tito's partisans

[fokker-scourge]

i know thay were pro communist Resistence group in yugoslavia during WW2


but im interested too know more about them

[Lamanov]

My grandfathers were Yugoslav partisans.

It was an antifascist movement that bursted as a revolutionary uprising in 1941, led by the communist party of Yugoslavia. It was consisted mostly of peasants [because Yugoslavian population was 90% peasant]; and the rest [minority] were party officials and industrial workers.

It was by far strongest and most succesful resistance movement in Europe. It led guerilla warfare until 1945 when it opened up its first front line. It's strategy was constant move, withdrawal and sudden attack. Liberation of new territories was a vital element of partisan strategy in 4 years of heavy fighting with the Nazis and local facist-government [and] nationalist armed forces [4 of them].

Ofcourse, this tupe of long guerilla warfare helped the party to organise a hierarchy which later easily transformed into a one party dictatorship.

Is there something you want to know in particular ??

[RedStarOverChina]

Tito's partisans were able to liberate Yugoslavia with minimum amount of foreign support. It is the only nation able to liberate themselves during WWII. Quite admirable, really. Because Tito liberated the country without Soviet help, Yugoslavia was able to resist against Soviet imperialism after WWII.

[Lamanov]

Actually, Soviets did help. Liberation of Belgrade was a joint operation. Final phases of the war in '45 were played out when the Soviet Army was marching through Yugoslavia on their way to Germany and Austria.

Lets not get naive. This was important element of the war that sealed the result of the [paralel] civil war between the partisans and the "Chetniks" [Serbian nationalist pro-royal armed forces]. If W-Allies reached Yugoslavia firs - result would be opposite.

Tito-Stalin clash is a different story which, again, includes westerners.

[El_Revolucionario]

tito was no communist.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:13 AM
tito was no communist.
Why

[El_Revolucionario]

you know why

my comment is also true for stalin mao and jong il

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:05 PM
you know why

my comment is also true for stalin mao and jong il
No why?

Come on explain why Tito wasn't a communist.

Or are do you randomly just say people aren't communist unless they are Che

[OleMarxco]

Tito was independantly of both the Soviet Union and the Western Allies. A true -vanguard socialist-, but definately better than the easterns....
And why should someone be proud that their grandfather's where "Tito's partisans"? It's not YOU, so why be proud of someone when being born into that family wasn't of your choosing? Ye're all shaped by envirnoment ;)

[Lamanov]

1) Tito was no communist, true [but that was a party's name... he too abused Marx's work... wtf can I do about it]
2) If they weren't partisans they would be pro-fascists and nationalists. An 'accidant' I'm proud of. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

True. And because "market" socialism is in fact not socialism at all.

[fokker-scourge]

very interesting indeed

[190driver]

someone talking about tito!?

am i too late?

[American_Trotskyist]

Unlike many of the Resistance groups he wasn't a Nationalists, well the movement, as far as I know. The resistance movement even had sodiers from the Italian and German armies.

[1949]

If you want to admire the Yugoslav partisans' heroics in liberating their country from German and Italian imperialism, then I don't see a problem with that.

But you shouldn't pretend that the society they created in Yugoslavia after 1948 had anything to do with socialism (whether or not Yugoslavia was socialist in the 1944-1948 period is arguable, and I don't have enough information on the subject to comment on it). And you shouldn't pretend that they remained independent from imperialism.

Here is a long list of crimes of U.S. imperialism which received the support of the Yugoslav revisionists, which is printed in the Communist Party of China polemic "Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?":


1. The revolution in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Tito closed the border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greek people's guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greek fascist royalist troops to pass through Yugoslav territory in order to attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way the Tito clique helped the U.S.-British imperialists to strangle the Greek people's revolution.

2. The Korean War. In a statement issued on September 6, 1950, Edvard Kardelj, who was then foreign minister, brazenly slandered the Korean people's just war of resistance to aggression and defended U.S. imperialism. On December 1, speaking at the U.N. Security Council, the representative of the Tito clique attacked China for its "active interference in the Korean War". The Tito clique also voted in the United Nations for the embargo on China and Korea.

3. The Vietnamese people's war of liberation. On the eve of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China in April 1954, the Tito clique violently slandered the just struggle of the Vietnamese people, asserting that they were being used by Moscow and Peking "as a card in their post-war policy of cold war".[1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Borba, April 23, 1954.

They said of the Vietnamese people's great battle to liberate Dien Bien Phu that it was "not a gesture of goodwill".[1]

4. Subversion against Albania. The Tito clique has been carrying on subversive activities and armed provocations against socialist Albania for a long time. It has engineered four major cases of treason, in 1944, 1948, 1956 and 1960. Its armed provocations on the Yugoslav-Albanian border numbered more than 470 from 1948 to 1958. In 1960 the Tito clique and the Greek reactionaries planned an armed attack on Albania in co-ordination with the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.

5. The counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary. The Tito clique played a shameful role of an interventionist provocateur in the Hungarian counter-revolutionary rebellion in October 1956. After the outbreak of the rebellion, Tito published a letter supporting the counter-revolutionary measures of the traitor Nagy. On November 3 the Tito clique bade Nagy seek asylum in the Yugoslav Embassy in Hungary. In a speech on November 11, Tito characterized the counter-revolutionary rebellion as resistance by "progressives" and impudently questioned whether the "course of Yugoslavia" or the "course of Stalinism" would win.

6. The Middle Eastern events. In 1958 troops were sent by U.S. imperialism to occupy Lebanon and by British imperialism to occupy Jordan. There arose a world-wide wave of protest demanding the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. and British troops. At the emergency session of the U.N. General Assembly on the Middle Eastern situation, Koca Popovié, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, said that "it is not a question of whether we insist on condemning or approving the actions taken by the United States and Great Britain". He advocated intervention by the United Nations, an organization which is under the control of U.S. imperialism.

7. The event in the Taiwan Straits. In the autumn of 1958, the Chinese People's Liberation Army shelled Quemoy in

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Borba, May 8, 1954.

order to counter the U.S. imperialist provocations in the Taiwan Straits and to punish the Chiang Kai-shek gang, which is a U.S. imperialist lackey. The Tito clique maligned China's just struggle as "a danger to the whole world"[1] and "harmful to peace".[2]

8. The U-2 incident. In 1960 the United States sent a U-2 spy plane to intrude into the Soviet Union and sabotaged the four-power summit conference scheduled to be held in Paris. On May 17 Tito issued a statement attacking the correct stand then taken by the Soviet Government as creating "such large-scale disputes".

9. The Japanese people's patriotic struggle against the United States. In June 1960 the Japanese people waged a just and patriotic struggle against the United States, which was unprecedented in its scale. But the Tito clique defended U.S. imperialism, saying that the U.S. occupation of Japan "promoted the democratization of political life in Japan".[3] Subsequently, it attacked the statement of Inejiro Asanuma, the late President of the Japanese Socialist Party, that "U.S. imperialism is the common enemy of the Japanese and Chinese peoples", accusing him of "standing for an extremist line".[4]

10. The struggle of the Indonesian people. The Tito clique tried to sabotage the Indonesian people's struggle against imperialism. It engaged in base activities in an effort to prevent the establishment of a "Nasakom" cabinet in Indonesia, that is, a government of national unity comprising the nationalists, religious circles and the Communists.

11. The Congo event. In the summer of 1960, when U.S. imperialism carried out armed aggression in the Congo under the flag of the United Nations, the Tito clique not only voted for U.S. imperialism in the United Nations but, in accordance with the desire of U.S. imperialism, sent air force personnel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Slobodni Dom, September 4, 1958.
[2] Slovenski Porocevalec, September 9, 1958.
[3] Komunist, Belgrade, June 2, 1960.
[4] Foreign Political Bulletin, February 1, 1962.

to the Congo to take a direct part in the bloody suppression of the Congolese people.

12. The Laotian question. When U.S. imperialism stepped up its intervention in Laos in January 1961, the Tito clique spread the view that the United States "is really concerned for the peace and neutralization of Laos".[1] When U.S. imperialism engineered political assassinations and armed conflicts in Laos in May 1963, the Tito clique attacked the Laotian patriotic forces for "putting all the blame on the United States".[2]

13. The U.S. Alliance for Progress programme. In August 1961 the United States forced various Latin American countries to sign the Alliance for Progress programme, which was a new U.S. imperialist instrument for the enslavement of the Latin American people. This programme of aggression was strongly opposed by the Latin American people but was praised by the Tito clique as "meeting in a large measure the requirements of the Latin American countries".[3]

14. The Sino-Indian border conflict. Ever since the Indian reactionaries created tension on the Sino-Indian border in 1959, the Tito clique has consistently supported the expansionism, aggression and provocations of the Indian reactionaries against China. It openly spread the lie that "the demarcation of the boundary was already completed at the beginning of the present century and put into the shape of the well-known McMahon Line",[4] and did its best to confuse right and wrong, making the slander that China "permits itself to revise its border with India wilfully and by force"[5] and "committed aggression" against India.[6]

15. The Cuban revolution and the Caribbean crisis. The Tito clique has made numerous comments attacking Cuba, saying

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Borba, January 13, 1961.
[2] Politika, May 5, 1963.
[3] Komunist, Belgrade, August 17, 1961.
[4] Rad, September 12, 1959.
[5] Borba, December 26, 1960.
[6] Politika, September 3, 1959.

that Cuba "believes only in revolution"[1] and that the Cuban revolution is "not so much a model as an exception to the road of revolution".[2] During the Caribbean crisis in the autumn of 1962, the Tito clique defended U.S. imperialist aggression, saying that "the difficulties started when the Cuban revolution trod on the pet corns of the U.S. companies",[3] and that "if it is said that the United States was irritated by the establishment of rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood, that would be understandable".[4]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The Rebellion of Cuba, Belgrade, November 1962.
[2] Politika, January 1, 1963.
[3] Komunist, Belgrade, September 13, 1962.
[4] Politika, November 13, 1962.
(From the collection The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement, Foreign Language Press, Peking 1965, pp. 167-172.)

The full article also gives a well-documented description of how the Yugoslav revisionists built a state-capitalist economy that was dependent on U.S. imperialism. It is available online here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

I also suggest, for information on more recent events in Yugoslavia, checking out "How Capitalism Caused the Balkan Wars," from Revolutionary Worker #1001, April 11, 1999. It is available online here: http://rwor.org/a/v20/1000-1009/1001/kosobk.htm

[Hiero]

The revolution in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Tito closed the border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greek people's guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greek fascist royalist troops to pass through Yugoslav territory in order to attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way the Tito clique helped the U.S.-British imperialists to strangle the Greek people's revolution.


I thought Yugoslavia were the bigges su[[prters to the Communist in Greee, while the USSR didn't support the Communist in Greece.


"if it is said that the United States was irritated by the establishment of rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood, that would be understandable".

Thats a rather poor arguement. He is just stating the truth.

[1949]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:38 PM


The revolution in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Tito closed the border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greek people's guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greek fascist royalist troops to pass through Yugoslav territory in order to attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way the Tito clique helped the U.S.-British imperialists to strangle the Greek people's revolution.


I thought Yugoslavia were the bigges su[[prters to the Communist in Greee,
They were...until July of 1949.


while the USSR didn't support the Communist in Greece.
I've read in some places that the Soviet Union and Albania actually did give a small amount of aid. Whether that's true or not, I'm not sure; I know it is true, however, that Stalin did not think the uprising had any chance of success. This was understandable, as the CPG held sort of a "left" opportunist line of focusing their military attacks on cities and trying to skip past the new democratic stage of the revolution, in a nation that was, at the time, semi-feudal and semi-colonial. This is discussed in more depth in chapter seven of Kostas Mavrakis's On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History, available online here: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73NB.html

The Soviet Union's alleged failure to give any aid and the Greek communists' subjective errors do not in any way justify Yugoslavia's betrayal, though.



"if it is said that the United States was irritated by the establishment of rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood, that would be understandable".

Thats a rather poor arguement. He is just stating the truth.
Expand on what you mean by that. Are you saying U.S. imperialism has any right to dictate whether or not Cuba can have rocket bases?

[Hiero]

Well they are going to be irritated.

I think want Tito has said has a bit of ambiguity. I don't want to argue much about it.

[American_Trotskyist]

I've read in some places that the Soviet Union and Albania actually did give a small amount of aid. Whether that's true or not, I'm not sure; I know it is true, however, that Stalin did not think the uprising had any chance of success. This was understandable, as the CPG held sort of a "left" opportunist line of focusing their military attacks on cities and trying to skip past the new democratic stage of the revolution, in a nation that was, at the time, semi-feudal and semi-colonial. This is discussed in more depth in chapter seven of Kostas Mavrakis's On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History, available online here:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73NB.html

Democratic revolution? Oh wait now I remember that was the Menshevik-Kautskyite line used to pacify the workers in Russia and then was regurgitated by Stalin after the Left-Opposition's purges so he could win allies in the West by pacifying other revolutions. Let’s see, we have China in 1925-1927 when Stalin tried to gain an ally by offering the slaughter of Communists to Chang. Spain 1936 when he used this to crush the revolutionary spirit to gain support from the 'Popular Front' Western Governments leading to fascism in Spain. Shall we continue?

That is a regurgitated Menshevikism with different rhetoric used, but still class-collaborationism. When was the Democratic revolution in Russia? I forget that often. The Permanent Revolution is the logical conclusion to Leninism.

Tito was looking out for Tito just as Stalin was looking out for Stalin and Mao for Mao.

As a Maoist I think you are in no position to criticize anyone as an opportunist.

Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/index.htm)

Behind the Stalin-Tito Clash (http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/8/yugoslavia.html)

The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)

[1949]

The Mensheviks and Kautskyites you make reference to held what is referred to as the "theory of the productive forces". According to this logic, the feudal backwardness of countries like Russia--including the fact that the proletariat was only a minority of the population--made it impossible for the proletariat to take the lead of the revolutionary movement, and so the proletariat would have to slavishy stand behind the bourgeoisie in the bourgeois revolution, which would be followed by a protracted period of bourgeois dictatorship under which the millions of peasants who made up the majority of the population would be ruined by the introduction of capitalist forms of farming and transformed into proletarians.

The bourgeois-democratic revolution advocated by Lenin in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (link) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html) and by Mao in "On New Democracy" (link) (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/ND40.html) was quite the opposite that. Lenin and Mao held that it was possible for the proletariat to take the lead of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and establish its own revolutionary dictatorship, after which it could immediately take the society down the path of the socialist revolution. Anyone who honestly analyzed Lenin and Mao's positions would see that they are qualitatively different from the type of defeatism advocated by the Mensheviks and Kautskyites--or, for that matter, by Stalin, in cases such as Russia in 1917 (when he continued to support the bourgeois-imperialist Provisional Government until about ten days after the publication of Lenin's "April Theses"), Spain during the Civil War there, China from 1936-1946 (when he supported the Wang Ming line in the Chinese Communist Party of subordinating the CCP to the Kuomintang in waging the War of Resistance Against Japan), and China from 1946-1949 (when he told the CCP to try to remain in the coalition government with the KMT, even though the latter had already resumed military operations against the former). (China in the twenties, I'm honestly not sure about; though you might want to check out the Mavrakis book I linked to earlier, which has a chapter about it.)

I'll try to write more about Stalin and Trotsky later on. I still have other stuff I want to check here at RL before I have to get back to school work.

[Comrade san]

can i just say we called one of our cats Tito
:)