By: Mag Igor Omerza
Recently, a translation of the book by German historian Marie-Janine Calic, Tito – The Eternal Partisan, was published. I read the book, and I must admit that I find the author’s reasoning for calling Broz the “eternal partisan” unconvincing. I quote Calic: “Tito later presented the partisan period as the most important period of his life, in which he achieved the most. This successful partisan resistance became the foundation of his long rule.”
The fact that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which he led, only rebelled against Hitler belatedly – only after Hitler attacked Stalin – gives him only the status of a “temporary” partisan. What bothers me most about the term “eternal partisan” is the fact that, in the history of communism on planet Earth, there was no more luxurious communist couple than Tito and his wife Jovanka. To call someone an “eternal partisan”, given their known Oriental-style luxury, is nonsensical and misleading. In marketing terms, however, the title Tito – The Eternal Partisan certainly attracts readers – at least, it attracted me!
But let’s set aside generalities and move on to some factual inaccuracies (I do not have space for all) in the book that are either incorrect or insufficiently developed. For instance, the author completely ignores the fact that the Stalinist KPJ, after Hitler’s attack on Yugoslavia and its dismemberment due to the Nazi-Soviet pact, was itself in coalition with the Nazis until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.
On page 228, the author writes that the regime “kept party organisations not connected to the League of Communists out of the political arena” – ha ha, which parties were those? Apart from the LCY, no other parties were allowed in Yugoslavia!
When the historian writes about Tito and Jovanka’s wedding in Ilok, she claims that only two witnesses were present. Nonsense! There are even photographs of state leaders with their wives at the post-wedding gathering in Ilok. He was married in Belgrade, and then the celebration took place in Ilok.
The author writes: “All that he and Jovanka owned were a pair of white poodles” – no, Jovanka and her children (Žarko and Mišo) inherited copyright royalties worth billions in dinars. Jovanka was allowed to take luxury furnishings from the residence on Užička Street, along with gifts worth millions of dollars. A detailed inventory of everything she received (gold, silver, jewellery, furs, etc.) after Tito’s death can be found in my book Jovanka and the UDBA.
Overall, Jovanka is poorly and inaccurately portrayed in the book. For example, Calic claims that the UDBA put her under house arrest after Tito’s death. Not true! She was given a huge villa, the highest possible pension, a car, a driver, a bodyguard, household staff, all investment costs were covered, she could move freely, and she received visitors…
When writing about the incursion of 19 Croatian commandos into Bosnia (June 1972), Calic writes: “In several days of fighting, 13 people lost their lives, countless were wounded.” Not at all! On the regime’s side, there were 8 dead and 6 wounded; on the commandos’ side, 15 were killed (including the wounded) in combat or after capture, 4 were sentenced to death, and one was pardoned. You can find much more about this in my book Call U for Murder.
The book also covers Bata Todorović’s abduction poorly and superficially, as well as the reason why Zemljarič kidnapped him (Tito’s paranoia that Bata would financially help the ousted Ranković regain power). Details of this are in my book 88 Steps to Hell – How Zemljarič’s Man Kidnapped Bata Todorović.
The historian correctly describes the mass postwar killings in Yugoslavia and writes about mass executions in Serbia. However, she provides no numbers, which are horrifying: 60,000 identified victims by name, with many more awaiting identification. Thus, the “eternal partisan” Tito was not only responsible for mass killings of Slovenes and Croats but also of Serbs!
The author presents Tito in a sympathetic light, as a unique and distinctive politician, a visionary, a pragmatist, a strategist who achieved an extraordinary career and was capable of both “good and bad”. With this, one could then say the same about Stalin (and similar figures). In my opinion, sympathy for Tito is misplaced, as any potential good deeds pale in comparison to the terrible crimes he ordered.