Re-Evaluate#2: Tito

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Tito, rarely mentioned today, but how do you evaluate his rule over a disparate state-nation, and his relationship with soviet union today?

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 1 August 2003 08:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

Ah, Tito on the other hand is probably my favourite 20th century dictator. His persona is still very much respected in all of the former republics of Yugoslavia, which is quite a feat really.
There are some great biographies out there, if you're interested..

― Fabrice (Fabfunk), Friday, 1 August 2003 09:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

you need to get drunk gareth.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 1 August 2003 09:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

yes, its Titos legacy and reputation that seems pretty interesting, in that he does seem to still be viewed quite fondly, though whether the tumult that occurred in yugoslavia subsequently rose tinted peoples views i dont know

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 1 August 2003 09:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

If you live during a war, then you will tend to look at peacetime through the proverbial rose lenses! The wider question is if all Tito did was postpone the inevitable. If you speak to Slovenians (who effectively subsidised large parts of Yugoslavia) then you'll get a different answer to those who lived in regions without natural resources who were aided by Tito's distribution of wealth..

Why are you asking these questions? Is it for a thesis?

― Kissin' Kate, Friday, 1 August 2003 10:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

There is probably some historical revisionism at play, but I also think that Tito happened to be at the right place at the right time. His rule pretty much corresponded to the period of post-WW2 prosperity, from which Yugoslavia benefited much more than the Warsaw Pact countries. The period following his death wa splagued by the oil crisis, the massive debt of the country and eventually the whole economy going bankrupt..

― Fabrice (Fabfunk), Friday, 1 August 2003 10:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

no thesis, just personal interest

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 1 August 2003 10:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

my impression is that Tito's Yugoslavia was a more pleasant place to live than the eretz Serbia that pre-SWW Yugoslavia was.

It's hard to tell, even in retrospect, whether Tito could have foreseen and prevented the subsequent dissolution of Yugoslavia. in some ways you could say that Yugoslavia was essentially a continuation of the Habsburg Empire, and one doomed to collapse in the absence of hardline dictatorial rule.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Friday, 1 August 2003 11:09 (twenty-one years ago) link

My Croatian coworker speaks very highly of Tito, and I quote "he could be a nasty motherfucker, but you knew where you were"

― Matt (Matt), Saturday, 2 August 2003 00:44 (twenty-one years ago) link

He did very well in keeping Yugoslavia together as a nation, but his attempts to encourage integration - especially trying to sure Serbs, Croats and Muslims all lived alongside each other in harmony, etc - made the eventual break-up much more violent and complex than would otherwise have been the case.

― caitlin (caitlin), Saturday, 2 August 2003 09:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think they all lived alongside each other anyway, Caitlin.

I must get my expert friend to answer the question of whether Yugoslavia's breakup was really inevitable.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 2 August 2003 22:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.