Is Serbia to blame for the collapse of Yugoslavia ? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is Serbia to blame for the collapse of Yugoslavia ?

Red Future

3rd October 2011, 17:55

All that I seem to have read , points to the Serb Politicians and Nationalists as the ones intent on the destruction of the federal state and the espousing of a "Greater Serbia" -is this true or have I swallowed Western NATO propaganda?

ComradeOmar

3rd October 2011, 17:58

Well Serbia always wanted to have their own country for nationalist reasons. So in other words yea its true:D

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:07

No one party is more guilty than the other. All parties in that war encouraged nationalism and spread lies and slander against the other. The Slovenians were the first domino to fall, then there was an influx in Croat nationalism. The Serbs then decided to fight for what was perceived as "their" land which was pretty much wherever Serbs were living. As did the Bosnian Muslims, and Croat. The media from all sides began spreading lies and disinformation about the other causing more hate and blood lust.

The idea of "Greater Serbia" was that all ethnic Serbs should live in one state, and the idea was that if the others could secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs should be able to secede as well. So all the Serbs living in Bosnia and Croatia decided to secede and be part of this "Greater Serbia". This is about 45-50 percent of Bosnia, and a region in Croatia known as Krajina. Well, as you can imagine with each ethnic group wanting their own land, (particularly in Bosnia where there were Croats, Serbs, and Muslims) it pretty much turned into a clusterfuck of epic proportions...

This is a very sensitive subject, but I think it is safe to say there is no ONE party that was more at fault than the other and it would be unfair to decide that only one side was responsible.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:08

Well Serbia always wanted to have their own country for nationalist reasons. So in other words yea its true:D

Not really, the Serbs were generally satisfied with Yugoslavia and had no problem living with the other groups, considering we were all Yugoslavs.

manic expression

3rd October 2011, 18:10

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:12

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:15

I say we decide that no ONE party is at fault and end this conversation, because from personal experience, conversations on the Balkan wars can turn into a shit fight pretty quickly...

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:16

No, Serbia isn't to blame. Like VALTER said above, there were ultra-nationalist demagogues in Croatia and elsewhere (Tudman proves this point alone). No one country was to blame for that tragedy...capitalism is.
Still there were little differences, for example Macedonians, Bosnians and Slovenians wanted borders of new countires from '74's constitusion of Yugoslavia. Serbs wanted Great Serbia and started a war. Croatians had 2 streams: one, smaller one, wanted borders of Indepenednt State Of Croatia (confederation between Bosnia and Croatia) and second, bigger one, wanted just anexion of Hercegovina. Of course, I'm talking about elites when I talk about nations.

ComradeOmar

3rd October 2011, 18:17

Not really, the Serbs were generally satisfied with Yugoslavia and had no problem living with the other groups, considering we were all Yugoslavs.
Well in that case i stand corrected. I was always thought that the Serbs started the Bosnia war and murdered thousands of civilians ( which they did murder). However I guess the collapse of Yugoslavia is based on nationalism from all sides

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:19

The VAST majority were happy with living in Yugoslavia. However, never underestimate a group of greedy capitalists...I mean before the war many people didn't even know if they were Serbs, or Muslims, or Croats...they were Yugoslavs...Well, now children are born hating their neighbors not even knowing why...:(

Census came by my house the other day, and I still proclaimed myself a Yugoslavian.:)

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:22

I say we decide that no ONE party is at fault and end this conversation, because from personal experience, conversations on the Balkan wars can turn into a shit fight pretty quickly...
I wasn't answering on your post, since we were writing at the same time. Conversations on Balkan wars can turn into a shit fight only if you talk with nationalists.

All parties were responsible for collapse of Yugoslavia, since national elites wanted their own countries. Their moves were quite logical, even we don't have to aggre on them.

Main reason why national elites wanted their own countries was political liberalisation. Yugoslavia wanted to introduce Western multi-party system. In that kind of system the whole idea of equality between Yugoslav nations (which was main ideology of Yugoslav "socialist" elites in the Tito and Kardelj era) would fall into water. Why? Because now you would have different parties, which would be based on nationalites (such as Croatian HDZ for example) and Yugoslavia was a country where all nations were in minorty (Serbs were biggest with like 38%). So, national elites, who were affraid that other elites would take the power, decided that they should rather be big fish in small pound.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:24

I wasn't answering on your post, since we were writing at the same time. Conversations on Balkan wars can turn into a shit fight only if you talk with nationalists.

All parties were responsible for collapse of Yugoslavia, since national elites wanted their own countries. Their moves were quite logical, even we don't have to aggre on them.

Main reason why national elites wanted their own countries was political liberalisation. Yugoslavia wanted to introduce Western multi-party system. In that kind of system the whole idea of equality between Yugoslav nations (which was main ideology of Yugoslav "socialist" elites in the Tito and Kardelj era) would fall into water. Why? Because now you would have different parties, which would be based on nationalites (such as Croatian HDZ for example) and Yugoslavia was a country where all nations were in minorty (Serbs were biggest with like 38%). So, national elites, who were affraid that other elites would take the power, decided that they should rather be big fish in small pound.

I know I was just saying in general...I wasn't referring to your post. :)

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:27

Well in that case i stand corrected. I was always thought that the Serbs started the Bosnia war and murdered thousands of civilians ( which they did murder). However I guess the collapse of Yugoslavia is based on nationalism from all sides
They did started a war and killed thousands of civilians. That's because of imperialist shit called "Great Serbia".

The VAST majority were happy with living in Yugoslavia. However, never underestimate a group of greedy capitalists...I mean before the war many people didn't even know if they were Serbs, or Muslims, or Croats...they were Yugoslavs...Well, now children are born hating their neighbors not even knowing why...:(
This is a propaganda. You can not say who was happy living in Yugoslavia, because nobody then asked people what do they thing, and now of course half of them will tell you it was better (because now they live in shit), and other half would tell you that it was worst (because they are nationalist idiots, veterans from Yugoslav wars or because they got rich in a war). Not all people were Yugoslavs, even system tired to create this as new identety. In 1989 less then 17% Yugoslav citisens declared themselves as Yugoslavs, the rest were Croats, Serbs etc.

After all that Yugoslav identety was complete bollocks. Communist party should push the class not national line. Especially when they are pushing imaginary national line.

Iron Felix

3rd October 2011, 18:49

What held Yugoslavia together after the second World War was Tito's authority and suppression of nationalists, especially the Croats(The same Croats were the Axis puppets prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, and who killed half a million Serbs during the war). What caused the collapse was partially the '74 Constitution, yes, but it was not important until Tito died. After his death, collapse was inevitable because of the terrible economic conditions(Before Tito's death, late 70's the elites of Yugoslavia knew how terrible the economic situation was, but it was kept secret from Tito in order not to upset the old hero, so everyone pretended everything was ok), which of course fueled nationalism.

Obviously, you can bet your ass CIA manipulation was a major factor as well.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:49

They did started a war and killed thousands of civilians. That's because of imperialist shit called "Great Serbia".

This is a propaganda. You can not say who was happy living in Yugoslavia, because nobody then asked people what do they thing, and now of course half of them will tell you it was better (because now they live in shit), and other half would tell you that it was worst (because they are nationalist idiots, veterans from Yugoslav wars or because they got rich in a war). Not all people were Yugoslavs, even system tired to create this as new identety. In 1989 less then 17% Yugoslav citisens declared themselves as Yugoslavs, the rest were Croats, Serbs etc.

After all that Yugoslav identety was complete bollocks. Communist party should push the class not national line. Especially when they are pushing imaginary national line.

Well, anybody who says that it is better now than how it was in Yugoslavia is, as you put it an idiot.

The party pushed national lines because the goal was to be united as a people. As Southern Slavs we are all literally the same except for religions and different accents. Knowing that there was still Ustasha and Chetnik and other nationalist crap left over from the war. I agree that the party shouldn't have focused on national lines, however after the war it was an understandable viewpoint. Focus should have shifted from that in the 60s early 70s when we began to prosper as a nation. Talk of national identity should have ceased, I would not even have included the question of what nationality you are in the census....

In 1989, already there was talk of secession and anti-Yugoslav rhetoric. I am telling you how it was in Bosnia, Sarajevo to be specific. People didn't even know wtf they were.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:53

Obviously, you can bet your ass CIA manipulation was a major factor as well.

Don't even get me started on the CIA...I had a man in the US ADMIT to my mother that he was sent to Yugoslavia by the US to instigate...he admitted it and acted proud of it as if he had somehow helped my people...My mother called him all sorts of names and I was borderline ready to kill him on the spot...

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:54

Number of half milion Serbs killed is nationalist propaganda from late 80's. Same goes for half milion Croats killed at Bleiburg.

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 18:55

No, we're all guilty the same. Serbia just starter the nationalist "trend". But if they didn't do it, someone else would. Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenians, Kosovar Albanians.. etc., they all had their dumb reasons. Of course, not all people wanted it. It was a small minority, but you know how propaganda works.

Serbian nationalists, as you said, wanted to create "Greater Serbia" (to annex to Serbia all countries which they think was Serbia once. This includes all of Macedonia, all of Montenegro, All of Bosnia, and 80% of Croatia).

Croatian nationalist wanted to bring back the "Indenpendent State of Croatia", which is annexing all of Bosnia and some of Serbia.

Some Bosniak nationalists wanted the Bosniak nationality to be called that, Bosniak. (In Yugoslavia they were only called "Bosnian Muslims", before that they weren't even considered a nation, but Serbs and Croats.) Others, the dumber ones, wanted to create some sort of muslim republic.. or whatever.

Slovenian nationalist wanted to ass lick the west and be like Germans (also indenpendence).

Kosovar Albanian nationalists wanted the creation of Greater Albania, which would make Kosovo a part of Albania.

Montenegrins and Macedonians didn't actually want much, as far as I know. Montenegrins usually do whatever Serbs tell them (well, they did before), and Macedonians are kinda neutral.

So, you see, they're all to blame. However, notice how I said "nationalists"? There weren't many nationalists in Yugoslavia before hell broke loose. They all sorta started emerging with their crap nazi ideals, one by one.

There's a good documentary on this subject. "The Weight of Chains". It's maybe a tiny bit biased and leans on Serbian side, but that's alright.

Искра

3rd October 2011, 18:56

Also, regarding national question in Yugoslavia check articles by Dejan Jovic. He's a liberal and an adviser of Croatian president (if you are interested in somebodies politcal belifes), but he wrote good articles and a book.

khlib

3rd October 2011, 18:58

It is impossible to place the blame on a single republic...

I think it is also important to look at international actors that contributed to the collapse of Yugoslavia, in addition to domestic parties and leaders. The fall of Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars did not occur in a vacuum. For instance, I think that Germany recognized the independence of Croatia much too early (probably caught up in the excitement of the triumph of "democracy" and the end of communism following the fall of the Berlin wall). Recognizing Croatia before agreements had a chance to be worked out or Serbian minority rights secured made the collapse of the SFRY inevitable. In addition, Croatian Serbs did not feel confident that their rights would be protected in an independent Croatia, which was a major factor in the wars.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 18:58

No, we're all guilty the same. Serbia just starter the nationalist "trend". But if they didn't do it, someone else would. Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenians, Kosovar Albanians.. etc., they all had their dumb reasons. Of course, not all people wanted it. It was a small minority, but you know how propaganda works.

Serbian nationalists, as you said, wanted to create "Greater Serbia" (to annex to Serbia all countries which they think was Serbia once. This includes all of Macedonia, all of Montenegro, All of Bosnia, and 80% of Croatia).

Croatian nationalist wanted to bring back the "Indenpendent State of Croatia", which is annexing all of Bosnia and some of Serbia.

Some Bosniak nationalists wanted the Bosniak nationality to be called that, Bosniak. (In Yugoslavia they were only called "Bosnian Muslims", before that they weren't even considered a nation, but Serbs and Croats.) Others, the dumber ones, wanted to create some sort of muslim republic.. or whatever.

Slovenian nationalist wanted to ass lick the west and be like Germans (also indenpendence).

Kosovar Albanian nationalists wanted the creation of Greater Albania, which would make Kosovo a part of Albania.

Montenegrins and Macedonians didn't actually want much, as far as I know. Montenegrins usually do whatever Serbs tell them (well, they did before), and Macedonians are kinda neutral.

So, you see, they're all to blame. However, notice how I said "nationalists"? There weren't many nationalists in Yugoslavia before hell broke loose. They all sorta started emerging with their crap nazi ideals, one by one.

Like I said...it was Clusterfuck of epic proportions...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 18:59

Искра

3rd October 2011, 19:01

No, we're all guilty the same. Serbia just starter the nationalist "trend". But if they didn't do it, someone else would. Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenians, Kosovar Albanians.. etc., they all had their dumb reasons. Of course, not all people wanted it. It was a small minority, but you know how propaganda works.

I'll quote myself to answer this, as this is an only answer regarding nationalism:

Main reason why national elites wanted their own countries was political liberalisation. Yugoslavia wanted to introduce Western multi-party system. In that kind of system the whole idea of equality between Yugoslav nations (which was main ideology of Yugoslav "socialist" elites in the Tito and Kardelj era) would fall into water. Why? Because now you would have different parties, which would be based on nationalites (such as Croatian HDZ for example) and Yugoslavia was a country where all nations were in minorty (Serbs were biggest with like 38%). So, national elites, who were affraid that other elites would take the power, decided that they should rather be big fish in small pound.

Croatian nationalist wanted to bring back the "Indenpendent State of Croatia", which is annexing all of Bosnia and some of Serbia.
Not true. Only Party of Right (which used to be ruling party of ISC in WW2) wanted to create ISC as confederation between Bosnia and Croatia. They considered Bosnians as Croats who are Muslims and still do. Croatian Democratic Union wanted only one part of Bosnia.

Montenegrins and Macedonians didn't actually want much, as far as I know. Montenegrins usually do whatever Serbs tell them (well, they did before), and Macedonians are kinda neutral.
Montenegrins stayed in small Yugoslavia (which was consisted of Montenegro and Serbia) and attacked Croatia and Bosnia. They participated in "Great Serbia" campaign.

So, you see, they're all to blame. However, notice how I said "nationalists"? There weren't many nationalists in Yugoslavia before hell broke loose. They all sorta started emerging with their crap nazi ideals, one by one.
To create national state you need nationalism. To win a war you need an extreme nationalism.

ВАЛТЕР

3rd October 2011, 19:03

What we should have had was a war against some country in the 70s...even though war would have been bad, a war we would have won would have solidified the idea of brotherhood and unity...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:04

Number of half milion Serbs killed is nationalist propaganda from late 80's.
I don't think so.
Also no one ever claimed that "half a million Croats" (near Bleiburg all sorts of domestic quislings gathered,in addition to these there were also many Domobrans and Croatian civilians) were killed in Bleiburg,even the craziest nationalists speak of max. 300k.

Also,Valter,i'd like to hear more details about that CIA agent who was sent to "instigate"...if you like you can PM me or write a post here...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:07

There weren't many nationalists in Yugoslavia before hell broke loose. They all sorta started emerging with their crap nazi ideals, one by one.
I don't know...IMO even the national "Communist" Parties were teeming with bourgeois nationalists...and even those who weren't openly nationalist pursued the ideological line of Titoism which went "hand by hand" (ruku pod ruku) with these radical right wing elements...

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 19:11

Not true. Only Party of Right (which used to be ruling party of ISC in WW2) wanted to create ISC as confederation between Bosnia and Croatia. They considered Bosnians as Croats who are Muslims and still do. Croatian Democratic Union wanted only one part of Bosnia.

Well, yes, but I was aiming for the most extreme policies. And Party of Rights one is more extreme.

Montenegrins stayed in small Yugoslavia (which was consisted of Montenegro and Serbia) and attacked Croatia and Bosnia. They participated in "Great Serbia" campaign.

That's what I said, lol. (more or less).

Also,Valter,i'd like to hear more details about that CIA agent who was sent to "instigate"...if you like you can PM me or write a post here...

Yes, me too.

khlib

3rd October 2011, 19:12

Main reason why national elites wanted their own countries was political liberalisation. Yugoslavia wanted to introduce Western multi-party system. In that kind of system the whole idea of equality between Yugoslav nations (which was main ideology of Yugoslav "socialist" elites in the Tito and Kardelj era) would fall into water. Why? Because now you would have different parties, which would be based on nationalites (such as Croatian HDZ for example) and Yugoslavia was a country where all nations were in minorty (Serbs were biggest with like 38%). So, national elites, who were affraid that other elites would take the power, decided that they should rather be big fish in small pound.

Exactly! You can see in the first democratic elections of 1990, nationalist parties won across the board. National identity became stronger than Yugoslav identity, and the different nationalist movements reinforced one another. For instance, as Croatian nationalism grew stronger in Croatia, Serbian nationalism escalated in proportion because it seemed like the only way to protect the rights of Serbs living in Croatia.

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 19:14

I don't know...IMO even the national "Communist" Parties were teeming with bourgeois nationalists...and even those who weren't openly nationalist pursued the ideological line of Titoism which went "hand by hand" (ruku pod ruku) with these radical right wing elements...

I am talking about the nationalists of suceeding repubics. The ones that wanted the war.

Though I don't really agree that Titoism was nationalism, but alright, that doesn't matter.

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:20

The national question had not been solved in the SFRY.There had been no real "brotherhood and unity" because such a thing was impeded by the capitalist nature of Yugoslavia.The Kosovo Albanians were,for example,second class citizens subjected to discrimination,and developed countries (Slovenia,Croatia...) exploited the less developed ones.

For instance, as Croatian nationalism grew stronger in Croatia, Serbian nationalism escalated in proportion because it seemed like the only way to protect the rights of Serbs living in Croatia.
Actually that happened some time earlier,and it was about Kosovo,not Serbs in Croatia.

khlib

3rd October 2011, 19:21

No,of course not,but the Serbian national bourgeoisie was among the main culprits...
In my opinion,the reasons for the violent break-up of SFRY go to year 1948. when the Yugoslav Comparty was finally expelled from the International Commnunist Movement because of its deviations from Marxist-Leninist lines...The Titoists embraced bourgeois nationalism which in the end "evolved" into "national" movements in the 80s with figures such as Slobo (Milosevic) or Tudman etc...

When you say that Titoists "embraced bourgeois nationalism" after 1948, what do you mean exactly? Are you referring to the fact that they cut themselves off from the "international" movement that the Soviets claimed to espouse (so a sort of "Yugoslav" nationalism implied by socialism in one country), or the fact that the different nationalities within Yugoslavia were legally recognized?

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:22

Meh,actually,i reckon it will take some 20-30 years before we get some truthful,objective overview of the breakup of YU...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:25

Are you referring to the fact that they cut themselves off from the "international" movement that the Soviets claimed to espouse
Yes.Which eventually degenerated into bourgeois nationalist cliques "emerging" even in individual Yugoslav Republics...

or the fact that the different nationalities within Yugoslavia were legally recognized?
No,of course,because that was the case with the USSR or any other communist country at that time.

khlib

3rd October 2011, 19:40

Yes.Which eventually degenerated into bourgeois nationalist cliques "emerging" even in individual Yugoslav Republics...

I really don't see how you can make that causal relationship. How would you explain the concurrent nationalist movements occurring in former republics of the USSR (such as Georgia) and former members of the Soviet Bloc, many of which are much more virulent than those in the Yugoslav successor states?

You honestly think that if Yugoslavia had remained a member of the Comintern, it would not have collapsed and there would have been no wars?

Threetune

3rd October 2011, 19:46

Aggressive Croat nationalism, bourgeois German intriguing with them and NATO imperialist bombers wrecked Yugoslavia.

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:52

How would you explain the concurrent nationalist movements occurring in former republics of the USSR (such as Georgia) and former members of the Soviet Bloc, many of which are much more virulent than those in the Yugoslav successor states?It is important to point out that the Yugoslav Wars involved three of its biggest and most powerful countries.A war of such scale in the USSR's context would be,for example,a war between Ukraine and Russia or something like that.
And the Soviet Union also turned revisionist and eventually "ultra-revisionist" when Gorbachov came.

You honestly think that if Yugoslavia had remained a member of the Comintern, it would not have collapsed and there would have been no wars?
Not necessarily,no,but i do think that things and the timeline of the collapse of the country would have been very different...it is of course just a hipothesis,but 40+ years of genuine socialism may have "civilized" the Yugoslavs to the point that they may have been able to pull of a Czechoslovakia style brake-up instead of the bloody Yugo-wars / may have resulted in less dangerous conditions to begin with...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 19:56

Aggressive Croat nationalism, bourgeois German intriguing with them and NATO imperialist bombers wrecked Yugoslavia. Interesting analysis...You do know when NATO made its first action in ex-Yugoslavia,right?

dinoantifaru

3rd October 2011, 20:02

well, Yugoslavia was slowly collapsing when Tito died. you see many nationalists and fascists hide to communist masks so they couldn't go to jail, or be killed. so after Tito died, nationalists wanted independant Bosnia,Croatia , Macedonia etc. and serbian nationalists wanted to have Great Serbia, and after war all these countries economicly destroyed the ex-Yugoslavia during the war , some countries less, some countries more.

DarkPast

3rd October 2011, 20:23

No, you can't blame whole nation for something. But Serbian nationalist elite within Union of Communists could be responsible, because of their represive and nationalist politics on Kosovo. Also, Croatian and Slovenian political elites were for separation, because they were most developed regions of Yugoslavia.

Anyhow nationalism (in general) is one of reasons for collapse of Yugoslavia. When people talk about nationalism and Yugoslavia they talk about some "ancient" hate between nations (especially Serbs & Croats) which is bunch of bollocks. All nations accepted Yugoslavia as their country for more than 50 years. Other reasons could be economical, ideological etc.

There is definitely something to the statement that some members of the Serbian elite in Belgrade wanted a highly centralised, Serb-dominated state. They basically wanted something more like the first Yugoslavia (though not necessarily a monarchy). Tito himself was against this and it is the main reason Kosovo and Vojvodina were granted limited autonomy. Also note that, unlike the Croatian Ustaše, the Serb Četniks were repeatedly offered amnesty by Tito during the war. This is a glaring problem in a one-party state: people who believe in different ideologies will infiltrate the communist party and pretend to be good comrades while subverting it for their own gains.

Note that the Serb elites were hardly the only ones with such plans. But they were the most powerful.

Now the real reason nationalism was able to gain such strong support is that the economy was in bad shape from around 1977 or so (when Tito stepped down from most of his roles and became a more-or-less ceremonial figure). The oil crisis was one of the reasons for this, while the other one is a gradual turning towards a free market economy, which became faster under Aleksandar Marković, around 1982 or so. It became so bad that the government took an IMF loan that they couldn't repay (just like our modern governments, eh? Though the modern governments are several times worse in this regard :thumbdown:). It is because of these internal contradictions that Yugoslavia became ever more fragile and vulnerable to foreign influence.

This brings us to...

Don't even get me started on the CIA...I had a man in the US ADMIT to my mother that he was sent to Yugoslavia by the US to instigate...he admitted it and acted proud of it as if he had somehow helped my people...My mother called him all sorts of names and I was borderline ready to kill him on the spot...

You bet the CIA was active in Yugoslavia! So were other organisations (I think one was called "Friends of Yugoslavia" or something like that) who were officially set up to help with the economy, but were actually there to undermine the county's stability, push more free market reforms and finally - according to Ronald Reagan's orders - usher in a "quiet revolution" which will put the communists out of power.

And this is exactly what happened. By 1990 the country had an unemployment rate of 15%, the army leadership had been purged by Milošević (he installed officers loyal to him), the guerrilla warfare-based doctrine of the People's army was abandoned (these things help explain why the army performed so poorly in Croatia and Bosnia)... I think you know the rest :crying:

Whether the war was planned by foreign powers I don't know. But it sure served as a good "smoke screen" for corrupt political and economic elites to plunder the country's remaining wealth through "privatisation".

Искра

3rd October 2011, 22:34

Ok, I'll now write a bigger post, since I really care about this topic, because I study Yugoslavia as „unique socialist project“ in World’s history. I think that a lot of answers here are superficial, concentrated more on a sort of a reaction then on a cause. I’ll probably repeat something I said before, so please excuse me for that.

First, a lot of people, when they talk about collapse of Yugoslavia here will talk about role of CIA and its role. I’ll dismiss big influence of CIA or KGB (or somebody else) on development of situation in Yugoslavia. Their influence was big maybe on individuals from national elites (for example right hand of Croatian president Tuđman was Gojko Šušak, guy who lived in USA before collapse of Yugoslavia and was probably CIA’s agent), but claiming that CIA had bigger influence on anything before collapse of Yugoslavia is a conspiracy theory, and therefore it’s not Marxist.

Second, so called “post-Yugoslav wars” (I wouldn’t use term “Balkan wars”, because they were something else back into history, and there were no countries beside ex-Yugoslav involved in this conflict –ok, maybe Albanian volunteers on Kosovo) were consequences of collapse of Yugoslavia not the reason for collapse. Croatian and Slovenian separations (this term dosen’t has a “moral” value in this discussion, in other words I don’t use it in bad or good connotation) believed that they could declare independence without a war. But, war happened. I’ll write about it later.

Third, in other to understand the collapse of Yugoslavia we must find reasons why did Yugoslavia collapse. Many users of this forum, especially those of Marxist-Leninist tendency, will claim that the main reason was revisionism. But in Marxist-Leninist theory, Yugoslavia was revisionist right from the start, so it’s kind of funny that it latest for more than a 50 years. So, to just say that Yugoslavia was revisionist – it’s not enough (especially when from the point of view of people like me – all state socialist regimes are revisionist. But that’s another topic.). Question is still here: what were the reasons for collapse. I’ll try to point some:

Yugoslavian state ideology was based on a few myths. I don’t use this term “myth” to refer something which is not true or which is fabricated, but I use it to name something that is almost transcendental, something which is giving sort of an identity to this community. In the case of Yugoslavia these myths were (i) National Liberation Struggle (cro. Narodno oslobodilačka borba – NOB), (ii) socialist self-management, (iii) “brotherhood and unity” (cro. “bratstvo i jedinstvo”) and (iv) cult of marshal Tito. These myths were never questioned. First, myth is saying that all nations of Yugoslavia liberated themselves using their own power, without Allied intervention (there was a small Soviet intervention in Serbia, but that’s quite irrelevant when we analyze whole struggle), and that they defeated Germans, Italians and their collaborators (Croatian Ustaše, Serbian Četnik’s and Nedić’s forces, Albanian Balije’s, Russian Čerkez’s, Slovenian White Army etc.). Yugoslav post-war propaganda always empathies great sacrifices of Yugoslav partisans, brutality of enemy etc. You can see this myth by watching Yugoslav partisan movies (which are great!). Second myth is based on struggle against Stalin and creation of specific Yugoslav socialist path – workers self-management. It’s also important to emphasize that ideology of workers self-management claimed that in order to reach communism it’s important to dissolve the Party and to let worker councils to run the factories and economy, but also neighborhoods etc. In order to dissolve Party Tito changed name of Communist Party of Yugoslavia (and all its national branches) into Union of Communists. There was no real difference in practice, but ideological idea was to include more and more people in managing the society. Of course, Yugoslav self-management was nice on paper (which is really true, it’s really interesting experiment and if you are interested you should really read about that), but, as we say here in Croatia, paper can take everything, or in other words ideology was far from reality. State never dissolved, but it grew stronger, so did Party (even Tito retired centralists – note: he didn’t killed them, he really retired them) etc., and workers never self-manage their work places, but instead of them that job was done by beurocrats – new ruling class. I won’t write much here about economy and “market socialism” since it’s not topic, but it’s important to know that this form of state capitalism was more liberal comparing to Russian (Soviet), so some forms of private property existed. Third myth was “brotherhood and unity” which is maybe most important myth in order to understand collapse of Yugoslavia. Tito and his right hand Kardelj were aware of history of nationalism of south Slavs and idea of Yugoslavia etc. Since state ideology was to dissolve the state Tito never tried to turn all people in Yugoslavs. That was idea of Aleksandar Ranković who was centralist, but he was retired in 70’s. Kardelj said that Yugoslavia is consisted of “nations” and “nationalities”. Nations were: Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians. Each nation had its republic. Serbia was special, because it also had two autonomous regions: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Nationalities were something which we would now, in liberal democracy, called minorities. Biggest were, of course, Albanians on Kosovo, but there were also Germans, Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Hungarians etc. Each nation had its own communist party (union of communists) and after Tito died each nation gave their representative into new formed body called “predsjedništvo” which ruled Yugoslavia. Also, it’s important to say that Bosnian and Macedonian nations did formally exist before Yugoslavia. We could also say something similar regarding Montenegrins. Yugoslav paradigm regarding national question in Yugoslavia is that there were no majorities and minorities. That is really important! This is what “brotherhood and unity” was all about. This principle of inclusion was everywhere. Yugoslav authorities were always trying to keep balance, so that in every important position in the country is one representative of each nation. For example in Yugoslav National Army there were 6 generals and one was Croat, one was Serbian etc. You get the picture? Problem was with some nationalities, such as Albanians who were huge in numbers but were not represented as nations were. At the end of 80’s Albanians wanted to have status of nation which was a spark for a Serbian nationalism, at least for an excuse... Forth myth was Tito’s cult... and we all know what that was about. He was hero of WW2 (he’s only Allied leader who was wounded in a war, because he was always with his troops), founder of Non-aligned movement, he showed Stalin middle finger etc. etc. In the end, his cult was glue of Yugoslav unity, and that’s why shits started to happen when he died.

All problems started when these myths were started to be questioned. We all know that Yugoslavia was more liberal than other real-socialist countries. For example there was Praxis group in Zagreb, who were Marxist-Humanists and who were saying that Yugoslav system is not socialist enough etc. But there were also a lot of liberals who started to write about civil society and shit like that. After Tito died Serbs were the first to start questioning these myths. They rehabilitated Chetnik movement as anti-fascist movement who fought against Germans but also against communism in order to save Serbs etc. Then these discussions about numbers of killed Serbs and Croats in WW2 started appear (Which is a reason I don’t wanna see them here! Go and get official documentation if you wanna discuss this but stop writing nationalistic numbers!). There’s important document made by Serbian nationalists called “Memorandum SANU” were Serbian right-wing intellectuals wrote how Serbs will be exterminated on Kosovo, or in Croatia and Bosnia. This caused few sparks and soon various other right-wing intellectuals appeared. Regarding Croatia it’s important to say that most of Croat right-wing intelligentsia was abroad, because Croats in WW2 were openly fascists, so their supporters would be put to prison in Yugoslavia. (Also, it’s interesting that Croat had one right wing episode in Yugoslavia when they tried to start a right-wing revolution with insurrectionist/terrorist squad of 17 men deployed from Austria to Bugojno in Bosnia. Most of them were shot dead by Yugoslav police and UDB, all but one who was still kid. He was killed later by Serbian sniper in 90’s while he was commanding neo-fascist Croatian paramilitary unit.)

Ok, third is over :D

Forth, the biggest reason for collapse of Yugoslavia was ideological defeat. Real-socialist regimes failed on the east. In Yugoslavia elites demanded representative/parliamentary system. The problem with representative system is, as I noticed in one of my few posts before, that it creates minority and majority which didn’t exist in Kardelj’s theory. So, in if you have parliamentary system you have parties which compete for power and national elites were scared that their nation would get fucked up. Slovenians and Croats were scared because of their economical power; Serbs were scared because of possibility that Albanians take Kosovo as another Yugoslav republic etc. Neither nation was in majority (Serbs were the biggest nation with 38% of population), so nationalist elites decided that the best way is to be biggest fish in a small pound. Also, there was a big problem of aggressive Serbian nationalism lead by Slobodan Milošević, who grabbed high position in Yugoslavia and who later caused shit on Kosovo and abolished autonomous regions: Kosovo and Vojvodina. First countries that left Yugoslavia were Slovenia and Croatia, later rest followed.

Fifth, regarding “post-Yugoslav wars” it important to emphasize that the biggest boom of nationalism came just before Slovenia and Croatia left Yugoslavia. These nationalisms were encouraged by new formed nationalists’ movements which aimed to create national states. Serbian nationalism was specific, because many Serbs lived outside of Serbia, mostly in Croatia and Bosnia, and they were victims of Belgrade’s propaganda that Croats will kill them if they don’t rebel. They were scared with new Jasenovac (Croatian concentration camp from WW2). On the other hand, which Croatia declaring independence many ex-Ustasha’s came back to Croatia. They formed a Croatian Rights Party and when Serbs started to rebel, they formed paramilitary forces called Croatian Defense Force. Then we got war in Croatia and later war in Bosnia, which are not subject of this topic. Bosnians were a new nation so they didn’t have much of a history on that part. Croatian extreme right always considered Bosnians as a Croats, so they decided to create another identity – Muslim one. So, they called on a Jihad against Serbs when they attacked them and many jihadists came to Bosnia. That case didn’t happen on Kosovo, even majority of Albanians are Muslim, because other Albanians are Catholics and jihadists would killed them.

Ok, so I wrote a lot and I’m hoping that you got what I wanted to say. I didn’t write much about foreign politics or about economy of Yugoslavia, even trough there are reasons for collapse in that part also. I concentrated on this “nationalist” part, since many people here wrote stuff which was superficial.

That’s all, and once again my pleas, especially to my ex-Yugoslav comrades, don’t play with numbers!! That’s right wing rhetoric – not Marxist.

Red Future

3rd October 2011, 22:51

Thanks to all for educating me about the issues surrounding Yugoslavia's collapse.I wasn't aware that the CIA were so deeply involved.

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 22:54

stuff

Very well put, but one little objection.

Don't get me wrong. I'm anti-nation in every way. But saying that Bosniaks are a new nation and that they don't got history is exactly what Serbian and Croatian nationalists are saying. Bosnian nation has the same history like Serbian and Croatian.

That's all.

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 22:56

Thanked you for its an interesting post,but please think twice before writing such horrible generalizations in future...

After Tito died Serbs were the first to start questioning these myths. They rehabilitated Chetnik movement as anti-fascist movement who fought against Germans but also against communism in order to save Serbs etc
All Serbs? Right...:rolleyes:
It more-less "started" from the Serbian rightwing elites in Academia and other "circles".

...because Croats in WW2 were openly fascists
*facepalm.jpg*
I also think that it would be smart and professional to replace "Croatian" with "Ustaše" in a few places of your post.

So, they called on a Jihad against Serbs when they attacked them and many jihadists came to Bosnia.
Source? For the "they declared Jihad" part?
From what i know,most Bosniaks are not really "hardcore" Muslims...
It's also important to note that a number of Serbs,Croats and others also fought in the ArBiH...

That case didn’t happen on Kosovo, even majority of Albanians are Muslim, because other Albanians are Catholics and jihadists would killed them.
From what i heard,it's because most Albanians even today aren't really religious.Hoxha's legacy i guess...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 22:58

But saying that Bosniaks are a new nation and that they don't got history is exactly what Serbian and Croatian nationalists are saying. Bosnian nation has the same history like Serbian and Croatian.
Well,Bosniaks don't,but Muslims do.:cool:
I agree with you actually.Serbian and Croatian nationalist rhetorics about Bosniaks/Muslims not being a real nation is false and should be fought against.

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:02

Very well put, but one little objection.

Don't get me wrong. I'm anti-nation in every way. But saying that Bosniaks are a new nation and that they don't got history is exactly what Serbian and Croatian nationalists are saying. Bosnian nation has the same history like Serbian and Croatian.

That's all.

I was talking about Bosnian nation. Nation as political body. Nation is connected to state and they didn't exist before Yugoslavia in that way. In our language we have word "narod" and "nacija". I was refering to "nacija". Do you understand what I was talking about? Maybe I could write in Croatian.

tir1944

I wasn't making generalisations.

All Serbs? Right...:rolleyes:
It more-less "started" from the Serbian rightwing elites in Academia and other "circles".
No, I was talking about inteligentsia. Dobrica Ćosić and the crew.

*facepalm.jpg*
I also think that it would be smart and professional to replace "Croatian" with "Ustaše" in a few places of your post.
I was referring to Croatian fascists - right-wingers. Of course that I didn't mean on all Croats. My granpather was a Croat and he was a comadant of partisan squad.

Source? For the "they declared Jihad" part?
From what i know,most Bosniaks are not really "hardcore" Muslims...
It's also important to note that a number of Serbs,Croats and others also fought in the ArBiH...
Bosnian political elites, not Bosnians were calling Jihadists. One Imam called a Jihad and lunatics came.

This is a Serb nationalist propaganda video on a Youtube, but it showes videos of mudjahedin's in Bosnia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWOl6eh1-LE

From what i heard,it's because most Albanians even today aren't really religious.Hoxha's legacy i guess...
They are Muslim (i think 60%) and Chatolics (20%).

DarkPast

3rd October 2011, 23:05

Kontrazzvedka, I agree with your post on the "nationalist" reasons for Yugoslavia's collapse. However, I must also stress that there were real, economic reasons for the collapse, which were a result of a horribly confused system (unemployment in a socialist country, worker's self-management that didn't work because politics were too involved in it etc.).

I'd suggest you have a look at this article, which also mentions there definitely was US influence at work: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

The most important bit is here:

Multiethnic, socialist Yugoslavia was once a regional industrial power and economic success. In the two decades before 1980, annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.1 percent, medical care was free, the literacy was 91 percent, and life expectancy was 72 years. But after a decade of Western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, war, boycott, and embargo, the economies of the former Yugoslavia are prostrate, their industrial sectors dismantled. Yugoslavia's implosion was partially due to US machinations. Despite Belgrade's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with the European Community and the US, the Reagan administration targeted the Yugoslav economy in a "Secret Sensitive" 1984 National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "Us Policy towards Yugoslavia." A censored version declassified in 1990 elaborated on NSDD 64 on Eastern Europe, issued in 1982. The latter advocated "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties," while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy.
The US had earlier joined Belgrade's other international creditors in imposing a first round of macroeconomics reform in 1980, shortly before the death of Marshall Tito. That initial round of restructuring set the pattern. Throughout the 1980s, the IMF and World Bank periodically prescribed further doses of their bitter economic medicine as the Yugoslav economy slowly lapsed into a coma.
From the beginning, successive IMF sponsored programs hastened the disintegration of the Yugoslav industrial sector industrial production declined to a negative 10 percent growth rate by 1990 and the piecemeal dismantling of its welfare state, with all the predictable social consequences. Debt restructuring agreements, meanwhile, increased foreign debt, and a mandated currency devaluation also hit hard at Yugoslavs' standard of living.

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:06

I know what you were talking about Kontrarazvedka,but you could,IMO,be more careful for the sake of non-YU readers here.;)
Adding a few words is sometimes essential to this...

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:07

Source? For the "they declared Jihad" part?
From what i know,most Bosniaks are not really "hardcore" Muslims...
It's also important to note that a number of Serbs,Croats and others also fought in the ArBiH...

Here's English video on Bosnian radical Muslims. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEcmn3F2dY&NR=1)

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:10

You quote implies that most Bosniaks accepted Jihadism and radical Islam,which,IMO,isn't true.
While i know that ain't true,someone not from ex-YU might think otherwise...just my opinion.
Also these guys were Bosnian radical Muslims,but most of them weren't Bosniaks:they came from Saudi Arabia,Afghanistan and god knows where else from...

Croatian extreme right always considered Bosnians as a Croats, so they decided to create another identity – Muslim one. So, they called on a Jihad against Serbs when they attacked them and many jihadists came to Bosnia.

Red Future

3rd October 2011, 23:13

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:13

Kontrazzvedka, I agree with your post on the "nationalist" reasons for Yugoslavia's collapse.
I could write later more on economical reasons (I'm tired now. My last post was quite big).

In short, I could agree that it’s because of confusing, or better to use term: contradicting system. Unemployment wasn’t so crucial in real life as it was in pro-capitalist rhetoric’s. I would say that the biggest reason was that in Yugoslavia private property existed, even it was limited, and small capitalists and directors of state enterprise wanted to be bigger fish.

Economics was important, but still Yugoslavia could for example switch to market capitalism and still exist. That was CIA’s plan after all (at least according to documents I read).

DarkPast

3rd October 2011, 23:14

Wait a sec... The Bosniak national identity (by which I do not mean the radical Islamists of the early nineties, but the moderates that tir1944 mentioned) can be traced to the 70ies, and were another of Tito's attempts to curb the power of the Belgrade elite. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14701)

@Kontrazzvedka: That's a good point, the USA probably didn't want the country to break up.

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:15

You quote implies that most Bosniaks accepted Jihadism and radical Islam,which,IMO,isn't true.
While i know that ain't true,someone not from ex-YU might think otherwise...just my opinion.
Also these guys were Bosnian radical Muslims,but most of them weren't Bosniaks:they came from Saudi Arabia,Afghanistan and god knows where else from...
Politics in national state is not created by people. It's created by elites. Of course that I'm thinking of political elites.

Ne traži dlaku u jajetu. ;)

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:16

Wait a sec... The Bosniak national identity (by which I do not mean the radical Islamists of the early nineties, but the moderates that tir1944 mentioned) can be traced to the 70ies, and were another of Tito's attempts to curb the power of the Belgrade elite.
Bosniak got a national identety in 1945 when Yugoslavia was established. That how did Tito called Muslims who lived in Bosnia.

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:19

I always thought that the Muhajeddin the Bosniaks brought in to support their efforts in the war were seen as very extreme in their interpretation of Islam among the Bosniak community and among Bosniak radicals.
You're correct.

Politics in national state is not created by people. It's created by elites. Of course that I'm thinking of political elites.
Indeed,but i still think that a degree of carefulness is necessary.In this case even "redundant" information is better than giving a chance for being misunderstood...as in the abovementioned example.;)

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 23:25

I was talking about Bosnian nation. Nation as political body. Nation is connected to state and they didn't exist before Yugoslavia in that way. In our language we have word "narod" and "nacija". I was refering to "nacija". Do you understand what I was talking about? Maybe I could write in Croatian.

I know exactly what you're talking about, and that's also what I /am/ talking about. So, in short, Bosnian nation (as in, nacija) did exist before Yugoslavia. Just like Serbian and Croatian ones did.

Here's English video on Bosnian radical Muslims. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEcmn3F2dY&NR=1)

Just like the video says, they are Mujahedins from muslim countries.. Not Bosnian muslims. There's only a handful of radical muslims in Bosnia today (vehabije), and they're a minority. You rarely see any actually (yes, you do know when you see them. They have long beards and look like they just broke out of a circus).

One more thing..

Croatian extreme right always considered Bosnians as a Croats, so they decided to create another identity – Muslim one. So, they called on a Jihad against Serbs when they attacked them and many jihadists came to Bosnia.

Can you clear this up for me? I'm not sure did I understand correctly, but are you saying that Bosnian muslims created a new identity after Yugoslavia started to collapse (a Muslim one), or did I read it wrong?

Bosniak got a national identety in 1945 when Yugoslavia was established. That how did Tito called Muslims who lived in Bosnia.

Actually, DarkPast was right. It was in the 70's. Bosniaks weren't recognized as a seperate nation (they were recognized as Serbs and Croats) until the 70's reforms. Then (even though the vast majority demanded the term "Bosniak" as a new name), they got a nation, but it was called "muslims" (small case "m"). Then, few years later, it was changed to "Muslims" (with capital "M").

Of course, I'm not talking about the "national identity", just when they were recognized in Yugoslavia.

Thirsty Crow

3rd October 2011, 23:26

Aggressive Croat nationalism, bourgeois German intriguing with them and NATO imperialist bombers wrecked Yugoslavia.
...and Slobodan Milošević, with all of his clique, was an anti-imperialist, and of course Srebrenica massacre was abnormally exaggerated by the imperialist propaganda machine.

Yeah, I remember your particular attitude towards the latter (Srebrenica).

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:30

...and Slobodan Milošević, with all of his clique, was an anti-imperialist, and of course Srebrenica massacre was abnormally exaggerated by the imperialist propaganda machine.
Well,Slobo indeed was,at one point, (the '99 NATO war against FRY),objectively an anti-imperialist.So was Hussein or Gadafi...

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:40

Ok, so what I was saying is that of course that people who inhabitant Bosnia existed before 40’s. Because of Ottoman’s many people there were Muslims. So, when in the 19th century “national spring” came and when Croatian and Serbian nations were established that didn’t happen in Bosnia. In Bosnia there were different names for Slavic-Muslim population and both Serbian and Croatian nationalists tried to say that these people are actually Serbs or Croats. For example founder of Croatian Rights Party (not fascist in that period!) Ante Starčević, also know as Father of Homeland (cro. Otac Domovine) in Croatia, said that Bosnian Muslims are actually Croatian aristocracy which inhabitant Bosnia in mileages which switched into Islam to keep their pure Croatian blood (because Muslims would never rape Muslim women). I don’t know Serbian side of a story, because I didn’t read their right wing books and authors. Austro-Hungarian Empire took Bosnia from Ottoman Empire. After that there was a WW1 and then first Yugoslavia (in all its 3 names). During that period, Slavic-Muslims from Bosnia were called Muslims. Their parties were Muslim etc. and they took Yugoslav ideology (except one party which name I forgot which was pro-fascist). During the WW2 Bosnia was part of Independent State of Croatia, they were considered Croat-Muslims and a lot of people participated in Waffen SS divisions Handzar and Kama. Muslims were called “flowers of Croat people”. So, we finally come to 1945 when Socialist Yugoslavia was founded and Bosnia was one of its republics. It’s true that in 1974 when constitution was written Bosnia got its borders and Bosnian Muslims were called Bosniaks. When partisans established Bosnia as one of Yugoslav republics they created a space for Bosniak nation to be created. Because nation is defined by its state, or the state it want to create (in the case of Kurdish people for example).

I don’t claim that Bosniak in 90’s were all crazy Muslim jihadists. No. I claim that their political elites turned into that direction so that they could get extra troops to defend their national state. Bosniaks themselves were not so radical; even some people participated in such brigades and even in Croatian Defence Force (fascist paramilitary force - here (http://hos-91.jimdo.com/naslovnica/oznake-i-znakovlje-hos-a/#)you can find their symbols if you don't beleive me).

I hope that we are finished with Bosniaks and that you can understand what I’m talking about.

DarkPast

3rd October 2011, 23:43

Bosniak got a national identety in 1945 when Yugoslavia was established. That how did Tito called Muslims who lived in Bosnia.

Yes, I know, but the national status of the Bosniaks was still subject to much debate up to the 70ies. There's a good article about this to be found here, when/if you have the time and inclination:

http://www.iis.unsa.ba/izdavacka_djelatnost/periodika/prilozi/prilozi_38.pdf

The article in question is Husnija Kamberović, Stav političke elite o nacionalnom identitetu Muslimana u Bosni i Hercegovini sredinom 1960-ih godina (The author also wrote several other articles on the subject of Bosniak national identity)

Thirsty Crow

3rd October 2011, 23:43

Well,Slobo indeed was,at one point, (the '99 NATO war against FRY),objectively an anti-imperialist.So was Hussein or Gadafi...
You don't know what imperialism is if you really think that opposition towards the "West", arisen from internal despotism and outright oppression of a minority, is enough for a regime to be deemed anti-imperialist (though, in fact, an "anti-imperialist" regime is a contradiction in terms in our contemporary epoch).

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:47

I'm not really sure...does opposing the complete Imperialist takeover of a country(Kosovo) (and coming under armed NATO aggression for that) does not make one objectively an anti-imperialist?

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:50

Mate, you really have a problem. How anti-imperialist is making genocide in the name of nationalist utopia called Great Serbia? Hating AmeriKKKa doesn’t make you an anti-imperialist. Above Russia is biggest ally of Serbia...

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:53

Relax bro,it's not my own opinion.;)
I despise Slobo.
But the fact that there are communists who think Slobo (and Saddam and Co.) was an anti-imperialist deserves to be commented on,don't you think so?
I heard Parenti for example called him an anti-imperialist,tho i can't say i've read that work of his...

Yugo45

3rd October 2011, 23:54

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:55

R
But the fact that there are communists who think Slobo (and Saddam and Co.) was an anti-imperialist deserves to be commented on,don't you think so?
No, cause they are not a communist, but a bunch of idots ;)

tir1944

3rd October 2011, 23:57

No, cause they are not a communist, but a bunch of idots
I guess i can "borrow" that argument from you in case such a topic comes to discussion some day...;)

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:58

My point was.. Those names "Muslims", "Slavic-Muslims", etc., weren't self-taken by Bosniaks. Bosniaks considered themselves Bosniaks (even most of Bosnian catholics did until late 19th century. Look up Bosanian Franciscans). Those names were given to them by the empires/countries that were at the time ruling over them. So, under Ottomans they were just considered people that live in Ottoman region of Bosnia (Bosanski pašaluk). Under Austro-Hungarians they were called "Muhamedanci", in Kingdom of SHS, just Serbs or Croats. In Indenpendent State of Croatia, Croats. In early SFR Yugoslavia, Serbs or Croats. In 70's Yugoslavia, Muslims.

Sorry for going on and on about this, but I just wanted to clear it up :)
I think that we are thinking the same thing but talking in a different way, so there's no point in continuing this ;)

Искра

3rd October 2011, 23:59

I guess i can "borrow" that argument from you in case such a topic comes to discussion some day...;)
In a case of peolple who think that it's communist to support nationalistic idiot and a buthcer no other argument is needed.

tir1944

4th October 2011, 00:03

I imagine one might then ask,for example :"Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact communist?"...;)

Искра

4th October 2011, 00:08

I doubt that division of Poland is a topic of this thread.

tir1944

4th October 2011, 00:09

Sorry,yeah,it was a rather poor analogy.But that Pact wasn't really about...meh,offtopic.:D
Hmm...maybe Communists opposing the 2003 Invasion of Iraq would be a better example,dunno.:confused:

nowarbutclasswar

4th October 2011, 09:40

An interesting “coincidence” about most of the major players on the political scene in Yugoslavia from the early 90’s is that they’ve all spent years living and working abroad (Tudjman, Milosevic, Seselj, Djindjic etc) prior to returning to Yugoslavia in the 80’s... :glare:... things don’t just happen by accident... I believe there was a systematic plan to destroy Yugoslavia from the outside, as it was a socialist state in Europe and hence a market which needed to be penetrated. That is the essence. Now, with all that in mind, determining which of the republics or ethnicity is more responsible for the break up is pointless – everyone is equally guilty for letting themselves become manipulated because no nation is better off today than it was while in Yugoslavia.

We can say along legal lines Croatia had no right to secede because the Serbs (regarded as a constitutional people of Yugoslavia) living in Croatia had to vote for secession as well. The Tudjman government ignored this basic law and declared independence unilaterally, but yet wanted to keep the SFR Yugoslavian borders of Croatia. Bosnia is the same thing. Any republic could secede only if all constitutional ethnic group living within that republic agreed, which they never did. The question regarding Greater Serbia is also tied in with SFRY borders. You cannot on one hand ignore statute of SFR Yugoslavia regarding secession but on the other recognize its internal borders as you see fit. Either we adhere to the laws and keep the borders, or if we’re not following the laws then we make new borders. These injustices and contradictions were what sparked the war. Therefore Greater Serbia was not really an imperialist adventure – if Croatia and Bosnia can unilaterally secede from Yugoslavia than Krajina and Republika Srpska should be allowed to secede from Croatia and Bosnia. Serbs did commit atrocities like all sides but cannot be blamed any more than the others for the war in Yugoslavia.

Veovis

4th October 2011, 10:42

I kind of miss Yugoslavia, mostly because it was so fun to say. :(

Pf__yM7WV8Y

DarkPast

4th October 2011, 10:50

We can say along legal lines Croatia had no right to secede because the Serbs (regarded as a constitutional people of Yugoslavia) living in Croatia had to vote for secession as well. The Tudjman government ignored this basic law and declared independence unilaterally, but yet wanted to keep the SFR Yugoslavian borders of Croatia. Bosnia is the same thing. Any republic could secede only if all constitutional ethnic group living within that republic agreed, which they never did. The question regarding Greater Serbia is also tied in with SFRY borders. You cannot on one hand ignore statute of SFR Yugoslavia regarding secession but on the other recognize its internal borders as you see fit. Either we adhere to the laws and keep the borders, or if we’re not following the laws then we make new borders. These injustices and contradictions were what sparked the war. Therefore Greater Serbia was not really an imperialist adventure – if Croatia and Bosnia can unilaterally secede from Yugoslavia than Krajina and Republika Srpska should be allowed to secede from Croatia and Bosnia. Serbs did commit atrocities like all sides but cannot be blamed any more than the others for the war in Yugoslavia.

I think the problem here - from a legal, not ethical standpoint - is that Croatia and Bosnia were constituent parts of the Federation, while Krajina and Republika Srpska were not.

DarkPast

4th October 2011, 10:58

No, cause they are not a communist, but a bunch of idots ;)

I guess i can "borrow" that argument from you in case such a topic comes to discussion some day...;)

I've met such people... they're basically the local version of Nazbols :mad:

nowarbutclasswar

4th October 2011, 11:06

I think the problem here - from a legal, not ethical standpoint - is that Croatia and Bosnia were constituent parts of the Federation, while Krajina and Republika Srpska were not.

This is true, but also from a legal perspective Croatia and Bosnia could not secede from Yugoslavia without consent from all constituent nations living in these republics (Serbs and Croats in Croatia; Serbs, Muslims, and Croats in Bosnia). Therefore, you can't pick and chose which part of the constitution you want to adhere to and which one you don't. If Croatia can separate without Serbian consent and as such overrule the constitution, then why should the borders guaranteed by that same constitution be respected?

Искра

4th October 2011, 14:52

We can say along legal lines Croatia had no right to secede because the Serbs (regarded as a constitutional people of Yugoslavia) living in Croatia had to vote for secession as well.
There was a plebiscit and cca. 90% of population voted on it for secession. That is a historical fact.

Regarding your theory that Yugoslavia was destroyed from outside - that's conspirecy theory.

Also, funny that you mentioned Djindjic since he was arrested in Yugoslavia because of "Maoism". He also translated Kropotkin on Serbocroatian, which was one of the first translations of Kropotkin on our languages. Funny thing, right? ;)

tir1944

4th October 2011, 14:59

Some say that the Serbs from Krajina had a right for self-determination-secession...
Though,the question is,when does this "right" start to "apply"? When some people make up 51,60,65,or 75 % of the total population of some area?
It's a touchy subject...

Seth

4th October 2011, 18:12

I'm just an American, but the impression I get of the whole Balkan ethnic shitstorm is that it's just conflict between regional groups with different political/religious history but who essentially speak the same exact language, at most with regional dialects like we have in the US such as the deep south or New England (which can sometimes be hard to understand for someone not from those areas). So it's a power play by some elites in all camps.

Yugo45

4th October 2011, 18:27

Nox

4th October 2011, 18:32

MattShizzle

4th October 2011, 18:51

The same Nationalist shit in that region was the immediate cause of WWI. Of course it was going to happen regardless due to Nationalist shit from the major powers.

Yugo45

4th October 2011, 19:23

The same Nationalist shit in that region was the immediate cause of WWI. Of course it was going to happen regardless due to Nationalist shit from the major powers.

No, not really actually.

World War I's immediate cause was a wish from South Slavic nations to be freed from Austro-Hungarian opression.

Nox

4th October 2011, 20:54

wish from South Slavic nations to be freed from Austro-Hungarian opression.

Also known as 'nationalism'

Yugo45

4th October 2011, 21:31

I should of said "South Slavic people" instead of "nations". My bad.

nowarbutclasswar

4th October 2011, 22:15

There was a plebiscit and cca. 90% of population voted on it for secession. That is a historical fact.

Regarding your theory that Yugoslavia was destroyed from outside - that's conspirecy theory.

Also, funny that you mentioned Djindjic since he was arrested in Yugoslavia because of "Maoism". He also translated Kropotkin on Serbocroatian, which was one of the first translations of Kropotkin on our languages. Funny thing, right? ;)

That may be so but it does not make the secession legal because independance was declared without the consent of Serbs living in Croatia, whom the Yugoslav constitution regarded as a constituent nation and whose consent was necessary for a legal secession. Furthermore, the Yugoslav constitution guaranteed contituent nations (not republics) the right to self determination and secession and therefore Serbs had the right to secede from Croatia or Bosnia.

Djindjic was a far-left dissident at first but upon his return to Yugoslavia in the late 80's he founded a pro-western liberal party. His policies basically opened the door for western capital in Serbia after 2000. It is funny that his views would take such a 180, and it is an indication (at least to me) that he was serving outside interests.

khlib

4th October 2011, 22:35

I should of said "South Slavic people" instead of "nations". My bad.

It WAS nationalism, but unlike the nationalist movements of the 1990's, the Illyrian and Yugoslav nationalist movements sought to emphasize the similarities shared among the different South Slavic ethnic groups (such as language and folk culture). These movements were formed in response to political oppression under the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and the threat of Maygarization.

The nationalist movements of the 1990's were the exact opposite, emphasizing the differences between the groups, such as religion. The different South Slavic ethnic groups saw one another as their greatest threat, rather than a foreign empire.

Искра

5th October 2011, 03:22

It really is an utter shitstorm; the Christian nations hate the Muslim nations, Greece hates Macedonia, Serbia hates everyone, and everyone hates Albania.
And your posts are an utter spam.

The same Nationalist shit in that region was the immediate cause of WWI. Of course it was going to happen regardless due to Nationalist shit from the major powers.
I wasn't cause of WW1. Cause was change of dominant ideology within Yugoslavia and secession. As I pointed few times: you need nationalism to form nation-state, as you need an extreme nationalism to win a war. It’s quite simple.

Yugo45 point is really good.

World War I's immediate cause was a wish from South Slavic nations to be freed from Austro-Hungarian opression.

Still there are few things to correct. Only “Yugoslav nations” within Austro-Hungarian Empire (Slovenians, Croatians, Bosnians and Croat and Bosnian Serbs) wanted to be freed from Austro-Hungarian Empire and to enter into a new state with Kingdom of Serbia. That state will eventually become monarchist Yugoslavia (how, when etc. is not a topic here, so I won’t write about that.). Serbs from Kingdom of Serbia didn’t want that. They wanted to created Great Serbia (in other words they demanded territorial compensations after WW1: Vojvodina, Srijem, part of Slavonia, Bosnia etc), but they also kept “Yugoslav ace” in their sleeve.

Of course, I’m talking only about national elites.

Also known as 'nationalism'
It was not exactly a nationalism, because they wanted to create Yugoslav country. It was a project of Yugoslav panslavism...

It WAS nationalism, but unlike the nationalist movements of the 1990's, the Illyrian and Yugoslav nationalist movements sought to emphasize the similarities shared among the different South Slavic ethnic groups (such as language and folk culture). These movements were formed in response to political oppression under the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and the threat of Maygarization.

Ok, now with the Illyrian movement and stuff you dragged us back into 19th century and into “process of creating” Yugoslav nations. First it’s important to explain to users who are not familiar with Yugoslavia what was an “Illyrian movement”. It was 19th century’s Croatian nationalist movement which claimed that Croats, Slovenians and Serbs are Illyrians. Later came movements which founded Yugoslav theory. So, “Yugoslav identity” and political union based on that principle was firstly bourgeois concept which was supported by Croat, Slovenian and Serbian political elites in Austro-Hungarian Empire. Serbs in Kingdom of Serbia were never so keen on that concept, because they had an idea of Great Serbia. Notable Serbian politician Nikola Pašić once said that “Yugoslav identity is like pouring water in strong Serbian wine”.

But regarding monarchist and socialist Yugoslavia’s and concept of Yugoslav national identity it’s important to emphasize one difference. Bourgeois concept of Yugoslav national unity was progressive idea. That concept was one step before its time and it preached unity between tree Yugoslav nations: Croats, Serbians and Slovenians (original name of monarchist Yugoslavia was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians). But in a case of socialist concept of Yugoslav national identity I’m not sure if that was so progressive, because socialist regime should put emphasize on CLASS question and not so on NATIONAL question. But that would lead us to a much bigger discussion regarding certain strategies from National Liberation Struggle (such as concept of National front for example) to collapse of Yugoslavia. Today, Yugoslav identity is dead thing, and in my opinion communists/socialist etc. in ex-Yugoslavia countries shouldn’t promote it. Instead of that we should concentrate on class concepts and class struggle.

Djindjic was a far-left dissident at first but upon his return to Yugoslavia in the late 80's he founded a pro-western liberal party. His policies basically opened the door for western capital in Serbia after 2000. It is funny that his views would take such a 180, and it is an indication (at least to me) that he was serving outside interests.
Oh, stop with the CIA conspiracy theories. Djindjic won power not because he was a spy, but because he was in good arrangement with Serbian mafia and he was young, charismatic politician with a “dream” of democratic Serbia. He was basically, regarding his PR and rhetoric, quite opposite of other candidates. Regarding his “ideological switch” he was a man with an ambition and his far-left political beliefs belonged to his collage youth. That’s actually something quite normal.

nowarbutclasswar

5th October 2011, 03:57

Oh, stop with the CIA conspiracy theories. Djindjic won power not because he was a spy, but because he was in good arrangement with Serbian mafia and he was young, charismatic politician with a “dream” of democratic Serbia. He was basically, regarding his PR and rhetoric, quite opposite of other candidates. Regarding his “ideological switch” he was a man with an ambition and his far-left political beliefs belonged to his collage youth. That’s actually something quite normal.

Do you honestly believe that no outside interests played a role in the dissolution of Yugoslavia? They played the biggest role and there is countless documented instances that point to foreign middling in Yugoslav affairs since the 80's. I wouldn't even know where to begin. CIA even admitted that the head of Yugoslavian intelligence (Jovica Stanisic) was their agent, and you don't think a PRO-WESTERN NEOLIBERAL ADVOCATE was acting on their behalf? Plus, I think it is standard procedure that intelligence agencies through various forms of subversion destabilize other nations. This is also very well documented. Why would it be any different in Yugoslavia's case?

tir1944

5th October 2011, 10:18

They played the biggest roleHardly...

I mean,the West's "best friend" in YU was Ante Marković (a neoliberal democrat etc.Yugo-prime minister...),from what i know,and he eventually got "pushed aside" by Slobo,Franjo & Co...

Искра

5th October 2011, 13:23

They played the biggest role
No, they didn't. Actually most of the West wanted Yugoslavia to just change to market capitalism and liberal democracy. The biggest role was played by nationalist elites.

JFB.anon

5th October 2011, 17:41

Ok, I'm a pretty leftist guy. I know that its retarded to blame people for anything in this capitalist society, blaming a hobo for his supposed poverty is like blaming the cripple for not being able to walk.

However, despite being a vitriolic anti-racist...

Yes. It is entirely the Serbs fault as to why the first, successful worker's state crashed and burned. Saying otherwise is dishonest.

Perhaps you could say that the Oil crisis that threw Eastern Europe into economic chaos precipitated Serb nationalism and that it's more rational to say that Slobodan Milosevic is merely an exploitative fuck who took advantage of economic discontent, but that doesn't change anything. Serb nationalism ruined Yugoslavia.

4 Leaf Clover

8th October 2011, 21:24

That [insert country name] is fault for so called "collapse" of Yugoslavia is long running imperialist propaganda bullshit. We all know that Yugoslavia didn't collapse. Yugoslavia was destroyed violently with great international interference in war , actually helping development of war as oppose to their claims of playing "peace" role. Not only the west lead propaganda to speed up the separation of Yugoslavia , but they armed and helped forces organize attacks on towns and villages and helped build front lines.

The reason behind "collapse" theory , is that Yugoslav nations are made clear and convinced that Yugoslavia is impossible , and that it couldn't have worked. To tell what would happen if the nations wanted to unite again. This hatred theory is mainstream today , and people believe it.