["[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-01 00:00]\n<User>Here are some facts I recently discovered:\nAccording to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.\n\nArticles 46\u201353 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated\u2014considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.\n\nA state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the \"essential basis\" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.\n\nConsent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect \"corruption\" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.\n\nA treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.\n\nThe United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. Section 103 of the Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties.\n\nAfter their adoption, treaties as well as their amendments have to follow the official legal procedures of the United Nations, as applied by the Office of Legal Affairs, including signature, ratification and entry into force.\n\nIn function and effectiveness, the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some[citation needed], giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.\n\nThe Brazilian federal constitution states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the president and that such treaties must be approved by Congress (articles 84, clause VIII, and 49, clause I). In practice, this has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty, but its ratification by the president is contingent upon the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that, following ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register in order to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.\n\nThe Federal Supreme Court has established that treaties are subject to constitutional review and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (leis ordin\u00e1rias, or \"ordinary laws\", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008 has altered that scheme somewhat, by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, though they remain beneath the constitution itself. Additionally, as per the 45th amendment to the constitution, human rights treaties which are approved by Congress by means of a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a constitutional amendment. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether (and how) the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.\n<Assistant>I've successfully recorded all of this data.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-02 00:00]\n<User>Let me provide you with some new details:\nThe Brazilian federal constitution does not have a supremacy clause with the same effects as the one on the U.S. constitution, a fact that is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and state legislation.\n\nIn the United States, the term \"treaty\" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. United States law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreement, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of approval. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senators present, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.\n\nCurrently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the United States. For example, the deal by the United States, Iran and other countries is not a Treaty.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases that \"treaties\" do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified (for the purposes of U.S. law) by any subsequent Act of Congress, just like with any other regular law. The Supreme Court also ruled in Reid v. Covert that any treaty provision that conflicts with the Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.\n\nIn India, the legislation subjects are divided into 3 lists -Union List, State List and Concurrent List . In the normal legislation process, the subjects in Union list can only be legislated upon by central legislative body called Parliament of India, for subjects in state list only respective state legislature can legislate. While for Concurrent subjects, both center and state can make laws. But to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject overriding the general division of subject lists.\n\nTreaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing.\n\nIn some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other.\n\nIn other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. In the case of indigenous Australians, unlike with the M\u0101ori of New Zealand, no treaty was ever entered into with the indigenous peoples entitling the Europeans to land ownership, under the doctrine of terra nullius (later overturned by Mabo v Queensland, establishing the concept of native title well after colonization was already a fait accompli). Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, the treaties being discussed have international standing as has been stated in a treaty study by the UN.\n\nPrior to 1871, the government of the United States regularly entered into treaties with Native Americans but the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871 (ch. 120, 16 Stat. 563) had a rider (25 U.S.C. \u00a7 71) attached that effectively ended the President\u2019s treaty making by providing that no Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowledged as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty. The federal government continued to provide similar contractual relations with the Indian tribes after 1871 by agreements, statutes, and executive orders.\n<Assistant>Sure I will remember them.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-03 00:00]\n<User>Let me provide you with some new details:\nJosip Broz Tito (Cyrillic: \u0408\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043f \u0411\u0440\u043e\u0437 \u0422\u0438\u0442\u043e, pronounced [j\u01d2sip br\u00f4\u02d0z t\u00eeto]; born Josip Broz; 7 May 1892[nb 1] \u2013 4 May 1980) was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman, serving in various roles from 1943 until his death in 1980. During World War II he was the leader of the Partisans, often regarded as the most effective resistance movement in occupied Europe. While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian, and concerns about the repression of political opponents have been raised, Tito was \"seen by most as a benevolent dictator\" due to his economic and diplomatic policies. He was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad. Viewed as a unifying symbol, his internal policies maintained the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the Yugoslav federation. He gained further international attention as the chief leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, working with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia.\n\nHe was General Secretary (later Chairman of the Presidium) of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1939\u201380), and went on to lead the World War II Yugoslav guerrilla movement, the Partisans (1941\u201345). After the war, he was the Prime Minister (1944\u201363), President (later President for Life) (1953\u201380) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). From 1943 to his death in 1980, he held the rank of Marshal of Yugoslavia, serving as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav military, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). With a highly favourable reputation abroad in both Cold War blocs, Josip Broz Tito received some 98 foreign decorations, including the Legion of Honour and the Order of the Bath.\n\nJosip Broz was born to a Croat father and Slovene mother in the village of Kumrovec, Croatia. Drafted into military service, he distinguished himself, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army of that time. After being seriously wounded and captured by the Imperial Russians during World War I, Josip was sent to a work camp in the Ural Mountains. He participated in the October Revolution, and later joined a Red Guard unit in Omsk. Upon his return home, Broz found himself in the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where he joined the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ).\n\nTito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from 1943 to 1991\u201392. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, soon he became the first Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony and the only one to manage to leave Cominform and begin with its own socialist program. Tito was a backer of independent roads to socialism (sometimes referred to as \"national communism\"). In 1951 he implemented a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist countries. A turn towards a model of market socialism brought economic expansion in the 1950s and 1960s and a decline during the 1970s. His internal policies included the suppression of nationalist sentiment and the promotion of the \"brotherhood and unity\" of the six Yugoslav nations. After Tito's death in 1980, tensions between the Yugoslav republics emerged and in 1991 the country disintegrated and went into a series of wars and unrest that lasted the rest of the decade, and which continue to impact most of the former Yugoslav republics. He remains a very controversial figure in the Balkans.\n<Assistant>I understand. I'll keep this in mind.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-04 00:00]\n<User>I want to share some knowledge I just acquired:\nJosip Broz was born on 7 May 1892 in Kumrovec, in the northern Croatian region of Hrvatsko Zagorje in Austria-Hungary.[nb 1] He was the seventh child of Franjo and Marija Broz. His father, Franjo Broz (26 November 1860 \u2013 16 December 1936), was a Croat, while his mother Marija (25 March 1864 \u2013 14 January 1918), was a Slovene. His parents were married on 21 January 1891. After spending part of his childhood years with his maternal grandfather Martin Javer\u0161ek in the Slovenian village of Podsreda, he entered primary school in 1900 at Kumrovec, he failed the 2nd grade and graduated in 1905. In 1907 he moved out of the rural environment and started working as a machinist's apprentice in Sisak. There, he became aware of the labour movement and celebrated 1 May \u2013 Labour Day for the first time. In 1910, he joined the union of metallurgy workers and at the same time the Social-Democratic Party of Croatia and Slavonia. Between 1911 and 1913, Broz worked for shorter periods in Kamnik (1911\u20131912, factory \"Titan\"), Cenkov, Munich and Mannheim, where he worked for the Benz car factory; then he went to Wiener Neustadt, Austria, and worked as a test driver for Daimler.\n\nIn the autumn of 1913, he was conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian Army. He was sent to a school for non-commissioned officers and became a sergeant, serving in the 25th Croatian Regiment based in Zagreb. In May 1914, Broz won a silver medal at an army fencing competition in Budapest. At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, he was sent to Ruma, where he was arrested for anti-war propaganda and imprisoned in the Petrovaradin fortress. In January 1915, he was sent to the Eastern Front in Galicia to fight against Russia. He distinguished himself as a capable soldier, becoming the youngest Sergeant Major in the Austro-Hungarian Army. For his bravery in the face of the enemy, he was recommended for the Silver Bravery Medal but was taken prisoner of war before it could be formally presented. On 25 March 1915, while in Bukovina, he was seriously wounded and captured by the Russians.\n\nAfter 13 months at the hospital, Broz was sent to a work camp in the Ural Mountains where prisoners selected him for their camp leader. In February 1917, revolting workers broke into the prison and freed the prisoners. Broz subsequently joined a Bolshevik group. In April 1917, he was arrested again but managed to escape and participate in the July Days demonstrations in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) on 16\u201317 July 1917. On his way to Finland, Broz was caught and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress for three weeks. He was again sent to Kungur, but escaped from the train. He hid with a Russian family in Omsk, Siberia where he met his future wife Pelagija Belousova. After the October Revolution, he joined a Red Guard unit in Omsk. Following a White counteroffensive, he fled to Kirgiziya and subsequently returned to Omsk, where he married Belousova. In the spring of 1918, he joined the Yugoslav section of the Russian Communist Party. By June of the same year, Broz left Omsk to find work and support his family, and was employed as a mechanic near Omsk for a year.\n<Assistant>Appreciated. I'll retain these important details.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-05 00:00]\n<User>The following are some new knowledge:\nIn January 1920, Tito and his wife made a long and difficult journey home to Yugoslavia where he arrived in September. Upon his return, Broz joined the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. The CPY's influence on the political life of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was growing rapidly. In the 1920 elections the Communists won 59 seats in the parliament and became the third strongest party. Winning numerous local elections, they gained a stronghold in the second largest city of Zagreb, electing Svetozar Deli\u0107 for mayor. After the assassination of Milorad Dra\u0161kovi\u0107, the Yugoslav Minister of the Interior, by a young communist on 2 August 1921, the CPY was declared illegal under the Yugoslav State Security Act of 1921. During 1920 and 1921 all Communist-won mandates were nullified. Broz continued his work underground despite pressure on Communists from the government. As 1921 began he moved to Veliko Trojstvo near Bjelovar and found work as a machinist. In 1925, Broz moved to Kraljevica where he started working at a shipyard. He was elected as a union leader and a year later he led a shipyard strike. He was fired and moved to Belgrade, where he worked in a train coach factory in Smederevska Palanka. He was elected as Workers' Commissary but was fired as soon as his CPY membership was revealed. Broz then moved to Zagreb, where he was appointed secretary of Metal Workers' Union of Croatia. In 1928, he became the Zagreb Branch Secretary of the CPY. In the same year he was arrested, tried in court for his illegal communist activities, and sent to jail. During his five years at Lepoglava prison he met Mo\u0161a Pijade, who became his ideological mentor. After his release, he lived incognito and assumed numerous noms de guerre, among them \"Walter\" and \"Tito\".\n<Assistant>Got it. I will remember them.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-06 00:00]\n<User>I want to tell you about some new discoveries:\nIn 1934 the Zagreb Provincial Committee sent Tito to Vienna where all the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had sought refuge. He was appointed to the Committee and started to appoint allies to him, among them Edvard Kardelj, Milovan \u0110ilas, Aleksandar Rankovi\u0107 and Boris Kidri\u010d. In 1935, Tito travelled to the Soviet Union, working for a year in the Balkans section of Comintern. He was a member of the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet secret police (NKVD). Tito was also involved in recruiting for the Dimitrov Battalion, a group of volunteers serving in the Spanish Civil War. In 1936, the Comintern sent \"Comrade Walter\" (i.e. Tito) back to Yugoslavia to purge the Communist Party there. In 1937, Stalin had the Secretary-General of the CPY, Milan Gorki\u0107, murdered in Moscow. Subsequently Tito was appointed Secretary-General of the still-outlawed CPY.\n<Assistant>Thanks for the update. I've recorded these facts.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-07 00:00]\n<User>Let me tell you about some new developments:\nOn 6 April 1941, German forces, with Hungarian and Italian assistance, launched an invasion of Yugoslavia. On 10 April 1941, Slavko Kvaternik proclaimed the Independent State of Croatia, and Tito responded by forming a Military Committee within the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party. Attacked from all sides, the armed forces of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia quickly crumbled. On 17 April 1941, after King Peter II and other members of the government fled the country, the remaining representatives of the government and military met with the German officials in Belgrade. They quickly agreed to end military resistance. On 1 May 1941, Tito issued a pamphlet calling on the people to unite in a battle against the occupation. On 27 June 1941, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia appointed Tito Commander in Chief of all project national liberation military forces. On 1 July 1941, the Comintern sent precise instructions calling for immediate action.\n\nDespite conflicts with the rival monarchic Chetnik movement, Tito's Partisans succeeded in liberating territory, notably the \"Republic of U\u017eice\". During this period, Tito held talks with Chetnik leader Dra\u017ea Mihailovi\u0107 on 19 September and 27 October 1941. It is said that Tito ordered his forces to assist escaping Jews, and that more than 2,000 Jews fought directly for Tito.\n\nOn 21 December 1941, the Partisans created the First Proletarian Brigade (commanded by Ko\u010da Popovi\u0107) and on 1 March 1942, Tito created the Second Proletarian Brigade. In liberated territories, the Partisans organised People's Committees to act as civilian government. The Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ) convened in Biha\u0107 on 26\u201327 November 1942 and in Jajce on 29 November 1943. In the two sessions, the resistance representatives established the basis for post-war organisation of the country, deciding on a federation of the Yugoslav nations. In Jajce, a 67-member \"presidency\" was elected and established a nine-member National Committee of Liberation (five communist members) as a de facto provisional government. Tito was named President of the National Committee of Liberation.\n<Assistant>Thanks for sharing. I've committed this to memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-08 00:00]\n<User>Here are some new facts I learnt just now:\nWith the growing possibility of an Allied invasion in the Balkans, the Axis began to divert more resources to the destruction of the Partisans main force and its high command. This meant, among other things, a concerted German effort to capture Josip Broz Tito personally. On 25 May 1944, he managed to evade the Germans after the Raid on Drvar (Operation R\u00f6sselsprung), an airborne assault outside his Drvar headquarters in Bosnia.\n\nAfter the Partisans managed to endure and avoid these intense Axis attacks between January and June 1943, and the extent of Chetnik collaboration became evident, Allied leaders switched their support from Dra\u017ea Mihailovi\u0107 to Tito. King Peter II, American President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill joined Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in officially recognising Tito and the Partisans at the Tehran Conference. This resulted in Allied aid being parachuted behind Axis lines to assist the Partisans. On 17 June 1944 on the Dalmatian island of Vis, the Treaty of Vis (Vi\u0161ki sporazum) was signed in an attempt to merge Tito's government (the AVNOJ) with the government in exile of King Peter II. The Balkan Air Force was formed in June 1944 to control operations that were mainly aimed at aiding his forces.\n\nIn the first post war years Tito was widely considered a communist leader very loyal to Moscow, indeed, he was often viewed as second only to Stalin in the Eastern Bloc. In fact, Stalin and Tito had an uneasy alliance from the start, with Stalin considering Tito too independent.\n\nOn 12 September 1944, King Peter II called on all Yugoslavs to come together under Tito's leadership and stated that those who did not were \"traitors\", by which time Tito was recognized by all Allied authorities (including the government-in-exile) as the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, in addition to commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav forces. On 28 September 1944, the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union (TASS) reported that Tito signed an agreement with the Soviet Union allowing \"temporary entry\" of Soviet troops into Yugoslav territory which allowed the Red Army to assist in operations in the northeastern areas of Yugoslavia. With their strategic right flank secured by the Allied advance, the Partisans prepared and executed a massive general offensive which succeeded in breaking through German lines and forcing a retreat beyond Yugoslav borders. After the Partisan victory and the end of hostilities in Europe, all external forces were ordered off Yugoslav territory.\n\nIn the final days of World War II in Yugoslavia, units of the Partisans were responsible for atrocities after the repatriations of Bleiburg, and accusations of culpability were later raised at the Yugoslav leadership under Tito. At the time, Josip Broz Tito repeatedly issued calls for surrender to the retreating column, offering amnesty and attempting to avoid a disorderly surrender. On 14 May he dispatched a telegram to the supreme headquarters Slovene Partisan Army prohibiting \"in the sternest language\" the execution of prisoners of war and commanding the transfer of the possible suspects to a military court.\n\nOn 7 March 1945, the provisional government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (Demokratska Federativna Jugoslavija, DFY) was assembled in Belgrade by Josip Broz Tito, while the provisional name allowed for either a republic or monarchy. This government was headed by Tito as provisional Yugoslav Prime Minister and included representatives from the royalist government-in-exile, among others Ivan \u0160uba\u0161i\u0107. In accordance with the agreement between resistance leaders and the government-in-exile, post-war elections were held to determine the form of government. In November 1945, Tito's pro-republican People's Front, led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, won the elections with an overwhelming majority, the vote having been boycotted by monarchists. During the period, Tito evidently enjoyed massive popular support due to being generally viewed by the populace as the liberator of Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav administration in the immediate post-war period managed to unite a country that had been severely affected by ultra-nationalist upheavals and war devastation, while successfully suppressing the nationalist sentiments of the various nations in favor of tolerance, and the common Yugoslav goal. After the overwhelming electoral victory, Tito was confirmed as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DFY. The country was soon renamed the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) (later finally renamed into Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, SFRY). On 29 November 1945, King Peter II was formally deposed by the Yugoslav Constituent Assembly. The Assembly drafted a new republican constitution soon afterwards.\n\nYugoslavia organized the Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslavenska narodna armija, or JNA) from the Partisan movement and became the fourth strongest army in Europe at the time. The State Security Administration (Uprava dr\u017eavne bezbednosti/sigurnosti/varnosti, UDBA) was also formed as the new secret police, along with a security agency, the Department of People's Security (Organ Za\u0161tite Naroda (Armije), OZNA). Yugoslav intelligence was charged with imprisoning and bringing to trial large numbers of Nazi collaborators; controversially, this included Catholic clergymen due to the widespread involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Usta\u0161a regime. Dra\u017ea Mihailovi\u0107 was found guilty of collaboration, high treason and war crimes and was subsequently executed by firing squad in July 1946.\n\nPrime Minister Josip Broz Tito met with the president of the Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia, Aloysius Stepinac on 4 June 1945, two days after his release from imprisonment. The two could not reach an agreement on the state of the Catholic Church. Under Stepinac's leadership, the bishops' conference released a letter condemning alleged Partisan war crimes in September, 1945. The following year Stepinac was arrested and put on trial. In October 1946, in its first special session for 75 years, the Vatican excommunicated Tito and the Yugoslav government for sentencing Stepinac to 16 years in prison on charges of assisting Usta\u0161e terror and of supporting forced conversions of Serbs to Catholicism. Stepinac received preferential treatment in recognition of his status and the sentence was soon shortened and reduced to house-arrest, with the option of emigration open to the archbishop. At the conclusion of the \"Informbiro period\", reforms rendered Yugoslavia considerably more religiously liberal than the Eastern Bloc states.\n<Assistant>Thanks for sharing. I've committed this to memory.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-09 00:00]\n<User>I have some fresh insights to share:\nUnlike other new communist states in east-central Europe, Yugoslavia liberated itself from Axis domination with limited direct support from the Red Army. Tito's leading role in liberating Yugoslavia not only greatly strengthened his position in his party and among the Yugoslav people, but also caused him to be more insistent that Yugoslavia had more room to follow its own interests than other Bloc leaders who had more reasons (and pressures) to recognize Soviet efforts in helping them liberate their own countries from Axis control. Although Tito was formally an ally of Stalin after World War II, the Soviets had set up a spy ring in the Yugoslav party as early as 1945, giving way to an uneasy alliance.[citation needed]\n\nIn the immediate aftermath of World War II, there occurred several armed incidents between Yugoslavia and the Western Allies. Following the war, Yugoslavia acquired the Italian territory of Istria as well as the cities of Zadar and Rijeka. Yugoslav leadership was looking to incorporate Trieste into the country as well, which was opposed by the Western Allies. This led to several armed incidents, notably attacks by Yugoslav fighter planes on US transport aircraft, causing bitter criticism from the west. From 1945 to 1948, at least four US aircraft were shot down.[better source needed] Stalin was opposed to these provocations, as he felt the USSR unready to face the West in open war so soon after the losses of World War II and at the time when US had operational nuclear weapons whereas USSR had yet to conduct its first test. In addition, Tito was openly supportive of the Communist side in the Greek Civil War, while Stalin kept his distance, having agreed with Churchill not to pursue Soviet interests there, although he did support the Greek communist struggle politically, as demonstrated in several assemblies of the UN Security Council. In 1948, motivated by the desire to create a strong independent economy, Tito modeled his economic development plan independently from Moscow, which resulted in a diplomatic escalation followed by a bitter exchange of letters in which Tito affirmed that\n\nThe Soviet answer on 4 May admonished Tito and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) for failing to admit and correct its mistakes, and went on to accuse them of being too proud of their successes against the Germans, maintaining that the Red Army had saved them from destruction. Tito's response on 17 May suggested that the matter be settled at the meeting of the Cominform to be held that June. However, Tito did not attend the second meeting of the Cominform, fearing that Yugoslavia was to be openly attacked. In 1949 the crisis nearly escalated into an armed conflict, as Hungarian and Soviet forces were massing on the northern Yugoslav frontier. On 28 June, the other member countries expelled Yugoslavia, citing \"nationalist elements\" that had \"managed in the course of the past five or six months to reach a dominant position in the leadership\" of the CPY. The assumption in Moscow was that once it was known that he had lost Soviet approval, Tito would collapse; 'I will shake my little finger and there will be no more Tito,' Stalin remarked. The expulsion effectively banished Yugoslavia from the international association of socialist states, while other socialist states of Eastern Europe subsequently underwent purges of alleged \"Titoists\". Stalin took the matter personally and arranged several assassination attempts on Tito, none of which succeeded. In a correspondence between the two leaders, Tito openly wrote:\n\nOne significant consequence of the tension arising between Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, was that Tito fought Yugoslav Stalinists with Stalin's methods. In other words, Aleksandar Rankovi\u0107 and the State Security Service (UBDA) employed the same inhumane methods against their opponents as Stalin did in the Soviet Union against his. Not every person accused of a political crime was convicted and nobody was sentenced to death for his or her pro-Soviet feelings. However this repression, which lasted until 1956, was marked by significant violations of human rights.\n\nTito's estrangement from the USSR enabled Yugoslavia to obtain US aid via the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA), the same US aid institution which administered the Marshall Plan. Still, he did not agree to align with the West, which was a common consequence of accepting American aid at the time. After Stalin's death in 1953, relations with the USSR were relaxed and he began to receive aid as well from the COMECON. In this way, Tito played East-West antagonism to his advantage. Instead of choosing sides, he was instrumental in kick-starting the Non-Aligned Movement, which would function as a 'third way' for countries interested in staying outside of the East-West divide.\n\nThe event was significant not only for Yugoslavia and Tito, but also for the global development of socialism, since it was the first major split between Communist states, casting doubt on Comintern's claims for socialism to be a unified force that would eventually control the whole world, as Tito became the first (and the only successful) socialist leader to defy Stalin's leadership in the COMINFORM. This rift with the Soviet Union brought Tito much international recognition, but also triggered a period of instability often referred to as the Informbiro period. Tito's form of communism was labeled \"Titoism\" by Moscow, which encouraged purges against suspected \"Titoites'\" throughout the Eastern bloc.\n\nOn 26 June 1950, the National Assembly supported a crucial bill written by Milovan \u0110ilas and Tito about \"self-management\" (samoupravljanje): a type of cooperative independent socialist experiment that introduced profit sharing and workplace democracy in previously state-run enterprises which then became the direct social ownership of the employees. On 13 January 1953, they established that the law on self-management was the basis of the entire social order in Yugoslavia. Tito also succeeded Ivan Ribar as the President of Yugoslavia on 14 January 1953. After Stalin's death Tito rejected the USSR's invitation for a visit to discuss normalization of relations between two nations. Nikita Khrushchev and Nikolai Bulganin visited Tito in Belgrade in 1955 and apologized for wrongdoings by Stalin's administration. Tito visited the USSR in 1956, which signaled to the world that animosity between Yugoslavia and USSR was easing. However, the relationship between the USSR and Yugoslavia would reach another low in the late 1960s. Commenting on the crisis, Tito concluded that:\n<Assistant>Wonderful. I'll remember these key points.", "[Dialogue between User and Assistant on 2024-01-10 00:00]\n<User>I want to share some knowledge I just acquired:\nThe Tito-Stalin split had large ramifications for countries outside the USSR and Yugoslavia. It has, for example, been given as one of the reasons for the Sl\u00e1nsk\u00fd trial in Czechoslovakia, in which 14 high-level Communist officials were purged, with 11 of them being executed. Stalin put pressure on Czechoslovakia to conduct purges in order to discourage the spread of the idea of a \"national path to socialism,\" which Tito espoused.\n\nUnder Tito's leadership, Yugoslavia became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1961, Tito co-founded the movement with Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, India's Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesia's Sukarno and Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, in an action called The Initiative of Five (Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Sukarno, Nkrumah), thus establishing strong ties with third world countries. This move did much to improve Yugoslavia's diplomatic position. On 1 September 1961, Josip Broz Tito became the first Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement.\n\nTito's foreign policy led to relationships with a variety of governments, such as exchanging visits (1954 and 1956) with Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, where a street was named in his honor.\n\nTito was notable for pursuing a foreign policy of neutrality during the Cold War and for establishing close ties with developing countries. Tito's strong belief in self-determination caused early rift with Stalin and consequently, the Eastern Bloc. His public speeches often reiterated that policy of neutrality and cooperation with all countries would be natural as long as these countries did not use their influence to pressure Yugoslavia to take sides. Relations with the United States and Western European nations were generally cordial.\n\nYugoslavia had a liberal travel policy permitting foreigners to freely travel through the country and its citizens to travel worldwide, whereas it was limited by most Communist countries. A number[quantify] of Yugoslav citizens worked throughout Western Europe. Tito met many world leaders during his rule, such as Soviet rulers Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev; Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Indian politicians Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi; British Prime Ministers Winston Churchill, James Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher; U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter; other political leaders, dignitaries and heads of state that Tito met at least once in his lifetime included Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, Georges Pompidou, Queen Elizabeth II, Hua Guofeng, Kim Il Sung, Sukarno, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Suharto, Idi Amin, Haile Selassie, Kenneth Kaunda, Gaddafi, Erich Honecker, Nicolae Ceau\u0219escu, J\u00e1nos K\u00e1d\u00e1r and Urho Kekkonen. He also met numerous celebrities.\n\nTito visited India from December 22, 1954 through January 8, 1955. After his return, he removed many restrictions on churches and spiritual institutions in Yugoslavia.\n\nTito also developed warm relations with Burma under U Nu, travelling to the country in 1955 and again in 1959, though he didn't receive the same treatment in 1959 from the new leader, Ne Win.\n\nBecause of its neutrality, Yugoslavia would often be rare among Communist countries to have diplomatic relations with right-wing, anti-Communist governments. For example, Yugoslavia was the only communist country allowed to have an embassy in Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay. One notable exception to Yugoslavia's neutral stance toward anti-communist countries was Chile under Pinochet; Yugoslavia was one of many countries which severed diplomatic relations with Chile after Salvador Allende was overthrown. Yugoslavia also provided military aid and arms supplies to staunchly anti-Communist regimes such as that of Guatemala under Kjell Eugenio Laugerud Garc\u00eda.\n\nOn 7 April 1963, the country changed its official name to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Reforms encouraged private enterprise and greatly relaxed restrictions on freedom of speech and religious expression. Tito subsequently went on a tour of the Americas. In Chile, two government ministers resigned over his visit to that country. In the autumn of 1960 Tito met President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Tito and Eisenhower discussed a range of issues from arms control to economic development. When Eisenhower remarked that Yugoslavia's neutralism was \"neutral on his side\", Tito replied that neutralism did not imply passivity but meant \"not taking sides\".\n\nIn 1966 an agreement with the Vatican, fostered in part by the death in 1960 of anti-communist archbishop of Zagreb Aloysius Stepinac and shifts in the church's approach to resisting communism originating in the Second Vatican Council, accorded new freedom to the Yugoslav Roman Catholic Church, particularly to catechize and open seminaries. The agreement also eased tensions, which had prevented the naming of new bishops in Yugoslavia since 1945. Tito's new socialism met opposition from traditional communists culminating in conspiracy headed by Aleksandar Rankovi\u0107. In the same year Tito declared that Communists must henceforth chart Yugoslavia's course by the force of their arguments (implying an abandonment of Leninist orthodoxy and development of liberal Communism). The State Security Administration (UDBA) saw its power scaled back and its staff reduced to 5000.\n\nOn 1 January 1967, Yugoslavia was the first communist country to open its borders to all foreign visitors and abolish visa requirements. In the same year Tito became active in promoting a peaceful resolution of the Arab\u2013Israeli conflict. His plan called for Arabs to recognize the state of Israel in exchange for territories Israel gained.\n\nIn 1968, Tito offered Czechoslovak leader Alexander Dub\u010dek to fly to Prague on three hours notice if Dub\u010dek needed help in facing down the Soviets. In April 1969, Tito removed generals Ivan Go\u0161njak and Rade Hamovi\u0107 in the aftermath of the invasion of Czechoslovakia due to the unpreparedness of the Yugoslav army to respond to a similar invasion of Yugoslavia.\n<Assistant>Sure I will remember them."]
[{"question": "Where did Tito send Dubcek in 1968?", "answer": "Prague"}, {"question": "What territory did Yugoslavia leadership want to incorporate?", "answer": "Trieste"}, {"question": "Who was Tito considered loyal to?", "answer": "Moscow"}, {"question": "Who had a strong belief in self-determination and was opposed to Stalin because of this?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "A rider to the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 provided that the US government could not do what with an Indian nation?", "answer": "contract by treaty"}, {"question": "Who became Secretary-General of the CPY after the prior one was murdered?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "In what cases did the US Supreme Court rule that treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress?", "answer": "Head Money Cases"}, {"question": "In what year did the crisis nearly escalate into armed conflict?", "answer": "1949"}, {"question": "Tito succeeded who as the President of Yugoslavia?", "answer": "Ribar"}, {"question": "Who encouraged purges against Titoites?", "answer": "Moscow"}, {"question": "Where did Broz marry Belousova?", "answer": "Omsk"}, {"question": "In what year did the first communist country open its borders to all foreign visitors?", "answer": "1967"}, {"question": "What type of legislative subjects can both the central legislative body and state legislatures make laws?", "answer": "Concurrent subjects"}, {"question": "Where was the 67-member \"presidency\" located?", "answer": "Jajce"}, {"question": "Two government ministers resigned over Tito's visit to what region?", "answer": "Americas"}, {"question": "What is an example of a type of universally prohibited action that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit through a treaty?", "answer": "genocide"}, {"question": "Who succeeded in liberating territory despite conflicts?", "answer": "Partisans"}, {"question": "When did Tito meet Eisenhower at the U.N.?", "answer": "1960"}, {"question": "In what country does Tito have a street named in his honor?", "answer": "Ethiopia"}, {"question": "During World War II what resistance movement did he lead?", "answer": "the Partisans,"}, {"question": "How long was Broz in the hospital?", "answer": "13 months"}, {"question": "Modern treaty law can be compared in function and effectiveness to the historical Articles of Confederation by comparing the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government with what modern institution?", "answer": "the UN"}, {"question": "Stepinac's death gave new freedom to what branch of the Roman Catholic Church?", "answer": "Yugoslav"}, {"question": "2000 of what group fought directly for Tito?", "answer": "Jews"}, {"question": "What acronym describes the State Security Administration?", "answer": "UDBA"}, {"question": "In what year did the Brazilian Supreme Court rule that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above ordinary legislation?", "answer": "2008"}, {"question": "In 1941, where did representatives of the government and military meet with German officials?", "answer": "Belgrade"}, {"question": "When did Tito visit the USSR to signal that his country's animosity was decreasing?", "answer": "1956"}, {"question": "What was the only Communist country allowed to have an embassy in Stroessner's Paraguay?", "answer": "Yugoslavia"}, {"question": "From what domination did Yugoslavia liberate itself?", "answer": "Axis"}, {"question": "Any treaty provision that conflicts with the US Constitution is considered what under US law?", "answer": "null and void"}, {"question": "Where did Broz flee to after a White counteroffensive?", "answer": "Kirgiziya"}, {"question": "In which aspects has the United Nations been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government?", "answer": "function and effectiveness"}, {"question": "Tito did not attend the second meeting of this.", "answer": "Cominform"}, {"question": "In 1944 who called on all Yuboslavs to come together under Tito's leadership?", "answer": "King Peter II"}, {"question": "What position in the army did he become after office school?", "answer": "sergeant"}, {"question": "Whose plan called for Arabs to recognize the state of Israel in exchange for territories Israel gained?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "What competition did he win a silver medal in?", "answer": "fencing"}, {"question": "How many members were in the \"presidency\" in Jajce?", "answer": "67"}, {"question": "Ne Win led what country?", "answer": "Burma"}, {"question": "What are started to be a source of international law in the preamble in The Law of Treaties?", "answer": "treaties"}, {"question": "What ethnicity was Broz's mother?", "answer": "Slovene"}, {"question": "Who made several assasination attempts on Tito?", "answer": "Stalin"}, {"question": "What section of the United Nations Charter states that its members' obligation under the charter outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties?", "answer": "Section 103"}, {"question": "What on behalf of a state cannot invalidate that state's consent to a treaty?", "answer": "own conduct"}, {"question": "What group did Tito found?", "answer": "Cominform"}, {"question": "Who executed a massive offensive and succeeded in breaking through German lines?", "answer": "the Partisans"}, {"question": "As early as what year was a spy ring set up in the Yugoslav party?", "answer": "1945"}, {"question": "For what crime was he arrested?", "answer": "anti-war propaganda"}, {"question": "What percentage of United States Senators must give advice and consent in order for the US to enter a treaty?", "answer": "two-thirds"}, {"question": "Where was Tito serioiusly wounded and captured by the Russians at?", "answer": "Bukovina"}, {"question": "What type of conduct of a party to a treaty can invalidate the consent of another party?", "answer": "fraudulent conduct"}, {"question": "What Brazilian institution has ruled that a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree?", "answer": "the Federal Supreme Court"}, {"question": "Nixon was a president of what country?", "answer": "U.S."}, {"question": "When did the second Yugoslavia start?", "answer": "1943"}, {"question": "At what event was Tito recognized by Stalin?", "answer": "Tehran Conference"}, {"question": "What position was he selected for at work camp?", "answer": "camp leader"}, {"question": "How many foreign decorations did he receive?", "answer": "98"}, {"question": "Eisenhower was a president of what country?", "answer": "U.S."}, {"question": "The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified by what for the purposes of US law?", "answer": "Act of Congress"}, {"question": "When did Tito last visit Emperor Selassie?", "answer": "1956"}, {"question": "Who removed generals Gosnjak and Hamovic?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "In what year did Tito start working in Arab Israeli peace processes?", "answer": "1967"}, {"question": "Who was Tito formally an ally of after WWII?", "answer": "Stalin"}, {"question": "The US Supreme Court ruled that treaties can be repealed or modified for the purposes of US law just like what by any subsequent Act of Congress?", "answer": "any other regular law"}, {"question": "Until what year did the repression of the UBDA last?", "answer": "1956"}, {"question": "When did Tito first visit Emperor Haile Selassie?", "answer": "1954"}, {"question": "Who were allowed \"temporary entry\" into Yugoslav territory?", "answer": "Soviet troops"}, {"question": "Who espoused the \"national path to socialism\"?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "The president of the United States might prefer the formal treaty process for agreements that impose what type of legal obligations on the US?", "answer": "long-term, complex"}, {"question": "After returning from India, Tito removed restrictions on what type of institutions?", "answer": "spiritual"}, {"question": "How much time did Tito give Dubcek to fly to Prague?", "answer": "three hours"}, {"question": "What is another name for the UBDA?", "answer": "State Security Service"}, {"question": "When did Tito implement a self-management system that differentiated Yugoslavia from other socialist coutnries?", "answer": "1951"}, {"question": "Who was considered loyal to Moscow?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "What is the central legislative body in India?", "answer": "Parliament of India"}, {"question": "Where was Broz's work camp?", "answer": "Ural Mountains"}, {"question": "What army was unprepared for the invasion of Czechoslovakia?", "answer": "Yugoslavia"}, {"question": "What country did Kjell Eugenio Laugerud Garcia lead?", "answer": "Guatemala"}, {"question": "Treaties between indigenous peoples and what other groups formed an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century?", "answer": "colonizers"}, {"question": "Nehru was a leader of what country?", "answer": "Indian"}, {"question": "What aspect of the treaties that indigenous people signed with Europeans did the indigenous people typically not understand?", "answer": "the implications"}, {"question": "What type of assault was there in Bosnia?", "answer": "airborne"}, {"question": "When was Tito sent to Vienna?", "answer": "1934"}, {"question": "How many seats did the Communists win in 1920 Yugoslavia?", "answer": "59"}, {"question": "What ethnicity was Tito's mother?", "answer": "Slovene"}, {"question": "Whose invitation did Tito reject after Stalin's death?", "answer": "USSR"}, {"question": "When did Tito create the Second Proletarian Brigade?", "answer": "1942"}, {"question": "How long after his release from imprisonment did TIto attend the Bishops' Conference of Yugoslavia?", "answer": "two days"}, {"question": "Treaties and their amendments must follow the official legal procedures of what body after their adoption?", "answer": "the United Nations"}, {"question": "When did Tito leave India?", "answer": "1955"}, {"question": "After his return from where did Tito remove many restrictions on churches in Yugoslavia?", "answer": "India"}, {"question": "During what years did Tito lead the Partisans?", "answer": "1941\u201345"}, {"question": "Who captured him during World War I?", "answer": "the Imperial Russians"}, {"question": "Who offered amnesty to the retreatig column?", "answer": "Tito"}, {"question": "Who used inhumane methods against oponents through the UBDA?", "answer": "Rankovi\u0107"}, {"question": "What did Tito use to get the people to unit in a battle against the occupation in 1941?", "answer": "pamphlet"}, {"question": "How long was he in prison at Lepoglava for?", "answer": "five years"}, {"question": "What did Europeans try to legitimize all over the world by signing treaties with indigenous people?", "answer": "their sovereignty"}, {"question": "Which Indonesian leader co-founded the Non-Aligned movement with Tito?", "answer": "Nehru"}]