Some questions about Yugoslavia

[The Young Pioneer]

Recently became interested in learning about Yugoslavian history and I have to admit to general stupidity about the region as the US educational system doesn't deem it important. There is only so much research I can do on my own, but if there's one thing I've learned, it's that it's a highly neglected but vitally important piece of history to be aware of.

That said, if anyone can help me with some answers, I'd be most appreciative! :)

1. Who did the West support when the break up began, and who does the West support now? I have heard it argued that the West supported the seceding countries, and I have also heard that the West supported Serbia (who was trying to preserve Yugoslavia). At present, it seems to me that the West supports everyone BUT Serbia.

2. Where does communism fall into play with this? Is there an online resource where I could read Tito's writings?

3. Is Croatia at fault for its claims of self defense concerning Krajina, etc? Is it true that it was actually the Croats that destroyed Dubrovnik?

4. Similar to number three...Is Serbia at fault for its claims of seeking the preservation of Yugoslavia with its actions against Bos/Herz, etc?


Feel free to correct any of the info I have put in the questions above. Like I said, I have just started learning about this and don't exactly know much. Thanks again. Or, uh, Hvala. ;)

[Искра]

1. Who did the West support when the break up began, and who does the West support now? I have heard it argued that the West supported the seceding countries, and I have also heard that the West supported Serbia (who was trying to preserve Yugoslavia). At present, it seems to me that the West supports everyone BUT Serbia.
Firstly, your questions are kind of shallow (which is ok, because you don’t know much about situation here) and you’ll hear a lot of stupid answers by people with certain nationalist sentiments. When we talk about fall of Yugoslavia the most important thing is that there are no “good” or “bad” nations. National elites wanted independence because Yugoslavia wanted to implement liberal parliamentary democracy in which certain national group could become minority in sense of political representation.

I wrote a huge post on that subject here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2250406&postcount=40

I believe this one is also good: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2282906&postcount=24

Now, regarding West. Firstly West didn’t recognise anyone. Later, Croatia and Slovenia were recognised because of their diplomatic relationships with Vatican and Germany. Still, during the war West put weapon embargo on Croatia. Nobody supported Serbia because of its actions in Bosnia, Croatia and on Kosovo, which were later used as excuse for NATO intervention, which later gave USA opportunity to install puppet state of Kosovo (which is biggest USA base on Balkans). The fact that Serbia was attacked by NATO doesn’t make it anti-imperialist “force”. Actually, reality is quite opposite as Serbia was imperialist force in 90’s wars. Anyhow, we as communists shouldn’t take sides in such events but strongly protest against war and imperialism.


2. Where does communism fall into play with this? Is there an online resource where I could read Tito's writings? http://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/index.htm

I've also posted interesting article in Yugoslav Study Group.


3. Is Croatia at fault for its claims of self defense concerning Krajina, etc? Is it true that it was actually the Croats that destroyed Dubrovnik? Dubrovnik was destroyed by Serbian and Montenegrin paramilitary forces (Chetniks) which were supplied by Yugoslav National Army.


4. Similar to number three...Is Serbia at fault for its claims of seeking the preservation of Yugoslavia with its actions against Bos/Herz, etc?Serbian bourgeoisie didn’t wanted to “preserve Yugoslavia”, but to create ethnical clean Great Serbia. Their actions in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo were imperialist.

[The Young Pioneer]

I think I love you. :D

Thank you for your quick and helpful response.

I realise my questions were shallow, but that is partly because I wanted to remain politically correct with my questions and not have my own opinions slip in there, possibly affecting people's responses. However, the replies you have given me reaffirm some of my own research, so I will try to move forward more openly. I appreciate your unbiased answer and agree as a communist one should not pick sides.


Dubrovnik was destroyed by Serbian and Montenegrin paramilitary forces (Chetniks) which were supplied by Yugoslav National Army.

I was told by a friend of mine that the Croatians set Dubrovnik on fire to make the Serbs look bad. Is there any proof of this, or counter argument?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I was told by a friend of mine that the Croatians set Dubrovnik on fire to make the Serbs look bad. Is there any proof of this, or counter argument?


Your friend is wrong. I was in Montenegro when I was young during the war. I remember the rockets being fired on Dubrovnik all day.

[Искра]

I was told by a friend of mine that the Croatians set Dubrovnik on fire to make the Serbs look bad. Is there any proof of this, or counter argument?
This is a conspiracy theory.

I can’t help you much with that. If you have some questions regarding Yugoslavia as country and system I’ll gladly help you.

Btw. here is a video where you can see attack on Dubrovnik. It's taken from some Croatian nationalist site, but well... can't find anything else.

WE0pHt6L6yE

[Yugo45]

About the first one..

It's very important to note that the West, especially USA, supported the break-up of Yugoslavia, and in fact funded many people to work towards it's break up. This is a fact, and there was actually a law in USA to support the break-up. The reason was, because the foreign debt would go waaaaaaay up. Which happened. The foreign debt of Yugoslavia was 14 billion dollars, and it was lowering pretty fast. Today, all Yugoslav countries together owe more then 100 billion dollars.

I will post my sources later, but you can look it up yourself if you want. If you wanna know more about this, actually, I recommend watching the film "The Weight of Chains".

And about the Dubrovnik.. The thing your friend said is just silly. I heard those conspiracy theories about the war in Bosnia as well. Saying that Bosniaks themselves sieged their own capital for 4 years, killing 6000 civilians.

Those are obviously not true, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I think Kontra answered your other questions pretty good, more or less.

[The Young Pioneer]

Thank you all. :)

I have been told about Weight of Chains before, but it was the same friend who said the Croatians destroyed Dubrovnik so I wasn't sure if it was a legit film :p I have seen some footage of the Dubrovnik attacks and his theory didn't make sense to me. I'm sort of glad no one has sources that can "prove" it.

Thanks again for the links and info, anyone else feel free to add.

[khlib]

Hi Liza! Welcome to the board. I'm glad to see another member interested in the SFRY. Don't worry; your questions show a greater understanding of the wars than I hear from most Americans. Now, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability, as well as respond to the previous answers.


1. Who did the West support when the break up began, and who does the West support now? I have heard it argued that the West supported the seceding countries, and I have also heard that the West supported Serbia (who was trying to preserve Yugoslavia). At present, it seems to me that the West supports everyone BUT Serbia.
The West generally supported the right of Slovenia and Croatia to secede, Germany being the first to recognize Croatia's independence. They put an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia (not just Croatia, Kontrra), but Serbia had most of the JNA's heavy artillery already. The U.S. only reluctantly got involved in the wars. Clinton had read some awful book called Balkan Ghosts that influenced his foreign policy a great deal, and convinced him there was nothing that could be done for the Balkans. Only when photos reminiscent of WWII concentration camps surfaced and non-profit orgs put the heat on did the U.S. take action. UN troops in the Balkans were instructed not to get actively involved however (they were jokingly called the un-protection forces, instead of UN protection forces). So in terms of actual policy, it is more fuzzy, but in the Western media, the story is almost always about the genocidal chauvinistic Serbs vs. the innocent Croats and Bosniaks.


2. Where does communism fall into play with this? Is there an online resource where I could read Tito's writings?
Communism was not really a factor in the wars. Even if the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia did not secede, it would not have remained a communist state (as we can see, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was the state that Montenegro and Serbia formed after the breakup of the SFRY, was no longer communist). Therefore, the JNA was not fighting to preserve communism, but rather to preserve the federation. Interestingly, however, at the beginning, they continued to use communist symbols.
And the link that Kontrra posted for Tito's writings is the best that I know of.


3. Is Croatia at fault for its claims of self defense concerning Krajina, etc? Is it true that it was actually the Croats that destroyed Dubrovnik?
As previous posters noted, Croats did not destroy Dubrovnik; that is a conspiracy theory. The first part of your question is more difficult to answer. Operation Storm is considered by most Croats to be a decisive, victorious, and valiant operation in their national liberation. NATO actually helped plan it and remove Serbian blockades. Now, Ante Gotovina is being charged by the Hague for war crimes in relation to that operation. So, the West has flip-flopped a lot concerning the justness of this military operation.


4. Similar to number three...Is Serbia at fault for its claims of seeking the preservation of Yugoslavia with its actions against Bos/Herz, etc?
Again, it is very hard to say whether a side was "at fault" during a war. There are many different standards to use; the most common are parameters set up by international law, and those are usually biased toward the West. Even within international law, there is always a conflict between the right to self-determination and the right to sovereignty/territorial integrity, which is a question that these wars brought to the forefront. Was it a civil war (like the American civil war) where Serbia was rightfully protecting the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, or was it an irredentist war, where Serbia was invading independent countries that had rightfully seceded? One thing to note is that in the Yugoslav constitution, there were different conditions outlined that said when a republic could secede from the federation.

[Искра]

They put an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia (not just Croatia, Kontrra), but Serbia had most of the JNA's heavy artillery already.
I know, but since Serbia got weapons and artillery of World's 3rd armed force, they really didn't care about embargo.


So in terms of actual policy, it is more fuzzy, but in the Western media, the story is almost always about the genocidal chauvinistic Serbs vs. the innocent Croats and Bosniaks. Ethnical cleaning happened. Ovčara and Srebrenica happened. It’s fact that Croat and Bosniak/Mudjahedin’s committed various “war crimes” and ethical cleansing, but that doesn’t give you right to write like this. Genocides are not to play with. Also, I don’t see the point of making any national group “victim”, because after all proletariat was butchered on all three, or four (if we count Kosovo) sides.


Communism was not really a factor in the wars. Even if the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia did not secede, it would not have remained a communist state (as we can see, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was the state that Montenegro and Serbia formed after the breakup of the SFRY, was no longer communist). Yugoslavia was never communist, because there's no such thing as communism in one state. It was a class society.


Therefore, the JNA was not fighting to preserve communism, but rather to preserve the federation.JNA was not fighting to preserve federation but they were fighting for Great Serbia. They were one tool in the hands of Serbian imperialism and bourgeoisie. If they were fighting for preserving federation they wouldn’t commit ethnic cleansing. Also, most of the officers and soldiers who were not Serbs or Montenegrins deserted and joined armed forces of their nations. This is especially important when it comes to Albanian conscripts which consisted really big percentage of JNA’s conscripts, because of Albanian “baby boom”. They later joined UÇK.


Interestingly, however, at the beginning, they continued to use communist symbols. Usage of “communist” symbols was just part of propaganda, because Serbian bourgeoisie wanted to send a message to outside world that they are just fighting to preserve Yugoslavia, so that they could cause diplomatic status que regarding Slovenian and Croatian recognition.


Again, it is very hard to say whether a side was "at fault" during a war. War is product of imperialist tensions covered in nationalism. In order to build new national state you need nationalism, but problem with nationalism is that it’s highly emotional ideology and you can not control it that easily. Each nationalism creates its myths and program of “great nation”. We shouldn’t even discuss “fault issue”, as its not Marxist concept nor do we get anything from that. That’s up to liberals and conservatives to deal with. Marxism is about proletarian internationalism.


There are many different standards to use; the most common are parameters set up by international law, and those are usually biased toward the WestIs bourgeuise war law important at all? What's the purpose of that law? I don't remember that Allies were ever prosecuted for their war crimes in WW2...

[tir1944]

I know, but since Serbia got weapons and artillery of World's 3rd armed force, they really didn't care about embargo.
This is idiocy.JNA the World's 3rd armed force?:laugh: It had less modern thanks than East Germany did and it's airforce was on Bulgaria's level.


It’s fact that Croat and Bosniak/Mudjahedin’s committed various “war crimes
Why the apostrophes?


but that doesn’t give you right to write like this.
Really? How's that? Is her remark false maybe,namely the "
...the story is almost always about the genocidal chauvinistic Serbs vs. the innocent Croats and Bosniaks" part?


Yugoslavia was never communist, because there's no such thing as communism in one state.
Yeah,play smart and ignore what the term "communist state" can mean in "everyday" discourse,even on this board.:laugh:


JNA was not fighting to preserve federation but they were fighting for Great Serbia.
Where's your evidence for this claim?


They were one tool in the hands of Serbian imperialism and bourgeoisie.
How so and in what way?



If they were fighting for preserving federation they wouldn’t commit ethnic cleansing.
Again,what's the logic behind this? Seems like a non-sequitur.


Also, most of the officers and soldiers who were not Serbs or Montenegrins deserted and joined armed forces of their nations.
Eh,during the war with Slovenia only some 20% of JNA forces involved were made up of ethnic Serbs (the 5th Military district that was put to action in Slovenia actually had more Croats than Serbs).


because Serbian bourgeoisie wanted to send a message to outside world that they are just fighting to preserve Yugoslavia, so that they could cause diplomatic status que regarding Slovenian and Croatian recognition.
Why would they want to do that if the West was poised on dismembering Yugoslavia,as the Belgrade TV remarked about every day?


War is product of imperialist tensions covered in nationalism.
And how does this relate to the 90s wars?
What definition of "imperialism" are you using?


I don't remember that Allies were ever prosecuted for their war crimes in WW2..

That was her point precisely...

[khlib]

I know, but since Serbia got weapons and artillery of World's 3rd armed force, they really didn't care about embargo.
It is still important to be clear, especially when you are teaching someone about the history of the war. Spreading lies and misinformation is not productive.


Ethnical cleaning happened. Ovčara and Srebrenica happened. It’s fact that Croat and Bosniak/Mudjahedin’s committed various “war crimes” and ethical cleansing, but that doesn’t give you right to write like this. Genocides are not to play with. Also, I don’t see the point of making any national group “victim”, because after all proletariat was butchered on all three, or four (if we count Kosovo) sides.
Kontrra, calm down. No one is denying that ethnic cleansing occurred, and I am certainly not writing in such a way as to suggest it. I am simply saying that the war was very complicated, and the Western media boiled it down to a simple narrative with clear-cut villains (the Serbs) and victims (the Croats and Bosniaks).


JNA was not fighting to preserve federation but they were fighting for Great Serbia.
At the very beginning they were, otherwise there would have been no conflict over Slovenia (where no Serbs lived). For many soldiers, it remained unclear what they were fighting for even later in the war.


Is bourgeuise war law important at all? What's the purpose of that law? I don't remember that Allies were ever prosecuted for their war crimes in WW2...
Err, yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. If international law was applied uniformly to all states and leaders, George Bush Jr. would certainly be rotting in a Hague cell with Karadzic.

[The Young Pioneer]

If international law was applied uniformly to all states and leaders, George Bush Jr. would certainly be rotting in a Hague cell with Karadzic.

Oh, but a girl can dream! :thumbup:

I agree with the posts pointing out that there were war crimes on both sides. It's never good to fault one side entirely and leave another blameless. An unfortunate end to a good idea- a common theme in history.

As for the quest for greater Serbia, how is that different than preserving the federation? Wasn't Belgrade already the control center for Yugoslavia? Maybe I don't understand this bit well enough.

Back to the bit about the West's initial views of the wars- I seem to recall the UN being upset with Croatia not taking more Bosnian refugees, which seemed to be a pretty nice way of overlooking *why* Bosnians needed refuge in the first place? My two cents. ;)

[tir1944]

I seem to recall the UN being upset with Croatia not taking more Bosnian refugees, which seemed to be a pretty nice way of overlooking *why* Bosnians needed refuge in the first place? My two cents.
Croatia actually started a war of agression against the Rep. of Bosnia and Herz.
and Croatian troops/paramilitaries commited ethnic cleansing and war crimes against Bosniaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croat%E2%80%93Bosniak_War

[Искра]

Spreading lies and misinformation is not productive. Lies? Oh, yeah I'm Croatian fascist.


Kontrra, calm down. No one is denying that ethnic cleansing occurred, and I am certainly not writing in such a way as to suggest it. I am simply saying that the war was very complicated, and the Western media boiled it down to a simple narrative with clear-cut villains (the Serbs) and victims (the Croats and Bosniaks). WReason lies in Ovčara, Škabrnja, Srebrenica etc. Those were the biggest acts of genocides in Europe after WW2. They were also planned crimes – ethnical cleansing – promoted by Serbian nationalist ideology. Narrative is always simplified if it takes to condemn certain “side”. Croats and Bosniaks also made certain acts of ethnical cleansing and that is important to notice. So, what I’m trying to say, and that is my critique to you, we should condemn nationalist politics in general and leave this “very complicated” issue. It’s very complicated when you are trying to justify someone, but from Marxist perspective it’s really clear – nationalism and imperialism should be condemned, there’s nothing as “good”/”right” side in war and proletariat shouldn’t fight each other in bourgeoisie wars but unite under banner of proletarian internationalism.


At the very beginning they were, otherwise there would have been no conflict over Slovenia (where no Serbs lived). For many soldiers, it remained unclear what they were fighting for even later in the war.There were Serbian commanders, conscripts and soldiers. Also, that war was really short. Of course, I’m not denying that there were not soldiers or conscripts who “believed” that they are fighting for preservation of Yugoslavia against Slovenian separatists, but they were “victims” of propaganda and I’m interested in real class interests of Serbian bourgeoisie.


Err, yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. If international law was applied uniformly to all states and leaders, George Bush Jr. would certainly be rotting in a Hague cell with Karadzic.That why we don't care about it, cause Lenin and Trotsky would also be in Hague ;)

And now, Tir1944


This is idiocy.JNA the World's 3rd armed force?:laugh: It had less modern thanks than East Germany did and it's airforce was on Bulgaria's level.
Proof.


Why the apostrophes?
Cause I'm not a liberal who would condemn war because of such things as a “crimes”. That means that soldiers did something which is against the law, bourgeoisie law. I’m against war as bourgeoisie concept and action of imperialism which divides working class and leads them to slaughterhouse.


Really? How's that? Is her remark false maybe,namely the "
...the story is almost always about the genocidal chauvinistic Serbs vs. the innocent Croats and Bosniaks" part?Because proletariat has no nation or state, so I don’t see how come are dead Serbian proletarians more important than Bosniak or Croatian proletarians and vice-versa.


Yeah,play smart and ignore what the term "communist state" can mean in "everyday" discourse,even on this board.:laugh:
And remind me why should I care about bourgeoisie propaganda and terminology?


Where's your evidence for this claim?
D. Jović: Jugoslavia država koja je odumrla. Where’s your evidence that this proof is not true?


How so and in what way?
If you can’t recognise imperialism why are you Marxist-Leninist? I wrote a lot about Serbian imperialism in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-anyone-here-t165017/index.html?p=2309376#post2309376), where some of you were promoting Serbian nationalism and chauvinism while accusing me for being fascist, cause I recognise imperialism when I see it. Btw. you haven’t apologised for you behaviour.


Again,what's the logic behind this? Seems like a non-sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veselin_%C5%A0ljivan%C4%8Danin

Veselin Šljivančanin (Montenegrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_language): Веселин Шљиванчанин, born 13 June 1953) is a former Montenegrin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrins) officer in the Yugoslav People's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_People%27s_Army) (JNA) who participated in the Battle of Vukovar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vukovar) and was subsequently convicted on a war crimes indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_Former_Yug oslavia) for his role in the Vukovar massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vukovar_massacre). His prison sentence was changed twice, from five to 17 to ten years.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veselin_%C5%A0ljivan%C4%8Danin#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veselin_%C5%A0ljivan%C4%8Danin#cite_note-icty-verdict-2010-1)


Eh,during the war with Slovenia only some 20% of JNA forces involved were made up of ethnic Serbs (the 5th Military district that was put to action in Slovenia actually had more Croats than Serbs).
And during that war and after that soliders, conscripts and officers of deserted.


Why would they want to do that if the West was poised on dismembering Yugoslavia,as the Belgrade TV remarked about every day?So that NATO doesn’t intervene, so that UN put embargo on weapons so that Bosniaks, Albanians and Croats can’t buy weapon... you can’t continue – you are smart guy.


And how does this relate to the 90s wars?
What definition of "imperialism" are you using?
Bukharin's and Lenin's and Marxist in general. If can't see interests of capital and national elites in 90's war then you are pretty blind.

[khlib]

As for the quest for greater Serbia, how is that different than preserving the federation? Wasn't Belgrade already the control center for Yugoslavia? Maybe I don't understand this bit well enough.

Belgrade was the capital of the SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), but the quest for a greater Serbia was much different than preserving the federation. A Greater Serbia is an old theme in Serbian nationalist thought (beginning with Garasin), which said that Serbia's nationalist goal was to unite all Serbs into a single state. Because of migration patterns resulting from Ottoman invasions, Serbs were spread out across the Balkan peninsula. With the formation of the SFRY, there were all more or less united into a single state. With the imminent breakup of the federation, many Serbs would be "stranded" outside of the Serbia in Croatia and Bosnia if the federation broke up along republican lines. Therefore, some Serbian nationalists encouraged going into Bosnia and Croatia and taking the territories in which Serbs resided, so the federation would break up along different lines than those of the former republics, creating a Greater Serbia. Preserving the federation was a goal held by unitarists and Yugoslavia supporters. They would have tried to prevent any of the republics from seceding from the federation.

[Искра]

As for the quest for greater Serbia, how is that different than preserving the federation? Wasn't Belgrade already the control center for Yugoslavia? Maybe I don't understand this bit well enough.
In context of 90's Great Serbia is project of ethnically clean areas where only Serbs live, which means that they have to kill or move all other ethnical groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia


Croatia actually started a war of agression against the Rep. of Bosnia and Herz.
and Croatian troops/paramilitaries commited ethnic cleansing and war crimes against Bosniaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croat%E2%80%93Bosniak_War
Actually, that’s more complicated than that. War in Bosnia started after Bosnian HDZ eliminated leaders of Bosnian Croats fascist paramilitary organisation HOS. HOS wanted to create Independent State of Croatia which would be consisted of Croatia and Bosnia and which would be ethnically clean of Serbs. It was supposed to be federation. Because of their politics they had both Croatian and Bosnian members and they were really big and strong movement with highly trained forces and volunteers from fascist organisations all over the Europe. They also had concentration camps for Serbian soliders and civilians and are responsible for numerous “warcrimes”. Unlike HDZ they were against war between Croats and Bosniaks. They even had Muslim division which was inspired by Waffen SS Handzar division. So, as Tudjman wanted to take Hercegbosna he arranged killing of HOS’s general and then conflict between Croats started and after that Croats attacked Bosniaks and Armija BiH.

[The Young Pioneer]

Thank you tir1944 for that link- I had never heard of this before! Is this during the time that the Bosnian-Croats destroyed Stari Most?


Belgrade was the capital of the SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), but the quest for a greater Serbia was much different than preserving the federation. A Greater Serbia is an old theme in Serbian nationalist thought (beginning with Garasin), which said that Serbia's nationalist goal was to unite all Serbs into a single state. Because of migration patterns resulting from Ottoman invasions, Serbs were spread out across the Balkan peninsula. With the formation of the SFRY, there were all more or less united into a single state. With the imminent breakup of the federation, many Serbs would be "stranded" outside of the Serbia in Croatia and Bosnia if the federation broke up along republican lines. Therefore, some Serbian nationalists encouraged going into Bosnia and Croatia and taking the territories in which Serbs resided, so the federation would break up along different lines than those of the former republics, creating a Greater Serbia. Preserving the federation was a goal held by unitarists and Yugoslavia supporters. They would have tried to prevent any of the republics from seceding from the federation.

That is perhaps the most eloquent way anyone has ever explained this to me. Thank you. I love this forum- literally NO ONE I know in person could hold a conversation about this with me.

[tir1944]

Proof. No probs.
JNA had some 530 modern tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFR_Yugoslav_Ground_Forces#Equipment_2

NVA had some 550.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants#Former_East_Germany

If you want to read more on this i suggest you check out this thread.
http://anonym.to/?http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=567181 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=567181)


Cause I'm not a liberal who would condemn war because of such things as a “crimes”. That means that soldiers did something which is against the law, bourgeoisie law. I’m against war as bourgeoisie concept and action of imperialism which divides working class and leads them to slaughterhouse. This is mockery.A war crime is,in short, a crime comitted against civilians (or POWs) in times of war.Therefore Croatian forces comitted war crimes.
There's no point in being "innovative" about this term since the biggest majority of people do not have any objection to it,and is recognized by everyone.


[QUOTE]
Because proletariat has no nation or state, so I don’t see how come are dead Serbian proletarians more important than Bosniak or Croatian proletarians and vice-versa. What does this have to do with Khlib's remark about the Western media ignoring Serbian victims?


D. Jović: Jugoslavia država koja je odumrla. Where’s your evidence that this proof is not true? Since when does Great Serbia stretch to Slovenia?


If you can’t recognise imperialism why are you Marxist-Leninist? I'll respond to you with a quote:
It is good that Partija Rada has replied to the criticisms of its position on the national question in Yugoslavia. However, the only new element in the reply is that Partija Rada has raises its misevaluation of the Milosevic regime to a theoretical level, characterizing it as ‘local-imperialism.’ This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of imperialism.
Lenin scientifically summed up the essence of imperialism as having 5 basic features: ‘1) The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital,’ of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed’ (‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Chapter VII, ‘Imperialism, as a Special Stage of Capitalism’).
Where was the export of capital by Milosevic’s Yugoslavia? Where were the Yugoslav combines trying to gain their share of the world? How has Yugoslavia attempted to share in the territorial division of the world? Clearly, Yugoslavia is not only not a big actor on the world stage, such as the U.S., Britain or Germany. It is not even a small actor such as Belgium (which is still involved in the exploitation of its former colony, Congo) or Canada (which exports capital to many parts of the Caribbean).
The term local-imperialism is not scientific theoretically, and is practically incorrect in application to Yugoslavia. Milosevic may certainly have been a Great-Serb chauvinist, who oppressed other nations in former Yugoslavia, but this is not the same as imperialism, local or otherwise.
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/partijarada.htm


I wrote a lot about Serbian imperialism in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-anyone-here-t165017/index.html?p=2309376#post2309376), where some of you were promoting Serbian nationalism and chauvinism while accusing me for being fascist, cause I recognise imperialism when I see it. Btw. you haven’t apologised for you behaviour. From what i know i never accused you of being a "fascist"(stop lying please) nor did i "promote Serbian nationalism and chauvinism" (i made that clear in my remarks about Kosovo independence in chit chat where i accused both you and Valter of nationalist lines).
But NOW i will say that your posts REEK of Serbophobia.I'm not the first one to notice this either...


And during that war and after that soliders, conscripts and officers of deserted. Some did...but one of the more important JNA commanders in Vukovar was a Macedonian.


So that NATO doesn’t intervene, so that UN put embargo on weapons so that Bosniaks, Albanians and Croats can’t buy weapon... you can’t continue – you are smart guy.Eh,in one interwiev this summer in Večernji Špegelj said that he could have bought enough weapons...despite the embargo,weapons still arrived.BTW,would you like to guess where the thousands of these ex-DDR helmets came from?:laugh:


Bukharin's and Lenin's and Marxist in general. Check the quote i gave.

[tir1944]

Thank you tir1944 for that link- I had never heard of this before! Is this during the time that the Bosnian-Croats destroyed Stari Most?
Yes,Croatian HVO did.

[khlib]

Croats and Bosniaks also made certain acts of ethnical cleansing and that is important to notice. So, what I’m trying to say, and that is my critique to you, we should condemn nationalist politics in general and leave this “very complicated” issue. It’s very complicated when you are trying to justify someone
I think that's all we've been trying to say to you. It's important to recognize that these atrocities were committed on ALL sides: Croatian, Bosniak, Serbian, and NATO. You cannot just talk about Serbian imperialism and ethnic cleansing without also recognizing Croatian imperialism and ethnic cleansing.


Cause I'm not a liberal who would condemn war because of such things as a “crimes”. That means that soldiers did something which is against the law, bourgeoisie law.
If you are not interested in bourgeois law, then you also shouldn't be calling certain acts of war "genocide" because that is a term that was invented by "bourgeois" international law to refer to "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" after the Holocaust.


If you can’t recognise imperialism why are you Marxist-Leninist? I wrote a lot about Serbian imperialism in this thread, where some of you were promoting Serbian nationalism and chauvinism while accusing me for being fascist, cause I recognise imperialism when I see it. Btw. you haven’t apologised for you behaviour.
Btw, you still haven't defined imperialism... One or two sentences in your own words will do.

[Yugo45]

Eh,during the war with Slovenia only some 20% of JNA forces involved were made up of ethnic Serbs (the 5th Military district that was put to action in Slovenia actually had more Croats than Serbs).

In all honesty, that can't be taken as a good argument, since it was the beginning of the war. And most of the people who wanted to desert, litteraly didn't have a chance to do it. Like khlib said, most of them didn't even know what they were fighting for, like this (pretty sad) video shows:

9d-QUZUSFz0

[tir1944]

If you are not interested in bourgeois law, then you also shouldn't be calling certain acts of war "genocide" because that is a term that was invented by "bourgeois" international law to refer to "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" after the Holocaust.
Great point!
I'd also like to add that the term "ethnic cleansing" itself (which our friend Kontra evidently uses) was actually "invented" by the Western media precisely during the Balkan wars in the 90s.

[Искра]

After reading your posts I ask myself why did I ever defend you in CU’s part of forum :rolleyes:


No probs.
JNA had some 530 modern tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFR_Yugoslav_Ground_Forces#Equipment_2

NVA had some 550.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_operators_and_variants#Former_East_Germany

If you want to read more on this i suggest you check out this thread.
http://anonym.to/?http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=567181 (http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=567181)
Ok, now one by one. Have you ever watched propaganda war clips about JNA? Do you know difference between JNA’s training and training of other Eastern European satellites? Do you know where and how big arm factories were? If you do that, put that to your analysis and you would understand situation of 90’s. My only point was that JNA was really strong and well armed and that Serbia could last for the whole war with those supplies. Facts about arm trade from ex-Yugoslavia to Africa and other parts of the world also tell you a lot.


This is mockery.A war crime is,in short, a crime comitted against civilians (or POWs) in times of war.Therefore Croatian forces comitted war crimes.
So, it’s ok to kill another proletarian in a military action because it’s legal?

And again you go with Croatians... so, when you don't have an argument what you call people nationalists? Well, I can't hardly be an nationalist and for proletarian internationalism at the same time.


There's no point in being "innovative" about this term since the biggest majority of people do not have any objection to it,and is recognized by everyone.
So, is the myth of communism being dead. What's your point in here?


What does this have to do with Khlib's remark about the Western media ignoring Serbian victims?
Regarding western media ignoring Serbian victims I gave a reason: because west can’t side with Serbia which committed biggest genocides in Europe after WW2, because that would ruin their WW2 “human rights and freedom” myths. It’s not something I’m advocating (I have to point that out, cause of your low ability to read with comprehension), but that’s realpolik of West.

Also, with this stuff you quoted I was saying that we shouldn’t talk about victims based on nation, but on class.


Since when does Great Serbia stretch to Slovenia?
Lol. Quote me where did I say that :lol:


I'll respond to you with a quote:
If you can't answer with your own words - don't discuss. Also, if you have read thread I linked in my previous post, member of Partija Rada actually agree with me that there Serbia was imperialist.


From what i know i never accused you of being a "fascist"(stop lying please) You called me a nationalist which is the same to me.


nor did i "promote Serbian nationalism and chauvinism" (i made that clear in my remarks about Kosovo independence in chit chat where i accused both you and Valter of nationalist lines).
Valter was promoting Serbian nationalist myths. Nationalism? Me? Here we go again... :lol:


But NOW i will say that your posts REEK of Serbophobia.I'm not the first one to notice this either...
Again...
Just because I oppose Serbian imperalism as much as any other I'm Serbophobic? I said you once and I'd say you again. Prove or I'll call an admin for action. My grandmother and her most of her family were Serbs who were in Jasenovac. My parents changed my name in 91 because it could be interpret as Serbian. Cut the crap and stop pissing me off...


Some did...but one of the more important JNA commanders in Vukovar was a Macedonian.
But this one was accused of genocide :rolleyes: What are you trying to say - that genocide never happened? Or that communist ideology stands behind that genocide? :rolleyes:


Eh,in one interwiev this summer in Večernji Špegelj said that he could have bought enough weapons...despite the embargo,weapons still arrived.BTW,would you like to guess where the thousands of these ex-DDR helmets came from?:laugh:
Black market? So? Long live capitalism!

[tir1944]

Ok, now one by one. Have you ever watched propaganda war clips about JNA? Do
you know difference between JNA’s training and training of other Eastern European satellites? Do you know where and how big arm factories were? If you do that, put that to your analysis and you would understand situation of 90’s. My only point was that JNA was really strong and well armed and that Serbia could last for the whole war with those supplies. Facts about arm trade from ex-Yugoslavia to Africa and other parts of the world also tell you a lot. I've heard stories about JNA training being atrocious.But go on,explain the difference between JNA and WarPact standards of military training.How big were these factories? 5 stories tall? Anyway,i gave you a source for JNA equipment and it's evident that JNA didn't have all that much.Especially when it comes to more modern stuff.
But listen,i gave a link to a great debate on this,why don't you check it out?



So, it’s ok to kill another proletarian in a military action because it’s legal? No.But that's not a "war crime" if done according to the rules of warfare.What the hell are you talking about anyway?


so, when you don't have an argument what you call people nationalists? Well, I can't hardly be an nationalist and for proletarian internationalism at the same time.I don't think you're a "full blown" nationalist,however i think that you've shown Serbophobia and made "nationalist",chauvinist statements.


Regarding western media ignoring Serbian victims I gave a reason: because west can’t side with Serbia which committed biggest genocides in Europe after WW2, because that would ruin their WW2 “human rights and freedom” mythsYep,except that Srebrenica happened in '95 and the "media silence" started years before that.Am i right on this one Khlib?


If you can't answer with your own words - don't discuss. Also, if you have read thread I linked in my previous post, member of Partija Rada actually agree with me that there Serbia was imperialist. When it comes to definitions "your own words" don't matter that much.
I asked you what definition of "imperialism" are you using.
Also the critique i posted shows that PR was wrong about it's "local-imperialism" stuff.


You called me a nationalist which is the same to me. Well to most people it's not.


But this one was accused of genocide :rolleyes: What are you trying to say - that genocide never happened? Or that communist ideology stands behind that genocide? :rolleyes:My point was that JNA had many non Serb soldiers in Vukovar.


Just because I oppose Serbian imperalism as much as any other I'm Serbophobic? I said you once and I'd say you again. Prove or I'll call an admin for action.Valter correctly pointed out that you seem to have something against Serbs.Your usage of "war crimes" with apostrophes was also quite improper.Again i'm not the first to have noticed this "vibe" you spread.

Black market?No,German military surplus.

[khlib]

Cause I'm not a liberal who would condemn war because of such things as a “crimes”. That means that soldiers did something which is against the law, bourgeoisie law.



But this one was accused of genocide
Accused by who? Oh right, the "bourgeois law" of the Hague... But you don't care about that! Come on, at least be consistent in your arguments :rolleyes:

[Искра]

I think that's all we've been trying to say to you. It's important to recognize that these atrocities were committed on ALL sides: Croatian, Bosniak, Serbian, and NATO. You cannot just talk about Serbian imperialism and ethnic cleansing without also recognizing Croatian imperialism and ethnic cleansing.

Are you blind, mean or you just like to manipulate with emotions and informations?

To quote myself:

Croats and Bosniaks also made certain acts of ethnical cleansing and that is important to notice.
It’s very complicated when you are trying to justify someone, but from Marxist perspective it’s really clear – nationalism and imperialism should be condemned, there’s nothing as “good”/”right” side in war and proletariat shouldn’t fight each other in bourgeoisie wars but unite under banner of proletarian internationalism.
Anyhow, we as communists shouldn’t take sides in such events but strongly protest against war and imperialism.
It’s fact that Croat and Bosniak/Mudjahedin’s committed various “war crimes” and ethical cleansing (...) Also, I don’t see the point of making any national group “victim”, because after all proletariat was butchered on all three, or four (if we count Kosovo) sides. I could also post you my quotes from other threads where I talk about both Croatian and Bosniak ethical cleansing of Serbs. Also, you could read NUMEROUS times that I refuse to take sides, that that is what liberals (like most of you in this thread) do and that war itself is a problem, because it leads proletariat into slaughter. Key thing is proletariat, class and proletariat internationalism as a weapon against war. I’m against war as such, but when I talk about historical event I wanna talk about actual facts, so when I say that Serbian nationalists committed massacre in Vukovar that doesn’t mean that I reject the fact that HOS had concentration camps for Serbs. With this kind of argumentation your remind me of liberals from my collage. If you can’t get the principle, if you can’t understand that someone is against war as such... Then you shouldn’t even discuss with me.


If you are not interested in bourgeois law, then you also shouldn't be calling certain acts of war "genocide" because that is a term that was invented by "bourgeois" international law to refer to "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" after the Holocaust. Genocide or massacres... don’t be a smart ass. It’s really big difference when you talk about “war crimes” and when you talk about genocides and massacres. Phrase “crime” implies that there’s something legal what you can do in a war, that there’s state permission for you to kill another proletariat, while terms such as genocide, massacre and ethnical cleansing describe war actions which imply great amount of butchered people.


Btw, you still haven't defined imperialism... One or two sentences in your own words will do.Why should I? I defined you Serbian imperialism in thread where you participated. I could define you also Croatian imperialism if you want, but I don't see point.

[Искра]

Accused by who? Oh right, the "bourgeois law" of the Hague... But you don't care about that! Come on, at least be consistent in your arguments :rolleyes:
Ok, I admint that word "accuded" was wrong, therfore I'll change it with responsible.

[tir1944]

I defined you Serbian imperialism in thread where you participated.
Wow! You "defined" what Serbian imperialism is despite the fact that you evidently don't know (or don't want to tell us) what imperialism is in the first place,that is,what definition of imperialism (as your starting point in defining this "Serbian imperialism") do you even use.
Awesome logics!

[khlib]

The only imperialism is serbian imperialism!

[Искра]

My point was that JNA had many non Serb soldiers in Vukovar.
Who said that it wasn't? Many of them tried to dessert. It was a begining of war actions.


Valter correctly pointed out that you seem to have something against Serbs.Valter defendend Great Serbia, Serbian imperialism after and druring the World War 1 and in Balkan Wars.


Your usage of "war crimes" with apostrophes was also quite improper. Again i'm not the first to have noticed this "vibe" you spread.I'm just sorry I'm not a liberal and I condemnd war as such. ;)


No,German military surplus.
And black market guns from Argentina and other countries where ex-Ustasha's lived.

[Искра]

Wow! You "defined" what Serbian imperialism is despite the fact that you evidently don't know (or don't want to tell us) what imperialism is in the first place,that is,what definition of imperialism (as your starting point in defining this "Serbian imperialism") do you even use.
Awesome logics!
Lol :laugh:

[Искра]

The only imperialism is serbian imperialism!
I never said that, but then again when you have no argument or do not understand what people are saying everything is permited. :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

Who said that it wasn't? Many of them tried to dessert. It was a begining of war actions. Sure,but many ethnic Serbs too tried to desert/avoid fighting.


Valter defendend Great Serbia, Serbian imperialism after and druring the World War 1 and in Balkan Wars. He did?


I'm just sorry I'm not a liberal and I condemnd war as such. ;)Good,then why did you say "Serbs are the vanguard of Muslim-hate." in chit-chat (BTW it was a thread that really didn't have much to do with Serbian-Muslim relationships)?
And before you start saying it was a joke and so on,well,let me tell you that a similar (albeit LESS malevolent) "joke" about Jews got one member BANNED (in that thread about a Zionist and a Neonazi on a desert island).


And black market guns from Argentina and other countries where ex-Ustasha's lived. DDR helmets (Stahlhelm) came from Argentina(?).Good one.


Lol :laugh:What's so funny? BTW,care to finally explain us WTF are you even talking about in regards to Serbian Imperialism? What is imperialism? We'll have to write off your "elaborations" as nonsense in case you don't provide us with the proper definition you used when talkign about "Serbian imperialism".
These are really basic requirements for a debate.

[Искра]

Sure,but many ethnic Serbs too tried to desert/avoid fighting.
Of course, there were even some who joined Croatian army, but my point was that JNA was tool of Serbian elite and that many soliders later joined their national armies.


He did?
Wanna quotes?


Good,then why did you say "Serbs are the vanguard of Muslim-hate."?
And before you start saying it was a joke and so on,well,let me tell you that a similar (albeit LESS malevolent) "joke" about Jews got one member BANNED (in that thread about a Zionist and a Neonazi on a desert island).
It was a joke... and there was an explanation of that. So, what are you gonna do now when you have no arguments? Watch my blood line?


What's so funny?
You.

[khlib]

Valter defendend Great Serbia, Serbian imperialism after and druring the World War 1 and in Balkan Wars.
Sorry, maybe you are having trouble with your English... Valter DEFINED Greater Serbia, but he did not DEFEND it. Valter is far from a Serbian nationalist.

Kontrra, if you cannot define imperialism, we simply cannot continue this discussion because there is no point. Please, in a few words of your own, tell us what you mean when you say "imperialism" (not a vague reference to Marx, not what you mean by Serbian imperialism).

[tir1944]

Wanna quotes?
Sure.


It was a joke... and there was an explanation of that.
Again,such "jokes" can get you banned.I don't know how that one passed under the radar but whatever,it was very offensive.


You
Is it my shoes or my coat maybe? You're pathetic.

[khlib]

Are you blind, mean or you just like to manipulate with emotions and informations? To quote myself:
Sorry, maybe it would be helpful if you point out one place on any thread on Revleft where you use the phrase "Croatian imperialism." I can point out over 10 instances of you using the phrase "Serbian imperialism," so let's just see how nonpartisan you are...


Also, you could read NUMEROUS times that I refuse to take sides, that that is what liberals (like most of you in this thread)
lol, how are we liberals? We all have refused to take sides, much more so than you. Here is a quote from Valter, the chauvinist Serbian nationalist:

No one party is more guilty than the other. All parties in that war encouraged nationalism and spread lies and slander against the other.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2250131&postcount=3


Genocide or massacres... don’t be a smart ass. It’s really big difference when you talk about “war crimes” and when you talk about genocides and massacres. Phrase “crime” implies that there’s something legal what you can do in a war, that there’s state permission for you to kill another proletariat, while terms such as genocide, massacre and ethnical cleansing describe war actions which imply great amount of butchered people.
This is so uninformed, it's not even funny. Genocide is strictly a legal term. It has no place outside "bourgeois law," and please stop with the name-calling. It's very juvenile, and has no place on this forum.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Kontrrazvedka, do you agree that Serbs in Krajina, Republika Srpska and Eastern Slavonija had a right to self-determination?

[The Young Pioneer]

Great point!
I'd also like to add that the term "ethnic cleansing" itself (which our friend Kontra evidently uses) was actually "invented" by the Western media precisely during the Balkan wars in the 90s.

Mm, no honey.

Probably wanna check out Vuk Stefanović Karadžić at some point.

[khlib]

Probably wanna check out Vuk Stefanović Karadžić at some point.

Are you saying Vuk used the term "ethnic cleansing"?

I assume the text you're referring to is "Srbi svi i svuda," and all this text says is that all South Slavic people are Serbs regardless of their religion. Some take this as Serbian expansionism, but really Vuk was just trying to argue that they were all brothers from the same nation, using the language that he knew at the time (early 1800's).

[PhoenixAsh]

The West did not support Serbia because of its pro Slavic economic position and anti-EU/NATO stance which made it focus on Russia.

Carrington adviced against the recognition and the US actively worked against Carrington. It has always been the US/NATO plan to break up Yugoslavia. This process was sped up y the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as independent states by some EU (&NATO) nations. This act of recognition of succession was not done out of some support for regional independence or the right to self determination but because of Aggressive Diplomatic Imperialism. By securing the recognition of these states the EU actively prevented Yugoslavia to defend its territorial integrity and secured the ensuing conflicts for later foreign intervention. The US for its part did not recognize Croatia immediately....they reserved that recognition as was later shown because of the possibility of ethnic conflict in Bosnia....in which they wanted to exert control on Croatia. What the US wanted and eventually achieved was the complete break up of Yugoslavia through this position without losing its influence in both Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia.

[The Young Pioneer]

Are you saying Vuk used the term "ethnic cleansing"?

I assume the text you're referring to is "Srbi svi i svuda," and all this text says is that all South Slavic people are Serbs regardless of their religion. Some take this as Serbian expansionism, but really Vuk was just trying to argue that they were all brothers from the same nation, using the language that he knew at the time (early 1800's).

He used the term "cleanse" in reference to what Karađorđe Petrović had done to the Turks in the siege of Belgrade (early 1800s). ;)

It was also used by Ustashe in WW2, so either way, it wasn't "invented by the West" in the 1990s. lol

[khlib]

Origins of the term
The practice is much older than the term, known throughout history. The term itself appears to have been popularised by the international media approximately early in 1992, following the discovery of Bosnian-Serb Concentration camps established in April 1992, and the subsequent assault on Sarajevo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

[The Young Pioneer]

So "invented" and "popularised" mean the same thing now? Hm. 'Kay.

[khlib]

Hm, can you find an earlier example of the term "ethnic cleansing" in its entirety? Of course metaphors involving race and "cleanliness" have a long history, but the term "ethnic cleansing" really only became a catchphrase in the early 1990's with the Yugoslav wars of secession.

Which is why it seemed strange that Kontrra, so against the "bourgeois media," would adopt their terminology to talk about the wars.

[tir1944]

What Khlib said.
Of course,if you can prove me that V.S.Karadžić really used the term "etničko čiščenje" i'd stand corrected.
Anyway,it became a part of the "everyday discourse" only during the 90s,thanks to Western media coverage of the Wars.

[PhoenixAsh]

Meaning

A euphemism for the ruthless removal or killing of an ethnic or religious group from areas that have been taken over by opposing forces.

Origin

Although the process has been engaged in since antiquity the term didn't enter the English language until the Balkan wars of the 1990s. The earliest citation of a phrase like it is from the New York Times, July 1982:

"The nationalists have a two-point platform, according to Becir Hoti, an executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo, first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania."

The precise phrase appears first in the Washington Post, August 1991:

"The Croatian political and military leadership issued a statement Wednesday declaring that Serbia's 'aim is obviously the ethnic cleansing of the critical areas that are to be annexed to Serbia'."

[PhoenixAsh]

according to EB:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194242/ethnic-cleansing


ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, was widely employed in the 1990s (though the term first appeared earlier) to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups in the conflicts that erupted upon the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These groups included Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia, and ethnic Albanians and later Serbs in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

[PhoenixAsh]

according to EB:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194242/ethnic-cleansing


ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing sometimes involves the removal of all physical vestiges of the targeted group through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

The term ethnic cleansing, a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnicko ciscenje, was widely employed in the 1990s (though the term first appeared earlier) to describe the brutal treatment of various civilian groups in the conflicts that erupted upon the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These groups included Bosniacs (Bosnian Muslims) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia, and ethnic Albanians and later Serbs in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

[The Young Pioneer]

Hm, can you find an earlier example of the term "ethnic cleansing" in its entirety? Of course metaphors involving race and "cleanliness" have a long history, but the term "ethnic cleansing" really only became a catchphrase in the early 1990's with the Yugoslav wars of secession.

Which is why it seemed strange that Kontrra, so against the "bourgeois media," would adopt their terminology to talk about the wars.

"Silent ethnic cleansing" wasn't used until the Yugoslav wars, and sure, Western media picked it up and popularised "ethnic cleansing" as a term in general, but check out the Wiki in Serbian:

"Почетком Другог светског рата, 1941. године, у записима хрватског усташког официра Виктора Гутића, као и у књизи „О нашој држави и њеним границама“ адвоката и идеолога четничког покрета Стевана Мољевића, помиње се чишћење територије од нежељених елемената — становништва."

Or if you prefer Croatian:

"Pojam se koristi u četničkim političkim programima prije i u doba Drugog svjetskog rata. Stevan Moljević je u memorandumu i elaboratu Homogena Srbija zagovarao stvaranje Velike Srbije i njeno etničko čišćenje od drugih naroda."

[khlib]

In the Serbian you just quoted, it doesn't mention "ethnic cleansing," only "cleansing," or "чишћење."

[tir1944]

No,it's not what it says.Someone got you fooled.This "Serbian-Croatian" translation is atrocious,which you can see for yourself just by running the original through a cyrillic-latin converter.It has to be the same.
The Serbian original (written,i presume,in the post-WW2 period) says literally : "...and the cleansing of territory from unwanted elements-population...(is being mentioned)".

It does NOT say etničko čišćenje (ethnic cleansing).


@Kontra


After reading your posts I ask myself why did I ever defend you in CU’s part of forum :rolleyes:It's good that you defended me because i assume you had a reason to do this.
I'll also defend you if i have a reason.I do have,since you're a member who actually contibutes to this forum,so i'll try to defend you from getting banned/restricted.
I have made no official reports against you,because i don't like seeing people get banned/restricted.Of course that doesn't mean that what you wrote should be completely ignored.

[The Young Pioneer]

I don't speak it, so thank you for informing me.

I'll amend my argument to "cleanse." But I really don't want to argue at all, especially on a topic I'm clearly not aware enough of. Probably my own fault for believing Stjepan Meštrović, eh? :blushing:

I really do appreciate all the information here- I am sorry it has caused conflict between a couple of you, I hope no one is banned for a topic I started. Either way, thanks again for all the information, it's a lot to digest but keep it coming if you like. Balkan history is so complex. :confused:

Anyway, hope I haven't made any enemies among my comrades? ;)

[khlib]

LIZA, of course not! Your questions were perfectly fine. The argument is carried over from some earlier threads, and I'm not even sure what it's about exactly because we seem to be saying the same things: no side is at fault, nationalism is bad, etc. I am very glad to have you on the board, and that more people are interested in the SFRY.

[DarkPast]

Hello Liza and thanks for your interest about the SFRY.

I'm a bit late to the party, and the others have covered a lot of ground, but I just wanted to mention two things.

1. The idea that the Yugoslav people's army was the third strongest in Europe or fourth in the world is ridiculous. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the fact that it had exactly one squadron of MiG-29s - all the other planes were far behind the technology curve in 1991 (and even the 29's were showing their age).
It was the third force in Europe only if you count all NATO countries as one "army" and the Warsaw Pact countries as another.

It should also be noted that Milosevic "purged" the officer cadre (replacing competent people with his cronies) and meddled in its combat doctrine (he abandoned the guerrilla warfare-based doctrine the army trained in for 4 decades).

2. "Weight of chains" is a good documentary, but it does have a pro-Serb bias - i.e. it often ignores or downplays Serb crimes. For example, there is no mention of king Alexander's dictatorship, it is not mentioned that the chetniks regularly collaborated with the Nazis and that they conducted ethnic cleansing etc. Oh, and the only thing it says about the Turks is that they liked impaling people on stakes...

Still, I do recommend watching it - but take the facts it presents with a grain of salt. It's not that the documentary lies, but it sometimes ignores or glosses over some important facts.

[Yugo45]

1. The idea that the Yugoslav people's army was the third strongest in Europe or fourth in the world is ridiculous.

The idea is that it was the third/fourth strongest army in Europe, which actually is true. Not the world, eh. Even if you don't count NATO as one army, I don't see what other armies were "stronger". USSR, UK, France possibly (not sure), and that's it?

And about the planes, before the war started, they were developing a new, modern, plane (called Novi Avion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion), but because of the war, the developement stopped.

The planes were the only thing the Yugoslav army had to "import", and this project would make it completely self-sufficiant.


2. "Weight of chains" is a good documentary, but it does have a pro-Serb bias - i.e. it often ignores or downplays Serb crimes. For example, there is no mention of king Alexander's dictatorship, it is not mentioned that the chetniks regularly collaborated with the Nazis and that they conducted ethnic cleansing etc. Oh, and the only thing it says about the Turks is that they liked impaling people on stakes...

Still, I do recommend watching it - but take the facts it presents with a grain of salt. It's not that the documentary lies, but it sometimes ignores or glosses over some important facts.

True, however most of the information it says about foreign involvement is true.

[khlib]

Another good documentary is the BBC one, Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4bI3iLoZkc).

If you are interested in keeping up to date with Balkan news today, there is a website called Balkan Insight (http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/page/all-balkans-home) which is the best English source for news from the Yugoslav successor states that I have found.

[DarkPast]

The idea is that it was the third/fourth strongest army in Europe, which actually is true. Not the world, eh. Even if you don't count NATO as one army, I don't see what other armies were "stronger". USSR, UK, France possibly (not sure), and that's it?

France and the UK certainly had larger armies. They were far ahead in terms of naval and air power, and had nuclear weapons.

East Germany's army was a bit larger, too, according to the info Tir provided - and I know it had good equipment. Italy possibly had a larger army - I don't know, but it is a pretty big country and had American military bases. I'm not sure about the size of Poland's army, but it wasn't small and it did have "real" Soviet equipment (not the crappier export versions). Don't know if it counts, but Turkey's armed forces during the cold war were quite impressive (and still are).

It's possible Yugoslavia was 4th in Europe (if we exclude Turkey) in terms of number of active soldiers, but it definitely wasn't in terms of equipment.


And about the planes, before the war started, they were developing a new, modern, plane (called Novi Avion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion), but because of the war, the developement stopped.

Yeah, a lot of stuff got canceled, but there was still a *lot* of obsolete equipment in use - most tanks were T-55s, and there were even some T-34's in use. Likewise, most planes were MiG-21s and the locally produced models like Galebs, Jastrebs etc.

Overall - not bad, but it wouldn't have been nearly enough to defend from a NATO or Warsaw Pact invasion. So the basic doctrine was that the planes, ships and tanks should buy time for the infantry to retreat to the hills and wage a guerrilla war.


True, however most of the information it says about foreign involvement is true.

I agree 100% there - the real value of the documentary is that it draws attention to the substantial foreign involvement in the break-up of Yugoslavia. It also makes a good point about how the ruling class uses nationalism for its own ends - i.e. that the violence was not caused by "ancient hatreds", but by political and economic factors.

[Yugo45]

France and the UK certainly had larger armies. They were far ahead in terms of naval and air power, and had nuclear weapons.

East Germany's army was a bit larger, too, according to the info Tir provided - and I know it had good equipment. Italy possibly had a larger army - I don't know, but it is a pretty big country and had American military bases. I'm not sure about the size of Poland's army, but it wasn't small and it did have "real" Soviet equipment (not the crappier export versions). Don't know if it counts, but Turkey's armed forces during the cold war were quite impressive (and still are).

It's possible Yugoslavia was 4th in Europe (if we exclude Turkey) in terms of number of active soldiers, but it definitely wasn't in terms of equipment.



Yeah, a lot of stuff got canceled, but there was still a *lot* of obsolete equipment in use - most tanks were T-55s, and there were even some T-34's in use. Likewise, most planes were MiG-21s and the locally produced models like Galebs, Jastrebs etc.

Overall - not bad, but it wouldn't have been nearly enough to defend from a NATO or Warsaw Pact invasion. So the basic doctrine was that the planes, ships and tanks should buy time for the infantry to retreat to the hills and wage a guerrilla war.

Good points there, but the JNA would put up quite a good fight, since the tactics it used. It was a completely deffensive army, almost completely based on guerilla warfare, like you said. Though, in the Yugoslav wars, the remnants of JNA didn't use these tactics at all.. For obvious reasons, since it was attacking, not defending.

I mean, if the Yugoslav Partisans (on which the JNA's tactics were based on, but severely improved and updated) could defeat a technological superior German army in WW2, then I don't see why wouldn't JNA be able to defend themselves against, for example, NATO, with their (JNA's) pretty big army and at least some good tech.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well the problem was absolute air superiority which makes defending territorial integrity and autonomy kind of hard. You can harrass and army from the ground using Guerilla tactics. But you can't defend against airplanes like that. And NATO did not have troops on the ground. And those bombardments have a huge efffect on citizen morale, naturally, which breaks down political support.

[khlib]

I agree completely with hindsight. If NATO would have put troops on the ground, I think the JNA would have actually stood a pretty good chance (given that they also knew the land). But bombing civilians was a whole different story...

[DarkPast]

Well the problem was absolute air superiority which makes defending territorial integrity and autonomy kind of hard. You can harrass and army from the ground using Guerilla tactics. But you can't defend against airplanes like that. And NATO did not have troops on the ground. And those bombardments have a huge efffect on citizen morale, naturally, which breaks down political support.

Depends. The American bombing in SE Asia probably had the opposite effect on the civilians. I'm no expert, but some scholars claim the Allied bombing in WW2 also had the opposite effect on the Germans - i.e. it made them think "I'm gonna die anyway so I may as well go out fighting".

It reminded me of a Sun Tzu quote, "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape". I know this is really oversimplifying, but perhaps what the Allies did in WW2 and Vietnam is that they pushed their enemies too hard?

[PhoenixAsh]

Depends. The American bombing in SE Asia probably had the opposite effect on the civilians. I'm no expert, but some scholars claim the Allied bombing in WW2 also had the opposite effect on the Germans - i.e. it made them think "I'm gonna die anyway so I may as well go out fighting".

It reminded me of a Sun Tzu quote, "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape". I know this is really oversimplifying, but perhaps what the Allies did in WW2 and Vietnam is that they pushed their enemies too hard?

Well Vietnam had the added negative that there were troops on the ground in the South which could be fought....not to mention the country had been continuously at war for the decades preceeding the US intervention. Also the bombing campaigns were maybe extensive to how we view things...but strategically they were limited for fear of China's reaction and possible entry into the war. Also the equipment was unsuited for the campaign.

In WWII the bombings were quite effective production wise. They limited German production capabilities and limited their means to fight. Also....citizens did not feature into the political power structure. So their opinions and moral only mattered when it came to recruiting time. And at the end of the war...in 1944....morale in Germany was pretty low. Confidence dropped as soon as 1943 and in 1944 the vast majority of the Germans had lost all confidence in the opportunity to win or fight to a conditional surrender. And the more than 6 million refugees saw to it that work and military absenteism skyrocketted.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Did a bit of research and found out that even after the 1974 Constitution that Kosovo remained a part of the Serbian republic. Having had my recollection thus refreshed I now recall the 1981 disturbances in Kosovo that sought to elevate Kosovo to republic status. Also seem to recall the fear in Yugoslavia that granting the Kosovars this status might lead to Kosovar secession.

I am curious as to the extent of freedom of travel in the former Yugoslavia, specifically whether a Kosovar could get on a train bound for Zagreb or whether a resident of Zagreb could freely catch a train to Sarajevo or whether there were internal travel restrictions that required special permission?

[Искра]

In Yugoslavia you could travel everywhere, even out of country. It was more liberal, both in political and economical sense, then Eastern bloc states. Still you'll need visa's for some countries. When it comes to such "liberties", Yugoslavia wasn't much different then West.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thanks to Kontrrazvedka and Omsk for their replies. As an American, I am no expert on the former Yugoslavia, but wasn't the rise of Serbian nationalism and Serbian attempts to dominate Yugoslavia as they did prior to the Second World War, one of the major reasons for the secession of Slovenia and Croatia leading to the Yugoslavia's demise?

[Искра]

Thanks to Kontrrazvedka and Omsk for their replies. As an American, I am no expert on the former Yugoslavia, but wasn't the rise of Serbian nationalism and Serbian attempts to dominate Yugoslavia as they did prior to the Second World War, one of the major reasons for the secession of Slovenia and Croatia leading to the Yugoslavia's demise?
I wrote big post on this subject here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2250406&postcount=40

[GoddessCleoLover]

Nationalism is a problem in many places, and the USA is a hotbed of reactionary nationalism. Dealing with the issue of nationalism has been a source of difficulty since the beginning of the workers' movement and no doubt will continue to be a source of division among workers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Although it is tragical, it is also logical that the republics with mixed populations suffered the most since they became civil war battlefields, while homogeneous republics such as Slovenia and Montenegro were not. Was not Serbian nationalism the common thread in the resort to arms in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo?

[DarkPast]

Serbian,Croatian,Albanian nationalism were one of the more important factors in the break-up,however,you cant just mention one of these factors,[Serbian nationalism] ,because they were all powered by each-other,the Serbian nationalists attacked the Croatian nationalists,the Croatian nationalists attacked Serbian nationalists and there were many events which proved that Tito's Yugoslavia was a complete failure,and the events of the late 80' and early 90' proved that.For instance,you had the Croatian Spring,1971,there were many examples of nationalism in that event,and the entire "national awakening" process : Three Croatian linguists, Stjepan Babić ,Bozidar Finka and Milan Moguš, published a spelling and grammar textbook in 1971 called Hrvatski pravopis (Croatian Orthography), rather than the accepted Srpskohrvatski (Serbo-Croatian) On the other hand,you had Aleksandar Rankovic,a man who was the head of the security forces and close to Tito,however,he was always in the shadow of his Serbian-nationalist reputation,and was purged,later.You had Serbian novel authors,like Dobrica Cosic,who were "Tito's dissidents" - and who tried to start a process of "national awakening" in their home republics.Nationalism was always a problem in the Balkans,not just in Yugoslavia.

While one cannot deny the rise in nationalism during the 70-ies, I would, however, stress that the vast majority of the Croatian spring supporters did not want to secede from Yugoslavia. While certain ultra-right emigre elements did try to infiltrate the movement, they had very little success (unlike in the 90-ies). Overall, the Croatian spring (then called MASPOK - "mass movement") was a reformist movement against growing centralization.

In fact, the conflict between the federalist-liberal wing of the Party (centered in Zagreb and Ljubljana) and its centralist-authoritarian wing (centered in Belgrade) was a prominent feature of Yugoslav politics at least since the 60-ies. These were more-or-less balanced by Tito, who acted as mediator and final authority (though he eventually started to lean towards the federalist-liberal wing). When Tito died, Belgrade wanted to impose its will on the other countries, and they resisted. And we know where that eventually lead.


I wouldn't say that Serbian nationalism was the only reason for the war.In Bosnia,you had villages who would arm after they came under attack from the Islamists,and in other examples you had villages who armed themselves after being attacked by Chetniks.

Well I think it's safe to say the Serbs were the main protagonists of the war in Bosnia. This isn't because they were somehow more "evil", but because the Bosniaks (muslims) simply lacked the military power to go on the offensive until very late in the war.
There were also some Croats who wanted to incorporate a good chunk of Bosnia into Croatia (the "Republic of Herceg-Bosna"), and conducted ethnic cleansing - though on a smaller scale than the Serbs.

[The Young Pioneer]

I am curious as to the extent of freedom of travel in the former Yugoslavia, specifically whether a Kosovar could get on a train bound for Zagreb or whether a resident of Zagreb could freely catch a train to Sarajevo or whether there were internal travel restrictions that required special permission?

Here is an interesting article concerning Kosovo and current travel issues for its citizens:

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/artists-long-to-escape-kosovo-ghetto

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thanks for the link, and hopefully Kosovars will soon receive better treatment from the EU and be able to travel freely.