Having just read Halberstam's latest book, mostly on Yugoslavia, I was tempted to look into the history of that former country. I found this book on my shelf and gobbled it up in one sitting.

It is the story of Djilas' family in Montenegro, from before the 1st World War until after the revolution that brought Tito to power. It is truly brilliant autobio and also give great insights into the passions that Tito's death helped to unleash in the region.

First, Djilas' family was a kind of local gentry, with leadership responsibilities as well as blood debts to pay. As a child, Djilis had to worry for his father's life, which was threatened by retribution. It is hard to imagine how a grade-school kid survived that psychologically whole and in the end was the one to end the cycle of revenge-feuds. He brings these anxieties to life in chilling detail.

Second, there are the destructive impulses - pathologies, really - that infected everything in Baakan life. This included his father's shame in the memory that he was called on to participate in the massacre of a peaceful muslim village nearby, which is horrifically described, as well as the long discussions with his would-be killers who staked out his house at night. You will really feel them when you read this.

Third, there is the death of Montenegro's independence as a nation, which forms the backdrop to the book. It demonstrates how shaky the foundation of the nation was and how little Tito did to help overcome these divisions in spite of his caudillo-like rule over almost 40 years.

What emerges in this book is how truly great a writer Djilas was, one of the best European writers of the 20C in my opinion. I could not read it in the original, but the translation is simply wonderful. SO many phrases combine wisdom and elegant succinctness, such as: "the story of a family is the story of a land." While he might have been a bit self-serving - he was a dissident who started out as Tito's propaganda minister - Djilas portrays himself as a tolerant humanist and democrat in this book. His voice will be missed as one of reason for that troubled region.

Highest recommendation. You enter a world long departed and yet, as recent events show, still determining the tragedies of the present.

Born in Montenegro in 1911, Milovan Djilas saw his homeland folded into the communist built nation of Yugoslavia. In deceptively simple, yet lyrical, prose he explains the political, religious and racial feuds that play a crucial role in the region's history. Rising to leadership in the communist party, Djilas was later expelled from the party and imprisoned for "slandering Yugoslavia" a.k.a. speaking his mind. This is a rich, intense and unforgettable book that sheds light on the past as on the continuing saga of the Balkans.

author stole milton's title, so can I. Doran William Cannon author, Paradise Regained, 1999

I read this book after I had served in Bosnia, for the US Army. This book gave real insight into the creation of the Tito-era Yugoslavia, and what came afterwards. I was surprised at the violence of the three-way civil war that was within WW II in Yugoslavia, and how it played out into the war of the 1990's. I highly recommend this book to others interested in a good account of the history of the socialist Yugoslavia.

Djilas was Tito's 2nd man in the communist partisan movement in WWII. They fought against Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Royal Serbs (Tschetnizi) and national Croats (Ustashi) and succeeded. Often left alone by their allies (east and west), they faced death more than once. But this is not a heroic recount of that time, no pro-communist biased official praise.

Djilan, who was arrested in the 50ies and 60ies for openly opposing comunism/stalinism here gives an evenhanded account on how things were, not sparing out the atrocities done by the partisans.

The book is easy to read, but a little short on background information, so you'll have to check some facts, names, places yourself.

One of the best books on WWII I've read.

This is not a biographical work, although brief sketches are provided. Rather, the book investigates trotsky's and djilas' perceptions of the purpose and use of bureaucracy in a communist system. It also interprets their criticisms of the system both before and after their removal from the party leadership in respective countries. Notes: Author's name is Michael M. Lustig; pp.165; ISBN 0-313-24777-3

The Foreword says that human memory rids itself of the superfluous and retains only the important, as based on later events. It adjusts past reality to fit present needs and future hopes. MD says human relationships are more important than dry facts. He used his personal experiences to describe Stalin's enigmatic personality. How many others knew Stalin as an ally, became an enemy, and lived to write about it?

Wartime events led to misunderstandings with Moscow; they didn't realize that the resistance to the German and Italian invasion and occupation went on together with a domestic revolution. The latter caused friction with Great Britain (p.8). Moscow did not comprehend the fact that the Yugoslav Partisans grew into a regular army; Russian partisans were an auxiliary to their army. Tito's policy was to first look after their army and people, as in arranging an exchange of prisoners (p.10). The next was to form a new provisional government. While acting in their own interests, they followed the lead of Moscow (p.11). Djilas says their idolatry of Stalin resulted in an irrational acceptance of "unpleasant facts" (p.12). Djilas noted that Stalin's style was colorless, meager, and a jumble of vulgar journalism and the Bible (an ex-seminarian). Perhaps their hero worship was due to their need for a hero in their struggle against foreign and domestic enemies? Stalin's prediction of war's end in 1942 may have been a threat of a separate peace if no Second Front occurred.

In 1944 a delegation was sent to Moscow (p.13). It had a balanced ticket: General Terzich, Party leader Djilas, a financial expert, atomic physicist Savich, a sculptor.Djilas had never been to Russia and was not tainted with any "factional or deviationist past". They hoped to be recognized as the provisional legal government. Yugoslavia was famous in Russia for their 1941 revolt (p.43). Djilas' article were severely edited; were they afraid of a plain language code (p.44)? Stalin's army purges removed the incompetent and promoted younger and talented men (p.50). One day Djilas was told of an important matter; once in the car he is told he will meet Stalin (p.57). Stalin was of small stature and ungainly, with the white face of an office worker (p.61). Stalin spoke Russian well, but with an accent; he had a real knowledge of political history. Stalin had a sense of humor, and was very close to Molotov. Stalin spoke of 'Russia", not the 'Soviet Union'. While Stalin did not promise to recognize the National Committee as the provisional Yugoslav government, that was his favor. Stalin agreed to give military aid, but said an air base in Italy would be needed; it was soon established (p.64). After the Red Army reached Yugoslavia supplies came by land. Stalin warned Djilas of English duplicity, using the example of General Sikorski's plane crash (p.73). This may have decided Tito's flight to Rumania in 9/21/1944.

"Life is no respecter of desires or designs, but imposes patterns which no one is capable of foreseeing" (p.104). The "cult of the personality" caused this leader to disregard the changing needs and desires or others (p.106). (Another argument for term limits?) Stalin's behavior was no different from a tsar or hereditary king; Djilas expected better. Djilas writes a flattering description of Khrushchev, who was then in power (p.119-120). "No one can take freedom from another without losing his own" (p.133). Is this a principle or just empty rhetoric?

Although I read this as a requirement for one of my classes this semester (East Europe Since 1918), I found it genuinely interesting, enough that I began and finished it in the same day. Djilas was one of the top communists of Yugoslavia, and was part of the first communist foreign missions to the Soviet Union. His book treads from the opening euphoria of the promise of socialism and its new expression, including the near-worship of its manifest leader, Stalin. Then doubts begin to creep in as he is horrified by the actions of the Red Army in his homeland and the relationship that the Soviets--communist comrades--wish to compel upon the Yugoslavs. Quickly this moves to deep disappointment as he realizes that for all their propaganda, the Soviets are truly just a different embodiment of Imperialistic Russia and that the more things have changed, the more they have actually remained the same. His personal insights into the character of the Soviet leaders lend this book a feeling of pathos that goes far beyond its historicity. Here, Stalin is seen as the man that he was, and his monstrosity is only magnified under that understanding.

Djilas' first hand account of events, keen observations and great writing style combine to give you much more insight about communism and Stalin than you would expect from a book this size. Don't miss it.

Too academic and philosophic. I could not finish the book. If you want to know about Tito, read West's book.

It hardly needs to be said that anyone interested in studying the life and times of the famed Yugoslav dictator Tito cannot avoid reading this book. Milovan Djilas was one of Tito's most trusted deputies during the communist-led antifascist resistance during World War II, and one of Yugoslavia's most influential politicians during the immediate postwar years (considered one of the regime's chief ideologues). Even after his break with Tito in the early 1950s and general fall from grace, Djilas kept abreast of Yugoslav political events at the highest levels, as well as the personalities standing behind them. Here he offers a relatively candid and often critical view of Tito, and provides many insights into his actions and motivations. At one point in the text, Djilas also inadvertently repeats some of the rationalizations used by Tito and other Yugoslav officials for the often brutal political repression of opponents (both real and imagined), especially after the 1948 Comintern crisis. All in all, this is a very readable and illuminating insider's account of Tito and his leadership style.