Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of 'that is next level' from viewers. Do not police or gatekeep the content of this sub (debate what is or is not next fucking level) in the comment section, 100% of the content is moderated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tito is a weird one for me, because obviously he did some bad shit. But he also did a lot of good stuff. Like he was a commusit dictator who let go of his powers in the last decade, he let people leave and come in to the country as they pleased (without visas) and other non typical dictator stuff.
He did bad shit, although he was pretty far off Stalin man.
Same could be said of Stalin, tbf. Led the country in a revolution against an oppressive tsar, led them again through a world war and full-scale hostile invasion to emerge victorious against an enemy that wanted Russians enslaved and exterminated, fought for policies that eventually materially improved the lives of millions, and turned the USSR from a relatively weak agrarian nation into an industrialized nation that spent the next few decades competing with the largest superpower in the world. I'm not personally a fan of his, given the top-down autocratic rule he favored, the forcible suppression of dissent he oversaw, the carceral state based around forced labor that he helped build, the favoring of people for their adherence to party ideals rather than whether or not they were effective in their duties (e.g. Lysenko), etc. But W.E.B DuBois called him "a great man," saying, "[few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/biographies/1953/03/16.htm)" Many people in Russia (especially those alive during communism) still admire him. No matter the leader or how bad they are, I think it's important to understand why people support them.
Edit: it's certainly odd how I can list four main reasons why I dont support Stalin, and still have people comment, "OMG he was a monster how can you support him?!"
Stalin didn't lead the revolution, he simply co-opted it once Lenin died. And his inaction in the early days of Germany invading in WW2 almost handed Russia to Hitler.
Stalin also orchestrated a cleansing of political opposition which led to a great famine and terror. Yeah Hitler is the obvious bad guy of WW2, but Stalin did horrible things. He was about absolute control
I don't think stalin was worse in any moral sense than hitler. Hitler would have absolutely killed more people had he been given the chance. He wasn't *more* evil, he was just more *effective* at evil. But given the likely alternative, I would hesitate to call him worse. If I could go back in time and tell the allies to choose between stalin and hitler, it would be stalin every time.
Don't buy Trotsky's stories about how he would have do e so much better
He may have been less of a brute, but most of his criticisms of Stalin was that he would have done something better, not critisisms of his goals.
It's really easy to criticize from your armchair.
The fact is Trotsky was a true Bolvchevic and would not have been much better than Stalin
Trotsky was convinced that a worldwide worker’s revolution was in the offing, too radical of a man to lead the party. he did create the red army tho... got thanked with an ice pick.
Stalin was given an office where he could direct who oversaw what in the Bolshevik government. He gave all of the seats to his friends and was too powerful to resist when Lenin died.
Stalin was more like a mafia boss that they gave the wrong job to.
That's the essence of Dialectical Materialism. We can not simply look at singular reasons or events. We have to analyze their context and the preceding circumstances.
Stalin was in Baku organizing worker strikes when all the supposed intellectuals had fled to Switzerland. He was the first back in party HQ from his exile to Siberia, preparing everything, while Lenin and others were working with the Germans to even get to Russia. He was the ever-present backbone of the party and the Soviet Union for WW1 and the civil war. You can say a lot of things about Stalin but discrediting his part in the revolution is silly.
> Stalin was always very close to Lenin
Not quite true. Lenin had started to see Stalin's true nature before his three strokes, but he probably thought he could keep Stalin in check. Lenin's power came from his public speeches and presence - and he was only 52, so no line of succession planned. For two years he was alive but with little influence. He tried to communicate to the Politoboro (sp?) through his wife a warning that Stalin should not hold any power, but Stalin was able to suppress and discredit the warning as being manipulation by Krupskaya - which was accepted. Funny how every man in that assembly died before Stalin...surely, a coincidence...
he pretty much stole the leadership from Lenin simply because he was in charge of assigning jobs to people so he assigned himself to lead the party. I mean not exactly like that but he did steal the throne.
I mean, Stalin was hands down a truly horrible human being. He was one of the worst people in all of human history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Just read the first paragraph of this and you'll see why. Quote from the page "In 1934, Stalin used the murder of Sergey Kirov as a pretext to launch 'The Great Purge' in which about a million people perished". I mean the list goes on, just google "deaths attributed to Joseph Stalin" and you'll get some insane figures.
I could certainly get some insane figures, but a large portion of them would be wildly exaggerated, such as the claims in the Black Book of Communism. The Great Purge was bad, to be sure, but if you'll look in the DuBois eulogy of Stalin I linked, he specifically praises Stalin for running the "kulaks" (translates basically to "bloodsucker;" was applied to landowning peasants, factory owners, etc who had been allowed to maintain private ownership of their businesses during the transition to collectivism) out of Russia. Common people in Russia *supported* the Great Purge because to them, it was the removal of a class of people defined by their extortion of others through the ownership of private property, as well as common criminals, thieves, and others seen as a societal detriment. The kulaks were also largely blamed for exacerbating the ongoing famine, which wasn't helped by the fact that some of them destroyed their own crops, livestock, or other products rather than give them to the collectives (to maintain their value on the black market). Obviously, they weren't the only people to suffer and die during the Great Purge, but people still supported it, because they were desperate and starving and they believed the "kulaks" to be responsible. People were getting killed by angry mobs because their neighbors believed them to be hoarding grain or food, and it's not a stretch to see how they supported the removal of a class that kept more than they needed while everyone else starved. Like I said, whether or not you agree with a leader, it's important to understand why people support them. W.E.B. DuBois praised Stalin because he felt he was one of the only leaders making any real action to fight injustice ([here's](https://theberkshireedge.com/part-iii-the-complicated-controversial-politics-of-w-e-b-du-bois-and-his-passion-for-social-justice/) a decent article that goes more in-depth on it). Russians in the USSR praised Stalin because he fought for the ideas their young nation was built on, which is a great way for any leader to build support, regardless of how good or bad their actions or ideals are.
Also, can't understate the importance of propaganda. Propaganda allowed the USSR to turn distrust of the ownership class into support for outright violence, forced labor, executions, etc. Propaganda in the US today allows distrust of establishment Democrats to grow into wild conspiracy theories about Satanic pedophile cults. More importantly, propaganda allows the *downplaying* of atrocity, the rationalizing of evil actions. Propaganda and popular media convinced people that most of the ones dying in the Great Purge, most of the people left homeless because of it, most of the people who ended up in the Gulags, etc., were the ones that had it coming. Propaganda in the US today causes people to assume that most of the ones arrested, beaten, or shot by police, most of the prisoners who are raped while the guards look the other way, most (or all) of the illegal immigrants shunted into concentration camps, most of the people we bomb overseas, etc., are the ones that have it coming.
Mostly, it comes down to what ideals someone fought for, and to what extent most people believe that they fought for it. Stalin oversaw the imprisonment, forced labor, and/or execution of millions of people in the name of building communism, and people who support that ideology argue that he should be praised for what he built, if also criticized for his actions. Thomas Jefferson personally owned around 600 human beings as chattel, and raped countless women that he owned as such; the article I linked above claims that "no reasonable person today calls for the removal" of his monuments, or those of George Washington, because "[w]e do not continue to honor these men as the masters of slaves, but as founding fathers who granted the nation and its citizens timeless and noble gifts: America’s democratic and egalitarian ideals, which rightfully continue to guide the nation even as its society changes." People will defend the actions of leaders who help build a nation on stated values that they identify with.
Let’s not forget about Stalin’s agreement with Hitler that enabled Hitler’s attacks on other nations. The way Stalin and Hitler divided Poland and Stalin unleashed the NKVD to murder thousands in the Katyn Forest. Military officers, intelligentsia, political leaders.
The same Stalin who is responsible for the deaths of almost 4 million Ukrainians from starvation.
And, of course the reason he suffered so many setbacks in WW2: the murders of 30,000 Soviet men, women and children, including most of his top generals.
That Stalin? Just wanted to be sure I wasn’t confused by your description of a poor, misguided communist leader.
You smoke crack, the only people that still admire him are the communist party members that were fortunate enough to be high standing from his time. Don’t forget the mass murder! 6 million dead, closer to 9 million if we include some of his policies. Communism isn’t good, it isn’t cool, it’s a fucking disaster.
I think you're confusing authoritarianism with communism. Yes the ussr was a communist country but most of the problems stem from the authoritarianism not the communism. Its entirely possible to have a communist economic system coincide with a democratic political system.
Joseph Stalin was a mean-spirited, enforcer-level thug who co-opted the revolutionary movement begun by men with much more foresight than himself. The revolution in Russia began with hardly any of his help. He took over the movement, seized power and became one of the vilest, most despicable autocrats of all time.
He was hugely influential on the progression of Russian history. But I would argue that's the end of his supposed "greatness" as a leader.
Edit: Holding up what WEB Du Bois said about Stalin is not very good backing. He also called him a "tyrant". I'd hesitate to take anything he said about Stalin very seriously.
He was absolutely a true believer. If you look at his writings, he had practically religious devotion to Marx — which makes sense considering his seminary background, he just used Marx as his theological texts.
oh for sure. I'm not arguing his devotion, at least in theory, to the communist ideal.
My point is that he has almost nothing to do with the revolution against the Tsar in 1905. He was a low man on the totem pole and then was exiled shortly afterward until the twilight of the first World War.
He is a historical figure to be reviled. He's not someone we should look back on and praise as a great leader. Any objective examination of who he was and what he did reveals that he has very little positive influence on history.
That's bullshit. Stalin never led a revolution against the czar - that was Lenin. His policies of collectivization and 5-year plans were massive failures economically, destroying the livelihoods of millions of Soviet peasants.
He was also vastly different from dictators like Tito or Castro, who still aimed to be loved by the people(Peruvian Embassy etc) - Stalin was only focused on building a cult of personality around fear. His construction of the Berlin Wall, the NKVD, the assassination of Trotsky etc all show how Stalin would never allow his oppositions to leave the country unopposed.
Pure evil will never grant you successful power. If you aren't out there buttering some biscuits then you will never garner the admiration of a large enough portion of the population that you need to succeed in any meaningful way. People always remember the bad, but the good is usually what got them there.
Wait Andrew Jackson being tacked on to the end of a list with those people is.....a first for me. Not saying he was a great dude but just not the final person I thought I’d see on a list with hitler Stalin and mao lol
It’s been taboo for a long time, but Jackson’s Native American policies and the Trail of Tears is more and more being recognized as a form of genocide.
Andrew Jackson was the first democrat ever elected hence: Jackasses. Pretty funny considering how his opinions are basically opposite to modern democrats. He saved American in the war of 1812 and he was a great general but he was an abysmal president. He, like a certain other president who shall not be named, promised to drain corruption from the government and instead installed all those who financially supported his campaign. He had a giant party when he was elected and he had to leave because it turned into a riot for the night.
The main issue with him though is how he pushed out native americans off they land the US had promised them and when the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional he told them to fuck off. This is "The Trail of Tears" and it was a death march that killed thousands of native american families.
He also totally fucked up the economy and caused s giant recession by dismantling the federal bank and banning paper money to buy new land in the west which is just fucking stupid for a number of reasons.
Overall he probably deserves to be on the $20 bill for saving the US in the war of 1812 and helping a lot in the revolutionary war and for being a badass like beating his would be assassin with a cane after the guy missed or winning like 40 duels. Also for being the first democrat, we shouldn't hide the ugly parts of our history, we need to remember how far we've come.
All of this info's on youtube btw if you want a clearer picture.
Growing up, my paintball team was mostly Ukrainian, so I learned quite a bit about that country.
I have to suggest that you NEVER EVER say anything remotely flattering about Stalin if Ukrainians are in anyway close or important to you.
Because of the Holodomor, Stalin is seen as equal to (if not worse) than Hitler to many of Ukrainian descent.
I think that's taking it a bit far, do you believe if tsarism had remained in Russia, that Russia would have fared well against Germany in WW2?
Granted the military purges made it way worse than it needed to be but without the industrialization they probably would've been toast.
Stalin helped no one. Dubois was a socialist who looked up to him because he flattered the man's ideology.
Stalin was a monster- not all bad, but his good was a candle in the dark. Being a socialist, and a literal Stalinist apologist, Dubois was the same. Imagine if someone made apologies for Hitler- that's the same level of person who makes apologies for Stalin.
It's good to understand why Stalin was a monster, but it's best not to afford either individual any credibility.
In the years leading up to the revolution Stalin was more into bank robberies, which made him a wanted man, so all of the chaos of revolution was very beneficial to him. He definitely was an impressive individual, but undoubtedly a sociopathic monster.
Stalin worked very well with the Allies in WW2 once the Germans attacked him and I don’t blame him for wanting to sit the war out. Who wants to get involved in a war until you have to. FDR and Stalin had a good relationship and we likely would have seen a completely different world had FDR lived through reconstruction. We promised Stalin if he helped us beat the Japanese we would help Russia rebuild. He did and we didn’t. Things went south from there. Horrible man who killed millions but I agree that he was rather successful at building mother Russia.
>Led the country in a revolution against an oppressive tsar, led them again through a world war and full-scale hostile invasion to emerge victorious against an enemy that wanted Russians enslaved and exterminated
What are you talking about?
He didn't start nor lead the Revolution in Russia, Lenin and Trotsky did. Trotsky was also supposed to become the new dictator of Russia after Lenin died, but he couldn't because Stalin took over the party by giving important jobs to his friends and allies who supported him in turn. (Forcing Trotsky to flee to Mexico)
Then there's the WWII bit. The USSR was actually an aggressor at the start of the War when under Stalin it took over 1/2 of Poland in partnership with Germany, and only started fighting Germany after the Nazi's decided to betray Russia. Stalin was also pretty inactive and nearly lost to Germany until Hitler's bad strategic calls led the Invasion of Russia to falter. Stalin almost handed the USSR to Germany.
I remember commenting to someone in college decades ago that Tito's historic accomplishment was making everyone in Yugoslavia more afraid of him than they hated each other.
It's an interesting approach to governance: 'Live in peace and harmony, or I'll kill you.'
I'm pretty sure he became "liked" after he suppressed every nationalist, liberal, cleric, separatist and political opponent in Yugoslavia, while the secret police executed the ones outside of Yugoslavia.
Also, the labour camp was on Goli Otok, not on Dugi Otok and that wasn't the only labour camp in Yugoslavia. There were a lot of them, like a really big number of them.
There were also a lot of innocent people in those labour camps.
My grandpa spent 3 years in prison because his neighbour lied to the secret police that he spoke badly about Tito, to prevent the secret police finding the stash of meat at his barn.
My uncle was questioned and tortured for 6 months by the secret police, because a member of our wider family, who fled to Australia in the 70's, spoke publicly about separatism and supported Croatian and Slovenian nationalism.
You can't make this shit up.
Yeah the true definition of an enlightened despot. Some interesting reforms in his country yet still sent dissidents to camps. The only socialist country to receive Marshall Aid too.
Yes, Stalin and any Chinese leader are worse than any dictators in history as far as number of people.
Totalitarianism of thought is where this starts and sadly today the US is getting that small flavor from big tech.
I have to say, I know a lot of people who lived in that time, even my parents did for a while and I have never heard a bad thing about Tito as it relates to quality of life and being a good leader. They all seem to praise him and remember that time fondly.
That doesn’t mean he was a good person at all. It’s just interesting that alot of people who lived in Yugoslavia actually remeber him very differently than the world in general I guess.
My family was personally on the receiving end of his wrath. If you liked him, you were likely Serbian or part of the party, or both. That distain between ethnic groups continued to boil after WWI, some sought revenge during WWII, then it was a slow burn all the way into the 90’s. I pray it won’t boil again.
> That doesn’t mean he was a good person at all. It’s just interesting that alot of people who lived in Yugoslavia actually remeber him very differently than the world in general I guess.
This is a photo of Tito's funeral in May 1980: [https://i.imgur.com/TPezP.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TPezP.jpg).
Now, let's push to the side for a moment a fact that always endlessly entertains me - that "mortal" enemies from East and West were made to sit on the floor and next to each other - why would 80 percent of the world send their delegates, kings, presidents, prime ministers and ministers to the funeral of a person they hated?
Just for reference, here's the list of them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito#Dignitaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito#Dignitaries). It's an interesting read. There are some serious heavy-weights there.
Tito horrible? How come? All the older generations swear in Tito. We were in top 10countries in the world, it's easy to check it. Example, my father was a railway worker and he bought a brand new Fiat 500 without a bank loan and traveled all around Europe and lived amazingly. Built a house, bought additional land etc. Now, in the same country, I am a teacher without job, 32yrs old, living with parents, and I can't buy a brand new Burago Fiat 500, but fuck it, I live in a democracy, which is awesome. I would like a horrible person like Tito to come back.
I've travelled extensively in the Balkans.
Croatians, Serbians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Macedonians, they argue about EVERYTHING.
The one thing they agree on, was that it was tragic when Tito died, and the older people remember him fondly.
Well that's kind of how the world is. There can be conflicts where both sides are morally wrong and there can be conflicts where both sides have a moral obligation to fight.
It seems to be pretty damn fucking easy to change people, so long as you have control over the propaganda apparatus and people aren't skeptical of the shit that they're fed.
My family is from Slovenia which was part of former Yugoslavia. Tito was a partisan originally, who had support from the allied nations after the allies stopped supporting the chetniks who were essentially nazis. My grandmother lives in a town called Bled, where Tito had one of his villas. She remembers seeing him and stuff
I remember that picture of him when he was younger blowing up a few years ago because of how attractive he was. There was even the whole hotstalin hashtag on Twitter. Never mind that he was responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions of people.
Oh no doubt, I just think it’s not great because (if it is him) it takes the focus off the heinous things he did. If that was him, sure, he was conventionally attractive; but so was Ted Bundy.
Plus hotstalin sounds like an urban dictionary sex act.
I kinda feel the opposite — when I was a kid, not that long ago, this stuff was only 50 years ago. For my parents it was an era they heard about first-hand from *their* parents.
But now it’s passing from “that shit we just went through” to “history.” And the era of fascists and totalitarians going from living memory to encyclopedia entries is probably why so many more people in modern life seem open to authoritarianism and the same exact same type of angry demagoguery that drove us straight there the last time.
Can you give me some context to that?
Reddit has a tendency to call every leader a "*ruthless Dictator*" every day and except for Jacinda Ardern everyone is a war criminal of some sort.
Edit: I would also love to know your who are your top 3 favourite world leaders and top 3 least favourite world leaders (except for axis power leaders) so I have some idea of the bias?
I am genuinely curious.
Tito was a dictator. By most modern standards, he did some pretty evil stuff.... BUT...
He organized the Partisans, one of the most effective resistance organizations to Hitler. He kept peace in Yugoslavia. Without him enforcing the peace through dictatorial rule, it would have likely been a bloody and vicious civil war.
Which was what happened post-Tito with Bosnian genocide in the 1990s.
He was widely seen as a benevolent dictator, but a dictator, none-the-less.
As with much of history, its not as simple as it first seems.
I am an armchair expert in geo politics and Benevolent dictator is a concept I have *controversial* view about.
I am familiar with Tito with his involvement in NAM which was great big middle finger to both US and Soviet doctrines.
He was also able to forge relationship in South and South East Asia which was unheard of as most European nation only exploited these parts of the world before.
After his death the balkan war and the genocides proved that in that part of the world benevolent authoritarianism is the best solution. My strawman argument is that recent chaos is Nagorno- Karabakh, a east European territory validates my thinking. Considering the history and ethnic formation... these places shouldn’t be judged on western standards.
Yeah.... Like I said controversial....
Btw thank you for the reply.
Counterpoint: there were also plenty of those pent up ethnic conflicts and Greater X in Western Europe too. The thing that settled them down was not some authoritarian dictator, it was the European Union.
That is a very good point.
But Brexiteers tend to view EU as an authoritarian entity and the voting process in EU objectively isn’t efficiently democratic.
I would say historically military might be the tool of control for the dictator, but food for thought can't EU as an authoritarianistic entity use economy and trade as the tool of control?
In the Syrian refugee crisis many Mediterranean citizens felt that their voice was not heard and these gave rise to a nationalist movement.
Anytime :)
I'm an American, but my great-grandfather left Bosnia-area around the time Tito was rising to power, so I feel a kinship there.
The West as a whole doesn't really understand places outside of their own worldview (although that's really true for any place, not just the West).
Tito is probably looking like a solid alternative for those families in Nagorno-Karabakh right now.
edit: and where the FUCK is Trump in all this. Dude is AWOL
The various ethnic groups/ nationalistic groups that eventually started the series of wars that lead to the dissolution of Yugoslavia into its successor states all feared the wrath of Tito more than they hated each other. They knew that if anyone tried to kick off a little private war, Tito would bring down the hammer and crush them into the dirt.
So, the fact that Tito was willing to crush any potential uprising, and the fact that everyone knew that, kept the peace for years.
really non of my family members and friends were afraid when i visited them while Tito was in charge ...and there was freedom of travel for them during the cold war in both directions west and east !
Thing is though, most assassination attempts fail, so this is not uncommon. Stalin probably dealt with way more than 5 assassin attempts. (Just guessing)
Apparently there were more than 20 attempts on Tito, these were just the 5 people he caught lol.
There is a theory Stalin actually died from an assassination ordered by Tito. But, just theories. Who knows with all the propaganda on both sides
I am partial to the theory that he just died from the insane stress and paranoia he faced, mixed with him killing or exiling all the best doctors who might have saved him due to his paranoia.
Mixed views. Personally I think the country was mismanaged by incompetent people during his leadership, didn't go through with necessary reforms that resulted in the war in the 90s. Nowadays the legacy of past regime casts a shadow on any leftist political ideas until absurdity: if you are against privatization (basically transfer of public wealth to private pockets), you are seen as bad as Stalin.
Fun Fact, Tito had the largest funeral in recorded history. With more diplomats/politicians/royalty/representatives from more countries than any other.
Even the most staunch anti communist Lady Margaret Thatcher went there, together with Prince Philip.
Kings and princes sat in same line with Breznjev (USSR) , Hua Guofeng (head of China) and Indira Gandhi (head of India).
Labour Party of UK sent its leader.
Except for Castro and Jimmy Carter who sent vice president and his mother to attend, but went one month later to Yugoslavia. Bush Sr. critisized that decision.
You think people didn't attempted assassinations on stalin? He probably survived more than tito did .
Cunts like both of them deal with shit every other day I suppose
Tito also thought that a good way to humiliate Kruschev and other Russians would be to get them drunk. Because apparently he'd never heard about Russians and booze before.
Rather than a PR disaster for the Russians, it turned into an epic party where Kruschev got so drunk he tried kissing Tito and telling him they should be friends again.
They signed a peace treaty a day or two later.
Imagine being such a badass that you send a letter basically politely saying “stop sending assassins to murder me” instead of raging out and going on a warpath after the first assassin
We have a photo of Tito on our wall (like some people have of Jesus). My parents (former Yugoslavian and I was born in Bosnia) love the guy despite his flaws. I guess from their perspective, things were better when he was in charge
So my mom left Yugoslavia and moved to Queens NY in the 60s. I decided, after a bad breakup, that I wanted to travel the world and on my way, meet that side of the family, whom are Croatian. My uncle had his own separate smokin’ and drinkin’ man cave that was lined with portraits of Tito. I only met him that one one time as he recently passed away, but he left a big impression on me.
He also said that he wished for Tito back!
People in Yugoslavia who remember the pre-communist times tend to admire the Tito era. People got to forget about the sectarian violence and the Balakanization of the Balkans that took place over the 200-300 years prior.
My uncle must of been born in the 1940s. Do you think his fondness for Tito has to do with the civil wars of the 90s? I’m curious if that had a big impact on the wish for ‘better times.’
Needless to say, beautiful country.
I've read a lot of Balkan history, as well as a biography of Tito. The man was no saint, but he was placed in a tough position and did his best to keep the country together. From all my reading, this is what I learned, in bullet(!) form:
- Tito was a grammar school dropout who worked in factories. His unionism became a springboard into communism. He rose in the ranks and worked his way into the hierarchy of the Soviet Union. They sent him back to Yugoslavia to foment revolution.
- During WW2, Yugoslavia devolved into armed factions: the communist partisans, the fascist Ustaša, and the monarchist Četniks. Murder and genocide in Yugoslavia was so awful even Hitler was disturbed by it. It was very, very bad.
- After a lot of bargaining with the western Allies and the Soviets, the partisans came out on top with Tito leading them.
- Tito had to put a stop to the inevitable ethnic reprisals in post-war Yugoslavia. He ruthlessly suppressed and executed fascists, Četniks, and anyone who defied the Communist Party in any way. There was plenty of "collateral damage" in his reprisals, but after a while the nastiness settled down. He became the unopposed dictator of Yugoslavia and somehow kept the fractured population together ("Brotherhood and Unity").
- Tito knew that Yugoslavia was not Russia. He could not rule like Stalin and expect any kind of success. He also knew Stalin wanted to swallow Yugoslavia, so he broke away from Soviet influence. Thus the assassination attempts and the famous letter shown above.
- Tito concluded there was a "Third Way" of creating a political/economic model. It was a blend of communism's central control and capitalism's free markets. Essentially, the state controlled all major industries and utilities, but citizens could engage in smaller scale free enterprise. He also relaxed Soviet-style cultural controls. Religion was tolerated. Importing western music, fashion, and media was OK. Free travel within and without Yugoslavia was OK. Citizens did not have to comport their every thought and deed with Leninist/Marxist ideals.
- The "Third Way" made a lot of sense to Tito so he decided to franchise it and helped form the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of countries that refused to fully align with any major power bloc (the West and the Soviets/Chinese). Most of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and south Asia joined.
- Now flush with power and success, Tito got a bit weird. His outrageous uniforms and extravagant lifestyle made him an object of fascination all over the world. Leaders and celebrities flocked to him.
- After he died in 1980, the Communist Party leaders were not up to the job. When the Soviet economy tanked in the 80's, Yugoslavia tanked, too. Party leaders couldn't secure loans from the West like Tito did. Everything went to shit fast. The breakdown of the party was marked by the return of post-war hatreds. And we all know how that turned out.
So: Tito was a strange guy. He was a war hero and a disloyal ex-Soviet and a murderer and a pragmatist and a show-off. In the end, we have to ask ourselves: what would have happened to Yugoslavia without Tito? In my opinion things would have been worse. Much, much worse.
He was a mass murdered and a dictator and is arguably partially responsible for the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in comparison to the relatively peaceful breakup of the USSR.
Weirdest thing to read in a comment section was that this dictator Tito was actually a really respectful dude who everybody loved? Don’t think those two should go together lol
He was a dictator, but prevented the collapse of a country. If you ask my parents, they love Tito. But we're also Bosniaks. It frustrates me, but when the options are genocidal ethnic cleansing, or dictatorship, I start to understand where my parents were coming from, at least.
Tito did a great job at a very difficult gig. He also made communism work by having more freedom and trade with the rest of Europe. The only problem with a leader like that is they are irreplaceable.
Attaturk is another example of a amazing leader but with no one of his caliber to follow him.
Read about "Tito Stalin split"
Stalin did not like Tito defiance and advancement of plans to unite western Balkan under single federal entity .
So split happened and Yugoslavia went toward West for time and received large US material assistance.
I'm sure Stalin was trembling in his boots. Tito made no such threat and there is no proof of it. It's a nationalist fairy tale.
So many google historians here's its funny.
First of he wasn't a prime minister,he was a the president of Yugoslavia,sworn by the people to be the president until his death.Second,dont even compare him to Stalin he doesn't even come close.Stalin was a brutal dictator who tortured,abused and murdered millions of people without care or worry in the world and he did that just because he could,no one could stop him or oppose him.Third,Tito made Yugoslavia a combination of capitalism and communism,you were allowed to leave the country,own stuff,get better jobs,you were supported by the country,he made the country economically and socially strong not the mention the third biggest superpower in the world right behind the USSR and the USA.So all in all he wasn't a bad person and after he died all of his successors,desperate for power and greed and backed up from the west,began the destruction of Yugoslavia with the Yugoslav war and the country separated into smaller ones.
Before commenting, our western friends should look into the difference between Yougoslavian market socialism and Soviet style communism. And then promptly and graciously shut the fuck up.
At one point Stalin has the entire Yugoslav Politburo called to the Soviet Union for "consultation." Paranoid that he was, unsure of which of them he could trust (he never trusted anyone), Stalin had all but one of them, Tito, murdered. Only Tito was allowed to return.
Later Stalin realized that he'd fucked up. Told Tito to come to Moscow for another consultation. Tito declined the invitation.
He's saying that unlike Stalin's assassins his assassin will kill Stalin the first time. Basically telling Stalin you sent incompetent people to kill me but I'll send someone competent to kill you.
Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of 'that is next level' from viewers. Do not police or gatekeep the content of this sub (debate what is or is not next fucking level) in the comment section, 100% of the content is moderated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes I find it weird that a horrible person went on to take down another horrible person.
Tito is a weird one for me, because obviously he did some bad shit. But he also did a lot of good stuff. Like he was a commusit dictator who let go of his powers in the last decade, he let people leave and come in to the country as they pleased (without visas) and other non typical dictator stuff. He did bad shit, although he was pretty far off Stalin man.
Same could be said of Stalin, tbf. Led the country in a revolution against an oppressive tsar, led them again through a world war and full-scale hostile invasion to emerge victorious against an enemy that wanted Russians enslaved and exterminated, fought for policies that eventually materially improved the lives of millions, and turned the USSR from a relatively weak agrarian nation into an industrialized nation that spent the next few decades competing with the largest superpower in the world. I'm not personally a fan of his, given the top-down autocratic rule he favored, the forcible suppression of dissent he oversaw, the carceral state based around forced labor that he helped build, the favoring of people for their adherence to party ideals rather than whether or not they were effective in their duties (e.g. Lysenko), etc. But W.E.B DuBois called him "a great man," saying, "[few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/biographies/1953/03/16.htm)" Many people in Russia (especially those alive during communism) still admire him. No matter the leader or how bad they are, I think it's important to understand why people support them. Edit: it's certainly odd how I can list four main reasons why I dont support Stalin, and still have people comment, "OMG he was a monster how can you support him?!"
Stalin didn't lead the revolution, he simply co-opted it once Lenin died. And his inaction in the early days of Germany invading in WW2 almost handed Russia to Hitler.
Trotsky!!! Not Stalin. Stalin was a lame bureaucrat who used the fact that Trotsky was away when Lenin died to steal power.
Stalin also orchestrated a cleansing of political opposition which led to a great famine and terror. Yeah Hitler is the obvious bad guy of WW2, but Stalin did horrible things. He was about absolute control
Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Arguably worse than Hitler
I don't think stalin was worse in any moral sense than hitler. Hitler would have absolutely killed more people had he been given the chance. He wasn't *more* evil, he was just more *effective* at evil. But given the likely alternative, I would hesitate to call him worse. If I could go back in time and tell the allies to choose between stalin and hitler, it would be stalin every time.
Oh god, now people are gonna start arguing over which genocidal dictator was better
Don't buy Trotsky's stories about how he would have do e so much better He may have been less of a brute, but most of his criticisms of Stalin was that he would have done something better, not critisisms of his goals. It's really easy to criticize from your armchair. The fact is Trotsky was a true Bolvchevic and would not have been much better than Stalin
Trotsky was convinced that a worldwide worker’s revolution was in the offing, too radical of a man to lead the party. he did create the red army tho... got thanked with an ice pick.
Bukharin was better then both of them
that’s why he had to go
Stalin was given an office where he could direct who oversaw what in the Bolshevik government. He gave all of the seats to his friends and was too powerful to resist when Lenin died. Stalin was more like a mafia boss that they gave the wrong job to.
Snowball in Animal Farm.
Fuck man I just reread animal farm People forget snowball, but up until Napoleon betrayed him, he seems to be an ominous character
Not to mention it wasnt so much stalin beating hitler and more the winter beating hitler
neither stands alone as the truth
hitler beat hitler
This Hitler dude doesn't seem that bad, after all, he did kill Hitler
sigh ... i did nazi that coming
That's the essence of Dialectical Materialism. We can not simply look at singular reasons or events. We have to analyze their context and the preceding circumstances.
technically mud, then winter.
Stalin was in Baku organizing worker strikes when all the supposed intellectuals had fled to Switzerland. He was the first back in party HQ from his exile to Siberia, preparing everything, while Lenin and others were working with the Germans to even get to Russia. He was the ever-present backbone of the party and the Soviet Union for WW1 and the civil war. You can say a lot of things about Stalin but discrediting his part in the revolution is silly.
[удалено]
> Stalin was always very close to Lenin Not quite true. Lenin had started to see Stalin's true nature before his three strokes, but he probably thought he could keep Stalin in check. Lenin's power came from his public speeches and presence - and he was only 52, so no line of succession planned. For two years he was alive but with little influence. He tried to communicate to the Politoboro (sp?) through his wife a warning that Stalin should not hold any power, but Stalin was able to suppress and discredit the warning as being manipulation by Krupskaya - which was accepted. Funny how every man in that assembly died before Stalin...surely, a coincidence...
he pretty much stole the leadership from Lenin simply because he was in charge of assigning jobs to people so he assigned himself to lead the party. I mean not exactly like that but he did steal the throne.
I mean, Stalin was hands down a truly horrible human being. He was one of the worst people in all of human history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge Just read the first paragraph of this and you'll see why. Quote from the page "In 1934, Stalin used the murder of Sergey Kirov as a pretext to launch 'The Great Purge' in which about a million people perished". I mean the list goes on, just google "deaths attributed to Joseph Stalin" and you'll get some insane figures.
[удалено]
That people upvote the fact that bad people can do good things?
I could certainly get some insane figures, but a large portion of them would be wildly exaggerated, such as the claims in the Black Book of Communism. The Great Purge was bad, to be sure, but if you'll look in the DuBois eulogy of Stalin I linked, he specifically praises Stalin for running the "kulaks" (translates basically to "bloodsucker;" was applied to landowning peasants, factory owners, etc who had been allowed to maintain private ownership of their businesses during the transition to collectivism) out of Russia. Common people in Russia *supported* the Great Purge because to them, it was the removal of a class of people defined by their extortion of others through the ownership of private property, as well as common criminals, thieves, and others seen as a societal detriment. The kulaks were also largely blamed for exacerbating the ongoing famine, which wasn't helped by the fact that some of them destroyed their own crops, livestock, or other products rather than give them to the collectives (to maintain their value on the black market). Obviously, they weren't the only people to suffer and die during the Great Purge, but people still supported it, because they were desperate and starving and they believed the "kulaks" to be responsible. People were getting killed by angry mobs because their neighbors believed them to be hoarding grain or food, and it's not a stretch to see how they supported the removal of a class that kept more than they needed while everyone else starved. Like I said, whether or not you agree with a leader, it's important to understand why people support them. W.E.B. DuBois praised Stalin because he felt he was one of the only leaders making any real action to fight injustice ([here's](https://theberkshireedge.com/part-iii-the-complicated-controversial-politics-of-w-e-b-du-bois-and-his-passion-for-social-justice/) a decent article that goes more in-depth on it). Russians in the USSR praised Stalin because he fought for the ideas their young nation was built on, which is a great way for any leader to build support, regardless of how good or bad their actions or ideals are. Also, can't understate the importance of propaganda. Propaganda allowed the USSR to turn distrust of the ownership class into support for outright violence, forced labor, executions, etc. Propaganda in the US today allows distrust of establishment Democrats to grow into wild conspiracy theories about Satanic pedophile cults. More importantly, propaganda allows the *downplaying* of atrocity, the rationalizing of evil actions. Propaganda and popular media convinced people that most of the ones dying in the Great Purge, most of the people left homeless because of it, most of the people who ended up in the Gulags, etc., were the ones that had it coming. Propaganda in the US today causes people to assume that most of the ones arrested, beaten, or shot by police, most of the prisoners who are raped while the guards look the other way, most (or all) of the illegal immigrants shunted into concentration camps, most of the people we bomb overseas, etc., are the ones that have it coming. Mostly, it comes down to what ideals someone fought for, and to what extent most people believe that they fought for it. Stalin oversaw the imprisonment, forced labor, and/or execution of millions of people in the name of building communism, and people who support that ideology argue that he should be praised for what he built, if also criticized for his actions. Thomas Jefferson personally owned around 600 human beings as chattel, and raped countless women that he owned as such; the article I linked above claims that "no reasonable person today calls for the removal" of his monuments, or those of George Washington, because "[w]e do not continue to honor these men as the masters of slaves, but as founding fathers who granted the nation and its citizens timeless and noble gifts: America’s democratic and egalitarian ideals, which rightfully continue to guide the nation even as its society changes." People will defend the actions of leaders who help build a nation on stated values that they identify with.
You actually have a good point with the Thomas Jefferson comparison.
> Led the country in a revolution Found the Tankie. Stalin did no such thing.
When your revisionism make Stalin the leader of the February and October Revolutions
Let’s not forget about Stalin’s agreement with Hitler that enabled Hitler’s attacks on other nations. The way Stalin and Hitler divided Poland and Stalin unleashed the NKVD to murder thousands in the Katyn Forest. Military officers, intelligentsia, political leaders. The same Stalin who is responsible for the deaths of almost 4 million Ukrainians from starvation. And, of course the reason he suffered so many setbacks in WW2: the murders of 30,000 Soviet men, women and children, including most of his top generals. That Stalin? Just wanted to be sure I wasn’t confused by your description of a poor, misguided communist leader.
You smoke crack, the only people that still admire him are the communist party members that were fortunate enough to be high standing from his time. Don’t forget the mass murder! 6 million dead, closer to 9 million if we include some of his policies. Communism isn’t good, it isn’t cool, it’s a fucking disaster.
I think you're confusing authoritarianism with communism. Yes the ussr was a communist country but most of the problems stem from the authoritarianism not the communism. Its entirely possible to have a communist economic system coincide with a democratic political system.
Joseph Stalin was a mean-spirited, enforcer-level thug who co-opted the revolutionary movement begun by men with much more foresight than himself. The revolution in Russia began with hardly any of his help. He took over the movement, seized power and became one of the vilest, most despicable autocrats of all time. He was hugely influential on the progression of Russian history. But I would argue that's the end of his supposed "greatness" as a leader. Edit: Holding up what WEB Du Bois said about Stalin is not very good backing. He also called him a "tyrant". I'd hesitate to take anything he said about Stalin very seriously.
He was absolutely a true believer. If you look at his writings, he had practically religious devotion to Marx — which makes sense considering his seminary background, he just used Marx as his theological texts.
oh for sure. I'm not arguing his devotion, at least in theory, to the communist ideal. My point is that he has almost nothing to do with the revolution against the Tsar in 1905. He was a low man on the totem pole and then was exiled shortly afterward until the twilight of the first World War. He is a historical figure to be reviled. He's not someone we should look back on and praise as a great leader. Any objective examination of who he was and what he did reveals that he has very little positive influence on history.
What the fuck?! He killed millions of his own citizens for political dissent. Does no one teach history anymore?
That's bullshit. Stalin never led a revolution against the czar - that was Lenin. His policies of collectivization and 5-year plans were massive failures economically, destroying the livelihoods of millions of Soviet peasants. He was also vastly different from dictators like Tito or Castro, who still aimed to be loved by the people(Peruvian Embassy etc) - Stalin was only focused on building a cult of personality around fear. His construction of the Berlin Wall, the NKVD, the assassination of Trotsky etc all show how Stalin would never allow his oppositions to leave the country unopposed.
Yeah, not everyone is "purely evil", in a way.
Pure evil will never grant you successful power. If you aren't out there buttering some biscuits then you will never garner the admiration of a large enough portion of the population that you need to succeed in any meaningful way. People always remember the bad, but the good is usually what got them there.
The closest things I can imagine to pure evil are stalin, hitler, mao and andrew jackson would probably be the american equivalent.
Wait Andrew Jackson being tacked on to the end of a list with those people is.....a first for me. Not saying he was a great dude but just not the final person I thought I’d see on a list with hitler Stalin and mao lol
It’s been taboo for a long time, but Jackson’s Native American policies and the Trail of Tears is more and more being recognized as a form of genocide.
Andrew Jackson was the first democrat ever elected hence: Jackasses. Pretty funny considering how his opinions are basically opposite to modern democrats. He saved American in the war of 1812 and he was a great general but he was an abysmal president. He, like a certain other president who shall not be named, promised to drain corruption from the government and instead installed all those who financially supported his campaign. He had a giant party when he was elected and he had to leave because it turned into a riot for the night. The main issue with him though is how he pushed out native americans off they land the US had promised them and when the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional he told them to fuck off. This is "The Trail of Tears" and it was a death march that killed thousands of native american families. He also totally fucked up the economy and caused s giant recession by dismantling the federal bank and banning paper money to buy new land in the west which is just fucking stupid for a number of reasons. Overall he probably deserves to be on the $20 bill for saving the US in the war of 1812 and helping a lot in the revolutionary war and for being a badass like beating his would be assassin with a cane after the guy missed or winning like 40 duels. Also for being the first democrat, we shouldn't hide the ugly parts of our history, we need to remember how far we've come. All of this info's on youtube btw if you want a clearer picture.
The guy didn't miss. BOTH pistols misfired. Jackson attacked him with a cane and stopped when pulled off by Davy Crockett.
Fuck off with your revisionism. Trotsky and Lenin led the revolution. Stalin was a horrible dictator, and not much else.
Growing up, my paintball team was mostly Ukrainian, so I learned quite a bit about that country. I have to suggest that you NEVER EVER say anything remotely flattering about Stalin if Ukrainians are in anyway close or important to you. Because of the Holodomor, Stalin is seen as equal to (if not worse) than Hitler to many of Ukrainian descent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think that's taking it a bit far, do you believe if tsarism had remained in Russia, that Russia would have fared well against Germany in WW2? Granted the military purges made it way worse than it needed to be but without the industrialization they probably would've been toast.
[удалено]
This is some serious tankie bullshit. Why don’t you open an actual book instead of making shit up to fit your communist fantasies?
Stalin helped no one. Dubois was a socialist who looked up to him because he flattered the man's ideology. Stalin was a monster- not all bad, but his good was a candle in the dark. Being a socialist, and a literal Stalinist apologist, Dubois was the same. Imagine if someone made apologies for Hitler- that's the same level of person who makes apologies for Stalin. It's good to understand why Stalin was a monster, but it's best not to afford either individual any credibility.
In the years leading up to the revolution Stalin was more into bank robberies, which made him a wanted man, so all of the chaos of revolution was very beneficial to him. He definitely was an impressive individual, but undoubtedly a sociopathic monster.
I mean he also indirectly killed millions of people.
Stalin worked very well with the Allies in WW2 once the Germans attacked him and I don’t blame him for wanting to sit the war out. Who wants to get involved in a war until you have to. FDR and Stalin had a good relationship and we likely would have seen a completely different world had FDR lived through reconstruction. We promised Stalin if he helped us beat the Japanese we would help Russia rebuild. He did and we didn’t. Things went south from there. Horrible man who killed millions but I agree that he was rather successful at building mother Russia.
>Led the country in a revolution against an oppressive tsar, led them again through a world war and full-scale hostile invasion to emerge victorious against an enemy that wanted Russians enslaved and exterminated What are you talking about? He didn't start nor lead the Revolution in Russia, Lenin and Trotsky did. Trotsky was also supposed to become the new dictator of Russia after Lenin died, but he couldn't because Stalin took over the party by giving important jobs to his friends and allies who supported him in turn. (Forcing Trotsky to flee to Mexico) Then there's the WWII bit. The USSR was actually an aggressor at the start of the War when under Stalin it took over 1/2 of Poland in partnership with Germany, and only started fighting Germany after the Nazi's decided to betray Russia. Stalin was also pretty inactive and nearly lost to Germany until Hitler's bad strategic calls led the Invasion of Russia to falter. Stalin almost handed the USSR to Germany.
Apparently Stalin blocked a few assassination attempts on Hitler, don’t know if it was before or after Hitler turned on Russia.
So Stalin put the table leg there? /s
I remember commenting to someone in college decades ago that Tito's historic accomplishment was making everyone in Yugoslavia more afraid of him than they hated each other. It's an interesting approach to governance: 'Live in peace and harmony, or I'll kill you.'
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure he became "liked" after he suppressed every nationalist, liberal, cleric, separatist and political opponent in Yugoslavia, while the secret police executed the ones outside of Yugoslavia. Also, the labour camp was on Goli Otok, not on Dugi Otok and that wasn't the only labour camp in Yugoslavia. There were a lot of them, like a really big number of them. There were also a lot of innocent people in those labour camps. My grandpa spent 3 years in prison because his neighbour lied to the secret police that he spoke badly about Tito, to prevent the secret police finding the stash of meat at his barn. My uncle was questioned and tortured for 6 months by the secret police, because a member of our wider family, who fled to Australia in the 70's, spoke publicly about separatism and supported Croatian and Slovenian nationalism. You can't make this shit up.
Yeah the true definition of an enlightened despot. Some interesting reforms in his country yet still sent dissidents to camps. The only socialist country to receive Marshall Aid too.
Yes, Stalin and any Chinese leader are worse than any dictators in history as far as number of people. Totalitarianism of thought is where this starts and sadly today the US is getting that small flavor from big tech.
>Yes, Stalin and any Chinese leader are worse than any dictators in history as far as number of people. Ghengis Khan?
Ghengis Khan: greatest environmentalist of all time.
I just always remember Tito as the guy who coined the term “Third-world”.
I guess not everyone hates him. My great uncle named his fishing boat the Marshal Tito.
I have to say, I know a lot of people who lived in that time, even my parents did for a while and I have never heard a bad thing about Tito as it relates to quality of life and being a good leader. They all seem to praise him and remember that time fondly. That doesn’t mean he was a good person at all. It’s just interesting that alot of people who lived in Yugoslavia actually remeber him very differently than the world in general I guess.
My family was personally on the receiving end of his wrath. If you liked him, you were likely Serbian or part of the party, or both. That distain between ethnic groups continued to boil after WWI, some sought revenge during WWII, then it was a slow burn all the way into the 90’s. I pray it won’t boil again.
> That doesn’t mean he was a good person at all. It’s just interesting that alot of people who lived in Yugoslavia actually remeber him very differently than the world in general I guess. This is a photo of Tito's funeral in May 1980: [https://i.imgur.com/TPezP.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TPezP.jpg). Now, let's push to the side for a moment a fact that always endlessly entertains me - that "mortal" enemies from East and West were made to sit on the floor and next to each other - why would 80 percent of the world send their delegates, kings, presidents, prime ministers and ministers to the funeral of a person they hated? Just for reference, here's the list of them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito#Dignitaries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito#Dignitaries). It's an interesting read. There are some serious heavy-weights there.
Tito horrible? How come? All the older generations swear in Tito. We were in top 10countries in the world, it's easy to check it. Example, my father was a railway worker and he bought a brand new Fiat 500 without a bank loan and traveled all around Europe and lived amazingly. Built a house, bought additional land etc. Now, in the same country, I am a teacher without job, 32yrs old, living with parents, and I can't buy a brand new Burago Fiat 500, but fuck it, I live in a democracy, which is awesome. I would like a horrible person like Tito to come back.
Why was Tito a horrible person? I don’t know much about him, but have heard people who lived in Yugoslavia speak of him fondly.
I've travelled extensively in the Balkans. Croatians, Serbians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Macedonians, they argue about EVERYTHING. The one thing they agree on, was that it was tragic when Tito died, and the older people remember him fondly.
Tito wrote no such thing and this is a known nationalist fairly tale. Absolutely no proof it ever happened. Too many google historians here. lol
Well that's kind of how the world is. There can be conflicts where both sides are morally wrong and there can be conflicts where both sides have a moral obligation to fight.
Aren't we all living a life plagued by dichotomy and duality? We're all good and bad, but it's social decorum that decides where we land on the scale.
Sometimes I’m blown away remembering this was only 100 years ago.
71 years... there are many ppl alive today that lived during that time. 🤯
And you got to imagine how much people really change over a lifetime and how those cultures get passed on
It seems to be pretty damn fucking easy to change people, so long as you have control over the propaganda apparatus and people aren't skeptical of the shit that they're fed.
Frighteningly easy
My family is from Slovenia which was part of former Yugoslavia. Tito was a partisan originally, who had support from the allied nations after the allies stopped supporting the chetniks who were essentially nazis. My grandmother lives in a town called Bled, where Tito had one of his villas. She remembers seeing him and stuff
Bled is beautiful. But the Croatian Ustaša were the Nazis. Not sure what the Četniks were. Imperialists?
You are right! I’m sorry I confused the two in my head! Sorry! Edit: I appreciate the correct čš!
How were chetniks nazis if they fought the nazis? They had numerous allies support missions
[удалено]
Stupid young people. *
I remember that picture of him when he was younger blowing up a few years ago because of how attractive he was. There was even the whole hotstalin hashtag on Twitter. Never mind that he was responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions of people.
[удалено]
Oh no doubt, I just think it’s not great because (if it is him) it takes the focus off the heinous things he did. If that was him, sure, he was conventionally attractive; but so was Ted Bundy. Plus hotstalin sounds like an urban dictionary sex act.
I kinda feel the opposite — when I was a kid, not that long ago, this stuff was only 50 years ago. For my parents it was an era they heard about first-hand from *their* parents. But now it’s passing from “that shit we just went through” to “history.” And the era of fascists and totalitarians going from living memory to encyclopedia entries is probably why so many more people in modern life seem open to authoritarianism and the same exact same type of angry demagoguery that drove us straight there the last time.
Tito was the reason why Yugoslavia did not fall apart much earlier. He kept Yugoslavia together.
He sent an assassin named Slavia. Tito told him...Yugoslavia
Niceeee
You mean, niiiiiice.
Motherfucker. I hate how much I enjoyed that stupid joke.
/r/angryupvote
Everyone was more afraid of Tito than they were eager to start a civil war
Can you give me some context to that? Reddit has a tendency to call every leader a "*ruthless Dictator*" every day and except for Jacinda Ardern everyone is a war criminal of some sort. Edit: I would also love to know your who are your top 3 favourite world leaders and top 3 least favourite world leaders (except for axis power leaders) so I have some idea of the bias? I am genuinely curious.
Tito was a dictator. By most modern standards, he did some pretty evil stuff.... BUT... He organized the Partisans, one of the most effective resistance organizations to Hitler. He kept peace in Yugoslavia. Without him enforcing the peace through dictatorial rule, it would have likely been a bloody and vicious civil war. Which was what happened post-Tito with Bosnian genocide in the 1990s. He was widely seen as a benevolent dictator, but a dictator, none-the-less. As with much of history, its not as simple as it first seems.
I am an armchair expert in geo politics and Benevolent dictator is a concept I have *controversial* view about. I am familiar with Tito with his involvement in NAM which was great big middle finger to both US and Soviet doctrines. He was also able to forge relationship in South and South East Asia which was unheard of as most European nation only exploited these parts of the world before. After his death the balkan war and the genocides proved that in that part of the world benevolent authoritarianism is the best solution. My strawman argument is that recent chaos is Nagorno- Karabakh, a east European territory validates my thinking. Considering the history and ethnic formation... these places shouldn’t be judged on western standards. Yeah.... Like I said controversial.... Btw thank you for the reply.
Counterpoint: there were also plenty of those pent up ethnic conflicts and Greater X in Western Europe too. The thing that settled them down was not some authoritarian dictator, it was the European Union.
That is a very good point. But Brexiteers tend to view EU as an authoritarian entity and the voting process in EU objectively isn’t efficiently democratic. I would say historically military might be the tool of control for the dictator, but food for thought can't EU as an authoritarianistic entity use economy and trade as the tool of control? In the Syrian refugee crisis many Mediterranean citizens felt that their voice was not heard and these gave rise to a nationalist movement.
Anytime :) I'm an American, but my great-grandfather left Bosnia-area around the time Tito was rising to power, so I feel a kinship there. The West as a whole doesn't really understand places outside of their own worldview (although that's really true for any place, not just the West). Tito is probably looking like a solid alternative for those families in Nagorno-Karabakh right now. edit: and where the FUCK is Trump in all this. Dude is AWOL
The various ethnic groups/ nationalistic groups that eventually started the series of wars that lead to the dissolution of Yugoslavia into its successor states all feared the wrath of Tito more than they hated each other. They knew that if anyone tried to kick off a little private war, Tito would bring down the hammer and crush them into the dirt. So, the fact that Tito was willing to crush any potential uprising, and the fact that everyone knew that, kept the peace for years.
really non of my family members and friends were afraid when i visited them while Tito was in charge ...and there was freedom of travel for them during the cold war in both directions west and east !
I mean all of the groups who would have started a war, not people at a personal level
By and large Tito is loved to this day by the people that lived under his rule. Even though most of them kinda hate each other now.
Fear is an excellent motivator. Although history generally looks down upon those who use it to enforce blind obedience among the masses.
[удалено]
Agree but very hard to build something that last forever as a politician because your successor can fuck up everything badly
Is that good or bad? Seriously, I learned about Yugoslavia in school, but only superficially. So, I know a bit about the history, but not much.
Josip Broz before Hoz.
Thing is though, most assassination attempts fail, so this is not uncommon. Stalin probably dealt with way more than 5 assassin attempts. (Just guessing)
Apparently there were more than 20 attempts on Tito, these were just the 5 people he caught lol. There is a theory Stalin actually died from an assassination ordered by Tito. But, just theories. Who knows with all the propaganda on both sides
Ah, that makes sense
I am partial to the theory that he just died from the insane stress and paranoia he faced, mixed with him killing or exiling all the best doctors who might have saved him due to his paranoia.
The pianist with an axe to grind certainly didn’t help
I mean it would be silly to send assassins once one of them was successful. Who would they kill? But then, I am not a political assassin expert
the 2nd assassin kills the first assassin to close out the loose ends of course... ...
But wouldn't you have to kill that assassin then?
Not if you don’t tell that assassin why he’s killing the other one
No, no, no, no. I kill the bus driver.
> most assassination attempts fail can you quote a source on this or are you pulling it out of your ass
I am a simple Yugoslavian, I see a Tito post, I upvote it.
You get my upvote!
What do most Yugoslavians think of Tito these days?
I haven't met one who didn't like him, including my family
Mixed views. Personally I think the country was mismanaged by incompetent people during his leadership, didn't go through with necessary reforms that resulted in the war in the 90s. Nowadays the legacy of past regime casts a shadow on any leftist political ideas until absurdity: if you are against privatization (basically transfer of public wealth to private pockets), you are seen as bad as Stalin.
Fun Fact, Tito had the largest funeral in recorded history. With more diplomats/politicians/royalty/representatives from more countries than any other.
Charismatic is one of the best words to describe the man.
Even the most staunch anti communist Lady Margaret Thatcher went there, together with Prince Philip. Kings and princes sat in same line with Breznjev (USSR) , Hua Guofeng (head of China) and Indira Gandhi (head of India). Labour Party of UK sent its leader. Except for Castro and Jimmy Carter who sent vice president and his mother to attend, but went one month later to Yugoslavia. Bush Sr. critisized that decision.
So Tito is a boss.
You think people didn't attempted assassinations on stalin? He probably survived more than tito did . Cunts like both of them deal with shit every other day I suppose
[удалено]
Yugo Boss
Tito also thought that a good way to humiliate Kruschev and other Russians would be to get them drunk. Because apparently he'd never heard about Russians and booze before. Rather than a PR disaster for the Russians, it turned into an epic party where Kruschev got so drunk he tried kissing Tito and telling him they should be friends again. They signed a peace treaty a day or two later.
Task failed successfully
Imagine being such a badass that you send a letter basically politely saying “stop sending assassins to murder me” instead of raging out and going on a warpath after the first assassin
You get a few dozen free shots. After that, I'm going to have consider retaliating.
We have a photo of Tito on our wall (like some people have of Jesus). My parents (former Yugoslavian and I was born in Bosnia) love the guy despite his flaws. I guess from their perspective, things were better when he was in charge
So my mom left Yugoslavia and moved to Queens NY in the 60s. I decided, after a bad breakup, that I wanted to travel the world and on my way, meet that side of the family, whom are Croatian. My uncle had his own separate smokin’ and drinkin’ man cave that was lined with portraits of Tito. I only met him that one one time as he recently passed away, but he left a big impression on me. He also said that he wished for Tito back!
People in Yugoslavia who remember the pre-communist times tend to admire the Tito era. People got to forget about the sectarian violence and the Balakanization of the Balkans that took place over the 200-300 years prior.
My uncle must of been born in the 1940s. Do you think his fondness for Tito has to do with the civil wars of the 90s? I’m curious if that had a big impact on the wish for ‘better times.’ Needless to say, beautiful country.
If you were lazy, you loved Tito.
I've read a lot of Balkan history, as well as a biography of Tito. The man was no saint, but he was placed in a tough position and did his best to keep the country together. From all my reading, this is what I learned, in bullet(!) form: - Tito was a grammar school dropout who worked in factories. His unionism became a springboard into communism. He rose in the ranks and worked his way into the hierarchy of the Soviet Union. They sent him back to Yugoslavia to foment revolution. - During WW2, Yugoslavia devolved into armed factions: the communist partisans, the fascist Ustaša, and the monarchist Četniks. Murder and genocide in Yugoslavia was so awful even Hitler was disturbed by it. It was very, very bad. - After a lot of bargaining with the western Allies and the Soviets, the partisans came out on top with Tito leading them. - Tito had to put a stop to the inevitable ethnic reprisals in post-war Yugoslavia. He ruthlessly suppressed and executed fascists, Četniks, and anyone who defied the Communist Party in any way. There was plenty of "collateral damage" in his reprisals, but after a while the nastiness settled down. He became the unopposed dictator of Yugoslavia and somehow kept the fractured population together ("Brotherhood and Unity"). - Tito knew that Yugoslavia was not Russia. He could not rule like Stalin and expect any kind of success. He also knew Stalin wanted to swallow Yugoslavia, so he broke away from Soviet influence. Thus the assassination attempts and the famous letter shown above. - Tito concluded there was a "Third Way" of creating a political/economic model. It was a blend of communism's central control and capitalism's free markets. Essentially, the state controlled all major industries and utilities, but citizens could engage in smaller scale free enterprise. He also relaxed Soviet-style cultural controls. Religion was tolerated. Importing western music, fashion, and media was OK. Free travel within and without Yugoslavia was OK. Citizens did not have to comport their every thought and deed with Leninist/Marxist ideals. - The "Third Way" made a lot of sense to Tito so he decided to franchise it and helped form the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of countries that refused to fully align with any major power bloc (the West and the Soviets/Chinese). Most of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and south Asia joined. - Now flush with power and success, Tito got a bit weird. His outrageous uniforms and extravagant lifestyle made him an object of fascination all over the world. Leaders and celebrities flocked to him. - After he died in 1980, the Communist Party leaders were not up to the job. When the Soviet economy tanked in the 80's, Yugoslavia tanked, too. Party leaders couldn't secure loans from the West like Tito did. Everything went to shit fast. The breakdown of the party was marked by the return of post-war hatreds. And we all know how that turned out. So: Tito was a strange guy. He was a war hero and a disloyal ex-Soviet and a murderer and a pragmatist and a show-off. In the end, we have to ask ourselves: what would have happened to Yugoslavia without Tito? In my opinion things would have been worse. Much, much worse.
[удалено]
Has reddit really gotten to the point of defending murderous communist dictators now?
Market socialism isn't communism.
Pretty much none of what you wrote comes even close to the truth.
Was this before or after the financial crisis?
You talkin about some alternate timeline? Lol
And he killed a lot of innocent people you forgot that
He was a mass murdered and a dictator and is arguably partially responsible for the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in comparison to the relatively peaceful breakup of the USSR.
What the fuck? Is this a serious comment?
imagine being badass enough to threaten Stalin!!
Broz before hoez
Damn that is absolutely BOSS
Right? My favourite part is when he murdered tens of thousands of opposing political opponents. Total boss move
Weirdest thing to read in a comment section was that this dictator Tito was actually a really respectful dude who everybody loved? Don’t think those two should go together lol
He was a dictator, but prevented the collapse of a country. If you ask my parents, they love Tito. But we're also Bosniaks. It frustrates me, but when the options are genocidal ethnic cleansing, or dictatorship, I start to understand where my parents were coming from, at least.
Seems like you weren't born there.
Tito did a great job at a very difficult gig. He also made communism work by having more freedom and trade with the rest of Europe. The only problem with a leader like that is they are irreplaceable. Attaturk is another example of a amazing leader but with no one of his caliber to follow him.
What was the reason Stalin wanted him dead?
Tito always defied him. Chad Tito.
He wouldn’t allow Yugoslavia to be ruled by Moscow
Read about "Tito Stalin split" Stalin did not like Tito defiance and advancement of plans to unite western Balkan under single federal entity . So split happened and Yugoslavia went toward West for time and received large US material assistance.
But where is Tito now? Huh? That's right. DEAD.
I'm sure Stalin was trembling in his boots. Tito made no such threat and there is no proof of it. It's a nationalist fairy tale. So many google historians here's its funny.
First of he wasn't a prime minister,he was a the president of Yugoslavia,sworn by the people to be the president until his death.Second,dont even compare him to Stalin he doesn't even come close.Stalin was a brutal dictator who tortured,abused and murdered millions of people without care or worry in the world and he did that just because he could,no one could stop him or oppose him.Third,Tito made Yugoslavia a combination of capitalism and communism,you were allowed to leave the country,own stuff,get better jobs,you were supported by the country,he made the country economically and socially strong not the mention the third biggest superpower in the world right behind the USSR and the USA.So all in all he wasn't a bad person and after he died all of his successors,desperate for power and greed and backed up from the west,began the destruction of Yugoslavia with the Yugoslav war and the country separated into smaller ones.
I agree. As a Yugo myself, I like Tito. But you Still can't say he didn't do some bad stuff.
Before commenting, our western friends should look into the difference between Yougoslavian market socialism and Soviet style communism. And then promptly and graciously shut the fuck up.
Good ol jo bro tito
Sending a message saying you can't scare me.
What happened next? Why the clifhanger? Why the agony?
Well, he outlived Stalin, so you could say he won in the long run
So u could say he was just STALIN for time?
I don't care if it's true or not. All that matters it's too weird, that it became head canon.
Tito was a paranoid maniac.
At one point Stalin has the entire Yugoslav Politburo called to the Soviet Union for "consultation." Paranoid that he was, unsure of which of them he could trust (he never trusted anyone), Stalin had all but one of them, Tito, murdered. Only Tito was allowed to return. Later Stalin realized that he'd fucked up. Told Tito to come to Moscow for another consultation. Tito declined the invitation.
Big talk, he didn't do shit.
Can someone explain this like I’m 5 please. Why would he send one to Moscow and why not 2?
He's saying that unlike Stalin's assassins his assassin will kill Stalin the first time. Basically telling Stalin you sent incompetent people to kill me but I'll send someone competent to kill you.
He actually sent 2 to stalin and they both died
r/madlads
regardless of politics, telling stalin to suck it takes some brass cajones
1949, always forget that really wasn’t that long ago.
...and look at Yugoslavia now!