Tito: Benevolent Ruler or Tyrant?

Opinions?
Marshall, Premier and President... he fought as a partisan against the Nazis in WW2 and also ruled Yugoslavia in the post-war years. In retrospect, how was he viewed by his people?
During the Second World War?
Post war?

Tim

 

Probably somewhere between the two.

 

Depending of point of view, or to be more precise in which part of YU one lived (some republic communist parties were ore ardent than others).

Right after the ww2 partisans under his command commited terrible atrocities against political opponents and anyone considered traitor (any axis allies). This perios lasted up untill early 1946. In this period also expulsions of ethnic Germans and Italians happened.
Things calmed down a bit but erupted again in 1948 when Tito and Stalin fell apart (Informbiro resolution) this purge however hit communists the most (imprisonment of true or percived Soviet agents in YU). In 1948 also big uprising of Kosovo Albanians happened but uprising was crushed by 4.th army.
In period of his consolidation of power lasting up to mid 1950's, during which actions against possible western sympatisers and church were taken.
From late 1950's to his death things were more or less calm (there were couple of storms in this time).

He was master of wheelling and dealing in cold war world (playing both sides). Tito with Nehru (India) and Nasser (Egypt) started non-aligned countries alliance.
Also we at the time helped any "popular liberation movement". Sending tanks (H-39) and eqipment (and poeple) to Israel (1948), weapons to Algiers (French were pretty pissed about that one-we were cought red handed a couple of times), Indonesia,.... You name it we sold something to them

Basicly he is still seen as the force that kept Yugoslavia together. He is seen as bloody butcher, liberator, benovelent dictator.... As i said depends from point of view.

 

As i remember whole country cryed when TITO died.I was not borned then,but that fact is whell known.Ppl did love him,atleast comon ppl.

 

Well i was a kid then. Yes entire country cried after him. After the old man died it was: What now? It was feared (justifiably so) that old nationalisms will reapear. The old man was the head of the state (even if he was in his last years more or less a frontman for some spooks who ran him behind the scene) for so long that leading politicians were realy unused to think for themselves and show any initiative.

 

.

At Tito funeral , the official stand had leaders and head of state packed together . in a 20 m by 20m square , any anarchist dream
There were leaders of the first , second and third worlds
central europe general secretaries , south american presideos ,asian supreme leaders ,
they were all dripping blood
It was the greatest concentration of bastards EVER , jimmy carter send his mother






.

 

Just another tyrant who declares himself ruler for life and kills his political opponenets and oppresses his people in order to maintain his hold on power. Then he dies and the whole rotten system falls apart.
If an American leader acted as Tito did how much admiration would be expressed for him by some of Tito's admirers here I wonder?

 

How on earth would the conduct of an American leader have any bearing upon a Yugoslav's opinion of TITO?

 

I think you understand the analogy.the conduct of Tito is measured using one standard and the conduct of President Bush is judges using a different standard. The same people that judge President Bush so harshly express admiration for an oppressive despotic dictator. The fact that one is American and one is Yugoslavian shouldn't matter. The double standard is hypocritical.

 

...well for instance look how bush is villified as some warmonger , oil grabbing thug in much of the worlds fantasy perceptions of today ...compared to bush , tito was up to his armpits in blood , and i dont mean heer blood......look how tito is held ( or mao ) to a very much skewed and uneven set of ethical standards from bush or any other western leader ........i admit ,i have always respected titos galvanizing of the balkan tribes and standing at times toe to toe with the wermacht...and then his faceing down of stalin ...an even greater feat , imo...as for people crying at his death ..tito was the sole godhead for 40 some years ( he must have had a really great election campaign team...) in 1953 .people were crushed by the dozens at stalins death by rock concert like funeral hysteria , the crying went on for weeks ...does that adulation at his death mean that stalin was therefore a wonderful and benevolent leader....ive heard that maos funeral was also well attended

 

Perhaps it is simply that Tito and Bush are being viewed in different contexts... For exapmle, the context of their own country and not to the standard of human rights. Doubtless Tito is the more violent and ruthless of the two,

On the one hand we see Tito 'galvanising' the country; He is ruling a volatile, and unstable country which has just emerged bloodied from WW2; Tito united Yu, a strong case can be made that he made Yugoslavia better... Certainly alot more bloodshed may have ensued was Yu to have been ruled by a less competent leader...

As for Bush, he is president of a very stable country with an impeccable record of human rights... However, there are concerns that Bush's presidency has seen a deterioration in stability and freedom... His policies have cost America moneyand lives, and that 'terror laws' are restricting this freedom... Whether or not this is true, the perception remains that Bush has 'worsened' America...

Thus in relation to their relationship with their own respective countries, Bush may be a 'worse' leader than Tito... This is just an example, I hope it makes sense, I don't have time to make it sound conherent

 

smeg , it makes some sense in that perspective ...but bush bashers never seem to qualifie their anti bush retorhic when calling him a warmonger or murderer or oil stealing robber baron or fasciest or moron ...by any resonable definitions , none of these slurs are applicable ...i had hoped that democracy of sorts could have been installed in at least one arab country ...we did pull it off in germany and japan and south korea if not a great democracy is at least a thriveing economy that allows dissent ...the arab world is still a long way from embracing western notions of liberty ,equality and tolorence , im afraid....and if you think the violence is bad , now .....just wait till we pull our troops out of iraq.....oh well...insha a allah as they say ,...

 

.

As for Tito ,
he was alive there was peace and ease
he was dead there was war and misery

the politicians had to pull the plug after weeks of artificially suspended existence , they were afraid
They knew that Tito's killings were fate taxes to peace

the people didn't cry for him , they were crying for themselves :cry:


.

 

naw..you know well enough they were crying for a lost father ..when fdr died he had been president for what ? ...12 years ...america was in shock ...harry who ? they all asked the country was dumbfounded even harry trumann himself was appolegetic and said he would do his best but could never really fill fdrs big shoes...when a leader like stalin ,mao , or tito dies ..all of them great war leaders as well and haveing been diefied ,and feared ,where a unkind comment could get one killed ......for 40 years ...its bound to cause overwhelming shock and grief...people today cannot hope to grasp the effect on a population so affected...as if god himself had died ...

 

.


to be sure some people stature are huge !

I've mentionned also that during WW2 and after there was a particulary good crop of great men , politics had a face , it was a time of giants
todays politicians are far from impressive , signs of the times or peace bringing out mediocrity

 

less dramatic and epic times now ..ww2 was the good war ...simple ,black and white ...really bad ,bad guys ..mom ,apple pie ,jimmie dorsi ...read studs terkels book by that title if you have not...great non fiction ...THE GOOD WAR..its true jeag .....great times seem to produce great men...great drama ...winsten ,fdr, hitler ,stalin ,tito ,el duce ,ike ,monty ,patton < ,himmler, rommel ,guderian ,hartmann,marselle, audie muphey ,sanford tuck ,capt wittman ,degaulle ,truman ,pappy boyington ,.........is it just me or are all these guys way bigger than life????

 

.


it's not just you ,:roll: :roll:
IMHO the current crop wouldn't be fit to hold a canddle to those guys
our aussie prime minister is a thirty years failure who got the job by attrition, everybody else had better things to do

P .S. but then again , maybe i'm just getting old



.

 

who in his right mind would want o be pm of oz or uk or president if the usa ..you gotta act like a whore to get there ,while the whole world looks through your dirty linen ,you cant ever speak your mind again ...farting in elevators is taboo ..and then ,,no matter what you do ...half the world is going to be shitting on you continuously for what you did ..and the other half for what you should have done ...and , in reality you have very little actual power to get anything done at all ...lee iiacoaca .inventer of the ford mustang and later, recruited new head of failing chrysler motor corp , which he personally pulled out of a fatal tail spin some 20 years ago ...was asked once to run for president of the usa ......his reply is not printeble here as some forum members are quite young......he was used to being ceo of a major fortune 500 company ...now... theres a president with very real power ..