Spartak

I got asked the question of "Why did Yugoslavia break up ?" a couple of weeks ago and off the top of my head couldn't think of many better reasons than the inevitable catch-all - the collapse of "communism".

But does anybody know a bit about it ?

Anyway, after become more curious and doing some research it seemed to me that the main reason was an increasing feeling of Serbian nationalism which was fueled by Milosevic aimed at what he saw as the Croat-Slovene (mis)management of the Yugoslav republic. As a result the Croats/Slovenes/Macedonians/Muslims all collectively balked and wanted out. Then Slobodan sent his armies to try and force the republics to stay as Yugoslavia, but that didn't work (with Croatia and Slovenia) and in the case of Bosnia descended into a bloody war with many attrocities. While in the wake of international outrage Milosevic finally conceded the conflict before starting the same in Kosovo.

I mean would the above be a fair statement ? Or was there something more to the breakup of Yugoslavia than ethnic tensions ?

If anybody knows more, please post. Otherwise thanks for reading

__________________
I can read your mind... looking at you... I can read your mind...

Seaver

Yugoslavia has always been a geographicly unified area but religiously and culturally devided.

It was where the Muslim armies were stopped cold, prevented from invading Europe, but the European armies were never strong enough to kick them fully out of the region.

Fast forward a couple hundred years, the region spawns many different ideological activists. One of them manages to kill the next king of Austria/Hungary... leading to lots of bad things.

So they get to be their own nation, split up for the first time on language based on the belief of the time that language barriers are "natural" barriers. So if everyone of a language got their own country there would be no conflict.

They are all weak, very little military, so border fighting between clanish village-families runs throughout the area, but because they lack any unity no one pays attention. The governments dont like each other that much so they dont care to stop it.

Then WWII comes around, ending up in Soviet control. At first there was a lot of inter-culture disputes, but the Soviet leaders were very heavyhanded on dealing with it, so everything was quelled.

After the split up of the Soviet Union the heavy-handed government is no longer there, the old disputes errupt. The old lines of division (religion, culture, language) split the nation apart. It's not so much WHAT happened, that's kind of null because it was just a matter of time before they came up with an excuse for it.

Milosovitch (sp?) tried to unify it under him, but was unable to complete it militarily. So the weakest of the nations (Bosnia) fell under his attack. While he was at it he decided to get rid of the religious/language barrier in that area, how? by eliminating those people.

There ya go, a condensed history of the place.

Dragonlich

The break-up was helped by the death of Marshall Tito, the former dictator. Basically, you've got three distinct cultures there: Serbian Orthodox Christianity, Bosnian Islam, and Croat (western) Christianity. Where cultures collide, strive is sure to follow. Tito managed to stop this hate by ruling with an iron fist. When he died, this restraint was removed. Then, when he got in power, Milosovich played the nationalism card and got everyone to remember their old animosity.

Pacifier

I think the root of this conflict go back to ~1910 and the first balkan wars. back then the nationalism rised in those areas and resulted in war (Balkan Wars).
Tito surpressed those nationalistic feelings but after his death those feelings rised again and again resulted in war. Slobodan Milošević revived Serb nationalism, but ended up alienating all the other ethnic groups in the federation

History of Yugoslavia

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

Pacifier, I think Seaver is more accurate with his starting point.

The hatred goes back centuries, to the Islamic invasion of Europe (leading to Christians in the area hating Muslims). I'd say it might even go back to the Roman days, when Christianity split into the eastern Orthodox part, and the western Catholic part (hatred between the Serbs and the Croats).

Over the centuries, the original cultural differences were more or less forgotten, or at least reduced. During times of inter-cultural conflict (break-up of Yugoslavia), such differences re-emerge, because they allow the ethnic groups to become self-aware. e.g.: When Milosovich promoted Serbian nationalism, he effectively promoted Croat and Muslim nationalism too, because they were seen as different. These groups then saw those differences as an essential part of their background.

Pacifier

hmm, not sure. But I think it is difficult to make a certain "starting point"

At the beginning of the 20th century nationalism rised in europe. I think thats a big influence in those conflict, maybe not the starting point but a big one.

But you're also right, the history of those area still matters, Milosevic used the 600 old Battle of Kosovo in one of his speeches.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Seaver

To have nationalism you have to have a nation to begin with, and usually distinct natural borders. This would be considered cultural pride more than nationalism, because the area never had any distinct natural borders, but VERY clear cultural borders.

These were caused by the Muslim invasion, as well as the split in Christian church, all three had its roots for hundreds of years.

zlsk

Seaver, you are in error about the Soviet angle. Tito was the glue that heald the country together until his death. As a mater of fact, Yugoslavs did not consider themselves 'communists" but rather "socialists", and Tito was adept at playing off East vs. West to get the greatest benefit for Yugoslavia. As a a matter fact, after WW2 when the Soviets were consolidating their power, Tito told them to take a hike, and that he was in charge. They were not even members of the Eastern Bloc (a military structure created by treaty to counterbalance NATO). At their height, they had the most advanced and vibrant economy of all of the Central/Eastern European nations.

Unfortunately, Yugoslavia was an artificial construct which could not be held together without a personality as strong as Tito's. The 7 ethnically-based republics which made up Yugoslavia were not ready to accept Serb dominance, and the country disintegrated, with some going their way more peacably than others.

Seaver

Thanks for correcting me zlsk, instead of Soviet I probably should have put socialist or communist government. Didnt realize it read that way until you pointed it out.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Locobot

My understanding is that the Serbian-Croatian conflict didn't really take off until Germany decided to recognize Serbia as a soverign nation.

Dragonlich

Actually, Germany recognized Croatia, not Serbia. This isn't a real surprise, given their historic ties. Besides, Croatia is part of the Western Christian world, a small fact that actually matters quite a lot.

Just a question to illustrate that last assertion: what would be more interesting/emotional, a disaster killing hundreds of people in Germany, or that same disaster in Africa/Asia/Russia? I'm willing to bet most Westerners would find the German disaster more interesting than the other ones, if only because they feel some sort of relation to the victims. At least, that's a theory I once read about.

Seaver

Aye Croatia is mostly Western-Christian, Serbia is mostly Eastern Orthodox, while Bosnia is mostly Muslim. So the western-christian nation of Germany recognised Croatia, while Russia was too busy to recognise Serbia.