• This topic has 7 voices and 31 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #344937

    Anonymous
    #407629

    Anonymous
    #407630

    Anonymous

    I sympathize with the Yugoslavian example ( I really wished it could've worked) but its actually an example of Slavs ultimately not being able to live together. I still believe Slavs can live together but a different model of society is required. Communism/Socialism failed, ultra-nationalism just caused suffering, we need something else.

    #407631

    Anonymous

    Slavs of communist Yugoslavia didn't want to live together, they were pushed together by a political dictatorship which was not elected but seized the power illegally through military means and armed struggle. The state functioned as long as there was no democracy. When democracy was introduced, the first impulse was separatist nationalism, rather than social-democratic reform. A state cannot function if there is no nationalism, a state cannot function if there is no will for solidarity and unity behind a common goal. Communism didn't destroy Yugoslavia, nor did it create Yugoslavia, it held it together in an unhealthy union, after its members fought to blood against each other in the WW2, and it was doomed to fall apart after the political system reached its due date.

    The nation alone was however a giant in comparisson to what he have today on the field, however a giant on steroids with the wish to be a king in a village rather than a citizen in a city.

    #407632

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Slavs of communist Yugoslavia didn't want to live together, they were pushed together by a political dictatorship which was not elected but seized the power illegally through military means and armed struggle. The state functioned as long as there was no democracy. When democracy was introduced, the first impulse was separatist nationalism, rather than social-democratic reform. A state cannot function if there is no nationalism, a state cannot function if there is no will for solidarity and unity behind a common goal. Communism didn't destroy Yugoslavia, nor did it create Yugoslavia, it held it together in an unhealthy union, after its members fought to blood against each other in the WW2, and it was doomed to fall apart after the political system reached its due date.

    The nation alone was however a giant in comparisson to what he have today on the field, however a giant on steroids with the wish to be a king in a village rather than a citizen in a city.

    I agree with this. Still , we had a peculiar kind of communism which wasn't even really communism or socialism. It was in some strange place between capitalism and socialism , at least economically speaking. We didn't have democracy , or rather multiparty democracy until the end , but we had almost unrestricted travel and virtually no visa requirements. We were definitely more free than other communist countries but we were living on borrowed time.

    Tito kept the country with two primary methods. One was his charasmatic personality. Almost all foreign diplomats liked Tito and a lot of people within the country , especially ethnically mixed families , genuinely adored him. His popularity was even further cemented when he refused to be a Soviet puppet. The other method , much more secretive as it was brutal , was the secret police and fear and intimidation tactics against opposition. This was quite brutal but virtually never mentioned or even known about to a lot of Yugoslavs but that's for obvious reasons. There were many immigrants and refugees from all parts of Yugoslavia that have a total different tale of Tito's Yugoslavia rather than the Yugonostagics which are the other extreme.

    However , a state can function just fine without nationalism. It's just not a nationalist state. A socialist or social democratic state can function so long as people are united behind some ideal of collectivism. Nationalism falls into the collectivist family but so do Socialism , ideas of class warfare , etc. It's hard to make a nation of individualists , its like herding cats because they will simply not be sheepish to ideals.

    Yugoslavia was created by the West primarily ( first time , then endorsed the second time). I mean as a political state. The ideals of Yugoslavism and Slavdom in general extend far back into history based on genuine movements and the sense for Slavs to not be submissive to non-Slavs. Again I agree with the ideals and concept of Yugoslavism and Slavdom as a whole but I reject shotgun marriage method of a fake political state. A REAL solid and unified Yugoslavia is only possible when its grassroots and organic. When Croats , Serbs , and other Slavs of the region logically conclude that they stand stronger united and crumble divided, but it can't be forced with guns.

    #407633

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Slavs of communist Yugoslavia didn't want to live together, they were pushed together by a political dictatorship which was not elected but seized the power illegally through military means and armed struggle. The state functioned as long as there was no democracy. When democracy was introduced, the first impulse was separatist nationalism, rather than social-democratic reform. A state cannot function if there is no nationalism, a state cannot function if there is no will for solidarity and unity behind a common goal. Communism didn't destroy Yugoslavia, nor did it create Yugoslavia, it held it together in an unhealthy union, after its members fought to blood against each other in the WW2, and it was doomed to fall apart after the political system reached its due date.

    The nation alone was however a giant in comparisson to what he have today on the field, however a giant on steroids with the wish to be a king in a village rather than a citizen in a city.

    Do you think without the Nazi invasion Yugoslavia could have survived or at least had a peaceful divorce like Czechoslovakia?

    #407634

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Yugoslavia was created by the West primarily ( first time , then endorsed the second time). I mean as a political state.

    Hmm? Elaborate the first time.

    #407635

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Do you think without the Nazi invasion Yugoslavia could have survived or at least had a peaceful divorce like Czechoslovakia?

    Croatia would separate eventually, without blood spill however. The politics were working in that direction, Croatia gained more autonomy within the Yugoslav Kingdom. Nazis giving high leverage to the Croat separatist movement, made the separation bloody and eventually not possible until the fall of communism.

    Croats would have gained their country without the Nazi's involvement, probably in the same or similar shape it is today. The Nazi involvement just brought an unnecessary stigma to them, as 'traitors of their own race' at that time. This stigma, better yet the image, was however supported and not rejected by the Croats after the fall of communism, making it impossible for other ethnicities that suffered under their Nazi involvement to live in a state which openly supports it, thus the civil war.

    However one must bear in mind, Serbs also supported their monarchist image after the fall of communism, so from a perspective of ethnicities that suffered under that ideology in the WW2, it was also impossible to live in such an atmosphere. Problem being that ethnicities that suffered from monarchists and partisans were those which supported the Nazi's, while the ethnicities that suffered from the Nazi's were the ones that supported the monarchists and the partisans, making the state a failed project in the first place after WW2, if ever communism should have been replaced with democracy, as it was the case.

    #407636

    Anonymous

    WW1 ended with a lopsided victory in favor of the allies. As a result the German ruled states were punished the most. Two edicts that followed were 1. most of the war costs for both sides would be paid in full by Germany ( huge mistake and unfair), 2. The immediate and forced dissolution of Austria-Hungary. The formation and recognition of the SHS was one of those states that was hurrily created and would be an ally to the West. These new states would absorb former A-H and Ottoman remnants.

    A much more sensible and peaceful resolution would have come had the U.S. never entered WW1 , imo. The allied victory wouldn't have been so one sided in that case and both sides would have come to some sort of peace that would've at least met the minimal requirements of both sides. Both sides were extremely weary. Germans and French for example were even having dinner together in the trenches during these periods of akward ceasefire , especially during the holidays. This would have also prevented the rise of Hitler and all the smaller nations that fought on behalf of the central powers ( willingly) such as Croats and Slovenes just to take an example , would have had more leverage in deciding their own fates.

    SHS was a complete political creation only made possible by a lopsided Western victory. In the case of us Croats , Woodrow Wilson promised self-determination of the smaller nations of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire but , of course , never backed that up. Croats leaders were given a simple choice , join SHS and accept a foreign monarch ( again) or have your country divied up between Italy and the kingdom that eventually became Yugoslavia. Where was Woodrow Wilson then?

    #407637

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    WW1 ended with a lopsided victory in favor of the allies. As a result the German ruled states were punished the most. Two edicts that followed were 1. most of the war costs for both sides would be paid in full by Germany ( huge mistake and unfair), 2. The immediate and forced dissolution of Austria-Hungary. The formation and recognition of the SHS was one of those states that was hurrily created and would be an ally to the West. These new states would absorb former A-H and Ottoman remnants.

    A much more sensible and peaceful resolution would have come had the U.S. never entered WW1 , imo. The allied victory wouldn't have been so one sided in that case and both sides would have come to some sort of peace that would've at least met the minimal requirements of both sides. Both sides were extremely weary. Germans and French for example were even having dinner together in the trenches during these periods of akward ceasefire , especially during the holidays. This would have also prevented the rise of Hitler and all the smaller nations that fought on behalf of the central powers ( willingly) such as Croats and Slovenes just to take an example , would have had more leverage in deciding their own fates.

    SHS was a complete political creation only made possible by a lopsided Western victory. In the case of us Croats , Woodrow Wilson promised self-determination of the smaller nations of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire but , of course , never backed that up. Croats leaders were given a simple choice , join SHS and accept a foreign monarch ( again) or have your country divied up between Italy and the kingdom that eventually became Yugoslavia. Where was Woodrow Wilson then?

    Why do you believe the WW1 as well as the WW2 being a loopside 'western' victories. I may remind you, the 'east' also fought along. In WW1 Russia was the state with most men on the ground. An allied victory is not a western one.

    SHS was a product of the Nish Declaration, a declaration in which the goals of the war were stated and given to the 'alliance'. The declaration is a necessity every nation has to set forth, in which it states why does it engage the war, and what its goals are. This is necessary in order to know which territory is claimed by which nation, why it engages war, and when will it sign the truce if their goals are met. With such declarations aliances are formed.

    The Nish Declaration was the one of Kingdom of Serbia, in which it states the formation of an unified kingdom of liberated South Slavs under the Serbian crown as one of the goals. Because of this, Croats and Slovenes rebelled against their Austro-Hungarian armies, and showed lack of moral in fighting the Serbs, as well as deserting to the Serbian side. The Nish Declaration is the founding paper of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (SHS) so to speak, since by that act Kingdom of Serbia was bound to respect their treaty with the allies after the end of the war.

    You being a Croat, I reckon you will understand the Serbian language:


      [li]

    "… Uverena u rešenost celog srpskog naroda da istraje u svetoj borbi za odbranu svoga ognjišta i svoje slobode, vlada Kraljevine smatra kao svoj najglavniji i u ovim sudbonosnim trenucima jedini zadatak, da obezbedi uspešan svršetak ovog velikog vojevanja koje je, u trenutku kad je započeto, postalo ujedno borbom za oslobođenje i ujedinjenje sve naše neslobodne braće Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. Sjajni uspeh koji ima da kruniše ovo vojevanje, iskupiće obilato krvave žrtve koje današnji srpski naraštaj podnosi. U toj borbi srpski narod nema izbora, jer se između života i smrti ne bira. On je na nju prinuđen i vodiće je sa onakvom istom nesalomljivom energijom i s kakvom se pre sto godina borio za svoj vaskrs iz Kosovske grobnice ".

    – Niška deklaracija, 7. decembar 1914[/li]

    Razlozi za Srbijin jugoslovenski ratni cilj
    [hr]
    Osnovni razlog ležao je u " ideološkom-propagandom slabljenju Austrougarske iznutra ". Naime, "hrvatske regimente na Drini, u kojima je bio cvet Zagreba, bile su najogorčeniji vojnici na frontu ". Ako bi se one " ohladile za Austriju ", vojna snaga crno-žute monarhije bila bi više nego prepolovljena. Niška deklaracija imala je za svrhu da ohladi glave Hrvata i drugih Jugoslovena u austrougarskoj vojsci i da ih zagreje za ideju srpsko-hrvatskog jedinstva. U tom smislu već se radilo na frontu. Krajem septembra 1914, zabeleženo je da su srpski vojnici pre svakog napada pevali „Lijepa naša" i „Oj Hrvatsko još poživi“. (Bilo im je odgovoreno "plotunima"). Objava ujedinjenja Srba, kao cilj, kao zvanično ratni cilj Srbije, još bi žešće motivisala Hrvate za borbu u austrougarskoj vojsci. Jer, tada bi rat Austrougarske protiv Srbije za njih ujedno postao rat za istočne granice Hrvatske.

    Srbijin jugoslovenski ratni cilj trebalo je da utiče i na sile Antante, kako u pogledu njihovih planova o teritorijalnim kompenzacijama, tako i u pogledu njihovih projekata posleratnog uređenja Evropi. Jugoslovenskim programom pružao se otpor savezničkim pritiscima na Srbiju da pristane na teritorijalne ustupke Italiji, Rumuniji i Bugarskoj za njihov ulazak na stranu Antante. Iznošenjem jugoslovenskog ratnog cilja, Srbija je Antanti ponudila veliku državu koja bi kao takva mogla da bude jedan od stubova stabilnosti u posleratnoj Evropi. Što se same Srbije tiče, samo se sa ostvarenjem jugoslovenskog ratnog cilja zadovoljavala njena nasušna potreba za rušenjem Austrougarske, koja je kao grabljiv sused i teška prepreka za njenu nacionalnu misiju, decenijama predstavljala pretnju njenom opstanku. Uz to, ujedinjenjem sa „neoslobođenom braćom" Srbija je trebala da predupredi pojavu novog neprijateljskog suseda na severu i zapadu. Ideju o stvaranju samostalne Hrvatske, kao katoličke države, opominjala je na ovu kao na neprijateljskog suseda koji pod uticajem Italije, koja bi opet bila zamena za Austro- Ugarsku.

    – from a Wikipedia Article

    #407638

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Do you think without the Nazi invasion Yugoslavia could have survived or at least had a peaceful divorce like Czechoslovakia?

    Interesting question. You will get different perspectives here from both myself and Cvetinov for sure. Yugoslavia at the time was already in a dire situation internally. The weak internal situation was already evident from almost its inception. Yugoslavia was on the verge of a possible break up or radical change in its government before the Germans did anything.

    It probably would've had split up but probably still not without war since the whole world was already in war. When war is already raging all around you then the ability to keep peace becomes more difficult. Warlords on all sides tend to throw out ethics and see an 'easy' path to achieving what they want through means of violence. This was the Croatian Ustasha philosophy at least.

    Croatia would have been autonomous ( which would probably be a peaceful solution) within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and looked much like this :

    image

    instead of like this :

    image

    The first image represents the 'Banovina Hrvatska' which was a collection of previous 'banovine' or Ban's regions ( named after the historic Croatian designation for Baron rulers and land) that more or less constituted a Croatian ethnic majority or at least in regions where Croatian political parties were the most powerful.  The second map is the 'Independent' state of Croatia given to the Ustasha regime on April 10th , 1941. Second map strongly resembles the medieval Croatian kingdom ( not exactly though) but was far from 'Independent.' Germans and Italians had ultimate control over east and west Croatia plus many parts of Dalmatia and Istria were directly annexed to Italy. Ustashe could not maintain control of this area either as it included over a million Serbs and Bosniaks which made up almost 40% of the ISC's population. Not to mention a lot of dissident Croats who fought against the Ustasha regime along side Bosniaks and Serbs in the Partisans. Then there was pockets of Serbian Chetniks who fought for the preservation of the Monarchy ( and in extreme cases a version of Greater Serbia). Given these facts the first map made far more sense and would've have actually been politically sustainable.

    So the answer to your question is that if Croats and Belgrade would accept the highest form of autonomy for the Croatian banovina then it could've have probably held together without war. Outright separation might have still sparked a war depending on the attitude of the Serbs in Croatia.

    #407639

    Anonymous
    Quote:

    I agree with stated.

    As for rodv, Croats and Serbs didn't share animosities up until the Nazi involvement. On the contrary they have shared an overly naive sort of brotherly love, to be exact, which evolved into the Serbo-Croat language, Serbo-Croat-Slovenian state, Serbo-Croat ethnicity even. Amazingly propagated by the Croatian side, rather than by the Serbian one.

    Of course there were radical chauvinists in every tribe, however those were a marginal appearance up until the Nazi involvement, when their ideology gained momentum and evolved into the main state doctrine. Even today such personalities are considered the 'fathers of the nation' by the official Croatian history. The Nazi involvement unfortunately seized the friendship between the two people, forever one can say, since the foundation of the Croatian republic is based on support of that doctrine.

    However mutual collaboration is possible as it is with every state, just not on the level it was once experienced.

    #407640

    Anonymous

    If Slavic countries must be united they must be united as confederacy or loose union but not as unified state. There is strong division even in for example Slovene state, let alone how would it be if entity like Yugoslavia would still exist. Yugoslavia managed to exist only thanks to King Alexander and later Tito. Both stepping hard on opposition and securing stable existance of this entity.

    #407641

    Anonymous

    As for rodv, Croats and Serbs didn't share animosities up until the Nazi involvement.

    Incorrect. The animosities were already strong during the period of SHS and later , Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It culminated with the murder of Croat leader Stjepan Radic by some Serb extremists in Belgrade. It's this event that led to the formation of the Ustashe but the Ustashe were working covertly at this time in Mussolini's Italy. They joined forces with Bulgarian and Macedonian revolutionary organizations as well ( VRMO , IRMO) The King was murdered in Paris by a Macedonian extremists allegedly at the orders of the Ustashe. Even Albert Einstein commented on how bad things were getting in SHS ( First Yugoslavia):
    <img alt="image" src="http://http://bosniakandjewishfriendship.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/prof-albert-einstein-against-serbian-terrorism.jpg” />

    I think it is misleading to assume all was well and good in Yugoslavia before the Nazis came. This is far far from the truth.

    On the contrary they have shared an overly naive sort of brotherly love, to be exact, which evolved into the Serbo-Croat language, Serbo-Croat-Slovenian state, Serbo-Croat ethnicity even. Amazingly propagated by the Croatian side, rather than by the Serbian one.

    This was all before the SHS. And yes the Croatian side did start the Illyrian movement which was a pro South Slavic movement but it must be emphasized that it was primarily a Croatian nationalist movement. The first goal of the 'Yugoslav' movement was to unite Croatia , Dalmatia , and Slavonia back into a single Croatian unit , however , with the understanding that both Croat and non Croat South Slavs in these territories were equal and shared a common heritage. It was an inclusive nationalist movement unlike the competiting exclusive movement of Starcevic. The Yugoslav movement was an attempt to unite the Slavs , under the leadership of a united Croatia  ( Zagreb) , and to push for their autonomy within Austria-Hungary. Unlike Starcevic's movement , it wasn't anti-Habsburg. It did not call for unification with the Kingdom of Serbia either , not once , just neighborly Slavic support. Animosities started when Hungarians , fearing Slavic ( or Croatian) nationalism , manipulated the sometimes uneasy relationship between Orthodox Serb Slavs and Catholic Croat Slavs against each other. Of particular debate was the status of the military Krajina was was formally returned to civil Croatia in the late 19th century.

    The Nazi involvement unfortunately seized the friendship between the two people, forever one can say, since the foundation of the Croatian republic is based on support of that doctrine.

    One of the biggest false assumptions our Serbian brothers have of us. The modern Croatian republic has nothing to do with the doctrine of the NDH ( ISC). As controversial as president Tudjman was he was the youngest Partisan general ever and his own family was murdered by Ustashe extremists. The constitution of Croatia is based largely on post Soviet Unified Germany's constitution and the U.S. constitution to a degree. Also its a false assumption that Croats and Serbs got along just fine without any problems before Nazi involvement. SHS ( Kingdom of Yugoslavia) was an absolute mess , verging on a mad house, before the Nazis did anything. But to throw the stigma of the Ustasha regime upon modern day Croatia is a useful tactic for villification of a country fighting for its independence.

    #407642

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    If Slavic countries must be united they must be united as confederacy or loose union but not as unified state. There is strong division even in for example Slovene state, let alone how would it be if entity like Yugoslavia would still exist. Yugoslavia managed to exist only thanks to King Alexander and later Tito. Both stepping hard on opposition and securing stable existance of this entity.

    I would hope that Slavic nations will be drawn together closer with time.  Hopefully, historical division and previous wars can be put into the past.  I do think it will be hard to do until those that lived through the WWII, Cold War and 1990's violence are either past on or older. 

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

4 User(s) Online Join Server
  • kony97
  • Fia
  • 'las
  • Tujev