Yugoslavia no longer exists
- Thread starter joespaniel
- Start date
Illustrious
Becoming Colonel Blimp
I just love the "downside" that they've identified:
"Come on you Serbs-and-Montenegrans!"
"Come on you Serbs-and-Montenegrans!"
thedirk
Master of Stealth
Well United States of America is pretty unimaginative and difficult to chant at sporting fixures as well, but I haven't heard any American complaining. 
But the President, forgot his name, ain't making a lot of progress, is he? Accordingly, he should appease his influential intellectual buddies, instead of actually developing some viable incentive in the country and in the economy.
A little more on-topic, I see no problem with the discontinuation of Yugoslavia, as long as no larger civilian groups et al are stripped from any rights, which may subsequently lead to more bestial violence again.
A little more on-topic, I see no problem with the discontinuation of Yugoslavia, as long as no larger civilian groups et al are stripped from any rights, which may subsequently lead to more bestial violence again.
amadeus
Serenity now
I wonder what Tito would have thought of Yugoslavia in the 1990's - falling back into the hypernationalism that Tito had faught against during the 1930's and 1940's...
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
You are wrong the dirk- it is very easy to chant U S A at sports "fixtures", but why would we have to? In our preffered sports, our country only plays with itself.
amadeus
Serenity now
Does that mean that the people there are going to start chanting "S and M! S and M!" 
ozscott75
Groper of Sand
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Does that mean that the people there are going to start chanting "S and M! S and M!"
Probably only at the wrestling.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Does that mean that the people there are going to start chanting "S and M! S and M!"
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
lol
On topic, I guess it was coming
On topic, I guess it was coming
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
And even that Union will likely be over by the end of the decade. Montenegrans are fairly keen on all out independance, but a clause in the new status quo rules out a referendum on any future split for a few years. After that, all traces of any legacy of Yugoslavia will be over for good.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
And good riddance. I've made the commitment already; if the Serbs try to prevent Montengran secession, I'm comin' at 'em.
I've had enough of their xxxx.
R.III
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Is that very good porn or Australian beer?
Don't you lot know you can go blind from that.
I'm a little ambivalent about Yugoslavia's demise. It was an essentially good idea gone bad.
The idea of bringing most of the Southern Slavs into a single state, born during WW I and heavily encouraged by the British pro-Serb historian Robert W. Seton-Watson, was motivated by both security concerns (a single Southern Slav state would be better able to withstand Austrian, Hungarian and Russian influence in the Balkans) and as well in modern terms it would better be able to avoiud a "failed state" fate. The "Right to Self-Determination" in Wilson's 14 Points was ill-defined and took by many to imply statehood, but if every single ethnic and religious group in Europe is given a state of their own then you're going to have a whole group of unviable states incapable of providing basic services, with heavily radicalized populations - which adds up to lots of wars. A state isn't just a representative body; it provides services (tax collection, justice system, social order, education system, economic system (currency policy, etc.), external security, etc. A state needs certain resources to be able to provide these services - which means it must be viable. Most of the territories that would come together to form Yugoslavia were feudal holdovers largely untouched economically or socially by the modern world (with the exception of Slovenia, and to a lesser extent Croatia). A union of the regions into a single centralized state was a very sane idea, both in terms of external security and internal development; the final product was much more than the sum of its parts.
Unfortunately, the way Yugoslavia was cobbled together pretty much doomed it, and I'm not even sure it could have been done differently. There were two major camps during the war, one that promoted a Croat-led union (Trumbic) and one a Serb-led union (Pasic). The reality that the Serbs already had a state overwhelmed the opposition and in the end the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was born by Serbia merely absorbing the other regions. The Serbian administration pretty much stayed in place and simply took on many non-Serbs into its service. The bloody Serb Karadordevic dynasty got the throne, and Belgrade became something of an internal imperial capital. Because of the 1990s we look askance at Serb nationalism but the Croats were just as strident, if less effective. Both spawned terrorist groups, just as both spawned people who genuinely attempted to make the union work. Yugoslavia had many enemies (Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria) but managed to survive until being savaged by Hitler.
Tito was both a boon and a bane for Yugoslavia. Allied policy in supporting him during the war exclusively, ignoring Mihailovic and the royalists, weakened Allied policy options after the war and Yugoslavia consequently fell into the Soviet sphere. The split in 1948 forced Tito to take more realistic measures in dealing with and balancing the republics but the dictatorship's response to ethnic tensions was simple repression - which as we all know burst forth violently in the decade after Tito died. So now we have once again a collection of mini-states with ill-defined borders and seething ethnic tensions, with weak economies and weaker economic prospects. The EU is the only hope for these statelets, but EU taxpayers get your purses ready because the kind of economic infrastructural development that needs to take place in the region got harder and harder to implement with each fragmentation of Yugoslavia.
The idea of bringing most of the Southern Slavs into a single state, born during WW I and heavily encouraged by the British pro-Serb historian Robert W. Seton-Watson, was motivated by both security concerns (a single Southern Slav state would be better able to withstand Austrian, Hungarian and Russian influence in the Balkans) and as well in modern terms it would better be able to avoiud a "failed state" fate. The "Right to Self-Determination" in Wilson's 14 Points was ill-defined and took by many to imply statehood, but if every single ethnic and religious group in Europe is given a state of their own then you're going to have a whole group of unviable states incapable of providing basic services, with heavily radicalized populations - which adds up to lots of wars. A state isn't just a representative body; it provides services (tax collection, justice system, social order, education system, economic system (currency policy, etc.), external security, etc. A state needs certain resources to be able to provide these services - which means it must be viable. Most of the territories that would come together to form Yugoslavia were feudal holdovers largely untouched economically or socially by the modern world (with the exception of Slovenia, and to a lesser extent Croatia). A union of the regions into a single centralized state was a very sane idea, both in terms of external security and internal development; the final product was much more than the sum of its parts.
Unfortunately, the way Yugoslavia was cobbled together pretty much doomed it, and I'm not even sure it could have been done differently. There were two major camps during the war, one that promoted a Croat-led union (Trumbic) and one a Serb-led union (Pasic). The reality that the Serbs already had a state overwhelmed the opposition and in the end the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" was born by Serbia merely absorbing the other regions. The Serbian administration pretty much stayed in place and simply took on many non-Serbs into its service. The bloody Serb Karadordevic dynasty got the throne, and Belgrade became something of an internal imperial capital. Because of the 1990s we look askance at Serb nationalism but the Croats were just as strident, if less effective. Both spawned terrorist groups, just as both spawned people who genuinely attempted to make the union work. Yugoslavia had many enemies (Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria) but managed to survive until being savaged by Hitler.
Tito was both a boon and a bane for Yugoslavia. Allied policy in supporting him during the war exclusively, ignoring Mihailovic and the royalists, weakened Allied policy options after the war and Yugoslavia consequently fell into the Soviet sphere. The split in 1948 forced Tito to take more realistic measures in dealing with and balancing the republics but the dictatorship's response to ethnic tensions was simple repression - which as we all know burst forth violently in the decade after Tito died. So now we have once again a collection of mini-states with ill-defined borders and seething ethnic tensions, with weak economies and weaker economic prospects. The EU is the only hope for these statelets, but EU taxpayers get your purses ready because the kind of economic infrastructural development that needs to take place in the region got harder and harder to implement with each fragmentation of Yugoslavia.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Easy now.
Slobie is currently too occupied trying to keep his head out of a noose.
Figuratively, unfortunately not literaly.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Another mistake of the Great War ends.
I will miss it not.
I will miss it not.
"The idea of bringing most of the Southern Slavs into a single state, born during WW I and heavily encouraged by the British pro-Serb historian Robert W. Seton-Watson,"
I think it ranked up there in the bad idea area with another Brit foolishness of the Era, the Balfour Declaration.
I think it ranked up there in the bad idea area with another Brit foolishness of the Era, the Balfour Declaration.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Shady
Why are you reading this?
Yugoslavia was a completely artificial state and was doomed to fail. It's sort of like if you put Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos into one state and call it Indochina. On top of that you might well expect that funding for whatever the gov't funds would be distributed equally across the country etc.
Well the fact in Yugoslavia was that Serbs were overly dominant in everything. Not because they earned it but because that many positions had been reserved for the Serbs and many gov't positions, military positions, civilian positions were reserved for serbs and a lot of the much more qualified people from the other countries like Bosnia and Croatia were given the middle finger. It's like taking affirmative action to the extreme in the other direction. Terrible, terrible concept for a state...stupid Versailles treaty piece of ship.
Well the fact in Yugoslavia was that Serbs were overly dominant in everything. Not because they earned it but because that many positions had been reserved for the Serbs and many gov't positions, military positions, civilian positions were reserved for serbs and a lot of the much more qualified people from the other countries like Bosnia and Croatia were given the middle finger. It's like taking affirmative action to the extreme in the other direction. Terrible, terrible concept for a state...stupid Versailles treaty piece of ship.
