Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Tell me about Yugoslavia

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1038
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Jun 2006, 07:25
Party Member
Post 07 May 2007, 15:03
nice pictures.
Image

Homer: "You guys are commies? Then why am I seeing free markets?"
Soviet cogitations: 1103
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2006, 10:21
Party Member
Post 07 May 2007, 23:34
Comrde Moris:-

Heh, 60s and 70s, good times for both SFRY and South Asia for sures (even the so called "oil crisis" years were better than the so called "Shining" years of today
)

And if I remember correctly, the NAM founding countries contributed to the Aswan Dam heavily, technically & financially. For no price. That was some proletarianism right there.


But now...


I sure do hope neither of our founding fathers are looking at what's going on in our countries these days
And what;s a true tragedy is that a NAM FOUNDING MEMBER got bombed to smitherrens by NATO and it's CO-ENDORSERs didn't do anything about it...

That pretty much faded NAM into global insignificance
Something which both comrade Tito and our comrade Nehru worked so hard to establish. Actually, the DPRK's a part of NAM too...

Either ways, the saying here is- the 1967 Egypt war kind of screwed NAM's reputation worldwide. Considering Nasser got pummeled & none of us bailed him out. THe USSR didn't bail him out because he was a NAM co-founding member. That cost us when the energy crisis came in the mid 70s. Remember- at that time of that war, Saudi Arabia wasn't Capitalist leaning yet...NAM's defeat destroyed everything.

If we bailed him out, neither SFRY or India needed to face the 1973 oil crisis, which forced us both to borrow loans...and turn the whole pro-proletarian regions into virulent capitalist nationalist pits in the long run.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 May 2007, 06:43
NAM stipulated non-aggression among its members; it wasn't even a military alliance along the lines of NATO and Warsaw Pact, so neither India nor Yugoslavia had the contractual obligation to bail out Egypt, although it perhaps would have been nice if they could have.

But, Arif, do you think it was realistic for either SFRY or India to bail out Egypt? Cuba was able to help nations in Africa because it had the protective umbrella of the Warsaw Pact and American pledges from 1962, but neither India nor Yugoslavia had such impunity from imperialist retaliation; the USSR would have only given nominal protection to prevent a global war.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 1103
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2006, 10:21
Party Member
Post 08 May 2007, 15:02
Quote:
NAM stipulated non-aggression among its members; it wasn't even a military alliance along the lines of NATO and Warsaw Pact, so neither India nor Yugoslavia had the contractual obligation to bail out Egypt, although it perhaps would have been nice if they could have.


Of course. I have to agree it encouraged non agression among its members & wasn't military oriented in nature. Yet as an international organization- it should adapt to the various challenges all global blocs face rather than hide under a "it wasn't designed for this" shell and condemn itself to global insignificance.

If you form a global bloc, which is not really pro-NATO, independent from the USSR- it doesn't take a tactical genius to figure there always possibility of war considering imperialists had a strong global presence. Tito & Nehru didn't fashion NAM for formality's sake- it was a genuine attempt to chart out a political destiny free of superpowers. Not like the Soviets minded, though...

If you form a global bloc and if you take on a leadership goal, you'd better be prepared to protect ALL members in your group, or people won't take you seriously, it's a well known fact. If we felt we weren't ready to face imperialism in any & all forms (military included), we shouldn't have formed a bloc in the first place.

As a result of our handling of Egypt, both the SFRY & India got caught into a spiralling energy crisis, which seriously hampered their initiatives to carry forth regional initiatives w/ fellow NAM states and to take NAM to the next level as an international cooperation organization. Till the USSR was around, "life went on"...but now....

Whether you're running a factory, a union, a country or a regional bloc- the principle remains the same- to survive & thrive, whatever you're running should be adaptable to whatever challenge & obsticle external forces throw at you. If you don't- you fade into insignificance. It's rather naive to assume external forces won't attempt to destabilize you.

And it was a well known fact that NATO enforces dikats through either bribes or outright military action. And considering Nasser was in no mood to take bribes...

And as far as a country like India goes, the only reason there was no intervention against the liberation of Goa (despite it being a key economic hub connecting E. Asia to W. Asia & S. Asia) was because of the size of our standing army. If they killed 1000, we'd rush in 10,000 more, we have the population to do that. The imperialists seldom attack powers who have / have the support of a country that has- an infantry large enough to fight a prolonged war sustaining heavy losses.

Quote:
But, Arif, do you think it was realistic for either SFRY or India to bail out Egypt?


Both SFRY & India knew the imperialists & the IDF were building up forces. It was no secret that the US was reinforcing the IDF for months before the hostilities actually flared. Even if you leave out the SFRY, we had enough time, logistical resources and manpower to have sent at least 200,000-300,000 troops before hostilities began.

Also, on the ground, most of Nasser's fighting forces were reservists. The Indian & SFRY armies were much more battle hardened. Having a group of large reservists meant Nasser's troops couldn't handle concentrated commando raids. Which is what was responsible for dismantling Nasser's GCI stations, thus severely incapacitating his army's fighting potential.

Having a large presence of battle hardened troops would for all practical purposes- severs the effectiveness of commando raids. The SFRY could've helped w/ the airforce (especially with pilots) & we could've helped w/ the infantry, it was a clear possibility.

200,000-300,000 battle hardened troops, some heavy armour could've more than handled the IDF on the ground in '67. And a well trained airforce handled by compitent pilots could've easily routed whatever airpower the IDF could throw at the time. Nasser's troops were more suited for hit and run raids, not for concentrated wave assults.

The USSR came up on top after WWII, that too against the world's mightiest military force, despite the Soviet Union not really being a war economy at the start of WWII. They survived because they adapted. We didn't unfortunately...

Quote:
but neither India nor Yugoslavia had such impunity from imperialist retaliation


Why does either India or SFRY of the late 60s need "impunity" from imperialist retaliation? We could more than handle them, if you look at it from a military point of view. And at that time, our industries of both the countries certainly had the resources to handle a prolonged campaign.

Economically or militarily- we didn't need the USSR's assistance to bail Nasser out, considering both SFRY's and India's resources in the late 60s. But as usual, in India- we got screwed by party politics & the inherent indecision that often goes along with it.

And many sources claim rather boldly that it would've taken Soviet support to bail Nasser out. And that no other force on earth could take on the imperialists in a third country. It wasn't so- both India & SFRY had resources in the late 60s for sure- logistical, industrial & military. We could've covered the ground war, the SFRY could've sent in pilots.

We should've drowned NATO & IDF with sheer numbers. And perhaps, if we had sent in those troops while the IDF was still building up, the war wouldn't have escalated into a shooting war.

Comrade, like it or hate it, if you want to become an established world power without a corporate capitalist agenda, especially in a world crawling w/ imperialism- you will have to face them & sustain losses, unless you just want to buy time only to end up in a level of bowing down to their dikats- which is what's happening in much of former SFRY and most certainly modern India. Nothing good comes without initial hardship, it seems.

Both Tito & Nehru did have excellent domestic & foreign policies, yet I really feel we should've faced imperialists then. Perhaps NAM would've seriously been a Warsaw Pact alternative, after the breakup of the USSR. Now, all countries either have to lick imperialist boots, or be called "barbaric villans"...and get invaded and bombed if they don't have nukes.

Quote:
it wasn't even a military alliance along the lines of NATO and Warsaw Pact, so neither India nor Yugoslavia had the contractual obligation to bail out Egypt


With pics like this:

http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/thum ... izjava.jpg

...circulating around the world media as a cornerstone of NAM, if one of those 3 was getting pummeled whilst the other 2 just looked on, if I was a ruler of a random oil / resource rich country, I wouldn't care too much about contractual obligations. I simply wouldn't put my faith into that group the trio formed.

If they can't help out a CO FOUNDING MEMBER in a life & death situation, what good could they possibly do for a "regular" member? That thinking would most certainly be on the minds' of world leaders, when thinking about doing something concrete w/ NAM.

Yes, "officially" we may have been spared the responsibility, but credability wise, we lost out big time. Remember- neither of our countries were capitalist driven systems, so forming relationships w/ other countries isin't solely based on $$$. If we canvassed using money and financial prospects alone, we'd lose out to the imperialists for sure.

Socialist systems like 60s & 70s India, SFRY etc., run on reputation to survive globally. I would say it's more so than the USSR, because we didn't have superpower status. Once your reputation goes, your foreign policy personnel will be hard pressed to produce something concrete as far as bilatral deals, alliances, etc., are concerned.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10797
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 01 Jun 2007, 03:30
Does anyone have the english version of the Yugoslav constitution?

I only have this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... Yugoslavia

Or if it would be easier could someone translate this short document:
http://www.arhiv.sv.gov.yu/a100008i.htm
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 01 Jun 2007, 20:04
DECREE

Constitutional Assembly
of Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia
on decleration of

CONSTITUTION

of Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia

Constitutional Assembly of Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia, acting as supreme representitive of national soverignty and force of nited will of all nations of Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia has, on a assembly of all nations, Unity Assembly and assembly of the nation

DECREES:

that the Constitution of Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia, taken from the Unity Assembly and Assembly of the Nation declares and announces to the nations and citizents of the Federal National Republic of Yugoslavia.

Members: (those names that i can read)

J.B. Tito
Boris Kidrič
Josip Vidmar
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10797
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Jun 2007, 05:02
Thanks, comrade.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.