This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tito–Stalin split article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article desperately needs sources. I have tried to tidy up the language and grammar without changing the meaning, but sources are needed to back up the factual accuracy of some parts. I came here out of interest and know very little, so attention is needed from somebody more learned I reckon. Jdcooper15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article desperately needs people who know the subject and are not lazy enough to read the sources aboundantly listed at the bottom of the article. This is not some obscure topic. Placing tags over the text just because you are not familiar with the subject, without presenting reasons for a reasonable doubt is hardly helpful. With this approach one may grafitty any featured article. Your copyedit is highly welcome, but to question any content requires minimal knowledge, unless you spot a real nonsense. `'Míkka18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It occurs now to me that you wanted to say that the article needs footnotes that link article claims to sources. I don't rememeber the proper tag offhand. `'Míkka18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't questioning any content, merely requesting that the sources used to write the article be integrated more into the text itself, as you say, linking article claims to sources. Apologies for using the wrong terminology. Jdcooper18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-liberation
"Yugoslavia liberated itself from Axis domination, without any direct support from the Red Army as the others." - what utter nonsense is this? Could someone with at least a basic grounding in the late history of the war rewrite this part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.21.10 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Yugoslavia did liberate itself, unlike other countries in occupied Europe. The Red Army provided indirect logistical support to the Yugoslav Partisans, but only when it reached Yugoslavia. It did however, render assistance to Tito's forces in the attack on Belgrade, but the entry into the city was conducted jointly. Perhaps a small rewrite is in order. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia did not liberate itself. The entire Soviet Third Ukrainian Front (of which 57th Army took major part in the offensive operations against German forces in Serbia) and the entire Bulgarian Army with more than 550 000 men, both fully supported by armored units and aviation, pushed the Germans out of Yugoslavia. There's no denial of the importance and strenght of Tito's partisans, but when it comes to the actual destruction/retreat of the Wehrmacht units in Yugoslavia, this was a result of the advancing Soviet Armies. Wikipedia is supposed to present knowledge based on facts, not feed national mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.69.123 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
