inflation of the number of killed is totally tasteless. Zocky | picture popups 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, we should believe *you* more than information on a university .edu site? If you have reliable source that have the number, we can then write "estimates are between X and Y". At least that, so we can remove "TotallyDisputed" icon?


 * Internet is not a reliable source for "the numbers killed" in any respect as anybody can be an author of anything. I too can write a paperwork stating that Tudzman (Croatian president) killed 10 million Serbs, put it on UNI page and what then? Would you put that on his page as a credible source? In cases like this only reliable historical information should be quoted and .edu site clearly does not meet this criteria. If you find an objective historical book stating that millions have been killed, I shall not dispute it. But for now I too agree that this number should not be added to this page.
 * Let me add some information for people outside of former Yugoslavia so they may understand this discussion. Since the break up of Yugoslavia there has been a rise of nationalistic tendencies in most of the new states which seek to rewrite history in the image of their forefathers. In Serbia there is a strong Chetniks camp, in Croatia their counterparts are called Ustashi. They have their own view of history which is usually not substantiated by any serious historian (even in Croatia or Serbia). We therefore have to be quite prudent in what is included on the pages which have a strong ideological connotation. --Odisej 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"As this week began, five columns spearheaded by tanks moved against Tito's forces south and east of Benja Luka. Tito appeared to have suffered heavy losses. He called on Yugoslavs serving under Serbian Puppet Milan Nedich, Croatian Quisling Ante Pavelich, or Chetnik leaders (probably meaning General Draja Mihailovich) to join his forces. With seeming desperation he warned: "Those collaborators who fail to heed the final invitation will be treated as enemies when the day of settlement comes." While Tito Fights, Time Magazine, Jan 17 1944--Gbajramo 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fun Stuff
I find it funny how so many of you are trying to be historians with a PHD on Yugoslav and Titoistic history, when in fact none of you are.

they could be. you don't know. i don't know. wikipedia doesn't know.

My sentiments exactly. =) I wouldn't be surprised if all of them are Yugoslavians. Most Slavs are like that- they think they know everything about history and politics, and like to cram their pretentions down our throats.  Then again, a lot of men are like that, but mostly only concerning their own country (and perhaps one theirs is currently at war or in disagreement with).


 * You apparently know everything about Slavs and are cramming it down our throats. Perhaps you have a PhD in Slavistics? Nikola 09:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * lol Am I? I didn't realise that putting a comment on a forum was akin to cramming it down your throat.  But this is being said by the same person who claims they speak "four" languages, three of which are one and the same.  Bravo for knowing Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian.  How did you become such a wide linguist... lol a "PhD in Slavistics?"  So if I go to school for eight years and am told about Slavic culture by others, then I am credible?  And conversely, only then?

I have a very good friend who is a Bosnian Serb. He grew up near Sarajevo and when he was a teenager his parents had the sense and werewithal to send him to America to avoid the war. He would speak to us in glowing terms about Tito and pre-war Yugoslavia so that we, who went to college with him, thought that the country was a paradise. Where everyone got a world-class education and went to ski in Greece on holiday. Then one day my wife asked if everyone in Yugoslavia had the same advantages that he had had growing up and he replied: "no...not the peasants" (with a distain in his voice that we had never heard before). Since then, we really haven't known what to think about Tito. I mean, my friend is a good and honest man, but is very clear to us that his opinion of Tito and life in Yugoslavia depended greatly upon his place in the social and economic order. Another thing that I picked up from hearing him speak about his homeland was that the war (at least in his opinion) was more about fear and centuries old hatred, then religion or ideology. And, although I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, I cannot believe that anything but a very, very strong hand could have kept the country together for so many years. If that is true, then perhaps the discussion of whether or not Tito was good or bad leader boils down to what price one feels peace, unity and (relative) prosperity is worth (and whether or not you were on his good side). Jsminch 07:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, both my parents come from ex-yugoslavia so maybe I can tell you what your Yugoslav friend means. Tito was like a father to the Yugoslavs.. No doubt about that. And religion was really used to identify as nationality since without religion we'd basically be the same people. Economy and "jugoslavija radi beograd se gradi" killed Yugoslavia.. Meaning, Yuoslavia works while Belgrade is constructed... No one wanted all the money to go to Serbia for idiotic reasons - people wanted the army to be lowered (since Europe was settling down security-wise and no threats were visible).. Serbs feared this kind of lifestyle and wanted to overtake Yugoslavia by using propaganda and force. However, right now that's irrelevant. Tito wasn't Stalin. Tito was a father for the Yugoslavs. Go look how many Yugoslavs mourned when he died. The entire country was in mourning. We could travel (meaning, if he wanted to hide something he wouldn't allow this). 2) We had freedom of religion despite what people may claim nowadays. If you were in the government religion was looked down upon, but as a private citizen you could go to orthodox church, catholic church, mosque.. No one cared. Tito's WORDS and HEART and SPIRIT and his GOODNESS held Yugoslavia, not his fist.

Josip Broz Tito Was an Evil Communist
People who don't like Tito are Nazis and facists: the world would be a better place if other countries had followed Tito's lead.

Any person who says that the late Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito was a communist, does not understand the S.F.R. Yugoslavia. Only those who lived in Yugoslavia can understand the great things that Tito did for the nation. Even those who have traveled to the former Yugoslavia and seen the problems, and that have talked about Tito with the local people, only then will a outside person of non-Yugoslavian blood understand that Tito was not a communist.


 * I was born in Yugoslavia, during Tito's rule. Tito was one of Lenin’s evil offsprings, together with Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu, and Fidel Castro. He was leader of Yugoslav Communist Party for over 40 years, until he died in 1980. He was dictator of Yugoslavia for almost 35 years. At his funeral, his coffin was buried with intonation of communist anthem (The Internationale).

Thank you for crossing out the word "NOT" from the head line. I also was born in the former Yugoslavia, and I was given the chance to study in western Europe on Economics,History, and Politics. After I finnished my PHd in Historical Studies of the Balkans, it is easy to see that Tito was not a Communist. On Paper, yes he was. In real life he was not. It is easy for you to talk. You are most likey a Ustasha, or Chetnik. You say that Tito was a off spring of Lenin, and Stalin. But yet Tito split with the Soviet Union in June of 1948. That is your first mistake. You also say Tito was a off spring along with Mao. Mao for a long time did not work with Tito because of Tito's changes from Marxist Communism, to Titoism. That is your second mistake. Then you go on to say Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh end all ties with Yugoslavia during the 50s and 60s for not comming back to the Soviet Bloc after Khrushchev made his trip to Belgrade. That is your thrid mistake. Then you say Pol Pot. The Yugoslav UDBa and KOS worked with western nations on gaining info on Pol Pot, and his operations. That is your fourth mistake. Then you say Ceausescu. Tito hated and used Ceausescu and made it very clear in many books about Tito and Yugoslavia. That is your sixth mistake. Then you end your list of world leaders with Castro, whom Tito (in front of the Non-Aligned Movement) yelled and removed from the Non-Aligned Movement during the 6th summit in Cuba in 1979. That is your seventh mistake. You seem to be wrong on everything you say. You are right about Tito being the leader of the Yugoslav Communist Party, and rulling Yugoslavia for 35 years. However you seem to have no education on the subject and really have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you wish to know the truth about Tito, because like I said you are most likely a Ustash, or Chetnik. But in all reality you are what the Yugoslavs call a "SELJAK"


 * I’m too young to be ustasha or chetnik. Thank you for calling me “seljak”. Please wake up, there are no “Yugoslavs” around, for more than 15 years. Why you speak about Yugoslavs in present times? Tito WAS a communist, it is historic fact. Yugoslavia was a communist country - that is also a historic fact. The fact that we were allowed to leave the country doesn’t change it. ... Check ideological iconography, legal system, political system, jails. The way of Tito’s dealing with his political opponents (Informbiro, Rankovic, Srpski liberali, Hrvatsko proljece…) is typical for communist dictatorship. He was “elected” to be “president for lifetime” – “witouth any time limit of his mandate”. Give me a break!


 * BTW, what you mean with “I was given the chance to study” Somebody paid for that, somebody allowed you to do that, or what? Would you please you if I describe you as “komunisticko kopile”? During Tito’s time, that was the proper way to describe his followers. So...


 * Guantamo Bay... hmm is this legal jail? George W. Bush is he a world police man? Is US policy a global fact today, they do what they wnat?

I was born in great SFR Yugoslavia, Maribor, I voted Tito for life president, no one forced me or anything! Tito was great and 80% of Yugoslav population did love him, only pro Natzis and big part of Albanians didn’t like him! (This was thank you Tito for helping us to escape Enver Hodzas dictatorship!!!)

It abssured to talk about all these categories like dictator, maybe you prime minister Tony Blair or president Bush or other high persons in policy in west world are dictators but Tito was NOT at all, tell me what is democracy today for you is? What... That you have one vote to election, but don't forget a multi companies do have many more votes e.g. Maersk company from Denmark if Danish state don't set the economy after his opinion he will just move ships to Bahamas flag and pay the tax of Bahamas!

In Yugoslavia you had all right e.g. to sleep in park and no one will hurt you even POLICE! You had all freedom you could wish, every one was allowed to believe in what they want, Moshe’s, Churches where over all...

E.G. in Sarajevo you can find 4 different religious buildings in size of 500m with 500m...

Please pro-west capitalists tell me where else I can find this???

The Answer is no where!!! Coz you guys don't know to enjoy the life...

I am really sorry for you guys in the west how poor you are, money arn't everyting... ;-)

But Soon Balkan will wake up from long winter sleep and will tell you the West FUCK YOU as Tito did!

EU will die soon in 2008 and new wold oredr will be established!

Excuse us all? "Komunisticko kopile"? What the heck are you people on -- and on about? Who gives you the right to decide for us, people who loved, appreciated Yugoslavia for what it was (a progressive movement AWAY from narrow, nationalist, religous MANIA of the 1940s and 1990s that has cost some of us lives of our families, our cities, our homeland, our friends, our right NOT to declare ourselves members of ARIAN-like nations of this or that kind) - what gives you the right? Yes, you can check out Tito's way of dealing with ideological opponents until cows come home, or you can go and check out Tudjman's way of dealing with Serbs, or Milosevic's of dealing with Croats, Muslims and Albanians, and I see much difference - at least, whilst he was alive, we weren't hungry, we lived like human beings who didn't have to care to whom they are going to have to disclose their name and have their noses cut off, their ears cutt off, their throats slit, their skins burnt, their women raped at the end of the 20th century ... He wasn't much worse or better than McCarthy, and look around you right now and tell me that Guantanamo Bays and Goli Otok are not one and the same, in fact, many would argue that Goli Otok was better, at least prisoners were charged and tried BEFORE being brought there! As for Bleiburg, yes, it did happen. But so did the genocide against the Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in Croatia, and against 100,000 Muslims in Bosnia and Montenegro just a couple of years earlier. But perhaps that doesn't count ... And, yes, you do appear too young to understand that to a lot of people who came out of the WWII minus their families and homes due to the 'humane actions' of Chetniks and Ustashas Tito WAS NOT a dictator but a legitimate leader. As for the non-existence of Yugoslavs, well, sorry to disappoint, but there are a lot of us who still prefer a SUPRANATIONAL identification to the nationalist, religious Balkan micro-fascisms. Some of us are also half-this and quarter-that and prefer non-Arian ways of identification. Sincerely, TB

I think the major problem being had here, is not whethor or not he is a communist, for he clearly isn't, its rather the perception of what people think communism is. As it turns out, suprise suprise, no government claiming to be communist has ever been communist. The closest they get is claiming to be the dictatorship to ensure the switch from private property to communal ownership. Even that is debatable. Its not important to say whethor or not he was a communist, for the fact of the matter is it doesnt matter what he called himself, or what people called him. What matters is the policies he used, and the way he was recieved.

Yugoslavia wasn't communist country, she was socialist- thats not the same. No one of the "communist" countries had established communism (neither U.S.S.R.). There is big diference between socialism and communism.

I' ve noticed what was written about the macedonian's- that they support the serbs fight, which is not true, becouse Macedonian's only have good neighbour relationships, and nothing bigger than that. Macedonian serbs support the serbs fight, not macedonians. written by Darko

Josip Broz Tito Was A Communist
Tito: a communist or not a communist, evil or good, you name it. I was born to poor parents in SFRJ in 1958. I had a free education and became a physician. Now, I am living in the USA, and bring home six digits income. Whenever I get a paycheck, I say "Thank you marshall Tito for free education. Your "dictatorship" enabled me to move quickly into the upper 5% of the american society. Thank you also for free medical care that my parents and grandparents enjoyed. Tito, you did not steal money and did not give it to your own family. You were the only communistic dictator who had the balls to say no to Stalin. You worked all of your life for the interest of you own people. You bowed to no one, and gave me a beautiful and stable childhood and youth. Again, thank you" (Zdenko1945@yahoo.com)


 * You seem to be young, and still don't understand the ideas of government. You tell me to check ideological facts. Like how Yugoslavia in the UN almost always voted with the West and not the WARSAW PACT nations. Or legal system that was many times reviewed by nations like France, UK, and West Germany. And you bring up Rankovic, Rankovic tried to take power. Almost every member of the SKJ was being bugged by the UDBa, under orders from Rankovic. And Rankovic also tried many times to kill members of the Yugoslav leadership that were very close to Tito, Kardelj, Crvenkovski, Kolisevski, Bakaric. Since you talk of Rankovic by name, it seems you are most likely a Serb. And most likely your family had members in the Chetnik groups. Or you could even be Macedonian, because Macedonians also show support for Serb fights. I was also young when Yugoslavia fell. I only in the last 2 years got my PHd in Balkan History. I was sent to study in Western Europe by the government of my country. And it was in school that I learned much about Yugoslavia. My family was also very ANTI-TITO, I was very Anti-Tito until I started to study the topic. When you study like I have about government and history you will learn that yes Tito was a communist and Yugoslavia was communist, however only on paper. Tito him self even said in 1976 "Communism is really no where, and it can never work until people begin to respect, and remove the idea of greed from their minds. But we are very far from that."

You are still missing the point. It’s not about Rankovic – it’s about the method that was used to deal with Rankovic. Public speeches, communist party meetings… that was so typical for communist dictatorship. Finally, Rankovic was not prosecuted. Looks you think too much about my ethnic background and political history of my family, instead of what I’m saying. That was also typical for communist government in Yugoslavia. Who cares about my family or ethnicity? Regarding Tito’s foreign policies, he was very good in balancing between East and West. His “neutral” position was paid with billions of dollars that his government received from USA. However, his foreign policy has nothing to do with his dictatorship and his ideology. You may sell Tito’s quotation about communism to somebody who doesn’t know anything about that. Every single communist regime in the World preached that their society still haven’t reached communism, they are in socialism, in time-consuming process to reach communist society as an ultimate goal. Stalin also didn’t think that communist society is established. So, you may find similar quotations. Tito died 13 years before International Tribunal in Den Haag was established. Otherwise, he could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

TITO? crimes against humanity? child what is wrong with you?! Don't compare a great man like Tito with the likes of Stalin. And realize what you are saying. The country was called SFRY, not CFRY. Also don't fight over who is from which country, he stood for brotherhood. We lost the greatest thing ever, when the war started ... over things like religion and last names.

lol "Crimes against humanity." It's a brilliantly directed show. All that the international tribunal is, is a propoganda spectacle. Everything you said until the last sentence was fine- pretty good, actually, but that is completely irrelevant and unimportant. You should have just stopped at "similar quotations." So what if he could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity? That remark says absolutely nothing, except maybe that he cared about his people. It's amazing that you take up a whole forum arguing over a label, anyway. Who cares whether you call him a communist or a socialist or a Titoist or a Buddhist? The point is that he was a strong leader for Yugoslavia, and everything fell apart after he died. His crime might have been that he didn't live forever.

Hey, TB, You spelled Aryan wrong.


 * IMPORTANT: Tito ordered killings of about 500,000 of his own people (Yugoslavians). Article is not mentioning that. Why not ?


 * Do you have a source for that claim? I haven't seen proof that what you say is true.  If you have a reliable source, then it can be added to the article.  Otherwise, without a source, it sounds POV.  -- Dubh  agan  17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse, here you go: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHARNY.CHAP.HTM where it says: "Prcela and a colleague calculated that 600,000 Croats were murdered by the Tito regime (p. 121)."

Those killed were facist pigs: purging the world of these animals is not a crime. Those who consider the "Yugoslavians" killed as people are facists; why doesn't the article incorporate this.


 * Ok, it is added, with link to reference ( http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM ). See also democide with same data.


 * New subtitle "Tito as a dictator" should be posted with this data.


 * Since your familiar with it, why don't you write it? Nothing's stopping you.  Just include those links and your set.  I, or someone, can help format it after the fact if your not sure how to do that.  -- Dubh  agan  19:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote it, with references, but user Zocky delete it with all references! Why? Can you please put it back? I just wrote some facts and then someone else can add something ?! Zocky didn't explain anything, he just delete it all without comment?!


 * I've readded it, and rewritten it, and changed the placement of the references. It was probably the way it was worded and the placement of the references that caused him to delete it.  -- Dubh  agan  22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wait now! The link is not refering to Tito killing any people.. You people don't even read!! The article mentions 83,500,000 people dead... now that makes no sense.. You people dont even read, you just add senseless links!!! This is why wikipedia will never be a respected source...

assassin!
Broz was an assassin! He was similar to Hoxha or Ho Chi Minh! I am an anarchist from Albania.
 * No, you are User:PIO (adsl-ull-93-213.50-151.net24.it) from Italy with a clear bias against this person. --Zivan56 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Zivan56 are you secret agent 001 of OZNA? You announce a lot of cazzate alias lies: stop it! In Italy live a lot of Albanians! You are communist, fanatic, liar, vandal of articles!--PIO 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:PIO has been blocked for 24 hours because of personal attack. Everybody, please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Dijxtra 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Dijxtra is in huge error! User Zivan above attacked user PIO! You can read: ! Zivan attack so: User:PIO|PIO] stop vandalising this page. I consider Dijxtra a not neutral administrator!--Jxy 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He didn't call him a liar. Calling somebody a liar is personal attack. --Dijxtra 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see some action taken against this user, as they have been making the same old changes which are getting tiring to revert. Thankfully the other pages they have edited have been taken care of by others, so as to stay NPOV. It's really sad to see people abuse wikipedia this way and articles having to be locked because of one person trying to ruin it for all. --Zivan56 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If Tito was like hoxha then mother theresa was adolf hitler... Tito cannot be compared to any of these mentioned above on his worst day. He brought freedom to Yugoslavia and travel.

comparison
You everyboy can read this simple comparison: Augusto Pinochet and János Kádár! In introduction you can read: head of the military dictatorship for the first and communist leader for the second! Are neutral definitions? Communist dictator was the second too! Pinochet leaved power for democracy, Kadar never!--Jxy 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pinochet took power through a coup. Tito was elected. See the difference? --Dijxtra 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Broz was not elected! In 1945 just one election was falsified by titoist gangs! Do you know just one democratic election in 35 years? You don't know history and you are dramatically POV: why are you administrator? Pinochet and Castro: see the difference too?--Jxy 09:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that the election was falsified? --JFred 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And, there were elections all along, in which delegates, including many current politicians in various parties across former Yugoslavia, were elected as representatives of the League of communists, other political organizations (all socialist in character) and even as independent candidates, like Stipe Mesić. Zocky | picture popups 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My two cents
I've notice this page has been protected due to some dispute over its content. Personally, I am not communist (I vote for the Conservative Party of Canada), nor am I or my family from that part of the world (I do have German in me but even they came to Canada before 1900). With that said, I have had an interest in Tito and Yugoslavia since I was 13. Everything I have come across has said the same thing: that Tito was well liked among Yugoslavians, Yugoslavia was the most united under him, and that Yugoslavs enjoyed more prosperity than any other communist country at the time. As for him ordering certain murders and such, I have come across no such thing. Thank You. --JFred 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not sure why, but after reading this entire page, it seems that the Italian editors are the biggest POV pushers here. That's just sad. Anyway, I also find it sad that many of the Anti-Tito people on here don't bother paying attention to the people on here that have experienced Tito's rule first hand. PS. Why do some people on here have trouble understanding the concept of Neutral Point of View? --JFred 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Italian, Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Albanian and possibly Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian and Hungarian sources on Tito have a POV aspect to them. Also, since this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, that only English Language sources should be used for this article. --JFred 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tito and Why War Broke Out: By Darko from Macedonia
~ This was earlier posted but I translated it because I agree 100%. Everyone who is foreign to the Yugoslav topic needs to read this. ~

Josip Broz Tito was a courageous, heroic figure, who was not afraid of losing his life-long career. The United States of America preferred Tito to be in power more than Tito himself. They preferred a strong leader who had the power to stop the Soviet influence and propaganda on the Balkan area. Yugoslavia was not a dictatorship. People were arrested every now and then for domestic harm they intended onto the country. Some people even voiced their support for the Soviet Union! Let us compare the USA with the Former Yugoslavia. How many African American men has the U.S. arrested simply because of racial profiling? And this is a capitalist and democratic state we’re talking about here. Yugoslavia could have still been in existence today had the same economy endured. I wish to also mention the prosperity of S.F.R.Y. We had a brilliant system which had its functions paralyzed due to corrupt and inhumane leaders of the state who wished to profit through thievery after Tito’s death. The reason for the Yugoslav wars during the 1990s was for profit and private gains! Atheism was the communist religion, not the religion of private citizens. Religion was allowed in SFRY: Comrade Tito despised religious figures, and his reason was justified, yet he still allowed them to live like ordinary citizens during his reign. Today they are the richest people in every ex Yugoslav country. I want to stress one more thing about the wars during the '90s in Yugoslavia. The victims were innocent people who were led like sheep by money-induced politicians. The Serbs and Croats were fighting for territory and primarily because of political influence. During the war, Croats and Serbs did exchange gas and oil and both Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman were cooperating when their people were aimlessly fighting. The plan of Milosevic and Tudjman was to divide Bosnia among Serb and Croat territory.. Nobody can understand the Balkans (even we, the people who live here). Everyone is fighting everyone and yet everyone is cooperating with everyone. This is why the Balkan area needs radical communism in order to coexist peacefully despite our knowledge that we are one people divided by religion. (Written by Darko from Republic of Macedonia,08:15 March 2006) (Translated by D.V. March 20th)

At least one understands and supports me! Thank you D.V. (sorry I don't know your name and where are you from). Now the world and we - the Balkans from ex S.F.R.Y. can see what exactly Yugoslavia was, and what Comrade Tito did for us! That's why I don't hate Comrade Tito! Many people would say: "What about Goli- Otok"? It is obviosly that Tito didn't know everything about Goli - Otok and the way of ruling there! Rest in peace Comrade Tito! (Written by Darko 05.05.2006 12:10)

Well written I totally agree, I did not live under Comrade Marshal Tito's rule but I am from Slovenija. Long live Marshal Tito! Sloveniaiscool 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Books
Hi everyone, just wondering are their any good books out their on Tito and Yugoslavia? Nothing too opinionated (if that's possible), just the facts, what life was like, etc etc.


 * Not easy. How about the book Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a Country by John R. Lampe. Did not read it so I would not know if it is any good. A long time ago I also came across a book in which the introduction was written by famous Arthur Miller. If you can get a hold of that one I think it should be useful. --Odisej 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just remembered. There was an article featuring Yugoslavia in National Geographic, published about 20 years ago. I should have it on a CD-rom somewhere. Do you have an e-mail address so could send it to you? Just post it on my page. --Odisej 08:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't know where else to ask, and since everyone here is talking about Tito, one way or the other, I thought I'd give it a shot. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also, since we're on the topic of Tito and Yugoslavia, I'm after the name (and if you have any, photos) of any partizan/communist/tito monuments/buildings in Yugoslavia.


 * Did you try visiting titoville. There are quite a lot of pictures there. For other photos, well, hard to find in English. You can try searching "partizani", "partizanski" on Google or other search engine. You would not find a lot of communist buildings/monuments as they would generally be considered socialist. So try searching for: "socialisticni" ("socialistični") or "socijalisticki" ("socijalistički"). --Odisej 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism was disaster for Yugoslavia and other nations!--PIO 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Odisej! How do I email you? I'm also after some info regarding Tito's residence. I've read he lived in Beli Dvor but that he also had another residence in Belgrade near, 'kuca tveca'. Any pics, info, would be appreciated.


 * Drop me a line to this email: vecni_odisej AT yahoo.com.--Odisej 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is discussion for article not for admirers of dictator Broz!--PIO 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, shutup. --Hurricane Angel 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * dictator Broz stuffed it up your Italian asses and took our coast back. No wonder you are pissed off. You'll never ever have Istria again. And your cowardly soldies who raped women at gunpoint all over Dalmatia got whay they deserved. Was one of them your bastard father?


 * Well thats not nice :-). Though, POI, you were shouting and not really adding anything useful. Voice -of- All  20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Email sent Odisej.

Tito in popular culture
Is a desparately needed section. --estavisti 13:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section because empty and POV!--PIO 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Empty and POV? Wha..? --estavisti 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you like section awards? You can develop this section with your popular culture. POV means point of view or politically uncorrect--PIO 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your explanation. I think I know what POV means after two years :-) What is POV about a section highlighting Tito's appearances in modern popular culture (which wasn't even written yet)? --estavisti 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, your section is personality cult: you can put your informations in other section of article, for example personal.--PIO 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are modern cafes called Tito, Tito T-shirts (like the CCCP T-shirts in the West) etc. I mean what I say, and I say what I mean. I said "popular culture", not "personality cult"; I meant "popular culture", and not "personality cult". I hate the implication that I'm some pro-Tito partisan, given how much shit my family took from his regime. --estavisti 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For Benito Mussolini too: there are T-shirts, labels for wine's bottles, DVD, floppy disk, etc. but these informations we can put in section personal.--PIO 13:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Estavisti is 100% right, and PIO is making a blunder. There is a presence of Tito in pop culture that has nothing to do with the old personality cult, and nothing to do with political nostalgia either. The use of Tito is ironic, as happens in the Titoville.com website (which even hosts a collection of jokes about him), or surrealistic, as in 54. Comparison with Mussolini is absolutely inappropriate and ludicrous, the cultural and historical contexts couldn't be more different, and no fan of Mussolini's would ever use the Duce's icon in a sarcastic or mind-bending way as is happening with Tito. While the presence of Mussolini in Italian pop culture is based upon remnants of the old personality cult, the use of Tito's figure in Slovenia or Croatia is way more subtle and interesting. Moreover, no encyclopedical entry for Josip Broz will ever be complete without references to pop culture, because the guy was in love with pop culture, movies, music, fashion and the whole media landscape. - Robbui 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[removed - does not contribute to information or discussion]--Gbajramo 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Censure
I would love to find the article that was censured in this story Jumbo Censure, Time Magazine. Does anyone have any info on this??? --Gbajramo 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chief architect?
I strongly believe the title "chief architecture" is a POV title. It makes it sound like Tito created the idea of Yugoslavia (which is not close to being true). It also implies some other ideas which are negative in nature. [President for Life] IS a correct title, as it explains clearly as to what leader for life means.


 * I disagree on it being a POV. It's just a more encompassing term that covers different roles he held from 1943 while building/architecting the second Yugoslavia. He became president for life only in 1974, at age 82 for the last 6 years of his life. During that time his influence was weakening anyway and PFL was mostly honorary title. Saying he was president for life at this point in article is too narrow of a definition. Timeline sufficiently shows which specific roles he held throughout his rule. Gbajramo 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although that may be true somewhat, he is generally regarded as the leader of Yugoslavia. Chief architect, at least in North American English, is usually used in a negative way  (ex. chief architect of the bombing/robbery/etc).  I can see how the word may have a different meaning to you, but leader should be fairly generic for most of the world.  In regards to the "second Yugoslavia," this name is not very well known internationally.  I hope the link will solve this conflict. --Zivan56 10:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Leader is accurate as long as it's not linked to President for Life page. Your current mod is fine. Gbajramo 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prophecies by Mitar Tarabich
This content should go on a separate page about Mitar Tarabich. 74.236.46.118 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no reason to include these information in the article about Tito.

Absolutely. Besides, some researchers claim that all Tarabich's "prophesies" have been revealed and published post factum. In other words - hoaxes. 194.106.188.16 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, at least some of "Tarabic" prophesies were published post factum, and those about Tito certainly were. Nikola 18:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed from the articlegb 05:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Official Titles
This article needs to mention Marshal Tito's titles, he had at least 5 President of the SFRJ, Marshal of Yugoslavia, Premier of the league of communists in Yugoslavia......Also there is no 'solid evidence' that Comrade Marshal Tito committed any killings during WWII or after. Most of his accused killings where in the start of the war when he had little control over his resistance movements. Sloveniaiscool 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed on titles. A timeline should be created showing all the titles Tito held with KPJ and in Yugoslav government. It would be helpful if you remove second part of your comment from this thread to keep it focused on Titles. There are other threads dealing with subject you mentioned. gb 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still stand by my statement; until it is proven that Comrade Marshal Tito committed any murders, I will stand by it. I found all of his tittles...President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, President of Association of Communists of Yugoslavia and the Supreme Commander of the SFRJ armed forces, the Marshal of Yugoslavia Sloveniaiscool 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article isn't saying anything about murders attributed to Tito. Why are you discussing it under Titles? If you need to discuss this subject, see Democide section.gb 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the further note Sloveniaiscool 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New 'Trivia' section
I will create a Trivia section that can contain subsections such as 'Origin of name Tito', 'Why two birthdates?' etc. These side stories would break the flow of the article so having them in separate section makes sense. Most presidential Wiki articles have such section for this purpose. I'm planning on gathering some references on two birthdays so I can complete that section.gb 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we add a "Quotes" Page?
I was thinking of adding some interesting Tito quotes here. What do you all think?

The problem with that is that there is not many documented quotes from Tito. Sloveniaiscool 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the ones I could find.


 * It would be best if you create a separate page for quotes. This is strictly biography and quotes dillute the article.gb 05:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. It should be listed here, since he was a politician, the quotes best describe his thoughts.

Something to Think About
Scroll down to the group photo - http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/articles/.

Also have a read of this article from the Time archives - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html


 * Tito did not invent them, but as their president he helped secure their existence. Even before Tito was born Macedonians existed.

How didn't he? He invented the country, the language the religion, for the sole purpose of territorial expansion. The BBC article makes reference to the ambitions.

Sure, I agree people lived in the "Geographic Macedonia", but that's it. There was never a republic/country. Greece's northern neigbour before WW2, was Serbia, not FYROM (Vardar Banovina).

 Φil hellenism  00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tito recognized those who asked for recognition. I call that true freedom. He accepted everyones wishes. BBC? What can they possibly write about? The expansion of england maybe?.... not the expansion of Yugoslavia under a friend and leader such as Josip Broz Tito. Macedonians existed prior to Tito.. maybe not on paper (they were denied FREEDOM), but TITO gave them that. You nazi's can say whatever you like.

First of all, we are not Nazi's.

Secondly, are you saying that Tito had "NO" ulterior motive in annexing South Serbia and re-naming it Republic of Macedonia? Are you saying that Tito renamed South Serbia out of the kindness of his heart? Are you saying that Tito and Stalin didn't have "bigger plans" for the Balkans and the Aegean?

What do you have to say about these extracts from the article (and our mistake, it is a TIME article not BBC) above-mentioned:

''Territorial Demands. The new power at once began to expand. Yugoslav Macedonians insisted that Yugoslavia's new Macedonian district should include not only Bulgarian Macedonia but Greek Macedonia.''

and,

.....But Greek Macedonia is the richest of all Greek provinces and includes the big Aegean port of Salonika.

and,

''If the plans for a federated Yugoslavia went through, it would emerge as the strongest state in the Balkans. A Balkan Federation to include Bulgaria and Rumania was a likely next step. Before the Big Three met again (see U.S. at WAR), Russia's political control of the Balkans would be consolidated.''

 Φil hellenism  03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do I have to say? One only has to look at Tito's actions in BiH to understand what he did in Macedonia. He recognized Bosnian Muslims as a seperate nation, not as serb or croat.. I wonder what territorial gain he got from that. You fail to understand that Tito did the same for the Macedonians. Sure, the western links portray tito as milosevic because they can't stand the fact that once, in southern europe, there existed a politician who actually cared about HIS people. If Tito wanted south serbia he would have gotten it without recognizing macedonians, every yugoslav was ready to give his life for this leader. If I am wrong on any of this, please tell me. I am unsure from where you are from, but I am from the country he once ruled and I know for certain that Tito would have been supported for any cause - be it genocide if necessary. However, he never resorted to that (nor did he impose the yugoslav ethnicity like king alexander).. this tells you that the man's motives were purely freedom oriented.

It's a pity Yugoslavia didn't work out, because it was a great idea for the region. A Serb and Croat nation have existed for ages, whereas a Macedonian nation didn't. There was "once" a Macedonian Kingdom, but now it's just a Macedonian Region.

Tito always had South Serbia, but it was just that... South Serbia. Serbia bordered Greece before WW2, but NOW Greece's northern neigbour is FYROM, how is that?

Also, the issue of a Macedonian identity, nation etc, has been disputed not only for years, but especially when the country was created (E. Stettinius), furthermore.... freedom from a Communist leader in a Communist country, I don't see how that is possible.

Lastly, are you saying that Alexander the Great imposed the Yugoslav identity? How was he a Yugoslav to begin with?

 Φil hellenism  04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because you slap the label "communist" on Tito doesn't make the country not free. There were certain freedoms, but fascism was clearly not on the list (see modern Germany and the swastika - or holocaust denial in modern Germany). I see that you haven't read too much about my country, but YES... King Alexander of Yugoslavia (I did not say alexander the great) DID impose the yugoslav ethnicity (read below):


 *  "King Alexander sought to resolve a deep political crisis brought on by ethnic tensions by assuming dictatorial powers, renaming the country "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", and officially pronouncing that there is one single Yugoslav nation with three tribes. The Yugoslav ethnic designation was thus for a time imposed on all South Slavs in Yugoslavia." 


 * As for the Macedonians, there is no doubt in my mind that Tito did not help them become an identity, but you are confusing his motives. He granted all Yugoslavian citizens the freedom to be what they desired. Note, Tito did not impose on Macedonians to be Macedonians .. that they did by themselves. As I said earlier, just look at Tito's actions in Bosnia-Herzegovina (granting Bosniaks to be a seperate nation).

Firstly, sorry for jumping the gun about which Alexander was being discussed, and secondly you are correct to assume that we haven't read up on Yugoslavian History, as it's not a major topic of ours, but we are certain of is this; Tito ran a tight ship, and it's a shame Yugoslavia collapsed, because from what we do know it was a good idea uniting all "southern slavs" into a single and large economic block, but the menthods may be debatable.

Our issue deals with Tito's ambitions and motives behind the creation of FYROM, which today has created one big mess between Greece and FYROM.

 Φil hellenism  07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for supporting the idea of Yugoslavia. Do you, by any chance, have any means of live contact online? (Ie. aim, msn messenger?) i'd love to talk some more about this

We wouldn't know the first thing about MSN etc. An e-mail address can be provided, but how can that be provided secularly?

 Φil hellenism  12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory regarding Tito
Any one want to mention the conspiracy surrounding Tito that some time after the conclusion of world war II the real Tito was murdered and replaced by a look alike by the Russians? My father said this theory had some real prominence when he lived in Yugoslavia while Tito was still alive, but it seemed to die along with the rest of Yugoslavia. 38.98.88.9 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * thats not a real theory, it's just a myth to demean tito's character. Tito stood up to stalin, that act alone disproves it.

Current photo
I must say, the current photo of Marshall Tito is quite flattering. Does any one know what circa it was taken in? 141.157.213.108 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics is the most important part of politics, and here it is missing
What about economics? It would be cool to know some technical details about this shareholder-workplace - democracy thing, if Yogoslavia was rich ore poor under Tito (compared to the sovjet union, and western Europe for example) if it was a one party state.

(Technical details are more important for socialists than capitalists. If Titoism worked we must know the details of the policy in order to repeat it)

Books or Essays written by Tito
From time to time I run into 'books' or 'essays' written by Tito, usually on the web. Most currently being "The Yugoslav Peoples Fight to Live".

Are there any more books or publications (other than his own autobiograhy) that he has written either before WWII or during his time as leader? They would be quite an interesting read, and an informative addition to this page.

Thanks, -ks

Trivia Section
The spelling, punctuation and grammar of the final paragraph of the section is quite poor. I don't wish to be accused of vandalism and propose therefore that the author edit it within 28 days. I will edit it after this time has passed.

How Tall Was Tito?
If anyone knows let me know, I'd love to add it to trivia.

As can be seen in the picture of him and President Kennedy he is approximetley 3 inches shorter than Kennedy, who was 6 ft 0 according to Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. This makes Tito approximetley 5 ft 9.--President Elect 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo selection
The photographic selection in the article is extremely USA-centric. Tito's main job wasn't to meet American presidents but to leed the liberation war, defiyng Stalin & founding the Non-aligned movement. He also met all prominent world leaders in his time and that should be pictured Alpha Centaury 21:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to write the same thing. Shaking hands with nonaligned leaders would be a more relevant photo since that was something he worked at a lot in his life.   Perhaps this is a way of saying "Look how notable he is, oh english-language readers, he shook hands with 4 presidents!"   I say it should be scaled back to one US president in the article... and put in some of the other ones.. Dan Carkner 13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Looks much better now Alpha Centaury 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Falcified ballots!!?
What! Falcified ballots? The ballots in the elections were SIMPLIFIED. If you think Tito needed to falcify ballots to win any election in those days you are not fammiliar with the period. There was a simple yes or no question if you supported the KPJ or not. The result was over 98% for yes. Believe me, if you don't wan't to look it up, immediately after WW2, there was no way Tito could lose any election, falcified or not. He knew this very well, so why would he falcify elections? Besides who were the people going to vote for? The idle and rapidly disintegrating HSS?, the Chetniks?, or perhaps the Crotian party of rights would be more according to your belief?

The matter of the foibe massacres. There is absolutely no evidence that Tito had anything to do with tose killings. They were, for the most part (and this is the accepted theory) spontaneous killings by the people and isolated partisan groups of their long-time fascist oppressors (and collaborators), as well as radicals and separatists among the Italian population. Bear in mind the number of victims is comparatively tiny with the number of victims of Italian CONCENTRATION CAMPS on Dalmatian and Istrian territory.

Also, it is useful to note that the partisans supported the ideal of the brotherhood of nations and it is, thus, quite riddiculous to assume they would carry out organised killings on a national rather than ideological basis (though even the latter is disputed). The victims were fascists. It's not like the Italians of the region weren't radicalized by their being surrounded by "barbaric" slavs! DIREKTOR


 * Still, elections in which the only alternatives are yes and no and not proper elections, unless there really, really is no alternative willing to stand. But Communist parties didn't allow alternative parties once in power, did they? So, no we cannot speak of "falsified" but "simplified" is an euphemisms too. Therefore I explained more clearly (based on the information provided by you) what "simplified" here means. Note also, that a) Tito's personal popularity is not the same as Communist votes, b) some people manipulate elections despite enjoying massive support. And yes, a manipulation of sorts it was. I won't comment on the idea that there is good murder and victims that had it coming. Str1977 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right about several points, but once again you do not realise the full complexity of the matter. 1) In 1945 there were basically two choices for Yugoslavia. On the one hand we have the Serbian king (supporting the Chetniks) and on the other the Communists. It was absolutely impossible for the king to return and for the communists to come to power. The vote was basically about the return of the king. If the king returns (and the king constitutionally had enormeous power) he would take the reins, and remove opposition. If he does not the communists will take power as the strongest party (by far) in Yugoslavia. You talk about democratic elections and at the same time forget to realise that these were in essence impossible since even the pre-war Yugoslavia was virtually a dictatorship (the Regent held all power immediately before WW2). Elections held by the king would be (as usual, read the article Kingdom of Yugoslavia) more or less a farce. 2) The communist party was banned by law and, thusly, could not participate in any election according to standing law. Like I said, you are not familiar with the Yugoslav "mess" and need to realise that there was no choice for the communist party. They were unable BY LAW to participate in any democratic election, and they would certainly not allow the King to continue with his dictatorship. DIREKTOR 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it is you who in his admiration for Tito doesn't see the, let's say "unusual" things here. And such ballots are not the normal thing in free elections. The Communists didn't allow alternative choices but yes or no - which doesn't constitute a proper election. Ah, and please switch of your constant condescension. Str1977 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The fojbe accusations
FACT: IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN THAT TITO AND THE YUGOSLAV HIGH COMMAND HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FOJBE MASSACRES. There were an estimated 5000 killings in the foiba massacres (by Italian sources). It is comical to call this "democide". Napolitano can call it anything he wants, he is strongly BIASED, he's the president of the country, ffs. The President of Yugoslavia said there were no fojba killings, does that make him right? Keep your accusations out of encyclopedias. On the same note, just because something is referenced does NOT make it true, or even probable. Why don't we use Mein Kampf as a reference surce then?

What's this about people being massacred by the UDBA just because they were anti-communists!? Do you realize that that would constitute the extermination of half of Yugoslavia. Very, very few people were arrested that didn't have a very strong connection to the NDH or the murderous Italian fascist occupation forces.

Don't you Italians realise that it's no good trying to hide your raving nationalism behind "anti-totalitarianism". Tito's Yugoslavia was the most liberal of all socialist states and it's high levels of social security, GDP, and employment have yet to be surpassed by many countries besides the former Yugoslav states. Among others, Italy (Yugoslavia's employment rate was far better than that of modern-day Italy). The state was non-oppressive (unlike fascist Italy), (religiously) liberal and prosperous. As far as that "dictator" crack is concerned, I'm not even gonna start telling you why it's a lie. DIREKTOR

BTW, The death toll from the ITALIAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND OCCUPATION in general, far exceeds even the most incredible estimates of the fojba massacres.

Edits by non-registered users
Will the non-registered, and undoubtably nationalist user please refrain from editing ANY AND ALL articles. DIREKTOR


 * Herr DIREKTOR. Anonymous editing of Wikipedia is normal, within the guidelines and should be encouraged! What is written is much more important than who writes it so try and write something sensible in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.109.135 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I WANT PROOF!
Where is the PROOF that Tito had anything to do with the fojbas?! Will anyone please show me actual proof! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! Just because some f**** Italian president calls something Democide it has to be so! With all due respect to the "world renowned" university of Hawaii, it's site still does not show any proof! And how could it? It is generally known that it is unproven wether Tito had anything to do with the Fojbas! I am not denying Italians were killed I'm saying that it is not known wether they were killed under orders from Tito! THAT MUST NOT BE STATED IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! Haven't you people heard of the Giuseppe Garibaldi Partisan Division?

THE LEVEL OF IFESTATION OF THIS ARTICLE BY ITALIAN IRRENDENTISTS IS APPALLING! YOU CANNOT HIDE YOUR NATIONALISM BEHIND ATI-TOTALITARIANISM. YOU WILL JUST HAVE TO FACE FACTS: ISTRA AND DALMATIA ARE CROATIAN! If stating tgis is biase, then I'm guilty as charged.

Cyrilic Transcription
I have made a change to the Cyrillic Transcription from the original Јосип Броз Тито to Иосип Броз Тито, since in Cyrillic there is no letter J. However, DIRECTOR reverted my change. Is there a reason why a Cyrillic transcription would use a letter J? Could an explanation please be posted?


 * Please note that there are significant differences between various cyrillic alphabets, "Josip Broz Tito" was written in Serbian cyrillic. DIREKTOR

weasel words
The author might remember that they are writing an article, not an apology, and at least pretend to be unbiased. Following every statement that could possibly be construed as anti-Tito or anti-communist with a qualifier (since, yet, however, etc.) and justification is a rather unconvincing show of objectivism. Let Tito's actions speak for themselves; I assure you they are far more eloquent.
 * This is not justification. It is the statement of causes for his actions. Who are you?, by the way.DIREKTOR 08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * <pointless trolling removed --Isotope23 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)>
 * Oh that's nice, how... right-wing of you. Probably true as well, providing you could reach it. Please Bruno... you're embarassing yourself. DIREKTOR 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DIRETTORE, but you believe that your communist titoist crap of propaganda would convince anybody? Ah, ah, ah, ah: you are raving ridiculous very much!!!! I request to neutral administrators total ban of DIREKTOR for his propaganda and offensive statements anti-Italian people and army!!!! Italian army during WWI saved Serb-Croatian army after his destroy by Austrians: in fact Serb-Croatian soldiers were transported by Italian war-ships to ports of Bari and other towns while Italian infantry liberated Dalmatia as far as Spalato. Actually Italian soldiers are in Croatia against war Serbs versus Croatians: your only statement needs grazie Italiani perchè ci proteggete-translate-thank you Italians because protect us against bombing by Serbs!!!! LEO, 2 August 2007

About the 1974 constitution
I dont think Tito is as dumb as the SOviets, he did not include the right to secede! If he did, Yugoslavia, would've broken up earlier.


 * Not true. He did allow it, but people at that time (WHO HATED TO ADMIT IT TODAY) liked Yugoslavia. The reason it was broken was because of support from the west for individual groups supporting greater serbia ideals, croatian independence as an excuse to it, and many other influences that didnt exist under Tito

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)