What made Tito's cult of personality so succesful?

>>1781350
He didn't need a cult of personality, his accomplishments and charisma were enough.The love of his people was genuine, even his funeral was the largest in modern history, where everyone but the American president came to attend it.

>>1781378
this
he was a bro th

>>1781389
He regularly fucked Sophia Lauren,

>>1781411
He had like 800 something kids supposedly.

>>1781378
>didn't have a cult of personality
top wew. I have studied enough Yugo history and politics to know this is bullshit, he had as big a cult as Stalin. Doesn't make his achievements any lesser, however, and that is not what I am putting into question.

>>1781378
>it's a slavshit dindu nuffing about slavshit

>>1781350
Because he didnt force people to like him like Stalin he was acctualy liked and he was a hero to his country

>>1781350

Tito was smart enough to stay outside the USSR, so his country could and did trade with the West far more than other gommiebloc countries could. On top of this, he was something of a political theorist and rejected the direct autarky of Bolshevism in favor of something much closer to syndicalism and autogestion (worker control over factories) which resulted in a much stronger economy than your typical gommie could manage.

His popularity is chiefly the fruit of the relative success of his regime, he DID have a cult of personality but it never reached the absurdities of Chauchescu or Stalin and his genuine level of support was pretty high.

>>1781486
Huh isn't worker run industry the original Marxist ideal?

>>1781437
A "cult of personality" implies him forcing people to like him through the deployment of positive marketing, propaganda and rigged polls, which simply wasn't the case.The majority of people loved and respected him because he earned it.

>>1781450
Colonial subhumans and their equally deranged progenitors need not apply.

>>1781502
he did exactly that. You could get arrested for insulting him just as with stalin, you got kicked out of the party for not agreeing with him, and you got jailed if you were a different kind of socialist. But please tell me how infallible he was, you fell for the bait.

He correctly foresaw the clash of civilizations between East and West and due to the optimum location of his new country he managed to fit neatly right in between.

It meant he could open his country up to trade and exchange with the prosperous west while providing much of the social goodies and benefits of socialism.

He was no saint but compared to his contemporaries was incorruptible and was not prone to killing people with slightly differing opinions.

Any man who can hold the balkans together is charismatic and competent.

I guess it also did help he was surrounded by examples of barbarism that it made him look enlightened in comparison.

>>1781517
Croatian fairy tales from the early 80's aside, most men who've ended up in prison were legitimately guilty, but some were unjustly accused, even killed.

he was an actual benevolent dictator

>>1781417
Wtf I love him now!

In all honesty what a based man, literally a more peaceful Genghis Khan.

>>1781618
Exactly, just like under Stalin.

>>1781517
>>1781618
May anyone of you provide sources for y9ur claims?

>>1781500
yuup

>>1781813
Look up Tito's purges of the communist party post Stalin split, he also had ties with NATO and specifically the UK. His pragmatism is only on paper, in reality he served the interest of NATO and was an anti-soviet bloc in the balkans, and an unofficial NATO member. You can literally google all of this.
He was independent from the soviets but calling him unaligned/independent is stupid and a yugonostalgic view of history. His industry was funded by the EU and the USA because market socialism wasn't a viable means of producing based on needs instead of profit and he needed constant subsides from the IMF as well as direct loans from other governments. Yugoslavia was dismantled as soon as the soviet union broke apart, because it was no longer relevant. It didn't have to be swayed to either side anymore and it's socialist tendencies/systems didn't have to be tolerated by their financiers anymore.

There is a reason the Croats used old German guns.

>>1781855
Mind if i ask you to dig deeper on that reason?

>>1781502
A Cult of Personality doesn't have to be forced, this is liberal Propaganda

>>1781813
Tito: And the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia
Our Own Path; Selected Writings from Yugoslav Communism
The Selected Works of Josip Broz Tito
The Heretic: The Life and Times of Josip Broz-Tito

>>1781809
I don't remember Tito killing more than 20 million people, nor a million for that matter, nor 500.000.

>>1781855

Good old theories about Yugoslavia's alleged industrial ineptness, sadly they've never been substantiated by any form of credible evidence.

You're forgetting one important thing, she was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned movement, the only thing which kept both Blocs from consuming the entire world,She didn't go "away" because her "financiers" have grown tired of her, she had to go because she posed an obstacle to American-dominated NATO expansion.Also, the European Union wouldn't have tolerated a country like that on her southern borders, especially with her army.

>>1781879
The thing is, there is nothing more to be found, this is basically their entire theory.They didn't even have the decency to expand since they day they've conceived it.

>>1781945
there is loads of evidence on Yugoslavia's economic failure, but I am not going to spoonfeed you, as you seem so assured in your beliefs.

I will say something that you'd only know if you knew shit about Yugoslavian economics
why was the steel mill built in Smederevo?

>especially with her army.
the Yugoslavian army was shit from the 80's onward. However they did have quality military hardware and I will not discredit that.

and what theories? Yugoslavia was a recognized unofficial member of NATO by most of europe, the UK in particular. This is common knowledge to anyone looking at Yugo geopolitics. You could cite the president of the UK at the time on that.
>she had to go because she posed an obstacle to American-dominated NATO expansion.
correct, I never disputed this, but this doesn't dispute what I said either.

>>1782018
There was only evidence of mismanagement which caused the sporadic shortages in the 1982, 1983 and 1984, even the effects of the inflation were mitigated in 1988.

>why was the steel mill built in Smederevo

Because at that time, it was the optimal location.

>the Yugoslavian army was shit from the 80's onward

You calling the fifth most powerful conventional army shit?

> Yugoslavia was a recognized unofficial member of NATO by most of Europe

Only during the fifties, they've abandoned plans of joining after they've seen that the West had completely given up on the rest of Eastern Europe in favor of keeping Western Germany, they didn't want to become someone else' buffer zone, especially of someone who is highly unreliable.

>>1782074
>Because at that time, it was the optimal location.
you don't know shit.
>You calling the fifth most powerful conventional army shit?
As you said, 'Only during the fifties' :^)
>they've abandoned plans of joining after they've seen that the West had completely given up on the rest of Eastern Europe
They never planned to join it, they simply stayed unofficial members. If Yugoslavia was Attacked It'd be supported by the UK and France, as well as the kingdom of Greece and the republic of Turkey. They would go to war if the kingdom of Greece or Turkey were attacked, and satisfied French and British foreign affairs fairly often, to not mention other NATO member states like the USA's.

They didn't need to join officially, they already had all the benefits being secret members.

Their market economy also allowed the americans to easily sabotage it in the 80's by creating false scarcity.

>>1782115
No, you don't know shit.

>As you said, 'Only during the fifties'

As in, being "unofficial members of NATO", as I've specifically stated.They weren't unofficial members, just allies in interest, if they were unofficial members, then countries like Great Britain, America and Germany wouldn't have participated in her dissolution in the 90's, hence cravens like Izetbegovic, Milosevic and Tudjman starting a conflict of monstrous proportions with foreign backing.


> satisfied French and British foreign affairs fairly often

Because they've aligned with theirs.

>Their market economy also allowed the Americans to easily sabotage it in the 80's by creating false scarcity

True to some extent, but local mismanagement carried the brunt of the guilt.