[KurtFF8]

I just got finished watching a multi-part BBC documentary on the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 90s. It was made in 1995 I believe so it Milosevic was still the President of Serbia when it was made and obviously there was still conflict to come by the conclusion of the documentary.

But I liked the way it seemed to be relatively fair in allocating "blame" for the breakup and certainly didn't paint nationalism in a positive sense. Granted they didn't take the Marxist line on anti-nationalism and didn't paint Western intervention that negatively but it is still a good documentary that gives a lot of details on how events transpired, I recommend it.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 (although I think this actually contains more than 1 part as it is over 80 minutes long)

[pikachu]

Does it mention to what extent the West was responsible for the breakup of Yugoslavia?


Edit:
I just watched the beginning: Aaahhh, Stambolić is such a sneaky liar. He supported Milosevic, including on the issue of Kosovo. He was no less of a "nationalist" than Milosevic himself. But of course in this "documentary" he presents himself as a passionate opponent of Milosevic and an innocent victim of Milosevic's vicious plans! Oh my, politics is so dirty. How can you possibly make something objective or fair out of this?

[Stipe]

It's a very good documentary, although this version isn't as great. I know that there is another English version which goes much more into the political developments in Slovenia prior to independence. Also, this version completely ignores the 10 day war in Slovenia. Anyway, it's built from the pretty exhaustive work of Laura Silber and Allan Little (who interviewed pretty much everybody you could possibly imagine multiple times). Their actual book, Yugoslavia - Death of a Nation is also very exhaustive and even more critical (the treatment Kučan gets in the book is vastly more severe).

The only serious weakness (of the more detailed version) is that it investigates a very narrow period of time (late 1980's). To really get a firm grasp of why the second Yugoslavia failed, you need to go back to the late 1960's. It also consequently glosses over important causal factors, and oversimplifies some details to the point of giving a less-than-accurate picture in some places. However, as a chronicle of the events of the collapse and wars, its one of the best things out there.

[pikachu]

However, as a chronicle of the events of the collapse and wars, its one of the best things out there.

Really? Didn't he completely miss the ten day war against Slovenia, or did I miss it? In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Slovenian declaration of independence was only casually mentioned.

Anyway.
I guess Milosevic's biggest mistake was to disregard and dismiss the Bosnian Muslims, and try to take their territory by force. If I was him, I would try to pull off something like this:

1. Agree with Tuđman on the necessity of partitioning of Bosnia. Draw out exact demarcation lines, establish the future Serb Bosnian state within the borders roughly corresponding to present. It will be hard to come up with sensible borders, but make an approximation. Don't try to take too much - know your place. Leave Sarajevo to the Bosniaks, let them have it.
2. Have the Bosnian Serb leaders declare independence from Bosnia due to the latter's withdrawal from Yugoslavia.
3. Have them request aid from Yugoslavia, then send in the Yugoslav army to secure the borders and protect Republika Srpska. Some violence will inevitably take place, but the government should be in position to crack down on any civilian executions, rapes, etc. Don't try to seize any areas boyond the demarcation line, just protect the Serb state. That way there will be no need for a forced ethnic cleansing, the army will have enough guns to keep near the head of every muslim living in Serb Bosnia to prevent them from becomming a trouble. Most people living at the wrong side of the border would probably flee voluntarily.
4. Have Croatians do the same thing in their zone of influence, help them if they need it. The result should be that Bosnia and Herzegovina be reduced to a Muslim-only state.
5. Join Republika Srpska back into Yugoslavia as a separate republic.
6. Support the de-facto independence of Serb Krajina and campaign for recognition. Historically there were a number of countries willing to recognize it, including Russia. If the division of Bosnia along ethnic lines was successfully pulled off, the number would increase.
7. Join Serb Krajina into Yugoslavia either as separate republic or just join it to Bosnian Serb republic if they can agree to this kind of settlement.


The end result should look something like this, effectively preserving Yugoslavia as a Serb country, preventing it from falling into the pathetic state it is in today.


Do you think it would be possible to pull this off?

[Stipe]

Really? Didn't he completely miss the ten day war against Slovenia, or did I miss it? In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Slovenian declaration of independence was only casually mentioned.

There's more than one version of this documentary. I didn't realize that this one was missing so much information in comparison to the other versions (a longer English one as well as the one in Croatian and Serbian) until I actually watched it and edited my post accordingly to talk about the latter English version.

This one is rather bare-bones and telescoped.

Do you think it would be possible to pull this off?

Uh...no?

At any rate, the idea that this wold somehow make "Yugoslavia" less pathetic is kind of offensive because that map is no Yugoslavia at all. Yugoslavia was never supposed to be a Serbian state and that map is more like an assault on the Yugoslav idea.

[Potemkin]

At any rate, the idea that this wold somehow make "Yugoslavia" less pathetic is kind of offensive because that map is no Yugoslavia at all. Yugoslavia was never supposed to be a Serbian state and that map is more like an assault on the Yugoslav idea.

It's actually not 'Yugoslavia' at all, it's Greater Serbia under a false name.

[KurtFF8]

Exactly, Yugoslavia is meant to be "the land of Southern Slavs" not "The land of Serbs"... that's Serbia.

[Stipe]

It's actually not 'Yugoslavia' at all, it's Greater Serbia under a false name.

Of course, that didn't stop the Federal Republic of "Yugoslavia" from claiming the name. Suffice to say though, I understand exactly what stuff like this is very well indeed. It's just a coastline and Slavonia short of the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line, aka Greater Serbia.

Anyway, I finally finished watching the whole thing. This version also fails to mention the Croat-Bosniak war entirely (which the others do). It also fails to mention the reasons why MiloÅ¡ević was so eager from Vance-Owen on to have a peace deal in BiH.

[pikachu]

Uh...no?

Why not? At which point, do you think, the plan would fail?

Yugoslavia was never supposed to be a Serbian state and that map is more like an assault on the Yugoslav idea.

EEEEhhh, why? I'm trying to propose a plan by which Belgrade could have possibly maintained a more powerful and respectable state than it has today, that's all. It would most likely go under the name Yugoslavia, rather than Serbia, due to political and historical reasons. And yes, there is FR Yugoslavia on that map. It's in Yellow.

So, do you think that Egypt going under the name "United Arab Republic" for ten straight years was somehow an assault on Arab nationalism? Or what about USA, which stands for "United States of America" - is an assault on pan-Americanism? To be honest I don't quite get it.

[Stipe]

Why not? At which point, do you think, the plan would fail?

Simplest reason is that no Croatian government could or would ever accept losing the Krajina. For simple material reasons, Croatia would be constantly at the mercy of a Serbia which occupies all of the transit routes linking the Croatian regions together. This is aside from the fact that those territories were never compactly or homogeneously Serbian anyway. Any Croatian statesman accepting such a formation could as well have put a bullet through his head instead.

I'm trying to propose a plan by which Belgrade could have possibly maintained a more powerful and respectable state than it has today, that's all. It would most likely go under the name Yugoslavia, rather than Serbia, due to political and historical reasons.

It could call itself the Grand Hottentot Imperium but it would still be Greater Serbia. But whatever, I get your point even though I find the idea to be pretty offensive.

[pikachu]

Any Croatian statesman accepting such a formation could as well have put a bullet through his head instead.

So, do you think the status of Krajina would remain something along the lines of the frozen separatist conflicts in the former USSR?
Or that Serbia would not be able to hold on to RSK anyway and Croatia would regain it somehow?

I think that sooner or later Croatia would be forced to come to some sort of compromise. Like, perhaps the territory of RSK could be substantially reduced (because it's really way too big for a Croatian Serb community) or in exchange for some other concessions made elsewhere.

I know this is just another one of those what-if scenarios, but this one is not wildly ahistorical so I think it is possible to make some predictions.

But whatever, I get your point even though I find the idea to be pretty offensive.

It's not at all that I think it was a bright idea to split up SFRY in the first place, but I do think that it was something that was inevitable to happen one way or another. So it is only natural that every constituent republic struggled to gain the most out this collapse for itself, and as a result it seems to me that Serbs ended up getting the least out of what they could potentially get. This map just shows the estimated maximum of what the Serbs could potentially get if they did everything right.

Anyway, if I thought that an anti-nationalist Yugoslav state was preservable somehow, I'd certainly be in favor of it rather than what the map has. But I don't think it was.

[Stipe]

Krajina would probably fall back under Croatian state control at some point. Major reasons: the aforementioned all important strategic value of the regions in question to the Croats and their relatively marginal importance to the Serbs, the inability to establish an economic life in a Krajina cut off from its economic centers in the rest of Croatia, and the anger of the large numbers of Croat refugees from the regions. All three of these were indeed important factors in how the actual war in Croatia turned out.

[Zel]

Stipe do you have a link to the more informative version of the documentary?

[Stipe]

Unfortunately, I don't. If you go looking for it though, you can recognize it because it's narrated by Christiane Amanpour of CNN.

[InterestedInPolitics]

The breakup of the Former Yugoslavia is simple: Milosevic wanted power and to keep power the only way to do this is manufacter and create the violent break up of Yugoslavia. As far as western intervention: Clinton finally intervened in the specific case of Bosnia only when the Sarajevo Marketplace bombing was caught on world wide TV despite the fact that mountains of evidence of genocide being committed flowing into the US embassy in Croatia for three years while evidence from our spy planes (as well as the UN documenting over 100 death camps in Bosnia) confirming the existence of these camps. The west did not honor the promise of "never again" after World War II in the aftermath of the genocide of the Jews and what was going in on Bosnia was no different and it certainly wasn't a "civil war" as claimed by political leaders. This was claimed to knowingly, willfully gloss over what political leaders knew what was really going on: genocide. They did not want to admit to the true nature of what was going on because it would put political pressure on them to intervene. There was no economic interests at stake for Western politicans in Bosnia so they wanted to avoid sending troops into Bosnia, despite the fact that it was genocide being committed. "Never again" was just politically popular talk for the times in the aftermath of the Holocaust but no politican was serious about keeping such promises. It didn't mean anything to them or to future politicans. Unfortunately, it can be a "me" world. Some people and most nations only looking out for number 1 and only acting in their own narrow self interest without having wider, broader, proper prospective. The only exception when comparing what the Nazis did as opposed to the Serbs in Bosnia, was that the Serbs (as well as members of the HVO) wanted to have sadistic fun by torture and rape while still accomplishing genocide, the nazis preferred efficient methods which was to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible, but both had the same intention. I think in the Nazis were much more merciful when they committed genocide than the Serbs. Tito and the communists would have never allowed this to happen, the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Edit: I noticed after watching part 3 of the documentary that they didn't include or cover information regarding United States special envoy to the balkans: Charles Redman and it didn't discuss the character or nature of those negotiations in Geneva which had involved David Owen and Charles Redman. In order to have a completely informative documentary, this is a very important piece of history to be covered to understand the true nature of what happenned in Bosnia and to give a better understanding of the nature of the breakup of Yugoslavia.

[Lord Palmerston]

I used to have this taped on VHS. Then rather stupidly, but accidentally, taped over it ( ). I have been over to the BBC webshop but it is not listed there to be purchased. I also have conducted a search for the series but no one seems to stock it. Does anyone know if it can actually be bought any longer?

[LAz]

That map sucks. Serbs can not have knin, for the main railroads of croatia go through there... nor can they have baranja for the same reason, a railroad. Western slavonia is also out of the question, as croatia's main highway goes through there. Goraze must be in Serb hands if there is to be partition, and it's just abnormal to have such a small corridor.



The serbs and croat,s allies for centuries, should have cooperated so that bosnia does not exist.

Tito said that the albanian question in kosovo is the biggest problem for the Yugoslav state. This was in the late 70s, not long before his death. As we see, that is where the ultra-nationalism started. That was the problem, the albanians.

Add into the formula an economic chaotic situation thanks to structural adjustment that he West and their financial institutions imposed on us... makes the situation even worse.

And then US democratization forced elections to happen in 1990 or 1991, and then more radicals came to power and the state went towards disintegrating, as the west supported the secessionist dudes.







The tzars of yugoslavia knew that there will be problems. That's why they did create a greater croatia in 1939. Too bad that Tito brought back bosnia...

[Gletkin]

and the anger of the large numbers of Croat refugees from the regions.

Steeped in very controversial history however.
There were also large numbers of Serbs living in the Krajina, and the K along with eastern Bosnia was ground zero for the anti-Serb genocide perpetrated by the Ustashe. It wasn't very difficult at all for Milosevic to stoke up Serbian nationalism in Krajina...they most likely truly feared a second "Independent State of Croatia".

Which is ironic given that the Croats and Krajina Serbs started out as allies. Doesn't "Krajina" mean "frontier"? And wasn't it the Austrian Empire who settled Serb exiles in that region, using them as sentries against the Ottoman colonies next door? "Our Brave Christian Serb Brothers (we'll forget for now that they're heathen Orthodox) Defending Our Happy Croatian Subjects From the Saracen" and all that.

The serbs and croat,s allies for centuries

That did seem to be the case once.

should have cooperated so that bosnia does not exist

They did. From 1993-94 remember?
At least the Serbs were consistent. Croatia was rather treacherous in its behavior during the Bosnian War.

A pity really, that the Titoist system collapsed. Far from perfect, but much better then their nationalist successors.

I don't what the Bosnian voters were thinking when they voted out the Communists in...1990 was it?
"We've been shot in the leg....so let's shoot ourselves in the head!"

[Stipe]

There were also large numbers of Serbs living in the Krajina, and the K along with eastern Bosnia was ground zero for the anti-Serb genocide perpetrated by the Ustashe. It wasn't very difficult at all for Milosevic to stoke up Serbian nationalism in Krajina...they most likely truly feared a second "Independent State of Croatia".

Well, the point was that those people who had been made refugees by the Serbs in 1991 would be forever calling for the recapture of the region, for the simple fact that their homes are there. Historical memory and its impact on the local Serbs is necessary to understand the Serbian response. That alone is a whole other discussion. However, activities like burning down your neighbors' houses cannot be excused because you feel threatened.

Which is ironic given that the Croats and Krajina Serbs started out as allies.

It's somewhat anachronistic the way you mean it. While there was an ethnic dimension which separated the Catholic and Orthodox communities of the Krajina (which does mean frontier: a shortened form of Vojna Krajina/Military Frontier, the translated name of the Hapsburg Militärgrenze system in the region), the period of the re-settlement of those territories is rather too early to be talking of distinct Croat and Serb ethnicities there. Certainly a phrase like "Our Brave Christian Serb Brothers Defending Our Happy Croatian Subjects From the Saracen (although that should simply be "the Turk")" would never have appeared. It's also a little bit annoying as it repeats an old misconception that the settlers on the border were exclusively Orthodox (and thus Serb), which implies that the Croats were passive in the wars, hiding behind the Serbs. The notion is false, and not just because of poor chronology as much of the area of the Military Border was only regained after the Treaty of Karlowitz/Karlovci. The border was organized into regiments, some of which were Catholic (which we could call Croat) and some of which were Orthodox (which we could call Serb). These regiments had special privileges, not least among them was freedom from feudal dues, and that made settlement there extremely attractive for many peasants (as well as making the border itself a constant thorn for the Croatian aristocracy). The region was truly multi-ethnic.

As for historical Croatian-Serbian friendship, the mountain of examples in favor of it absolutely dwarf the more recent history of animosity. Even during the worst times of the inter-war Yugoslavia, things were not awful. The major opposition in Croatia was opposed to Belgrade, not the Serbs, and in fact, the Croat opposition was allied with the Croatian Serb political parties in the Peasant-Democratic Coalition against Belgrade right up until the German invasion. What happened next, when the Nazis installed a pack of emigre thugs with no domestic base as rulers of a so-called "Independent State of Croatia", is well enough known.

At least the Serbs were consistent. Croatia was rather treacherous in its behavior during the Bosnian War.

Well, to be fair, both Croatia and Serbia were quite treacherous. The catch though is that while Tudjman was treacherous towards the Bosniaks, Milosevic was treacherous towards his own people. Part of the reason why the RSK fell so easily was that Milosevic basically threw them aside when they were no longer useful to him.

[LAz]

What I find to be interesting is that the Yugoslav idea came from Croats, not Serbs.

A pity really, that the Titoist system collapsed. Far from perfect, but much better then their nationalist successors.

The Titoist system was doomed for hardships when decentralization started. This started in 1966, coinciding with the dismissal of Rankovic.

I don't what the Bosnian voters were thinking when they voted out the Communists in...1990 was it?
"We've been shot in the leg....so let's shoot ourselves in the head!"

Actually the Bosniaks did not vote for the pro-independent Izbegovic. In 1990, Abdic won the vote, and he was pro-Yugoslav. Well, democracy obviously did not work, to the West's pleasure.

However, activities like burning down your neighbors' houses cannot be excused because you feel threatened.

Burning and cleansing was started by the Croatians in northwestern Slavonia in the Summer of 1991. Considering the propaganda and the actions, the serbian reaction is no surprise. It's too bad, for if things went slower war could have been avoided.

The region was truly multi-ethnic.

]

From what I know, it was overwhelmingly dominated by Serbs.

The catch though is that while Tudjman was treacherous towards the Bosniaks, Milosevic was treacherous towards his own people. Part of the reason why the RSK fell so easily was that Milosevic basically threw them aside when they were no longer useful to him.

Tudjman helped the bosniaks. He destroyed herceg-bosna, forcing it to unite with the bosniaks. Awful stuff.
As for krajina, milosevic had nothing with its fall. It is a well known fact that Krajina was a miserable poor region that was sparsely populated. There was no way that it could have stayed the way it did in the long-run. It could have been over-ran in 1993.