Yes, and no.
Yes, in the way it happened irl, and what we see today.
No, in the sense, if it would've been handled differently, like, giving Albanians in Kosovo their republic, it could keep Yugoslavia intact in the end, or, it would still desintegrate, either way meaning those demonstrations weren't responsible for what happened.
True beginning of the end was Titos death, he, as undisputed leader of the country, beloved by most, feared by some, and respected by the army, held it together despite all problems. He was like a god emperor, and once he died, it started to crumble.
People are not complete idiots, they knew he was going to eventually die. The Yugoslavian deep state did not care to prepare a successor, because Tito did not care to prepare one. If he had groomed one, with support from UDBA and KOS, the people would have eventually accepted him or her. Now the question is why did he not care?
If it were so easy, no state ever would disintegrate after great ruler dies. But it's not, cause there are different interest groups in each society, and, if the disintegrating groups are strong enough, the state will eventualy colapse. That's exactly what happened with Yugoslavia.
Fun fact: Lot of people claim Tito had preparing Džemal Bijedić as his successor, and Serb nationalists are responsible for his death in aircraft crash in 1977.
Unfortunately no, especialy after 1989, the younger generations took over, with Milošević, who was a communist, and Serbian nationalist too, as the most charismatic one. He used ti to try and enforce Serbian interest. We know how that ended.
True begining of the end was when we had 1968 protests and oil cryses in a few years which resulted in the new consitution that didn't reform the union but kept status quo that suited all sides, including Tito who was already in his 80s at the time.
1974. Constitution didn't kept the status quo, it transformed Yugoslavia essentially in confederation, which was done in order to keep other republics and people satisfied, and Serb nationalists in check, while keeping the Army in hand of President/collective Presidency.
Tito believed Army was the real force to keep both, Yugoslavia whole, and Serb nationalist peaceful, but unfortunately, once he passed away, Army became a tool in Serbian nationalistic aspirations.
Imagine to actually believe this
Alexander outlawed all political parties based on ethnic, religious, or regional distinctions, reorganized the state administratively, and standardized legal systems, school curricula, and national holidays.
There absolutely wasn't a standardized curriculum and national holidays because of ethnic and religious differences in regions. Regions continued to celebrate local and religious holidays independent of whether they were national holidays or not. How about you stop imagining that the man who ruled a monarchic dictatorship was a good guy and defending the Kingdom which had concentration camps before World War II specifically for Anti-Fascists and Communists. A system which gunned down students.
😂😂😂 ofc people celebrate at home what they want. You can’t be real
Never said he was a good guy did I ?
And its not like genocide and the biggest crimes in the region were on the menu during the next leadership in the region.
"people celebrate at home what they want" means that there is no standardization. You didn't, but you obviously brought up the "good" things that he did/tried to do and not the bad. The next regime's genocide (I assume you mean the Nazi puppets) does not at all minimize the things that Alexander did.
Lmao, maybe try to understand what standardization please means this is embarrassing.
Nazi puppets with full sovereignty over their land.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/news/new-perspectives-jasenovac
The Ustašas themselves murdered the vast majority of the Jews in the Independent State of Croatia and initiated the Holocaust at a very early stage. And the Jasenovac camp was key in this process, established and run by the Ustašas themselves with little German meddling. I think this is important, as it is a rather unique case among those countries that were recognized by Nazi Germany as independent and sovereign states.
But nice try to down downplay the actual most evil, barbarian and inhumane regime the region has ever seen, luckily we have many evidence that contradict ur statement.
how many extermination camps for ethnic minorities were run during Alexander’s time ?
...okay? When have I tried to downplay the Ustaše regime? There weren't extermination camps during Alexander's time but there were political concentration camps. I never said there were camps for ethnic minorities and I don't know why you're bringing it up.
Standardization means that everything is uniform, and every single person is practicing the same national holiday and learning the same curriculum. If people are celebrating things locally, then that means that there isn't a standardization. We are talking about the interwar period Alexander's reign and you keep doing whataboutism and bringing up the Ustaše.
Alexander didn't have a genocidal policy, doesn't mean that he wasn't a brutal ruler who repressed, murdered and arrested thousands.
Because you call them a puppet state which downplays their own ambitions, control and actions.
Once again Standardization on a state level has nothing to do with you celebrating Christmas at home or in ur village. Absolutely different times
Continuing his efforts to unify his subjects, Alexander changed the name of the country to Yugoslavia (October 3, 1929), outlawed all political parties based on ethnic, religious, or regional distinctions, reorganized the state administratively, and standardized legal systems, school curricula, and national holidays. He also tried to relieve the peasantry’s financial difficulties, eased relations with Bulgaria (1933), and engaged Yugoslavia in the Little Entente (with Czechoslovakia and Romania) and the Balkan Entente, an alliance with Greece, Turkey, and Romania (1934).
Although Alexander’s acts were at first well received, demands for a return to democratic forms intensified by 1932, when a major economic crisis resulting from the worldwide depression added to political dissatisfaction. As a result, Alexander seriously considered restoring a parliamentary form of government, but, before he was able to do so, he was assassinated while making a state visit to France. The assassin was identified as Vlado Chernozemski, an agent of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. The Ustaša, a Croatian separatist group, also was implicated in the plot.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-I-king-of-Yugoslavia
For me it’s so sad to see how little you guys know about the region
Can you link me the evidence or events that they murdered thousands of people ?
It also showed the incompetence of the state, it was the first test how to solve problems without Tito. Also it was the conseguence of the purges in the 70, those capable were removed, and incopetent took their place.
Ribičič was correct and the demonstrations should have resulted in Kosovo gaining the status of republic imho. Would have spared us a lot of headache.
Though knowing Milošević, even in that case it's quite possible we'd have another Croatia/Bosnia situation in Kosovo. The Badinter commission decides Kosovo (along with the other republics) is legally independent, but the SPS arms some "Republic of Serbian Kosovo" or whatever, is how I see it unfolding down the line.
The end of Yugoslavia started with its creation. Some people will say that if Tito or King Aleksandar did things different it would still exist. Nope, it was domed to split up and end. The question was when and how.
It did not work before WW2 but it happened again because the South slavs were scared from the Red army and western powers having claims On their land.
basically they didnt unite again because they wanted but needed.
thing is up to the 90s yugoslavia was heavily subsidied by the west to keep them keep the red army away from the sea. Yugoslavia receaved billions of $.
The problem was that after the iron curtain collapsed, there was no need for Yugoslavia. The money flow stopped. The good live disapeared. The red threat disapeared. People wanted out.
No.
Albanians in Kosovo were just a part of the equation and like every other group involved they thought they were the ultimate victims and couldn't do any wrong.
The breakup of Yugoslavia is a sad story. The country wasn't broken up by foreign powers, although they played a major role in the results of the breakup, but by it's own people. It's a story where blind nationalist crowds were lead by psychopaths who went to bed as communists and woke up as fascists, where those same crowds acted against their own interests for abstract ideas that ultimately lead to nothing.
Yugoslavia in the way it was set up was very messy. It was very hard to get anything done, pass any legislation, but even more difficult to enforce already passed legislation. Every group had legitimate grievances which were used by the previously mentioned psychopathic leadership to rally people against other groups.
Slovenes and Croats legitimately felt cheated because they were paying to subsidize poorer regions for nothing in return and at some point they were done with it. Serbs were left scattered around the country by communists, Serbia was intentionally divided into 3 parts to make it as politically distinctional as possible in order to contain it's power. Albanians were a group of millions and yet they didn't have a republic and were by the 90s second class citizens.
All of these legitimate grievances ended up convincing Croats that the solution to their issues was to expell Serbs from the republic, Bosniaks that they had a right to a unitary Bosnia in a country where they were barely a majority, Serbs they could just do whatever they wanted in Albanians and redraw borders of other republics to fit a Greater Serbian dream.
Many times, very sensible solutions existed that would have left everyone better off but were refused, like the EC 5.5 billion dollars in non refundable aid and fast track EU membership, the Carrington plan in Bosnia which would have left it in one piece and avoided the war (which was only refused by Alija Izetbegović), the Carrington plan for Yugoslavia in 1991 etc. etc.
Sensible politicians like Stambolić and Đinđić, Mesić and Račan, Bogičević, Rugova etc. traded for Milošević, Tuđman, Izetbegović and terrorist groups.
Bread and jobs traded for flags. You CAN just go around waving flags, but not for long. At some point your kids will be hungry and the flag won't feed them.
I can't agree with the author on a couple of base presumptions of his. Like these kind of events undermining the narrative of a better form of socialism than any other. Like the population of ex Yugoslavia was a big bunch of political scientists constantly analysing and comparing different aspects of society with other countries in objective scientific manner. Like it was a buffet and something else was being offered. And even if such far fetched scenario were true, as if people were oblivious to the fact that any criticism from the base would be accepted with open arms at the top level and caused some changes to be applied. This is Balkans FFS, people were trying to get a job, an apartment and sometimes pork through the OOUR union when it was available. Plus, each nationality had it's own perception about the others and that didn't make them want to break up the country. And most of people would just eat up what was served on TV. If the TV said Albanians were rebellious traitors, most people would say "sure" instead of wanting to join them in dissolution of the country. The TV said it was the best kind of socialism and that's the end of the story.
Partly related to this - it really irks me when people forget that the social perception (as well as culture or other qualities of society) change with time. Sometimes they notice that some jokes or movie aged badly and that applying modern standards, to some of the younger audience Sean Connery's James Bond looks more like a rapist than a sexy man of mystery (deliberate exaggeration to point out the difference). And forget that the same happened with understanding of political attitudes and policies. So they apply modern understanding and stances about politics to some older political events without the right context and draw wrong conclusions out of that mess.
It is probably more accurate to claim that the beginning of the end was the death of Tito. Tito did not organise succession in the hope that collective leadership would take hold, but it didn't. Instead, what came out was the idea that "Serbia wins wars, but loses in diplomacy" ... in other words, starting a war makes sense. They did and the rest is history.
You can say that Albanians in Kosovo caused the breakup, but of course not by themselves directly. What happened was that their efforts caused a very toxic reaction - the radicalisation of Serbian politics which then led to everything else.
These are the interesting facts that no mainstream sources mention about the dissolution of Yu. Everybody is caught up in the discussion of who's to blame or the events right before the end.
What is this , AI page summary ?
Yugoslavia was "beginning of the end" upon itself with an easily explained built in self destruct trigger. Activated in WW2 and then after the fall of Berlin Wall. It fell apart once , it would fall apart again and maybe if it was formed for the third time it would fall apart again once geopolitical circumstances demanded such an outcome.
Serbia , the only republic in the whole cursed ex yu amalgamation that had "autonomous provinces" bestowed upon itself needed to convert them into full fledged republics. Even for Tito who wanted to subdue Serbian influence that was a step too far. He even mentions is several times. And why ? Because of student demands ? A republic , ***no more no less***? You know what's funny I kinda wish it happened. I wish they pushed for full fledged independence back then.
Tito at one point did say "Mi se u Srbiji moramo ponašati kao u zemlji koju smo okupirali" , "In Serbia we have to behave as if we occupied it" and even such a character saw a problem in granting republic status to a province . It really makes one scratch their head , why would he think that , hmmm. Its as if 30 years after WWII as a republic and people who suffered the most casualties reducing its borders beyond what it was in WWII when it was titled "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" or G*ebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien* (an area) would find it *mildly problematic .*
Get the f\*\*\* out .
35 Comments
PayAdministrative436@reddit
MrImAlwaysrighT1981@reddit
TerranCitizen45@reddit
MrImAlwaysrighT1981@reddit
TerranCitizen45@reddit
MrImAlwaysrighT1981@reddit
jaleach@reddit
MrImAlwaysrighT1981@reddit
mihjok@reddit
MrImAlwaysrighT1981@reddit
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
FilipAdzic97@reddit
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
FilipAdzic97@reddit
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
FilipAdzic97@reddit
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
FilipAdzic97@reddit
Imaginary_String_814@reddit
raoulbrancaccio@reddit
Separate_Trust_564@reddit
BDP-SCP@reddit
alpidzonka@reddit
Fickle-Message-6143@reddit
NoReportedTaxes@reddit
livefromnewyorkcity@reddit
anonumousJx@reddit
Tony-Angelino@reddit
trisul-108@reddit
d2mensions@reddit (OP)
Hrevak@reddit
Alternative-Tie-4970@reddit
mrsimud@reddit
AstropathicRelay@reddit
papa_CLaude@reddit