Central Europe & Balkans

reply to post by seaside sky


Basically the entire Balkan region is a complete mixture of ethno-religious groups, ethnic divisions which go back centuries. A rise in nationalism contributed to reingiting long standing ethnic tensions and many acts of ethnic cleansing which were essentially the root cause of the Yugoslav wars.

The two main conflicts were the Croatian war of independence and the Bosnian war. The territories of the current nation states in the Balkan region are extremely hard to accurately determine since there are enclaves of certain ethnicities all over the region.

The fighting was/is generally that of ethno-centric political entities trying to assert their authority over their people. Hence why when we look at Bosnia-Herzegovina today there are two political entities, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which generally administrate over their respective ethnic communities.

It can't really be understood in terms of what we consider traditional nationalism, it's ethnic nationalism but more specifically it's ethno-centrism since the political boundaries in the area are largely subjective.

EDIT TO ADD: This is not really a description of the conflict in any way, merely I'm stating that either way in this thread you are going to hear two completely different stories at least (from people with conflicting interests) and my best advice would be to discount both sides of the arguement when looking at the history of the region.

reply to post by odyseusz


Let me rephrase, you where fed lies and propaganda. Just read the post above yours. According to Yugoslavian constitution we had the right to go independent.

I am glad to answer your question by another question.

Would it be alright that 10 villages with a majority of Jewish population in the middle of Polish territory/country take law with guns into their own hands and ask a Independent state in the middle of Poland. Ludicrous thought.

For example, there are also territories inside of Serbia where the majority population is consisted of Croatian people. However, they never decided to pick up arms and put road blockades, shooting on Serbian police, nor did they asked fro independence ect...

Please answer me this! Do you can comprehend that the Croatian teritory was agreed by all Yugoslavian parties from WW2 untill 1990?

In that period there was no Serbian krajina, there was never a Serbian Krajina inside Croatian teritory during Yugoslavia. Is that hard to get?

There is a block in Queens New York named Astoria where there are a lot of Croatian people. Its like we decided to call that block Croatian Krajina.

How come you can say misery when you do not know where Krajina was supposed to be?

There are many constituent countries in world with territories where there is a majority of population which is considered a minority at the country level. Is this a fact?


Then you say referendum, obviously you are not aware that our territory was acknowledged by Serbia also during the Yugoslavia.

So there is also a region in Austria with a dominating Croatian population, should we make a referendum and ask Austrians would they give us their part of country.

It seems you are missing basic facts about Yugoslavia so your train of thought is totally wrong.


In my opinion the answer is that Croatia would never had done this without silent support of the US and the western Europe which promised them that when the things would go bad they would take action. In fact US need an excuse to show Russian to whom Balkans belong now.

Your opinion is wrong.

For a moment let's forget about Croatia.

What is about the attack on Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (by the way Herzegovinians are also Croatian people) and Kosovo! Pure Serbs, they where vicitmized in all of those countries!

I will repeat, inside Serbia there are tens of thousands Croatians, people from B&H, people from Kosovo and Slovenia. Who come inside of Serbia, not one grenade was thrown by any nation mention in the last sentence.

Only in Croatian city Vukovar among many others (prewar period dominantly Croatian population) during a 4 month period by an estimate of 700.000 projectiles was fired on the city. The city had a populace of around 50.000 people. TRy to imagine a city of 50.000 get hit by 700.000 projectiles and bombs. And this is not the number of ground troops firing. Check some vids of the city after the battles.

Until you read a little bit more about the whole topic please refrain from your opinions because they make you look bad.

reply to post by lifeissacred


Hi, basically agree upon all your thoughts.

However the truth is out there so discounting both sides is not something you should preach about.

At least I gave some sources and references to read and get informed. Have you seen a single valid source of information from the opposite side of this debate.

A guy from Poland is trying to tell me that my city was bombarded with a 90% of Croatian population by Serbian airplanes with an excuse to do so.

Funny how neither of you have commented the attack on 4 different countries by Serbian army which was by the way Yugoslavian army!

reply to post by seaside sky


Hi,

philosophical view of a country. Vedas come to my mind.

Resolving of our situation could have been done much better, without the bloodshed.

We could have divided into independent countries and afterward organize a Balkan Union. Something like EU.

Why, because when Yugoslavia was rebuilt after WW2, every country in Yugoslavia was specialized in a different economical branch. Different type of strategic business. Therefore, they where interdependent economically speaking.

the war has not brought any good for anyone from this region. Our development went 20 years back.

Centralized government, never! This is the reason why we wanted our independence.

Try to read between the lines. Why did Yugoslavian army fought for Serbia when constitutionally it was a army from all the countries in Yugoslavia. We all payed for that army, however the army took sides. From there on it is not hard to conclude that Serbians where dominant in Yugoslavia.

The majority of high ranking army officers like generals where Serbians. Those this fact lead to a conclusion?


Kind regards

reply to post by Kretenoid


I never meant that he should just discount what he was told, more that he shouldn't buy into the notion that either side was wholly correct in their approach to the conflict etc. But either way both sides are at least going to have a partially skewed account of who is in the wrong and who is in the right with regards to the most recent conflicts in the Balkans.

I've been interested in the subject for years and still don't know much about what really motivates alot of the vitriolic sentiments which are at the root of the problems in the region. To me the conflict merely represents the inevitable failure of nationalism to bring order.

Originally posted by Kretenoid
reply to post by seaside sky

 

Hi,

philosophical view of a country. Vedas come to my mind.

Resolving of our situation could have been done much better, without the bloodshed.

We could have divided into independent countries and afterward organize a Balkan Union. Something like EU.

Why, because when Yugoslavia was rebuilt after WW2, every country in Yugoslavia was specialized in a different economical branch. Different type of strategic business. Therefore, they where interdependent economically speaking.

the war has not brought any good for anyone from this region. Our development went 20 years back.

Centralized government, never! This is the reason why we wanted our independence.

Try to read between the lines. Why did Yugoslavian army fought for Serbia when constitutionally it was a army from all the countries in Yugoslavia. We all payed for that army, however the army took sides. From there on it is not hard to conclude that Serbians where dominant in Yugoslavia.

The majority of high ranking army officers like generals where Serbians. Those this fact lead to a conclusion?


Kind regards

Pozdrav(Hi) man.

Are you crazy?

We after Yugoslavia can't be together in any alliance.

I know that my people Serbs, don't want ever again to be with Croatia and Albania in any alliance...

reply to post by lifeissacred



Hi,

sorry it was a misunderstanding. I can agree that probably some information that I know is not correct.

But I am 100% sure, that Serbia lead attacks on 4 different countries during that period. Croatians have also committed some disgusting stuff for which the responsible should be held accountable.

You can check that Croatia and Slovenia have proposed a peaceful solution.

In January 1990, the extraordinary 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was convened. For most of the time, the Slovenian and Serbian delegations were arguing over the future of the League of Communists and Yugoslavia. The Serbian delegation, led by Milošević, insisted on a policy of "one person, one vote", which would empower the plurality population, the Serbs. In turn, the Slovenes, supported by Croats, sought to reform Yugoslavia by devolving even more power to republics, but were voted down. As a result, the Slovenian, and eventually Croatian delegation left the Congress, and the all-Yugoslav Communist party was dissolved.

Following the fall of communism in the rest of Eastern Europe, each of the republics held multi-party elections in 1990. Slovenia and Croatia held the elections in April since their communist parties chose to cede power peacefully. Other Yugoslav republics — especially Serbia — were more or less dissatisfied with the democratization in two of the republics and proposed different sanctions (e.g. Serbian "customs tax" for Slovenian products) against the two of the union but as the year passed other republics communist parties saw the inevitability of the democratization process and in December as the last member of the federation — Serbia held parliamentary elections which confirmed (former) communists rule in this republic.

en.wikipedia.org...

This was the problem. Slovenians and Croatians communist parties have chosen to cede peacefully instead try to establish a democratic nation but the Serbians voted for Comunisam.

Not in a million years would those two philosophies work symbiotically in one country.
You call it nationalism, we call it being free from the oppressive communist regime.

Kind regards

reply to post by Nikola014


Hi Nikola,

pozdrav!

No I am not crazy. It seems you misunderstood me. I was talking about prewar period. Instead to go to war we could have separated in a peaceful manner! Hope that clears up my thoughts!

I was not talking about a another Yugoslavia. Please read again what I said.

Since you already came out with your comments, please tell me have you asked every Serbian citizen about their opinion.

See, I travel regularly into Serbia because my company has some projects there. I have met many Serbians that share my opinion.

The war was not needed for both sides! If you understand the basics of economy you would understand why I said Balkan union.

Are you aware that we have a signed contract Croatia - Serbia under CEFTA for economical cooperation.

Do you know that some of our industries (companies) compete on international markets together in order to be competitive?

Please read upon CEFTA and you are going to see that we already are establishing old partner/trade ties!

Do you know which is the largest Croatian export market?

Kind regards

PS: also please do not speak in the name of our children when you say never Croatia, they should not be indoctrinated by old farts with one leg in the grave by neither side, they did not chose war

Originally posted by Kretenoid
reply to post by Nikola014

 

Hi Nikola,

pozdrav!

No I am not crazy. It seems you misunderstood me. I was talking about prewar period. Instead to go to war we could have separated in a peaceful manner! Hope that clears up my thoughts!

I was not talking about a another Yugoslavia. Please read again what I said.

Since you already came out with your comments, please tell me have you asked every Serbian citizen about their opinion.

See, I travel regularly into Serbia because my company has some projects there. I have met many Serbians that share my opinion.

The war was not needed for both sides! If you understand the basics of economy you would understand why I said Balkan union.

Are you aware that we have a signed contract Croatia - Serbia under CEFTA for economical cooperation.

Do you know that some of our industries (companies) compete on international markets together in order to be competitive?

Please read upon CEFTA and you are going to see that we already are establishing old partner/trade ties!

Do you know which is the largest Croatian export market?

Kind regards

PS: also please do not speak in the name of our children when you say never Croatia, they should not be indoctrinated by old farts with one leg in the grave by neither side, they did not chose war

You're absolutely right.

But i think our two nations will might have normal relationships for maybe 40-50 years from now,because it's going to take time for people to let things which happened in past to the past.

And i don't know if you heard that Partizan and Rad fans were insulting Robert Prosincki,which is proof that we are still need some times to recover from the past.

Pozdrav brate.

reply to post by Nikola014


Hi,

agree, a normal relationship is hard to imagine. We are still throwing Partisan skeletons at each other .

However, when I see your response there is hope!

Yes I heard that, it is funny how football extremist never grow up. You probably know, we have them also.

For example, I am as well a football fan and have been to many games but I still consider it a sport so let the best win. No need to for extremist behavior!


Pozdrav brate, javi se u inbox kad si u HR možda da maznemo i hladno pivo

reply to post by Kretenoid


That's about what I was hoping you'd say. I don't like heavy centralized government either (the US constitution that we used to have was all about local home rule and a very weak federal government- but we seem to have lost that over the years) So, if you could have anything, it would be a sort of confederation of autonomous states, but that foreign intervention has made it impossible for that arrangement to work, yet unification would not work or be desirable either. If I'm being dumb and not getting it, please set me straight.

If I'm understanding you correctly (and some of the things I've been reading point to the same thing) the problem was really the result of foreign intervention and essentially continues to be so. I think I mentioned that one author had said that the mistake was borrowing from the western bank octopus, then the IMF creating a situation that effectively created internal divisions and tension, and then ending up being played like a pawn in the empire game.

You know, one of the things that really does bother me about foreign intervention is this: America has problems at all levels of government, and many social and economic troubles too. You know all this of course. Everyone's got problems. But if any foreign nation or international busybody organization tried to get paternal with us and have meetings about what the plan to rehabilitate the US ought to be, and how the state borders ought to be adjusted, etc. Well, obviously Americans would be absolutely furious! Yet this is essentially what our government keeps doing to everyone else. And we're not alone of course- this sort of attitude pervades foreign policy everywhere.

I don't mean to sound like I'm a completely anti-American American. This is home for me, and I know quite a few good Americans. The US has developed into something quite different from what it was originally intended to be.

The evidence is overwhelming and very disturbing that the US has simply been manipulating the whole Balkan situation in order to gain a more permanent foothold, and other countries have been doing the same thing. So this a problem for Americans too- something we as American citizens need to change.

And it's just so sad that the calibre of people in that Dumb American video is all-too-familiar.

Okay- I finally found the article I read a couple months ago that was one of the chief reasons I started this thread in the first place:

www.globalresearch.ca...

I'd like to hear the opinions of all of you.

Ah the Balkans, that part of The Continent that the rest of us here in Europe really wishes was somewhere else...

Well, you have ethnic groups with political, social and religious divisions, even within themselves. They hate each other passionately and each one feels victimized by another one.

Since the area is predominantly Slavic, the Russians are usually the country to come in and untangle any issue that develops, however in the 1990s, Russia was busy putting itself back together after the fall of the Soviet Union and dealing with their own issues in Chechnya. So the issues of genocide, war and oppression came under the eye of the West instead.

We nations in the major NATO powers decided that the Serbs were at fault this time, and doing some rather horrible things, so we got UN approval and got to that applying force thing. So we, the NATO nations, bombed first in the mid-90s then again in 1999 and put 50,000 boots on the ground as peacekeepers in a force called KFOR.

The European Union has decided to try to make this more their mission and started up their own mission called EULEX, which is still of debatable competency.

In the end, to reiterate, the Balkans are a place of great ethnic strife, where the groups really do not get and like to kill each other. In the 1990s the area lit up again, Russia was busy, and the Serbs were giving a hell of a lot worse than they were getting, so they were the "bad guys" that time. NATO got in the mix, and now it's the EU's problem.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Ah the Balkans, that part of The Continent that the rest of us here in Europe really wishes was somewhere else...

Well, you have ethnic groups with political, social and religious divisions, even within themselves. They hate each other passionately and each one feels victimized by another one.

Since the area is predominantly Slavic, the Russians are usually the country to come in and untangle any issue that develops, however in the 1990s, Russia was busy putting itself back together after the fall of the Soviet Union and dealing with their own issues in Chechnya. So the issues of genocide, war and oppression came under the eye of the West instead.

We nations in the major NATO powers decided that the Serbs were at fault this time, and doing some rather horrible things, so we got UN approval and got to that applying force thing. So we, the NATO nations, bombed first in the mid-90s then again in 1999 and put 50,000 boots on the ground as peacekeepers in a force called KFOR.

The European Union has decided to try to make this more their mission and started up their own mission called EULEX, which is still of debatable competency.

In the end, to reiterate, the Balkans are a place of great ethnic strife, where the groups really do not get and like to kill each other. In the 1990s the area lit up again, Russia was busy, and the Serbs were giving a hell of a lot worse than they were getting, so they were the "bad guys" that time. NATO got in the mix, and now it's the EU's problem.

Right,Balkan people are guilty for everything...

reply to post by seaside sky


The article you have linked is mostly about post communism in soviet - block countries. I am old enough, so I know from my personal experience how the world looked like before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I visited USSR twice in mid 80's. The difference between soviet block and Yugoslavia was huge. This is my first hand experience.
And, you know what bothers me the most? When you try to explain that life in Yugoslavia was good, that Yugoslavia was not an ortodox communist country - no one believs you.
On that ground I started to make my own theories about what have really happened.Some of my interpretations are in line with William Engdahle's book A Century of War. But there is more. It is about messing with people's minds by something called fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, or red herring (for the purpose of clarity the definition of term red herring in literature means: where the identity of a criminal is being sought, an innocent party may be purposefully cast in a guilty light by the author through the employment of false emphasis, deceptive clues, 'loaded' words or other descriptive tricks of the trade. The reader's suspicions are thus misdirected, allowing the true culprit to go (temporarily at least) undetected.
Well, in the political context this means indoctrinating people to believe that just every idea forbiden, constrained or suppressed in communist regime(s) is against democracy by default. (Logical falacy: if communism is considered to be totalitarian, than all ideas related to it are totlitarian as well)
Which itself is far from the truth!!!
What was in Yugoslavia so strongly constrainded? Only tree things: extreem nationalism, fashism and religious fanatism.
What is recognized to be the major sign of of liberation from "totalitarism" ? Well, easy to guess: right wing populism, naturally.
All good communist ideas about economy, culture and society were expelled as well, instead of being integrated into the processes of "liberation". This is what, in my opinion, left people groundless, and this is the reason why the "westernisation" of the east failed completely. It didn't preserve values of many decades of hard work.
Messing with ideas, in my oppinion is the first place to look when something goes wrong. I don't think these things happen spontaneously.

Sorry sky if this is irrelevant to what you really want to digg out

reply to post by Douriff


That was very helpful actually, thank you.

I don't know if you were perhaps confusing me with somebody else, but I never said that life in Yugoslavia was either good or bad or anything! I don't live there, you see- that's why I started the thread.

The article I linked was the one that I probably should have put up at the very beginning, but I temporarily misplaced it and only just found it yesterday.

I am neither a communist nor a capitalist (in the sense of what western capitalism is today, anyway!). Politically, over here, I'd be called a libertarian. The article was one I'd found that worried me quite a lot. The author seems to be quite knowledgable (more so than I at any rate) and the conclusion I got to was this-- Certain countries (and I included Yugoslavia in this for reasons I don't believe are entirely unfounded) were in various ways making transitions from rather heavy-handed communist economic/political systems (whether involving Russia or not) to "western capitalism"- a system that continues to hail itself as "free market capitalism" when in fact it has strayed tragically from that. The result, it seems to me, was that it was the classic case of from the frying pan into the fire. I was very angry about the situation that required many of these countries to go into debt slavery and paternalistic control by such entities as the IMF and the western banking monsters that have been plundering pretty much anything they get near. In thinking of it all, it occurred to me that choosing between communism or plutocratic capitalism isn't much of a choice, and I was wondering if some of the people in these countries perhaps had some ideas of a better way that wasn't quite either, if you understand me.

So far, it seems that many of you do, and it's been a very good educational experience for me and an opportunity to exchange ideas with people I wouldn't ordinarily know at all.

reply to post by seaside sky


Hi sky, I was addresing no one in partiular, What I wrote was just a broad generalisation of what I have noticed in talking to various locals. In no way was I addresing you with any assumptions.
My thinking is speculative, based on the fact that many people in this area tend to portrey their own past as a very negative period. I find that tendency rather disturbing for the reasons I tried to explain in my previous post.
Sorry for possible misunderstandings or clumsy undertones- english is not my native tongue

I think you've made a good point by linking the article and taking this discussion to more construcitve level.

reply to post by Douriff


Thank you for that. Your English is better than most Americans'-- where are you from?

You've given me a lot to think about- your thoughts appeal to me (I received my university degree in philosophy- I could talk about this sort of thing for hours!)

What did you think of the article? I hope you noted how at the end of the article the author concluded that the western capitalist system has failed itself by setting up people for failure- it's the frying pan into the fire. It reminded me of my routine experiences at the voting booth- Republican or Democrat? Errrrrr......neither, none of the above. They're both broken and morally bankrupt- it's not much of a choice. It makes you want to take the alternative route- damn 'em both and do what works for yourself instead?

Now here's a thought I had the other day-- The situation of the Cold War is similar, in a way, to the much older situation between the Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire, with the same regions along the "frontier" between the two. Back then it was Christian/Muslim - although I think more accurately Catholic/Muslim because the empire was the Catholic empire. Now religion was of course highly politicized back then- the expansionism of the empires was primarily driven by purely secular drives. One of the real drivers of the Reformation was a secular desire for local home rule and nationalism- a freedom from the heavy hand of the empire and the pope- a desire for local rule and regional culture. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestantism had a very strong hold in the frontier countries through central and southeastern Europe, and it struck me that this was perhaps related to the geography of the situation- they were trying to maintain some independence in the shadow of two empires- never being entirely one or the other, and maintaining a strong native identity and independence- "good for them" I thought- "that's the spirit!" Maybe I've misunderstood the history- maybe it wasn't anything at all like I interpreted it- all of you people over there would know better than I.

But- if I was right about any of that-- move ahead to the Cold War etc.--- do you think there was any similarity between the modern political/economic empires and the older religious ones? Is there any meaning at all in comparing these things? And the responses of the people living in the region? If so, is there anything we might learn or predict from the historic comparison?

You're clearly both a philosopher and a person with personal experience of this subject. What do you think?

(If my ideas are totally wrong and naive, please do set me straight.) --- Sky

reply to post by Douriff


And I actually have that Engdahl book on order through my local library- it was recommended earlier in the thread by one of the other very helpful and thoughtful people on this thread. So you're the second one to suggest it- it must be a very good book! I expect to have it soon.

Originally posted by seaside sky

--- do you think there was any similarity between the modern political/economic empires and the older religious ones? Is there any meaning at all in comparing these things? And the responses of the people living in the region? If so, is there anything we might learn or predict from the historic comparison?

You're clearly both a philosopher and a person with personal experience of this subject. What do you think?

(If my ideas are totally wrong and naive, please do set me straight.) --- Sky

Let me answer this first. A very strong similarities to the older religious empires are emerging, i.e - are becoming obvious right now. Catholic church was playing a very important role in regions of your interest. Today's Vatican is on its open crusade against secularism and atheism, and with pope's recent visit to Croatia, it is becoming obvious that Croatia is set for the mission to be a bastion of chatolic tradition when/if enters mostly secular EU. At the same time, there is a very strong tendency of islamisation of capital of Bosnia - Sarajevo. You see?
Religion is politicized all the time, but is sometimes running in the beckground, just to pop up when you least expect it. (There is an intriquing book: Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell - intend to get it, having a feeling - that read may fill some gaps)

Interesting coincidence - I was thinking about Reformation today. Think you are right. Reformation happened when Otoman Empire was on its height. Logical move IMHO, when attention of chatolic power structures were all distracted by the threat of Suleiman the Great, north seized the opportunity to skip the strong hold of roman "mafia" and went to mind their own busnisess

It's funny you say my eng. is better than most American's. Does it mean that most American's are illiterate or that my eng. is good just joking. Nobody dares to correct my errors, so I am retarding.
I am from Croatia.

PS I'll comment about the article, later