Changes

Referenced from www.britannica.com: "The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratisation to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization."  

Referenced from www.britannica.com: "The irony of Tito’s remarkable life is that he created the conditions for the eventual destruction of his lifelong effort. Instead of allowing the process of democratisation to establish its own limits, he constantly upset the work of reformers while failing to satisfy their adversaries. He created a federal state, yet he constantly fretted over the pitfalls of decentralization."  

Tito was the commander of the Partisans and there are far too many examples of mass murders & mass arrests for it to be ignored (& there are many more). Any good encyclopedic article should make reference to them. It would be like Stalin without his rule of terror being documented. This just dosen't make sense in the modern world. What we have here is a clear avoidance of these issues (in the article), thus making it biased. Direktor stated "they have absolutely nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito". Well then, what ''' did Tito do'''? Did he let these horrible events just happen? Did he have a '''moral conscience''' (the war did end)? Was he '''incompetent?''' Was he the great leader that the Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine portrayed him to be? Even the Wiki article states this. I have shown here credible references and sources to prove my argument, please take them into account.  

Tito was the commander of the Partisans and there are far too many examples of mass murders & mass arrests for it to be ignored (& there are many more). Any good encyclopedic article should make reference to them. It would be like Stalin without his rule of terror being documented. This just dosen't make sense in the modern world. What we have here is a clear avoidance of these issues (in the article), thus making it biased.  

 

{{Cquote|Direktor '''stated''': they have absolutely nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito}} Well then, what ''' did Tito do'''? Did he let these horrible events just happen? Did he have a '''moral conscience''' (the war did end)? Was he '''incompetent?''' Was he the great leader that the Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine portrayed him to be? Even the Wiki article states this. I have shown here credible references and sources to prove my argument, please take them into account.  

<!-- This is where the footnotes show up. -->

<!-- This is where the footnotes show up. -->