Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tito–Stalin split

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tito–Stalin split edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

Tito–Stalin split (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets or is reasonably close to meeting A-class criteria. Since it became a GA, the article received a thorough copyedit from the GOCE and few other tweaks. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In Eastern Bloc politics, the split with Yugoslavia led to the denunciation and prosecution of Titoists, including high-ranking officials such as Xoxe, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia Rudolf Slánský, Hungarian interior and foreign minister László Rajk, and General Secretary of the Bulgarian Workers' Party central committee Traicho Kostov." This sentence makes it seem like these individuals were *actually* Titoists, and that was the reason that they were purged. Is that really what the source says? (I have read that the reason for the Slansky trial was in fact that parts of the Czechoslovak Communist leadership felt it was necessary to hold a show trial to show their loyalty to Moscow.) (t · c) buidhe 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. The source says explicitly those were show trials and that the accusations were meant to remove those Moscow disagreed with, specifically designed to strengthen Soviet grip over corresponding parties/countries. I see how the sentence might be interpreted as saying that they were actually Titoists, so I have tried to add a clarification there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur edit

  • Since the Greek Communist Party is abbreviated as KKE, you should also abbreviate the Democratic Army of Greece as DSE instead of DAG.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps you could mention that anti-communist Albanian agents were being trained in Greece by the Americans during the Albanian Subversion.
    • Much of the Albanian Subversion seems to occur in the period after the split. I included information on 1947 intelligence/infilatration activities though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Tito plotting to annex a part of Greece with former members of the National Liberation Front (Macedonia)?
    • Yes. The article said that Tito sought to expand Yugoslav territory to encompass Aegean Macedonia even if DSE failed to seize power in Greece. I tweaked the wording now to clarify that Aegean Macedonia is in Greece.
  • Mention that the Soviets offered the DSE limited support because Stalin had previously signed the Percentages agreement with Churchill. Giving the British 90% influence in Greece.
    • Added now. I thought it would be better to simplify by saying that Greece was placed in the British sphere of influence under the Percentages Agreement instead of citing 90% exactly. I'm not opposed to citing exact number though if neccessary.
  • Did Yugoslavia seal its borders with Greece only in the military aid sense or in general? It is known that they allowed thousands of Greek leftists to settle in Yugoslavia or leave for other socialist countries.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources I have access to are not clear on this. Since Yugoslav borders were not really open for private travel at the time anyway, I assume the closure meant suspension of all travel/transport across the border, but none of the sources say so explicitly. They all agree that the support to the DSE ended, so I rephrased the wording to say so. I also added informaiton about direct motivation for the move (KKE siding with the Cominform).

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the article. I appreciate your feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Catlemur, are you happy to support promotion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting.--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:EasternBloc BasicMembersOnly.svg - this needs a source; the makeup of the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia's and Albania's relationship with it are fairly basic facts that shouldn't be hard to source, but we do need a reference.
    • Tried to get a ref as concise as possible since it has to list all the countries and specify those years for Yugoslavia and Albania. Found one at Norman J. G. Pounds. “Fissures in the Eastern European Bloc.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 372, 1967, pp. 40–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1037711, specifically on pages 41-43. Should I add the ref to the article (in image caption) or to the Commons?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, to the file page on Commons - that way it'll be covered wherever else the map is used. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bojište u ulici Kneza Miloša 1944.jpg - this one appears to be unusable; anonymous photos had to be published before 1941 to be PD in Yugoslavia, and one taken in 1944 obviously cannot have been. Also, it would need a US tag, and it's not clear to me how it would be PD in the US.
    • I'm quite unsure about photographs such as this one for several reasons. All dates given in Yugoslav PD notices seem odd to me since the legislation did not actually specify any date - stating instead that, e.g. copyright on anonymous work expires on 1 January, 50 years following publication. I cannot explain the 1941 year at all other than to wonder if this is the final date when the particular legislation was in effect before dissolution of Yugoslavia. All Yugoslav successor states took over the Yugoslav Copyright Act without amendments and none of the dates exist there either - only the same periods. Later on (as far as I can tell) all some of the successor states extended the copyright protection for anonymous published works to 70 years (Serbia certainly did, according to the Serbian PD tag). The particular photo was published in Belgrade uncredited in 1945 in a book written by Vladimir Dedijer. Since this (the publication) happened more than 70 years ago, it would seem that the photo would be PD. Then again, I cannot explain the dates in the tags or find any source for them. That being said, no photo is a dealbreaker for me here, so... What do you recommend?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this (be begun to) be fixed by using {{PD-Serbia}}?
      • I think that would probably solve the country of origin aspect, but we'd still need the US copyright situation to be resolved. As far as I'm aware, because the book was still under copyright in Serbia (and the other successor states to Yugoslavia) as of 1 January 1996, the copyright of the book was automatically extended in the US; the term was extended to 95 years from publication, which would mean the photo would enter the PD in the US in 2040. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It turns out that Serbia introduced the 70-year copyright period in 2004. For example here [1] is the FRY Copyright Act of 1998 (articles 96-97). This means that the photo copyright expired at the latest on 31 December 1995 (possibly a year earlier if published elsewhere, but I have no such information). This means it was PD on 1 January 1996 - just in time not to be granted restoration of the copyright in the US (according to WP:NUSC). Which also means the commons tag is incorrect in several ways and that the photo is PD everywhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done - added PD-Serbia and PD-US tag.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found the text of the Serbian Copyright Act here [2] and its Article 103 paragraph 2 indicates that the copyright for uncredited works expires 70 years after disclosure (presumably lawful publication). In this case that would mean that the photo has become PD on 1 January 2016. The act never mentions any of the years specified in the Yugoslav or Serbian PD tags (1941, 1954, 1966, 1973). I thought of the Yugoslav PD tag some more, and it makes no sense that Yugoslav Copyright Act on its own protects any work because there would be nobody to enforce it since 1992. Indeed the only practial use for the Yugoslavia PD tag would be to inform readers that a particluar work became PD while Yugoslavia existed. Later it has been superseded by copyright acts of successor states and PD Serbia tag applies since 1992 (at least in this case). As regards the years cited in the PD Serbia tag, I can only assume that the tag is incorrectly written.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would assume that the copyright laws of Yugoslavia's successor states aren't retroactive (in that they wouldn't retroactively restore works to copyright if they were already PD when Yugoslavia broke apart. So if a Yugoslav work meets the criteria on the template, it's the best one to use, since Serbian, Croatian, etc. copyright law wouldn't apply. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they do not appear to be retroactive.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Confini Trieste-Istria2.jpg - this needs work. It looks like a US govt work, but we need a better source than the vague "American Foreign Policy".
    • I cannot determine where the particular map came from - even though it has appearance of being made in the period. However, there is a similar map, having a stylised topography background instead of plain colour fields and depicting the same lines as shown in this one in Jennings, on page 26. It has fewer settlements depicted though. The ones that are depicted are Trieste, Pula, Pazin, Motovun, Buzet, Monfalcone, Udine, the Morgan line, zones A and B, two exclaves of the zones A and B, Gulf of Trieste, Gulf of Venice, Tagliamento and Isonzo Rivers by name (others only by a symbol), pre-war and post-war borders, FTT and its borders. I could add this source (presumedly to the commons) if you find it acceptable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need a good source for the map's provenance to demonstrate that it actually is a US govt work. You might post at the Milhist talk page to see if anyone knows of an online repository of old US state department or or DoD maps. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asked at the MILHIST talk. If no leads turn up in a couple of days, I could try to make one on my own using Jennings as the source.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done - got a reply at the MILHIST talk. The responding editor also added the sourcing info to the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Koçi Xoxe.jpg - this also has significant problems. It needs a US tag, it needs a proper source (i.e., is there a link to an archive we can verify the details?). Also, how exactly is it PD in Albania? We need a date of publication or the name of the photographer and their date of death to determine when it entered the PD in Albania (assuming it even has, which is fairly doubtful).
    • I cannot find the time of publication of this photo. If the photo was indeed taken at Xoxe's trial, it was in 1949 and it is quite possible that it was taken by a staff photographer for a newspaper article. That would account for 71 years since publication and thus PD in Albania per Albanian PD tag. On the other hand, I found the photo included in the Alamy catalog as a PD photo [3]. I assume that Alamy would cover their bases, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient verification or what should be done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Albanians appear to be most diligent legislators on the Balkans. They introduced the 70-year copyright period in 1995 [4] (articles 17-18). This means that the current image is not PD in the US and that everything published in Albania after 1925 is copyrighted in the US. Consequently, I have no option but to remove this image.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done - by removal. If I add something else here I'll keep this issue in mind.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi Dimitrov in a radio broadcast.jpg - Again, major issues here. We need a date of publication to determine copyright status in the EU, and we also need evidence of what effort has been made toward determining the identity of the author. That we don't know who the photographer is today is not evidence of the photo having been published anonymously, which is what the law requires. Also, it needs a US tag, assuming the former problems can be sorted.
    • Replaced with another image - I believe it has appropriate licensing information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That one needs a US tag as well, but I think it's still under copyright in the US for the same reason as second image above. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bulgaria had 50-year (+pma if non anonymous) copyright under 1993 act [5] (article 28 - "Авторското право върху произведение, използвано анонимно или под псевдоним, продължава 50 години след разгласяването му за първи път...") and the 70-year period seems to have been introduced in 2000 [6] (article 28, this time the link is in English). This means that the current photo (published apparently in 1947) is not PD in the US as only those published before 1 January 1946 would not have renewed copyright in the US. I'll check Commons if there are any and replace this one with such photo or remove altogether if none can be found.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done - by removal. Even though there are properly sourced commons images from 1940, the tag used is wrong. It would mean that the image is non-PD in the US unless another tag is in place to indicate that the image was PD before 1 Jan 1996 in Bulgaria. No such tag exists, so a replacement seems like unfeasible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Josip Broz Tito 1949.jpg - the source link for this states the image is still in copyright. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like in the case of the Belgrade image, I believe the PD tag there is incorrect since the relevant law does not mention any of the dates cited in the PD tag. I also think that the information card has become outdated since the publication, because the relevant law explicitly contradicts it. The image in question has been lawfully published in 1949 in the Annals of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts [7] on page 77 as uncredited image. That means that on 1 January 2021, full 71 years have expired since. The information card at the above link was published in 2014 (according to the information on the card) and that would make the publication in copyright at the time of the publication of the card (because that was within 70 years of the lawful publication). According to Article 61 of the Slovenia's Copyright Act [8] the copyright expires 70 years after lawful publication - in this case it has therefore expired on 1 January 2020. Again, it is perfectly possible to remove the image, but I think it would be incorrect in this case. What would you recommend in this case?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're probably right that the archive hasn't updated its database; I'd have thought they'd have built the site to automatically calculate it based on the publication year they have entered, but apparently not. The US aspect is still a problem though. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did some more digging prompted by PD-Slovenia tag citing the final Yugoslav Copyright Act regarding photographs: [9], specifically its Article 84 says "Autorsko imovinsko pravo na fotografsko djelo ... prestaje nakon proteka dvadeset pet godina od objave djela." meaning "Author's property rights to a photographic work ... shall expire upon expiry of twenty-five years since publication of the work". This means that on 1 January 1992 (the last 1 January it was in effect in Yugoslavia, before the successor states took it over) all photos made (presumably published) by 31 Dec 1966 became PD, and that all those published in the successor states by 31 Dec 1970 became PD by 1 Jan 1996 and therefore could not have had their copyright extened in the US. Slovenia amended the act in 1995, so in its case this would for photos published until 31 Dec 1969. FR Yugoslavia (and hence Serbia) amended the act in 1998 and Croatia in 1999, so 31 Dec 1970 cutoff remains in place. In conclusion, the photo seems to be PD in Slovenia and the US. I'll add the missing tags.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you for taking up this review. I have not dealt that much with image-related issues, so please excuse me if I as something that should be obvious to me. I'll try to address each of the above issues and add responses (indented further) directly below each bullet point you raised above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, I a couple of sources requested above, but I'm unsure where to add them (image captions or the Commons), and I have some questions regarding a couple of other images. I don't have much experience with these sort of issues, so I'm sorry if I'm asking things that should be obvious. I'm grateful for any guidance on the above matters and I expect to apply this to future noms too. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done anything re US PD tags until the above is resolved though. I'll circle back to that later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a good grasp on what is actually required, so I apologise for walls of text. I read WP:NUSC and if I understand it correctly it says that the works are indeed non-PD in the US if the work was not PD in the source country on the "date of restoration". The DoR is (according to the same page) is 1 January 1996 for all Yugoslav successor states, Albania, and Bulgaria.

The final Yugoslav Copyright Act provided protection for 50 years (+author's lifetime for non-anonymous works) and all the Yugoslav successor states initially adopted that same act as their own before amending it years later. For example, I know that Croatia had the same period in effect until 2003. [10] (See e.g. consoliated Croatian Copyright Act in 1999 [11] - Articles 81-84 contain the relevant period - pedeset godina meaning fifty years).

If I got this correctly, the Belgrade photo might be salvagable (i.e. PD in Serbia and in the US) if Serbia did not amend its Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period before 1996 - meaning US copyright was not renewed. I'll see if I can find relevant legislation to verify this. Hopefully their lawmakers were not diligent in that respect.

As far as Tito's image is concerned, if I understood the guidelines properly and even if Slovenia did not amend the Yugoslav Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period, the US copyright would still be renewed - but I could replace that image with an older one.

I'll also have a look at what was the situation in Albania and Bulgaria in 1996. Maybe they had copyright period of 45 years or so. Otherwise I'll remove relevant images.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the research done in the meantime {{PD-Yugoslavia}} makes perfect sense if it is interpreted as the cutoff dates for publication of works which became PD before breakup of Yugoslavia - with a separate date for photographs (1 Jan 1966) - and keeping in mind that those works may have become PD on other grounds or later. None of photos PD under PD-Yugoslavia would be copyrighted in the US because the DoR was only 5 years later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that's left now is the Morgan Line map. As indicated above, I asked at the MILHIST, but if all else fails, I'll make a new map.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got the map. I trust there's nothing left now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think everything is in order now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Cites properly formatted
  • Some sources have ISBNs with hyphens and some don't. Standardize on one or the other.
  • Put Perovic in title case.
  • All doi's link properly.
  • Spot checks made on ISBNs
    • The ISBN for Ziemke doesn't link to the edition cited. The LC number does work, so just delete the ISBN
    • No other issues noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of the above. I'm not sure where dashes go in ISBNs, so I just removed them altogether. Thanks for having a look at this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

  • "They established good bilateral relations which Yugoslav domestic and foreign policies did not appear to seriously affect"—not sure what the second part of this sentence is trying to say. (t · c) buidhe 11:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that's awkward. The bilateral relations were good despite ideological differences regarding Yugoslav domestic/foreign policies being based on communist ideas. Those were different from the Soviet ones, but nonetheless communist. Reworded now - could you please have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spiru was seen as the prime opponent of links with Yugoslavia and of direct ties between Albania and the USSR." Not sure about this sentence, from context it seems like he supports close relations between Albania and USSR?
    • Reworded. Yes he was supporting closer ties with the USSR.
  • Images are not supposed to be flipped, use the original (see MOS:SANDWICH)
    • Not sure which image is this in reference to. Could you point me to it?
  • "Border incidents" what are these exactly?
    • Difficult to tell. In some instances those would be attempts to cross the border (or successful crossings) covertly - either into the country or fleeing Yugoslavia. Also, the term included cross-border gunfire and the like. At any rate, the sources do not specify, but imply that it was different types of "incidents".
  • Otherwise, support on prose, I don't know enough about this to evaluate the other criteria. (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review this nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

G'day Tomobe03, great to see this here and another Milhist editor working diligently on Yugoslavia articles. A real watershed in post-war Yugoslavia and a major crisis with the potential for invasion. A bunch of high quality RS used for this, especially the relatively recent work of Perović which is of great comfort given the age of some of the other sources. Certainly enough for A-Class, sourcing-wise, although I would expect most of the key "Further reading" sources to be referenced in a FAC, especially Laković & Tasić, Dimić, Stokes and Vuchinich. Some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "especially under Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin respectively" as the split occurred entirely under their leadership, not "especially" under it
  • move link to Eastern Bloc to first mention
  • suggest "In particular, Yugoslavia hoped to admit neighbouring Albania to the Yugoslav federation, and fostered an atmosphere of insecurity within the Albanian political leadership, which exacerbated tensions with the Soviet Union, which made efforts to slow down Yugoslav–Albanian integration. Yugoslav support of the communist rebels in Greece against the wishes of the Soviet Union further complicated the political situation."
  • suggest "Stalin tried to pressure Yugoslavia and moderate its policies using Bulgaria as an intermediary."
  • suggest "The conflict also prompted fears of an impending Soviet invasion, with thousands of border incidents and incursions, and even a coup attempt by senior Soviet-aligned military leaders."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks Peacemaker67 for the comments and buidhe for the nudge.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • unlink London, too commonly known to need a link
  • suggest being a little less specific here "The remaining territory was broken up into several parts: in the east the Germans occupied the areas of Serbia and Banat, while the remainder became the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a puppet state garrisoned by German and Italian forces."
  • government in exile→government-in-exile
  • Mihailović was just a colonel at this stage
  • unlink Moscow
  • suggest "King Peter and the exiled government"
  • briefly explain what the Percentages Agreement was
  • link Communist Party of Albania
  • "treating it like a Yugoslav satellite state" and link satellite state
  • "Tito's Partisans"
  • "and had to accept Yugoslav civil authority"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Except Communist Party of Albania is already linked (piped link) to Party of Labour of Albania as disambiguation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the link should be at first mention in the body, ie "Albanian Communist". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. Moved now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, the USSR and Yugoslavia" actually, the treaty was signed on 5 April 1945, before the war ended
  • say what month "Stalin called Yugoslavia's foreign policy unreasonable"
  • There is no real background to "The confrontation with the Western Allies"
  • suggest "Yugoslav fighter aircraft"
  • "in this direction had occurred in 1943" as this section is about 1945-47
  • "Yugoslav regionprovince of Kosovo"
  • "Also in 1943, the Communist Party of Albania (PKSH) had proposed"
  • "and a KPJ representative"
  • "two British Royal Navy destroyers"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Yugoslav support to the communist Democratic Army of Greece" maybe link Greek Communist Party here
  • "The Yugoslavs hoped that the perceived Greek threat would increase Albanian support"
  • "Albanian and Yugoslav armies washad been approved"
  • "In late 1944, had Stalin first proposed"
  • suggest "The Yugoslav position was the federation was possible, but only if Bulgaria were one of the seven federal units."
  • Pirin Macedonia is duplinked
  • "the Bulgarian Workers' Party leader"
  • "Molotov instructed the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders"
  • "On 5 February, just days before the scheduled meeting with Stalin"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done almost everything: I have implemented most of the changes as suggested and tweaked others a bit, but I think those changes also conform to the suggestions above. I've added a bit of background on the confrontation with the Western Allies as it was pointed out as lacking. I'm not sure about changing qualification of a region to province for Kosovo. Back then it was formally a region unlike Vojvodina which had a different status of province. Is there a better term to use here?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're good, I had forgotten about the pre-1963 name. Link "Yugoslav region of Kosovo" to Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo though, as it covers all that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, still more to go here, but I'll crack on once I get back from a few days away. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Thanks for the comments!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back to it. Some more comments, starting at "February 1948 meeting with Stalin":

  • say what role Bakarić had at the time
  • "(The USSR viewed the Yugoslav five-year development plan unfavourably because it did not align with the needs of the Eastern Bloc but prioritised development based solely on local development needs.[50])" doesn't need to be in parens
  • suggest "The PKSH central committee adopted a resolution that official Albanian policy was pro-Yugoslav."
  • "ascribed them to slander and misinformation" by whom? Or was he describing the claims themselves as slander and misinformation?
    • I meant to say the claims were described by Tito as slander and misinformation. T
  • "accusing him of being the primary source of Soviet mistrust" was he accusing Hebrang of misinforming the Soviets, resulting in them mistrusting Yugoslavia, or what?
    • I would say your interpretation is right. Banac provides here a quote (albeit translated in English) saying that: Tito went further and denounced Hebrang as the "main culprit in the [Soviet] mistrust of our CC." (CC stands for the Central Committee [of the KPJ] - likely Banac's translation of customary abbreviation of 'CK' meaning centralni komitet) I copied here the entire sentence (starting with 'Tito' verbatim. The quotation marks are given in the source. T
  • suggest "had become a spy for the ultra-nationalist and fascist Croatian Ustaše during his captivity in 1942"
  • suggest "in Bucharest two days later."
  • "claimed there arewere "healthy" members"

Down to "Aftermath" more to come, hopefully tomorrow my time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "In 1949, special-purpose prison camps were built for male and female Cominformists on the uninhabited Adriatic islands of Goli Otok and Sveti Grgur respectively"
  • "Hungarian Major General..."
  • "Chief of the General Staff"

That's it, Tomobe03. Great work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking if you've seen this, Tomobe03? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, saw it four days ago, but I was busy then - and it just slipped from my mind since. I'll address this today. Thanks for the nudge.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks Peacemaker67. I think I got all of them now - except for the two items I provided clarifications above. Do you have any suggestions on improvements of the two points?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, great work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Tito–Stalin_split&oldid=1033648573"