Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Oct 10, 2011 18:04:12 GMT -5
Yugoslavia would have been truly great if it included all south Slavs - Bulgaria, Aegean Macedonia, and Slavic areas in Italy, Austria etc.
|
|
|
Post by alb12345 on Oct 10, 2011 18:59:35 GMT -5
U forgot to add france and germany to join jugoslavia plus alexandria in egypt cos was founded by a sllav
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Oct 10, 2011 19:04:46 GMT -5
U forgot to add france and germany to join jugoslavia plus alexandria in egypt cos was founded by a sllav nah those countries are not south slavic. i did however forget to mention slavic regions of albania - mala prespa, golo brdo, pogradec etc.
|
|
|
Post by Moe Lester on Oct 10, 2011 19:45:20 GMT -5
Why stop there, why not include all Slavic lands.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 10, 2011 22:50:01 GMT -5
Tito was actively working to incorporate all South Slavic lands. Bulgaria was supposed to join but the Tito-Stalin split happened and Moscow wouldn't allow it. As for Macedonia, Tito was actively supporting the communists in Greece to achieve this but they ended up losing the war against the royalists and western backing meant there was little Yugoslavia could do in terms of getting aegean Macedonia. As for Italy, read this: milhist.net/history/victmed.htmlYugoslavia almost went to war with Italy (and by default the West) over Trieste. Because it defeats the very idea of Yugoslavia. The idea of Yugoslavia came about as a result of South Slavs being dominated by foreign powers and they're collective desire to free themselves of foreign rule. Adding countries like Poland, Russia, Ukraine etc. would only allow them to dominate us.
|
|
|
Post by Moe Lester on Oct 11, 2011 1:31:37 GMT -5
You guys are being buttfucked by both superpowers at the moment, so why not make some sort of agreement between the countries to look out for one another.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 11, 2011 12:25:34 GMT -5
Because we're all too damned proud.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 11, 2011 14:04:26 GMT -5
Yugoslavia was doomed to fail the minute it was created. Let's not forget there was a first Yugoslavia that ended in utter failure and much bloodshed. This should've served as an Omen to the nationbuilders after ww2 to not allow , once again , this crooked nation to be run from Belgrade. But no , another shotgun marriage based on impractical ideals and now we have a third shotgun hitched country in Bosnia and everyone will act shocked when it degenerates.
I agree with the Uz's , the Ulf's , and srbobran's here about the West's mishandling of Yugoslavia. But where they blame the West for Yugo's destruction I blame it for its CREATION in the first place ( for a second damned time.)
Any grassroots ideas for Yugoslavia died in the 19th century. Actually it wasn't grassroots. Croatian intellectuals conjured up Yugoslavia and Serbian intellectuals killed it but there was still opportunity for political gain by keeping the idea around. The peasents of both Croatia and Serbia never wanted it.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 11, 2011 17:20:24 GMT -5
So you're implying that had it not been run from Belgrade it would have succeeded? Maybe for the Kingdom but SFRJ was very fair in terms of power sharing between the republics.
Also, I never blamed the West for its destruction, I blamed Tito's lack of setting up a plan for when he died and most of all, the petty interethnic rivalries that prevailed and got in the way of maintaining a state that catered to everyone's benefit.
As for the peasants of Croatia and Serbia, I think its pretty hard to determine what they wanted but they certainly (for the most part) were not opposed to a Yugoslav state.
|
|
Sokol
Senior Moderator
Македонецот
Posts: 653
|
Post by Sokol on Oct 11, 2011 18:52:35 GMT -5
So you're implying that had it not been run from Belgrade it would have succeeded? Maybe for the Kingdom but SFRJ was very fair in terms of power sharing between the republics. Also, I never blamed the West for its destruction, I blamed Tito's lack of setting up a plan for when he died and most of all, the petty interethnic rivalries that prevailed and got in the way of maintaining a state that catered to everyone's benefit. As for the peasants of Croatia and Serbia, I think its pretty hard to determine what they wanted but they certainly (for the most part) were not opposed to a Yugoslav state. The peasants voted in the early 1990s, and Yugoslavia is dead.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 11, 2011 19:25:42 GMT -5
Alas, you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 11, 2011 21:47:22 GMT -5
So you're implying that had it not been run from Belgrade it would have succeeded? Maybe for the Kingdom but SFRJ was very fair in terms of power sharing between the republics. Also, I never blamed the West for its destruction, I blamed Tito's lack of setting up a plan for when he died and most of all, the petty interethnic rivalries that prevailed and got in the way of maintaining a state that catered to everyone's benefit. As for the peasants of Croatia and Serbia, I think its pretty hard to determine what they wanted but they certainly (for the most part) were not opposed to a Yugoslav state. About Belgrade. Who knows? It probably would've failed no matter which nation's capital became Yugo's capital. But it didn't make any sense for the second Yugoslavia. Everyone except the Serbs was bitter to Belgrade because of Serbian leadership there in the first Yugoslavia ( it was where Radic was shot after all) and you ought to expect animosity there. Tbh , Zagreb would've been a bad capital as well. The capital should've honestly been AWAY from any Cro or Serb concentration or capital. Any imbalance between Croats and Serbs = automatic destruction , this is damn near self evident. Sarajevo would've been the most logical choice IMO. Tito's real success wasn't simply because of his charisma and 'legendary' status. Lets me honest , Tito actually wasn't that charismatic - his voice was awful and he always sounded confused like he didn't know what to say next. I guess he had a thing for the ladies ( countless mistresses) and more than one wife. Tito's popularity was very much 'built up' by mythical twists of his exploits which were taught to new recruits to the army and communist party ( actually a very Serbian tactic when you think about it.) It was also taught in schools as the more 'mali pioniri' the better. It wasn't even all that creative as it followed the same communist model of propaganda as anywhere else. His success came from politicking , borrowing lots of money , and having a top rate but brutal secret police. He was a pawn that constantly shifted between two chess piece colors. The only thing Tito had going for him was that he was still a better choice than his alternatives. And about the peasents , nobody ASKED them what they wanted. It was the intellectual elites that spoke on their behalf , of course without their consent. Most Croatian and Serbian peseants didn't see why they must be 'part of the same' when , back then , Sumadija was a long way from Croatia. Even Serb peseants ( at the time) in Croatia viewed Serbian Serbs as different and foreign ( because they are/were) One thing I found particularly interesting in the first Yugoslavia was how much support from Serbian peseants ( even in Serbia) Radic's Republican party got. But thats another topic.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 12, 2011 11:34:24 GMT -5
Yeah and throughout the war Serbs were thrown into concetration camps and killed en masse (yea I know the other nationalities suffered as well but lets be honest, as far as WWII is concerned, its incomparable). If anyone had a right to be bitter about another Yugoslavia it was the Serbs of Bosnia, Croatia, and Western Serbia. Ironically, the highest concentrations of Serbian partisans came from these areas and they supported Yugoslavia. The problem isn't animosity, the problem is our peoples' collective disability to stop living in the past and look at the greater good and what makes sense. But we all had our asses too far up our heads to realize this. Agreed. Sarajevo would have been the best choice. Lol, have you ever noticed in his speeches, dude has a HEAVY speech impediment when he's speaking Serbo-Croatian. I was raised in Canada and I swear I have less of accent than that dude. Anyways, in my opinion, Tito's main attribute was simply the fact that he was a good leader. He knew what needed to be done and had no quarells with doing it. As for building his legendary status, its purely political. Yugoslavs needed something to rally around and him and the Yugoslav partisans were naturally a logical choice. You contradict yourself. First you said its a really Serbian tactic (which is funny because he was Croatian) and then you say its a typical communist tactic. Anyways yeah, its probably Croats with some Serbian heritage that are the ones who idolize Ante Pavelic as an freedom loving, strong, independent leader rather than the dickriding puppet he was. Cause Croats are immune to propaganda of any sorts, be it beliving it or creating it , right? I haven't read any sources about prevalent attitudes among Yugoslav peasants during said time frame because I can't find one but I'd love to see one if you have one. Or the notion that Croatian Serbs viewed themselves are foreign to Serbian Serbs. And if you asked the peasants what they wanted, a Serbian peasant would probably say he dreams of the Serbian Empire his grandfather sang about to him and a Croat peasant would proabably want a re-creation of Tomislav's Kingdom. I really don't think Yugoslav peasants (at the time) had the necessary information or objective knowledge to make politically informed descisions.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 13, 2011 6:33:16 GMT -5
^^ The casualties in that war were actually pretty proportional. If you do some honest research such as Vladimir Zerjavic ( Croat) and Bogoljub Kocovic ( Serb) and throw out the clearly inflated numbers proposed by the communist government you get a better picture.
There isn't much difference in being thrown into a concentration camp ( which Croats and other non-Serbs were as well) and being murdered in your town in a ditch ( something Cedos did to people too). It's all very ugly.
The problem is animosity. Croats and Serbs will never forgive the atrocities commited on one and other and they will always look at eachother in a good/bad paradigm. In a single state they will always be suspicious of eachother. Serbs cry Tito was a 'Croat' while we cry that Yugoslavia's capital was in Serbia and Serbs dominated many positions of power even in Croatia disproportionatly.
I agree , Tito was the best choice for a lot of people. More Serbs would've been for Greater Serbia and the Cetniks but they had enough forsight to know this faction of Serbs couldn't win the war. The Partisans offered to keep all Serbs in one state ( Yugoslavia) and fight against the Ustase , Domobrans , and Germans. For the Croats , Tito was the best choice because Pavelic sold out Dalmatia and they offered protection against Italians and Cetniks slaughtering Croats there and to keep Croatia together even if in Yugoslavia. Pavelic was willing to partition Croatia which was unacceptable.
I don't find a contradiciton in my statement of tactics . Perhaps you can point out how its so different? The same way loyal Yugoslavs had a mythological view of Tito's exploits the Serbs have of their history in Kosovo and their 'right' to dominate the western Balkans. And its a fact that no referendum or vote was taken by the peasents whether to join the first Yugoslavia and the second one was shotgunned and only Partisan officers and communist party members had a vote. Most of the Serbs in Croatia before the first Yugoslavia aligned with Svetozar Pribicevic who himself aligned with the Croatian peasents instead of being purely loyal to Belgrade. This changed after ww1 of course.
And the peasents just wanted to be able to feed their families and keep the little property that they had. It was the intellectuals and politicians dreaming up fantasies of Greater this or that.
|
|