Which book are you reading now? Volume XI

[SS-18 ICBM]

Ukraine, by Serhy Yekelchyk. The subtitle "Birth of a Modern Nation" encapsulates the main theme of the book, i.e. Ukraine as a nation was only formulated relatively recently. And hey, Cheezy was right. The references cited that say the Holodomor was genocide are older than the ones that argue otherwise.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, I thought the modern consensus was the bombs were gratuitous and the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo/general hopelessness of the situation led to the surrender.

mmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Glassfan]

The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom. A big disappointment. I got this book on a recommendation from the Stuff They Don't Want You To Know guys. But it's just warmed-over Social Darwinism and Pop Theory based mostly on News anecdotes. Extended endnotes give the appearance of scholarly research without the substance or relevance. Don't waste your money.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tito Speaks: His Self Portrait and Struggle with Stalin - Vladimir Dedijer
The Yugoslav Road: CPy-LCY 1919-1980 - Josip Broz Tito
The National Question - Josip Broz Tito
The Law on the Five Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the People's Republic of Yugoslavia in the Period from 1947 to 1951 - Josip Broz Tito, Andrija Hebrang, and Boris Kidric
Beyond Marx and Tito: Theory and Practice in Yugoslav Socialism - Sharon Zukin
Tito and the Students: The University and the University Student in Self-Managing Yugoslavia - Ralph Pervan

So, guess what I'm researching right now.

Wasn't Tito the one who set all those "autonomous region within yugo" areas, that inevitably later on caused even more mayhem? (Kosovo being one example).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wasn't Tito the one who set all those "autonomous region within yugo" areas, that inevitably later on caused even more mayhem? (Kosovo being one example).

No, Tito was the one who got all the republics to work together for Yugoslavia, instead of for Croatia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. He quashed the racism that had been tearing at the republics before his rule, when Serbia dominated all the others.

Kosovo is the result of a variety of problems, ranging from the failure to come to an agreement with Albania in the immediate post-war years (mostly blocked by the Soviet Union) to the hijacking of its nascent independence movement by foreign Islamic extremists, in much the same way they did Chechnya around the same time.

Kosovo was autonomous in Yugoslavia, but not a separate republic. It was always a part of Serbia.

 

[Kozmos]

No, Tito was the one who got all the republics to work together for Yugoslavia, instead of for Croatia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. He quashed the racism that had been tearing at the republics before his rule, when Serbia dominated all the others.

Lololololo. Tito might have been in charge and doing the whole 'all-together' routine but the reality was far different. Nationalism was alive and well, although not so in the open. All the money was still being siphoned off to Serbia and the rest is well history.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Lololololo. Tito might have been in charge and doing the whole 'all-together' routine but the reality was far different. Nationalism was alive and well, although not so in the open. All the money was still being siphoned off to Serbia and the rest is well history.

You're right, because I didn't just demonstrate that I'm doing in-depth research on this topic (that's just the list of books I was allowed to take home). Because I didn't just review the official summary of the first Five Year Plan, which talked about how more investment was put into Albania than was put into Macedonia or Montenegro, which in turn got more investment than Serbia, Croatia, or Slovenia. Because Tito wasn't Croatian and resentful of the imperialism of Belgrade, upon which he built most of his political legitimacy. He didn't oversee the crafting of a constitution which specifically undid the Serbian-dominant culture and society, and give the republics control over their own affairs and culture, and actively combat bourgeois ethnic nationalism which demonized other ethnicities or glorified itself at the expense of others.

Seriously, don't talk to me like I'm some ignoramus blindly glorifying communism because lolredflags.

 

[Kyriakos]

^FWIW, it seems that Serbians hate Tito for quite a long time now. At least since the start of the 90s. Maybe he was instrumental in ruining any chance their state had to come out of a break-up of Yugo in any respectable manner :\

 

[Kozmos]

You're right, because I didn't just demonstrate that I'm doing in-depth research on this topic (that's just the list of books I was allowed to take home). Because I didn't just review the official summary of the first Five Year Plan, which talked about how more investment was put into Albania than was put into Macedonia or Montenegro, which in turn got more investment than Serbia, Croatia, or Slovenia. Because Tito wasn't Croatian and resentful of the imperialism of Belgrade, upon which he built most of his political legitimacy. He didn't oversee the crafting of a constitution which specifically undid the Serbian-dominant culture and society, and give the republics control over their own affairs and culture, and actively combat bourgeois ethnic nationalism which demonized other ethnicities or glorified itself at the expense of others.

Seriously, don't talk to me like I'm some ignoramus blindly glorifying communism because lolredflags.

I'm not. I'm just saying you shouldn't really trust the sources. As much as historical records are pretty much the only way you can get some context on an area, history or its peoples it is usually pretty much horribly wrong. I am from the region and I see it pretty often when people about the good ol' SFRY. The best I can say there was a theory of how it should have worked, but the practice was always ridiculously different. Tito tried hard but got nowhere really besides a few old party members pining for the glory days of government-issued apartments and readily available jobs. (which were there because non-party members were mostly unemployable)

One of the more amusing lolkonspiracy theories of my history teachers however was that Tito was a russian spy plant that later went rogue.

 

[Flying Pig]

You're right, because I didn't just demonstrate that I'm doing in-depth research on this topic (that's just the list of books I was allowed to take home). Because I didn't just review the official summary of the first Five Year Plan, which talked about how more investment was put into Albania than was put into Macedonia or Montenegro, which in turn got more investment than Serbia, Croatia, or Slovenia. Because Tito wasn't Croatian and resentful of the imperialism of Belgrade, upon which he built most of his political legitimacy. He didn't oversee the crafting of a constitution which specifically undid the Serbian-dominant culture and society, and give the republics control over their own affairs and culture, and actively combat bourgeois ethnic nationalism which demonized other ethnicities or glorified itself at the expense of others.

Seriously, don't talk to me like I'm some ignoramus blindly glorifying communism because lolredflags.

If we're going to argue that nationalism wasn't alive and well in Yugoslavia, then we need to explain how it suddenly and explosively emerged as soon as the place collapsed. 'Tito tried to eradicate nationalism' and 'Tito managed it' are different statements.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not. I'm just saying you shouldn't really trust the sources.

And what sources ought I trust, oh wise one? Again, I didn't show you all my sources, just the ones I'm reading right now. And, I was answering a specific question asked by a person. I don't need a lecture about how another communist politician was a miserable failure at everything because #lolcommunismisstupid.

But this is a book thread, not an argument thread.

 

[Kozmos]

And what sources ought I trust, oh wise one? Again, I didn't show you all my sources, just the ones I'm reading right now. And, I was answering a specific question asked by a person. I don't need a lecture about how another communist politician was a miserable failure at everything because #lolcommunismisstupid.

But this is a book thread, not an argument thread.

Granted my lolololo might have been seen as hostile but wasn't intended as such (it's just we are on the internet and my lower urges prevail). I ain't got a beef with your viewpoints or ideology. I'm a small city-states man myself for what it's worth and I admire your zeal/passion for what you believe in. I was just telling you that most perceptions and written accounts about here un parts, even by locals...are mostly unreliable. That has led me to be sceptical about other stuff as well.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Just don't assume that a few positive statements about someone amount to lionization of them. It's not a comprehensive biography. I'm quite capable of being critical of Tito, this just isn't the place for it, and it didn't have anything to do with his question.

 

[Kozmos]

Fair enough, looking forward to your thoughts when you done with it.

To keep it on-topic, finishing the last of the Malazan books, starting Filth by Irvine Welsh and playing with the Discourses on Livy.

 

[Cutlass]

If we're going to argue that nationalism wasn't alive and well in Yugoslavia, then we need to explain how it suddenly and explosively emerged as soon as the place collapsed. 'Tito tried to eradicate nationalism' and 'Tito managed it' are different statements.

I think, as with the USSR, and some places in the Mideast and Africa, a leader or government managed to keep a lid on nationalism being a problem, rather than say that they eradicated it.

 

[otaman1]

Right now, I'm reading a book called forums.civfanatics.com. It's a really good book, trust me. There's new editions to it every day.

 

[Masada]

Had a few weeks on holiday. During that time I managed to knock off:

Bad Science - Ben Goldacre: If I hadn't read other 'bad science' books, I'm sure I would have liked this more. As it was, it just wasn't as good as some of the others I've read.
Floating City - Sudhir Venkatesh: Not as good as his first.
Castles of Steel - Robert k. Massie: Fantastic.
Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam - Nick Turse: Really freaking good.
The Maid's Version: A Novel - Daniel Woodrell: I enjoyed this a lot. I'll read winter's bone next.
Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea - Barbara Demick: Fantastic. Probably the best single volume on North Korea I've read.
Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void - Mary Roach: I <3 Mary Roach. That is all.
The Valley of Amazement - Amy Tan: In which the main character acts like a the whole damn book.
Six Feet Over: Adventures in the Afterlife - Mary Roach: Refer above.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou: One of my favorite books ever.
The Worst Hard Time - Timothy Egan: Very solid.

 

[Cutlass]

I just finished An Officer and a Spy by Robert Harris, a recounting of the Dreyfuss via in novel form, from the perspective of Colonel Picquart, the intelligence officer whose investigations helped exonerate Dreyfuss.

I spotted this in the library yesterday and picked it up.

Finished this. How accurate is it to what really happened? The level of antisemitism in it is disturbing.

Finished Engineers of Victory by Paul Kennedy. Interesting, but not quite satisfying. The premise of the book was to look at some of the behind the scenes innovations in tactics, equipment, technology, and organization, which turned the early often poor performance of the Allies into the later overwhelming power. I don't think the author covers things in enough depth, and is only picking a handful of examples, rather than looking at a broader selection. And he seems to still be convinced that the atomic bombs were the reason Japan surrendered, which I think many people don't hold that opinion any longer.

Another thought on this one, this was the first time I've read a book and the bibliography lists Wikipedia links. Felt decidedly odd.

 

[Masada]

Pretty accurate.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillibillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats, Jim Goad. Southern pride meets Karl Marx, what a fun combination..