Was Josip Broz Tito really a "benevolent" dictator? Is such a thing possible?
>>1339304
>"benevolent" dictator
> Is such a thing possible?
Of Course, Tito was one of these few people which was capable to keep Yugoslavia together, he understood all these different cultures of this country. Without him civil war would start just after the end of WW2.
>>1339304
He sent tons of people to reeducation camps (Goli otok) for being pro-Stalin or just generally opposing his regime. Other than that you were generally safe if you never complained about the government or the Party.
Economy already started going to shit in the late 60s and the country pretty much continued living off loans and debts until the break up.
>>1339432
He screwed up big by not appoint a capable successor. He tied the whole country to his cult of personality and it was a matter of time before it all went down after his death.
>>1339304
He had thousands killed during and after the war and many were sent to the camps, especially during the Informbiro split. He was working to develop the federation equally which meant that the less developed republics liked him more. A personality cult was developed around him (his birthday was a holiday, children would learn all sorts of stories about him in school...). His policies changed in the decades after the 50s so I would say he was a benevolent dictator in a way; as long as one didn't say anything, one could live comfortably (by ever worse socialist standards).
