Yugoslavia - What Really Happened

It's accepted in historical circles in Croatia that Tomislav may not have been crowned king, but it's also accepted that Croatia was a kingdom from the first half of the 10th century.
There is no historical evidence for these claims. Even some prominent Croatian historians and scholars agree.
At the beginning of the 12th century it became part of a personal union with the Hungarian kingdom and existed officially all the way up to 1918. Before the kingdom, Croatia was divided between competing duchies for an additional couple of centuries, which was pretty normal at the time in Europe.
you mean from the 12th century Croatia effectively became Hungarian and then Habsburg’s vassal province. Well parts of Croatia - Dalmatia was a separate entity at that time.

If this discussion is going to be productive in any sense we better get the facts straight.
 
@Revolucionar

What year you were born? Your writing resembles of "newer" narratives than those of people who actually lived in socialist Yugoslavia. No offence really, but you sound as someone who was taught how it was, not as someone who lived through it.
 
Here is the Wilipedia entry on the Croatian Spring events from late 60-ies and 70-ies which is fairly accurate representation.
It completely contradicts your narrative about Serbian hegemony in SFRJ and alleged persecution of Croats or anything Croatian
Uh, did you actually read the article? You should do it again. Also, read my latest comment here.
 
Uh, did you actually read the article?
Indeed:
By the mid-1960s, the United States consul in Zagreb, Helene Batjer, estimated that about half of SKH members and 80 percent of the population of Croatia held nationalist views.[7]

In 1967 and 1968, the Yugoslav constitution was amended once again, further reducing federal authority in favour of the constituent republics.[13] The peak of the reformist coalition occurred at the 9th congress of the SKJ in March 1969, during which decentralisation of all aspects of the country was proposed.

The Croatian nationalists reacted by promoting linguistic purism and by revising school textbooks to increase coverage of Croatian history and culture. Matica hrvatska became the rallying point of the nationalist revival, and its economic secretary Šime Đodan was particularly popular.[24] In 1970, Matica hrvatska's membership grew from about 2,000 to 40,000, increasing its political influence.[29] It also enabled complaints to Yugoslav Railways, backed by the SKH, that Serbian Ekavian spelling ought to be supplemented with Croatian Ijekavian spelling in all official notices and schedules.

Throughout, the SKH's central economic demand was that Croatia be permitted to retain more of its foreign currency earnings.[35] To this end, the SKH maintained good relations with counterparts from Slovenia and Macedonia, and also attempted to secure the support of the League of Communists of Kosovo. Due to its rejection of the SKH's economic agenda, the SKS was dismissed as "unionist" by the SKH despite Nikezić's support for other reforms.[36] The SKH also opposed the under-representation of Croats in the police, security forces, and the military, as well as in political and economic institutions in Croatia as well as across Yugoslavia. The predominance of Serbs in these positions led to widespread calls for their replacement by Croats
The Croatian Spring spurred increased interest in Croatian historical figures. A commemorative plaque to Stjepan Radić, the founder of the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) and a champion of the Croatian cause in pre-war Yugoslavia, was put up in Zagreb, followed by a monument to him in the town of Metković. The city of Šibenik cancelled a plan to erect a monument to the victims of fascism, instead erecting a statue of the medieval Croatian king Peter Krešimir IV.[53] A marching band and a living history troop named after the 18th-century Trenck's Pandurs were re-established in Požega in 1969
Traditional Croatian patriotic songs—some of them banned—experienced a resurgence in popularity. The most popular and controversial singer of such songs at the time was Vice Vukov.[53] Lijepa naša domovino returned to formal use as a patriotic song when a plaque was placed in the Zagreb Cathedral commemorating the noblemen involved in the 17th-century Magnate conspiracy. The opera Nikola Šubić Zrinski, retelling the 16th-century Siege of Szigetvár, was regularly sold out whenever it played at the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb. Paintings by Oton Iveković (1869–1939) depicting events from Croatian history became very popular.[55][56] Croatia's historical chequy coat of arms became a famous symbol sewn by youths on jackets and berets or applied on stickers to car windshields. In 1969, it was incorporated into the football club crest Dinamo Zagreb. While the Yugoslav flag was still flown, it was always paired with the Croatian one. The latter was also used on its own, and in overall use in Croatia, it outnumbered the Yugoslav flag by ten to one.[56]

And so on and so forth, very little evidence of anyone doing hardly anything to suppress Croatian nationalistic feelings as you propose.
 
Incidentally that is also partly a result of the Serbian attempts dating back to the 19th century to convince all Orthodox Croatians that they were Serbs. The refusal of the Vatican to allow the creation of the Croatian Orthodox Church was also a terrible misstep.
Not with the intent of unnecessarily beating on any peoples but that is major grievance from the perspective of Albanians in northern Albania, Montenegro, and Kosova dating back to the 19th century. No Albanian Eastern Orthodox church was ever allowed and attempts have continuously been made (with some substantial) success to identify [and register in sensuses going back to Ottoman time] Orthodox Albanians of the northern regions as either Serbian or Montenegrin.

Slightly off topic location-wise, Eastern Orthodox Albanians of the south have experienced similar continued pressure and a struggle to keep the Albanian Orthodox Church alive due to imposing and persecution by Greek Orthodox Church proponents who insist on absorbing that portion of the Albanian population into GOC. It's a bit more complicated than that but just an example as also the above is for a continued effort to apropriate with the intent back in early 20th century to identify nationality with religion.

This is an issue as a good quarter of the Albanian population are Eastern Orthodox Christians.

By contrast the Vatican entuhas been historicalky in favour of a Albanian Chatholic Church which has allowed for it to thrive and be practiced widely accross North-central and North-western Albania for many centuries if not millennia.
 
Indeed:










And so on and so forth, very little evidence of anyone doing hardly anything to suppress Croatian nationalistic feelings as you propose.
You just cherry picked what furthers your agenda. I won't even bother to quote parts that show the other side of the story. Anyone with an internet connection can read it and come to their own conclusions.

Just to highlight the cherry picking, you quoted this:
The Croatian nationalists reacted by promoting linguistic purism and by revising school textbooks to increase coverage of Croatian history and culture.
What did they react to? Well, here's everything you deemed irrelevant and fit to ommit:
In 1967, the first two volumes of the Dictionary of Serbo-Croatian Literary and Vernacular Language based on the 1954 Novi Sad Agreement were published, sparking controversy about whether Croatian was a separate language. Both volumes excluded common Croatian expressions or treated them as local dialect while Serbian variants were often presented as the standard. The unrelated 1966 Serbo-Croatian dictionary published by Miloš Moskovljević [el; sr] further inflamed the situation by omitting the term "Croat" from the vocabulary.[25]

The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language was issued by 130 Croatian linguists, including 80 communists,[26] on 17 March 1967. The declaration criticised the 1967 dictionary and called for official recognition of Croatian as a separate language and for a requirement for the government of Croatia to use the Croatian language in official business. This step would have disadvantaged the many Serb bureaucrats in Croatia.[25] The declaration drew "A Proposal for Reflection" in response, drafted by 54 Serbian writers calling for TV Belgrade to use Cyrillic script and to provide education for the Serbs of Croatia in the Serbian language.[26] There were also several denunciations of the declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language from the SKJ within days. The declaration was not universally supported in Croatia. The deputy speaker of the Sabor, Miloš Žanko [hr], denounced Franjo Tuđman, the head of the Institute for the History of Workers’ Movement of Croatia [hr], and Većeslav Holjevac, the head of the Croatian Heritage Foundation, for hiring known Croatian nationalists. The declaration marked the beginning of the four-year long period of increased Croatian nationalism commonly referred to as the Croatian Spring.[25]

Matica hrvatska withdrew from the Novi Sad Agreement on 22 November 1970 because Matica srpska insisted that Croatian was only a dialect of Serbian. Matica hrvatska went on to publish a new Croatian dictionary and orthography manual by Stjepan Babić, Božidar Finka, and Milan Moguš, which was condemned by Serbia.[27][28] The Croatian nationalists reacted by promoting linguistic purism and by revising school textbooks to increase coverage of Croatian history and culture.
Btw, the most relevant part of the issue at that time was the over representation of Serbs in high level functions and this was not really addressed back then and you also chose to not discuss it. You also decided to avoid addressing my arguments like the Ban Jelačić square and statue. Question, did Belgrade change the name of their streets to remove the names of their own "mythical" rulers?
 
There is no historical evidence for these claims. Even some prominent Croatian historians and scholars agree.
Ignoring all other evidence for prior kings let me just post this: Baška tablet - Wikipedia
The evidence is literally written in stone.
you mean from the 12th century Croatia effectively became Hungarian and then Habsburg’s vassal province. Well parts of Croatia - Dalmatia was a separate entity at that time.
That's not how medieval politics worked:

In the union with Hungary, the crown was held by the Árpád dynasty, and after its extinction, under the Anjou dynasty. Institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Parliament (Croatian: Sabor – an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy) responsible to the King of Hungary and Croatia. In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles.[52] Coloman retained the institution of the Sabor and relieved the Croatians of taxes on their land. Coloman's successors continued to crown themselves as Kings of Croatia separately in Biograd na Moru until the time of Béla IV.[67] In the 14th century a new term arose to describe the collection of de jure independent states under the rule of the Hungarian King: Archiregnum Hungaricum (Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen).[68] Croatia remained a distinct crown attached to that of Hungary until the abolition of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918
And no, during the reign of King Zvonimir towards the end of the 11th century, this is what Croatia looked like: File:Hrvatska u vrijeme Zvonimira..png - Wikipedia

If this discussion is going to be productive in any sense we better get the facts straight.
Yes, please.
 
@Revolucionar

Will I get the answer? I believe it will explain a lot.
Sorry, getting to it. I was old enough that my first memory is of a MiG-21 flying about 30 meters above my head and the sound of air raid sirens. So, no I don't have personal experience of living in Yugoslavia.
I'm curious to know what you mean. Always happy to hear from people who actually lived through it, although you couldn't have been more than 16 when the war started.
In any case, I'm trying to read the history and not rely on anything people around me are saying or used to say, except as a reference point. I've put all of that stuff to rest years ago and decided I needed to know the truth instead of anecdotes.

My oldest brother is about your age and he only had good memories of ex-Yu, but I guess that's how it goes when you've lived your childhood and formative years somewhere and at a certain time. There's always a sense of nostalgia for it.
 
Btw, the most relevant part of the issue at that time was the over representation of Serbs in high level functions and this was not really addressed back then and you also chose to not discuss it.
Because it is not true.
You are just regurgitating common catch phrases of the 90-ies separatism.
Instead, better check the names of high level and most influential figures in SFRJ.

Also I know this for a fact - the higher ranks in federal navy (probably in the army too) were assigned according to nationality formula as a first criteria. Just look up the names of all the admirals and captain colonels at the time. You will find one Albanian and few Hungarians.
You also decided to avoid addressing my arguments like the Ban Jelačić square and statue. Question, did Belgrade change the name of their streets to remove the names of their own "mythical" rulers?
I don’t know what was happening in Belgrad but the thing is - it wasn't Serbs who changed Jelacic Plac name - it was Croatian communists. How does this fit your narrative of Serbian domination and oppression of poor Croats?

Wait i just checked- Belgrade changed the names of Streets with Croatian geographical names only long after the Yugoslavia broke up -
see here
Beograd mijenja nazive hrvatskih ulica: Kakva je situacija kod nas, u BiH i Crnoj Gori?

As far as I know the names of Croatian dignitaries in Belgrade still remains
like Nazorova, Rudjera Boskovica etc .
And when it comes to croatian sportsman have a look here - they still keep naming streets in Belgrade after them

Always check your data.
 
Sorry, getting to it. I was old enough that my first memory is of a MiG-21 flying about 30 meters above my head and the sound of air raid sirens. So, no I don't have personal experience of living in Yugoslavia.
I'm curious to know what you mean. Always happy to hear from people who actually lived through it, although you couldn't have been more than 16 when the war started.
In any case, I'm trying to read the history and not rely on anything people around me are saying or used to say, except as a reference point. I've put all of that stuff to rest years ago and decided I needed to know the truth instead of anecdotes.

My oldest brother is about your age and he only had good memories of ex-Yu, but I guess that's how it goes when you've lived your childhood and formative years somewhere and at a certain time. There's always a sense of nostalgia for it.
The chances are you were heavily exposed to Croatian propaganda at the time and it seems you still are largely influenced by it.
Those of us who lived through Yugoslav times never witnessed things you talk of.

Even I was exposed to the same propaganda in the nineties ( my Croat grandpa who fought in WWII called HTV of the time Goebbels’s propaganda)
- so much so that I sighed a big sigh of relief when i first arrived to Belgrade and couldn’t see a single Chetnik in sight.
Not to the mention that I never got anything but compliments for my heavy Dalmatian accent.
 
Sorry, getting to it. I was old enough that my first memory is of a MiG-21 flying about 30 meters above my head and the sound of air raid sirens. So, no I don't have personal experience of living in Yugoslavia.
I'm curious to know what you mean. Always happy to hear from people who actually lived through it, although you couldn't have been more than 16 when the war started.
In any case, I'm trying to read the history and not rely on anything people around me are saying or used to say, except as a reference point. I've put all of that stuff to rest years ago and decided I needed to know the truth instead of anecdotes.

My oldest brother is about your age and he only had good memories of ex-Yu, but I guess that's how it goes when you've lived your childhood and formative years somewhere and at a certain time. There's always a sense of nostalgia for it.
I guess that explains a lot. I was 15. No nostalgia, only slightly more perception on the subject, and less narratives.
 
On orthodox christianity churches, there is no "general" orthodox church, in the style of Catholic church (one Vatican to rule all the world). All orthodox christianity churches are local and national (Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, Russian, Romanian, and so on) So, if some Croats or Albanians were orthodox, they could only be it with some of the orthodox churches around them (Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian).

Orthodox churches are made if other orthodox churches recognize them. Just as it was with macedonian orthodox church couple of years ago, first they got recognition from the serbian orthodox church (they were serbian church till then) and then the other orthodox churches recognized them.

You don't "ask Vatican to allow" organisation of orthodox church.

If there were croatian or albanian orthodox churches,they probably would be recognized by other orthodox churches. But it didn't seem to be the case.

Indeed in 19th century during the organising of the national states on Balkan, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek churches use the opportunity to "snatch" any person they can. So, afterwards there were no Croats with serbian orthodox faith, or Albanians with Greek or Serb.

Of course, the Vatican's answer was even more harsh with open fight against the Ilirian (south slavic) movement (together with Austo-Hungarian empire). Which finally directed Croat nationalism against Serbian nationalism and Serbian principate and kingdom.

And in that way actually crippled development of croatian state, binding it to Catholicism, Vatican and the interests of the AH empire. And making Croat elite in perpetual and useless (to Croats) comparison to Serbia. Making Croats to define themselves as some sort of anti- serb and anti-orthodox nation, instead to build their nation on their own history. "glagoljica", is one of the oldest alphabets in Europe, and its all croatian, the great stories of Frankopani, Matija Gubac, probably the first freedom fighter in whole of Europe is croatian. Actually they have greater history than Czech or Slovaks for example. But all that falls in wain when they opsesively start to compare with Serbs (thanks to Vatican).

The result of that lasts even today, with new croatian narratives, from 1990s to today, which, I think we can clearly see in Revolucionar writings.

From a perspective of a Serb. Who tries to be objective as much as he can. :)
 
Because it is not true.
You are just regurgitating common catch phrases of the 90-ies separatism.
Instead, better check the names of high level and most influential figures in SFRJ.
Well, speaking from a personal experience as a kid from the 80’s living in a small town in central Croatia. Percentage of Serbs was somewhere around 30%, but they held every single important position in town. My mother never joined the communist party, was seen once or twice going to church, and it was known she never denounced being a Croat, so she couldn’t be employed in our town, but finally managed to find a position 30km away. We also had to be christened in another town in secret, my parents weren’t able to get a loan as some other people could, and we were prohibited to ever express any kind of Croatian sentiment out loud, singing a song even remotely characterized as patriotic would most definitely land you in jail, and god forbid to let anyone know you celebrate Christmas, as religion was seen as equal to being patriotic.

Now I’ve heard from people in bigger towns, especially Zagreb, situation wasn’t nearly as strict, as the sheer number of people prevented everyone knowing everything about anyone, but for us in smaller towns, it was actually rough.

That is not to say life wasn’t good for some people. If you were the type to blend in and go with the flow, never cause any fuss or speak out, especially if you weren’t educated much or if you joined the Jugoslaveni bandwagon, you were probably just fine.

But still, that kind of suppression and open injustice was never viable and healthy in the long run, and I really think it played a major role in Yugoslavia splitting. Looking from a distance, it was perhaps even deliberately devised that way in the first place, to ensure things eventually fall apart.

As for the war, that is a whole different can of worms.

I don’t even care who wronged whom, all sides were wronged one way or the other depending on the specific event in question in the past couple of hundreds of years. In a way I think we should all just forget about it completely, bury the hatches and move on, but in reality, that doesn’t really work. Trying to ignore or be unbothered by the problem is actually similar to one-sidedly dwelling on it constantly, sooner or later it will come to the surface again.

So I would agree it’s destructive when on the one hand you have Serbia as a sole villain, but then on the other, instead of figuring out the actual truth, people go in the opposite direction, and Croats and/or Bošnjaks become the true villains. That stuff only furthers the divide and resentment. And I think it should be pointed out when it happens, especially in places like SOTT, and it is a valuable discussion to try to sort it out.

But the thing is, it is incredibly hard, even impossible, for us in the Balkans to see eye to eye on these issues objectively, there are so many misconceptions and triggers installed in all of us, the truth is not plainly out in the open, but seriously distorted in all kinds of ways, and there’s always at least that one whodunwhat controversy you simply can’t stomach from the other side.

Probably only the people completely from the outside could help to really sort thing out, but they usually don’t know the subject, can’t really understand what the problem is, why the whole issue is so massively triggering, or simply don’t care.

And the easiest thing is to say to another – you’re emotional, you’re manipulated, yet it’s by far and large more complex than that.
 
Economy was definitely a factor, but the fact that the IMF messed with Yugoslavia in the 80s belies the fact that the entire Yugoslavian endeavour was financed and made possible by exorbitant loans provided by the west in the first place. Yugoslavia would have failed much sooner if it weren't for western support. Once Tito died, they started calling in the debts and the whole house of cards started tumbling down.

I don't think that was the initial plan. It looks to me like the west wanted for Milosevic to subjugate the other republics and create a centralized vassal state that they could integrate into the western system. Once they realized it's not going to happen that easily, they went with plan B, fragmentation. As you pointed out with this quote from the book, Milosevic was their guy in terms of economic policy. Btw, are there any citations for this claim in the book? Would love to find some sources on this.

I haven't come across such info, nor anything pointing to it so I can't say. It doesn't make sense to me, but I could be wrong and you can share what makes you think that. If I remember correctly, there were Western think thanks promoting fragmentation of Yugoslavia well before the wars in the 90s, and their modus operadi has long been to fragment as it makes it more easier to exert control or pressure, for instance, it's what they had planned for Iraq.

There is a footnote in the book about the quoted passage, if that's what you were asking for:

“Milošević’s victory over the Serbian League of Communists is often cited, because of the war and Western policy in 1991–94, as the beginning of the end of Yugoslavia. But this view was not shared by Western banks and governments, or by other departments of the U.S. government. They supported him because he appeared to be an economic liberal (with excellent English), who might have greater authority to implement the reform. Although Western governments were later accused of complicity, or foolishness in the extreme, Milošević was an economic liberal (and political conservative). He was director of a major Belgrade bank in 1978–82 and an economic reformer even as Belgrade party boss in 1984–86. The policy proposals commissioned by the ‘Milošević Commission’ in May 1988 were written by liberal economists and could have been a leaf straight out of the IMF book.” Woodward, Balkan Tragedy, pp. 106–7.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom