Nicolae Ceausescu or Josip Tito : Who was the better leader?

Who was the better leader?

  • Nicolae Ceaucescu

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Josip Tito

    Votes: 28 100.0%

  • Total voters
    28

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,660
Republika Srpska
Tito obviously. I am not a particular fan of Communism in Yugoslavia, but I think Tito did some good things: he dared to oppose Stalin and he somewhat managed to keep the Balkan peoples from killing each other, but in the end he was ruling over an artificial state that was bound to fail and was already falling apart by the time of his death.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,107
Slovenia, EU
Tito was less stupid in my opinion. He knew that people need a stick and also a carrot. So some liberalization of small private business was allowed and also some controlled exchange with west (cultural and import-export). Yugoslavia was for sure a better place of the two to live in at least from sixties on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menshevik and davor

Isleifson

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,074
Lorraine tudesque
In WW2 my grandfather had an Ostarbeiter from the German. He was a Serb and around 1965 all of a sudden he was back.

For many years he used to come every summer and worked as a farm hand like in the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,480
South of the barcodes
Theres an easy test on how good your leader is.

Give them unlimited power and cash, then watch how many buildings they put up.

Tito liked to buy small villas so he could get around the various parts of the country and do a little business while he was relaxing.

Ceaucescu demolished half a city to put up an oversized overpriced grandiose monument to himself that was falling down before it was even finished.

Monumental vanity projects are always a bad sign the economy is being frittered away by someone who cant do basic maths.
 
Dec 2013
302
Arkansas
Tito far and away was better. Though a dictator he had at least a real level of concern for the people of his nation. I've never heard anything that indicated Ceaucescu dud,
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,011
Bulgaria
A pretty interesting historical event, when Tito mostly imprisoned but also eliminated his former comrades, so called by him cominformists (Cominform + conformists) is "the night of the handcuffs". It reminds me of another event the long knives night of AH. Tito Stalin split was pretty brutal for some idd.

EDIT: For staunch anti-communists, yeah they still exist today beating the dead horse i suppose it is a joyful affair, similar to what happened to the old bolsheviks / commies killing commies (similar to SS killing SA) let them eat each other etc / still i see here and there talks about Trotsky being an benevolent dictator in an alternative world / let's not turn this into glorification of one or another of... these.
 
Last edited:

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,990
Romania
Ceaucescu was killed by his own people, quite an unpopular leader. Tito died before the disintegration of Yugoslavia, his death opened the pandora box of ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia.
During the first years after he came to power (in 1965) Ceaușescu's regime was in fact quite popular, because he was seen as continuing the liberalization policies which the previous communist regime started in the beginning of the 1960s. But from 1971 everything started to change, for some hypothetical reasons for this see THE END OF LIBERALIZATION IN COMMUNIST ROMANIA*.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Devdas

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,990
Romania
Tito far and away was better. Though a dictator he had at least a real level of concern for the people of his nation. I've never heard anything that indicated Ceaucescu dud,
Well, in fact I tend to think that Ceuașescu sincerely believed that he is the exponent of the people and that what he does, he does for the people.