Did Tito kill Stalin?

[EdvardK]

Here's an interesting theory
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/06/did-tito-kill-stalin-a-new-book-on-the-theory.html

[Remus Bleys]

Most likely no.
I've heard the story, and its a neat idea. I kinda hope its true.

[Sea]

Yes. Several times IIRC.

[Paul Pott]

He killed socialism in Yugoslavia, so it wouldn't be out of character.

[Questionable]

He killed socialism in Yugoslavia, so it wouldn't be out of character.

Status:
[ ]Not told
[X]Told
[X]What Is To Be Told?
[X]The Highest Stage of Told
[X]Marxism-Leninism-Toldism
[X]Leo Toldstoy
[X]Concentration, accumulation, and centralization of Told
[X]The Told War
[X]Let Us Told Our Hair In Accordance With The Socialist Lifestyle

[EdvardK]

He killed socialism in Yugoslavia, so it wouldn't be out of character.
In order for him to be responsible for the "killing of soc in Yugoslavia", socialism would first have to exist in Yugoslavia? If this premise is correct, then who do we have to thank for installing socialism in Yugoslavia in the first place? Should I guess: Stalin, HOxha?

[Brutus]

It's more likely that Beria killed Stalin, as, according to Molotov, he claimed to have "saved you all" at Stalin's deathbed.

[Questionable]

In all seriousness, this article isn't very convincing to all but the most rabid Anti-Stalinists, because the hypothesis appears to rely on the old myth that Stalin would shoot his guards for daring to wake him up (lol). It's similar to the clapping bell story which isn't referenced anywhere but Gulag Archipelago.

So, if this hypothesis uses that as one of its foundations, it casts a shadow of doubt from the beginning.

[Thirsty Crow]

The arguments presented in the article are more than ridiculous.

[Fred]

The referenced article is up to the standards of the National Enquirer in terms of fact checking. The idea of Lenin asking to be euthanized while there was still a breath in his body is absurd. Also, the article is vacuous politically. Stalin was not "the next in line" in 1923. Zinoviev, Trotsky and Kamenev were still powerful leaders. But, Stalin knew that Lenin had become disenchanted with him and was worried about the emerging bloc of Trotsky and Lenin against him. It is not at all clear that Stalin poisoned Lenin. And, truth be told, it doesn't matter. Stalin's crimes against the international proletariat are extremely well documented and include hundreds of thousands of murders of communists. Clearly, Stalin would have murdered his sister in order to secure a majority on the PB in a vote -- I just think it is silly to ponder this stuff. It is the flip side of the cult of personality. "Stalin was so evil." Well he was, but that isn't what matters in understanding the role that he played from an historical/materialist/dialectical perspective.

Did Tito kill Stalin? Seems incredibly unlikely, as the more likely candidates were all around him. It is also possible that he died of a stroke. In any case, since this article is hardly above the level of gossip, I think it is pretty worthless.

[Geiseric]

I don't think Tito would of fancied that idea, since the Red Army could of easily invaded Yugoslavia if they thought that he seriously sent an assassin.

Hah Stalin died in a puddle of his own urine though! How fitting.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No. Tito did not kill Stalin. The article is pretty bad and unconvincing tbh.

[erupt]

Tito's "worker's self-management" is just as much an attempt at socialism as Stalin's "Socialism In One Country" to me.

[Geiseric]

Tito's "worker's self-management" is just as much an attempt at socialism as Stalin's "Socialism In One Country" to me.

Except there was no ethnic chauvinism. Tito also never ended comintern.

[Mandarin]

Well, he had reason to do it. But it seems unfeasible.

Personally, I agree with Brutus, it was probably a combination of Beria and his own lifestyle that truly offed him in the end.

[Brutus]

Tito also never ended comintern]
Ending Comintern was a good thing. It meant the parties could be more independent from Moscow, which had had them by the balls since the 1921 Comintern congress which solidified the Bolshevik party as that of a bonapartist-centralist one. In fact, not only did the Bolsheviks adopt this, but also exported it. We all know that the policies of the Comintern led to failure, and your man Trotsky made his own, rival international.

[cliffhanger]

We all know that the policies of the Comintern led to failureWell, other than the successful Communist-led democratic revolutions across dozens of countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, and their critical contributions to anticolonial revolutions across most of the world. Other than that it was a bit of a flop.

[erupt]

Except there was no ethnic chauvinism. Tito also never ended comintern.

You misunderstand me. I'm denouncing Socialism In One Country more than the idea of "worker's self-management" in Yugoslavia in my previous post; although I'm not advocating it, market socialism is still socialism, nonetheless.

Just as Lenin, in the Soviet Union, implemented the New Economic Policy, Tito, in Yugoslavia, implemented market socialism, most likely due to being isolated from both the Eastern Bloc and the Western powers, in my humble, yet critical, opinion.

[Old Bolshie]

Ending Comintern was a good thing. It meant the parties could be more independent from Moscow, which had had them by the balls since the 1921 Comintern congress which solidified the Bolshevik party as that of a bonapartist-centralist one.

In theory yes but in practice they were just as or even more dependent of Moscow (as in most of the cases) than before.

Just as an example, in 1974-75 when the Comintern was already dead for sometime, the Portuguese Communist Party was prevented from taking over the government country during the revolution by the USSR itself because the soviets didn't want to damage talks with USA over the SALT agreement. You have other examples more close to 1941 though to prove that the Comintern existence or non-existence didn't have anything to do with being more or less dependent of Moscow.


In fact, not only did the Bolsheviks adopt this, but also exported it. We all know that the policies of the Comintern led to failure

Considering the incipient state of most of the communist parties at the time(a great part of it was even created by the Comintern itself) I would say that it was pretty successful in creating a revolutionary environment in Europe which ended by 1924-25 when SIOC was put in place.

[Geiseric]

Ending Comintern was a good thing. It meant the parties could be more independent from Moscow, which had had them by the balls since the 1921 Comintern congress which solidified the Bolshevik party as that of a bonapartist-centralist one. In fact, not only did the Bolsheviks adopt this, but also exported it. We all know that the policies of the Comintern led to failure, and your man Trotsky made his own, rival international.

What are you talking about? Communist internationals have existed since Marx, international solidarity is the only thing in reality that has allowed any workers state to not be crushed by imperialism immediately. Lack of it is why Stalin was able to gain power in the first place, since he and bukharin both were able to capitalize off of the fsu's isolation, due to the comintern strategies they themselves came up with, such as the popular front in China and the sectarianism of the KPD in Germany. both were plans that the fSUs bureaucracy came up with, Stalin supported these politics out of opportunism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I am yet to see any concrete evidence of Tito killing Stalin so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.

[Old Bolshie]

Well, other than the successful Communist-led democratic revolutions across dozens of countries in Eastern Europe and Asia, and their critical contributions to anticolonial revolutions across most of the world. Other than that it was a bit of a flop.

All of this happen when the Comintern was already over though.


What are you talking about? Communist internationals have existed since Marx, international solidarity is the only thing in reality that has allowed any workers state to not be crushed by imperialism immediately. Lack of it is why Stalin was able to gain power in the first place, since he and bukharin both were able to capitalize off of the fsu's isolation, due to the comintern strategies they themselves came up with, such as the popular front in China and the sectarianism of the KPD in Germany. both were plans that the fSUs bureaucracy came up with, Stalin supported these politics out of opportunism.

I don't remember of Popular Fronts in China but I do remember Popular Fronts in Spain or France where in both cases Communist Parties grew a lot in numbers and influence.

It's also strange that you condemn a policy of alliance and a policy of isolation in the same sentence.

[erupt]

If Stalin attempted to kill Tito twenty-two times, that's reason alone for anyone to not trust or want to get even with that person.

Plus, right at the end of World War II, Tito secretly flew to Moscow and backtracked on what he hold Churchill concerning the Yugoslav monarchy. In my view, talking to Stalin right before the war ended in Moscow rather than flying to London to talk to Churchill and the Yugoslav monarchy, shows an attempt at normalization, even subordination within the socialist community.