# Talk:Informbiro period

This is woefully bad. Does anyone want to help fix this up?
Ted71 (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the link to hungary in the sentence: 
"Considering Stalin's brutal repression of other satellites' independent moves (e.g. Hungary), it remains unclear what prevented him from miltary intervention. "
since i think refers to the invasion in 1956 and Stalin was dead by then.

The Tito-soviet split article should remain separate as they are separate issues to some degree.  one deals with the emerging rift between the two nations and the other discusses the split until Yugoslavia was readmitted into the Cominform. user:81.107.130.137
Disagree with merging. "Informbiro" topic should cover mainly internal issues. "Tito-Stalin split" should be a more global view. Titoism article, close to the two, covers yet another aspect. All of them do their own job. I'd rather consider careful separating of the content, to avoid duplication, in the context of the overall History of Yugoslavia. `'mikka (t) 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
But is there any reason why the two cannot be distinct sections of the same article? I mean, they "attack" the very same topic, and you cannot avoid duplication forever. Plus, one of them looks destined to remain small forever. "Titoism" might be referenced here, IMO, since it is the only one that goes beyond certain events. Dahn 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article from Informbiro to Informbiro period, because Informbiro is synonim for Cominform, not for Informbiro period. Maybe there are better options for title of this article, but definitely the title Informbiro period is more appropriate than the title Informbiro. (Zdravko mk 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

In Yugoslavia, Goli Otok prison camp was established for the internment of "supporters of the Informbiro"/"Stalinists". 
In Hungary, Hortobágy prison camp was established for the internment of "opposers of the Informbiro"/"Titoists". 
In Romania, Baragan prison camp was established for the internment of "opposers of the Informbiro"/"Titoists", as well for others regime opponents (Walther Konschitzky, Peter-Dietmar Leber and Walter Wolf, Deported to the Bărăgan 1951–1956, Haus des Deutschen Ostens, Munchen, 2001 ) [1] 
Does anybody knows more of these? Kamarad Walter (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"1995 – Goli Otok internees from post-Yugoslav republics seek damages" - what does this doing here? It should be reomved. Radutalk 12:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not been able to find that many English language high-quality sources using the term "Informbiro period" (or Informbureau or Informburo for that matter) to describe the period. I am aware that there are several terms which translate as "Informbiro period" and are used in Serbian and/or Croatian for the purpose (vrijeme Informbiroa/vreme informbiroa, razdoblje Informbiroa, doba Informbiroa etc.) but I'm struggling to find sources which use the term as a name and not descriptively. Therefore I'm not quite sure it is a common name within the meaning of the Wikipedia policy.
Furthermore, considering paucity of the term in English language sources, I'm not sure how easy it would be to find it for readers who speak only English, especially since life-span of the Cominform was only slightly longer and Informbiro period might be incorrectly interpreted to mean the period in which the Cominform existed.
I would not support a merge with the Tito-Stalin split article since it primarily deals with the events leading to and including the open split and underlying power struggle in the Balkans including Albania, Greece and Bulgaria as well as Yugoslavia, while this one primarily deals with complex consequences of the split in Yugoslavia alone.
I would like to therefore propose to move the article to a descriptive name (inspired by Aftermath of the September 11 attacks) to Aftermath of the Tito–Stalin split as a descriptive title and keep the current name as a redirect along with any other that might exist now. --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know mate, I actually think this is the common name for this period in the books I own, which include Serbo-Croatian as well as English ones. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm, maybe I'm wrong, I'll have another look.--Tomobe03 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps I commented too soon before I checked the indexes. I looked again at Ramet and Vucinich (which are among the better general sources in English I have), and neither uses Informbiro predominantly, so maybe I'm wrong. Let's take a look at some Google Ngram results comparing the use of Informbiro, Tito-Stalin split and Soviet-Yugoslav split (which is how Ramet refers to it). Here are the results, which indicate that Tito-Stalin split is significantly more common than Soviet-Yugoslav split, and far more than Informbiro, so perhaps your original suggestion is actually the right solution. It is also more elegant and clearer about what the subject is. Informbiro is pretty obscure, after all. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis - I never saw that tool before. At least for now, it seems that the present title is not exactly common. It is not that there are no mentions of the "Informbiro period", but it is not that usual. I tried to squeeze into the text a mention of the term in order to note that it is sometimes, by some authors, applied to 1948-1955-ish period. I'll see if I can find a nicer ref for usage of the term though. --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Informbiro period/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Will look at this shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I read through it and fixed some English issues, as well as a couple of context issues, and left one issue marked where I couldn't quite make sense of it. @Tomobe03: please have a look. Nice work otherwise. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


### Comments
The background section feels like it could expand a bit more on why the Tito-Stalin Split happened. It feels quite rushed, especially the second paragraph, and as it was a major factor in the relationship between the two states, I think a little more context would be appropriate.
There is a mix of using "%" and "percent" throughout the article. Be consistent and use just one version (either one is fine).
"By June 1948, Yugoslavia reached an agreement with the United States allowing it access to Yugoslav gold reserves held in the United States." This isn't quite clear: who was allowed to access the gold, the Yugoslavs or the Americans?
"...but recent research demonstrated his claims were false." Avoid phrases like "recent", as that can quickly become outdated. Instead write something like "but research as of YEAR demonstrated his claims were false."
How were the films in the "Selected filmography" selected, and what is their significance?
There is a heavy reliance on two sources throughout the article (Banac and Woodward). While they clearly are relevant sources, is there any ability to some more variety to use? If possible it would be good to do, but I also understand if there are limitations.
I also made a few minor edits relating to grammar, but nothing major. I see that @Joy: has made some edits already, but I would strongly encourage a review by someone like the Guild of Copy Editors, just to further clean up the wording.
It's a fairly comprehensive article, and looks like it does a good job of covering the period. I'll give it a second read once the above are addressed, but it doesn't look like there is much work needed. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review. In the meantime, the article was copyedited by the GOCE, so I trust the grammar issue is now addressed. I'll try to address the remaining issues and provide further clarification today and tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

On the matter of the filmography. The first two items in the list are noted in the preceding paragraph as the first two films dealing with the Yugoslav-Soviet split and its aftermath. The remainder represents, I'd say the entire Yugoslav filmography dealing with some aspect(s) the article topic. I understand that it would be ideal to have a source specifically listing significant (or all) films like the literary authors above, but I don't have one right now. I'll go though what I can access tomorrow and add any such source or remove the list altogehter if necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The percent/% and the word "recent" are addressed now - those were simple enough...--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As regards additional sources. I have consulted a number of sources in editing this article and the Tito–Stalin split. I found virtually no disagreements between the sources except those published in Yugoslavia (i.e. likely influenced to some degree by proximity to the events and the protagonists). Among all the sources I found, Perović (and Banac) seem to be most detailed in terms of this article's background, while Woodward and Banac seem to provide most detailed account of the events presented in the article. Most importantly, with the (understandable) exception of the early Yugoslav sources (and absence of early Soviet ones), there is hardly any disagreement between the sources, so I went for the most detailed ones. Those also directly support statements presented by early sources which have been either refuted or at least contested since (e.g. Perović on Kiraly). As an afterthought, Perović relies explicitly and substantially on Soivet sources such as Gibianskii, Sovetskii Soyuz i novaya Yugoslaviya, so I trust this aspect/position is also duly represented. Is there any specific area/issue you would like to have additional sources?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have clarified who gained access to gold reserves now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I have also added a bit of context clarification to the Background section. While I agree sufficient context for the origin of the article topic, i.e. the Informbiro period must be provided, I am reluctant to duplicate all (or a lot) of the Tito–Stalin split article content here though per wp:summary. I trust that there are no gaps in the background to the topic left now, but please point out any I may have missed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I have now replaced the list of films with a paragraph covering the topic per source I managed to obtain (took a few days longer to find it though), and added a bit on a play on the topic. I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised, so could you please have a look at the changes and let me know if anything else needs further work. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed replies. I will try and re-read it today, and let you know what I think. It should be very close to ready at this point though, and I appreciate your work here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Read it through again. While I'm still a little leery on so much reliance on a couple sources, I do like your justification, and will not hold back promoting the article. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole article about Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period, can someone knowledgeable figure it out? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know much about that from the top of my head. The article claims there was a strategy to intentionally inflict damage on one federated republic by the government of the federation not conditioned by defence concerns - which is hard to prove and harder to disprove (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). While such a conspiracy is possible, it is also possible that the move reflected new geopolitical reality outside Yugoslavia. For example, consider this:
Before the WW2, Yugoslavia exported bulk of its bauxite to Germany and imported bulk of its aluminium from Germany. (S. Brkljača: Bosanskohercegovački boksit kao strateška sirovina 1918-1945, pp. 343-344) Presumably, shipping the latter via Danube would be the cheapest and it would make sense to have an aircraft factory in a population centre along the Danube such as Belgrade; I imagine one would be inclined to have production of aircraft in a place where aluminium can be delivered reliably
The best (i.e. the most cost-effective for production) bauxite in Yugoslavia was found in Lištica and Široki Brijeg area (i.e. near Mostar) - containing up to 60% of aluminium(III) oxide (Brkljača, p. 342)
After the Tito-Stalin split, i.e. during the Informbiro period, the only significant route of supply was by maritime shipping, and Port of Ploče was developed at about the same time (with an alumina terminal) to allow development of alumina and aluminium production in Mostar area. Moreover, the port was used to supply raw materials to the Mostar processing industry;
Yugoslavs were very short of fuel and rolling stock in the late 1940s and early 1950s and requested US assistance in that respect in the Informbiro period (see Woodward Susan L - Socialist Unemployment - The Political Economy of Yugoslavia 1945-1990, esp. p.104)
Yugoslavs requested and US discussed with the federal authorities development of various industries, especially metallurgy (Woodward p. 122)
In one instance (at the 5th KPJ Congress in 1948), Kardelj spoke of moving of a "Slovene" aluminium factory closer to its source of raw material - to a bauxite mine in Croatia, i.e. relocations of production facilities for economic reasons were not unheard of (Woodward p. 181)
None of the above means that the move to Mostar had economic motivation, but it indicates that there may be one. Even if there were an economic motive to move the plant to Mostar, there may have been a political motive too. All this being said, it seems to me that WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies there. I have not examined the article sources or researched what other sources say. While the article might be correct, the sources backing it would have to be quite substantial to support the claim of a purely punitive strategy without any consideration to defence or logistical (transport) concerns.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course, the above was just an example (the Mostar plant). A similar, even simpler argument could be made with e.g. foundry moved from Subotica where no significant iron or coal deposits exist for hundreds of kilometres, to Sarajevo where both are found nearby. Then again, "political plants" with no economic justification were no rare occurence in post-war Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)