I have a historiographic research task that relates to 'how history is constructed' and 'the role of the historian'. I've been doing research into an area that interests me: the historiography of Josip Broz Tito, and have found varying views from historians of various backgrounds - that he's a tyrant, benevolent, or somewhere in between, with some emphasising the importance of his split from Stalin, while others celebrate him as an antifacist, and many demonstrate his brutality. However, I've been unable to find consistent factors that influence a historian's reasoning for depicting Tito in the light they so choose. I was wondering if anyone knew a consistent reason that dictates a historian's POV with regard to Tito, if there is one. Are there any prominent Tito historians that are worth looking at? Are there any relevant historiographic concepts I should research?
Thanks!
Hi - we as mods have approved this thread, because while this is a homework question, it is asking for clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself, which is fine according to our rules. This policy is further explained in this Rules Roundtable thread and this META Thread.
As a result, we'd also like to remind potential answerers to follow our rules on homework - please make sure that your answers focus appropriately on clarifications and detailing the resources that OP could be using.
Additionally, while users may be able to help you out with specifics relating to your question, we also have plenty of information on /r/AskHistorians on how to find and understand good sources in general. For instance, please check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which has a wealth of information that may be useful for finding and understanding information for your essay.