I often see a lot of praise of Tito for successfully keeping the various ethnic groups of Yugoslavia at peace throughout his tenure, and thus keeping Yugoslavia together.
However, isn’t one’s success greatly determined by their legacy, and what they left behind when they died?
The country blew up, fractured into genocidal conflict and lost some the best parts of their socialism.
It seems more that Tito didn’t actually fix Yugoslavia’s underlying ethnic conflicts, but rather successfully swept them under the rug during his tenor.
You must log in or register to comment.
On any political opinion, you will have opposing voices, but the success of Tito is of course not easy to quantify. Yes, not too long after his death, the states got into war with each other and we know what happened. In this aspect, he did fail. But compare Yugoslavia to other eastern block countries and I’d say Yugoslavia did far better. In this aspect, the project was a success (somewhat). But we can never answer a hypothetical - would it have been better without Tito - whether with Kingdom continuing or some other solution, there is no way to determine. I would say Tito and SFRJ were a mild success. It definitely could have gone better - but if we compared other Balkan countries - it could definitely gone worse as well. The exact measure of success is not clear though.
I don’t praise Tito at all, not do I blame him for what happened in FRY after he died.
The problems in that region have been going on for about 700 years.