Serbian Imperialism

[khlib]

Do you think that the actions of JNA (Yugoslav National Army) and VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) were "imperialist" in the context of the Yugoslav Wars of secession in the 1990's? Why or why not?

[The Young Pioneer]

UH OH lol.... :scared:

But in all seriousness, I'd like to hear answers, too. Trying to shape my own opinions but don't know enough yet. :thumbup1:

[promethean]

Do you think that the actions of JNA (Yugoslav National Army) and VRS (Army of Republika Srpska) were "imperialist" in the context of the Yugoslav Wars of secession in the 1990's? Why or why not?
It depends on on what one thinks imperialism is. If you think imperialism consists of the some military actions undertaken by some armies, then one might derive either decide to call these actions "imperialist" or not based on some arbitrary criteria. This is the typical liberal way of defining imperialism. But Lenin had a different conception, where he called imperialism the highest stage of capitalism. His theory had its faults since he identified imperialism with only the bigger capitalist states where financial capital dominates. On the whole though, imperialism is a world system and cannot be separated from capitalism. Also, I think that both the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Republika Sprska can be described as being capitalist states of different forms. The Yugoslav Wars of secession were wars of imperialism undertaken by capitalist states and it was not in the workers' self interest to support any side in those wars.

[The Young Pioneer]

I'm hoping this is a related question so as not to go off topic, but.

Discussing this with another friend of mine, he cited the fact that there was (during the break up) a substantial Serbian population in Croatia, and that these people should be allowed to break off from Croatia to form their own republic.

(He didn't specifically say Krajina so I'm not sure if he was referring to that or something else I haven't heard of. Anyway.)

I said I didn't see that as being the same as the states seceding from Yugoslavia.

He said I was creating a double standard by agreeing with independence for Slovenia, Croatia, B/H, and even Kosova (who I think should be independent regardless of how and why NATO made that happen [not a huge NATO fan myself]), if I wasn't willing to also accept independence for the Serb "republic" within Croatia.

He also told me that Croatia has no legitimacy as a country, no legitimate borders, and went so far as to say the region that used to be Yugoslavia belongs to the Serbs. He asked, "What would happen if Florida tried to break off of the US? No one would persecute the US for attempting to prevent it from doing so, as Serbia was prevented from keeping Croatia (and the others)."

I was under the impression Croatia wasn't the same kind of state that Florida was/is?

Am I wrong in what I said? Is he right? Are his comparisons accurate and should Krajina or whatever Serb republic he identifies with really have the same right to secede?

IMHO, whether Serbian imperialism existed or not, this kid sure seems to have a clear ideology of it. :confused:

[khlib]

He said I was creating a double standard by agreeing with independence for Slovenia, Croatia, B/H, and even Kosova (who I think should be independent regardless of how and why NATO made that happen [not a huge NATO fan myself]), if I wasn't willing to also accept independence for the Serb "republic" within Croatia.
Built into the SFRY constitution were certain conditions under which a republic could secede from the federation. For that reason, the Yugoslav successor states are the same as the former republics of the SFRY (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia). Kosovo is a slightly different case, as it was an autonomous providence within Serbia during SFRY times. Anyways, there were no conditions listed under which a region within a republic could break off. So really, the difference between the secession of Slovenia/Croatia/BiH/Kosovo and the secession of the Serb-majority Krajina is basically a legal one, based on the former constitution of the SFRY and international law. I guess my question to you would be, why do you support the independence of Kosovo but not the independence of the Serb-majority regions of Croatia?


He also told me that Croatia has no legitimacy as a country, no legitimate borders
Hm, what he was probably referring to is the fact that the three main regions that make up the modern state of Croatia (Dalmatia, Slavonia, and civil Croatia) have never existed together in a single state. They first came together with the creation of the Croatian Republic within the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia.


and went so far as to say the region that used to be Yugoslavia belongs to the Serbs.
Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia all had medieval kingdoms with borders stretching across the Balkan peninsula at various times. So yes, at one point, significant portions of Bosnia and Croatia were part of the medieval Serbian kingdom, just as they were, at different points, part of the medieval Croatian and Bosnian kingdoms.

Overall, your friend seems to be using the concept of "historical right" to nationhood a lot in his arguments, which is a contentious issue, especially in regard to Israel/Palestine.

[Yugo45]

If you don't mind me asking, Liza.. Is your friend a Serbian nationalist, or?


Discussing this with another friend of mine, he cited the fact that there was (during the break up) a substantial Serbian population in Croatia, and that these people should be allowed to break off from Croatia to form their own republic.


Yes, it's Krajina. And yes, that was true, they tried to break off from Croatia. And, in my opinion, they did have the right to do it, but not as much right as Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia etc. did, if that makes any sense. It's important to say that most of the Serbs in that area were under constant terror by Croatian extremeley right wing, nationalist, goverment at the time, but the Serbs weren't exactly angels themselves.


He also told me that Croatia has no legitimacy as a country, no legitimate borders, and went so far as to say the region that used to be Yugoslavia belongs to the Serbs.

lol, sorry, but your friend is brainwashed. This is a typical Balkan thing. County A says that Country B is Country A, because once upon a time, 1000 years ago, it used to partially be true.


He asked, "What would happen if Florida tried to break off of the US? No one would persecute the US for attempting to prevent it from doing so, as Serbia was prevented from keeping Croatia (and the others)."

That makes no sense. If another people, who weren't Americans, mostly populated Florida, then it would make some sense. But, why would Serbs try to stop Croatia from breaking up? He makes it sound like Yugoslavia was a Serbian country or whatever.

[The Young Pioneer]

I guess my question to you would be, why do you support the independence of Kosovo but not the independence of the Serb-majority regions of Croatia?


Are these two cases the same? I don't know enough about the latter, which is part of the reason I'm asking questions. :thumbup1:

[Nox]

Hell yes.

The UCK/KLA in Kosovo were freedom fighters fighting against Serbian oppression and imperialism.

EDIT: I don't know too much about the rest of Yugoslav Wars, but the Kosovo War and the continuing conflict is just a clear show of Serbian imperialism.

[khlib]

the Kosovo War and the continuing conflict is just a clear show of Serbian imperialism.

What is your definition of "imperialism", if I may ask?

[The Young Pioneer]

The UCK/KLA in Kosovo were freedom fighters fighting against Serbian oppression and imperialism.

Which again, leads to my question- were the Serbs rebelling in Krajina the Croatian equivalent of this?

[Nox]

What is your definition of "imperialism", if I may ask?

Well, it's a generally vague term, but I guess it means one country asserting its superior power on another.

[Nox]

Which again, leads to my question- were the Serbs rebelling in Krajina the Croatian equivalent of this?

If they were genuinely oppressed. And I mean genuinely oppressed. Then yes. But I'd bet my life savings that they weren't genuinely oppressed.

[khlib]

Well, it's a generally vague term, but I guess it means one country asserting its superior power on another.

By that definition, though, Serbia could not have been "imperialist" toward Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars because they were both part of a single state. Only very recently has Kosovo's independence been recognized.

[Nox]

By that definition, though, Serbia could not have been "imperialist" toward Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars because they were both part of a single state. Only very recently has Kosovo's independence been recognized.

Replace country with nation and it works just fine.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Hell yes.

The UCK/KLA in Kosovo were freedom fighters fighting against Serbian oppression and imperialism.

EDIT: I don't know too much about the rest of Yugoslav Wars, but the Kosovo War and the continuing conflict is just a clear show of Serbian imperialism.

hmm I don't think it as clear as you think. Serbian nation originated in Kosovo, there are over 200 orthodox monasteries there etc so it is tough to gauge which group has the right to that land. It can just as easily be said that Kosovo war was an imperialist war in order to create Greater Albania. Also, since Kosovo was already an internationally recognized part of Serbia (up to a few years ago), how can it be imperialistic to send police and army to your own territory? There are also conflicting reports regarding who was oppressed in Kosovo - Albanians by Serb government or Serbs by local Albanians. In fact, ever since Tito's death Kosovo Serbs have complained regarding intensified "terror" by Albanians, with many leaving Kosovo as a result of it. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia kept these developments quiet in order to quell nationalist sentiment, the reaction to which was the emergence of Serbian nationalism in the mid-80 which initially fought for greater rights for Serbia within Yugoslavia. In regards to the KLA, they are a faction sponsored and controlled by CIA and are now primarily responsible for drug traffic from Afghanistan into Europe. They are "freedom fighters" in the same sense as the Contras. Just to be clear, I am for the secession of Kosovo, but with the Serbian-populated northern Kosovo remaining in Serbia. Otherwise it will turn into Palestine.

As far as the rest of Yugoslavia, how can Serbs be imperialist when they were just trying to hold on to the lands they had a majority in? It makes no sense. Doesn't imperialism entail taking over others' territory? Serbs have been living in Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo etc for centuries.

[The Young Pioneer]

By that definition, though, Serbia could not have been "imperialist" toward Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars because they were both part of a single state. Only very recently has Kosovo's independence been recognized.

Was it not imperialist of the (not necessarily Serbia, but) Yugoslav government to try and keep any of the states from seceding?

This may be an incredibly ignorant question but why did they (Slovenia, Croatia, etc.) secede anyway? Simple desire to be a country in and of themselves? :confused:

[The Young Pioneer]

how can it be imperialistic to send police and army to your own territory?

That's like asking: "How was Russia imperialistic to send Okhrana into their own "territory" for pogroms?"

I mean, I get your point, but the question is not a decent argument, imo. Regardless of whether this applied to Serbia/Yugoslavia/etc or not, an imperial ruler is an imperial ruler because it rules over and colonises areas, doing whatever it wants to the people there.

[nowarbutclasswar]

That's like asking: "How was Russia imperialistic to send Okhrana into their own "territory" for pogroms?"

I mean, I get your point, but the question is not a decent argument, imo. Regardless of whether this applied to Serbia/Yugoslavia/etc or not, an imperial ruler is an imperial ruler because it rules over and colonises areas, doing whatever it wants to the people there.

The police and the army were sent in as a response to provocations by the KLA. Are you saying that if me and 10 of my buddies went down to Florida and started shooting cops and yelling "This is Mexico", the US government wouldn't have a right to intervene?

[Nox]

hmm I don't think it as clear as you think. Serbian nation originated in Kosovo, there are over 200 orthodox monasteries there etc so it is tough to gauge which group has the right to that land. It can just as easily be said that Kosovo war was an imperialist war in order to create Greater Albania. Also, since Kosovo was already an internationally recognized part of Serbia (up to a few years ago), how can it be imperialistic to send police and army to your own territory? There are also conflicting reports regarding who was oppressed in Kosovo - Albanians by Serb government or Serbs by local Albanians. In fact, ever since Tito's death Kosovo Serbs have complained regarding intensified "terror" by Albanians, with many leaving Kosovo as a result of it. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia kept these developments quiet in order to quell nationalist sentiment, the reaction to which was the emergence of Serbian nationalism in the mid-80 which initially fought for greater rights for Serbia within Yugoslavia. In regards to the KLA, they are a faction sponsored and controlled by CIA and are now primarily responsible for drug traffic from Afghanistan into Europe. They are "freedom fighters" in the same sense as the Contras. Just to be clear, I am for the secession of Kosovo, but with the Serbian-populated northern Kosovo remaining in Serbia. Otherwise it will turn into Palestine.

As far as the rest of Yugoslavia, how can Serbs be imperialist when they were just trying to hold on to the lands they had a majority in? It makes no sense. Doesn't imperialism entail taking over others' territory? Serbs have been living in Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo etc for centuries.

Over 90% of Kosovo's population is made up of Albanians. Serbs make up only 5% or less.

Albanians have always been the majority population in the area, and throughout history they have always been oppressed by the Serbs. When they finally tried to fight for their freedom, they faced the full wrath of the Serbian imperialism, but they still kicked Serbia's ass.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Over 90% of Kosovo's population is made up of Albanians. Serbs make up only 5% or less.

Albanians have always been the majority population in the area, and throughout history they have always been oppressed by the Serbs. When they finally tried to fight for their freedom, they faced the full wrath of the Serbian imperialism, but they still kicked Serbia's ass.

What are you doing on a Marxist forum?

[Nox]

What are you doing on a Marxist forum?

I knew someone would say that.

Of course I think all states should be abolished, but that doesn't mean I don't support anti-imperialist struggles & freedom fights in the current world.

What you just said is like saying "why support black equality in the usa if you want the usa to be abolished"

[nowarbutclasswar]

I knew someone would say that.

Of course I think all states should be abolished, but that doesn't mean I don't support anti-imperialist struggles & freedom fights in the current world.

What you just said is like saying "why support black equality in the usa if you want the usa to be abolished"

I think it is irresponsible to support "anti-imperialist struggles & freedom fights" if you are not fully informed on the situation. Not all rebels are freedom fighters.

Also, you say Albanians "have always been oppressed by Serbs". How were they oppressed?

[tir1944]

The fact that your father fought it in doesn't make KLA "freedom fighters".
It was a terrorist organization recognized as such by the US itself!
They were "freedom fighters" in the same way the Chechen Mujahids were "freedom fighters" etc.KLA was a terrorist organization supported by the West which commited massacres of Serbs and anti-KLA Albanians,kidnapped people and sold their kidneys(!) and so on.
Also yeah,prove and describe this "Serbian imperialism".
Albanians WERE repressed horribly by Belgrade and had the right to self-determination,although i don't support a "self-determination" carried out by USA-NATO puppets!


Of course I think all states should be abolished, but that doesn't mean I don't support anti-imperialist struggles & freedom fights in the current world.
Lol, Kosovo "independence" is as pro-imperialist as it can get.

[Nox]

I think it is irresponsible to support "anti-imperialist struggles & freedom fights" if you are not fully informed on the situation. Not all rebels are freedom fighters.

Also, you say Albanians "have always been oppressed by Serbs". How were they oppressed?

Oh believe me, I am very well informed on the subject.




Oppressed nation

The Kosovar Albanians were an oppressed people in the old Yugoslav federation. Kosova’s per capita income was one quarter that of Serbia; Albanians constituted one percent of Yugoslavia’s military officers, while Serbs constituted 70%; Albanians made up 70-80% of political prisoners.
As a national group in a well-defined territory, they deserve the right to self-determination.
Many claim Kosova is a “mere province” of Serbia, and its “secession” is a violation of Serbian “sovereignty”. It is alleged that, whereas the other states of the former Yugoslavia were federal republics with a right to independence, Kosova merely deserves autonomy within the Serbian republic.
Independence for a “province” could encourage minority groups elsewhere to secede. This danger is a major reason imperialist powers have always opposed Kosovar independence until a few years ago.
Socialists, however, reject the idea that oppressed peoples must be forced to live in a “sovereign” state that has subjugated them, and have long supported oppressed peoples — such as the Kurds in Turkey and the Basques in Spain — fighting for self-determination, though they never constituted republics within those states.
The resistance of the Kosovar Albanian majority to Serbian rule began when they were first brutally subjected to it in 1913, and they have never accepted the legitimacy of Serbian rule. However, their situation achieved a major change in the constitution of Tito’s socialist Yugoslavia after 1968, when Kosova achieved “high level autonomy”, including direct representation in the Yugoslav presidency as an equal to other republics, rather than via Serbia.
Kosova had its own high court, central bank, and territorial defence force. While Albanians still demanded a republic, this near-republic status reveals the claim that it was a mere Serbian “province” as false.
When the rising Serbian bourgeoisie under former President Slobodan Milosevic took control of the Yugoslav state in period of 1988-91 and crushed Kosovar self-rule, this was an unconstitutional act. In a 1991 referendum, 99% of Kosovars voted for self-determination.
When Serbia and Montenegro created a new state called Yugoslavia in 1992, Kosova was not asked its opinion; its incorporation was illegal.
A decade of peaceful Kosovar resistance in the 1990s gave way to an armed insurrection led by the Kosovar Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99 and a brutal Serbian counterinsurgency. This led to the murderous air war against Serbia by NATO, afraid the situation would spin out of control. Some 10,000 Albanians died and 850,000 were forced from the country by the Serbian armed forces, while 2000 Serbs were killed by NATO bombing.

[tir1944]

How convenient to forget the hundreds of innocent Serbs and anti-KLA Albanians these KLA terrorist brutally killed (often extracting their organs for sale).
I have no doubts that you're a Serbophobe.Moderators should look into this...

[Rocky Rococo]

If they were genuinely oppressed. And I mean genuinely oppressed. Then yes. But I'd bet my life savings that they weren't genuinely oppressed.

They were by and large "ethnically cleansed". It was in fact the largest single ethnic cleansing operation of the entire Wars of the Yugoslav Succession, which was replete with such operations on all sides. I would consider that to be genuine oppression.

[Sendo]

Hell yes.

The UCK/KLA in Kosovo were freedom fighters fighting against Serbian oppression and imperialism.

EDIT: I don't know too much about the rest of Yugoslav Wars, but the Kosovo War and the continuing conflict is just a clear show of Serbian imperialism.


I recommend checking out "The Weight of Chains." I won't quote the documentary at length, but it reminded me of the fact that until the late 1980s, the Kosovars were well in control of their province and the Kosovar breakoff "state" erected statues of Clinton and the KLA was buddy-buddy with Wes Clark (then the top guy in NATO). Video footage abounds. (Much more intimate than the Rummy and Hussein handshake) Seeing some of the clips brought back a lot of memories. I remember being skeptical of everything the news was reporting at the time. I distinctly remember hearing how the Serbs wee the bad guys and imperialist. Then checking the map and seeing that it was all on federation from from the forties until 91. Just seemed like a civil war to me and I could not imagine why the US would be taking one side or the other. I was also skeptical about Bosnian "peacekeepers" (I asked the teacher in class why peacekeepers were wearing M-16s)

I haven't looked into anything more on it yet, but the documentary argued that the KLA was tied to Mujahedeen and heroin smugglers.

Parenti has some good stuff on Yugoslavia from "To Kill a Nation." During his book tour he talked at some length about US funding for separatist and former Ustashe/Nazi leaders through the NED as well as George HW Bush's administration's act that promised aid only to Yugos who seceded.

The Kosovars are less independent than other. A comprador class leads a county under the boot of NATO imperialism while its natural resources (minerals) are exploited by private foreign companies.

[Sendo]

They were by and large "ethnically cleansed". It was in fact the largest single ethnic cleansing operation of the entire Wars of the Yugoslav Succession, which was replete with such operations on all sides. I would consider that to be genuine oppression.

When the wars got underway, all sides engaged in ethnic cleansing--many relocations, not simply genocide (lest I muddle definitions). I don't know how this relates to imperialist oppression. No one engaged in ethnic cleansing in a conquered land. No one conquered one another and then performed ethnic cleansing. With the exception of NATO seizure of the Kosovar province, all republics are using the borders of the constituent republics of FSRY.

I recommend many of the posters in this thread be wary of residual liberalism, apologism for Clinton, and a skewed history. Depending on when you were radicalized you could be quite off the mark. Many, like myself, got radicalized in the Bush years. It's meant a lot of relearning of Soviet and Chinese and 60s history. This time, checking for citations, weighing the pros and cons from a class-conscious perspective.

[Sendo]

Oh believe me, I am very well informed on the subject.

So Kosovo's autonomy and full internal administration and culture in the Albanian tongue is oppression because a different ethnic group was in populated the capital and most regions of the greater country?

So, then, I presume that the 5 original nations of the Iroquois Confederacy continually oppressed the Tuscarora who were an ethnically different tribe.

The Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians do not have separate and distinct histories. There have a shared history of Southern Slavs and the medieval kingdoms did not sees each other as separate races any more than the Normans and Burgundians did. You spoke a language and whatnot, but your "country" was just whatever monarch was ruling your town at the time. The various ethnicities are of Yugoslavia are recent self-indentifications more than anything else. Political tensions have formalized different dialects of a common macro-language (as in Serbo-Croat). Their history is a shared one. They've been at a frontier between the Orient (in the classical sense) and Central Europe and have been manipulated for centuries.

African-Americans who are the descendants of slaves and live in the South and WASPs in New England have quite a few ethnic differences themselves. How about Cornwall? Should every state being broken apart by civil wars into as many ethnic fragments as possible?


I love your quoted bit of "This led to the murderous air war against Serbia by NATO, afraid the situation would spin out of control." HAHA! Nato cared about the escalation of conflict so it bombed bridges and cigarette factories and seized control of Trepca mining? It dropped depleted uranium because it cared so much for Albanian Kosovars? Before 9/11, Sean Hannity would be giving you a pat on the back. This kind of surmising about the motivations and benefit of the doubt leads to history textbooks asserting that the KKK-lover and segregationist, Woodrow Wilson, was personally "conflicted" about civil rights and women's suffrage.

Side note: aren't anarchists supposed to be against national liberation wars? Or was that only Left Coms?

[Yugo45]

The Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians do not have separate and distinct histories. There have a shared history of Southern Slavs and the medieval kingdoms did not sees each other as separate races any more than the Normans and Burgundians did. You spoke a language and whatnot, but your "country" was just whatever monarch was ruling your town at the time. The various ethnicities are of Yugoslavia are recent self-indentifications more than anything else. Political tensions have formalized different dialects of a common macro-language (as in Serbo-Croat). Their history is a shared one. They've been at a frontier between the Orient (in the classical sense) and Central Europe and have been manipulated for centuries.

That's mostly true, but not so between Albanians and other countries, since Albanians aren't South Slavs and speak an entirely different language.

P.S. You forgot Bosnians, Montenegrins and Bulgarians ;D

[nowarbutclasswar]

Nox, this article you posted is by Michael Karadjis, who, much like yourself, is quite the "Marxist" Serbophobe. All you have to do is search his name in Google and look at the articles that come up.

For example, search this: "Michael Karadjis - Holocaust Revisionist"

[Nox]

Nox, this article you posted is by Michael Karadjis, who, much like yourself, is quite the "Marxist" Serbophobe. All you have to do is search his name in Google and look at the articles that come up.

For example, search this: "Michael Karadjis - Holocaust Revisionist"

I don't necessarily agree with everything written in that article, I just copied the whole thing as you asked for reasons why Albanians were oppressed and I gave them to you.

Please don't lower yourself with ad hominem attacks against the author...

Also, to other people posting on this thread, I do not support the way NATO invaded. In fact I don't think they should have invaded at all. All I'm saying is that Albanians were oppressed and the KLA were freedom fighters.

[khlib]

I do not support the way NATO invaded. In fact I don't think they should have invaded at all.


The NATO action in Kosovo is the only NATO action I have ever supported, simply because it's probably the only time where they have genuinely freed an oppressed people and given them self-determination.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2299363&postcount=22

:confused:

[Nox]

So Kosovo's autonomy and full internal administration and culture in the Albanian tongue is oppression because a different ethnic group was in populated the capital and most regions of the greater country?

Ok, firstly the majority of what you wrote is totally invalid because Albanians are not Slavic.

Secondly, let me propose this situation to you: If 70% of US political prisoners were African-American and African Americans only earned on average $10,000 whereas White Americans earned $40,000 - would you say they were oppressed? I would. And that's just the surface, there are many assumptions you can make by reading between the lines and looking at the cause of the imbalance.


Side note: aren't anarchists supposed to be against national liberation wars? Or was that only Left Coms?

Not sure, it's pretty silly to assume all people of a certain tendency share the exact same view on everything.

The statement itself is so stupid. "Why support national liberation wars" is like saying "why bother supporting equal rights for african-americans" or "why bother supporting gay rights" or "why bother supporting women's rights".

[Nox]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2299363&postcount=22

:confused:

I no longer fully agree with the second quote. I said that a while back.

Although I still stand by my statement that it's probably the only time where they have genuinely freed an oppressed people.

I certainly do not support NATO's actions in Kosovo and Yugoslavia as a whole, but what would have happened if they didn't help free Kosovo? Another genocide? Probably.

[DarkPast]

Hm, what he was probably referring to is the fact that the three main regions that make up the modern state of Croatia (Dalmatia, Slavonia, and civil Croatia) have never existed together in a single state. They first came together with the creation of the Croatian Republic within the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia.

Just a small correction: The three regions of Croatia were part of the same country before the SFRY - right after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire, a country called "The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs" was formed, but it remained unrecognized by many countries and after only one month became part of of the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes".

However, until King Alexander implemented his anti-nationalist "reforms" (and changed the country's name to "Yugoslavia"), Croatia was a constituent part of that country. Finally, just before World War 2 broke out, the Serb minister Cvetković and Croatian minister Maček made an agreement that formed a "Banovina Croatia" within Yugoslav borders.


If they were genuinely oppressed. And I mean genuinely oppressed. Then yes. But I'd bet my life savings that they weren't genuinely oppressed.

The problem was that Franjo Tuđman drew up a very controversial constitution law that defined the Croats as the only constituent nation of Croatia... Also, in recorded but private phone calls, he called for the "removal" of Serbs from Croatia under the guise of providing "humanitarian aid". "Weight of Chains" says more on the subject.


Albanians WERE repressed horribly by Belgrade and had the right to self-determination,although i don't support a "self-determination" carried out by USA-NATO puppets!

Kosovo was a long-time problem spot for Yugoslavia. While it was the poorest part of the country, it still did make considerable progress compared to the misery it suffered in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - and it had a higher standard of living than Albania.

Under Tito's regime Albanian nationalists and pro-Hoxhaites/Stalinists were repressed, but that's kinda understandable (though whether it was justified is another story - let's not go there now) since he was afraid of a possible Soviet invasion through there. After Tito died it all went downhill, the Belgrade leadership started openly pushing for a "Kosovo is Serbia" policy well... we all know where that led to.

[Sendo]

Not sure, it's pretty silly to assume all people of a certain tendency share the exact same view on everything.

The statement itself is so stupid. "Why support national liberation wars" is like saying "why bother supporting equal rights for african-americans" or "why bother supporting gay rights" or "why bother supporting women's rights".

Sorry if that came out as snarky. I saw it and and thought it would come out that way in writing. I was honestly confused. I was wondering if there was in fact a strain within anarchism that supported national liberation or if you yourself were sympathetic to anarchism but not fully committed to the ideology. I was under the impression that national liberation relatively little by non M-Ls.

For myself, I don't want to identify first and foremost as a Maoist because I disagree with everything Mao said after the Three World's Theory. I imagine it would cause confusion in a debate on said issue if my comment box said it was my main tendency.

[Revolutionair]

Just a note, stop calling people fucking Serbophobes. There is no reason for anyone outside of the balkans to have that phobia. I have never encountered anyone with Serbophobia or something similar.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Serbia's "claim" on Kosovo was based on the fact that the Turks killed a whole load of Serbs in the 1400s there. Nationalism replaced Communism in the Yugoslav federation, and naturally this led to conflict between the ethnic groups. I don't particularly care whether the Kosovars are under a bourgeois Serbian or a bourgeois Albanian state, but I can understand why Albanian Kosovars wouldn't want to live in a state dominated by Serb Chauvinism, the way the Serbs would not want to live in a state dominated by Croatian chauvinism.

[Ismail]

Kosovo was a long-time problem spot for Yugoslavia. While it was the poorest part of the country, it still did make considerable progress compared to the misery it suffered in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - and it had a higher standard of living than Albania.It had a higher standard of living? In what sense? 30% of Kosova was illiterate in the 1970's whereas illiteracy was basically gone by that point in Albania proper. Blood feuds were still widespread in many portions of Kosova whereas they were quite rare in Albania proper in that same period. The sources for these come from Albania and the Albanians by Ramadan Marmullaku, a Kosovar Albanian and Yugoslav state functionary.

Many Albanians in Kosova considered Albania to have an overall higher standard of living throughout the 1950's-80's. It wasn't until 1969 or so, for example, that Kosova (with assistance from Albania proper) got its first University, whereas Albania got its first in 1957.


After Tito died it all went downhill, the Belgrade leadership started openly pushing for a "Kosovo is Serbia" policy well... we all know where that led to.It was already quite prevalent before then. Tito himself admitted to Hoxha that Kosova belonged to Albania and would "return" it to Albania one day, but that Serbian chauvinism was too strong for him to allow the Kosovar Albanians the right to self-determination. Of course Tito had in mind the annexation of Albania itself as a seventh republic within Yugoslavia as a way to "solve" the whole dispute, even though the Albanians certainly didn't like that idea.

Elez Biberaj notes in Albania: A Socialist Maverick (written in 1990) that 70% of Yugoslav political prisoners were Kosovar Albanians, and that this wasn't a new development. Various sources also note the Serbian chauvinist Alexander Ranković, called a "dubious Marxist" by Stalin in the 40's (along with Milovan Đilas, who later became an anti-communist), and who was removed from his post in the 1960's by the Yugoslavs, who were forced to admit that he discriminated against the Kosovar Albanians.

If we're gonna talk about nationalism, I'd like to note that the fact Kosova became separated from Albania by a decision of the Great Powers in 1913 even though Kosovar Albanians played a great role in liberating Albania itself is a lot more important, from a Marxist point of view, than the fact that Kosova is the "heartland" of Serbians based on holy sites built over 500 years ago. I'd also like to note that Kosovar Albanian fighter Bajram Curri, who fought both against King Zog in Albania and against the Serbian chauvinists throughout the 1910's and 1920's, praised Lenin for his stand on self-determination.

Oh, and of course the Comintern also believed that Kosova belonged to Albania throughout its existence. Yugoslav Communists also held this view until WWII.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Facts in terms of historical right to Kosovo:



Slavs are mentioned in the area since the 520s AD, with the Slav tribe of Sklavenoi settling the Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum, the mythological founders of the Serbs were the White Serbs; "who settled in the Balkans during the rule of Emperor Heraclius" (610-641).[17] In the 12th century, according to the Byzantine Empress Anna Angelina Komnenos, the Serbs were the main inhabitants of Kosovo (Eastern Dalmatia and former Moesia Superior).[18] Archeological findings from the 7th century onwards show a Serb (Slavic) cultural domination in case of glagolithic letters, pottery, cemeteries, churches and monasteries.[19][verification needed]
In 1054 the Great Schism occurred in the realm, the Byzantine Empire (Roman) was divided on religious basis and Kosovo & Metohija was part of the Orthodox world (Subsequently the base of the Serbian Orthodox Church). Catholicism did not exist in the native population.
[edit]14th century

1321-1331 The Dečani charters (Serbian: Дечанске хрисовуље) from 1321-1331 by Stephen Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia contains a detailed list of households and villages in Metohija and northwestern Albania. The first charter concludes that this region was ethnically Serb.[20]

89 settlements with 2,666 households were recorded of which:[21]
86 Serbian settlements (96,6%)
3 Albanian settlements (3,3%)
2,166 livestock households of 2,666 agricultural households:
2,122 Serbian households (98%)
44 Albanian households (2%)

15th century
The ethnic composition of Kosovo's population during this period included Serbs, Albanians, and Vlachs along with a token number of Greeks, Armenians, Saxons, and Bulgarians, according to Serbian monastic charters or chrysobulls (Hrisovulja). A majority of the given names in the charters are overwhelmingly Serbian (Of 24,795 names, 23,774 were ethnic Serb names, 470 of Roman origin, 65 of Albanian origin and 61 of Greek origin).

1455: Turkish cadastral tax census (defter)[23] of the Brankovic dynasty lands (covering most of present-day Kosovo) recorded:

13,000 Serb dwellings present in all 480 villages and towns
75 Vlach dwellings in 34 villages
46 Albanian dwellings in 23 villages
17 Bulgarian dwellings in 10 villages
5 Greek dwellings in Lauša, Vučitrn
1 Jewish dwelling in Vučitrn
1 Croat dwelling




30% of Kosova was illiterate in the 1970's whereas illiteracy was basically gone by that point in Albania proper.

Illiterate in what language - Serbian or Albanian? A country does not have an obligation to provide schooling in languages spoken by minorities. That would be like blaming Canada because Serbian immigrants refuse to learn English.


70% of Yugoslav political prisoners were Kosovar Albanians

That can be interpreted in numerous ways. Maybe there were so many Albanian political prisoners because they were more active than other ethnic groups. After all, Kosovo Albanians were the first to rebel, only a year after Tito's death.


Tito himself admitted to Hoxha that Kosova belonged to Albania and would "return" it to Albania one day, but that Serbian chauvinism was too strong for him to allow the Kosovar Albanians the right to self-determination.

Source? Also, check the above census records to see who Kosovo "belonged" to historically.



After 1968 Albanians were permitted to display the national flag of Albania in Kosovo and adopt the official Albanian literary language, which is based on the dialect of Albania rather than that spoken in Kosovo. Cultural exchanges introduced teachers from Albania and textbooks printed in Albania. Yugoslavia's 1974 Constitution gave Kosovo virtually the same rights as the country's constituent republics; nowhere in Europe had such far-ranging concessions to national rights been granted in a region considered so potentially separatist.


Kosovo Albanians may have had a lower standard of living than other nationalities in Yugoslavia, but to say that they were opressed is definately streching the truth. I would just like to reiterate that, even though I believe Serbs have a historical right to Kosovo, I am for the "partition of Kosovo" idea because it is the only humaine and workable solution to the crisis.

[Ismail]

Facts in terms of historical right to Kosovo:It's pretty bad when you need to rely on Wikipedia to make an argument.


Illiterate in what language - Serbian or Albanian? A country does not have an obligation to provide schooling in languages spoken by minorities. That would be like blaming Canada because Serbian immigrants refuse to learn English.The "minority," of course, made up a majority in Kosova which was, after all, designated as autonomous. For the record, the author was talking about Albanian.


After all, Kosovo Albanians were the first to rebel, only a year after Tito's death.You forgot 1968. And 1944-1946. And it wasn't a "rebellion" (1944-1946 was though), it was student and worker protests which were suppressed by Yugoslav tanks while the Yugoslavs blamed Albania for somehow organizing it all.


Source?It occurred in 1946. Hoxha mentions it in his book The Titoites (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TT82iii.html):

Tito asked me what I thought about the solution of the problem of Kosova and the other Albanian regions in Yugoslavia. After a moment's silence to sum up our views on this important problem so that I could present them in the most complete and concise way, I said:

"You know about the historical injustices which the various imperialists and Great-Serb reaction have done to Albania. You also know the principled stands of our Party during the National Liberation War and the desire of our people for friendship with the peoples of Yugoslavia."

I went on to express to Tito the opinion of the Albanian side that Kosova and the other regions in Yugoslavia, inhabited by Albanians, belonged to Albania and should be returned to it.

"The Albanians fought," I told him, "in order to have a free and sovereign Albania with which the Albanian regions in Yugoslavia should now be united. The time has come for this national problem to be solved justly by our parties."

President Tito replied:

"I am in agreement with your view, but for the time being we cannot do this, because the Serbs would not under stand us."It was in any case an open tenet of the Yugoslav Communists up until 1943 or so that Kosova belonged to Albania. While in Albania the CPA was fighting against bourgeois nationalists who collaborated with the German occupiers to "secure" Kosova for Albania under a bourgeois puppet regime, and while the CPA called for the question of Kosova to be solved in a comradely way after the liberation of both Albania and Yugoslavia on the basis of self-determination (in which the interim period would see Yugoslavia continue to administer it), Tito wanted to win over the Četniks by promising to keep Kosova a part of Serbia.


Also, check the above census records to see who Kosovo "belonged" to historically.Who cares who it "historically" belonged to over 500 years ago? Over 1500 years ago it belonged in part to the Illyrians (the forefathers of the Albanians), who were largely forced to move inwards and onto the mountains due to the Slav migrations. But I'm not a bourgeois nationalist; I don't base things on ancient or medieval history. Kosova was an integral part of the struggle for an independent Albania. A good deal of those who fought for Albanian independence came from Kosova. Edward Grey at the 1913 London conference admitted that those who knew about Albania would understand that what was happening to its territory was based on averting a huge war, since Serbia was refusing to let go of northern Albania because it wanted a port in the Adriatic via Durrës (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durr%C3%ABs_County_%28Kingdom_of_Serbia%29), while Austria-Hungary threatened to go to war with Serbia, which would have quite possibly caused WWI a year earlier. Thanks to that conference, in which the Albanians themselves had no say, more than half of Albanians got to enjoy being cut out of Albania proper, despite waging a struggle for independence which they had won less than a year earlier.


Kosovo Albanians may have had a lower standard of living than other nationalities in Yugoslavia, but to say that they were opressed is definately streching the truth.They were denied self-determination, treated as second-rate citizens, and the Yugoslav state itself admitted that for around 20 years (until Ranković's dismissal) the Kosovar Albanians weren't exactly treated very well. Because of the policy of the Yugoslav state it became possible for Serbian nationalists to scapegoat Kosovar Albanians and to promote ethnic cleansing.

[nowarbutclasswar]

It's pretty bad when you need to rely on Wikipedia to make an argument.

??? All of the data is clearly cited on the Wikipedia page "Demographics of Kosovo". Also, I consider Wikipedia to be more objective than the sources you provided.


The "minority," of course, made up a majority in Kosova which was, after all, designated as autonomous. For the record, the author was talking about Albanian.
The last time I checked, the official language in Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian. I still stand by my Serbian-Canadian analogy. Just because a state doesn’t provide schooling in a particular ethnic groups’ native tongue does not mean that group is oppressed.

You forgot 1968. And 1944-1946. And it wasn't a "rebellion" (1944-1946 was though), it was student and worker protests which were suppressed by Yugoslav tanks while the Yugoslavs blamed Albania for somehow organizing it all.
Who's to say it didn't


It occurred in 1946. Hoxha mentions it in his book The Titoites:
The book in question was published in 1982 with who knows what kind of intentions. But regardless of that, what gives Tito or Hoxha the right to determine who Kosovo belongs to? Their personal opinions do not solve the argument.


Tito wanted to win over the Četniks by promising to keep Kosova a part of Serbia.
Source?? I think this is a huge stretch btw. Tito could care less about Cetniks. The statement also puts the blame on Serbs once again - the benevolent Marxist Tito only trying to appease the chauvinist Serb Nazi collaborators.


Who cares who it "historically" belonged to over 500 years ago?
I totally agree about the irrelevance of historical claims to Kosovo (that is why I am for secession), I only posted them in regards to your comment that the 1913 Treaty is “a lot more important, from a Marxist point of view, than the fact that Kosova is the "heartland" of Serbians based on holy sites built over 500 years ago.” You say that you “don’t base things on ancient or medieval history”, but you still base it on history, and who’s to say how far into history facts become invalid (1913 or 1699 or 5?)? In other words, if we are basing our argument on the historic right to the land we have to go back as far as possible. Those facts show that Serbs were majority in Kosovo until they were expelled in the 17th and 18th century by the Ottomans and Albanians. Since 1600 until 2011 population in Kosovo transformed from 90% Serb to 90% Albanian. Is that ethnic cleansing?

But let’s put away all this historical he-say/she-say and think critically for a second. Even if in 1945 Albanians were made a constituent nation, given schools in their language, Kosovo was given republic status and its economic situation greatly improved, do you think that Albanians wouldn’t look for “independence” at the first opportunity? Therefore, Serbian “oppression” is just a convenient excuse for the Albanians to achieve their ultimate goal which is secession from Yugoslavia and merger with Albania.

[Ismail]

The last time I checked, the official language in Yugoslavia was Serbo-Croatian. I still stand by my Serbian-Canadian analogy. Just because a state doesn’t provide schooling in a particular ethnic groups’ native tongue does not mean that group is oppressed.In the first case although the language of Yugoslavia was indeed Serbo-Croatian, it is quite obvious that the Albanian majority in the province, which had been there for over 200 years, was deserving of having its language preserved. By the 1970's the Yugoslav Government recognized this and gave Albanian de jure "equality" with Serbo-Croatian within the province.

Your "Serbo-Croatian" analogy is ridiculous. Serbian Canadians make up (according to Wikipedia) a little less than 100,000 persons. French Canadians, by contrast, who are quite strongly identified with Quebec and Montreal, make up a little over 10,000,000. That'd be a better analogy. Serbian Canadians have no claim towards self-determination anymore than Albanian-Americans do.

Kosovar Albanians overwhelmingly wanted to join Albania at the end of World War II. Kosovar Albanians were, and still are, of the same ethnicity and nationality as their counterparts in Albania proper. Albanians from the vilayets of Kosovo, Scutari and Janina took part in uniting the Albanian people under an independent country. The partition of Kosova from Albania was, in the view of contemporary communists, an unjust act. That's something the Serbian Canadian analogy can never replicate.

Secondly, don't forget that the Albanians only got an alphabet in 1911. Most Albanian nationalists in the 1800's were concerned with actually teaching the Albanian language first and foremost, since it had been denied to Albanians by both Ottoman and Greek authorities. The struggle for the Albanian language itself was strongly tied with the struggle of the Albanians for independence. In general language is a very important issue. It certainly counts as national oppression to deny a people their language in their land. That is why reactionaries engaged in such acts, such as the Franco regime suppressing regional dialects and Catalan in Spain.


Who's to say it didn'tA dearth of evidence.


The book in question was published in 1982 with who knows what kind of intentions.It's a memoir by Hoxha, one of the many he wrote.


But regardless of that, what gives Tito or Hoxha the right to determine who Kosovo belongs to? Their personal opinions do not solve the argument.Obviously they spoke as the leading representatives of their respective states and peoples. The actual Kosovar Albanian Communists wanted to reunite with Albania. The fact that their Yugoslav counterparts were opposed to this contributed greatly to their lack of popularity amongst said Kosovar Albanians during and after the war.

Hoxha called for the self-determination of the inhabitants of Kosova to decide on their future. This was a policy of the Comintern and the pre-1940's Communist Party of Yugoslavia. That is how the future of Kosova was to be determined, and it was the Yugoslavs who denied this right.


Source?? I think this is a huge stretch btw.The Saga of Kosovo, written by two Serbs in 1984, notes that when Mladin Popović (who helped assist in the founding of the CPA) noted that the self-determination of the Kosovar Albanians would be decided post-war, he was sent instructions by Tito through an intermediary to "not ever allow yourself to take the position... which would have this part [Kosovo-Metohija] annexed to Albania," with the book's authors noting that, "We know that Tito and his comrades were locked in a mortal struggle with Mihailovich's Chetniks, and therefore needed any and all able-bodied fighters to help tip the balance in their favor.


You say that you “don’t base things on ancient or medieval history”, but you still base it on history, and who’s to say how far into history facts become invalid (1913 or 1699 or 5?)? In other words, if we are basing our argument on the historic right to the land we have to go back as far as possible. Those facts show that Serbs were majority in Kosovo until they were expelled in the 17th and 18th century by the Ottomans and Albanians.I don't base things on "historic rights." Any Marxist should find it reasonably obvious that 1913 is more relevant than feudal times in deciding issues of nationality. The Comintern and the Balkan Communist Federation both backed the Kosova Committee throughout the 1920's. Leon Trotsky traveled to Kosova and northern Albania during the Balkan Wars and noted Serbian atrocities against Albanians. The Yugoslav Communists called on Kosova to be returned to Albania. Those should be a fairly good indication of what Marxists thought of Kosova.


Since 1600 until 2011 population in Kosovo transformed from 90% Serb to 90% Albanian. Is that ethnic cleansing?No? In fact the Serbians worked to deport tons of Albanians to Turkey in the 1920's and 30's and to colonize (their words) Kosova with Serbs, as described by Miranda Vickers in Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo. Albanians throughout the 20th century had some of the highest birth-rates in Europe.


Even if in 1945 Albanians were made a constituent nation, given schools in their language, Kosovo was given republic status and its economic situation greatly improved, do you think that Albanians wouldn’t look for “independence” at the first opportunity? Therefore, Serbian “oppression” is just a convenient excuse for the Albanians to achieve their ultimate goal which is secession from Yugoslavia and merger with Albania.
Albanians wanted to be reunited with Albania after less than 50 years of being severed from it. Amazing.

If Albanians in Kosova wanted union with Albania, even after all that, then they evidently truly felt unequal in Yugoslavia. Unless you believe that Kosovar Albanians are genetically "greedy" or evil or something I don't see your point. Ethnic groups don't demand unity with mother countries for no reason.

You don't argue like a Marxist at all. You argue like a nationalist.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Serbian Canadians have no claim towards self-determination anymore than Albanian-Americans do.
I didn't say that Kosovo Albanians didn't have a right to self-determination (I've stated numerous times that I agree with their right to self-determination), I was stating that not having schools in one's native tongue in another country does not constitute oppression.

It certainly counts as national oppression to deny a people their language in their land.
They were denied their language in Albania?

It's a memoir by Hoxha, one of the many he wrote.
And should therefore be taken as the word of God.

The Saga of Kosovo, written by two Serbs in 1984, notes that when Mladin Popović (who helped assist in the founding of the CPA) noted that the self-determination of the Kosovar Albanians would be decided post-war, he was sent instructions by Tito through an intermediary to "not ever allow yourself to take the position... which would have this part [Kosovo-Metohija] annexed to Albania," with the book's authors noting that, "We know that Tito and his comrades were locked in a mortal struggle with Mihailovich's Chetniks, and therefore needed any and all able-bodied fighters to help tip the balance in their favor.
I don't doubt the authenticity of those letters but drawing conclusions from them is speculation. Nowhere in the letters does it say that Tito wanted Kosovo in order to persuade Cetniks to join Partisans. Did they also want Trieste in order to appease the Cetniks? They wanted both because it was a land grab after the war, no other reason.

Those should be a fairly good indication of what Marxists thought of Kosova. I personally don't care what "Marxists" thought about Kosovo, I can draw my own conclusions on the matter. And I cannot see why 1913 should overrule previous 10 centuries. It makes no sense logically.

In fact the Serbians worked to deport tons of Albanians to Turkey in the 1920's and 30's and to colonize (their words) Kosova with Serbs, as described by Miranda Vickers in Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo. Albanians throughout the 20th century had some of the highest birth-rates in Europe.Well if they worked to deport tons of Albanians they were obviously terrible at it because Albanian population kept increasing. And you don't honestly believe that Kosovo demographics changed from 90% Serb to 90% Albanian due to high birth rates only?

If Albanians in Kosova wanted union with Albania, even after all that, then they evidently truly felt unequal in Yugoslavia. Unless you believe that Kosovar Albanians are genetically "greedy" or evil or something I don't see your point.
My point was that it is unnecessary to pretend that Kosovo Albanians were oppressed in SFRY in order to make the case for Kosovo's secession. Albanians would have wanted to separate regardless.

You don't argue like a Marxist at all. You argue like a nationalist. How so? I am only trying to dispel falsehoods regarding Serbian opression of Albanians in Kosovo during SFRY. In fact, there are a number of sources (some high inside Yugoslavian intelligence agency) that claim that Serbian minority in Kosovo starting in the early 80's was actually opressed by the Albanian majority, not the other way around, and that this was largly witheld from the public in order to subdue nationalist sentiment on all sides. I support all people's right to self-determination and I am not arguing against that here but I don't agree with two things stated on this thread 1) Albanian historical right to Kosovo and 2) opression of Albanians during SFRY. I don't think either of those have much to do with Marxist or nationalist ideologies and can be proven by facts.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I didn't say that Kosovo Albanians didn't have a right to self-determination (I've stated numerous times that I agree with their right to self-determination), I was stating that not having schools in one's native tongue in another country does not constitute oppression.

They were denied their language in Albania?


Um, denying an indigenous ethnic group the right to have schools in their language is oppression and denial of their self determination. It is a powerful form of cultural destruction. The British used it on the Scots and Irish, the French used it against Africans, the Spanish and Americans used it on the Native Americans, Arabs used it against Berbers, etc. Its a great way for a hegemonic elite to impose its will on what it sees as irrelevant minorities in the peripheries of their "nation-states." In reality, Albanians in Kosovo and Albania alike had a right to learn their language as much as French Canadians and French people from France have a right to have classes in French

[nowarbutclasswar]

Um, denying an indigenous ethnic group the right to have schools in their language is oppression and denial of their self determination. It is a powerful form of cultural destruction. The British used it on the Scots and Irish, the French used it against Africans, the Spanish and Americans used it on the Native Americans, Arabs used it against Berbers, etc. Its a great way for a hegemonic elite to impose its will on what it sees as irrelevant minorities in the peripheries of their "nation-states." In reality, Albanians in Kosovo and Albania alike had a right to learn their language as much as French Canadians and French people from France have a right to have classes in French

Yea but there is a difference between deliberate cultural oppression lasting centuries and a 20 year period right after a major war in which a country is destroyed and its socioeconomic structure completely revamped. I know oppression is a relative term, but I don't think the treatment of Albanians in Yugoslavia can compare to for example Palestinians, Kurds in Turkey, Blacks in the early/mid 1900's in USA etc which I consider genuine forms of oppression.

[tir1944]

Tito could care less about Cetniks.
False.Tito tried to negotiate a "united front" against Germans with them in '41 but Chethniks stabbed him in the back(Užice uprising).But the Partisans were always working hard to get some Chetniks to their side,which turned out to be a rather successful endeavour with thousands of ex-Chetniks eventually joining the Partisans at one point or another....

[Ismail]

I was stating that not having schools in one's native tongue in another country does not constitute oppression.It certainly doesn't constitute equality, either.


They were denied their language in Albania?Another chauvinist remark. "If they don't like it then they can all go back to Albania!"


And should therefore be taken as the word of God.I already noted Yugoslav Communist support for Kosova going back to Albania, stuff which doesn't rely on Hoxha's memoirs.


I don't doubt the authenticity of those letters but drawing conclusions from them is speculation. Nowhere in the letters does it say that Tito wanted Kosovo in order to persuade Cetniks to join Partisans. Did they also want Trieste in order to appease the Cetniks?The Četniks most certainly wanted Kosova, considering that Serbian nationalism (of which the Četniks obviously identified with) strongly associated the Serbs with it. It seems odd that it was during the period in which Tito faced the strongest battles that in this same period he called on the partisans to stop talking about Kosovar Albanian self-determination.


I personally don't care what "Marxists" thought about Kosovo, I can draw my own conclusions on the matter. And I cannot see why 1913 should overrule previous 10 centuries. It makes no sense logically.Maybe not to an idealist such as yourself, but to a Marxist it's quite logical.


Well if they worked to deport tons of Albanians they were obviously terrible at it because Albanian population kept increasing.Well yeah, but you can't say they didn't try.


And you don't honestly believe that Kosovo demographics changed from 90% Serb to 90% Albanian due to high birth rates only?Well unless you'd like to mention from 1913-1989 any attempts by the nefarious Kosovar Albanians to ethnically cleanse the Serbians (outside of 1941-1944 when the Italians and later Germans fanned anti-Serb sentient for their own demagogic reasons through their collaborators) then feel free.


My point was that it is unnecessary to pretend that Kosovo Albanians were oppressed in SFRY in order to make the case for Kosovo's secession. Albanians would have wanted to separate regardless.Did you ever wonder why? You're right, Kosova could have been partitioned to the Pillsbury Republic of Cookieland and it'd still agitate for unity with Albania. There's a reason for that.


In fact, there are a number of sources (some high inside Yugoslavian intelligence agency) that claim that Serbian minority in Kosovo starting in the early 80's was actually opressed by the Albanian majority, not the other way around, and that this was largly witheld from the public in order to subdue nationalist sentiment on all sides.I'm pretty sure these are the same "sources" used by Serbian Neo-Nazis and the types who backed Milošević.


I know oppression is a relative term, but I don't think the treatment of Albanians in Yugoslavia can compare to for example Palestinians, Kurds in Turkey, Blacks in the early/mid 1900's in USA etc which I consider genuine forms of oppression.So a number of Albanians in Kosova were horribly maimed and tortured under Ranković, but at least they could vote in Yugoslav elections, unlike American blacks in the 1960's! Great argument. Fun fact: you don't need to be perpetuating a genocide against an ethnic group for it to constitute national oppression. You don't even need to be torturing members of an ethnic group, which is what happened under Ranković. The fact that the Albanians in Kosova, who made up the majority of the area and who quite obviously (and justifiably) had national sentiments closely bound up with those of Albania, and the fact that Kosovar Albanians did not have equality with their Serbian brethren and wanted to reunite with Albania, should demonstrate fairly well that they had a right to self-determination.

You evidently hold actual Marxists in contempt over this issue, so I don't see why I need to take you seriously as one.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Another chauvinist remark. "If they don't like it then they can all go back to Albania!"
??? Not what I meant

The Četniks most certainly wanted Kosova, considering that Serbian nationalism (of which the Četniks obviously identified with) strongly associated the Serbs with it. It seems odd that it was during the period in which Tito faced the strongest battles that in this same period he called on the partisans to stop talking about Kosovar Albanian self-determination.
Speculation aimed at once again painting Serbs as villains.

Maybe not to an idealist such as yourself, but to a Marxist it's quite logical.
Explain how.

Well yeah, but you can't say they didn't try.
Well unless you'd like to mention from 1913-1989 any attempts by the nefarious Kosovar Albanians to ethnically cleanse the Serbians (outside of 1941-1944 when the Italians and later Germans fanned anti-Serb sentient for their own demagogic reasons through their collaborators) then feel free.
The point is that the area was contested throughout history because both ethnicities claimed the land as their own. Therefore to paint one side as the aggressor and the other as the victim doesn’t hold water. For that same reason it cannot be regarded as imperialism.

If you want concrete examples, here is a (roughly translated) excerpt from Dragan M. Filipovic’s book Anatomija Globalistickog Smrada. Filipovic was one of the top members in Yugoslav intelligence during the 80’s and 90’s and was the head of the unit dealing with American service activities in Yugoslavia.

“While people in Belgrade and other cities were arrested only for singing songs about some hero from medival Serbian history, with the charge of committing a nationalistic sortie, in Kosovo large demonstrations were taking place, made up of tenss of thousands secessionists, all of which was hidden from the rest of the public. Members of the intelligence service (Drzavna Bezbednost) who were sent to Kosovo to investigate were instructed not to speak on these event to no one, including their family. Doing so would constitute giving away state secrets. In the case of murder or wounding of Serb policemen, the case was either ignored or covered up in a way that it couldn’t be determined who the attackers were, while murders of Serb civilians were followed up with the arrests of witnesses who were kept in custody “until they forgot what they saw”. Kosovo Serbs were subject to constant threats and pressure to vacate Kosovo, which they had to endure because an institution which they could ask for help did not exist. State media was vehemently instructed to not report on the matter. When local Serbs attempted to protest directly at the Serbian Assembly , intelligence service received an order to treat them as “dangerous enemies”, while the police was instructed to stop them before they entered Belgrade and disperse them by force, which indeed happened. “


Did you ever wonder why? You're right, Kosova could have been partitioned to the Pillsbury Republic of Cookieland and it'd still agitate for unity with Albania. There's a reason for that.
So does Quebec want independence from Canada because they are “oppressed”? It is fine to say that Albanians deserved self-determination but not as a result of oppression.

I'm pretty sure these are the same "sources" used by Serbian Neo-Nazis and the types who backed Milošević.
What gives you the right to determine which sources are valid and which are invalid? We can debate forever that way. You are trying to make Serbs look like aggressors when animosities came from both sides. The fact of the matter still remains that since the 1980’s (and before) there are less and less Serbs in Kosovo.

So a number of Albanians in Kosova were horribly maimed and tortured under Ranković, but at least they could vote in Yugoslav elections, unlike American blacks in the 1960's! Great argument.
Persecution of political elements which aim to destabilize the country is not oppression (during Rankovic’s tenure Yugoslavia and Albania had strained relations). You make it seem like it was Yugoslav policy to “maim and torture” Albanians simply because of their ethnicity.

I already noted Yugoslav Communist support for Kosova going back to Albania, stuff which doesn't rely on Hoxha's memoirs.
You evidently hold actual Marxists in contempt over this issue, so I don't see why I need to take you seriously as one.
Why does it matter what they thought? They had the same data you and I have. Can we not come up with our own conclusions? Their opinions don’t resolve anything.

After 1968 Albanians were permitted to display the national flag of Albania in Kosovo and adopt the official Albanian literary language, which is based on the dialect of Albania rather than that spoken in Kosovo. Cultural exchanges introduced teachers from Albania and textbooks printed in Albania. Yugoslavia's 1974 Constitution gave Kosovo virtually the same rights as the country's constituent republics; nowhere in Europe had such far-ranging concessions to national rights been granted in a region considered so potentially separatist.
Oppression? And this within 20-30 years after a world war which basically flattened the country. Not to mention that Yugoslavia was dealing with a number of outside threats (including Albania) while also trying to implement a completely new economic system.

[Ismail]

The point is that the area was contested throughout history because both ethnicities claimed the land as their own. Therefore to paint one side as the aggressor and the other as the victim doesn’t hold water.Except the sides aren't equal. The expulsion of the Serbians happened over 500 years ago and they base their continued claims to Kosova on the basis of religious sites and mythology about how the Serbs, like the ancient Israelites, were being persecuted by the evil Muslims. That'd be fine if this were 1500 AD, but such claims have no place in the modern world or even in 1913.


For that same reason it cannot be regarded as imperialism.Imperialism isn't about ethnic claims to territory. That's not where claims of Serbian imperialism come from. Claims of Serbian imperialism come from economically exploiting Kosovar Albanians (who worked in mines for low pay, etc.) to the benefit of the Serbian bourgeoisie, who denied them their ethnic equality.


“While people in Belgrade and other cities were arrested only for singing songs about some hero from medival Serbian history, with the charge of committing a nationalistic sortie, in Kosovo large demonstrations were taking place, made up of tenss of thousands secessionists, all of which was hidden from the rest of the public. Members of the intelligence service (Drzavna Bezbednost) who were sent to Kosovo to investigate were instructed not to speak on these event to no one, including their family. Doing so would constitute giving away state secrets. In the case of murder or wounding of Serb policemen, the case was either ignored or covered up in a way that it couldn’t be determined who the attackers were, while murders of Serb civilians were followed up with the arrests of witnesses who were kept in custody “until they forgot what they saw”. Kosovo Serbs were subject to constant threats and pressure to vacate Kosovo, which they had to endure because an institution which they could ask for help did not exist. State media was vehemently instructed to not report on the matter. When local Serbs attempted to protest directly at the Serbian Assembly , intelligence service received an order to treat them as “dangerous enemies”, while the police was instructed to stop them before they entered Belgrade and disperse them by force, which indeed happened. “So because Kosovar Albanians agitated for basic national rights, and because of the failed Yugoslav nationalities policy which engendered distrusts between Albanians and Serbs, suddenly Kosovar Albanians are massing up against the poor innocent Serbs due to incidents born out of national oppression.

In South Africa blacks carried out retaliatory actions against the Afrikaners, a definite minority. Does this mean that blacks are the offenders against the innocent white man? After all, how do you think Milošević got his start? He claimed that the Serbs must unite to regain their "dignity" and to be subjected no more to those who wanted to "keep them down."

Tens of thousands of secessionists. That's not a small number.

You talk about how you have nothing against self-determination... unless it's Kosovar Albanians. Then they have no right to self-determination at all. Why is that?


So does Quebec want independence from Canada because they are “oppressed”?Generally not, considering that they're enjoying cultural autonomy and, last time I checked, don't experience any significant discrimination nor do they lag behind in provincial development.


The fact of the matter still remains that since the 1980’s (and before) there are less and less Serbs in Kosovo.And the fact of the matter still remains that this is, in large part, due to the high birthrates of Kosovar Albanians. Again, this was obviously an issue in the 1920's and 30's as well, hence attempts at state-sponsored Serbian colonization.


Persecution of political elements which aim to destabilize the country is not oppression (during Rankovic’s tenure Yugoslavia and Albania had strained relations). You make it seem like it was Yugoslav policy to “maim and torture” Albanians simply because of their ethnicity.It does when the oppression is national in character. It just so happens that the Kosovar Albanians were subjected to maiming and torture by their Serbian overlords, who denounced them as "nationalists" for the crime of wanting to unite with Albania, an aim they had been pursuing since 1913.


Not to mention that Yugoslavia was dealing with a number of outside threats (including Albania) while also trying to implement a completely new economic system.Yeah, Albania was truly a horrible threat. Thankfully Yugoslavia got tons of aid and weapons from the West, aligned his country with blatantly anti-revolutionary countries, put an end to Yugoslav support to the Greek Communists in exchange for Greece recognizing Macedonia as a part of Yugosalvia, and declared that the New Deal was a great step towards socialism in the USA and that the reformist way towards socialism was on the rise worldwide.

Meanwhile Albania was subjected to both British and American attempts to overthrow it because in part of its continued support to Greek communists after Tito closed the border to them, and Yugoslav attempts to overthrow it as well. And Greek attempts.

Kosovar Albanians were treated terribly before the war. They were treated quite badly from the 1940's-60's. Pointing out that Albanians could wave an Albanian flag and had on paper the same rights as other constituent republics after 30 years of consistent oppression of any "nationalist" tendencies and after protracted unrest from Kosovar Albanians themselves means nothing. That is not a Marxist analysis. That's a demagogic analysis.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Except the sides aren't equal. The expulsion of the Serbians happened over 500 years ago and they base their continued claims to Kosova on the basis of religious sites and mythology about how the Serbs, like the ancient Israelites, were being persecuted by the evil Muslims. That'd be fine if this were 1500 AD, but such claims have no place in the modern world or even in 1913.

The mass expulsion of Serbs happened around 1700 while the European colonization of America happened in 1500’s. Do you agree that Native Americans now have less rights to the land than Europeans because the invasion occurred 500 years ago? Once again, I am against solutions to the problem which involve “historical claims” to Kosovo, but you keep referring to this 1913 treaty as some sort of benchmark, and hold it to be more valid that the fact that Serbs lived (and continue to live) in Kosovo for centuries prior to being largely expelled by Albanians. If you are trying to make a historical claim you cannot pick and choose points in history that suit you.


Claims of Serbian imperialism come from economically exploiting Kosovar Albanians (who worked in mines for low pay, etc.) to the benefit of the Serbian bourgeoisie, who denied them their ethnic equality.

From The Saga Of Kosovo, Draganich & Todorovich, 1984
"Economically, Kosovo was moving ahead in unheard of leaps, with an annual industrial growth rate of 30 percent. With 8 percent of the Yugoslav population, Kosovo was allocated up to 30 percent of the Federal Development Funds. The Kosovo authorities, it was discovered later, used large sums from these funds to buy up land from Serbs and give it to Albanians, clearly a misappropriation. Investment loans were given for periods as long as 15 years, with a 3 year grace period and an interest rate of a mere 3 percent. Kosovo, always considered 1 of the "underdeveloped" areas of Yugoslavia, now received priority treatment. In a 5 year period in the 1970s, for instance, some 150 million dollars were pumped into it annually. Moreover, of 1 billion dollars of World Bank development credit to Yugoslavia, Kosovo got 240 million or 24 percent. It is estimated that within the past decade some 2,100 million dollars have been poured into the Kosovo economy. Much of the cultural support, social services, and educational aid was never to be repaid (i.e., financed by Serbia or the federation)."


And the fact of the matter still remains that this is, in large part, due to the high birthrates of Kosovar Albanians.

So because Kosovar Albanians agitated for basic national rights, and because of the failed Yugoslav nationalities policy which engendered distrusts between Albanians and Serbs, suddenly Kosovar Albanians are massing up against the poor innocent Serbs due to incidents born out of national oppression.

Except many of these "incidents born out of national oppression" were directed against the civilian population, not against the state. Why is that? After all, it is the state that they believe is oppressing them, not their neighbours. For example:

"According to the findings of the Kosovo Special Committee that inquired into the matter of emigration, in the period 1971-1981, over 57,000 Serbs and Montenegrins moved out of the area, confirming the continuous nature of the trend. Parents found that their children had been intercepted while going to school or coming home. Serbian women were raped. Serbian girls were assaulted or kidnapped by Albanians. Farmers found their crops damaged. Elderly citizens who stayed home got letters or telephone calls that upset their peace of mind. Unfriendly slogans or symbols were sprayed on the walls of Serbian homes under cover of darkness.

The Kosovo Albanian authorities were also anxious to break up the compactness of Serbian areas. To do this they would, for example, build a factory in a solidly Serbian settlement. Under the population key of the Yugoslav government, 80 percent of the workers in that factory had to be Albanians, who then would be brought in, and thus break up the concentration of the Serbs in a settlement. Belgrade's Politika (June 3, 1983), 2 years after the 1981 events, headlined in big letters: MONTHLY - 400 EMIGRANTS. The article reported that 10,000 Serbs and Montenegrins had moved out of Kosovo in the previous 2 years. Kosovo as a whole, it reported, has 1,435 settlements, 666 of which are without a single Serb or Montenegrin, and in 147 settlements they make up only 3 percent of the population.

Another reporter (for Pravoslavlje, May 15, 1982) tells of 2 Montenegrins seen digging in the cemetery of the village of Petrovats: "We moved out in the early spring, but came back to get our deceased mother ... It became unbearable to be here any longer. Now that the village is called Ljugbunar, we could not have a water system, but the Albanians are getting it. There is electricity now, and a paved road as well, but what's the use, there was no place for us here any more ... "

Kosovo leaders, such as Ali Shukrija, admit publicly that Kosovo events "have disrupted relations ... traumatized Kosovo Albanians as well, I can state that openly. It has been a shock to them, too" (Borba, 10-12, 1982)."

(The Saga of Kosovo)

There were more factors at play than just a high birth rate. But your "birth rate" theory is interesting in another way. By your logic, if Albanians in New York City procreated at a high rate and become a majority, that gives them the right to declare independence. Then they could move to Newark and do the same thing and so on.


Generally not, considering that they're enjoying cultural autonomy and, last time I checked, don't experience any significant discrimination nor do they lag behind in provincial development.

Yet they still want independence. That was my point, that Kosovo Albanians wanted secession regardless of the circumstances, and that inventing the "oppression" myth serves to demonize Serbs even more in order to justify Kosovo's independence.



Yeah, Albania was truly a horrible threat. Thankfully Yugoslavia got tons of aid and weapons from the West, aligned his country with blatantly anti-revolutionary countries, put an end to Yugoslav support to the Greek Communists in exchange for Greece recognizing Macedonia as a part of Yugosalvia, and declared that the New Deal was a great step towards socialism in the USA and that the reformist way towards socialism was on the rise worldwide.

Meanwhile Albania was subjected to both British and American attempts to overthrow it because in part of its continued support to Greek communists after Tito closed the border to them, and Yugoslav attempts to overthrow it as well. And Greek attempts.


What is the issue here? Who is a better Marxist Hoxha or Tito? What does that have to do with the discussion? Yugoslavia was a threat to Albania and Albania was a threat to Yugoslavia. My point was that Yugoslavia was dealing with numerous problems after WW2 and that reforms couldn't come as fast as some wanted.


You talk about how you have nothing against self-determination... unless it's Kosovar Albanians. Then they have no right to self-determination at all. Why is that?

I believe that Kosovo Albanians do have a right to self-determination and I've stated that before on this thread. My reasons for this are not historical but logical - it is both unjust and senseless to force an ethnic group to remain in a country they want no part of. I also don't see a reason why Serbia would want to hold on to Kosovo (besides political points) because that region will always present a problem. Both Serbia and Kosovo will be better off if they severed their ties. At the same time, blacks are a majority in Chicago - could they declare independence? In other words, how far can this go? Can any ethnic group which becomes a majority in a specific region of a foreign country demand self-determination? I am not one of those who believe there are "special cases" when it comes to self-determination, and I think this lack of standard is also responsible for the conflict in Kosovo. I wasn't arguing against Albanian right to self-determination but that there was no Serbian imperialism in Kosovo and that those claims are perpetuated mainly to demonize Serbs in order to justify the secession.

[The Young Pioneer]

You're contradicting yourself.


It is both unjust and senseless to force an ethnic group to remain in a country they want no part of.

Here you're saying any ethnic group who doesn't want to be part of a country has right to self determination.


At the same time, blacks are a majority in Chicago - could they declare independence? In other words, how far can this go? Can any ethnic group which becomes a majority in a specific region of a foreign country demand self-determination? I am not one of those who believe there are "special cases" when it comes to self-determination, and I think this lack of standard is also responsible for the conflict in Kosovo.

Now you're saying there should be a standard. Your first statement advocates a theory for African Americans of Chicago to self determine should they not want to be a part of the US...your second statement implies this is ridiculous. So which one is it?

[nowarbutclasswar]

You're contradicting yourself.


How so? In the first statement I was stating my personal opinion on the matter. My second statement wasn't implying that self-determination of blacks in Chicago is ridiculous, but that the lack of standard is problematic (I wasn't proposing any standard). I definitely believe that there should be a standard however, which I think would help resolve conflicts like the one in Kosovo.

[Ismail]

The mass expulsion of Serbs happened around 1700 while the European colonization of America happened in 1500’s. Do you agree that Native Americans now have less rights to the land than Europeans because the invasion occurred 500 years ago?No one is calling for Native Americans to take control of the whole United States.


If you are trying to make a historical claim you cannot pick and choose points in history that suit you.Again I have made it clear that I don't base things on historical claims.


From The Saga Of Kosovo, Draganich & Todorovich, 1984
"Economically, Kosovo was moving ahead in unheard of leaps, with an annual industrial growth rate of 30 percent. With 8 percent of the Yugoslav population, Kosovo was allocated up to 30 percent of the Federal Development Funds. The Kosovo authorities, it was discovered later, used large sums from these funds to buy up land from Serbs and give it to Albanians, clearly a misappropriation. Investment loans were given for periods as long as 15 years, with a 3 year grace period and an interest rate of a mere 3 percent. Kosovo, always considered 1 of the "underdeveloped" areas of Yugoslavia, now received priority treatment. In a 5 year period in the 1970s, for instance, some 150 million dollars were pumped into it annually. Moreover, of 1 billion dollars of World Bank development credit to Yugoslavia, Kosovo got 240 million or 24 percent. It is estimated that within the past decade some 2,100 million dollars have been poured into the Kosovo economy. Much of the cultural support, social services, and educational aid was never to be repaid (i.e., financed by Serbia or the federation)."And yet the economy of Kosova was still characterized as dismal by Adi Schnytzer in his paper contained within Studies on Kosova, p. 154.

The work you quoted, although it is not without worth, was written by two Serbs who back the Četniks and denounce Tito. That alone should tell you the types of people who back Serbian claims on Kosova.


Except many of these "incidents born out of national oppression" were directed against the civilian population, not against the state. Why is that? After all, it is the state that they believe is oppressing them, not their neighbours.Because they weren't conscious proletarians fighting for an internationalist solution to the question of Kosova? After all, by your own admission the Yugoslavs were heavily involved in suppressing actual communist Kosovar organizations.


But your "birth rate" theory is interesting in another way. By your logic, if Albanians in New York City procreated at a high rate and become a majority, that gives them the right to declare independence. Then they could move to Newark and do the same thing and so on.Another chauvinistic statement. But yes, if somehow "pure" Albanians (not Albanian-Americans) made up over 90% of New York City in the span of over 200 years and somehow had a very strong connection to Albania to the extent that they wanted to join it, then we'd have something on our hands. Except we don't. Kosova borders Albania and was an integral part of the Albanian struggle for independence. I don't know why you keep on making comparisons to Serbo-Canadians and Kosovar Albanian émigrés in New York City.


Yet they still want independence. That was my point, that Kosovo Albanians wanted secession regardless of the circumstancesComparing a first-world country like Canada to Kosova in the first place is absurd. Last time I checked no one was accusing a Canadian PM in recent memory of attempting to genocide the Kosovars. There's no ethnic strife between Canadians and French-Canadians. The situation in Québec is similar to the Catalan-speaking portions of Spain, or to Scotland. Kosova has more in common with South Ossetia or, say, Tibet.


and that inventing the "oppression" myth serves to demonize Serbs even more in order to justify Kosovo's independence.So apparently Kosovar Albanians just decided to be assholes and invent a "myth" of national oppression because they're intrinsically evil. Unfortunately the international communist movement brought into this, as did a number of communists worldwide after the 1940's, no doubt due to the insidious efforts of Enver Hoxha and Co.


My point was that Yugoslavia was dealing with numerous problems after WW2 and that reforms couldn't come as fast as some wanted.And my point was that Kosovar Albanians were denied self-determination despite it being something stated by the Yugoslav communists themselves, and as agreed upon by both the Albanian (in Albania proper) and Yugoslav partisans before the war had ended.


I also don't see a reason why Serbia would want to hold on to Kosovo (besides political points) because that region will always present a problem.There are military-strategic reasons involved as well as economic ones since Kosova isn't exactly a region with scarce resources.


At the same time, blacks are a majority in Chicago - could they declare independence?No, because blacks in Chicago do not constitute a nation.

[nowarbutclasswar]

No one is calling for Native Americans to take control of the whole United States.
That’s not the point. You are arguing that Serbs who continue to live in Kosovo have LESS RIGHT to the land than the Albanians because they were made a minority through expulsion (by Albanians), and that their claims to Kosovo are unjustified because their expulsion BEGAN 300 years ago.
The work you quoted, although it is not without worth, was written by two Serbs who back the Četniks and denounce Tito. That alone should tell you the types of people who back Serbian claims on Kosova.
Why does it matter who they back and who they denounce if the data they provide is factual? We’re not arguing ideologies here.
Because they weren't conscious proletarians fighting for an internationalist solution to the question of Kosova
You can give any excuse you want, the fact remains that Serbs were continually under pressure by local Albanians (especially after Tito's death), causing many to move to Serbia proper. I am not saying that Serbs were angels, just that we have to be objective.


After all, by your own admission the Yugoslavs were heavily involved in suppressing actual communist Kosovar organizations.
They were suppressing elements which were supported by outside threats and aimed to destabilize the state, as any country would. That has nothing to do with oppression of civilian population.

But yes, if somehow "pure" Albanians (not Albanian-Americans) made up over 90% of New York City in the span of over 200 years and somehow had a very strong connection to Albania to the extent that they wanted to join it, then we'd have something on our hands.
You don’t think that’s a little absurd? What about all of the English, Irish, Jewish, Black, Italian etc. who have lived there for centuries and want to remain in America? Their views don’t count?

Also, why does it matter if they are "pure" Albanians or American Albanians? And how do you determine who's "pure" and who's not?


Comparing a first-world country like Canada to Kosova in the first place is absurd.
I was using Quebec as an example of a region which wants independence even though it is not oppressed, in response to your claim that there must have been some malicious events which caused Albanians in Kosovo to seek independence.

So apparently Kosovar Albanians just decided to be assholes and invent a "myth" of national oppression because they're intrinsically evil.
No, not because they are “intrinsically evil” but because this myth is very useful in rallying international support for secession.
And my point was that Kosovar Albanians were denied self-determination despite it being something stated by the Yugoslav communists themselves, and as agreed upon by both the Albanian (in Albania proper) and Yugoslav partisans before the war had ended.
Ok but why does it matter what they agreed upon? Realistically they were all just armed gangs which through various circumstances emerged as dominant ones in their respective countries. What makes their word golden besides that they had the most guns? Plus, how can you as a big Marxist justify top down directives telling the people what country they will be living in tomorrow? And what about the Serbs in Kosovo whose families have lived there for centuries? Do they have a say?

No, because blacks in Chicago do not constitute a nation.
Again, that’s not the point. What if it was Poles instead of Blacks that were a majority in Chicago? Would they have a right to self-determination?

[Ismail]

That’s not the point. You are arguing that Serbs who continue to live in Kosovo have LESS RIGHT to the land than the Albanians because they were made a minority through expulsion (by Albanians), and that their claims to Kosovo are unjustified because their expulsion BEGAN 300 years ago.And my position is at least backed by communists, starting with the Comintern itself.

No one is calling for the expulsion of Serbs, only for the right of Kosovar Albanians to have self-determination on the future of the region.


Why does it matter who they back and who they denounce if the data they provide is factual? We’re not arguing ideologies here.The data, essentially, mentions that the uppity Kosovar Albanians were causing a ruckus. It explains nothing other than the obvious fact that there were reprisals against Serbs for years of oppression. It's the same sort of stuff used to justify Milošević.


They were suppressing elements which were supported by outside threats and aimed to destabilize the state, as any country would. That has nothing to do with oppression of civilian population.Except you can't go around and claim "Kosovar Albanians started attacking civilians rather than having a clear Marxian analysis of the class and social forces at play in order to concretely analyze the objective and subjective factors" or what have you since, as noted, the Yugoslavs repressed actual Marxist-Leninist organizations which didn't support ineffective and self-defeating reprisals against Serbian civilians. What was left by the end of the 80's were bourgeois nationalists who looked towards the USA for help.


You don’t think that’s a little absurd? What about all of the English, Irish, Jewish, Black, Italian etc. who have lived there for centuries and want to remain in America? Their views don’t count?This is assuming a fantasy situation wherein Albanians who immigrate do not in any way lose their nationality, do not learn English, do not seek integration at all, and remain strongly associated with Albania proper over a period of 200 years. You're the one who brought up the absurd scenario.


Also, why does it matter if they are "pure" Albanians or American Albanians? And how do you determine who's "pure" and who's not?It matters if they're "pure" because that's how Marxists determine an actual nation. Haven't you read Lenin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/RNSD14.html) or Stalin's (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MNQ12.html) works on the subject? Albanian-Americans are assimilated into overall American culture. They tend to harbor strong affinities for Albania (or Kosova) yet they also speak English and are recognized as a part of overall American culture. They aren't nationally oppressed.


I was using Quebec as an example of a region which wants independence even though it is not oppressed, in response to your claim that there must have been some malicious events which caused Albanians in Kosovo to seek independence.Except we don't see French-Canadians attacking Canadian civilians or, fortunately, engaging in isolated cases of rape. So either Kosovar Albanians are "savages" who decided one day to go crazy for no particular reason and riot to the extent that the army had to be called in in 1981, or comparing Quebec with Kosova is dumb.


Realistically they were all just armed gangs which through various circumstances emerged as dominant ones in their respective countries.Er, no. Armed gangs do not establish national liberation councils, do not win the support of the masses by fighting against a foreign occupier, do not eventually coagulate into a whole resistance army, and do not seek to overthrow said occupying power and its quisling government with the aim of establishing a people's democracy as the Albanian and Yugoslav partisans sought.

Now I'm really suspicious of you being, at least, from a Četnik background. What kind of Communist calls partisans "armed gangs"?


What makes their word golden besides that they had the most guns? Plus, how can you as a big Marxist justify top down directives telling the people what country they will be living in tomorrow?The decision would be made from the masses of Kosova themselves, by allowing them to enjoy self-determination on their future. That was the agreement.


And what about the Serbs in Kosovo whose families have lived there for centuries? Do they have a say?Of course, just as Greeks in southern Albania had a say in local affairs and had their language preserved in their areas.


Again, that’s not the point. What if it was Poles instead of Blacks that were a majority in Chicago? Would they have a right to self-determination?From Serbo-Canadians to Quebec to Albanians invading New York City to black people in Chicago and now to a Polish invasion of Chicago.

You can't stop making lame arguments and showing your lack of knowledge on Marxism, can you?

[nowarbutclasswar]

The fact that you refuse to logically assess the situation and instead base your arguments on “what other Marxists said about Kosovo” shows how closed-minded you are and how incapable you are of critical thinking. LOGICALLY, IS IT FAIR TO FOR 300 YEARS PUSH PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND AND THEN DEMAND SELF DETERMINATION? IS IT FAIR TO FORCE SERBS WHO HAVE LIVED IN KOSOVO FOR CENTURIES BEFORE ALBANIANS TO NOW LIVE IN “GREAT ALBANIA”? Your only answers to these questions are either the 1913 treaty, oppression of Kosovo Albanians (as if Kosovo Serbs weren’t oppressed) or that “Albanians are a nation by Marxists definition and therefore have a right to self determination”, none of which adequately address the heart of the problem. Unlike you I don’t pretend to have a solution, but I do believe that you are oversimplifying the issue, ignoring any facts which may be contrary to your position and trying to pass off your straw man arguments as if they were the absolute truth, when the situation is not so clear cut. For example, neither you nor I have lived in Kosovo in the 50’s and 60’s to know what went on there. Do you have any direct experience with oppression? So how can you be so sure that what you are saying is correct? Because it’s in a history book? You make statements here like “Albanians were nationally oppressed” as if it’s an absolute even though you personally have no concrete way of knowing if that’s actually true. How is that conducive to any workable solution?

Any of the examples I’ve provided (blacks, poles, quebec, nyc etc) are used to show that if Albanians have a right to self-determination, LOGICALLY every other national minority which happens to constitute a majority in a given region around the world should as well. You keep pretending that Kosovo is a special case when it isn’t. Furthermore, you keep dancing around the issue and insulting me because you don’t have an answer, other than what some Marxists used to think. In addition to your absolutism, your fetish for blindly swallowing anything because it’s “Marxist” is also a sign of your closed-mindedness. Partisans were armed gangs just like the Cetniks were. Just like every other armed force in the previous ten thousand years of history. This is again absolutism – everything Partisans did is Holy and everything Cetniks did is Evil. And why does it matter how Stalin and Lenin defined a “nation”? By definition, in Yugoslavia Albanians weren’t a nation but a nationality. Does that mean they are not entitled to self-determination? Just a show of how irrelevant these definitions are in providing real solutions.


It explains nothing other than the obvious fact that there were reprisals against Serbs for years of oppression.
This is again a statement meant to demonize Serbs - Albanians defending themselves against the Serbian oppressors (by attacking their neighbours). The situation is not that black and white. By that same logic the alleged Serbian oppression of Albanians can be regarded as reprisals for persecution during WW2, their oppression and expulsion by Turks and Albanians etc. Furthermore, these attacks intensified in the 70’s and 80’s, during and after the period in which great economic help and political freedom was granted to Albanians. What does that tell you? OK they were led by "bourgeois nationalists who looked towards the USA for help", but what else? It tells me that Albanians didn’t care for concessions, they wanted independence regardless if they were oppressed or not. As Serbs or Yugoslavs stood in their way of secession, local Serbs (who’ve lived there longer than Albanians) were targeted, pushing thousands of them out of Kosovo. What do you call a systematic expulsion of a particular ethnic group from a specific geographic region by violent means?


Except we don't see French-Canadians attacking Canadian civilians or, fortunately, engaging in isolated cases of rape.
We don’t because Quebec does have a right to a referendum where as Kosovo Albanians did not. Does that constitute oppression though?

[The Young Pioneer]

The fact that you refuse to logically assess the situation and instead base your arguments on “what other Marxists said about Kosovo” shows how closed-minded you are and how incapable you are of critical thinking. LOGICALLY, IS IT FAIR TO FOR 300 YEARS PUSH PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND AND THEN DEMAND SELF DETERMINATION? IS IT FAIR TO FORCE SERBS WHO HAVE LIVED IN KOSOVO FOR CENTURIES BEFORE ALBANIANS TO NOW LIVE IN “GREAT ALBANIA”?

Uh oh, the finger pointing and caps locks commences! So begins another Balkans Battle of the interwebs.

http://tigzy.com/lj/popcorn.gif

Nowarbutclasswar: I still think you contradicted yourself. Making the generalisation that all groups have a right to self-determination and then going back on that (apparently without realising) by saying there should be standards...What should those standards be, then? Odds are, any statements to amend such a sweeping initial statement will disinclude some circumstance of right to self-determine. Just sayin'.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Uh oh, the finger pointing and caps locks commences! So begins another Balkans Battle of the interwebs.

Haha... Just a side note the caps locks were not used in anger but to make the questions stand out because I consider them to be crucial.


Nowarbutclasswar: I still think you contradicted yourself. Making the generalisation that all groups have a right to self-determination and then going back on that (apparently without realising) by saying there should be standards...What should those standards be, then? Odds are, any statements to amend such a sweeping initial statement will disinclude some circumstance of right to self-determine. Just sayin'.

I didn't say that all groups have a right to self-determination (or that they don't) but that IF Albanians are allowed self-determination in Kosovo other minorities around the world who constitute a majority in a region of a country they live in should have that right as well. I'm not proposing any standard, I don't know what it should be, but I do believe that there should be one because it would help resolve or prevent these types of conflicts. That is my point, that the situation in Kosovo is more complex than people on here would like to describe it as.

[Ismail]

The fact that you refuse to logically assess the situation and instead base your arguments on “what other Marxists said about Kosovo” shows how closed-minded you are and how incapable you are of critical thinking.No, it shows that I'm no fan of twisting Marxism under the guise of "creatively" applying it.


IS IT FAIR TO FORCE SERBS WHO HAVE LIVED IN KOSOVO FOR CENTURIES BEFORE ALBANIANS TO NOW LIVE IN “GREAT ALBANIA”?"Great Albania" being a term used by right-wing Serbs and Milošević supporters.


oppression of Kosovo Albanians (as if Kosovo Serbs weren’t oppressed)Of course Serbs in Kosova were oppressed. They were oppressed by the feudal Ottoman authorities. Kosovar Albanians during those times were evidently propped up as loyal Muslims against relatively hostile Orthodox believers. Yet when a number of prominent Albanians formed the League of Prizren (note: Prizren is in Kosova) and demanded a united and autonomous Albania and were willing to take up arms against the Turks to achieve this, the Sublime Porte showed how much it was willing to prop up Albanians against Serbs to attain its own ends; which is to say only as far as Albanians remained loyal subjects.


For example, neither you nor I have lived in Kosovo in the 50’s and 60’s to know what went on there. Do you have any direct experience with oppression? So how can you be so sure that what you are saying is correct? Because it’s in a history book? You make statements here like “Albanians were nationally oppressed” as if it’s an absolute even though you personally have no concrete way of knowing if that’s actually true. How is that conducive to any workable solution?This is a blatantly non-Marxist position. Lenin criticized such stands as agnosticism. He pointed out that the task of all Marxists is to discover that which approximates as closely as possible to the objective truth. As analyses are made, as developments are furthered, as the productive forces are advanced, etc. it becomes increasingly possible to move ever more closer to this truth.


Any of the examples I’ve provided (blacks, poles, quebec, nyc etc) are used to show that if Albanians have a right to self-determination, LOGICALLY every other national minority which happens to constitute a majority in a given region around the world should as well.Which is not a Marxist position to take, "logically" or otherwise. In the first place it presupposes fantasy scenarios which can never happen, in the second place it seeks to create a false connection between said fantasy scenarios and the situation in Kosova.


You keep pretending that Kosovo is a special case when it isn’t.Except for the evidence I gave that it was, indeed, a special case in comparison with the fantasy scenarios you gave.


Partisans were armed gangs just like the Cetniks were. Just like every other armed force in the previous ten thousand years of history. This is again absolutismLet's find a definition of what a "gang" is. Let's try Merriam-Webster: "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents"

Unless you're going to argue that a lack of subservience to the puppet regimes established in Albania and Serbia during the war justifies calling them "gangs," I think it's safe to say that they weren't gangs. "Gangs" aren't built from vanguard parties with the aim of uniting the whole people in battle against a foreign occupier and towards the social and economic emancipation of the broad strata of the working people.


everything Partisans did is Holy and everything Cetniks did is Evil.Well in Albania their counterparts, the Balli Kombëtar, figured that collaborating with the Germans both to advance bourgeois nationalism and in order to crush the National Liberation Front were both swell activities. Early on they responded to the partisans as to why they weren't actively fighting the enemy, and they said that the Albanians must wait for the British and Americans to come and save the country.

Yugoslav sources say similar things about the Četniks, though I haven't researched them.


And why does it matter how Stalin and Lenin defined a “nation”? By definition, in Yugoslavia Albanians weren’t a nation but a nationality. Does that mean they are not entitled to self-determination? Just a show of how irrelevant these definitions are in providing real solutions.Lenin and Stalin comprehensively detailed how to define nations, what nations were not, and in what way they had rights to self-determination. They weren't seeking mere "definitions," but scientific research into the subject, a subject which, by the way, had been important to a great many Marxists before them.


Furthermore, these attacks intensified in the 70’s and 80’s, during and after the period in which great economic help and political freedom was granted to Albanians... It tells me that Albanians didn’t care for concessions, they wanted independence regardless if they were oppressed or not.And do you know why that was the case? Maybe it was because, as I said, being able to wave the national flag around and having de jure "equality" didn't make up for still being treated as second-class citizens?


As Serbs or Yugoslavs stood in their way of secession, local Serbs (who’ve lived there longer than Albanians) were targeted, pushing thousands of them out of Kosovo. What do you call a systematic expulsion of a particular ethnic group from a specific geographic region by violent means?I'd say that the situation was unfortunate, but was caused by the anti-Marxist road of the Yugoslav leadership in its refusal to acknowledge the aspirations of the Albanian people in Kosova. The repeated refusal of said leadership to abandon their course in this field led to both its transformation in Serbia into fascist-like nationalism and the replacement of a nominal adherence to Marxism in favor of rekindling Serbian mythology amongst Serbs in Ksoova. At the same time the suppression of genuine Marxist-Leninist organizations in Kosova led to a people devoid of political leadership, which opened the door to reactionary forces riding on the back of national oppression.


We don’t because Quebec does have a right to a referendum where as Kosovo Albanians did not. Does that constitute oppression though?It'd certainly be a chauvinist act to deprive French Canadians of the option of a referendum. It's hard to see how such a move wouldn't be initiated by reactionary forces.

[nowarbutclasswar]

This is a blatantly non-Marxist position. Lenin criticized such stands as agnosticism. He pointed out that the task of all Marxists is to discover that which approximates as closely as possible to the objective truth. As analyses are made, as developments are furthered, as the productive forces are advanced, etc. it becomes increasingly possible to move ever more closer to this truth.
But your position is not at all objective. You say that murder and expulsion of Serb civilians in the 80’s was “unfortunate, but was caused by the anti-Marxist road of the Yugoslav leadership in its refusal to acknowledge the aspirations of the Albanian people in Kosova.” Are Albanians to blame for anything or was everything just an imperialist ploy of Nazi Serbs?


Which is not a Marxist position to take, "logically" or otherwise. In the first place it presupposes fantasy scenarios which can never happen, in the second place it seeks to create a false connection between said fantasy scenarios and the situation in Kosova.
If Albanians in Kosovo have a right to self-determination, does every other national minority which happens to constitute a majority in a given region around the world have that same right? Why or why not.


Let's find a definition of what a "gang" is. Let's try Merriam-Webster: "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents"
A gang doesn’t necessarily have to be criminal in nature. Here is another definition: “A gang is a group of people who, through the organization, formation, and establishment of an assemblage, share a common identity.” But what difference does it make to the issue of Kosovo? Why do I have to now waste time debating semantics? They were a group of people with guns, and especially in times of war those people are listened to. It however does not make them infallible.


Yugoslav sources say similar things about the Četniks, though I haven't researched them.
Not a fan of the Cetniks by any means, my statement was just pointing out your absolutism.


And do you know why that was the case? Maybe it was because, as I said, being able to wave the national flag around and having de jure "equality" didn't make up for still being treated as second-class citizens?
First of all I don’t think they were treated as second class citizens, but even if they were given constituent nation status, Albanian was introduced as another official language in Yugoslavia and economic situation in Kosovo inproved, most likely Albanians would have still wanted to separate (just like Quebecers!).



I'd say that the situation was unfortunate, but was caused by the anti-Marxist road of the Yugoslav leadership in its refusal to acknowledge the aspirations of the Albanian people in Kosova. The repeated refusal of said leadership to abandon their course in this field led to both its transformation in Serbia into fascist-like nationalism and the replacement of a nominal adherence to Marxism in favor of rekindling Serbian mythology amongst Serbs in Ksoova. At the same time the suppression of genuine Marxist-Leninist organizations in Kosova led to a people devoid of political leadership, which opened the door to reactionary forces riding on the back of national oppression.
Actually, Serb nationalism rose in the late 80’s (among other things) AS A RESPONSE to the oppression of the local Serbian population in Kosovo. In regards to the suppression of "genuine Marxist-Leninist organizations" in Kosovo they were suppressed because they would have no doubt (due to their ties with Albania) been working against the Yugoslav state.

Also, you still haven’t answered these questions (I’ll rephrase the second one so that you’ll actually answer it this time instead of finding ways to go around it):

IS IT FAIR TO FOR 300 YEARS PUSH PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND AND THEN DEMAND SELF DETERMINATION?

IS IT FAIR TO FORCE SERBS WHO HAVE LIVED IN KOSOVO FOR CENTURIES BEFORE ALBANIANS TO NOW LIVE IN A COUNTRY DOMINATED BY ALBANIANS (THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN EXPELLING SERBS FROM THEIR LAND IN KOSOVO & METOHIJA)?

[Ismail]

Are Albanians to blame for anything or was everything just an imperialist ploy of Nazi Serbs?They are no more to blame for violence against Serb civilians than the riots in London a few months back means we should blame angry proletarians for not having sufficient political consciousness to turn anger into something substantial.


If Albanians in Kosovo have a right to self-determination, does every other national minority which happens to constitute a majority in a given region around the world have that same right? Why or why not.An answer to these questions can be found, again, by reading Lenin and Stalin's works on the subject.


Why do I have to now waste time debating semantics?Probably because you called them a "gang" in the first place.


They were a group of people with guns, and especially in times of war those people are listened to. It however does not make them infallible.Yet they were Marxists. You don't deny that Marxism is a science, do you? Marxists don't base things on emotion, they base them as much as possible on objective facts. They weren't fighting as gang members, they were fighting as partisans under the leadership of a Communist Party.


Actually, Serb nationalism rose in the late 80’s (among other things) AS A RESPONSE to the oppression of the local Serbian population in Kosovo. In regards to the suppression of "genuine Marxist-Leninist organizations" in Kosovo they were suppressed because they would have no doubt (due to their ties with Albania) been working against the Yugoslav state.Serb nationalism rose because of the anti-Marxist nationalities policy of the Yugoslav leadership, which had the effect of creating ethnic strife between unequal republics.


IS IT FAIR TO FOR 300 YEARS PUSH PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND AND THEN DEMAND SELF DETERMINATION?I was unaware that the Albanian people back then were agitating for self-determination after waging a victorious national liberation struggle against the Ottoman authorities. Oh wait, they weren't. What you said is irrelevant. What matters was the Albanian national liberation struggle of the 1870's-1912, which absolutely involved Kosova as an integral part of Albania.


IS IT FAIR TO FORCE SERBS WHO HAVE LIVED IN KOSOVO FOR CENTURIES BEFORE ALBANIANS TO NOW LIVE IN A COUNTRY DOMINATED BY ALBANIANSWhy not? I'm fairly sure that the Albanian Government would have granted cultural autonomy to the Serbs, just as they granted it to the Greeks. There were plenty of cases throughout the 19th century of Serbians living in harmony with their Albanain brethren in Kosova. It isn't like they were at constant war or that the Albanians all conspired to kill the Serbs. You're acting as if Albanians and Serbs are somehow inherently incapable of living together.

All your talk of "absolutism" shows that you aren't much of a Marxist. You're justifying bourgeois nationalism on the basis of ignoring Marxism.

[The Young Pioneer]

There were plenty of cases throughout the 19th century of Serbians living in harmony with their Albanain brethren in Kosova. It isn't like they were at constant war or that the Albanians all conspired to kill the Serbs.

Ismail, can you tell me where to look for additional information on this?

Please and thank you.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Yet they were Marxists. You don't deny that Marxism is a science, do you? Marxists don't base things on emotion, they base them as much as possible on objective facts. They weren't fighting as gang members, they were fighting as partisans under the leadership of a Communist Party.
And they obviously felt that Serbs have enough entitlement to Kosovo to keep it in Yugoslavia. If they were only trying to appease Cetniks as you say, why didn’t they give up Kosovo after WW2 like they did Trieste?

What matters was the Albanian national liberation struggle of the 1870's-1912, which absolutely involved Kosova as an integral part of Albania.
Because every war is essentially a land grab. They would have involved Vojvodina as an integral part of Albania if they could (just like anyone else including partisans, soviets in WW2 etc). Also, why is anything before or after 1913 irrelevant?

Why not?
So it is fair to force Serbs to live in Albania but not fair to force Albanians to live in Serbia?

[mykittyhasaboner]

People here are still aruging over Kosovo?

It's a fucking US client state just like all the rest of the states in the region. They just want to divide Balkan nationalities (read: working people) as much as possible. The only way to bring said people together is to argue for an internationalist position against imperialism and capital. That's what people should be doing in the Balkans right now; not to mention the rest of the world.

The discussion should start after everyone has recognized this fact. It's so pointless to argue over which bourgeois nation-state has more claims for Kosovo. Neither does. "Independent Kosovo" will be just as much of a pawn for Washington as the Serbian and Albanian governments are.

So what if the majority of people in Kosovo are Albanian? So what if it is an important landmark for Serbian history? This is all bullshit.

Back to whatever arguement was dominating this thread......

[Ismail]

If they were only trying to appease Cetniks as you say, why didn’t they give up Kosovo after WW2 like they did Trieste?Because Kosova is obviously much more dear to Serbian nationalists than Trieste, plus Kosova wasn't disputed between the West and Yugoslavia, unlike Trieste.


So it is fair to force Serbs to live in Albania but not fair to force Albanians to live in Serbia?Because Kosova has been strongly associated with the Albanian nation for the past 200 years, and Albanians in Kosova played as big a role (if not larger) as Albanians from other regions of Albania proper in liberating the country from the Ottoman Empire. If the Serbs of northern Kosova want to join Serbia then they could do that.


So what if the majority of people in Kosovo are Albanian? So what if it is an important landmark for Serbian history? This is all bullshit.One might wonder why the Comintern, the Balkan Communist Federation, and Yugoslav Communists until the war didn't dismiss it all as "bullshit" either, or why Soviet diplomats had contact with Kosovar Albanian fighters in the 1920's.

It isn't "bullshit." It's an important debate. Obviously we can agree that Kosova being "independent" under US imperialism is not the correct solution, but there's very real reason why that happened, in which the US simply took advantage of events.


Ismail, can you tell me where to look for additional information on this?

Please and thank you.Miranda Vickers' book Between Serb and Albanian.

[mykittyhasaboner]

One might wonder why the Comintern, the Balkan Communist Federation, and Yugoslav Communists until the war didn't dismiss it all as "bullshit" either, or why Soviet diplomats had contact with Kosovar Albanian fighters in the 1920's.

i'd wonder why as well. Perhaps if you elaborate on this then we could move the discussion beyond the common positions. To be clear im not dismissing the entire problem as bullshit. i'm disagreeing with the way the question is almost always framed: whether or not Kosovo should be Albanian or Serbian, partitioned, or "independent". This usually is discussed like some petty geo-political issue, when the question of Kosovo should be addressed in a Marxian way with regards to class struggle.


It isn't "bullshit." It's an important debate. Obviously we can agree that Kosova being "independent" under US imperialism is not the correct solution, but there's very real reason why that happened, in which the US simply took advantage of events.In what way did they simply take advantage of events? The US played a huge role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the "independence" of Kosovo. They did more then just take advantage of nationalist conflicts.

[Yugo45]

http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/media/video/24416068.html

Pretty sad video.. To those of you who don't understand, basically, it's about a city in Kosovo (Kosovska Mitrovica), which is divided in two parts. Part with Serbian majority and part with Albanian majority.

From both sides, people are talking about how they used to live in together and nobody gived a shit were they Albanians, Serbs or whatever.

Here's a translation:

*North (Serbian majority) part of the city*

(00:46)
Woman: Good day.
Interviewer: Good day, we want to ask you a few questions.
I: What is it like here on the barricades?
W: Cold.
I: Actually, it's pretty warm in here.
W: *laughs* Nice, it's fun here. What do you want me to tell you?
(didn't really understand too good the next part, but in short, she says they got to finish what they started)
**

(01:22)
Vladimir Vučković: This is how we try to survive here.
VV: Where ever we go to Serbia, nobody likes us.
VV: Where ever you go, you're foreign in your own country. You're a Shiptar, or whatever they call us and, beilive me, this what we are doing [the barricades] is the only way for us to stay here.
VV: We can't get an agreement with the Albanians. We have been living here with them for our whole lives. And that's.. There is no happiness and joy here. There is no agreement.
**

(02:00)
Rajka Jovanović: It doesn't matter what nation it is. I don't want to speak about nations at all, because we all have a soul.
RJ: When we would live in harmony, we would at least have peace and lifes, but now we don't have that.
Interviewer: Is it possible to live with the Albanians?
RJ: I can live with individuals, and there is.. *she says something not understandable lol*
RJ: Many stories, many tv programs, many newspapers. Now they say one thing, now they say something different. What can we beilive?
**

(02:45)
Milovan Ostojić: I don't know what to tell you.
Interviewer: Is it possible to deal without the barricades?
MO: Well, yes, now they order us to remove them, and it's possible to deal with this without them.
MO: It's better to solve it, then to do it the way they're doing it right now.
MO: I'm from Bosnia, but I've been living here for 20 years.
MO: When a fire starts, it's all over. What happened, happened.

*South (Albanian majority) part of the city*

(03:30)
Blerim Mripa: Up until the 90's, I used to live over there *pointing across the bridge, at the northern part*
Interviewer: Now?
BM: Now we moved down there.
BM: Those our Serbs that lived with us, in the building. There's a United Nations, and that really was the united nations. There was muslims, there was.. there was mixed marriages, It was the best building. Neighbours were good, with them we lived good, you know.
BM: They helped us, we helped them.
Interviewer: Would you like to go back there?
BM: No, for thirteen years i haven't been there. Only sometimes I go there *pointing* and look at my old building.
**

(04:20)
Haki Ajeti: It's a really bad situation right now. Nothing is normal. Nothing is like it's supposed to be. Like it was always.
HA: Now, nothing is safe.
**

(04:33)
Rifat Neziri: It's not good. People should be able to live, to travel.
RN: It's not good.
RN: We used to live with them like brothers.
RN: And now the time has come to ignore all of our old friends (something like that)
Interviewer: Do you have friends across the bridge, Serbians?
RN: Yes, I have friends that used to work with me.
RN: I worked with them for 40 years in Trepča [Mines], but we never argued, we were good friends. Now, this what's happening is evil.
RN: It's not good.
**

(05:16)
Rešad Mujku: I can tell you that Mitrovica was one city without any problems about that national thing.
RM: We used to live like in a big family.
RM: And I want to once sit again with my old friends and to talk with them agian, to joke with them again.
RM: They used to come to me for Eid, I used to go to them for Christmas.
RM: I used to be a teacher in a school, and I worked in Serbian classes and Albanian classes, you know. For thirty years.
RM: And I want to tell you, I'm ashamed to say that I'm from Mitrovica. My flat is there *pointing across the river*, 300-400 meters away from here.
RM: I would be happy to go there, but honestly, I'm scared.
RM: I think everyone here shares my opinion.
RM: If only we lived together again, you understand, to hang out together.
RM: God wanted it to be that way. One person to talk one language, other person to talk other language.
**

[The Young Pioneer]

I sent your link to my friend with the "everyone has souls" quote and he replied:

"Yeah, everyone other than Serbs. Lets bomb us again, lets kill us, lets use the double standards in absolutely every possible way. Lets cleanse us from Croatia... lets cleanse us from Kosovo... lets take everything away from us, even Vojvodina. We deserve to have everything taken away you know... why? Because someone brainwashed someone else to like Croatia just because they felt that is "cool".

And yeah, the video clip shows a few serbs and then a few kosovo albanians who are supposedly moderate. Those are a small minority. They will kill us and cleanse us with what ever opportunity they get. I say that because it has happened again and again.

I think you missed the point of the clip there, that we have to put up barricades in order to survive. It started that way in Croatia in the early 1990s, when they started taking away our rights, started discriminating in every possible way... when one decides to basically take away your citizenship and kill you then you have to resist.

On top of everything, Radio Free Europe is a pro-Western bastard media. It has always been such. I have no respect for them even if they have a piece that is somewhat neutral, for historically they have been biased bigots. To this day they do not know how to spell Lukashenko for example."

Is this true? :confused:

[RedGrunt]

I do believe "Radio Free Europe" was actually used by Western operatives during the Cold War. Although, I can't really validate that.

Edit: Actually.. see wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe


Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a broadcaster funded by the U.S. Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe), Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia), and the Middle East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) "where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed".[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe#cite_note-0) RFE/RL is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors), a bi-partisan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-partisan) federal agency overseeing all US international broadcasting services.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe#cite_note-1)
Founded as an anti-communist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist) propaganda source during the Cold War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War), RFE/RL was headquartered at Englischer Garten (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englischer_Garten) in Munich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich), Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), from 1949 to 1995.


RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) until 1972. Since then, it has been funded by regular, open Congressional appropriations through the Broadcasting Board of Governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting_Board_of_Governors) (BBG) and has received no funds from the CIA.[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe#cite_note-63) The CIA's relationship with the radios began to break down in 1967, when Ramparts magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramparts_magazine) published an expose claiming that the CIA was channeling funds to civilian organizations. Further investigation into the CIA's funding activities revealed its connection to both RFE and RL, sparking significant media outrage. Investigations into the legal basis of the relationship jeopardized the existence of both radios, which could not survive without the CIA's funding.[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe#cite_note-64)

[Yugo45]

I'm pretty sure they are, but that doesn't mean everything they do is a lie.

And, to your question, yes, there aremany Albanians who really, really, really hate Serbs. But most of them are stupid kids.

Most of Albanians who were alive when they lived together with Serbs, don't hate Serbs at all. They are just brainwashed by nationalist into hating each other, and I really don't think people can negate this.

[Eleftherios]

Hell yes.

The UCK/KLA in Kosovo were freedom fighters fighting against Serbian oppression and imperialism.

EDIT: I don't know too much about the rest of Yugoslav Wars, but the Kosovo War and the continuing conflict is just a clear show of Serbian imperialism.

Thats Bullshit, the Kosovo Liberation Army intigated a bunch of attacks on minorities within Kosovo such as the Serbs and Roma and tried to ethnically cleanse them in order to make Kosovo pure Albanian. Here is what the Human Rights Watch had to say about them:


The KLA was responsible for serious abuses… including abductions and murders of Serbs and ethnic Albanians considered collaborators with the state. Elements of the KLA are also responsible for post-conflict attacks on Serbs, Roma, and other non-Albanians, as well as ethnic Albanian political rivals... widespread and systematic burning and looting of homes belonging to Serbs, Roma, and other minorities and the destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries... combined with harassment and intimidation designed to force people from their homes and communities... elements of the KLA are clearly responsible for many of these crimes.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword.htm

Supporting an independent Kosovo is one thing, supporting these nationalist goons is another.

I am very surprised at hearing a so-called "leftist" describe them as "freedom fighters"