| @ croat: when I said that Tito was the most successful, I meant that he was most able to accumulate aid from both sides of the Cold War. He's not a subject of idolization. Besides, it's not as if his own personal brilliance is responsible for his success. Geography, lack of natural resources/naval choke points crucial to the West, lack of bitter regional rivalry and the role of prestige are factors perhaps more responsible for Tito's ability to have his neutrality honored than his own ability to negotiate. As a comparison, Nasser of Egypt held possession of the Suez, had bitter rivalries with Israeli and the Saudis, was not a component of Europe, and the prestige he wielded influence over was a subject of constant debate among both USSR and Western leadership. His quest for neutrality couldn't rise above the USSR's desire to penetrate the Middle East and the U.S's sustained commitment to oil.
Success implies no moral rightness, I meant to say that Tito was about as successful as Positive Neutrality as King Leopold of Belgium was at acquiring his own colony in the Congo. What they did with the privacy they won is subject to no shortage of immoral acts |
Original UN Members 
Line to the British Throne 
Previous Names of Countries
