Tito

[tovaris]

TITO one of the greatest if not THE greateat leader of all times.
Everybody liked TITO he was a great domestic and world oeder; one of the founders of the Non-aligned movement; Time magazins person of the year...

What are your thaughts on him?

[Stronk Serb]

He was in the resistance fighting for Yugoslav freedom. We owe him a lot.

[britishboy]

who was he?

[Sir Suomi]

who was he?

A Yugoslavian Revolutionary leader who led the country as a dictator. He was thought to be a blessing for some, although there has been some evidence that during his reign he suppressed human rights, and even contributed in ethnic cleansing of the German population in Vojvodina.

[Krash9]

TITO one of the greatest if not THE greateat leader of all times.
Everybody liked TITO he was a great domestic and world oeder; one of the founders of the Non-aligned movement; Time magazins person of the year...

What are your thaughts on him?


im confused. So TIto was a great leader but a horrible father of a country? The country he created did not survive 10 years after his death, it led to war, attempted genocide and eventually the world having to get involved in the 90s.

I guess im confused, i thought a great leader was supposed to make a lasting impression on history. Tito sounds kinda like Bismark.

[TheBigUnit]

im confused. So TIto was a great leader but a horrible father of a country? The country he created did not survive 10 years after his death, it led to war, attempted genocide and eventually the world having to get involved in the 90s.

I guess im confused, i thought a great leader was supposed to make a lasting impression on history. Tito sounds kinda like Bismark.

Bismark was a GREAT leader one of the best ever,

Tito is more like Mao minus the PR

[Krash9]

Bismark was great but his entangling alliances lead to the first world war after his death. ( Congress of Vienna and Metternich) so while his actions were great, they did not stand the test of time.

[TheBigUnit]

Bismark was great but his entangling alliances lead to the first world war after his death. ( Congress of Vienna and Metternich) so while his actions were great, they did not stand the test of time.

Its more the kings fault I think

[Stronk Serb]

A Yugoslavian Revolutionary leader who led the country as a dictator. He was thought to be a blessing for some, although there has been some evidence that during his reign he suppressed human rights, and even contributed in ethnic cleansing of the German population in Vojvodina.



Ethnic cleansing? Wtf are you talking about? The Volksdeutschers (Germans in Vojvodina) went to Germany with the Nazis. They took part in massive uprisings when Hitler attacked the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. And since the Nazis were getting pwned in the end, they went back to Germany with them. Human rights violations? The only ones who got imprisoned and executed were captured Chetnik nd Ustasha leaders. People who worked against the state as spies or terrorists also got imprisoned, just like you westerners would do to the terrorists and spies nowadays.

[tovaris]

im confused. So TIto was a great leader but a horrible father of a country? The country he created did not survive 10 years after his death, it led to war, attempted genocide and eventually the world having to get involved in the 90s.

I guess im confused, i thought a great leader was supposed to make a lasting impression on history. Tito sounds kinda like Bismark.

He was a great fyther the people that sucseded him tor the country apart with a lot of help from the western block. He never atempted genocide if enithing he did everithing to prevent it.
The „world” as you cal it never had to interveen.
And he did make a lasting impresion people stil keep his picture in their homes, make tosts to him...

A Yugoslavian Revolutionary leader who led the country as a dictator. He was thought to be a blessing for some, although there has been some evidence that during his reign he suppressed human rights, and even contributed in ethnic cleansing of the German population in Vojvodina.

Dictator? Hewas democraticly elected and took masive steps to democritize the country.
He suppressed human rights? Wtf? If anything he brqught human rights to the country!
What ethnic cleansing are you talking about? TITO did everithing to supres nationalisem and turn it into patriotisem.


Merged. -StoppingTime

[Polansek]

We owe him our freedom and independence.

[Krash9]

He was a great fyther the people that sucseded him tor the country apart with a lot of help from the western block. He never atempted genocide if enithing he did everithing to prevent it.
The „world” as you cal it never had to interveen.
And he did make a lasting impresion people stil keep his picture in their homes, make tosts to him...

Tito did not make structural changes which would have prevented ethnic tensions. Tito's changes in 1972 actually made things worse which eventually lead to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia.

The World never had to intervene? The death of Tito led to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which led to the Kosovo war, which led to the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. No?

[Harry Smith]

Dictator? Hewas democraticly elected and took masive steps to democritize the country.
He suppressed human rights? Wtf? If anything he brqught human rights to the country!
What ethnic cleansing are you talking about? TITO did everithing to supres nationalisem and turn it into patriotisem.

haha Tito made a change to constitution in 1974 to allow the president to have supreme power and not be limited by set time in office. Tito was a dictator, he only allowed members of his own party to stand for office, so yes you could vote but only for a communist.

I admit a lot of his reform was very good, he was smart enough to play the east and west against each other but I wouldn't say he was the greatest leader in History

[TheBigUnit]

haha Tito made a change to constitution in 1974 to allow the president to have supreme power and not be limited by set time in office. Tito was a dictator, he only allowed members of his own party to stand for office, so yes you could vote but only for a communist.

I admit a lot of his reform was very good, he was smart enough to play the east and west against each other but I wouldn't say he was the greatest leader in History

O but he was a GOOD dictator, never mind the fact that he took supreme control look at others who took supreme control from their govs, Himmler would agree

[Stronk Serb]

haha Tito made a change to constitution in 1974 to allow the president to have supreme power and not be limited by set time in office. Tito was a dictator, he only allowed members of his own party to stand for office, so yes you could vote but only for a communist.

I admit a lot of his reform was very good, he was smart enough to play the east and west against each other but I wouldn't say he was the greatest leader in History

Under his rule we lived better then today. While he was alive, my grandparents would take my mom and aunt to the beautiful beaches of Croatia. Now due to Croatiian nationalism groups, Serbs generally do not go there. And the Croats do not go here, due to Serbian national groups. He was the BEST dictator in the world, judging by your standards.

[tovaris]

haha Tito made a change to constitution in 1974 to allow the president to have supreme power and not be limited by set time in office. Tito was a dictator, he only allowed members of his own party to stand for office, so yes you could vote but only for a communist.

I admit a lot of his reform was very good, he was smart enough to play the east and west against each other but I wouldn't say he was the greatest leader in History

Come now Mr. Smith now you are going to say hugo chavez was a dictator too.
Regardles strange dictator defenitions he wes democraticly elected and all his power came from the people, and unlike a tipicle „dictator” he alowed free thaught, speech and writting; de didnt extinguis democracie. Everione liked him because he made life better for everione. And all Yugoslavians were free to travel the world (unlike some other countries).

[Harry Smith]

Under his rule we lived better then today. While he was alive, my grandparents would take my mom and aunt to the beautiful beaches of Croatia. Now due to Croatiian nationalism groups, Serbs generally do not go there. And the Croats do not go here, due to Serbian national groups. He was the BEST dictator in the world, judging by your standards.

Well done, you have a postive story from Tito. I'm sure many germans can tell you how nice it was living in the 1930's unless you were black, Jewish, gay, disabled. Just because people were able to enjoy themself doesn't mean there was freedom

Come now Mr. Smith now you are going to say hugo chavez was a dictator too.
Regardles strange dictator defenitions he wes democraticly elected and all his power came from the people, and unlike a tipicle „dictator” he alowed free thaught, speech and writting; de didnt extinguis democracie. Everione liked him because he made life better for everione. And all Yugoslavians were free to travel the world (unlike some other countries).

Free movement causes massive trade and economic problems, any economist will tell you that, Tito was not democrat by any standard, people don't rule for 40 years through democracy.
-Only party members could be elected
- He gave himself supreme power in '76, it's likely he died otherwise he would have been unmovable.
-He imprisoned many political opponents.

Tito suppressed individual rights to dissent from governmental decisions. He did not allow free and fair elections, free speech, or freedom of association. His government believed exercising such freedoms might lead to expressions of individual group loyalty and superiority among the peoples of the internal republics that made up Yugoslavia — these people might put ethnic identity above national loyalty. Under Tito, strict order was imposed from the top. There was some freedom to discuss economic management but not matters of high politics. There was little effort to teach tolerance, democracy, or human rights. This pretty much quashes your ideas about freedom of speach under TITO- He was a dictator who repressed the people. You don't rule such a vast country for 40 years with 100% free democrat elections

[TheBigUnit]

Well done, you have a postive story from Tito. I'm sure many germans can tell you how nice it was living in the 1930's unless you were black, Jewish, gay, disabled. Just because people were able to enjoy themself doesn't mean there was freedom



Free movement causes massive trade and economic problems, any economist will tell you that, Tito was not democrat by any standard, people don't rule for 40 years through democracy.
-Only party members could be elected
- He gave himself supreme power in '76, it's likely he died otherwise he would have been unmovable.
-He imprisoned many political opponents.

Tito suppressed individual rights to dissent from governmental decisions. He did not allow free and fair elections, free speech, or freedom of association. His government believed exercising such freedoms might lead to expressions of individual group loyalty and superiority among the peoples of the internal republics that made up Yugoslavia — these people might put ethnic identity above national loyalty. Under Tito, strict order was imposed from the top. There was some freedom to discuss economic management but not matters of high politics. There was little effort to teach tolerance, democracy, or human rights. This pretty much quashes your ideas about freedom of speach under TITO- He was a dictator who repressed the people. You don't rule such a vast country for 40 years with 100% free democrat elections

Oh come now Mr. Smith are you trying to say Hitler was a dictator? He was democratically elected!!! well kinda, Life was amazing for the Aryans, "studies" show they were superior! they could do what ever they like, bomb a jewish run store if u like the gov wont mind! go anywhere do anything!!! lets grab a beer while you re at it

[Harry Smith]

Oh come now Mr. Smith are you trying to say Hitler was a dictator? He was democratically elected!!! well kinda, Life was amazing for the Aryans, "studies" show they were superior! they could do what ever they like, bomb a jewish run store if u like the gov wont mind! go anywhere do anything!!! lets grab a beer while you re at it

Haha yeah the sun never set on those glory years, I voted for Hitler 12 years ago so he must be the honest and fair to the German people. We can even go to Britain and plant a pipe bomb on a ship thanks to my free movement. Then we can visit our Local Party membership. Isn't life great under dictatorship

[TheBigUnit]

Haha yeah the sun never set on those glory years, I voted for Hitler 12 years ago so he must be the honest and fair to the German people. We can even go to Britain and plant a pipe bomb on a ship thanks to my free movement. Then we can visit our Local Party membership. Isn't life great under dictatorship

Quite a speaker he was, wasnt he?

[Harry Smith]

Quite a speaker he was, wasnt he?

He was wasn't he, he always knew how to overlook the fact he took power illegally

[TheBigUnit]

He was wasn't he, he always knew how to overlook the fact he took power illegally

Yeah dont mind how he was head of state and head of gov,
lets ride off to camelot good king arthur is waiting

[Stronk Serb]

Well done, you have a postive story from Tito. I'm sure many germans can tell you how nice it was living in the 1930's unless you were black, Jewish, gay, disabled. Just because people were able to enjoy themself doesn't mean there was freedom



Free movement causes massive trade and economic problems, any economist will tell you that, Tito was not democrat by any standard, people don't rule for 40 years through democracy.
-Only party members could be elected
- He gave himself supreme power in '76, it's likely he died otherwise he would have been unmovable.
-He imprisoned many political opponents.

Tito suppressed individual rights to dissent from governmental decisions. He did not allow free and fair elections, free speech, or freedom of association. His government believed exercising such freedoms might lead to expressions of individual group loyalty and superiority among the peoples of the internal republics that made up Yugoslavia — these people might put ethnic identity above national loyalty. Under Tito, strict order was imposed from the top. There was some freedom to discuss economic management but not matters of high politics. There was little effort to teach tolerance, democracy, or human rights. This pretty much quashes your ideas about freedom of speach under TITO- He was a dictator who repressed the people. You don't rule such a vast country for 40 years with 100% free democrat elections

Wow. Have you ever lived here? Did you know what was happening here during Tito's rule, as if you saw it? Nope. All four of my grandparents lived greatly, my parents also. There were protests. But people were not getting lashed to a wall in a cell for that.

[britishboy]

Wow. Have you ever lived here? Did you know what was happening here during Tito's rule, as if you saw it? Nope. All four of my grandparents lived greatly, my parents also. There were protests. But people were not getting lashed to a wall in a cell for that.

wow you still remember the.propaganda your parents believed

[Stronk Serb]

wow you still remember the.propaganda your parents believed

You are a brainwashed capitalist drone. Hatred of communism has been etched in your mind. I am not asking you to be communist. Just show some respect. We had more freedom then the Warsaw pact countries. I might have anti-western views, but I do not spit on everything capitalist countries made. The US were a growing superpower. Now they are in minor declination. They are declining. The US helped Yugoslavia while Stalin was reigning. Tito refused Stalin's authority over Yugoslavia and we were at the brink of war with the USSR. The US gave us humanitarian aid during the late '40s and early '50s, for which me, my parents and my grandparents are grateful.

[britishboy]

You are a brainwashed capitalist drone. Hatred of communism has been etched in your mind. I am not asking you to be communist. Just show some respect. We had more freedom then the Warsaw pact countries. I might have anti-western views, but I do not spit on everything capitalist countries made. The US were a growing superpower. Now they are in minor declination. They are declining. The US helped Yugoslavia while Stalin was reigning. Tito refused Stalin's authority over Yugoslavia and we were at the brink of war with the USSR. The US gave us humanitarian aid during the late '40s and early '50s, for which me, my parents and my grandparents are grateful.

I don't hate conmonism!!! in fact I agree with alot of what they say, and Putin is a great strong leader we need someone like him in Britain, it's just if my country goes communist apparently my family will lose it's wealth and will have to do manual labor!!!!!

[karl]

Wow, and there I was thinking you were talking about Tito Vilanova the Barça coach!

[Stronk Serb]

I don't hate conmonism!!! in fact I agree with alot of what they say, and Putin is a great strong leader we need someone like him in Britain, it's just if my country goes communist apparently my family will lose it's wealth and will have to do manual labor!!!!!

Not really. You could get an office job. Especially if you are educated. The wealth in general would not matter since the general living standard would improve even more, especially for the lower classes. It only depends if you get a leader who is like Stalin, or a leader like Tito, or if possible better then him.

[britishboy]

Not really. You could get an office job. Especially if you are educated. The wealth in general would not matter since the general living standard would improve even more, especially for the lower classes. It only depends if you get a leader who is like Stalin, or a leader like Tito, or if possible better then him.

communism takes the money from the wealthy that's the only reason I hate it.

[tovaris]

Well done, you have a postive story from Tito. I'm sure many germans can tell you how nice it was living in the 1930's unless you were black, Jewish, gay, disabled. Just because people were able to enjoy themself doesn't mean there was freedom



Free movement causes massive trade and economic problems, any economist will tell you that, Tito was not democrat by any standard, people don't rule for 40 years through democracy.
-Only party members could be elected
- He gave himself supreme power in '76, it's likely he died otherwise he would have been unmovable.
-He imprisoned many political opponents.

Tito suppressed individual rights to dissent from governmental decisions. He did not allow free and fair elections, free speech, or freedom of association. His government believed exercising such freedoms might lead to expressions of individual group loyalty and superiority among the peoples of the internal republics that made up Yugoslavia — these people might put ethnic identity above national loyalty. Under Tito, strict order was imposed from the top. There was some freedom to discuss economic management but not matters of high politics. There was little effort to teach tolerance, democracy, or human rights. This pretty much quashes your ideas about freedom of speach under TITO- He was a dictator who repressed the people. You don't rule such a vast country for 40 years with 100% free democrat elections

Read an old newspaper fredom of any speech was aloved. Also peoplr were taught about all kinds ofbworld afairs including human rights And tolerance ever heard of bratstvo jedinstvo? He prevented etnic tensions within the Yugoslav nation. The elections might not have been 100 per cent democratic bot theybwere democratic, people loved him thats why he staied in power so long.

[Harry Smith]

Read an old newspaper fredom of any speech was aloved. Also peoplr were taught about all kinds ofbworld afairs including human rights And tolerance ever heard of bratstvo jedinstvo? He prevented etnic tensions within the Yugoslav nation. The elections might not have been 100 per cent democratic bot theybwere democratic, people loved him thats why he staied in power so long.

hahah, your an idiot

you stated that they weren't 100% democratic but they were democratic. You need to learn English

[Harry Smith]

Wow. Have you ever lived here? Did you know what was happening here during Tito's rule, as if you saw it? Nope. All four of my grandparents lived greatly, my parents also. There were protests. But people were not getting lashed to a wall in a cell for that.

Just because you have grandparents living there didn't mean that your sources are better, if anything they are rather biased. Just because something is contemporary doesn't mean it's correct, my Parent's lived through the Thatcher years yet I wouldn't use them as evidence if I was doing a paper on Thatcher. People were getting lashed in a cell for wanting democracy

[Stronk Serb]

hahah, your an idiot

you stated that they weren't 100% democratic but they were democratic. You need to learn English

Who gives a fuck about democracy? I would rather live back then when the law enforcement did it's job, education and life in general were better, when you could go to Croatia without fear of nationalist opression. The Croats could do the same.

[Krash9]

Under his rule we lived better then today. While he was alive, my grandparents would take my mom and aunt to the beautiful beaches of Croatia. Now due to Croatiian nationalism groups, Serbs generally do not go there. And the Croats do not go here, due to Serbian national groups. He was the BEST dictator in the world, judging by your standards.

This is my point. Tito did not fix the problems of ethnic strife, he oppressed it.

Tito was no less brutal then Stalin or Mao. He just had a smaller country. When the (majority muslim ) Bosnian farmers refused his policies in 1950 he slaughtered hundreds of them. He led the country into economic depression in the 70s and Tito had killed most of the Catholic and Orthodox clergy which turned the west (which had supported him throughout the cold war) from him. Serbs were allowed to dominate the police under Tito, even in Bosnia and Croatia. This lead to the horrible oppression after the death of Tito. in 1971, Tito arrested thousands of Croats for voting for more autonomy from the serb dominated central communist party and to give more control locally.

Dont pretend Tito wasnt an athoritarian leader equal to someone like Musharraf in Pakistan or Taiwan til the late 80s

And obviously a serb would want to go back to the serb dominated post tito yugoslavia

[TheBigUnit]

Who gives a fuck about democracy? I would rather live back then when the law enforcement did it's job, education and life in general were better, when you could go to Croatia without fear of nationalist opression. The Croats could do the same.

OOOO hes right! Look at China theyre communist and look at that great economy!!!! Death to capitalism!!!!

[tovaris]

.........

[tovaris]

This is my point. Tito did not fix the problems of ethnic strife, he oppressed it.

Tito was no less brutal then Stalin or Mao. He just had a smaller country. When the (majority muslim ) Bosnian farmers refused his policies in 1950 he slaughtered hundreds of them. He led the country into economic depression in the 70s and Tito had killed most of the Catholic and Orthodox clergy which turned the west (which had supported him throughout the cold war) from him. Serbs were allowed to dominate the police under Tito, even in Bosnia and Croatia. This lead to the horrible oppression after the death of Tito. in 1971, Tito arrested thousands of Croats for voting for more autonomy from the serb dominated central communist party and to give more control locally.

Dont pretend Tito wasnt an athoritarian leader equal to someone like Musharraf in Pakistan or Taiwan til the late 80s

And obviously a serb would want to go back to the serb dominated post tito yugoslavia

Yugoslavia had good relation with all religions. Tito had noone slaughert or kiled for that mather. In ,any homes today you will find the images of Jezus and Tito side by side.
Tito was a Croat (actuly a Croat Slovenian mix) and he realised the serbian strength and tendancy to rule (afterall the former king was Serbian) so he wekend us deleberatly.
And i can tel you first hand that not only serbs want to go back to that time but also slovenians they were just waving the flag with the read star at the recentprotest againced polititions and the curent sistem.
Tito might have had authority but he was no dictator.

[Krash9]

Tito might have had authority but he was no dictator.

Tito was president for life of a 1 party state. How was he not a dictator?

How did the Croatian Spring end?

Look up the Rev. Henrik Gorican or Archbishop Stepinac

[tovaris]

Tito was president for life of a 1 party state. How was he not a dictator?

How did the Croatian Spring end?

Look up the Rev. Henrik Gorican or Archbishop Stepinac

He was democraticly elected president for life.
It ended on political grounde.

Read: www.mladina.si/93250/,

[Krash9]

its not democratic if its only one party. The PARTY elected him president for life.

[tovaris]

its not democratic if its only one party. The PARTY elected him president for life.

The PEOPLE elected him president for life.

[Harry Smith]

The PEOPLE elected him president for life.

That defeats the whole point of democracy....

[tovaris]

That defeats the whole point of democracy....

what voting? Democratical eoections?

[Harry Smith]

what voting? Democratical eoections?

No, I was saying that Voting someone in for life is not democratic. Hitler was voted into power in 1933 yet he abused his power just like Tito. Democracy needs to be regular to stop abuse

[britishboy]

No, I was saying that Voting someone in for life is not democratic. Hitler was voted into power in 1933 yet he abused his power just like Tito. Democracy needs to be regular to stop abuse

Hitler was voted in normally but became a couple of years later the absolute leader like our queen(not comparing the queen to Hitler I just mean he couldn't be kicked out like our queen, our queen is great and awesome LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!) he taken advantage of a fire set off by a communist and said that things are so bad I must become absolute Hitler to safeguard Germanys greatness

[Harry Smith]

Hitler was voted in normally but became a couple of years later the absolute leader like our queen(not comparing the queen to Hitler I just mean he couldn't be kicked out like our queen, our queen is great and awesome LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!) he taken advantage of a fire set off by a communist and said that things are so bad I must become absolute Hitler to safeguard Germanys greatness

The problem with Hitler's rise to power was that he had the support of the German people, they were happy for him to take power through the enabling act, just like the army were. And Hitler only became supreme leader in 1934 after Hindenburg's death,

[tovaris]

No, I was saying that Voting someone in for life is not democratic. Hitler was voted into power in 1933 yet he abused his power just like Tito. Democracy needs to be regular to stop abuse

There is no conparason betwen the two. Tito newer abused his power if he did the people stil recovering from the totalitarium monarchy would rise up againceh him.

[Harry Smith]

There is no conparason betwen the two. Tito newer abused his power if he did the people stil recovering from the totalitarium monarchy would rise up againceh him.

There is a comparison between the two, I stated it very clearly. They both abused the fact that they were elected to abuse there term limit.

The 1974 constitution gave him overwhelming power, if death hadn't got him god knows how long he would have ruled for

[Krash9]

The PEOPLE elected him president for life.

No he wasnt. He was declared President for life. On April 7, 1963, a new Yugoslav constitution proclaims Tito the president for life of the newly named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a communist country and thus there was only one political party, the Communist-dominated National Liberation Front, whose candidates were the only ones permitted to run in the election of 1945.

The opposition wasnt even allowed to run candidates in the early elections.

It was not a free and fair election ... duh because it was an authoritarian state.

Oh and the Croatian spring ended on political ground?

"Some estimate that up to two thousand people were criminally prosecuted for participation in peaceful protest"

this includes fugues like future president of Croatia Franjo Tuđman and journalist Bruno Bušić. So what happens when people rise up against you politically in Tito's Yugoslavia? Jail. What happens when you write stuff in newspapers that Tito doesnt like? Jail

That is an authoritarian gov.

What did Tito do when he came to power originally? confiscation of church lands oh wait "land reform"

[britishboy]

The problem with Hitler's rise to power was that he had the support of the German people, they were happy for him to take power through the enabling act, just like the army were. And Hitler only became supreme leader in 1934 after Hindenburg's death,
yep they all thought he was gonna be great but he done the worst things in German history

[tovaris]

No he wasnt. He was declared President for life. On April 7, 1963, a new Yugoslav constitution proclaims Tito the president for life of the newly named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a communist country and thus there was only one political party, the Communist-dominated National Liberation Front, whose candidates were the only ones permitted to run in the election of 1945.

The opposition wasnt even allowed to run candidates in the early elections.

It was not a free and fair election ... duh because it was an authoritarian state.

Oh and the Croatian spring ended on political ground?

"Some estimate that up to two thousand people were criminally prosecuted for participation in peaceful protest"

this includes fugues like future president of Croatia Franjo Tuđman and journalist Bruno Bušić. So what happens when people rise up against you politically in Tito's Yugoslavia? Jail. What happens when you write stuff in newspapers that Tito doesnt like? Jail

That is an authoritarian gov.

What did Tito do when he came to power originally? confiscation of church lands oh wait "land reform"


The constitution was changed because the People said so.
They were prosecuted not for being peaceful but for being violent.
If one simply disagrees and writes or speaks about that they don't go to jail the went to jail for being violent.
He gave the land to the people who deserved it,.

[Harry Smith]

The constitution was changed because the People said so.
They were prosecuted not for being peaceful but for being violent.
If one simply disagrees and writes or speaks about that they don't go to jail the went to jail for being violent.
He gave the land to the people who deserved it,.

No, he stole it from the church. That's like taking someone's money and saying I deserve it for myself. The people didn't vote for the constitution to be changed

[tovaris]

No, he stole it from the church. That's like taking someone's money and saying I deserve it for myself. The people didn't vote for the constitution to be changed

The land was nationalized.
And yes they did check your history.

[tovaris]

There is a comparison between the two, I stated it very clearly. They both abused the fact that they were elected to abuse there term limit.

The 1974 constitution gave him overwhelming power, if death hadn't got him god knows how long he would have ruled for

For eternity.

[Harry Smith]

The land was nationalized.
And yes they did check your history.

So the land was stolen?

[tovaris]

So the land was stolen?

First nationalised and than redestributed.

[Harry Smith]

First nationalised and than redestributed.

was it purchased from the church or taken by force?

[tovaris]

was it purchased from the church or taken by force?

The people clamed it as righfully theirs.

[Harry Smith]

The people clamed it as righfully theirs.

so they stole it from the church. Admit it, Tito stole land that didn't belong to the state.

[tovaris]

so they stole it from the church. Admit it, Tito stole land that didn't belong to the state.

all land belonges to the people (this was even put in the constitution)
and it they needed to build a churce they could aply for a sutable space and build

[Stronk Serb]

No he wasnt. He was declared President for life. On April 7, 1963, a new Yugoslav constitution proclaims Tito the president for life of the newly named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a communist country and thus there was only one political party, the Communist-dominated National Liberation Front, whose candidates were the only ones permitted to run in the election of 1945.

The opposition wasnt even allowed to run candidates in the early elections.

It was not a free and fair election ... duh because it was an authoritarian state.

Oh and the Croatian spring ended on political ground?

"Some estimate that up to two thousand people were criminally prosecuted for participation in peaceful protest"

this includes fugues like future president of Croatia Franjo Tuđman and journalist Bruno Bušić. So what happens when people rise up against you politically in Tito's Yugoslavia? Jail. What happens when you write stuff in newspapers that Tito doesnt like? Jail

That is an authoritarian gov.

What did Tito do when he came to power originally? confiscation of church lands oh wait "land reform"

Franjo and peaceful protests? You smoked crack or something? Tudjman was the one who ordered the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia. He was a nationalist piece of shit, like the rest of our leaders. Just like Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic. Nationalist potests errupted in Croatia. Not peaceful, those protests got violent many times.

[Harry Smith]

all land belonges to the people (this was even put in the constitution)
and it they needed to build a churce they could aply for a sutable space and build

so if all land belonged to the people, then a mob of people could come into your house and occupy both it and the garden because it belongs to them? Did Tito's palace belong to the people? Did the the Military bases let the people in?

[tovaris]

so if all land belonged to the people, then a mob of people could come into your house and occupy both it and the garden because it belongs to them? Did Tito's palace belong to the people? Did the the Military bases let the people in?

just because something belonges to the nation dosent mean tjere are no restrictions or rivacy, there were laws it wasent anarchy

[Harry Smith]

just because something belonges to the nation dosent mean tjere are no restrictions or rivacy, there were laws it wasent anarchy

I thought the land belonged to the people?

[tovaris]

I thought the land belonged to the people?

For example an apartment you might live in is owned by the state (intern baa the nation) and when you live in in you are the only one that lives in it, but when you move out some else will move in; the same is with the redistributed land that was redistributed in such a way that people could actual leave of of it, and they might be the ones using a certain pace of land but it still belongs to the people.

[Sir Suomi]

For example an apartment you might live in is owned by the state (intern baa the nation) and when you live in in you are the only one that lives in it, but when you move out some else will move in; the same is with the redistributed land that was redistributed in such a way that people could actual leave of of it, and they might be the ones using a certain pace of land but it still belongs to the people.

Well, if I'm reading what you wrote right(Which I'm not sure I did), that the church "willingly" gave up their grounds, when in all reality they had no choice? This is what is wrong with communism. Leaders brain wash their citizens, and jail all of those who try to stand up for themselves. "For the people"? What a joke.

[tovaris]

Well, if I'm reading what you wrote right(Which I'm not sure I did), that the church "willingly" gave up their grounds, when in all reality they had no choice? This is what is wrong with communism. Leaders brain wash their citizens, and jail all of those who try to stand up for themselves. "For the people"? What a joke.

The church had to give up their land because they have grabbed massive amounts before the war the salmon nation had nothing that's why the land had to be redistributed. No one was brainwashed they chose a future where they can actual leave to the land that's not owned by some feudal stile lord or institution.

[Krash9]

The constitution was changed because the People said so.

By the People you mean The Party.

They were prosecuted not for being peaceful but for being violent.
If one simply disagrees and writes or speaks about that they don't go to jail the went to jail for being violent.

Give me one example of Bruno Bušić being violent? Why was he thrown out of school in 1957? Why was he was sentenced to jail In 1966 and forced to flee to Austria? Why was his paper banned in 1969? Why was he sent to jail in 1971 for writing the Croatian Weekly? Why was he murdered in Paris by UDBA, the Yugoslav secret police in 1978?

It was because he wrote against Tito and the state.


He gave the land to the people who deserved it,.

Really? and who decided who deserved it? I mean not the people who called it home for centuries, sure not the churches that operated the cathedrals or the land they stole from the banks, churches, monasteries, refugees who were out of the country, private companies, and the expelled Germans who used to live there. and the gave it to whom mostly? Who got the lions share of the land? The Communist Party and their businesses.

[tovaris]

By the People you mean The Party.


No by the PEOPLE i mean the PEOPLE, the people of yugoslabia.


Give me one example of Bruno Bušić being violent? Why was he thrown out of school in 1957? Why was he was sentenced to jail In 1966 and forced to flee to Austria? Why was his paper banned in 1969? Why was he sent to jail in 1971 for writing the Croatian Weekly? Why was he murdered in Paris by UDBA, the Yugoslav secret police in 1978?

It was because he wrote against Tito and the state.


UDBA was newer proven to have murderd, in cold blod, anyone.
Because he was a nationalist who wanted to tear the Yugoslavian nation apart, and ignit a war within the six nations nation.

Da li si mi ti slučajno brat hrvat?


Really? and who decided who deserved it? I mean not the people who called it home for centuries, sure not the churches that operated the cathedrals or the land they stole from the banks, churches, monasteries, refugees who were out of the country, private companies, and the expelled Germans who used to live there. and the gave it to whom mostly? Who got the lions share of the land? The Communist Party and their businesses.

The nation that has lined on this land since the fal of the roman enpire decided they didnt want to be abused by the church and other evil capitalistic grups insted they wanted to work their land, they have liberated on their own by the way with no help from the curch. Refugues out of the country were mostly enemy coloborators and theyr families. The german populations stil live here they were not expeled because thay were german some ot them even joined the OF, the slovenian population of germans Kočevarji we call them stil lives in the Kočevje region. There was no such thing as a privat conpanie in socialist Yugoslavia, and the communist party didnt have buisnines, also the land was equaly destributed and some was put to use for the newly deweloping industrie.

[Krash9]

No by the PEOPLE i mean the PEOPLE, the people of yugoslabia.

So there was a fair and democratic election where even the opposition parties were able to vote? Or did the government decree it?


UDBA was newer proven to have murderd, in cold blod, anyone.
Because he was a nationalist who wanted to tear the Yugoslavian nation apart, and ignit a war within the six nations nation.

So he was jailed for his writings and his opinions because his opinions were against titos?



The nation that has lined on this land since the fal of the roman enpire decided they didnt want to be abused by the church and other evil capitalistic grups insted they wanted to work their land, they have liberated on their own by the way with no help from the curch. Refugues out of the country were mostly enemy coloborators and theyr families. The german populations stil live here they were not expeled because thay were german some ot them even joined the OF, the slovenian population of germans Kočevarji we call them stil lives in the Kočevje region. There was no such thing as a privat conpanie in socialist Yugoslavia, and the communist party didnt have buisnines, also the land was equaly destributed and some was put to use for the newly deweloping industrie.

So the family is guilty of the actions of the father ... Look, this makes my point. The Party decided who was legitimate and stripped the land from the rest of them.

Some were just innocent and living somewhere else to flee the terror of the second world war and they were stripped of their lands.

[tovaris]

So there was a fair and democratic election where even the opposition parties were able to vote? Or did the government decree it?

Yes there was just after the war all parties could have been part of the general elections.


So he was jailed for his writings and his opinions because his opinions were against titos?


No because ze was evil, nationalistic, agresive...


So the family is guilty of the actions of the father ... Look, this makes my point. The Party decided who was legitimate and stripped the land from the rest of them.

No I newr said that, the trater escaped the trators faith and took his famili with him that dosent automaticly make them all trators. And all land was nationalised not just land of your capitalistic friends but also the land of calmon farmers, and than redestributed.


Some were just innocent and living somewhere else to flee the terror of the second world war and they were stripped of their lands.

Everione got their land nationalised!

[Krash9]

Yes there was just after the war all parties could have been part of the general elections.

Ha. Lie. Tito's first constitution of 1946 was modeled on the Soviet constitution. This constitution included direct Communist Party control over all aspects of state activity.

There was a second political party under Tito but it was another socialist political party after the Communist party Congress of 1952. The Communist party had to agree for you to form a party under Tito. It was not a nationalistic or democratic party option. Not anyone can form a party like in the West.


No because ze was evil, nationalistic, agresive...

Bruno Bušić was jailed because his writings were nationalistic and disagreed with Tito and the Communists. There, you admit it. You either had to agree with Tito and the Communists or you went to jail. If you held nationalist beliefs or capitalistic beliefs and put them in writing then you could go to jail. I'm lucky to live in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


Everione got their land nationalised!

No, most small private land holders and party members kept their land.

Well, if I'm reading what you wrote right(Which I'm not sure I did), that the church "willingly" gave up their grounds, when in all reality they had no choice? This is what is wrong with communism. Leaders brain wash their citizens, and jail all of those who try to stand up for themselves. "For the people"? What a joke.

It got so bad Tito jailed the Archbishop Stepinac and he had 1,864 days of hard labor in a Communist prison after a Show trial and the Vatican broke off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia for years.

[tovaris]

Ha. Lie. Tito's first constitution of 1946 was modeled on the Soviet constitution. This constitution included direct Communist Party control over all aspects of state activity.
There was a second political party under Tito but it was another socialist political party after the Communist party Congress of 1952. The Communist party had to agree for you to form a party under Tito. It was not a nationalistic or democratic party option. Not anyone can form a party like in the West.



Where are you getting your crucet history from just loock at the voting banner even the Christian party was part of that election.




Bruno Bušić was jailed because his writings were nationalistic and disagreed with Tito and the Communists. There, you admit it. You either had to agree with Tito and the Communists or you went to jail. If you held nationalist beliefs or capitalistic beliefs and put them in writing then you could go to jail. I'm lucky to live in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


No he was not jailed simply because he was nationalistic he was jailed because he was aggressive and wanted to bring war to our nation.
Pa koja ti je to država?

[QUOTE=Krash9;2276712]
No, most small private land holders and party members kept their land.
/QUOTE]

Lie all land was nationalized only some small business and restaurants were not.

[Stronk Serb]

Lie all land was nationalized only some small business and restaurants were not.

Actuall, after the war my great grandfather and some of his friends founded a furniture factory. They had a successful business, exporting goods east and west. He was partiallywning the factory, along other co-founders.

[tovaris]

Actuall, after the war my great grandfather and some of his friends founded a furniture factory. They had a successful business, exporting goods east and west. He was partiallywning the factory, along other co-founders.

Along other co founders, also the slovenian model wasent exactly the same as what was done in serbia.

[dingo006]

Im not picking a fight here but I think you are wrong on your facts.

Krash has some points.

Where are you getting your crucet history from just loock at the voting banner even the Christian party was part of that election.


The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed on November 29, 1945, and in 1946 a Soviet, Stalinist-style constitution was created. This Constitution placed all government control under Communist Party of Yugoslavia and even went so far as to imprison Milovan Djilas who had been said to be the favorite for Tito's successor in November 1956 and charged with "slandering and writing opinions hostile to the people and the state of Yugoslavia." All because he wrote about creating a multi-party system with a non-government run economy.


No he was not jailed simply because he was nationalistic he was jailed because he was aggressive and wanted to bring war to our nation.


This sounds like he was arrested for writing against the state.

There were many journalists and political dissidents who were sent to work camps by Tito's government. Journalists like Mihajlo Mihajlov were imprisoned.

Mihajlov was arrested by Tito for "damaging the reputation of a foreign state” after publishing an essay on gulags for anti-communist dissidents in the Soviet Union after the 1917 October revolution. He was arrested again by the Yugoslav government again writing critically about the government so he was charged with “disseminating hostile propaganda” for his writings about Tito’s government in essays and articles published in the Yugoslav and European press.

[tovaris]

Im not picking a fight here but I think you are wrong on your facts.





The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed on November 29, 1945, and in 1946 a Soviet, Stalinist-style constitution was created. This Constitution placed all government control under Communist Party of Yugoslavia and even went so far as to imprison Milovan Djilas who had been said to be the favorite for Tito's successor in November 1956 and charged with "slandering and writing opinions hostile to the people and the state of Yugoslavia." All because he wrote about creating a multi-party system with a non-government run economy.



This sounds like he was arrested for writing against the state.

There were many journalists and political dissidents who were sent to work camps by Tito's government. Journalists like Mihajlo Mihajlov were imprisoned.

Mihajlov was arrested by Tito for "damaging the reputation of a foreign state” after publishing an essay on gulags for anti-communist dissidents in the Soviet Union after the 1917 October revolution. He was arrested again by the Yugoslav government again writing critically about the government so he was charged with “disseminating hostile propaganda” for his writings about Tito’s government in essays and articles published in the Yugoslav and European press.

What you are stating are not facts but asamptions.

The first democratic election was held in yugoslavia just after the war on The 11th of november 1945, and the people decided what kind of a country they wanted to have.
http://www.zgodovinsko-drustvo-kovacic.si/node/1847

He was jailed because he encuraged nationalistic war within the yugoslav nations and because of his one fizikal violence

[dingo006]

What you are stating are not facts but asamptions.

The first democratic election was held in yugoslavia just after the war on The 11th of november 1945, and the people decided what kind of a country they wanted to have.
http://www.zgodovinsko-drustvo-kovacic.si/node/1847


Um, How can you have an election in the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia that was before the founding of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia?

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed on November 29, 1945 and the election that you are talking about took place on The november 11, 1945. Then that election was an election for The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia which was a British created country after the Second World War.

Mihajlov was never accused of a single act of illegal violence. Bruno Bušić was never convicted of a violent crime or involvement in a violent protest.

[tovaris]

Um, How can you have an election in the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia that was before the founding of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia?

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed on November 29, 1945 and the election that you are talking about took place on The november 11, 1945. Then that election was an election for The Democratic Federal Yugoslavia which was a British created country after the Second World War.

Mihajlov was never accused of a single act of illegal violence. Bruno Bušić was never convicted of a violent crime or involvement in a violent protest.

The elections happend and decided the future of Democratic federal republic of Yugoslavia founden on th 10to of august that year on the 29th november the Federativ peoples republic of Yugoslavija was founded, on the 7th April 1963 The Socialist Federativ republic of Yugoslavia was created. Yugoslavia was run asba independant state by the AVNOJ and amy desicions as that to freze the kings status until after the war when all the details of the people created country will be decided by the nation on FREE elections

[Krash9]

Krash has some points.


Thanks Dex but i figured it out.



No he was not jailed simply because he was nationalistic he was jailed because he was aggressive and wanted to bring war to our nation.
Pa koja ti je to država?


No, He wasnt. or that wasnt what he was charged with. See, America (and usualy other democratic countries) have this thing called a freedom for journalists to write whatever they want. Even if its against the state or disagrees with the government or makes the government look bad.

Bruno Busic wrote that he wanted a government based on democratic principles and wrote things that the government said were controversial . So he went to jail for publishing an independent journal that had been banned by the state.

What you are stating are not facts but asamptions.

The first democratic election was held in yugoslavia just after the war on The 11th of november 1945, and the people decided what kind of a country they wanted to have.
http://www.zgodovinsko-drustvo-kovacic.si/node/1847


See, this is where we got confused. Yes, this was an election with all the parties. It was before the Communist Constitution which banned free elections. Even though all the parties were involved :

"The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere and this situation caused the three royalist representatives, Grol-Subasic-Juraj Sutej, to secede from the provisional government." and the opposition boycotted the election. They werent even on the ballot. - From Wikipedia

After the "election" The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a one party state without free elections til 1953 where more socialist parties were allowed. No non-socialist parties were allowed. In 1974, a new federal constitution was created with more freedom for the individual Communist parties but not free elections.

[tovaris]

Thanks Dex but i figured it out.



No, He wasnt. or that wasnt what he was charged with. See, America (and usualy other democratic countries) have this thing called a freedom for journalists to write whatever they want. Even if its against the state or disagrees with the government or makes the government look bad.

Bruno Busic wrote that he wanted a government based on democratic principles and wrote things that the government said were controversial . So he went to jail for publishing an independent journal that had been banned by the state.



See, this is where we got confused. Yes, this was an election with all the parties. It was before the Communist Constitution which banned free elections. Even though all the parties were involved :

"The opposition withdrew from the election in protest to the hostile atmosphere and this situation caused the three royalist representatives, Grol-Subasic-Juraj Sutej, to secede from the provisional government." and the opposition boycotted the election. They werent even on the ballot. - From Wikipedia

After the "election" The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a one party state without free elections til 1953 where more socialist parties were allowed. No non-socialist parties were allowed. In 1974, a new federal constitution was created with more freedom for the individual Communist parties but not free elections.

If you write something againced the state and how it should go to war with itself you will go to jail in USA.

Even thow the 1945 election alowed people to wote for and againced the communist-socialist based list.

[Krash9]

If you write something againced the state and how it should go to war with itself you will go to jail in USA.

No. People write that all the time. Heck, the people who are "pro second amendment" in this country write, in newspapers that the reason they need guns is to fight the government one day. The Governor of Texas has written in articles that Texas could leave the United States. People write that the president should be overthrown or put in jail all the time.

When the government does things (like put people in jail, or forcefeed people at Guantanimo bay) and people write about it they dont go to jail.

That is freedom of the press in a democratic country. Communist Yugoslavia didnt have that. Heck look at the people Krash006 posted.

i already pointed out how the 1945 election was flawed.

[tovaris]

No. People write that all the time. Heck, the people who are "pro second amendment" in this country write, in newspapers that the reason they need guns is to fight the government one day. The Governor of Texas has written in articles that Texas could leave the United States. People write that the president should be overthrown or put in jail all the time.

When the government does things (like put people in jail, or forcefeed people at Guantanimo bay) and people write about it they dont go to jail.

That is freedom of the press in a democratic country. Communist Yugoslavia didnt have that. Heck look at the people Krash006 posted.

i already pointed out how the 1945 election was flawed.

lets not forget their crimes, to communists in usa during cold war, and the todays tzret of going to gvantanamo for no reson...

[Stronk Serb]

No. People write that all the time. Heck, the people who are "pro second amendment" in this country write, in newspapers that the reason they need guns is to fight the government one day. The Governor of Texas has written in articles that Texas could leave the United States. People write that the president should be overthrown or put in jail all the time.

When the government does things (like put people in jail, or forcefeed people at Guantanimo bay) and people write about it they dont go to jail.

That is freedom of the press in a democratic country. Communist Yugoslavia didnt have that. Heck look at the people Krash006 posted.

i already pointed out how the 1945 election was flawed.


There was a movie, forgot the name, it was produced by a student of Sigmund Froyd. It spits on all regimes including communism. About communism it is essentially like this: Proletariats of all lands, fuck you!
It was shown in the cinemas. My father watched it in Yugoslavia, legally. It was not censored.