Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just wondering what the views of people on Josep Broz Tito are on TSR. Personally I think he possessed a significant degree of courage reflected in his quote to Stalin " Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another". However I wish to learn more about this enigmatic character.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Just wondering what the views of people on Josep Broz Tito are on TSR. Personally I think he possessed a significant degree of courage reflected in his quote to Stalin " Stop sending people to kill me! We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle... If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send a very fast working one to Moscow and I certainly won't have to send another". However I wish to learn more about this enigmatic character.
    I've always had a soft spot for Tito, and I say this as a non-Communist. In the period 1941-1946, the Yugoslav Partisan movement, under the leadership of Tito and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, waged a successful campaign of resistance against the Nazi and Fascist occupiers of Yugoslavia, crushing the occupiers and their domestic quislings (many of whom subscibed to genocidal ideologies). This resulted not only in their liberation from Axis occupation, but in the revolutionary overthrow of the old Yugoslav monarchical order, and the establishment of a new Yugoslavia as a federation of six republics. The Partisans, a politically marginal group before World War 2, were able to persuade uneducated, often xenophobic peasants to fight in a genuinely multi-national resistance. He was able to prevent Yugoslavia becoming a stalite of the Soviet Union, and his version of Communism was more liberal in comparison to most Eastern European regimes in the period. He maintained good relations with the West and founded the Non-Aligned movement.The Titoist nationality policy is widely and rightly seen as enlightened by contemporary standards, and the regime did show a willingness to liberalise in the 1960s and 1970s. The society of the modern-day Yugoslav republics, especially Bosnia-Herzegovina, was shaped by Tito's Yugoslavia.

    This is not to romanticise his regime as some western writers do. My profile picture is Andrija Hebrang, a man who was killed by Tito for showing too much independence. Early concessions to Serbian nationalists would have profound effects later on. The Partisans carried out very serious war crimes towards the end of the Second World War. Tito broke his promise to the Kosovo Albanians and ruled the province as a brutal police state under Aleksandar Rankovic until 1968. Herzegovinian Croats were widely treated as second class citizens until well into the 1960s, and Tito's secret police hunted down and killed his opponents abroad. The supression of pluralism and the dogmatic, undemocratic political culture of Yugoslavia would also have profound effects after he was gone. Yugoslavia also faced serious economic problems after he was gone.

    So yes, the man was definately an enigma, but overall I have a sneaking admiration for him, especially for his war record. Certainly, I feel it is a big shame what happened to Yugoslavia after he was gone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    I've always had a soft spot for Tito, and I say this as a non-Communist. In the period 1941-1946, the Yugoslav Partisan movement, under the leadership of Tito and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, waged a successful campaign of resistance against the Nazi and Fascist occupiers of Yugoslavia, crushing the occupiers and their domestic quislings (many of whom subscibed to genocidal ideologies). This resulted not only in their liberation from Axis occupation, but in the revolutionary overthrow of the old Yugoslav monarchical order, and the establishment of a new Yugoslavia as a federation of six republics. The Partisans, a politically marginal group before World War 2, were able to persuade uneducated, often xenophobic peasants to fight in a genuinely multi-national resistance. He was able to prevent Yugoslavia becoming a stalite of the Soviet Union, and his version of Communism was more liberal in comparison to most Eastern European regimes in the period. He maintained good relations with the West and founded the Non-Aligned movement.The Titoist nationality policy is widely and rightly seen as enlightened by contemporary standards, and the regime did show a willingness to liberalise in the 1960s and 1970s. The society of the modern-day Yugoslav republics, especially Bosnia-Herzegovina, was shaped by Tito's Yugoslavia.

    This is not to romanticise his regime as some western writers do. My profile picture is Andrija Hebrang, a man who was killed by Tito for showing too much independence. Early concessions to Serbian nationalists would have profound effects later on. The Partisans carried out very serious war crimes towards the end of the Second World War. Tito broke his promise to the Kosovo Albanians and ruled the province as a brutal police state under Aleksandar Rankovic until 1968. Herzegovinian Croats were widely treated as second class citizens until well into the 1960s, and Tito's secret police hunted down and killed his opponents abroad. The supression of pluralism and the dogmatic, undemocratic political culture of Yugoslavia would also have profound effects after he was gone.

    So yes, the man was definately an enigma, but overall I have a sneaking admiration for him, especially for his war record. Certainly, I feel it is a big shame what happened to Yugoslavia after he was gone.


    I believe Tito referred to Churchill as an enemy but an "enemy that can be respected". Was it a case perhaps of Tito having fought monsters becoming one himself? I mean if you take a means justify the ends approach and if you had spent significant years of your life being pursued by dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, did Tito become cynical?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    I believe Tito referred to Churchill as an enemy but an "enemy that can be respected". Was it a case perhaps of Tito having fought monsters becoming one himself?
    Probably, the war in Yugoslavia was fought with enormous brutality, with only the war in the USSR really surpassing it. Both the Ustaše (Croatian fascists/collaboraters) and Četnici (Serb royalists/collaboraters) subscribed to genocidal ideologies and carried out genocidal crimes against members of other nationalities, as well as against pro-Partisan civilians. Little quarter was given or expected. The Germans and Italians were also extremely brutal. I do believe that the experience of the war hardened him (much as the civil war hardened many Bolshevik leaders), as well as the inter-war period. Before the war, the Communist Party had been persecuted, and this led to a conspiritorial, secretive, autocratic political style which remained. There was also the constant threat of invasion by the USSR, to the extend that Yugoslav industry was often moved due to this threat.

    Interestingly, Churchill provided massive support to Tito, and was instrumental support for shifting allied support away from Mihailović to Tito, despite Tito being a Communist, and Tito set up his HQ in 1944 on an island under British military protection.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Probably, the war in Yugoslavia was fought with enormous brutality, with only the war in the USSR really surpassing it. Both the Ustaše (Croatian fascists/collaboraters) and Četnici (Serb royalists/collaboraters) subscribed to genocidal ideologies and carried out genocidal crimes against members of other nationalities, as well as against pro-Partisan civilians. The Germans and Italians were also extremely brutal. I do believe that the experience of the war hardened him (much as the civil war hardened many Bolshevik leaders), as well as the inter-war period. Before the war, the Communist Party had been persecuted, and this led to a conspiritorial, secretive, autocratic political style which remained. There was also the constant threat of invasion by the USSR, to the extend that Yugoslav industry was often moved due to this threat.

    Interestingly, Churchill provided massive support to Tito, and was instrumental support for shifting allied support away from Mihailović to Tito, despite Tito being a Communist, and Tito set up his HQ in 1944 on an island under British military protection.
    Interesting I knew the Nazi-Soviet War was incredibly brutal and the Germans could be ruthless to those they believed "unacceptable". However in regards to the Italians there had developed I think a stereotype that they were almost too incompetent to be brutal. I'm impressed by Tito's resilience I mean the only other person I can think of who were able to outmanoeuvre Stalin was Zhukov and possibly Khrushchev. However whether Tito laid the conditions for the horrific post WW2 wars in Yugoslavia or stop them becoming much worse is interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Interesting I knew the Nazi-Soviet War was incredibly brutal and the Germans could be ruthless to those they believed "unacceptable". However in regards to the Italians there had developed I think a stereotype that they were almost too incompetent to be brutal. I'm impressed by Tito's resilience I mean the only other person I can think of who were able to outmanoeuvre Stalin was Zhukov and possibly Khrushchev. However whether Tito laid the conditions for the horrific post WW2 wars in Yugoslavia or stop them becoming much worse is interesting.
    The image of the bumbling Italian soldiers singing songs, playing the mandolin and wooing the local girls is prevalent not only in Italy. They were allowed to create this myth with the help of the British and the Americans. I can assure you that this image is not shared by people on the receiving end of Italian irredentism and fascism. Italy was guilty of genocidal crimes against the Balkan peoples during World War II which it has never fully confronted. This involved the use of massacres of the civilian population, the use of Četnik auxiliaries to massacre the civilian population, hostage taking, mass expulsions and the use of concentration camps, resulting in probably over 100,000 deaths ( Slovenia lost 7.5% of its population to the Italian fascists).

    It could be said that Tito's policies unintentionally laid the groundwork for the wars during the breakup, though this could not really be forseen at the time. Although communism may have contained the seeds of its own demise, nothing about the multiple crises engulfing Yugoslavia during the 1980s was predetermined. The communist leaders of Yugoslavia and its republics had agency over their actions and chose to act in a number of different ways. Most important, some chose to democratize their parties and their republics, whereas others chose to adapt by marrying the organizational machinery of the communist regime with the rhetoric and violent methods of virulent nationalism. Academic and popular literatures in Yugoslavia’s successor states and in the West have demonstrated a strong tendency to view the Yugoslav events of the 1980s through the prism of the events of the 1990s.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    The image of the bumbling Italian soldiers singing songs, playing the mandolin and wooing the local girls is prevalent not only in Italy. They were allowed to create this myth with the help of the British and the Americans. I can assure you that this image is not shared by people on the receiving end of Italian irredentism and fascism. Italy was guilty of genocidal crimes against the Balkan peoples during World War II which it has never fully confronted. This involved the use of massacres of the civilian population, the use of Četnik auxiliaries to massacre the civilian population, hostage taking, mass expulsions and the use of concentration camps, resulting in probably over 100,000 deaths ( Slovenia lost 7.5% of its population to the Italian fascists).

    It could be said that Tito's policies unintentionally laid the groundwork for the wars during the breakup, though this could not really be forseen at the time. Although communism may have contained the seeds of its own demise, nothing about the multiple crises engulfing Yugoslavia during the 1980s was predetermined. The communist leaders of Yugoslavia and its republics had agency over their actions and chose to act in a number of different ways. Most important, some chose to democratize their parties and their republics, whereas others chose to adapt by marrying the organizational machinery of the communist regime with the rhetoric and violent methods of virulent nationalism. Academic and popular literatures in Yugoslavia’s successor states and in the West have demonstrated a strong tendency to view the Yugoslav events of the 1980s through the prism of the events of the 1990s.

    Interesting. For the Italian culpability, I think perhaps the image of the Italians as less genocidal than the Germans also comes from the media, such as the novelcaptain corelli's mandolin.

    As for Tito I would have thought that perhaps Tito's departure left a vaccumn and this may have caused the later genocides as the depature of authoritarian leaders often leads to sectarianism within their parties.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Interesting. For the Italian culpability, I think perhaps the image of the Italians as less genocidal than the Germans also comes from the media, such as the novelcaptain corelli's mandolin.

    As for Tito I would have thought that perhaps Tito's departure left a vaccumn and this may have caused the later genocides as the depature of authoritarian leaders often leads to sectarianism within their parties.

    Agreed, and while the Italians probably weren't as bad as the Germans, they were still absolutely brutal. It's similar to the myth of a 'clean' Wehrmacht; the myth spun by self-serving German commanders following World War 2 that the Wehrmacht was not involved in the atrocities, and was not associated with the Nazis or Nazi ideology.

    I do partly agree with you on the departure of Tito, but it should be remembered that the conflict did not break out until over a decade after he was gone. Yugoslavia remained a communist 1 party state throughout most of the period. Ultimately, the various Yugoslav transitions to democracy were uniformly carried out from above, and not from below. Even the wave of massive Serb nationalist rallies of 1988 and 1989, was decisively controlled and sustained by the regime of Slobodan Milošević. As the president of the federal organization of the League of Communists, Stipe Šuvar, rightly remarked at the time, “The people did not self-organize in 1941 and they are not self-organizing today.”

    However, partly as a result of Tito's policies, during the 1980s, Yugoslavia was a country in deep economic and political crisis, comparable to say, Greece today. The bankruptcy of the central state, exposed by its inability to service the foreign debt accrued in the 1970s, only exacerbated the already present deep conflicts among its communist elites – conflicts which, under decisive pressure from Serbia, increasingly centered on the national question. This would ultimately lead to the wars of the 1990s. His failure to democratise fully argubly helped the rise of people like Slobodan Milošević. Thus, while I do believe that the legacy of Tito's rule helped lay the groundwork for what happened (even if this was not predicted at the time), I don't think that it was inevitable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Agreed, and while the Italians probably weren't as bad as the Germans, they were still absolutely brutal. It's similar to the myth of a 'clean' Wehrmacht; the myth spun by self-serving German commanders following World War 2 that the Wehrmacht was not involved in the atrocities, and was not associated with the Nazis or Nazi ideology.

    I do partly agree with you on the departure of Tito, but it should be remembered that the conflict did not break out until over a decade after he was gone. Yugoslavia remained a communist 1 party state throughout most of the period. Ultimately, the various Yugoslav transitions to democracy were uniformly carried out from above, and not from below. Even the wave of massive Serb nationalist rallies of 1988 and 1989, was decisively controlled and sustained by the regime of Slobodan Milošević. As the president of the federal organization of the League of Communists, Stipe Šuvar, rightly remarked at the time, “The people did not self-organize in 1941 and they are not self-organizing today.”

    However, partly as a result of Tito's policies, during the 1980s, Yugoslavia was a country in deep economic and political crisis, comparable to say, Greece today. The bankruptcy of the central state, exposed by its inability to service the foreign debt accrued in the 1970s, only exacerbated the already present deep conflicts among its communist elites – conflicts which, under decisive pressure from Serbia, increasingly centered on the national question. This would ultimately lead to the wars of the 1990s. His failure to democratise fully argubly helped the rise of people like Slobodan Milošević. Thus, while I do believe that the legacy of Tito's rule helped lay the groundwork for what happened (even if this was not predicted at the time), I don't think that it was inevitable.

    Interesting. I am also curious as to why Japan has never publically atoned for its crimes eg Rape of Nanking in the way that Germany has. Perhaps the devastatio caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost perversely established an idea that everything had been "evened out".

    Interesting I was watching a documentary about Tito and it noted how the turnout for Tito's funeral with Margaret Thatcher attending. Tito certainly became respectable. Personally I can sympathise with him. The people he was fighting were often ruthless sadists, so I think his actions can be justified (Only during World War Two of course).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rational Thinker)
    Interesting. I am also curious as to why Japan has never publically atoned for its crimes eg Rape of Nanking in the way that Germany has. Perhaps the devastatio caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost perversely established an idea that everything had been "evened out".

    Interesting I was watching a documentary about Tito and it noted how the turnout for Tito's funeral with Margaret Thatcher attending. Tito certainly became respectable. Personally I can sympathise with him. The people he was fighting were often ruthless sadists, so I think his actions can be justified (Only during World War Two of course).
    I'm not actually sure myself (although Japan's attitude is not exactly unique. Indeed Germany's attitude is the exception rather than the norm). Part of it may be that there is much less awareness outside Asia, of the crimes that Imperial Japan committed. However, in Germany, although there was a willingness to accept the crimes committed agaisnt the Jews, there was for a long time, much less willingness to accept other crimes committed by the Third Reich, such as crimes against Poles and Soviet citizens, or crimes committed by the Wehrmacht, as these crimes were often carried out with conservative complicity.

    It's interesting how Tito became respectable to the West. Even today he is generally well liked, even in many Balkan countries (my own family speaks nostalgically of him, and as I say I myself have always had a soft spot for him). Part of this was due to the fact that he acted as a 'buffer' with the Soviet Union, and part of this was to do with the fact that he represented an independent model of socialism from the USSR. He thus enjoyed good relations with the West. Western policy in the Balkans though has often been disasterous (Thatcher actually persued and advocated better policies). In her seminal work Imagining the Balkans, Marija Todorova observed that West European prejudice toward the Balkans is not of an orientalist variety, with the Balkans viewed as an Eastern ‘other’, and with a perception of inferiority tempered by a fascination with what appears exotic. Rather, Balkanist prejudice is the prejudice reserved for the parvenu, with the Balkans despised because their peoples provide a mirror of the West Europeans’ own self at an earlier and less sophisticated stage of development.

    Condescension and carelessness, rather than diabolical imperialist master plans, indeed appear often to have been the defining characteristic of the policies of Western states toward the Balkans. The catastrophic British- and French-led policy of appeasing Milosevic’s Serbia in the first half of the 1990s, which escalated the bloodshed, damaged relations with the US and ultimately required the risky NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to put right is often compared with the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Yet it had its Balkan precursors. Britain’s disastrous promotion of Greek expansionism in Anatolia in the 1920s, resulting in utter humiliation and enormous bloodshed, was inspired in part by chauvinistic hatred of the Turks and schoolboy Philhellenic fantasies. Britain’s promotion of a coup in Yugoslavia in 1941, in response to Yugoslavia’s joining the Tripartite Pact, occurred at a time when British diplomats had an often blatantly racist view of the Balkan peoples, and proved to be a strategic blunder that damaged Britain’s military position and cost over a million Yugoslav lives. In Cyprus, Britain’s attempt to counter the Greek nationalist insurgency in the 1950s by encouraging Turkey to show an interest in the island failed to keep Cyprus in the British Empire, but did sow the seeds of a lasting conflict within the Western alliance. The conflict was brought to fruition by US President Lyndon Johnson’s encouragement of a Greek–Turkish partition of Cyprus as a move to counter Archbishop Makarios, a pillar of the Non-Aligned Movement, with Johnson himself describing Greece and Cyprus as ‘fleas’ that were irritating the American ‘elephant’. This permanently damaged the US’s standing in Greece. And the Western alliance’s benevolent policy toward Ceausescu’s Romania, as reward for the dictator’s relatively independent stance toward Moscow, merely bestowed legitimacy on a murderous regime that, rather than weakening the Soviet bloc, would itself collapse as a result of political changes emanating from Moscow. The failed Western policy towards the former Yugoslavia of the early 1990s therefore stood in a long and inglorious tradition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    I'm not actually sure myself (although Japan's attitude is not exactly unique. Indeed Germany's attitude is the exception
    I think it has to do with the fact that Japan officially denies the Nanjing massacre.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    I think it has to do with the fact that Japan officially denies the Nanjing massacre.
    Yes, that is what we were discussing, we were speculating on the possible motives of Japan for doing so, though in reality I am not entirely sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Yes, that is what we were discussing, we were speculating on the possible motives of Japan for doing so, though in reality I am not entirely sure.
    Oh, my faulth.

    I think they wont accept it because it makes their history look bad. Also, the Japanese claim that the numbers of victim are coming from Chinese sources and many see it as not valid.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 14, 2013
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.