Yugoslavia?

jkbrackens11

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

ChunkyLover_53

jkbrackens11 wrote: »

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

There is a great documentary called the Death of Yugoslavia narrated by Robert Powell iirc. Its on Google videos.

It mainly came from the drop off of Soviet influence after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

A lot of former Yugoslavs have said to me that Marshall Tito was the gel that held them all together, and his death caused old rifts to reappear.

The Kosovan conflict came a few years after the Balkan War of the early/mid nineties.

Ethnic hatred brewed for years as well, just like most wars.

Delancey

+ 1 .

Yugoslavia was a real hodge podge of different races , religions , ethnicities , etc thrown together and held in place largely thanks to the influence of Marshal Tito.
Bad blood existed for generations and not helped by WW2 where different ethnic groups supported the Axis / Allied forces.

Not an unusual situation in Europe - just look at what was called Czechslovakia - 2 distinct countries held together by the firm rule of the Communists , once they were gone the old rivalries surfaced and the countries split ( peacefully ).
It's not just an Eastern European phenomenon - Spain has managed to hold itself together despite strong ' regionalism ' from the likes of Catalonia and the Basque country.
Recently the PM of Belgium said he could not guarantee the country would not split between the French and Flemish speaking regions.

Lab_Mouse

Also all the republics within the federation had there maps drawn up by tito and as a result that was why there were lots of serbs in croatio,loads of croats in serbia etc.

He didnt give the kosovo albanians a state as they already had there home country next door in albania.

geekychick

As a person originally from the region, I second delancey's and ChunkyLover's posts. That's about it in a nutshell.

siblers

Any recommendations on books on this area?

geekychick

• Paul Garde: Vie et Mort de la Yougoslavie (for the history and the events leading up to the Bosnian war, don't know if translated to English?)
• several works by Misha Glenny (for the general history of the region)
• Allan Little, Laura Silber: The Death of Yugoslavia
• Richard Holbrooke: To End a War
• several works by Tim Ripley (for the military aspects of the war in the region)

"The Balkans produce more history than they can consume."
Winston Churchill

Morlar

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

geekychick

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

IMV, that documentary is a well-crafted piece of propaganda for one of the warring sides; I will let anyone watching it decide for themselves which side I am talking about (a clue: initial agressor on other ethnicities' territories! ).

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

(a clue: initial agressor on other ethnicities' territories! ).

What does that say about your initial 'neutral' approach to this issue that one side was the 'initial aggressor on other ethnicities' ?

I could just as easily say that your opinion on this story and who the 'bad guy' was is itself based on slick PR propaganda perpetrated on the US and european media (by Rudder Finn and other washington based PR firms working for the croat side).

There are a lot of issues around this subject that stretch back to at least World War 2 and for an understanding of that context is relevant - this is something that this documentary gives at least an overview of.

For example that 750,000 serbs (by german estimation) were killed by croats fighting with the nazis during WW2.

That would be relevant when you are talking about how serbs are lilkely to respond to breakaway republics (which contained very large numbers of serb civilians) in Croat hands which which were never de-nazified - no ? Or how the Yugoslav national army which was made up of diferrent ethnicities was sidelined by one side ? Or , how the conflict was prolonged for tactical reasons by one side despite meaningful and productive peace efforts ?

I would prefer to let viewers make up their own minds.

geekychick

Right.

Since you have brought my "initial neutral approach" into question with my last post, I will just respond by way of pointing out that I never suggested any writing by any of the national/nationalistic/regional sources from the region, as opposed to the books that I have suggested, all written by non-nationally based or biased authors.

You on the other hand, posted a link to a piece of propaganda written, directed and produced by an American pro-Serbian activist.

Who's not neutral, so? :rolleyes:

As for your other outrageous and untrue claims laid at certain ethnicities' doors, I will not go into them. The reason is because I never had the intention of participating in any kind of political debate on an Internet forum, and I am certainly not going to start now, with this level of "discussion".

As for you prefering to let the viewers make up their own minds, we agree there. Just as long as they know who is telling the story.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Since you have brought my "initial neutral approach" into question with my last post,

Sorry but it was you who dismissed as propaganda by the 'initial agressor on other ethnicities' territories! IF that does not betray a bias on your part I don't know what does.

geekychick wrote: »

I will just respond by way of pointing out that I never suggested any writing by any of the national/nationalistic/regional sources from the region, as opposed to the books that I have suggested, all written by non-nationally based or biased authors.

You are claiming that because authors you recommended were non nationally based in the region they must be neutral ? The vast overwhelming numbers of politicians, journalists, commentators and intelligence analysts & other international onlookers interviewed in the documentary which I linked to are also all non nationally based (including Lord Carrington, Owen etc).

geekychick wrote: »

You on the other hand, posted a link to a piece of propaganda written, directed and produced by an American pro-Serbian activist.

Who's not neutral, so? :rolleyes

Again you dismiss as propaganda one side of the story yet claim to be a neutral.

geekychick wrote: »

As for your other outrageous and untrue claims laid at certain ethnicities' doors, I will not go into them. The reason is because I never had the intention of participating in any kind of political debate on an Internet forum, and I am certainly not going to start now, with this level of "discussion".

To be perfectly honest neither did I - however on seeing some of the posts I felt some balance was required.

geekychick wrote: »

As for you prefering to let the viewers make up their own minds, we agree there. Just as long as they know who is telling the story.

Again you dismiss as propaganda one side of the narrative to this subject. That's kind of like trying to poison the well but telling people they are free to drink from it. Your permission was not asked for to begin with.

geekychick

Morlar wrote: »

Sorry but it was you who dismissed as propaganda by the 'initial agressor on other ethnicities' territories! IF that does not betray a bias on your part I don't know what does.



You are claiming that because authors you recommended were non nationally based in the region they must be neutral ? The vast overwhelming numbers of politicians, journalists, commentators and intelligence analysts & other international onlookers interviewed in the documentary which I linked to are also all non nationally based (including Lord Carrington, Owen etc).




Again you dismiss as propaganda one side of the story yet claim to be a neutral.



To be perfectly honest neither did I - however on seeing some of the posts I felt some balance was required.



Again you dismiss as propaganda one side of the narrative to this subject. That's kind of like trying to poison the well but telling people they are free to drink from it. Your permission was not asked for to begin with.

Just because something features something lord Carrington or any other politician, journalist etc. said, doesn't mean it's not propaganda, lol.

I notice you failed to address my issue of your posting a link to a "documentary" made by a pro-Serbian activist. But no, it is easier to say that I am "poisoning the well" by suggesting that it is a piece of propaganda. Fine.

As to the facts and figures of who the "initial aggressor" (and other such biased views, not to say "deep mysteries" ), is, thankfully we live in the age of the Internet when anyone who wants to find the truth can easily find it, if they know where to look, which I believe the posters on fora such as this one are well capable of.

I am also well aware my permission is not needed, so don't get your knickers in a twist just yet! You are indeed free to write and link to whatever you want to, as am I. Or do I need a permission to call a spade a spade? :pac:

Lab_Mouse

I just finished reading the death of yuguoslavia and would recommend it.It gives the feel for the politics behind the scenes of war that at the time I watched on tv.

It doesnt skip over the atrocities carried out but at the same time focus's on the how and why of it.

As far I could see it's not biased towards one side or the other

geekychick

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

I just finished reading the death of yuguoslavia and would recommend it.It gives the feel for the politics behind the scenes of war that at the time I watched on tv.

It doesnt skip over the atrocities carried out but at the same time focus's on the how and why of it.

As far I could see it's not biased towards one side or the other

I vaguely remember watching the series back in the day, and I was well impressed with the depth and breadth of research they put into it, iirc. That's BBC for ya!

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Just because something features something lord Carrington or any other politician, journalist etc. said, doesn't mean it's not propaganda, lol.

Lol-smiley-face indeed. You are replying to a response placed deliberately out of context. You allege that the documentary I linked to is propaganda while claiming that you were neutral on this matter - while simultaneously insisting that one side were the initial ethnic agressors or some such.

As proof of your "neutrality" you offer that the authors you linked to were all non-regional. I responded to your claim that the doc was propaganda by pointing out that none of those included were regional based (which was the factor you claimed proved independent neutrality). So in short I responded to you on your own terms. You then took that response out of it's context. Clap . . . . . Clap.

As I said on the other thread about this subject ;

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary Pt1 Yugoslavia the avoidable War Pt1 that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point (preferably in a new thread).

Feel free to also point out inaccuracies of the Yugoslavia the avoidable War Pt2

geekychick

Clap all you want, mate, you have been rumbled!

I have already told you I am not interested in disputing that piece of propaganda with you, since it was obvious early on in the thread that you are a denier of even such an undisputable fact as the "initial agressor" or, as you so eloquently put it, "some such". Therefore, it is clear that I would just be wasting my time linking you to sources that disprove anything that you believe to be true or that prove that the Bogdanich's work is deliberately misleading or dissimulating, wouldn't I? (Besides which, I believe that the ones that I have already pointed to in one of my earlier posts as a reponse to another posters are as unbiased as you can get, so if a person reads those AND watches any Serbian propaganda you link on here, I'll be happy enough. )

I am satisfied that this thread and the way it has developed speaks for itself, anyway.

Morlar

Morlar wrote: »

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary Pt1 Yugoslavia the avoidable War Pt1 that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point (preferably in a new thread).

Feel free to also point out inaccuracies of the Yugoslavia the avoidable War Pt2

geekychick wrote: »

Clap all you want, mate, you have been rumbled!

Ok mate.

xflyer

geekychick wrote: »

Right.
As for your other outrageous and untrue claims laid at certain ethnicities' doors, I will not go into them. The reason is because I never had the intention of participating in any kind of political debate on an Internet forum, and I am certainly not going to start now, with this level of "discussion".

That's a pity as you seem well able for him!