Stalin's attempt to assasinate Tito - How much truth is ther

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I was just sent a link to the following site http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=140...document&id=228 (http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=228) in which supposed Soviet plans to assasinate Tito are revealed. Previously I had heard nothing about this (I had only heard of planned invasions of Yugoslavia), and I'm wondering if such plans were serious - even the source admits that there is no firm evidence of Stalin approving the plans - or is this just a case of anti-Stalin propaganda?

[Phyxious]

Of course they are true. Tito was a marked man because he was the only one with the balls to stand up to Stalin and get away with it...because the soviet army couldn't do shit...The Partisans, which was JNA was already established and experienced from long, dreanchful guerilla warfare and Stalin couldn't risk that. As well as in Yugo the villagers and the civilians fought as well, and Yugo had a population of about 15 million, therefore Stalin had to dish out twice as many soldiers to actually ATTEMPT to attack and he simply couldn't do that. He was also aware of the fact that Tito had become an icon and hero and nobody would desert him, yet they would fight by him till the end like so many of my family members did.

Fuck Stalin - Long Live Josip Broz Tito!

[commie kg]

I think It's probably credible, for reasons mentioned above.
Also, Yugoslavia threatened to annex the very totalitarian socialist Albania at one point, and Stalin wouldn't have liked that either.

Tito's refusal to sign the Warsaw Pact pissed Stalin off pretty bad. Instead Tito started the "Non-aligned nations movement" with Egypt, Sweden, and others.

[Cassius Clay]

That Josip Tito what a guy! Ally of NATO, a dictator and a Capitalist. Oh fantastic.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...pic=359&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=359&start=0)

Oh and commie KG the Warsaw Pact wasn't signed until 1955, two years after Stalin died.

[Phyxious]

Who told you Tito was a capitalist?

Tito loved the Yugoslav people thus he did everythin' he could do [ally of NATO ] to let the Yugoslavs rise economcially and socialiy in Europe.

If you really love the people and the country as a dictator should, then you should do everythin' for 'em.

[Cassius Clay]

Reality told me Tito was a Capitalist.

Just read the thread. And guess what dictators don't tend to like their people, if Tito cared one ounce for them he would of given them the right to self-determination, as with the case of the Kosovar Albanians in 1968.

[pastradamus]

Tito and Stalin never got along too well.Both their personalities contrasted with one another.In the end Tito secretly recieved political & economic aid off Truman in America,despite truman's hardline anti-communist policies,he gave aid to Tito to disposses Stalin of a possible ally.Stalin was confidant he could destroy Tito when he wanted as he put it "One shake of my finger & Tito will be no more".

Tito could be called a capitalist,but it wouldn't be too accrate.His politics were mostly "communist" but he put himself in Trumans pocket & was bullied into making stupid decisions.

[Phyxious]

Tito was a great man....he after all is human, and humans tend to make mistakes. Name me one dictator that didn't make mistakes? You can't. He always wanted to do the right thing for Yugoslavia and the Yugoslavian people and that itself makes him a good person. With him, Yugoslavia wasn't poor and the people were satisfied...can you say that about many other dictator-lead countries? Nope. He created a nirvana and with the beauty Yugo had, it was upheld for 50 years. People like Tudjman and Slobo and Mladic, etc he believed in. He saved Tudjmans life when the JNA was ready to execute him for talkin' shit, and that itself once again makes him a good person. He didn't wanna see any more Yugo's slaughtered thus showing that he cared for the people...and what is the 'sole' idea of Communism? Touche.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 9:52 pm on July 1, 2003
Reality told me Tito was a Capitalist.

Just read the thread. And guess what dictators don't tend to like their people, if Tito cared one ounce for them he would of given them the right to self-determination, as with the case of the Kosovar Albanians in 1968.

I don't think you proved that Tito was a capitalist in that thread, but anyways I do not want to return to that argument. My question is are you denying the claim that Stalin tried to assasinate Tito, or are you merely justifying why he did so?

I'm not concerned as to Stalin's motivations at present; I want to know if the source is accurate.

[Cassius Clay]

No I would say that that historian cannot be taken as a relaible source. This is the guy who began his career in 1970 taking the normal Soviet view of history at tthat time, in the late 80's it began to change and now he's fully in view of the western view of things. That from day one the Bolsheviks were just evil tyrants and other rubbish. He now sings the praises of the Tsar.

Anyway as I said before America had plans to invade Britain in the 20's, Germany had plans to invade New York in the 1900's. It means nothing.

Now on the subject of Tito what is there to admire about him. I think it's pointed out by the fact that he saved the lifes of people like Tudjman but massacred thousands of Marxists.

Doubltless many elements in Yugoslavia would of wanted to get rid of the guy, and the USSR supported them through words and probably even deeds (like giving refuge to genuine Marxists) and I support that. It's like the Iraqi Communist Party and Saddam Huissein, they've tried to kill his sons and almost succedded. I would support them but at the same time I reconise as did Stalin that invading someone is wrong.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 1:34 pm on July 7, 2003

Anyway as I said before America had plans to invade Britain in the 20's, Germany had plans to invade New York in the 1900's. It means nothing.

Yes, but the suggestion is that this plan was approved, as preliminary stages were executed. America never made any serious moves to follow through on their plans in the 1920s, the implication is that Stalin did so with these plans. However, I agree that the circumstantial evidence in this source is very weak indeed, which is why I was doubtful.



Now on the subject of Tito what is there to admire about him. I think it's pointed out by the fact that he saved the lifes of people like Tudjman but massacred thousands of Marxists.

Firstly, he was a patriot whot defeated the Nazis and ran the most efficient resistence movement throughout Europe. Secondly, he did this independent of significant Allied aid (he only began to receive significant aid in 1944). Thirdly, he has been the only person in recent history who has managed to unite Yugoslavia. Fourthly, he defied Soviet imperialism and was not afraid to follow his own Marxist inclinations.

Also, you accuse him of killing thousands of 'Marxists'. Firstly, I do not think the fact that people are Marxists would make senseless killings any less or more horrible. Secondly note the THOUSANDS, as opposed to Stalin's MILLIONS. Now I do not want to get into a numbers debate - I have read your contributions on many in the past, and I think it is safe to say that you will never convince most members of this board, and we (the anti-Stalinists) will never convince you. Suffice to say that most here should understand how hypocritical it is for a Stalinist to accuse Tito of being a murderer.

[Cassius Clay]

America did actually 'war-plan' a invasion of Britain. It was called something like War plan Orange.

So lets say that your right about Stalin 'murdering millions' does this suddenly make it okay for Tito to murder thousands? How you can defend this man as any sought of socialist is beyond me. He did not defeat the Nazis, the partisans beat the Nazis and over 8000 members of the YCP out of the pre-war total of 12,000 died which enabled Tito to fill his ranks with Chetnik types.

It was not Tito who got aid of the Allies, it was a Communist in British Intelliegence who recomended to Churchill that the YCP be supported. That same Communist went on to criticise Tito when he showed his true colours.

Tito killed the remaining Marxists. Now if you don't want to get involved in a debate about the numbers don't then state 'millions' without providing any evidence what so ever. I've provided evidence in that thread about how he used torture and terrible concentration camps to get rid of any opposition.

So what if he united Yugoslavia? Hitler was able to unite Germany, and like Hilter Tito oppressed nations it was allways dominated by Serbs and Croats (although they suffered under Tito aswell) does it not make you question him even the least when people like Milosevich and Tudgman and other butchers were in the top ranks in Tito's time. There was over a million unemployed by the time he died, the conditions for the tragedy in the 1990's lay firmly at Tito's door. Because he was the one who allowed the Yugoslav workers to become oppressed by Western bussinessmen, he was the one who allied with NATO and destroyed any Socialism there was, he was the one who promoted nationalism and saved the lifes of Nazi sypmathisers.

What is this 'Soviet Imperialism' not in 1948, if that were the case then you would of seen T-34's in the streets of Belgrade. Yet you didn't hmmm how odd.

Let's compare Tito and Stalin, as shown in that thread a man who was arrested for a short time in the USSR still went on to fight against Tito and expose the Fascist methods he was using. I didn't see any nations wanting to join Yugoslavia, while I did see nations in Yugoslavia wanting to join those 'Murdering Stalinists' in Albania.

Funny that Marxists were prepared to escape from their own home to the 'Stalinist bloc' while I never saw others going the other way.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Sorry I was unable to reply earlier, but I have been away on holiday. Anyways, here it goes.

So lets say that your right about Stalin 'murdering millions' does this suddenly make it okay for Tito to murder thousands? How you can defend this man as any sought of socialist is beyond me.

I never claimed this exhonorated him - I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a Stalinist accusing Tito of being a murderer. Similarly were I, as someone who has smoked weed many times, to inveigh against someone for smoking up it would be bizarre, pointless and contradictory.

Now if you don't want to get involved in a debate about the numbers don't then state 'millions' without providing any evidence what so ever.

If you so desire I can create a list of all books, articles, first hand accounts, etc. which I have read that support such figures. However, this would be a time consuming process, and at the end you would merely revert to the traditional Stalinist cry of 'Bias' or 'Western history', as if that somehow disproves such claims.

I've provided evidence in that thread about how he used torture and terrible concentration camps to get rid of any opposition.

You've quoted Stalinists in defence of Stalin. Wow, really convincing. I have read plenty of sources that are neither Stalinist, Titoist nor Western that refute such claims. They are far more objective and reliable.

What is this 'Soviet Imperialism' not in 1948, if that were the case then you would of seen T-34's in the streets of Belgrade. Yet you didn't hmmm how odd.

You can be an imperialist power without invading every dissenting nation. The US has not invaded every country that has turned communist. Like Stalin the US has tried to prevent dissention within their own camp; however, this has only sometimes involved invasions. Stalin clearly tried to undermine Tito's position. Why else would he have tried to recruit Soviet spies from within Yugoslavia? Why else did he protest that Russian officers were not directly incorporated into the Yugoslavian army's command structure?

does it not make you question him even the least when people like Milosevich and Tudgman and other butchers were in the top ranks in Tito's time.

Okay, so he was a bad judge of character. Do you think that Kruschev was a great leader? He was promoted by Stalin, and therefore by such logic his actions should reflect upon Stalin.

Funny that Marxists were prepared to escape from their own home to the 'Stalinist bloc' while I never saw others going the other way.

That's amazing, not being a time traveller myself, I never SAW them going either way. However, I have read of there being plenty of support for he Balkan federation. It is also interesting tha after Stalin ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist Gomulka, Nagy and many other popular communists wanted to liberalise and de-Stalinise.

(Edited by Uhuru na Umoja at 7:12 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Double posted the last argument - I don't quite know how.