Talk:Tito

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is full of grammar errors and factual errors. An editor corrected them but was twice reverted. His corrections seemed good to me, not that I am an expert.

If the reverts were because of perceived vandalism or pushing of POV, I'd suggest to only revert the relevant points, but make good use of his grammar and factual corrections. Leopeo 15:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

EDIT: maybe the editor's changes to the World War II article may be seen as ideological (?), but this is not the case in the Josip Broz article. IMHO, Leopeo 15:44, 11 December 2007 (EST)

That's true, but I don't have the time to go over all of it. Most of the edits are the traditional Comintern position, so I did a wholesale revert. Rob Smith 15:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I see you are questioning the political orientation of my edits. It's true that I tried to neutralise the article, but in no way write from a "Comintern" viewpoint. It's an overall accepted truth that chetniks collaborated with the occupator since the end of 1941 and performed ethnical cleaning in Bosnia and Croatia, as I pointed out in my sources. --Qwertz 09:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Then stop deleting the subhead, and the phrase, "Mikhailovitch, an Atlantic Charter ally, was shot by Tito as a traitor." Rob Smith 15:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Very well. Qwertz 08:13, 13 December 2007 (EST)

What did I do wrong now? Qwertz 08:29, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Is reverting the solution?

I really have no knowlege or interest in Tito's life, but it seems to me that the version RobSmith is opposed to corrects many mistakes, mainly grammar and factual. If he feels that it is a politicized version as well, could he or someone knowledgeable EITHER a) correct those (grammar, factual) errors by himself, OR b) instead of reverting, leave the changed version and just correct the parts he feels politicized? Greetings, Leopeo 10:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Precisely. I would also like to hear from RobSmith about which parts of the article are still controversial. As I said, my work was neutralizing the article and correcting the part about chetniks fighting for freedom. As I didn't get practically any information about what I did wrong, I would like to see either that the changes are accepted or that we debate over "the real role" of partisans and chetniks. Qwertz 15:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Cover photo

Why are we using a copyrighted book cover photo when there exists a nonfree photo at [1]? I don't see any commentary or parody on the specific book cover photo; rather, a photo of Tito like that seen at the link would be equally effective in enhancing the quality of the article. GregG 21:03, 1 June 2012 (EDT)


The Soviets in Yugoslavia

"The Soviet army never reached Yugoslavia" Cool story, bro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrade_Offensive https://youtube.com/watch?v=QMbnMtGmCms (3:07) --User:Cnsrvpdsosethui

I changed it. However, (quickly) reading this article, it seems like Tito's forces played a larger role in the region in the war's last days. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
You've wrote another lie, which says that Tito established a dictatorship in the country, although in fact socialist Yugoslavia was never a dictatorship --User:Cnsrvpdsosethui
Not only did I not write it, but he was a dictator. That's common knowledge. He established a one-party communist state. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
That's a lie, because Yugoslavia in practice, I repeat, has never manifested itself as a "dictatorship." Tito's Yugoslavia had a lot in common with the United States, Yugoslavia had private property, there was free travel abroad (with the United States and some EU countries Yugoslavia had a visa-free regime), it was possible to watch and distribute erotic films / porn, it was possible to acquire weapons just like in Mexico or Switzerland, there was self-management of workers, and I'm not even talking about the fact that Yugoslavia was allowed to criticize communism, even if it was not so often. After all of the above, do you really think that Tito established a dictatorship in Yugoslavia simply because he had ruled for a long time and had only one ruling party in it? According to your logic, Finland was a dictatorial state because of Urho Kaleva Kekkonen (he was a president of Finland for 25 years), many "democratic" countries at that time had only one ruling party in power, and the United States still has only two political parties in it's goverment to this day. The only thing in which Tito's Yugoslavia was really autonomous is in the repression of nationalists and racists (just like the current US, irony), but anti-nationalist policies are far from being a factor of a "dictatorial" country. If you do not know the detailed history of certain countries, do not rush to call it "dictatorship" or "democratic", there's a big difference between dictatorship and anocracy.
User:Cnsrvpdsosethui, you need to get over yourself and bone up on a little history. Tito was a communist, he was the head of a one-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule. One person rule, unchecked power. It's either a monarchy or a dictatorship, and Tito didn't wear a crown, did he? Karajou (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
With this message you just confirmed that you and your wiki are very poorly versed in the history of certain countries, in particular Tito's Yugoslavia. How many Tito killed the dissidents during his presidency? No more than three thousand people (taking into account the population of Yugoslavia in more than 20 million people and Tito's very long rule of the state, this is a very low number of executed people compared to the United States or the Soviet Union). The way how you've wrote about Tito may work with Harry Truman: He was a Democrat, he was the head of a two-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule (do not forget about repressions and murders of thousands of American citizens simply because they sympathized with communism). If you won't ignore all the qualities of Tito's Yugoslavia, which I listed in the previous message, then you will admit a little disappointing conclusion for you that Socialist Yugoslavia was almost the same like USA, only with free medicine, free higher education and the absence of racism. Even if Yugoslavia was indeed a communist "dictatorship," and its ruler (Tito) was a dictator, why did the US support the country so much until the death of its ruler? What was the point of supporting the communist dictatorship, even if it was temporarily opposed to the USSR? By the way, "thanks a lot" for blocking the ability of my account to edit the discussion (that's why I created a new account), but there's absolutely no need for it. While the Internet exists, I will write in your discussion what I want to write. No your blocking methods and no your anti-socialist views will help you.
"murders of thousands of American citizens simply because they sympathized with communism" -- lay off the drugs, pal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:51, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
I think you should lay off drugs, "pal" - http://readsettlers.org/ch10.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Do you read your own commie rot? Don't see no "murders of thousands". RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:07, 9 April 2018 (EDT)
1. It's actually funny how you call me a commime when in reallity I'm not even a socialist. Watch your language, or you can justifiably be called a fascist. 2. Do not pretend that the Communist Control Act of 1954 never existed, you know about this just perfectly
"There were no death squads, no shoot-outs, no long prison sentences - the CPUSA wasn't even outlawed, and published its newspaper and held activities throughout this period. The CPUSA at the time usually called this repression a "witch hunt," because it was a Government campaign to promote mass political conformity by singling out "Communists" for public abuse and scorn. It was not repression of the usual type, in which the Empire tries to wipe out, to eliminate through legal and extra-legal force an entire revolutionary movement. In 1949 some 160 CPUSAers were arrested and tried under the Smith Act for advocating "the overthrow of the U.S. Government through force and violence." Of these 114 were convicted, with 29 CPUSA leaders serving Federal prison sentences of 2 - 5 years. Two obscure CPUSA members, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were executed ..."