Tito: The Achievement and the Legacy
During the dark days of the Second World War, when exploits of Yugoslav guerrilla forces known as Partisans were first heard of in the West, they were said to be led by a mysterious figure known as Tito. Who or what was Tito? Rumor had its day. A Yugoslav or a Russian? An individual or a committee? A man or a woman? Later in the war the mystery cleared. The Germans published his picture and put a price on his head. The exploits multiplied. The world press got the story.
John C. Campbell is former Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of Tito's Separate Road and other works on Yugoslavia and international affairs.
During the dark days of the Second World War, when exploits of Yugoslav guerrilla forces known as Partisans were first heard of in the West, they were said to be led by a mysterious figure known as Tito. Who or what was Tito? Rumor had its day. A Yugoslav or a Russian? An individual or a committee? A man or a woman? Later in the war the mystery cleared. The Germans published his picture and put a price on his head. The exploits multiplied. The world press got the story.
He was Josip Broz, head of the Yugoslav Communist Party, leading the fight under the banner of anti-fascism and liberation. His Partisan forces tied down many German divisions. They liberated parts of the country. They got substantial help from Britain and America, for obvious military reasons. By 1944 Broz-Tito was on the world stage. He talked strategy and politics with Churchill in Italy. He then flew off to Moscow to see Stalin, to get help but also to nail down Soviet agreement that the "temporary" presence of Soviet forces in Yugoslavia in pursuit of the Germans should be at the request of the National Committee of Liberation in Yugoslavia, and that after completing their operational task the forces should be withdrawn. Stalin agreed, but on political matters the differences between the two men were sharp and the atmosphere was far from comradely. The future was casting shadows, but the outside world knew nothing of it, and the principals themselves did not accept the full implications.
After the war Tito and his movement, led by the Communist Party, took over power in Belgrade. There he remained, center stage, for the next 35 years. But the question, "Who is Tito?", could still be asked and can be asked today. For there were many Titos, as is evident from the now familiar facts of his life and from the differing encomiums now heaped upon his name, at home and by the world's leaders, at the time of his death.
II
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The grand old man of Balkan politics, Marshal Josip Broz Tito, no longer rules. At this writing, the founder of nonalignment, the originator of the first new brand of socialism since Lenin, the friend, or at least the colleague, of world leaders from Stalin and Roosevelt through Khrushchev and De Gaulle to Hua and Carter, lies mortally ill. At home he attempted, at the very least, to forge a united nation from a host of competing, often antagonistic ethnic groups, each with its own aspirations in terms of economic and cultural development, religion, language and political awareness. Here, too, his success has been tempered by a gnawing realization that perhaps this very success has contained less than meets the eye, that perhaps it was merely Tito's own personal charisma and personal loyalty to an ideal that produced a progressive, prosperous and united Yugoslavia.
How did Marshal Tito keep Yugoslavia in one piece? He didn't, really. A new biography portrays the Yugoslavian dictator as a mild, reluctant autocrat who unified his people. The truth is that Tito pursued many policies that exacerbated ethnic tensions. His "genius" rested in his willingness to use raw military and police power, not in his penchant for conciliatory politics.
The possibility that the world will awake with surprise one morning to a radical change--whether hoped for or feared--in the Soviet system of government is so remote that we can only wonder that the prospect continues to tantalize us, provoking a recurrent international concern. Perhaps it is because we are all too aware of the vulnerability of our analyses and hypotheses as they apply to even the most "open" and flexible of political systems that we do not cease to marvel at the opaque intransigence of the "closed," rigid, "perfect" system of the Soviet Union, and its indisputable reality in our time.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.