[Stipe]

Krajina demographics were roughly like 50-60% Serb, 30-40% Croat, and whatever the remainder would be other minorities such as Czechs and Roma. Serbs were a majority, but never an overwhelming one.

[LAz]

Krajina demographics were roughly like 50-60% Serb, 30-40% Croat, and whatever the remainder would be other minorities such as Czechs and Roma. Serbs were a majority, but never an overwhelming one.

There were almost no czechs or roma.

Krajina is divided into two parts... the bulk of it, and the eastern slavonia region. Eastern Slavonia was like 50-50. The bulk was 60-80 percent serb.



These are the borders.


And as we see the density of serbs... we can notice that the bulk of it was overwhelmingly serbian, while the eastern tip was 50-50. In the eastern tip there were some hungarians though, and some slovaks.





But nontheless, being a majority does not mean being allowed to break off. Some of it should... but much like knin, or western slavonia should not... what should is alas the sad miserable poverty stricken places like Dvor and Lapac.

[Stipe]

There actually is a very significant number of Czechs in Western Slavonia (especially the area of Daruvar). The area was only briefly held by the RSK though. I was also thinking of the old Military Border's historic ethnic compositions to fill in the gaps for "Other minorities" posted in the UN numbers I was reading. I inferred from historical populations of the border and totally forgot about Eastern Slavonia in the process. It was a mistake as they are not remotely the same thing. We would definitely say that there are a lot of Hungarians, although not many Slovaks.

Anyway, the population of the United Nations Protected Areas established on the territory of RSK gave some data on populations which would give the "main" part about 2/3 Serbian population, a little less than 1/3 Croat, and the rest being minorities. There are certain discrepancies though because of the changing shape of RSK through the course of the war. Some areas were left out of the count and these tended to have larger Serbian populations, so the number of Serbs in that area would be something greater than 2/3, if we don't count Eastern Slavonia (where Serbs were only about 1/3 of the population). Nevertheless, the "main" part of RSK was basically ethnically gerrymandered and cut itself off from its own centers of economic activity (hence the 92% unemployment rates in RSK at the height of the war). It's also worth remembering that the RSK territory included less than a third of Croatia's Serbian population. When we look at that map, we have to remember that much of those Serb-majority municipalities are also some of the most sparsely populated territory in the country.

[R_G]

A good friend of mine is a Macedonian and although he's proud of his heritage he also liked the idea of Yugoslavia and he was born there officially.

He loves Tito.

[Nikola]

Muahaa did some one say the break up of yugoslavia dates back to the 1960s?

no my friend, the break up dates back to the late 1980s early 1990s when nato and America came in..

the west destroyed yugoslavia...don't be fooled

[Stipe]

Muahaa yourself. You can most certainly trace the process to the end of the 1960's, particularly with the Croatian Spring which sought to achieve greater autonomy for Croatia within a liberalized and decentralized federation. The Spring was put down, but many of its ideas actually were integrated in the 1974 Constitution which allowed for the individual republics to become practically their own party-states, which subsequently began to pursue their own individual state goals within the federation. This, on its own, did not doom the federation but the inability to find a comfortable middle ground between the Serbian political elites, who favoured a more centralized federation, and the Croatian and Slovene political elites, who favoured greater decentralization (Bosnians and Macedonians occupied a middleground), absolutely contributed to the eventual collapse of the state.

[Nikola]

ehhh You seem quite certain that the Croats and Slovenes wanted a decentralized part and independent nation. I'm Croatian and Serbia half and half, been through living in Yugoslavia. The problem only started as you say in 1960s by western capitalists ideas and propaganda that poured in during the time China and Russia were communist, and Yugoslavia was taking on it's own communist role. The west wanted to bring down all three so it started soon after the destruction of Mao with Yugoslavia, to further globalization. There were no real problems or any real threats of decentralization until the proclaimed Genocide incident and the well organized overthrow of Milosevic but the west. don't be fooled

[Stipe]

Well, I am a Croat but I can't use that as evidence of attitudes anymore than you can since neither of us was probably politically aware in the 60's and 70's, or even alive. That the Croatian Spring was a mass movement (recognized by the name the state gave it, MASPOK - Masovni pokret) attests to popular attitudes. However, this did not mean they wanted outright independence. The leadership of the Spring, afterall, came from within a reforming element of the Party. It was part of a historical process.

If I take what you write about western capitalist ideas and propaganda as just a highly ideologized way of saying that liberal ideas from the west disrupted the federation, than I can accept that. However, Yugoslavia never exactly tried to keep them out. It wasn't exactly hard, if you remember, for people in Croatia and Slovenia to drive to Italy for the day to go shopping. Also, it's difficult to argue that the West was particularly keen on destroying Yugoslavia since they wanted to use Yugoslavia as a counterbalance to the Soviets in Eastern Europe and it was Western money, in the form of loans and tourism, that bankrolled the economic development of the country.

It's also pretty much impossible to that there was no decentralization of Yugoslavia because decentralization was the chief defining characteristic of the 1974 constitution. It was designed specifically to enhance the powers of the individual republics and autonomous provinces! They made use of that power and began to defend their individual interests, especially their financial interests, within the political structures of the federation.

[Looter]

Didn't fall of Berlin wall lead to destruction of Yugoslavia. Just like Iraq they tried to play both ends from middle during Cold War and without Soviet Union, it was them who suffered most. Third path only possible with Soviet protection, people try to pretend cause of breakup was internal, world events were only coincidence and NATO was innocent bystander. I remember at the time being told over and over by all experts, America would never attack Yugoslavia but in end they have no choice. Mighty NATO defensive alliance necessary to save humanity from Serbian plans for World domination. We are still being fed the same endless lies.

[Stipe]

World events had a massive impact but you need to understand that Yugoslavia was not under some kind of Soviet protection. Yugoslavia and the Soviets were on the verge of war for some time and never patched up relations to that extent. Essentially, Yugoslavia was almost made a part of the West, something which socialists in the Soviet bloc never forgave Tito for.

[Potemkin]

World events had a massive impact but you need to understand that Yugoslavia was not under some kind of Soviet protection. Yugoslavia and the Soviets were on the verge of war for some time and never patched up relations to that extent. Essentially, Yugoslavia was almost made a part of the West, something which socialists in the Soviet bloc never forgave Tito for.

QFT. During the Cold War, Tito's Yugoslavia and Ceaucescu's Romania were essentially client states of the West. All of which proved rather embarrassing after Ceauceascu's fall - his palaces were packed with gifts from Western heads of state and politicians, not to mention all the preferential loans given to him over the years to prop up his regime. Some of the Western politicians said they "regretted" being so cosy with him, something which I rather doubt. It was the rational policy to pursue during the Cold War, a policy which actually worked in the end. Why regret it?

[pikachu]

All of which proved rather embarrassing after Ceauceascu's fall - his palaces were packed with gifts from Western heads of state and politicians, not to mention all the preferential loans given to him over the years to prop up his regime

Y'know Potemkin, Brezhnev also had quite an affinity for Western products and Japanese cars, and USSR did receive gifts from foreign heads as well (which is normal in international relations). I'm sure you're not about to say that USSR was a puppet of the West.

The layout of Yugoslav question was settled as early as Yalta conference, IIRC, with the "percentages agreement" between Churchill and Stalin. The entire Cold War basically lived up to this.

Oh Stipe, please remember, NEVER dispute what Looter says. This man speaks the truth, ok? Always truth. You should have learned that by now. He's the best poster on this forum, and that's no sarcasm.

[Nikola]

Well, I am a Croat but I can't use that as evidence of attitudes anymore than you can since neither of us was probably politically aware in the 60's and 70's, or even alive. That the Croatian Spring was a mass movement (recognized by the name the state gave it, MASPOK - Masovni pokret) attests to popular attitudes. However, this did not mean they wanted outright independence. The leadership of the Spring, afterall, came from within a reforming element of the Party. It was part of a historical process.

If I take what you write about western capitalist ideas and propaganda as just a highly ideologized way of saying that liberal ideas from the west disrupted the federation, than I can accept that. However, Yugoslavia never exactly tried to keep them out. It wasn't exactly hard, if you remember, for people in Croatia and Slovenia to drive to Italy for the day to go shopping. Also, it's difficult to argue that the West was particularly keen on destroying Yugoslavia since they wanted to use Yugoslavia as a counterbalance to the Soviets in Eastern Europe and it was Western money, in the form of loans and tourism, that bankrolled the economic development of the country.

It's also pretty much impossible to that there was no decentralization of Yugoslavia because decentralization was the chief defining characteristic of the 1974 constitution. It was designed specifically to enhance the powers of the individual republics and autonomous provinces! They made use of that power and began to defend their individual interests, especially their financial interests, within the political structures of the federation.

No no no, I do not mean liberal ideas in the sense of freedom or some kind of liberal stance for independence. What I mean is imperialistic capitalistic propaganda, you know "fuck communism, the Serbs are the evil people, they are slaughtering the masses, come join capitalism" thats what I mean. Have you not read books or readings outside of the propaganda they give you? Armies of Bosnians and Croatians formed by the U.S to fight against the Serbs. Propaganda in schools and throughout the media and the papers, about the "mean old serbs". Come on your not that naive to not realize what happened, are you? Have you not seen the pattern yet? First China, Than Russia, was it not mean for Yugoslavia to fall? I have met many Croatians who hate Serbians but have met very little who claim Yugoslavia was bad as it's existence. Do you not see the Irony in that? What have we done but betrayed our own slavs? Did we not turn on each other and were blinded by the west and nato? If you believe the Genocidal stories, I do not care to dispute them...Lets leave this part of the conversation out, Is Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, and the rest of the countries off better now or when they were with Yugoslavia? I'd guess the latter, our economy was booming because of Tito, and it continued. We were communists, or socialists in technicalities but don't you see? To further capitalistic globalization they needed Yugoslavia to be done with. What other way than to turn it's people against each other? If these "Decentralization" ideas started in the 60s why did it take so long to be put into initiative? all the sudden the mighty nato and u.s troops come pouring in and it's kick started? the war was a plan done by the west and America to delude us into dismantling our strong united country.

Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Hardcover)
by Sabrina P. Ramet

To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia (Paperback)
by Michael Parenti


Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo by Michel Collon


read some books about it, Yugoslavia was important to the west, if it stayed intact, it fucked up the whole chemistry of capitalist globalization. we fought a war to further capitalism and thats the truth

[Looter]

To me the big picture is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, and the BS that the scum who collaborated with them are full of is a meaningless detail, aren't these the same people that collaborated with the Nazi's. Isn't NATO the same thing as the axis powers, to me NATO aggression proves that, but I knew it all along. The most important significance is that this really pissed off the Russians so when their tanks come rolling into Paris they will be saying this is payback. No legitimate national liberation movement would ever associate with NATO or the Nazi's. These bogus oppressed people are trotted out to provide a fig leaf for American aggression. Free Tibet, Free Chechnya, Free Ukraine, Free Kosovo, Free Mesquite Indians, Free China, Free the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, but some of us remember when Saddam was gassing the Kurds and America was so proud of having saved him and the Kurds are a bunch of Terrorists. So when later they make such a fuss about gassing the Kurds it is such hypocrisy. The Americans were so upset about imaginary human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, but when Eltsin sent tanks to crush the people they are cheering Freedom and Democracy. Didn't they used to pretend to be protecting Yugoslavia's independence from Soviet domination, yeah right. So the big picture is the same people who collaborated with the Nazi's are now collaborating with NATO, which makes perfect sense since they are the same thing, and of course that everything the West said during the Cold War was an evil lie. The nonexistent resistance to Saddam was a legitimate freedom movement and the real resistance to American occupation are foreign terrorists trying to take over Iraq for some multi-millionaire hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan.

[Stipe]

Nikola, only about the first and second to last sentences of your post actually had anything to do with mine. I haven't written a single word about the war.

? If these "Decentralization" ideas started in the 60s why did it take so long to be put into initiative?

Because it didn't. For the 100th time, they were instituted into the constitutional order of the state by the 1974 constitution. Yugoslavia since 1974 was a country with 8 republic/province based communist parties, and 8 different political elites representing republics and provinces with very divergent economic conditions. When the economy went to hell, these elites pursued contradictory strategies. This is the fundamental economic and structural reality behind the collapse of the political system which, not only did a friend of mine who is a straight-up Marxist (also from the ex-Yugoslavia) acknowledge, but wrote his whole thesis on.

And thanks for recommending some books. However, as a Ph.D student on the history of the South Slavs, I am quite familiar with the work of Sabrina Ramet (formerly Pedro, haha). What you don't realize is that I've written nothing that she would dispute. While I'm at it, I might recommend her latest book, "The Three Yugoslavias: State-building and Legitimation 1918-2005").

You also might be interested in reading Susan Woodward's "Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution After the Cold War", which is largely focused on the economic and structural side of the collapse.

[Nikola]

O very impressive...For some one who seems to know a lot, you seem like you don't share my views...being that Yugoslavia was dismantled with the help of nato and America for capitalist reasons...It seemed like it was an inner doing and we in fact as fellow slavs disliked Yugoslavia, which I think is incorrect. But elaborate on why and how you think Yugoslavia was ripped apart.

[Stipe]

I don't have a lot of time to write anything approaching a comprehensive account of my take since I'm leaving for Croatia in a couple hours and won't be checking this board while there. Basically though, I reject all attempts to find simple answers. Simple answers aren't there.

I think the main thing that pushed the system towards crisis was the economic crisis. Serbia, on the one hand, favored the re-centalization of the state and economy to handle the crisis while Croatia and Slovenia on the other hand, whose economies were more closely integrated with the West, wanted more autonomy in order to further liberalize their economies in line with Western Europe. The other republics were somewhere between the two positions, but the basic fact is that no consensus was found. By the time Ante Marković became Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and finally began to pursue liberalized economic reforms which might have preserved the state, MiloÅ¡ević and Tuđman were already in power and he was left without a political power base of his own.

The other fundamental problem is this oft-returned to question of greater federalism vs. greater centralism. It's the same question that tortured the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes... The basic theme is that the Croatian Spring was a reaction to state centralism. The consequence of that was the practically confederal 1974 constitution. The irony though is that the 1974 constitution itself caused a nationalist reaction in Serbia. The most infamous byproduct of this is the SANU memorandum, which is often portrayed as a kind of Greater Serb declaration of intent. The fact of the matter is that, despite its inflammatory (and, in my opinion, irresponsible) rhetoric, it really wasn't. It was basically reacting against the way that Serbian political power in the federation had been deliberately weakened in the 1974 constitution vis-a-vis the other republics. It was not calling for the destruction of Yugoslavia in favor of a Great Serb state, but rather for the revision of the constitutional order.

These two points interacted with each other, notably so in the political career of MiloÅ¡ević who opportunistically utilized the SANU memorandum et al in his early ascent to political power in Serbia to legitimize his populist, centralizing policies. Those same policies provoked an extremely negative reaction in Slovenia and Croatia (at the opposite end of the argument) and contributed directly to the election of Franjo Tuđman who presented himself as the only candidate strong enough to stand up to MiloÅ¡ević's Serbia. An economic dispute became a Croat-Serb political dispute, and you know as well as I do that the two nations' competing historical memories and narratives provided fertile ground for it to be inflamed into a national conflict, and it was consciously done so, first by Belgrade and then soon after by Zagreb.

That's more or less a brief and loose narrative of the internal dimension. The international aspect is, of course, also important. The end of the Cold War also had the effect of negating Yugoslavia's geopolitical importance. Also, the tendency to see the break up of Yugoslavia in the general context of the collapse of communism from 1989 on helped to inform the German and (especially) Austrian positions on recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, which at once was opposed directly by other Western powers (especially the UK). This was, however, taking part when the federation was already politically polarized and fracturing. It's very difficult to argue that there was a concerted effort in the West to break up the state since the actual diplomatic evidence suggests that there was no consensus of action at all (for instance, the gap between German and Austrian initiatives towards recognition supposedly in order to "internationalize the conflict" vs. the UN imposed arms embargo which basically ensured that the JNA and Serb forces would have the military advantage in the earlier stages of the war). Basically, it's my opinion that, rather than acting as a malignant force trying to break up the federation, the West actually was pretty much incoherent and helped to exasperate an already bad situation.

There's more to write (especially about the role of hostile diasporas and the political roles played by domestic religious institutions), but I have to catch the plane and I'll never be able to include everything in this space anyway.

[Nikola]

I'm leaving for Croatia July 22nd maybe Ill see you ahaha. Ill be in Bakarac, near Bakar i believe.

Anyway back to what you were saying, I feel personally that you are putting too much blame on inner problems and than maybe you aren't. What I am saying is that as though these problems to you may seem inner, they were actually invented by the west. Let me explain, the propaganda was that "Serbs wanted greater Serbia, this that, blah blah blah" that Serbia was too focused on nationalism and not Yugoslavia. Which to me is bullshit, Tito helped defeat the Nazis and formed to me a great ethnically diverse country. Our economy sky rocketed within 10 years our GDP went to 6, our Medicare was extremely better under Yugoslavia but most of all FREE. Not only that but there was no decrease or noticeable change when Milosevic came into power.What I am about to describe is what I call "western economic intervention and five years of disintegration, war, boycott and embargo, economies are prostrate, industrial sectors dismantled." to kill our Yugoslavia.

let me quote "To understand how this all came about, we need to go back a few years. In a secret 1984 US National Security Directive, the Reagan administration advocated expanded efforts to promote a ‘quiet revolution’ to overthrow communist governments... while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy. This agenda had already been actively pursued by the international finance wing of US transnational capital—the IMF—in the early 1980s. In conjunction with the new Yugoslav political elite that had come to power after the death of Tito, the IMF's macroeconomic reform set Yugoslavia on a path of a gradual dismantling of the industrial sector and the welfare state. Debt restructuring increased foreign debt and enforced currency devaluation decreased standards of living. This was followed by more shock therapy—freezing of wages, price rises etc.—and IMF control of the Yugoslav Central Bank ensured the crippling of Yugoslavia's ability to finance social and economic programmes. Financial resources that were supposed to be channeled to the various republics and provinces instead went to paying the debt, effectively cutting-off the financial lifelines of the republics and feeding secessionist tendencies.

The overall imperial objective was to subject the Yugoslavian economy to massive privatisation and dismantling of the public sector. In turn, this sounded the death knell for the system of socially-owned and worker-managed enterprises that had flourished all across Yugoslavia for over three and a half decades outside of capitalist control and influence. Sections of the political elite, particularly the intelligence and military sectors, were co-opted into supporting such objectives in return for the political and economic security offered by Western powers. By the end of the 1980s, the results spoke for themselves—mass privatisation of the financial sector, mass bankruptcies, the non-payment of wages, nearly 2 million jobs lost and over 2000 industrial enterprises liquidated. By 1991, GDP growth had declined by 15%. "

I am going bowling, I will brb to finish my conclusion.