/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

tl;dr stalinoids are mad that tito didn't bow down and copy paste the moscow party line and that he led a genuine revolution instead of being "liberated" by the red army and purged in favor of a pliable stalin simp

>>658215
>Tito, of course. While Stalin was restoring capitalism with his PMC beuraucratic party, Tito introduced worker-control of workspaces, literally a more fundamental thing of socialism that the USSR never achieved because of "muh productive forces muh industry".
"Muh worker controlled faggots"
I suppose socialism is when the workers of Boeing or Lockheed Martin own and control their workplaces
Now that they own directly their workplace they'll cheer and lobby for more wars

Worker ownership doesn't have to be cuck "muh cooperatives" it can be State owned (ie. by the people) actually pursuing communist interests instead of Tito's retarded socialism which amounted to taking as many IMF loans until the imperialists declared them bankrupt and plunged them into civil war

>>690970
First comment on the video "Tito and Regan were very good friends".
Says it all lol.
>"liberated" by the red army
Nice nazism
see, the difference is the Red Army did liberate death camps like auschwitz, while Tito copied them and shoved communists in them.

>>691105
As they say, scratch a Croat, find a Kraut. Unsurprising that Tito learned from his Ustase masters

>>658981
Now where have I seen that before.

>>691105
>see, the difference is the Red Army did liberate death camps like auschwitz, while Tito copied them and shoved communists in them
Tito built gulags and put Stalinists there, while Stalin built gulags and put Titoists there. Almost like it was a pointless sectarian dispute that benefitted nobody.
>>691109
I seriously have to wonder if you people are for real. For a supposed Ustase sympathizer Tito sure killed a lot of them, and he sure is popular in Serbia for an alleged sympathizer with people who tried to genocide the Serbs.

>>691113
Nazis in Germany had no problem slaughtering their own when they felt in the mood, just look at the Night of Long Knives and other such purges. Why wouldn't their Croatian counterparts act the same way? An ideology of psychopaths is going to attract psychopaths who will act on their impulses the first chance they get, and Tito was no exception. He only "opposed" the Ustase so that he wouldn't have any competition to his rule, once fully in power he had no problem enacting ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population, who were by and large in favor of Communism. As for his "popularity" in Serbia, that just goes to show the extent of Titoist brainwashing and propaganda, it still infests the minds of even those he wanted to exterminate.

>>691113
Respectfully, quit this crap. Yugoslavia fundamentally had the same problems it accused the USSR of, but was also unemployment, with remittances from migrant labor going into its economy.

>>691113
>Tito built gulags and put Stalinists there, while Stalin built gulags and put Titoists there. Almost like it was a pointless sectarian dispute that benefitted nobody
Titoists deserve to be impaled and left to rot in the sun, having their labor be used to benefit the state is a mercy

>>691121
>Yugoslavia fundamentally had the same problems it accused the USSR of, but was also unemployment, with remittances from migrant labor going into its economy.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean Tito was an "Ustase sympathizer" lmao.
>>691119
>Nazis in Germany had no problem slaughtering their own when they felt in the mood, just look at the Night of Long Knives and other such purges.
Tito's killing of the Ustase wasn't an internal party purge. His partisans were literally aligned with the Comintern and USSR, he had been a communist since well before the war. He led a communist insurgency which fought the Nazi occupation and the Ustase collaborators, and successfully defeated them.
>once fully in power he had no problem enacting ethnic cleansing against the Serbian population
Then why is he massively popular in Serbia? Polls show that Serbs rank him as the best leader in their history.
https://balkaninsight.com/2016/11/16/vucic-still-less-popular-than-tito-11-16-2016/
Moreover Croatia is literally the only ex-Yugo state where the breakup of Yugoslavia is not viewed in a negative way by most people.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210866/balkans-harm-yugoslavia-breakup.aspx
Idk about you, but I think it's super weird that a supposed Croation nationalist who wants to genocide Serbs would be popular in Serbia and unpopular in Croatia. I think it's also pretty weird that in the 40 years he ran the country the Serbs remained un-genocided and their population continued to grow.
>As for his "popularity" in Serbia, that just goes to show the extent of Titoist brainwashing and propaganda
Holy shit this is delusional. Propaganda doesn't work on people who are supposedly "exterminating" lmao. How tf are you going to get somebody to support you while you're killing them? One wonders why Hitler didn't simply use propaganda on the Jews to make them like him.

>>691140
Yeah, the whole Ustashe shit is irrelevant to why Yugo stans whi hate the USSR are hot garbage. Tito was likely not a closet anticommunist, but I bet money that FDRY anti-USSR people are

>>667540
>Yugoslavia had high unemployment due to their brain dead economic system
>this was seen as a big problem by contemporaries
>"well akchually… employment is meaningless!!!"
holy cope.

>>691145
>Tito was likely not a closet anticommunist, but I bet money that FDRY anti-USSR people are
I think it's more of a case of being babby-leftists. Similar to Rojava or Catalonia, Yugoslavia is one of the "safe" socialist experiments to like, and doing so requires one to overcome less propaganda than liking the USSR. Support for market socialism also comes from a limited knowledge of theory. At least this is my experience, I was for a time a major Yugo-stan when I was just getting into Marxism, but further study made me realize the flaws of their system, the superior merits of the Soviet model, and the futility of the geopolitical feud between the two countries.

>>691151

>futility of the geopolitical feud between the two countries
The ComInform conducted a struggle no different to that waged by the Bolsheviks against the second international opportunists.

>>691158
>The ComInform conducted a struggle no different to that waged by the Bolsheviks against the second international opportunists.
Oh really? When did Yugoslavia endorse socialist participation in an imperialist world war? Or is wanting the USSR to respect their sovereignty and national independence a crime in and of itself? Considering that Yugoslavia wasn't the only country to break with the Soviets over this exact issue (China and Albania did the same), it's pretty clear that there was a pattern to Soviet relations with other socialist countries that many found chauvinistic and alienating.

>>691159
The Titoists were opportunists who sided with the marshal plan and NATO imperialism against the people's republics and USSR. Enormous funds poured into Yugoslavia and the nascent socialist economy ended up being marketised. Chauvinism towards Albanians and other nationalities increased.

https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/1951/trotsky-tito/ch05.htm

China and Albania broke with the USSR because it itself became dominated by revisionists who conducted a coup and purge against Marxist-Leninists. During the ComInform ("Stalinist" if you like) period Albania was firmly allied with the USSR.

>>691168
>The Titoists were opportunists who sided with the marshal plan and NATO imperialism against the people's republics and USSR.
And why do you think they did that Anon? Let's use some dialectical reasoning here. Why would a person like Tito, who had risked his life not only fighting Nazis during the war, but acting as an organizer for the illegal Yugoslav communist party for decades beforehand, suddenly break from the USSR? Could it have something to do with the Soviets chauvinistically imposing their policies on their supposedly "fraternal" socialist countries? Again, keep in mind that Yugoslavia wasn't the only country to break with Moscow over this issue. Dialectics demands that we view every action also as a reaction and vice versa. The Tito-Stalin split didn't come from nothing, and it certainly didn't happen because Tito woke up one day and decided "Hmmm, today I will betray communism." It was a response to legitimate grievances the Yugos had with Moscow, and although I will agree it was a shortsighted and mistaken response, it was hardly a betrayal of the magnitude committed by the Second international. In terms of its actual effect on the course of events in the following decades it was negligible, the Sino-Soviet split was FAR more destructive to the socialist cause. Shit, at least Tito took Yugoslavia down a neutral path instead of allying with the West like Mao and Deng did.
>China and Albania broke with the USSR because it itself became dominated by revisionists who conducted a coup and purge against Marxist-Leninists.
They also specifically cited Soviet "Great Power chauvinism" as one of the reasons for their departure. Iirc Mao even criticized the Soviets for this behavior during the split with Yugoslavia.

>>691184
Because he was an opportunist. What's so complicated? It's like when Trots go "b-b-but Trotsky was the commissar for war so he must have been innocent". Or similarly with Khrushchev, that he was a commissar during the war so he must have been genuine. Doesn't make them infallible or prevent them from going off course. Tito's bureaucratic clique wanted to pursue nationalist interests over world communism. Yugoslavia was propped up throughout the cold war as a nice harmless example of "independence", with plenty of slave laborers sent to west Germany, and rife nationalism. Yugoslav neutrality was defacto pro-NATO, especially in the critical years of 1948-1953. Similarly, China and Albania were right to split with the USSR when Khrushchevite bureaucratism began deforming the USSR.

>>691220
>Because he was an opportunist
Christ this such a smoothbrained explanation. Your answer to the question of "Why did the Tito-Stalin split happen?" is basically "Because Tito was bad." Your analysis is literally as shallow as neocons explaining the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism by saying that "they hate our freedom." The reality is that liberation of Eastern Europe left the USSR in a naturally hegemonic position over the countries it occupied, and the pressures of the early Cold War compelled them to make full use of this position to their interests, which meant subordinating the interests of the other socialist countries to their own. This of course created a contradictions between the USSR and it allies, but Yugoslavia was one of the few socialist countries actually in a position to act on this due to the absence of Soviet troops. Thus they split because they had means and motive. The other two countries in a position to do so were China (due to its size and military might relative to the USSR) and Albania (due to its geographic isolation from the rest of the Warsaw Pact). Surprise surprise, these two also split for the exact same reason. For supposedly being the true Marxists, self described anti-revisionists often seem utterly incapable of dialectical reasoning or materialist analysis, instead turning to what amount to moralistic, idealist condemnation of people they don't like. You might as well replace terms like "revisionism" and "opportunism" with "sinner."
>Yugoslav neutrality was defacto pro-NATO
By that logic so was Albania and China's. In China's case it was de jure pro-NATO.

>>658301
great post

>>691243
It was because Tito's clique wanted to gain at the expense of the other ComInform states. Economic factors are always paramount, and the NATO warmongers did everything they could to encourage a split and pumped in money.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/01.htm

China's split under Mao was against Khrushchevism and gained the respect of communists and workers the world over, it was only in the late 1970s that it began cosying up to America.

Albania never remotely did that.

>>659037
>>659038
both anons are correct, its a complicated issue. also further complicated by the fact that the nation-state is no longer a sensible endgame for national autonomy anyway and is merely the form in which nations are subjugated to international capital

huey newtons intercommunalism is sort of a whacky concept but it does go a long way to at least identify a unique development

>>691247
>It was because Tito's clique wanted to gain at the expense of the other ComInform states.
Again, your explanation is just that Tito was bad because he was bad. Moreover there's more evidence to actually show that it was the USSR profiting at the expense of other cominform states. It was the Soviets who were extracting huge reparations from former-Axis countries, literally punishing the proles for the actions of governments over which they had no control.
>China's split under Mao was against Khrushchevism and gained the respect of communists and workers the world over
Mao explicitly cited Soviet chauvinism as a reason for his split, so clearly it's not so unbelievable that this chauvinism was also present in regards to Yugoslavia. Also Maoists and pro-Chinese communists remained a minority. Pro-Soviet movements remained dominant in basically every socialist country save for Albania, and most communist movements abroad sided with the Soviets.
>it was only in the late 1970s that it began cosying up to America
Oh so that makes it okay then? Honestly it's ridiculous to throw a fit about Tito splitting with the Soviets and call it a "de facto pro-NATO policy" while in the same breath justifying China's split. China was a far more powerful and strategically important country, their departure from the Soviet camp was a far greater blow to the chances of socialism defeating the US in the Cold War. It also caused greater harm to the communist movement outside of the socialist countries, since unlike the Tito-Stalin split it actually led to significant splits within communist parties.

>>691301
No, it's that he deliberately chose to pursue a bourgeois capitalist road. It's not a great mystery; it happened for the same reason the Khrushchevites did. Bureaucratism, and the consequent revisionism arising from it. The construction of socialism necessarily means a loss of priviledge for the bourgeois elements and bureaucrats.

The USSR needed the reparations for the damage inflicted on it during the war. It suffered far more damage, most importantly to its advanced areas in the western areas of the country. Many of the Axis states had gained from the plunder of the USSR in 1941-1945 and it was only correct that it receive compensation for its heavy losses.

Mao raised the banner of struggle against the Khrushchevite USSR and the Sino-Soviet split was the fault of those in the USSR who deliberately pursued an anti-proletarian path and acted belligerently towards China/Albania, it was unfortunate but a correct choice. Unity with the enemies of Marxism is wrong and Hoxha was right to criticise them in Moscow, bravely and openly when cowards stayed quiet. Hoxha later was also correct to criticise the Chinese in the late 70s.

>>658188
The history of Soviet-Yugoslav relations is a cautionary tale. I don't hate Tito or Stalin. Both were fundamentally good leaders whose countries were brought into conflict more by circumstance than some intractable ideological divide. The Soviets stood for a unified world socialist alliance and prioritized military readiness in the event of western aggression. The Yugoslavs valued self-determination and were early adopters of the notion that poverty is not socialism.

And yet, despite these noble aims and rational objectives, both nations were reduced to ruin in the end. Why do you suppose that is? If one asks your average leftypol autist they'll throw around a bunch of ideological jargon about revisionism or social-imperialism and allege it was all this great man or that one who actively chose to guide history along the path it took towards the unfathomable destruction and misery which befell all of Eastern Europe in the 1990s.

The fact of the matter is the Soviets and Yugoslavs and every other socialist state of the 20th century shared a common destiny whether they realized it or not. All were marked for destruction by NATO sooner or later. All made strategic errors that undermined the collective struggle. Nobody was blameless. Nobody was spared. Nobody but you retards on this website really cares to go on litigating it either.

Ask a modern KPRF member or Balkan revolutionary how they feel about one another. Ask an elder who fought with Tito's partisans or the red army and lived to see the two forces nearly come to blows. Do they care now? Are they concerned with which corpse of a long-dead idol needs to be more highly venerated? They are each happy to have lived for a time free from the tyranny of fascism. They are each saddened by what has become of their homelands.

Which leads me to my main point:

The USSR was overbearing towards it allies. It could not have been otherwise. A nation does not endure losses like those sustained in WWII and reckon for the first time in history with the possibility of nuclear ahnilation only to take a relaxed approach towards national security going forward. If that means leaving allies in a difficult situation, so be it. There was a war in Korea to consider. There were shortages at home and all the industry which had been earned through 15 years of unprecedented blood, sweat and toil had been smashed in an instant by fascist invaders. In such circumstances, there was no time to consider investing in Yugoslavia's bright socialist future any more than East Germany's or Poland's or Romania's or the rest. And unlike those countries, Yugoslavia was not content to just work hard and wait for conditions to improve. They had been their own liberators, they told themselves. They were freed and achieved socialism by their own efforts. Why should they be beholden to Moscow's interests? There were many doubts about accepting Marshall plan aid and doing business with the west. How could there not be? They watched the west finance Hitler just like everyone else. They were attacked mere months before the Soviets and hadn't even committed the unforgivable sin of being socialist up to that point– merely possessing resources and being independent. This drove home an important lesson that every Yugoslav knew well already: the strong do as they please and the weak suffer what they must. They knew it to be true in Ottoman times. They thought they could mitigate it by joining together afterword across linguistic and ethnic lines into a supernation beholden to nobody but themselves. They couldn't have foreseen how this would be used a wedge against them one day. For almost half a century they had it all. Not just worker's control of the means of production but access to foreign markets too: the pleasures of the west and the dignity of the east. Yugoslavs, not entirely incorrectly, judged themselves to be better practitioners of socialism than those who saw it as a war to end all wars. That was doubly true when it came to their neighbors the Albanians who were so insanely dogmatic that they refused to live in a world without comrade Stalin. His corpse might be lying in state, said Hoxha, but his glorious contributions to the immortal science shall never be erased from the hearts and minds of men. Was Tito wrong to take exception with this kind of thinking, watching as the Albanians squabbled with the new Soviet leadership and then the Chinese and eventually themselves? There was no keeping track of all the enemies you were supposed to have as a governing socialist party during those days. Anarchists and Trotskyites, social democrats and fascists, capitalists and their legions of wreckers sent to every country to help kill you and take your stuff. And they were real. That's the thing. The CIA really was everywhere. It still fucking is. They may not have instigated the Yugoslav-Soviet divide but they were more than happy to play ceaselessly upon it for years, doing everything in their considerable power to estrange both countries from one another and ensure the international proletarian revolution remains this strange foreign thing, not a threat at home.

They did it. There is no Soviet Union now. There is no Yugoslavia. Deranged monsters coined a new word to describe just how badly they fucked up these places: balkanization. And they go on trying to do it to anyone they don't like to this day.

So yeah, being a Stalinist was liable to get you thrown in Goli Otok. Sympathy towards a bunch of greedy former Chetniks and Ustaše wasn't exactly going to win you friends among the Bolsheviks. But I don't really care how it was viewed then. We are living now in the aftermath of it all. What matters now are the consequences of the split and they are not pretty. Women of both nations work brothels in Amsterdam now. The men are hooked on drugs. Their children brainwashed by fascists. Was there anything Tito or Stalin could have done differently to percent this from being so? Could they have somehow made their people less scarred by history? Less fearful of the other? Were they supposed to live forever and purge every traitor until the end of time? Somehow catch up to the west with all its centuries worth of imperial plunder and strike the final blow together despite all the material conditions acting upon them and their governments and their people?

It was material conditions all along. It always is. This is the refrain of all Marxists since Marx himself. Do not go seeking your answers in personalities and ideas and impressive-sounding academic phrases.

The Yugoslav-Soviet split and the eventual collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe more generally was the consequence of under-developed productive forces, numerous cunning enemies, dissension within the worker's camp and an inability for systems of governance to outlive a handful of exceptional individuals who were, for all their merits, still just pieces in a great game, just as we all are to this day.

Pictured: Tito and Stalin side by side atop the Lenin Mausoleum in 1945, celebrating the victory over fascism

Everything the USSR under Stalin gets falsely accused of being (bureaucratic, nationalistic, a police state, anti-revolutionary, pro-imperialism) actually applies to Titoite Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent the USSR post-1956.

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.postww2/bland-cominform.pdf

>In home policy, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia are departing from the positions of the working class and are breaking with the Marxist theory of classes and class struggle. They deny that there is a growth of capitalist elements in their country, and consequently a sharpening of the class struggle in the countryside. This denial is the direct result of the opportunist tenet that the class struggle does not become sharper during the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism, as Marxism-Leninism teaches, but dies down, as was affirmed by opportunists of the Bukharin* type, who propagated the theory of
the peaceful growing over of capitalism into socialism. In the conditions obtaining in Yugoslavia, where individual peasant farming predominates, where the land is not nationalised, where there is private property in land, and where land can be bought and sold, where much of the land is concentrated in the hands of kulaks, and where hired labour is employed — in such conditions there can be no question of glossing over class struggle and of reconciling class contradictions without by so doing disarming theParty. The leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party, by affirming that the peasantry is ‘the most stable foundation of the Yugoslav state’, are departing from the Marxist-Leninist path and are taking the path of a populist kulak party. Lenin taught that the proletariat, as the ‘only class in contemporary society which is revolutionary to the end… must be the leader in the struggle… of all working people and the exploited against the oppressors and exploiters”.

>>691365
>The Yugoslavs valued self-determination and were early adopters of the notion that poverty is not socialism
Lmao, and the USSR did think poverty was socialism yes?

>>691373
I'm really glad I typed all that out so you could miss my point entirely and ask the most retarded question possible.

Kindly commit suicide at your nearest convenience. Jesus fucking Christ this website is retarded.

>>691365
>But I don't really care how it was viewed then

You should, because you'll repeat the same mistakes with your "both sides" attitude and portraying the Soviet side as mistaken in the conflict.

Also funny that you talk about Albania not living without Stalin when it's Yugoslavia that imploded the moment the strongman died.

https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/TitoiteDeathCamp.pdf

DEATH CAMP IN TITOITEYUGOSLAVIA

In a article headlined “Goli Otok—a Death Camp”,
the Albanian newspaper “Zeri I Poppulit” describes the
horrible life in this camp of Yugoslav political prisoners
who had opposed the fascist Tito clique.
“The death camps at Dachau, Buchenwald and
Oswencim have been eliminated,” reads the article,
“but similar camps have been set up at Makronisos, Goli
Otok and other places. The Titoites began building a
large concentration camp for political prisoners on the
island of Goli Otok in the first six months of 1949.
Barracks were built there, high walls and a system of
barbed wire fences and sentry posts were established.
“In June last year this camp received its first batch
of prisoners: Communists and patriots from all parts of
the country. Everything was done secretly. Some time
later the number of prisoners—sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment ranging from 2 to 20 years—was
increased to 4,500.
“In this camp”, writes the paper, “forced labour
lasts 12 hours a day. No exception is made either for
those who suffer from tuberculosis or from injuries
received during torture, Titoite sadism in the Goli Otok
camp has reached appalling forms. There are concrete
cells where prisoners are made to stand for several days
on end.
“There are cells filled with water up to the neck of
the prisoners; in some cells a hot and cold blast is
introduced alternately until the prisoners lose
consciousness. Wide use is made of torture by
electricity. When, after two weeks of such torment, the
prisoners are at the point of death, they are put into
cattle sheds which bear the name of ‘hospitals’, where
there are neither doctors nor nurses. The sick have to
tend one another without medicines. None of those put
in these ‘hospitals’ have ever returned to their fellow
prisoners. By the end of October 1949,—after five
months—this camp had more than 200 graves.
“Savo Zaric, scientist and outstanding son of the
people of Montenegro, perished in this camp. In these
camps also languish Zujevic, Hebrang, Ljumovic,
Radovan Zogovic, Stanojevic—heroes of the Yugoslav
people—and thousands more of the best sons of the
people of Yugoslavia.
“The people of Yugoslavia”, writes the newspaper in
conclusion—“headed by the Communists who have
remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism—are intensifying
their resistance. They will destroy the spies and Titoite
agents in their country. They will free their country
from the Tito-Rankovic gang.

>>691360
>No, it's that he deliberately chose to pursue a bourgeois capitalist road.
He didn't. Yugoslavia's market socialist model had many flaws and was inferior to the Soviet system, but it wasn't capitalist, at least not fully. For one thing capitalist forms of exploitation like wage labour did not predominate. I would consider that to be a definitive feature of capitalism. Much like China during its reform period, the Yugoslav government also engaged in extensive central planning within which its market sector was constrained.
>The USSR needed the reparations for the damage inflicted on it during the war.
Not an unreasonable position, but it still constitutes the Soviets profiting from the direct exploitation of the countries under their influence. It's pretty ridiculous to accuse the Yugoslavians of wanting to profit at the expense of the rest of the Cominform when the Soviets were literally packing up German/Hungarian/Romanian factories and shipping them East.
>split was the fault of those in the USSR who deliberately pursued an anti-proletarian path and acted belligerently towards China/Albania
The same is true of Yugoslavia.
>it was unfortunate but a correct choice
No choice which aids in the victory of imperialism is the correct choice, and China's departure from the Soviet camp did just that.

>>691399
Yugoslavia always had mass unemployment unlike any other socialist country.
Yugoslavia's plan for rebuilding involved shipping its workers to the FRG to slave away for the Krupps while taking AMerican investment. Very different to the ComInform states having to rebuild by their own labour, also during this period the USSR wasn't the belligerent one and its struggle was waged on Marxist-Leninist grounds. It was part of the general struggle waged from 1948-1952 against revisionists in the USSR, before Stalin's poisoning.

>>691365
Top tier post Anon. Vulgar campists BTFO.
>>691401
>Yugoslavia always had mass unemployment unlike any other socialist country.
>Yugoslavia's plan for rebuilding involved shipping its workers to the FRG to slave away for the Krupps while taking AMerican
investment.
Yeah, I agree that was a shit policy, but its entirely beside the issues at play in the split. Iirc Yugoslavia didn't even adopt their market socialist system until the 50s, and had Soviet style central planning until then.
>the USSR wasn't the belligerent one
I would say that demanding the Yugoslavs abandon aid to the KKE and accept a fascist NATO state on their Southern border is pretty belligerent.

>>691433
It was the Titoites who blocked aid to Yugoslavia, it still went through Albania. Zachariadis, a great Greek communist leader who got punished by the Khrushchevites for opposing the coup, said this:

https://espressostalinist.com/2012/07/02/nikos-zahariadis-tito-cliques-stab-in-the-back-to-peoples-democratic-greece/

>>691564
>It was the Titoites who blocked aid to [Greece]
That's bullshit. Stalin agreed to cede Greece to British control in the percentages agreement, and demanded that Tito cease sending them support. The aid only stopped once the KKE declared for the USSR in the split.

>>691575
"Percentages agreement" is about as real as the "secret protocols" of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. Nobody stuck by it and Soviet aid was going through Yugoslavia. USSR also sheltered the defeated Greek communists. Did the Titoites? No and the fact they immediately cut off aid to the Greeks says it all.

>>691723
>Missing the point entirely
NTA, but calling out hypocrisy when one sees it is not complaining about what meanies the titoites are.

>>691583
>The insurgents were demoralised by the bitter split between Stalin and Tito.[15] In June 1948, the Soviet Union and its satellites broke off relations with Tito. In one of the meetings held in the Kremlin with Yugoslav representatives, during the Soviet-Yugoslav crisis
>Yugoslavia had been the Greek Communists' main supporter from the years of the occupation. The KKE thus had to choose between its loyalty to the Soviet Union and its relations with its closest ally. After some internal conflict, the great majority, led by party secretary Nikolaos Zachariadis, chose to follow the Soviet Union. In January 1949, Vafiadis himself was accused of "Titoism" and removed from his political and military positions, to be replaced by Zachariadis.
>After a year of increasing acrimony, Tito closed the Yugoslav border to the DSE in July 1949, and disbanded its camps inside Yugoslavia. The DSE was still able to use Albanian border territories, a poor alternative. Within the Greek Communist Party, the split with Tito also sparked a witch hunt for "Titoites" that demoralised and disorganised the ranks of the DSE and sapped support for the KKE in urban areas.
>Almost 100,000 ELAS fighters and Communist sympathizers serving in DSE ranks were imprisoned, exiled, or executed. That deprived the DSE of the principal force still able to support its fight. According to some historians,[citation needed] the KKE's major supporter and supplier had always been Tito, and it was the rift between Tito and the KKE that marked the real demise of the party's efforts to assert power.
Yep, that one's going in the cringe compilation.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you Greek.

>>691723
The gulags were not extermination camps. People labor for redemption in gulags, extermination camps are just what fascists use

>>691731
t. Yagoda
The Nazis worked people to death too. Just because you kill them through overwork doesn't mean it's not extermination.

>>691735
They gave gulag residents enough work that could reasonably be acquired, if they die from that then that’s just a lack of effort

>>691735
The highest death rate in a Gulag, occurring during the years of the Great Patriotic War, was 4-5% per annum. If they were death camps, they did a really bad job at it

>>691742
Kek. Now you're not even trying.
Only a few hundred people died on Goli Otok during its entire service as a political prison. That's nothing compared to Stalinist work projects.
> A total of approximately 16,000[9][10] political prisoners served there, of which between 400[11] and 600[5][12] died on the island. Other sources, largely based on various individual statements, claim almost 4,000 prisoners died in the camp.
>Operational1949–1956 for political prisoners
Meanwhile the Yagoda canal:
>The canal was constructed by forced labor of gulag inmates. Beginning and ending with a labor force of 126,000, between 12,000 and 25,000 laborers died according to official records
>Construction began1931
>Date of first use2 August 1933

>>691752
>glowiepedia posting
I know that glowiepedia is a meme at best, but come on. This is low effort as all hell and doesn’t cut the mustard. If you can’t go into the citations and pull out the information directly, you’re not worth our time.

>>691756
Yeah, anticommies would totally have an interest in minimizing the death toll in a communist death camp of a country they destroyed. :^)
This hypocrisy holds no weight and is a complete non-starter. Tito should have just executed the Stalinists instead of letting the clowns in charge of Goli Otok run their little games there, and he still would have had far cleaner hands than Stalin and his lackeys.

>>691758
This level of deflection is a cope

>>691758
>Tito should have just executed the Stalinists
Hitler moment.

>>691723
>>691728
>>691735
Titoites gloating about the imprisonment and deaths of communists.

https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv25n2/serbia.htm

>>692304
>deaths of communists
The Greeks?
Not Yugoslavia's problem.