Jump to content

Talk:Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 2 September 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period per the discussion below. (page mover nac) The editor whose username is Z0 05:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of the Serbian Industry → Outsourcing of Serbia's industrial capacity during the Informbiro period – Moving of the Serbian Industry is a laughably inept title that does little in the way of summarizing the content of this article. The new title is both descriptive and articulate, and bespeaks a basic level of academic literacy. 23 editor (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period It a short and encyclopedic name that describes the subject properly. The current name is not encyclopedic. The proposed name is a good one, though I would like it to be shorter. The article's subject is interesting but the article itself is POV. The background, reasons and consequences are more complex than they are showed on the article. Some work is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed just because of lack of policy based arguments - The current article title is based on the source used in the article. I never seen a source which refer to this event as outsourcing. Probably because the term does not depict what happened in this event. I am not against renaming, but based on arguments grounded in wikipedia policies. So far no such arguments are presented by renaming party.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection was aimed against term outsourcing. If the expression Move is wrong then I support replacing Move with Moving. This moving was not limited to Informbiro period, so addition during the Informbiro period is unnecessary and incorrect.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - new proposal Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period. I initially thought that the proposal was reAlocation. Thanks FkpCascais--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Antidiskriminator, and congratulations for making this excellent and important article. FkpCascais (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do agree the current name is problematic (it also doesn't sound English -- "Moving" is not typically used like this, you would use "movement"). I also agree 23 editor's title is preferable. But my doubts go deeper than this. I do not see enough to justify the paradigm presented on this page. The fact is that not only Slovenia and Croatia, but also Vojvodina, have a Hapsburg rather than Ottoman heritage, and as thus their local economies were much more developed and productive to start with. It has been described by scholarship that in some ways during Yugoslav times these differences, whereby the poorer regions, especially Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Southern Serbia proper were "left behind" while Slovenia and Croatia and also Vojvodina grew. Last I heard, unless someone is a secretly a Hungarian (or Croatian??) irredentist, Vojvodina is an integral part of Serbia. This is mysteriously missing from this page. Instead, we get this very interesting statement, lurking in the lede: ... many authors concluded that the real reason for moving Serbian industries out of Serbia was not fear of Soviet invasion but communist intention to punish Serbia for its prevailing pro-Chetnik position of its population during WWII.... Of course given the fact that large numbers of the Yugoslav authorities were Serbs, and the case of Vojvodina, we can suffice to say that I have doubts. This sentence, buried deep down in the page, is pretty interesting: Dubravka Stojanović believed that the motive to put such texts in school textbooks was to present arguments that Serbia and Serbs were exploited and subordinated in Yugoslavia, with final aim to create psychological basis for the war. Perhaps taking a pan-Yugoslav perspective and examining sources that discuss actual economic factors at play might be preferable I think. --Calthinus (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Calthinus:. IMO the article should be renamed and all relevant views should be included. There are sources that say that Slovenia was wealthier than Serbia proper even before the Yugoslavia period. Furthermore, Serbia trasformed from an agricultural society to an industrial one during Tito's leadership. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1948-1952 Yugoslav industry movements? And btw I'm not saying that the view that Serbia was "punished" should be excluded -- there should be a discussion section on the page handling this. Actually that the view exists and contributes to bitterness today is notable. But it cannot be presented in Wikipedia's voice. --Calthinus (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That title you suggest is to vague and totally misses the scope of this article. There were no general moves of industry in Yugoslavia, but there was a specific relocation of industries from specifically Serbia to other republics. FkpCascais (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I still have plenty more to learn about Yugoslav economic history. 23 editor perhaps knows more -- would you (23 editor) say the Serbia scope is justified, and why so? --Calthinus (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Serbian scope is justified. You are correct that there were different levels of industrial development, owing to the history of the W. Balkans. Vojvodina was more industrialized than Central Serbia because of Austria-Hungary, but it was still part of SR Serbia at the time of the outsourcing. As for levels of industrialization, Serbia was mostly agrarian before WW2, but it had more factories than Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania (producing, among other things, firearms, airplanes and cigarettes). The interwar period was a time of great economic mismanagement and most of the aforementioned factories dated to before WWI. Fearing a Soviet invasion after WW2, Tito and the KPJ decided to relocate many Serbian factories to Bosnia because the SR was located in the rugged center of the country (the plan was to retreat to Bosnia and wage a kind of guerrilla war). They would have done the same in Macedonia, which bordered Soviet-occupied Bulgaria, but there simply weren't that many factories in Macedonia to begin with, hence why Serbia was "disproportionately" impacted. Some factories were relocated to Croatia and Slovenia as well, mostly because these SRs were geographically further away from the Eastern Bloc, which was considered to be a bigger threat to Yugoslavia than NATO was. No anti-Serb conspiracy here, but the Serbian scope is still justified. I would like to see this article feature more English-language academic sources, rather than news reports, to back up its claims. 23 editor (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this seems strong reasoning to me. Support as per nom. --Calthinus (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No real opinion content-wise but in English this does roll of the tongue much better, isn't quite as long.--Calthinus (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it certainly wasn't Outsourcing It certainly wasn't realocation either. Without alocation there is no realocation. Communists stole this industrial capacities from their owners in Serbia and moved it to western Yugoslav republics. The moving is much more precise.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean AD. Relocation somehow sugests it was moved but still within Serbia, which was not the case. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary does not support that connotation, though. All examples at Relocation (disambiguation) are similar to this case, including relocation (personal) and Relocation of professional sports teams. "Without alocation there is no realocation" – nonsense. wikt:relocation does not mean the same as wikt:reallocation. No such user (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Without alocation there is no realocation" - nonsense What I wrote is supported by CUP. Cambridge Dictionary published by Cambridge University Press says that to reallocate means "to change the way that something is allocated". So referring to my comment as nonsense is not only violation of Wikipedia:Civility policy, but also incorrect. It is also unnecessary harsh like above written adjective laughable (because the title should be outsourcing - also incorrectly). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus and 23 editor: Do you agree with the new proposal Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. 23 editor (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

[edit]

In addition to issues raised by myself and Ktrimi991 above, there are some issues, including uncited statements like the "prevailing" sympathy of the Serbs for Chetniks (which is in the lede). Is this even verifiable, that most Serbs supported the Chetniks (not only as opposed to the Partisans, but surely there were many level headed Serbs who did not want to support either Communists, Nazis and their collaborators, or ultranationalists, no?)? Even if we had wartime polls, those are known to be hilariously unreliable. I for one cannot accept Wikipedia saying in its own voice that the majority of Serbs supported an ultranationalist group which was guilty of crimes against humanity, without reliable sourcing for this. --Calthinus (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A few months ago I added to the Ustashe article that only a part of the Croatians supported that ultranationalist group. A reliabe source is needed regarding the Chetniks, and any comment should be carefully posted on Wikipedia articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the lede was corrected to correspond more precisely to the text in the main body of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are still POV wording issues. For example the view that the industry was moved to reduce vulnerability in case of a Soviet invasion, to which flatter Serbia was a more vulnerable target, is called an "excuse". No way on earth can that be NPOV. If anything this view should be fleshed out. After all, Serbia did suffer greatly during World War I because its industry had pretty much all been centered around Belgrade, which was on the Hapsburg border, so there is a relevant historical motivation here. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian industry was not only located "around Belgrade", but actually the centers were Belgrade, Central Serbia (Kragujevac, Pozega, Uzice, Valjevo, etc.), and Vojvodina (which had already been within Serbia for almost half century at time this article deals with the issue, so no point in mentining Austro-Hungary. Take more care about hisorical periods in the comments before writting them, please. FkpCascais (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an excuse. Some factories were relocated to Varazdin which is a town in Croatia just near the border with Hungary which was a Soviet satellite at time. While in Serbia those same factories were few houndred kilometers away from the nearest Soviet satellite, Romania. So i demonstrated that it was an excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The industry of Vojvodina belonged to Austro-Hungary, just like Vojvodina did. --Calthinus (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, you are aware we are talking about the period of late 1940s early 1950s right? Vojvodina stop belonging to A-H in 1918. You need to check your facts first. FkpCascais (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check what I am actually saying. I said, literally, there was a historical motivation, because of knowledge of the past experience.--Calthinus (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FkpCascais Glenny, The Balkans, page 314: ... the bulk of Serbia's industry had developed in the north either along the Danube and Sava or a short distance from the border-- mainly along the line that over 300,000 Hapsburg soldiers were now attacking. So we're clear.--Calthinus (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Now attacking"? You are using a source from WWI? FkpCascais (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misha Glenny, The Balkans published in 2001. "Were now attacking" is past tense, for those who don't speak English as a native language. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The industrial development of the different regions of Serbia obviously didn´t happened in just one moment. It had several stages of development. Of course industry in Vojvodina was first developed in 19 century when the province was under Austro-Hungary, but so contiued to developed afetrwords. A-H rule in Vojvodina ended in 1918. It is the 1950s we are talking here. So there is no point in wht you pretend. FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDHT. You are free to write letters to published authors like Glenny if you'd like. Debating with me is not very useful. Anyhow, it is interesting you think the national defense motivation was an "excuse" but this goes nowhere to address the fact that using the word in Wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV.--Calthinus (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You dont get my point. What happened in Vojvodina in previous century is irelevant. By time we are talking about here that industry has been further developed within Serbia for 40 years. Who cares about old A-H empire? The Serbian industry we are refring here is from the 1950s, has nothing to do with A-H empire which ceased to exist 30+ years earlier. FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because. how. counries. handle. perceived. problems. is. influenced. by. their. past. experience. Anyhow, can we (effing) move on from this fairly minor point?--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus. Even the industry which was first developed by A-H, by 1950 it had already been menaged, mantained and further developed without any A-H prsence for many decades. So its relocation from Serbia to other parts of Yugoslavia is still an issue. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, some Slovenes claimed that their inclusion within Yugoslavia harmed their economic interests [1]. Claims that Serbia was being economically exploited by Yugoslavia was part of the nationalist SANU. Check the link I am providing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenes actually complained why was so much monney spent on Kosovo rather than Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side, I recently read a bunch of articles on how Slovenian industry suffered greattly when they lost the Yugoslav market and the "special prices" they were buying rough materials essenstial for the producton of their industry, which they bought from Kosovo and other Souther regions they so loudly complained against. Slovenian industry having been harmed was mostly propaganda in order to convince people independence is for their benefit. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to the article if you have reliable sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I will. FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC) However, Slovenia from the 1980s is not the isseu here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is the the relocation of Serbian industry in the 1950s we are dealing in this article, and plenty of sources deal with the issue. It was a widely known event in Yugoslavia. Your talking about Slovenia has no connection. You are free to write an article about Slovenian ecomony if you wish, but has nothing to do with this article. FkpCascais (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Also, the events in Slovenia you are talking here refer to the 1980s. We are talking about the early 1950s here which had consequances from then on. FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am reading here are two arguments which suposedly demonstrate POV in this article. One is that in Vojvodina (and other parts?) the industry was first developed within Austro-Hungarian regime. And the second is that Slovenia complained about their situation within Yugoslavia. However, both arguments are irrelevant for tha metter here. This article deals with the moving of industry from Serbia to other republics during the Imforbiro period (1948-1952). Some of the industry may well have been created by Japanese or Mongols a century earlier, it is irrelevant and changes nothing. Austro-Hungary ceased to exist in 1918, it certainly stop developing the industry in Vojvodina as late as 1914 when war begin, so it is 3-4 decades earlier that A-H stops having any relation with it. It is irrelevant who developed the industry at some stages, it doesn´t change the fact that the industry was moved from Serbia to somewhere else. Regarding Slovenia, Slovenian issue came about the 1980s, 3+ decades later, totally different time period, totally irrelevant to the scope of the article here. By late 1980s different republics were even counting their missing towells in hotels to present themselves as victims, it was a nationalistic agenda with the intention to convince its citizens that the republics will be doing better on their own, and even despite that, today we have plenty of literature breaking those theories down. Anyway, Slovenian complains from the 1980s still miss any link to the scope of the article here, which is the moving of over 70 developed factories from Serbia to other Yugoslav republics between 1948 to 1952. If anyone challenges the facts presented in thee article, please at least provide arguments which deal with the scope of it. FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Ktrimi991 insists (diff) on addition of NPOV tag to this article insisting that some NPOV issues re Slovenia and AustroHungary are still being discussed. Will you Ktrimi 991 please be so kind to explain what NPOV issues this article has? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion above. The article is focused on one POV which holds that Serbia was discriminated by economic policies of Yugoslavia. Another POV is that those claims were made by other ethinic groups in Yugoslavia too, and all those claims were motivated by nationalism. Another POV is that Serbia transformed from an agricultural society to an industrial one, in other words, Serbia performed well economically during the Yugoslavia period. The relevant additions will be made in the few coming days and the tag can be removed then. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Ktrimi991, none of the arguments you provided had nothing to do with the scope of the article here. Serbia had its fair share of idustrtilialization before WWII, and the facts described in the article are by no means negatd by nothing you, or anyone else, providd so far. FkpCascais (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Patent WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Calthinus rightly highlighted, there are sources that do consider those claims to be nationalistic. Calthinus provided a source, I added an additional one. All views are to be introduced to readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really this convo has been a poster case of WP:IDHT. The fact is that this page presents one view as fact, that Serbia was "victimized" by some anti-Serb conspiracy allegedly because some communists were salty about the Chetties. Alternate views, such as the one that there was a national defense motivation, are called -- in Wikipedia's voice -- "excuse"s. This is not even trying to be WP:NPOV. Neither Anti nor Fk has given iota to address this issue -- instead Fk simply ranted about how the "Serbia was punished" view was correct (in his personal opinion -- which, just like mine, is immaterial, as all that matters is policy), without even attempting a balanced approach that incorporates both sides and gives them equal footing.--Calthinus (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • The article is focused on one POV which holds that Serbia was discriminated by economic policies of Yugoslavia. Incorrect. The article is focused on moving of Serbian industries in short postwar period. Nobody has ever denied that this happened. There were two POV about the motives and both are presented in this article.
  • those claims were made by other ethinic groups in Yugoslavia too, and all those claims were motivated by nationalism Nationalistic claims during the destruction of Yugoslavia are out of the scope of this article.
  • Another POV is that Serbia transformed from an agricultural society to an industrial one, in other words, Serbia performed well economically during the Yugoslavia period. Yes, Serbia was agricultural society. You again refuted yourself. Moving 76 factories from modern-day Japan or Germany would have substantial negative consequences for these developed industrial societies. One can only imagine the bad consequences Serbia as agricultural society suffered when 76 factories were taken away. Nobody has ever tried to deny that moving of such massive industrial capacities had negative consequences for development of Serbia. No POV issue here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article presented Informbrio as both official explanation and excuse. I removed excuse nevertheless.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to not find a solution to the raised concerns and wish to keep the tag, right. The article after your recent edit says: The communists used Resolution of the Informbirou as an official explanation. There are several arguments used against this Informbiro explanation. In English it indicates that it is accepted by everyone that the Informbiro was a lie and the real reason that is accepted by everyone is that Yugoslavia was working against Serbs. Do you understand what sort of POV text is it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents both official explanation and arguments used against it. The article does not mention ethnicity based conspiracy. The main destination of the moved industries was Bosnia which had (and still has) substantial Serb population. The other destination was Croatia that also had (at that time) substantial Serb population. Your ethnicity based accusations are false.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Users disrupting this article just based on ethnical issues please provide some vidence directly related to the issue here or otherwise back off, because bringing unrelated matters to discussion is becoming disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"And that my friends, is the distinctive call of the exotic personal attack crow, indicating that the discussion should have long been over".--Calthinus (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator I've moved the most controversial aspects to a balanced analysis section. If this works for you, I'd be down to remove the tag. Can't speak for Ktrimi tho. --Calthinus (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have a reason for the tag by either way. You provided ZERO evidence of any souces claiming oherwise on this matter. FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um no I actually have but I don't need sources "oherwise" to demonstrate an NPOV problem here. Anti-- is the analysis section for narratives about it acceptable to you? --Calthinus (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not acceptable. We are dealing here with a specific issue, which happened between 1948 and 1952 which was an organised move of Serbian industry from Serbia to other republics. There are sources dealing with the issue that confirm it and talk about the causes and consequences of it. You ae questioning the entire issue based on, by now, zero sources that deal with the issue itself. Find sources that talk about the issue and back your POV and than we have somehing to discuss. Till then please dont disrupt the article based just o yoyur personal beliefs. FkpCascais (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your ethnicity based accusations are false. Antidiskriminator, either you need to sleep or you are kiding. I did not make any "ethnicity based accusations". Either prove the contrary or stop posting bullshit here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to reflect concerns of all editors involved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New info?

[edit]

I think that some more details could be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywebqnsbAbs Mm.srb (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serious POV and referencing issues

[edit]

Seems to me that this article suffers from serious POV as it is. Although the relocation of factories away from Serbia did in fact happen in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the allegedly anti-Serbian reasoning for the move (for which there is not a single shred of evidence in the form of primary sources) was mostly constructed decades later and morphed into a conspiracy theory pushed by Serbia's ruling regime in the 1990s.

First, the 2010 column by Boris Dežulović published by B92 which is cited twice in this article literally describes the thesis of this article as a conspiracy theory. In its subtitle, the article reads (translation is my own):

Omiljena balkanska teorija zavere je ona o posleratnim ekonomskim procvetima Hrvatske i Slovenije, a na uštrb Srbije iz koje su iseljene najveće fabrike.
[A popular Balkan conspiracy theory is the one about the post-war economic boom in Croatia and Slovenia, to the detriment of Serbia where largest factories had been relocated from.]

In the first two paragraphs, Dežulović goes on to mockingly explain the origin of this idea, apparently disseminated in Serbia in the early 1990s during the height of its wartime nationalism.

Exactly 20 years ago the nationalist hysteria in Serbia was at its peak, and [local] newspapers were full of articles talking about how the sly and hypocritical Slovenes and Croats had first welcomed Hitler during World War II, only to hitch a ride on the back of glorious Serbia for the second time in history and become one of the war's victors through [joining] Yugoslavia.

One of the most favourite theories [used to support] this Croat-Slovenian conspiracy was the one about the real reason for the post-war economic boom of Croatia and Slovenia: as part of its infernal plan to bring mighty Serbia to its knees, the Croat-Slovene Josip Broz, with the help of his Slovenian consigliere Edvard Kardelj, had organised the relocation of 76 factories from Serbia to western Yugoslavia.

Dežulović goes on to list some examples of relocated factories, but in the following paragraph debunks the theory. He later goes on to draw parallels with events of the 2000s when some Croatian and Slovenian companies started outsourcing their own factories to Serbia because of cheap labour.

The real truth, of course, is that Tito had moved Serbian industry across the river Drina after the 1948. Informbiro resolution because of the danger of [potential] Soviet invasion. Facts also show that the large majority of these machines did not in fact end up in Slovenia and Croatia, but rather in the "strategically important" Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, as in any other type of propaganda, this just worked to the detriment of facts: without Tito and Kardelj, economists working for Milošević argued, Serbia today would be the Japan of the Balkans, and Croatia and Slovenia would be its Vietnam and Laos.

Now Dežulović is a well known left-leaning Croatian journalist based in Belgrade writing for audiences in both countries. His assertions may not be 100% reliable, but the fact that the theory which this article is pushing is described and thought of as a 1990s conspiracy theory is concerning.

Another source, article by Serbian historian and democracy advocate Dubravka Stojanović published in 2011 on the Pescanik online magazine, explicitly traces the way this conspiracy theory found its way into textbooks used in Serbian schools to create context for the wars of the 1990s. She goes on to say that "this is how these arguments - known from the [1980s] SANU Memorandum and the huge media campaign aimed at proving how Serbia and Serbs had been in a difficult position in Yugoslavia, and fabricating the perception that they are in a subordinated position and in jeopardy - have entered the education system."

The article cites the writings of Batrić Jovanović to support the nationalist interpretations of the move, a guy who, according to his biography on Serbian Wikipedia, was a life-long communist apparatchik and later a staunch Serbian nationalist and supporter of Milošević. There is no evidence of any economic expertise on his part, and the very title of the book cited (Negating Serb origins of Montenegrins: The crime of Tito and Stalin) is a huge red flag.

Another source cited several times is a 2006 article penned by one Slobodan Vuković (spelled in the article in the Cyrillic form, Слободан Вуковић) published by a state-backed sociology journal he was editor in chief of from 2000 to 2004. Vuković later expanded this into a 2012 book claiming that "elites" had plundered Serbia in Yugoslavia, part of a trilogy of books also dealing with supposedly negative depictions of Serbs in the Western media and the ethics of Western media in general.

Another author, cited twice in the references separately, once in Latin script and another time in Cyrillic script, Nikola Žutić (Никола Жутић), is another dubious figure, a guy who ran in the 2014 Serbian election as a candidate for the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party - which even published an interview with him in which he espouses the usual Serbian nationalist talking points and conspiracy theories.

As for another author listed, Života Đorđević, the pdf file linking to his article does not actually contain his writing - it's a scanned copy of the History of the 20th Century journal issued in 2002 instead, containing the article cited here by Žutić, which is (unlinked) cited in Cyrillic script in the "Further reading" section and already cited inline twice in the body of the article, this time in Latin script, with the source name listed in French for some reason, as Histoire du vingtième siècle.

As for Života Đorđević, he seems to have published a book about this topic, again, by the state-backed Economy Institute in Belgrade, in 1991, at the height of state-sponsored nationalism in Serbia. The book itself isn't cited anywhere in the body.

As for Jovan Radovanović, he seems to be an author who spent 4-5 decades penning books of communist historiography about WWII, and it's unclear why his 2010 book which is a collection of polemical writings is used to reference a sentence about a decision made by the Assembly of Serbia in 1991 to "stop the glorification of communist leaders who were responsible for damaging Serbia's economy". Surely, these things should have been published in the Official Gazette of Serbia and elsewhere.

Next, the sentence in the article "CIA reported that plan of Yugoslav leaders to move factories from Serbia to Slovenia, supported by Slovenian and Croatian communists, met opposition of Serb and Montenegrin communists and that Tito supported Slovenian and Croatian communists" is supported by an inline citation pointing to a one-page publicly available scanned archive report from the CIA.

However, the CIA scan is a document from 1955 (the scope of this topic as described in the lede is 1948-52);it does report disagreements between Serbian and Montenegrin factions on the one hand and Croatian and Slovenian on the other about the transfer of factories, but attributes this to cheaper electricity in Slovenia (something Wikipedia article doesn't mention); and it concludes that "though Tito supported the Slovenes and Croats, he has had to defer all preparations for the transfer of Serbian factories in the interests of Party unity".

Another source, an article by Croatian journalist Merita Arslani (misspelled "Melita" in the reference) published by Croatian weekly Express in January 2017 recounts for the Croatian audience a somewhat sensationalist article published earlier that year by Newsweek Serbia (2015–17) which reported on the declassified CIA document. Arslani's article has very little original content and steals wholesale quotes from Dežulović's column (published 7 years prior).

In conclusion, although this may be a worthwhile topic to include in the context of Yugoslavia's early post-war economic development, the referencing is quite poor or sometimes even misleading, and the article suffers from a dearth of reliable sources. There is nothing to prove that the sources cited to contest the "official" reasoning of the communist party consist of anything other than speculation. Arslani's article captures the gist of this in its opening sentence:

Did Josip Broz order Serbian industry to be transferred to western Yugoslavia after the 1948 Informbiro resolution fearing Soviet invasion, or did he have some other reasoning in his head? That's one question that Belgrade, Zagreb, and Ljubljana have been giving different answers to for the past 60 years.

Timbouctou (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quote you presented is correct. There are indeed different views about the reasons for the moving industry from Serbia. I understand that you think that view of Belgrade is wrong and that view of Zagreb (which includes so-called Second Serbia) and Ljubljana is correct. I also understand that you would like the view of Belgrade to be removed. (Un)fortunately, wikipedia WP:NPOV policy insists on presenting all views. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make this about Belgrade vs Zagreb. This article is promoting something that is considered a nationalist conspiracy theory everywhere except in Serbia (in fact nobody even heard of this outside Serbia), and even by some people in Serbia itself (Dežulović and Stojanović, both cited here, come to mind). And the referencing is haphazard at best, and your reply did not address any of the criticism I explained above. Why are some authors listed twice, sometimes in Cyrillic, sometimes in Latin script? Why is the same journal listed with French-language and Serbian-language titles? What makes Batrić Jovanović relevant for this topic? The guy was head of Civil Aviation Authority and later ambassador to UNESCO. Why is the CIA document misquoted? How come the CIA document is from 1955, rather than 1948-52? Why is the 1991 decision of a nation's assembly cited using some guy's book of columns rather than the official gazette or any other more reliable source? Timbouctou (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making up anything. It is you who emphasized different views of Belgrade, Zagreb, and Ljubljana about this topic diff: Did Josip Broz order Serbian industry to be transferred to western Yugoslavia after the 1948 Informbiro resolution fearing Soviet invasion, or did he have some other reasoning in his head? That's one question that Belgrade, Zagreb, and Ljubljana have been giving different answers to for the past 60 years. I think I gave a clear explanation that wikipedia WP:NPOV policy insists on presenting all views and I don't have anything else to add to it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another post of yours, another non-answer to any of the clearly described issues this article has. Timbouctou (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is quite clear and all viewpoints have been presented with WP:NPOV in mind. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another non-answer. Should we start a drinking game? Timbouctou (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xref Informbiro period

[edit]

This article isn't linked at all from the main article on the period so I brought it up in Talk:Informbiro period#industry relocation?. Another editor already made a reasonable argument that we might have some WP:UNDUE issues here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relocation_of_Serbian_industry_during_the_Informbiro_period&oldid=1200549294"