Josip Broz Tito

Westerners see him as "le ebin mediator" but I rarely see anyone on this board point out how he single handedly destabilised the entire country after nobody was running his scheme.
This faggot is an excellent example of a clueless loud mouthed idiot who doesn't understand that you can't just sweep all past issues under the rug and expect to be loved by all after you die and every singe piece of undesolved shit hits the fan.

...

>From table 14A.1
>doesn't post table 14A.1

He killed italians in istria, that's one reason for me to hate him, plus a commie.

...

As I recall, murders lasted until 1952/1953. Don't know why the table extends the timeline until 1987 either.
Plus, 600.000 Croats out of todays population of Croatia would be enough to cripple Croats demographically, let alone 70 years ago when there were much less of them - and Croats ain't scathed in any way.

Also, 60.000 million Russians dead? Same - that would cripple the Russians demographically.

I'm skeptical. What's the source of this table?

...

>random numbers out of nowhere
I'm totally convinced.

>He killed italians in istria
He didn't, some Partisans did, and with a good reason.

>I'm skeptical. What's the source of this table?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel

www . mega . nu/ampp/rummel/note1.htm

Disregard the spaces in the link.

True. I'd only argue that he did not pay any attention to the demographics and refused to balance the nationalities out. After his death, that balancing had to be done by war.

He fragmented Serbs into Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo not thinking thry'd want to unite all of that one day, thus triggering a huge power imbalance. The worst point is that the system he created with 1974 Constitution actually enabled Serb supremacy on the Yugoslav level once Milosevic came to power and put his lackeys on the top of Kosovo, Vojvodina and Montenegro, thus controlling 50% of votes on the federal level. If there were only less fragmentations of Serb lands politically, it might have gone down a bit differently.

Weirdly enough, the way to deny Serbs power in Yugoslavia was to give them power in a more united Serbia ( or Serbia and Montenegro as a one republic ).

You're citing a crackpot.

researchgate.net/publication/240704700_Tito's_Slaughterhouse_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Rummel's_Work_on_Democide

Thanks. Never heard if him.
He does appear biased against any illiberal system and the numbers are just a given, with varying timeframes and not illuminating on the multiple levels of categories upon which those numbers rest ( ie I don't know is he conflating combar casaulties with civillian murders or not, by looking at the table ) - but this is interesting nevertheless.

I'm just connecting numbers to man who invented them. I consider Rummel to be more of a propagandist more than a historian.

Well, it's a completely ridiculous estimation and would involved mass extermination of a large scale, given how small Yugoslavia was. There's droves of right-leaning historians in ex-Yugoslavia who would be overjoyed to prove that such an event occured yet they're pretty quiet.

>1 million killed in Yugoslavia
Do you know how many people there were in the 50s trough 70s?
Had 1 million truly be killed,that would have been such a national tragedy that you would hear from everyone,every government,or history book ever here.
Yet I never hear these estimates.Literally the only people I've seen talk about them is from anons on Veeky Forums.
Fucking hell my country doesn't have 1 million people now,let alone 50 years ago.

Just for scale, population of Yugoslavia in 1941. was somewhere between 12 million and 14 million, if you follow the demographic trends since the last population census it had at that point.

So, if Tito killed 1 million, and Axis killed more people on top of that during the war ( both in combat and in retaliation on civilians and with killing Gypsies and Jews as well ) - it would have been a huge percentage of Yugoslavs killed.

Even the mainstream estimates about Jasenovac turned out in the end to be a bit humble when compared to commie propaganda, so it wouldn't be weird that real numbers are a lot smaller than the ones from a liberal agitator who worked during times of big anti-communist sentiment in the West.

But still, the commie murders are one part of the whole story. Tito had an impactful influence in other fields as well.

Janez ili Montenigger? :P

CIA tool

...

Fuck off CIA

...

Aaaaaaaaaand Godwin's law. I'm out.

Just a run-of-the-mill dictator cunt who paid no heed to the country's longterm viability.
T. Serb

>internet explorer
[spoiler] mountain nigger [/spoiler]

he did not give a fuck about yugoslavia because it was planned for it to be dissolved at the first possible opportunity (collapse of sssr)

he prepared this collapse by fucking up the serbs who were the only nation on balkan interested in united yugo, and strenghtened the croats and albos.

>Serbs actually believe this

He's right though. Tito never addressed the population in Bosnia and he also promoted newfound nationalism in the Macedonian region, Montenegro and Vojvodina as well as allowing the entry of albanians in Kosovo.

Tito had his faults and he failed to create a sustainable system, but compared to most of our historic rulers he was excellent.

> Tito never addressed the population in Bosnia
He did, but he did so carefully, for a good reason.
>nationalism in Macedonia and Montenegro
So what?
>Vojvodina
Nationalism in Vojvodina?
>entry of albanians in Kosovo.
Memes. Pic.

Croatian and Serbian nationalism and their extremes were both a threat to the stability of Yugoslavia and had to be controlled.

What's he smoking

Into the trash, where he belongs.

>He did, but he did so carefully, for a good reason.
He literally just "ayy forgetaboutit"
>So what?
Figure it out for your self
>Nationalism in Vojvodina?
Yes there's a reason it is its own entity
>Memes. Pic.
That chart shows that during socialist Yugoslavia the serb population became dwarfed compared to the albanian population, where's the meme?
>Croatian and Serbian nationalism and their extremes were both a threat to the stability of Yugoslavia and had to be controlled.
It was only Serbian nationalism that had to be kept down, for if the Croats received punishment for WWII there wouldn't be any left.

>source: your ass

I think it's a cigarette with a cigarette holder.

>ayy forgetaboutit
What was there to be done?
>Figure it out for your self
Not an answer.
>there's a reason it is its own entity
Yes, and a good one.
>That chart shows
It shows a steady growth which is expected with the high birth rights that Albos had. This mass Albanian migration into Kosovo is a Serbian nationalist myth.
>It was only Serbian nationalism that had to be kept down
Wrong.
>for if the Croats received punishment for WWII there wouldn't be any left.
Wrong, biased and edgy.

He really wasn't flawless but still very good leader. Even as a left communist, I feel the need to defend Tito since his legacy is facing an unremitting, vicious demonisation and defamation campaing by the neofascist right in post-Yugoslavia.

>What was there to be done?
Deal with it
>Not an answer.
Serbia lost influence as a single entity, the regions broke away, macedonian region was never independant in it's existance and montenegrins still identify as serbs themselves (when it suits them)
>Yes, and a good one.
Oh boy I can't wait to hear this irrelevant opinion
>It shows a steady growth which is expected with the high birth rights that Albos had. This mass Albanian migration into Kosovo is a Serbian nationalist myth.
It shows population increase and decrease, the Serbs in Kosovo were constantly migrating because of how poor the region was while the Albanians were constantly bringing in their own while they were also treated as anything other than immigrants
>Wrong
It's right and you know it, everything Serbian is oppressive and bad while everything Croatian is nice and Catholic and German
>Wrong, biased and edgy.
Take it as you will, they were Nazi collaborators and were never properly dealt with like in the rest of Europe (shot)

>rotating presidency

Biggest JUST Tito inflicted on Yugoslavia

>Deal with it
Awfully vague.
>Serbia lost influence as a single entity
For a good reason, as already mentioned before. Serbian nationalist desire for Greater Serbia needed to be curbed in order for Yugoslavia to exist.
>macedonian region was never independant
Because K. Yugoslavia pursued an imperialist policy of Serbianisation of Macedonians.
>Albanians were constantly bringing in their own
Exaggeration and irrelevant. You think that Tito needed to close the borders or something?
>everything Serbian is oppressive and bad while everything Croatian is nice and Catholic and German
You're just projecting your insecurities with this drivel. And yeah, Tito was a real big fan of Catholicism and Germans, sure.
> they were Nazi collaborators and were never properly dealt with like in the rest of Europe
Croats as a whole nation weren't collaborators no more than Serbs are. Plenty of Chetniks collaborated. And Ustashe were dealt with more harshly than Chetniks.

i think it's ganja

>Awfully vague.
That's why we have leaders, to solve what a common man can't solve, not pack it up and leave it for the next
>For a good reason, as already mentioned before. Serbian nationalist desire for Greater Serbia needed to be curbed in order for Yugoslavia to exist.
>Because K. Yugoslavia pursued an imperialist policy of Serbianisation of Macedonians.
Wew lad these were parts of Serbia, Macedonian region was a part of Serbia ever since the Balkan war, with it's own population of Serbs as well as the majority Bulgarians, they were prectically serbs before Tito gave them a false identity which they still baffle historians with. Montenegro was and is mini Serbia, the people there call them selves mountain Serbs and never objected incorporation until 2006. You can't pursue "greater serbia" within Serbia. That term is used to describe Serbia's operations in Bosnia and Krajina.
>Exaggeration and irrelevant. You think that Tito needed to close the borders or something?
Immigrants shouldn't be able to mobilise against their host. Tito should have treated them like immigrants, tighten the borders, impose strict citizenship laws and ownership laws just like everywhere else.
>You're just projecting your insecurities with this drivel. And yeah, Tito was a real big fan of Catholicism and Germans, sure.
Of course I am, an "insecure", inferior S*rvian who can only project drivel :^)
>Croats as a whole nation weren't collaborators no more than Serbs are. Plenty of Chetniks collaborated. And Ustashe were dealt with more harshly than Chetniks.
Yes they were, nobody denies this, not even Croats, the Chetniks weren't even close to being as prominent as the Ustashe, neither did they act out on Nazi bidding, they were nationalists, not collaborators. The Ustashe on the other hand, were incredibly immersed in the Nazi air, even taking it to further extremities. And Croatia is literally marked as a Nazi puppet state during WWII (unlike Serbia)

>That's why we have leaders, to solve what a common man can't solve
First prove that there was a problem to be solved. And expecting miracles is unrealistic.
>before Tito gave them a false identity
This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory said by someone who didn't read a single page of Yugoslav history.
>Tito should have treated them like immigrants, tighten the borders
Prove that this didn't happen. This whole story about mass uncontrolled Albanian migration is just standard Serbian propaganda. Tito was careful in his dealings with Albanians.
>Yes they were
No, they were not, and Partisans were more popular than Ustashe among Croats.
>Chetniks not collaborators
Plenty of Chetniks groups did collaborate with Nazis.

Seriously, man, if you're not genuinely interested in history why are you posting on this board?

Your argument is basically refuting everything I said.....
>First prove that there was a problem to be solved
Bosnia was an ethnic clusterfuck that ended up in the hands of the Bosniaks who declared independance without consent from the other half of the population (serbs and croats)
>This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory said by someone who didn't read a single page of Yugoslav history.
If you think there is such a thing as "Macedonian identity" beyond Greece then you are as deluded as the Fyromians. You can also talk to a Montenegrin and scratch your head after he refers himself as a mountain Serb. Or refer to the recent unwanted entry to NATO were the whole country was protesting it's government by waving Serbian flags.
>Prove that this didn't happen.
Kosovo is an independant nation...a place where Serbian history planted a root was stripped from Serbia in the late 20th century by non Serbian immigrants, that's not exactly what I call a controlled minority
>No, they were not, and Partisans were more popular than Ustashe among Croats.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states
>Invaded on 6 April 1941 as part of theinvasion of Yugoslaviaby Germany, Italy, and Hungary.Slavko Kvaternik, one of the founders of theFascistUstašemovement, announced the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (often abbreviated NDH) on 10 April 1941.Ante Pavelić, the leader of Ustaše, entered Croatia from his exile in Italy for the first time in twelve years on 13 April, and he was placed in the position ofPoglavnik, the leader of the NDH, just two days later, on the 15th, when he reached the capital ofZagreb.
>Plenty of Chetniks groups did collaborate with Nazis.
Please source this and the part you say that most Croatians favoured the Partisans. Also refrain from talking out of your ass and then lecturing on who should be on this board and who shouldn't.

AL KAPONE

evil cryptofascist like stalin but differs in that tito's not worth remembering

Is he Hermann Goering?

War criminal and dictator, glad his false empire failed

Blessed image