Yugoslav wars

I think your analysis of Balkan Nationalism is slightly off and based on what Todorova would call 'Balkanism'. It was no worse that nationalism in other areas.

Provoked by third parties? who, when?

Lets face it, the most bloody, fanatical nationalism is Nazism. Which is very different to Balkan nationalism.

Separist movements were more violent than other regions?

Well, Serbians would place Kosovo Polje as the start. But I suppose there is some truth to 19th century nationalism being a good starting point.

One thing I would say is that a more interesting starting point is the failure of Pan Slavism or Yugoslavism.

The 1903 brutal assassination of King Alexander Obrenovic and his wife was a terrifying act - but what is also true is that it brought democracy, ending the reign of a mad tyrant (consider it a revolution, rather than a simple coup d'etat.) 

The 1914 assassination of Franz Ferdinand is in ex Yu to an extent celebrated as an act of the people's will of freedom (despite being a terrorist act).

A new war isn't close. Serbia is now a peaceful country, and the only destabilization factor in the Balkans is Kosovo (still hotspots). On 31 March the future of Kosovo will be decided by international factors, so just wait and see.

Bosnia though might be the problem, as the Bosniacs increasingly attach a genocidal tag to the Serbs and demand a centralized Sarajevo country (abolishing RS), while the Serbs respond with increasing demands for independence of the Serbian Republic.

First of all, do not attach to me local national affiliations. I want to be Yugoslav and remain that. Second of all, how would being X justify doing Y???

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. AFAIK, there is no victimization complex in the Serbian Republic, but in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In BH it is the Serbian Army that conducted some of the most disgusting individual crimes in all of ex Yugoslavia, including ethnic cleansing (most seen at the Srebrenica massacre, the most infamous crime in the Yugoslav wars). The fact that Bosnian Muslims had abnormally high victims, definitely being exposed to greatest suffering as the weakest and the losing side at the same time. However it is this which is giving the need to abolish the Serbian Republic, and to the most extreme of politicians declare BH a Bosniac nation-state, while Serbs (and Croats) would be only national minorities.

A genocidal tag IS attached to the Serbian Republic and it is JUSTLY done so. Truth is that ONE of the founding basis of RS's statehood lies in the Bosnian genocide (see Srebrenica).

The SDA which maintains power amongst Bosniacs in Sarajevo wins it votes because one of the main promises for the next government is centralization of BH, and abolition of the entities. One of the main reasons stated by Haris Silajdzic about this is that "the Serb Republic is a genocidal creation of the Serbian people, and as such it must not and will cease to exist". This is a quotation. If you do not believe me, go to see yourself. Isn't that quite a bit rhetoric (just like Kostunica's in Serbia, promising how Kosovo will always remain and never be detached from Serbia)?

The last election (do not attach it to me, I'm not even a citizen of Serbia) was a clear victory of Democratic powers (down from 146 to 145 seats; lost only one seat), just like Xavier Solana said. In 2003 almost 2,000,000 Serbian citizens voted for the Democratic bloc (when it won 146 seats). Now, when the Democrat Bloc won 145 seats, over 2,500,000 people voted for it. Notice the half a million more? In both cases more than 50% of the total people that voted, voted for the Democrat Bloc.

Considering that the ultra-nationalist & irredentist opposition was WEAKENED (104 seats at the last election, only 97 after this one) as seen on this election, I honestly do not understand why do you see it shocking. Why do you think it's horrifying? I myself am overjoyed with how that election passed. Yes, Milosevic's time is passing away, and the old remains are getting weaker by day, isn't that expectable? In both the last election (104 seats) and the most recent one (97 seats), the irredentist bloc received around 1,350,000 votes, so there's NO increase. In 2003 the Irredentist Bloc received just over 35% of the total votes, now the results are even below that.

1. No one in Serbia is prepared to fight except the Socialists (16 seats only)
2. Serbia has no strength like before (read: no military power)
3. Kosovo is well-secured by international armed forces now (the peacekeepers are not as weak as they were before). So, order will be kept.
4. The possibility of war is minimal. Serbs form majority in North Kosovo; there is only a possibility that North Kosovo declares independence and decides to remain in Serbia if Kosovo secedes, and there is no mixed population to cause ethnic clashed: more than 60,000 Serbs living south of the river of Ibar would probably flee in another exodus and join those living in North Kosovo and a war will be evaded.

The Nationalists might come to power, but only if Kosovo becomes independent and if the new democratic government proves to be a failure (and the neighboring stirs in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzgovina might affect the whole political situation in Serbia; depends how actions go in there). I *honestly believe* that the only ones who will try to shoot are the Socialists, and they are slowly vanishing into thin air. I KNOW that there will be no open war, because there cannot be. However, if someone observes the most recent January-February 2007 election, it would be impossible to think that they won ("almost" or otherwise), when they lost, in a way.

One more correction: Pan-Slavism had it strength in Austro-Hungary; Serbia only later adopted the idea. The "Yugoslavism" was born in Zagreb. There was a lot of opposition in Serbia towards creating a unified South Slavic state, even from it's leadership (Nikola Pasic said that first the borders of Serbia have to be defined, and then they could join into Yugoslavia; he obviously predicted the horrors that would follow).

P.S. Trust me... Serbs aren't that bad. :))) Cheers, mate.


Edited by Yugoslav - 21-Mar-2007 at 12:53

It is; today (for months by now) and in Sarajevo. The entire ruling Bosniac political leadership agrees that the Serbian Republic is a genocidal creation of the Serbian people and that it thus must be canceled. The Genocidal tag is not attached to just individuals (certain members of the Bosniac leadership like President Haris Silajdzic have proven that they care less about the guilt of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, than the collective guilt of the Serbian Republic and the Republic of Serbia). This is about attaching "genocidal tags" to STATES/COUNTRIES, like happening to Serbia when it was prosecuted by Bosnia and Herzegovina in front of the ICJ and like happening to Republika Srpska which I already mentioned.

Keep on mind that of all 6,650,000 people who could vote, only 4,000,000 voted (and keep on mind that Serbia has 9,500,000-10,000,000 inhabitants, so generalization in that manner is pointless). If you really must check it, 28,6% (1,150,000) of all people who voted (the four million) voted for the radicals, yeah. But that's only about 17,3% of all people who could vote's votes, or 11,5% of whole Serbia's population. You should also have on mind that more than 55% of those who voted gave their votes to the pro-European Democrat lists.

It should not be meaningless. There are many democratic directives in Serbia and so is their strength SPLIT. The only difference is that there is only one "bad" party in Serbia (Radical), and all votes who sympathize with the ultra-nationalists goes to them. The FACT THAT THEY WON INDIVIDUALLY THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES is that which is meaningless.

How on earth did the nazis/fascists have similar problems? Also, although SRS are really disgusting with ultra-nationalist and formerly xenophobic aims, I'd dare not call them Nazi or fascist (or near).

If you truly believe that these things are large problems, you should see Austria. It has greater problems with the radical right (even neo-nazi perhaps in this case) than Serbia. In the end, such is a case in most etities in former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro and to an extent Bosnia and Herzegovina). The difference is that the democrats unite in Serbia, while in these entities ultra-nationalists (to an extent, depends where) win the largest number of votes and FORM GOVERNMENTS.

Why do you not understand? Most support a pro-European democratic policy. In the first round those people were split among many pro-European candidates; there was only one bad one (read what I said above about the parliamentary election) and in the second round they all supported the "good guy" of the two.

So what if SRS is the largest party at the moment? They were the largest party before too. It WAS weakened; just like I said: in 2003 the Radicals won 82 seats and Socialists 22; now the Radicals have 81 seat and the Socialists 14 (altogether 95, sorry for the incorrect 97 figure). HDZ is the largest party (and is in power) in the Croatian parliament. SDA is the largest party (and shares power) in the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Division of Kosovo is not an option to some of the leading Western powers, yeah (do not generalize about the whole International community); but it is getting more and more popular as a possible solution (they remembered the solution to the Greek-Turkish problems in the 1920s I guess).

Quote: "Impossible to think they won, they did win. They just cannot form coalitions. It just takes another party to take votes away from the Democrats or the democrats to be shamed in someway ( like apologising for genocide, accepting kosovo independence or some other Serbian outrage) which will cause a major problem."

Sorry, I don't understand this. What did you want to say?

What rhetoric precisely? If you plug your ears to the Radicals & Socialists (like all Media and the majority of Serbia's everyday life), you'll notice that Serbia is a very nice country.

UN peace-keepers leave very quickly? Yes, that might happen; it's what they did in Croatia when they held the Serbian Krajina Republic under protectorate; they left and then the Croatian Army immediately seized all the territory in blitzkrieg offensives (to avoid international reaction). But I think Serbia won't try that, at least since the Irredentist Bloc stays in opposition for now (and slowly runs of its own life force). Cheers, mate.

By "Bosnians" you meant "Bosniacs" ("Bosnian Muslims"), right?


Edited by Yugoslav - 21-Mar-2007 at 15:56

Er, no; 17.3% of the electorate (and that's still only 11.5% of the total population) do not support that, belonging to the Serbian Radical Party (majority of the Irredentist Bloc). You cannot simply say that it's not true, because if you go by the date of the 4 million that voted, than more than 60% chose the democratic, pro-European option (60% is more than 28.5%). The fact that they mustered 100k more is due to the fact that a part of the Socialist electorate switched to the Radicals. That's the basic change. Roughly said, all the people that voted for the Socialists before 5th October switched (and are switching still right now) their support to the Radicals (that happened frequently). The fact that the Serbian Radicals amassed +100k support is just because some Socialist support switched to them, and generally because of the LARGER TURNOUT (225k more people voted on these than the previous one). (Radicals 27.6% and Socialists 7.6% = 35.2% in 2003; Radicals 28.6% and Socialists 5.6% =>34.2%; so they LOST a percent.

For a good comparison, you have to compare whole Blocs. Here are the PRECISE data: in 2003 the Democrat Bloc won 2,355,000 votes (63%), while the Irredentist received 1,420,000 (37%). The Democrat Bloc managed to amass over 2,500,000 votes (exactly 64%) in 2007, while the Irredentists got some 1,500,000 (precisely 36%). So 63% for pro-European democratic options the last time, and 64% percent now... do you see now? But this is all relative, because a large number of the people ABSTAINS from voting.

Talking about the SRS alone, how is 11% a significant part of the population? If we count the whole irredentist undemocratic option, then barely 14% voted for it (at the last election) - it's STILL a tiny part of the population.

Belgrade gave most votes to the Radicals, but the Democrats and Populists nevertheless have received more together.

"the rhetoric of most people who are older that approx 25." What do you mean by this? Are you generalizing about the whole population of Serbia older than 25???

You still didn't respond two of my questions: What did you mean by "Impossible to think they won, they did win. They just cannot form coalitions. It just takes another party to take votes away from the Democrats or the democrats to be shamed in someway ( like apologising for genocide, accepting kosovo independence or some other Serbian outrage) which will cause a major problem."

And did you mean about Bosniaks when you said Bosnians, or all Bosnians/Herzegovinians?

Cheers.

Greater Serbian and Croatian ideology is what ruined Yugoslavia

Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Kadzic, Milo Djukanovic... such are stil in power in Montenegro!

Yugoslavia is an interesting chapter in the history of the Southeast Europe. There were many factors which contributed to its decline which culminated with the infamous Balkan Wars of the 1990s.

Edited by Pjet�r Liosha - 02-Apr-2007 at 15:35

Westerners developed and especial hatred of Serb nationalists following the massacres of unarmed Muslim and Croat boys and men, and the heinous gangrapes of Muslim women by Serb paramilitary forces. The utter denial by the Serbian government and the Serbian people that the Serbs forces committed genocide and conducted mass rapes of Muslim women held in rape concentration camps is utterly distasteful to this day. Mass murder and mass rape of an entire ethnic or religious group cannot be and should not be tolerated by any society and I would be a liar if I told you that the Westerners' view (including my own) of Serbia was not changed due to the genocide and rapes carried out by the Serb forces from 1992-1995 war - it lasted 2 1/2 years and 50,000 Muslim girls and women were raped and gangraped ..... so sad. 

 Myself im descendant of German trader from Keln
Bosnian nobles
Turks

Originally posted by Ovidius The Attatchment of a genocidal tag to the Serbs is NOT happening, its is part of a victimisation complex. Bosnia is not starting any wars, nor are they aggressive towards Serbia. The Genocidal tag is not about the Serbian nation, but about those that were involved in the Genocide. Its absolutely VITAL that the Serbs DISTANCE themselves from Genocide, rather than DENIAL. This is possibly the most serious boundary for Reconcilation, denial is inherent amongst Serbs, even Serbs outside of Serbia.