[Article] Yugoslavia 1929-2003

mike65

I would have thought someone would have posted something on this by now.

Yugoslavia is dead. What the papers say.

[Article]

Newspaper front pages in Serbia and Montenegro on Wednesday said goodbye to the former state of Yugoslavia, but there seems little enthusiasm for the looser union which takes its place.

In the republics which broke away from Yugoslavia in the 1990s, some papers are openly scornful of the birth of the new state.
"Farewell to Yugoslavia, new start for Serbia and Montenegro" says the front-page headline of the leading, pro-government Belgrade daily Politika .
The paper notes that the "historic day" on which parliament dissolved the federation took place "without historic flourishes" and with "doubts about the longevity of the new state union".

Mass-circulation daily Vecernje Novosti runs the headline "Goodbye, Yugoslavia!" over a background of the colours of the Yugoslav flag.

"Solemnly, with few words and without pompousness, with applause instead of an anthem, the new state union - Serbia and Montenegro - was declared last night in the federal parliament building," the paper declares.

"Champagne for a state on a trial run" is the headline in daily Glas Javnosti which notes that after three more years of "joint life" Serbia and Montenegro will have the right to choose whether to stay united or part ways. Mass-circulation tabloid Blic relegates the story to page two, and also gives prominence to the fact that the new state has "an expiry date" - 4 February 2006, after which a referendum on the future of Serbia and Montenegro will take place.

In Montenegro, the pro-government Publika runs the headline: "No more Yugoslavia".

It gives front-page prominence to Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic's welcoming of the new arrangement as the "logical and just end of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".
Among the few expressions of regret for the passing of the old Yugoslavia, one by well-known writer and former Yugoslav president Dobrica Cosic stands out.
"I have no strength left to express my grief for Yugoslavia", Mr Cosic writes in a front page commentary in pro-federal Dan daily, saying that he grieves for the passing of the Yugoslav idea.

But these sentiments are a far cry from the view of Slovenian daily Delo, which describes the dissolution as "the death of Serboslavia".

The last remains of the Yugoslav state "died yesterday in a play which was more in the nature of burlesque than tragedy", the paper says.
It claims that Serbia's political elite had seen Yugoslavia as an extended Serbia and this is why Yugoslavia as a union of equal republics was destined to fail.
Croatian daily Novi List says that the new union "is already ridiculed and declared a 'Solania'", a reference to EU High Representative Javier Solana.
The EU was instrumental in convincing Montenegro to shelve plans for independence and stay with Serbia for now in a revamped state.
"Since 1918, this is the seventh name change of a state which has continuously existed since Yugoslavia was first proclaimed," the daily points out.
"It is also intriguing," it says, "that the 60-year-olds of the hitherto Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will wake up today in their fourth state, without even changing their abodes."

Its proberly fair to say few will miss the Yugoslav state while some may see parallels into the future with the EU, though that would be a poor comparison I think, the former being the creation of communist dictators.

Mike.

Vuk

Originally posted by mike65
Its proberly fair to say few will miss the Yugoslav state while some may see parallels into the future with the EU, though that would be a poor comparison I think, the former being the creation of communist dictators.

Mike.

I agree that most will not miss Yugoslavia, not even the nationalists, who mostly idealised Serbija.

I will have to correct you on the point of Yugoslavia being the creation of communist dictators.

To be brief, Yugoslavia was formed in 1918 and recognised as a kingdom by the Paris Peace Conference in May 1919, though the name didn't come into creation until 1929.
It wasn't until 1945 that Yugoslavia was in the control of a communist dictator, namely Marshall Tito. To be exact, the brand of communism under Tito was referred to as Titoism(politics wise it was communism with a more liberal attitude to the Arts and Economics), Tito having given Stalin the 'feck off' in 1948, allowed Yugoslavia to be generally accepted by the 'West' and indeed with huge financial investment by the US to buffer Stalin's grip.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I would have thought someone would have posted something on this by now.

Old news. It's actually something that was agreed quite some time ago, although presuambly it only came into effect recently.

The Corinthian

Was to be expected. I suppose, I'll personally miss it as was there a good few times in the eighties and for a while during the war. Nasty business that.

adnans

to me, Yugoslavia started dying in May 1980 when Tito passed away, and died a horrible death in 1991 when the war started.

adnans

spongebob

It lasted well for another 7-8 years after Tito before that idiot Milosevic went to Kosovo, made a speech, and promptly awoke the Serb victimhood genie out of a bottle.

Yugoslavia had a very important status as the long term leader of the Non-Aligned block (neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact) and was seen as a model multi ethnic state....because any attempt at fomentic sectarian or ethnic unrest was severely frowned upon.

Now the Serbs have lost their empire and only have a few small communities left to persecute such as the Sanjak muslims, the Hungarians to the north, the Roma and some Albanians near the Kosovo border.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Muck
the Roma

Please don't use that term.

As a Roman (not Roma), I find it quite offensive.

spongebob

I suppose you will insist that Slovenia and Croatia be called Istria too ?

The Corinthian

Not all of it. Only as far as Fiume.

Vuk

Originally posted by Muck
Now the Serbs have lost their empire and only have a few small communities left to persecute such as the Sanjak muslims, the Hungarians to the north, the Roma and some Albanians near the Kosovo border.

What kind of bigoted statement is this?

Do you think that Serb people like nothing more than a spot of ethnic cleansing before breakfast?

The politics and situation in the former Yugoslavia is far more complex than your stunted understanding, probably sourced from the Sky News Propaganda Machine? I assume you didn't watch BBCs excellent documentary on the Fall of Milosevic, which gave a very good insight into the situation in Kosovo.

I find it funny, that people can generalise about an entire nation, based upon the actions of it's leadership and lets be honest here, in many situations the leadership can have little to do with the will of the people, hence Dictators. To be even more honest many democracies can suffer the same fate.

DadaKopf

I find it funny, that people can generalise about an entire nation, based upon the actions of it's leadership and lets be honest here, in many situations the leadership can have little to do with the will of the people, hence Dictators. To be even more honest many democracies can suffer the same fate.

It lasted well for another 7-8 years after Tito before that idiot Milosevic went to Kosovo, made a speech, and promptly awoke the Serb victimhood genie out of a bottle.

Understanding the Balkan region culturally, let alone politically, is enough to make your head spin.

It's interesting to see how the patchwork of cultural identities and nationalisms throughout the region is overlain by nationalist narratives which seemed to take a life of their own when, in fact, much of the resentment and anger throughout the region is socio-economic and deeply historical.

One point continually left out of the Balkan equation is the Turkish occupation. It radically disrupted the social fabric of the region. It created a two-tiered society in which Muslims became the monied urbanites and the Christians (largely) remained poor peasants - unless they agreed to fight for the Turkish army. It was, of course, the occupation that gave rise to pan-Slavism in the region, creating the first wave of Yugoslav nationalism in the mid 19th century, but even then, there continued a division between rich and poor, between Muslim and Christian. This social division buried itself inside the Balkan narrative like a virus.

Tito did nothing to correct this, he still favoured his own people. In spite of his best efforts, he caused the implosion of Yugoslavia before his death with the introduction of his third constitution which actually attempted to take account for the patchwork of nationalisms and denominations. Nonetheless,
there remained the rich urbanites and the poor peasants.

It didn't matter too much that there ususally is an urban/rural divide in most countries, it became caught up with nationalist ideology so the resentment endemic throughout the region was socio-economic coupled with a rainbow of virulent nationalisms. So when Milosevic came along, the two elements were there for the taking: social needs fuelled by virulent nationalist ideology (which he himself doesn't personally care about - he just cares about power).

It could be argued that it was the general will that Milosevic tapped into and ignited. It was the general will that caused the nations of the region to embark on policies of segregation, ethnic cleansing and war. It was only after having seen so much bloodshed, the razing of the cities to the ground and even worse deprivation than before that the public mood changed, especially within Serbia proper. And guess who started it - the smelly feckin' students.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
One point continually left out of the Balkan equation is the Turkish occupation.

Nah... I blame Diocletian.

spongebob

Originally posted by Vuk
in many situations the leadership can have little to do with the will of the people, hence Dictators. To be even more honest many democracies can suffer the same fate.

yes.

Any sign of Mladic yet?

Vuk

Mladic is in hiding, probably in Bosnia.

Though there has been unsubstantiated reports of him in Serbia, probably with help of his supporters(a fanatical few).

And what has Ratko Mladic to with the will of the Serb people?

Most people on the streets of Belgrade would prefer if he nothing at all to do with them.

spongebob

bar handing over some war criminals to the tribunal I do feel that the Milosevic era is over an that Serbia deserves reintegration into mainstream Europe.

then theres Seselj, still politically active....very much so. A charming and warm hearted man .

M

Vuk

Originally posted by Muck
bar handing over some war criminals to the tribunal I do feel that the Milosevic era is over an that Serbia deserves reintegration into mainstream Europe.

I would like to see a reintegration into Europe also, but in my opinion, Serbia is still too unstable, what is very worrying is recent voter apathy, which could turn disastrous and allow a proportionally small group to secure a nut like Seselj, who Milosevic even thought was too extreme.

spongebob

its a chicken and egg argument. Seselj will get votes based on inventing conspiracies that he then frightens people over. One characteristic of fascistic leaders is that they are very good at frightening people into voting for them.

Reintegration and rebuilding will help those who argue that Seselj is plain wrong.

Haider and Le Pen are equally good at frightening their target electorate.

Haider and Le Pen rely on low voter turnouts to inflate support levels.

M