Talk:Tito–Stalin split

message: *This article desperately needs sources. I have tried to tidy up the language and grammar without changing the meaning, but sources are needed to back up the factual accuracy of some parts. I came here out of interest and know very little, so attention is needed from somebody more learned I reckon. Jdcooper 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "Yugoslavia liberated itself from Axis domination, without any direct support from the Red Army as the others." - what utter nonsense is this? Could someone with at least a basic grounding in the late history of the war rewrite this part?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.21.10 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. Yugoslavia did liberate itself, unlike other countries in occupied Europe. The Red Army provided indirect logistical support to the Yugoslav Partisans, but only when it reached Yugoslavia. It did however, render assistance to Tito's forces in the attack on Belgrade, but the entry into the city was conducted jointly. Perhaps a small rewrite is in order. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-liberation

message: "joint-stock companies favored in the Soviet Union"
Can any of the authors name one? Because here it says: "Due to specifics of the Soviet economy, all enterprises in the Soviet republic as the rest of the Soviet Union were state owned and private entrepreneurship was strictly prohibited and criminally prosecuted", and as far as I know it's true.
So, what were these Soviet joint-stock companies that have led to the split between Tito and Stalin? The subject has to be cleared.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.114.36 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint-stock companies in the Soviet Union 

message: This article contains the (widely rebutted) claim that Jasenovac and its sub-camps were used extensively by the communists to intern political opponents, a claim often made by modern revisionists.   A three-decade-old source published while Yugoslavia was still a country isn't sufficient for this extraordinary assertion to stay in this GA-level article. Hence, if no one has any objections, I will remove it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jasenovac as a communist camp 

message: The use of Bosnia and Croatia to describe areas of Yugoslavia that were included in the NDH is not only incorrect (as Bosnia is an ill-defined region, and Croatia is a link to the current nation, which didn’t exist at the time, and its use is therefore ahistorical), but Herzegovina is entirely left out. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PM here. Mentioning the two toponyms adds nothing to understanding of the topic and might confuse for the following reasons: (1) as stated, Bosnia is not well defined (even though I believe all definitions would be encompassed by the NDH territory); (2) Croatia, even used as a geographic term of description, makes little sense even if "present-day" qualification is added because significant parts of present-day Croatia were not included in the NDH (in 1941, those would account for about 12 thousand km2 or thereabout, i.e. well north of 20% of the present-day Croatian territory -- even if the NDH territory is accounted as including the parts only nominally ruled from Zagreb); (3) even if treated as a shorthand description, it omits Herzegovina and Syrmia. I believe the PM's revert is fully justified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you are correct, Tomobe summs it up perfectly. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnia and Croatia