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

Dissolution of SFRY

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 13 Jun 2013, 22:54
I'd like to hear your views on the reasons for the dissolution of SFRY, similar to the thread we have on USSR.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2013, 23:32
Loz is the obvious go-to guy on this subject. You'll have to wait a few more days until he gets back from Tempa-banistan.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Jun 2013, 05:47
I'm not well read on the situation unfortunately, but my impression was that it's reasons would be similar to that of the USSR, namely being an amalgamation of disparate people, subject to fierce nationalism.

There were obviously strong economic interests involved from the outside as well, in that a number of small, in-debted states would be more vulnerable than a single large one.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2013, 09:35
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Loz is the obvious go-to guy on this subject. You'll have to wait a few more days until he gets back from Tempa-banistan.

I'm sure he will, but unless he's everyone's spokesperson i'd still prefer to hear everyone's opinion.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4405
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 Jun 2013, 15:26
My opinion is that the SFRY had its problems due to nationalism, and that these problems were far more serious than any nationalist-related problems in the USSR (where the dissolution into nation-states was much more an opportunistic bureaucratic maneuver than a real desire among the population, as evidenced by the March 1991 referendum in that country). I've read analysis going back to the 1980s suggesting that post-Tito it was becoming more and more difficult to hold Yugoslavia together.

On the other hand, the direction which events took have very much to do with the destruction of the USSR and the culmination of West European and American hegemony over the region in the early 1990s. Western recognition of Slovenia and Croatia's bids for independence was critical, as was German provision of advanced weaponry to Croatia from the ex-East German armory. The West's interests and intentions here are clear -the well-known 'divide and conquer' strategy of imperialism in its modern form, for the sake of markets and geopolitical gain.

What would happen if events in the USSR took another turn in the mid-1980s? The possibility of war exists, with NATO and the Pact supporting their allies in whatever new situation unfolds. I am more prone though to believing that any political crisis of the SFRY would be dealt with politically, through some sort of round table in the spirit of Helsinki 75'. With the USSR posing such a gargantuan political and military threat to Western Europe, it's difficult to imagine that the latter would risk supporting any nationalist uprising in Yugoslavia through anything more than words, and simply unfathomable to see NATO warplanes bombing the country. The minuscule potential gains simply wouldn't be worth it. Perhaps UN peacekeeping forces would get involved. Perhaps referendums would be mandated to be held in each republic ala USSR 1991. Perhaps the federal government would be forced to give up even more power to the republics. However, the situation we had in our timeline would be averted, and I believe that apart from Slovenia and perhaps Croatia, a rump Yugoslavia would continue to exist.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 112
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Apr 2013, 20:13
Pioneer
Post 14 Jun 2013, 18:48
I'm not too familiar on the subject but I would like to add that Yugoslavia was a multicultural nation, and after Tito's death, the ideology and purpose that held the country together died with in. As many people have mentioned before, I think rising nationalism was also a contribution to the dissolution of the SFRY. Outside forces were also a factor, although I am unsure on exactly how much external and internal factors caused its demise.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1004
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 15 Jun 2013, 00:49
soviet78 wrote:
The West's interests and intentions here are clear -the well-known 'divide and conquer' strategy of imperialism in its modern form, for the sake of markets and geopolitical gain.

Some analysts are suggesting (providing clear evidence from documents obtained by the Yugoslav National Army's counter-intelligence service, VS JLA) that Western intelligence services (such as BND, CIA ...) were actively engaged in destabilizing SFRY by funding extremist emigration (which was closely tied to the losing side of the WW2), and that this has been going on for decades before. There's an interesting book on the subject but it's only in Slovenian.

soviet78 wrote:
What would happen if events in the USSR took another turn in the mid-1980s? The possibility of war exists, with NATO and the Pact supporting their allies in whatever new situation unfolds. I am more prone though to believing that any political crisis of the SFRY would be dealt with politically, through some sort of round table in the spirit of Helsinki 75'. With the USSR posing such a gargantuan political and military threat to Western Europe, it's difficult to imagine that the latter would risk supporting any nationalist uprising in Yugoslavia through anything more than words, and simply unfathomable to see NATO warplanes bombing the country. The minuscule potential gains simply wouldn't be worth it. Perhaps UN peacekeeping forces would get involved. Perhaps referendums would be mandated to be held in each republic ala USSR 1991. Perhaps the federal government would be forced to give up even more power to the republics. However, the situation we had in our timeline would be averted, and I believe that apart from Slovenia and perhaps Croatia, a rump Yugoslavia would continue to exist.

Thank you for your interesting opinion. It would be very interesting to go into more detail of this "what if" scenario of mid-1980s. I know that during the 80s the Yugoslavs were very ready to fend off any military intervention which was - according to the Yugoslavs from back then - more likely to come from the Warshaw Pact than NATO. If such a thing would happen, the Yugoslavs would quickly forget the differences between the nations and stand strong together to face the common enemy from the outside. I think it would be a mess because the Yugoslavs would not see Warshaw Pact intervention as a friendly help (remember the 1948 Informburo resolution) but an act of war. NATO wouldn't dare invading, they'd continue to subsidize chetniks and ustasha movements for subversions.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Jul 2013, 15:17
The wars in the 90s were a tragedy of the Yugoslav republics' bourgeoisie which simply wasn't ready for modernity. SFRY could have entered the EU as a civilized, democratic capitalist country ( in 1990 the country was starting full scale market reforms under IMF "guidance" ) but instead the national bureaucracies decided to carve out little republics all for themselves, so that their oligarchies could work independently of any federal centre and thus make plundering easier. Instead of preserving a country that was already much more Western than any of the block countries they pushed for wars that brought devastation and suffering to everyone, except for a few oligarchs and war profiteers. All that strangled the capitalist development that could have been, because i don't think the destruction of productive forces and so on is truly in the class interest of the bourgeoisie. Instead the national oligarchies firmly entrenched themselves in their post-stamp republics, took control over monopolies and did nothing to encourage further development.
Slovenia might be an exception perhaps, but all the other countries are decades behind what they were in 1990, even when it comes to ease of doing business.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron