The Dismantling of Yugoslavia

I'm talking about the tendency of certain groups to post facto minimize culpability of the Croats during WW2 by attempting to lower the number of people allegedly killed at Jasenovac. Period.

[ 23 November 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

facto minimize culpability of the Croats

Would Dr. C like me show pitures of what this war has done to the Croation people!

I bet not

Dr Conway

"culpability of the Croats during WW2"

hmmm - previous posts say that we should not designate all Serbs as killers yet you insist on labelling "Croats" as culpable.

Here are the facts:

the first anti-fascist activities in that part of the world were led by Croats (Sisak - June 22, 1941)

the Yugoslav partizans was led by a Croat

39 of 80 Yugoslav division were Croat

Croats were shipped off to camps such as Dachau, especially those under Italian occupation.

I have never subscribed to group guilt - neither should you.

As for Jasenovac, it is a myth that 600,000 or more perished there. When victims lists have people from Serbia listed there, you know it is a fake. Railway lines were not shipping from the quisling state of Serbia to the quisling state of Croatia. And I can assure you that the 5,000 people listed as perished from our region (including my great uncle) did NOT die at Jasenovac.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of 500 or 600 or 1 million or 2 million victims at Jasenovac.

No more than 100,000, perhaps 120,000 as an upper limit.

Otherwise there would have been no Serbs in Croatia post WW2.

Anything else is historical revisionism!

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]I'm talking about the tendency of certain groups to post facto minimize culpability of the Croats during WW2 by attempting to lower the number of people allegedly killed at Jasenovac. Period.

[ 23 November 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ][/b]

---

KyleInToronto, I think we are glossing over the fact that in Eastern European and Balkans where there were large percentages of Jewish and other ethnics murdered during WWII, Holocaust experts have had to conclude that cooridinated collaboration was highly probable. In fact, it is believed today that there were Jews and Gypsies rounded up and interred even before the Nazis arrived in some countries, and Croatia was one of those countries mentioned in the Deschene Commission inquiry. There was collaboration in Croatia. The brutality of Nazi reprisals were well known about among Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Muslims alike. And they all knew there was a high price to pay for resisting the Nazis. Let's not rewrite history ourselves if even for the sake of friendly chit chat here in a country far removed from that terrible time and place. I, for one, can't imagine even being in the same situation in a far away country separated by oceans of time.

Tom:

quote:

---

[i]How does this become a hate speech for Greater Serbia as the media purported?

The question:

Has the Media misrepresented the Gazimestan speech? If so, why?[/i]

---

The question: why have [i]you[/i] misrepresented it?

You have done so by reprinting it only in part and by reading/reporting it at "face value" rather than penetrating into the memes which it contains.

On the first score, you have essentially only reproduced the middle section which - in complete contrast to the rest of the speech - draws on certain "socialist rhetoric". You haven't bothered to reprint the beginning and ending when Milosevic was waxing poetic about Kosovo's place in the Serbian national imagination and talks about how Serbian leaders have essentially betrayed the great Serbian nation (until now) etc. I quote:

quote:

---

oday, it is difficult to say what is the historical truth about the Battle of Kosovo and what is legend. Today this is no longer important. Oppressed by pain and filled with hope, the people used to remember and to forget, as, after all, all people in the world do, and it was ashamed of treachery and glorified heroism. Therefore it is difficult to say today whether the Battle of Kosovo was a defeat or a victory for the Serbian people, whether thanks to it we fell into slavery or we survived in this slavery. The answers to those questions will be constantly sought by science and the people. What has been certain through all the centuries until our time today is that disharmony struck Kosovo 600 years ago? If we lost the battle, then this was not only the result of social superiority and the armed advantage of the Ottoman Empire but also of the tragic disunity in the leadership of the Serbian state at that time. In that distant 1389, the Ottoman Empire was not only stronger than that of the Serbs but it was also more fortunate than the Serbian kingdom.

The lack of unity and betrayal in Kosovo will continue to follow the Serbian people like an evil fate through the whole of its history. Even in the last war, this lack of unity and betrayal led the Serbian people and Serbia into agony, the consequences of which in the historical and moral sense exceeded fascist aggression.

Even later, when a socialist Yugoslavia was set up, in this new state the Serbian leadership remained divided, prone to compromise to the detriment of its own people. The concessions that many Serbian leaders made at the expense of their people could not be accepted historically and ethically by any nation in the world, especially because the Serbs have never in the whole of their history conquered and exploited others. Their national and historical being has been liberational throughout the whole of history and through two world wars, as it is today. They liberated themselves and when they could they also helped others to liberate themselves. The fact that in this region they are a major nation is not a Serbian sin or shame; this is an advantage which they have not used against others, but I must say that here, in this big, legendary field of Kosovo, the Serbs have not used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either.

Thanks to their leaders and politicians and their vassal mentality they felt guilty before themselves and others. This situation lasted for decades, it lasted for years and here we are now at the field of Kosovo to say that this is no longer the case.

---

That's just for starters, Tom. The second question is this: When Western leaders make bold proclamations and nice sounding speeches about democracy, equality and liberation, do you take them at face value? Without examining both the cultural and political context in which Milosevic made the speech AND what he proceeded to DO after the speech, your presentation is completely faulty.

For example,

quote:

---

Socialism in particular, being a progressive and just democratic society, should not allow people to be divided in the national and religious respect. The only differences one can and should allow in socialism are between hard working people and idlers and between honest people and dishonest people. Therefore, all people in Serbia who live from their own work, honestly, respecting other people and other nations, are in their own republic.

---

Barring quibbles about translation, against the backdrop of both state and "private" violence by and against Albanians (mostly against) in Kosovo, this sentiment is a lot different than it seems. Albanian nationalism had been growing in Kosovo for some time and Albanians had been demanding greater national rights since - at least - the uprisings of 1981. Not long afterward, Serbian state academic propaganda was already speaking of the Albanians of Kosovo as a "foreign" and "terrorist" force, a 5th column of sorts. On the streets, the "Shipts" (which to Serbs is a perjorative; like saying N*gger...) were seen as criminals, second-class and otherwise not very nice. Sporadic political violence and some attacks on Serb civilians (not to mention fabricated stories about "poisoned wells" etc.) only added to the spectre of the big Albanian bogey man. That narrative was later transferred into official parlance under Milosevic' careful watch. For references, see Nebojsa Popov [i]et al[/i] in [i]The Road To War in Serbia[/i] among others.

quote:

---

Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it.

---

Again, context. Here, the context is Milosevic talking to a group of Serbian workers in Kosovo who feel that they are being driven out of Kosovo by dirty, criminal, terrorist Albanians. The message was, "those damned Albanian nationalists don't believe in "our" kind of equality. [i]Their[/i] nationalism is inequality, [i]ours[/i] is one of liberation (see elsewhere in the speech...)"

quote:

---

The threat is that the question of one nation being endangered by the others can be posed one day -- and this can then start a wave of suspicions, accusations, and intolerance, a wave that invariably grows and is difficult to stop. This threat has been hanging like a sword over our heads all the time. Internal and external enemies of multi-national communities are aware of this and therefore they organize their activity against multinational societies mostly by fomenting national conflicts.

---

Here we have the "fifth column" business already in play. Albanian nationalism in Kosovo posited as a disrupting, probably foreign-born phenomenon, rather than the result of Albanian's second-class treatment in Kosovo and a demographic imbalance coupled with economic changes never completely dealt with by successive Yugoslav governments. Milosevic response to growing Albanian nationalism was to reassert Serbian hegemony by way of "socialist" rhetoric.

Of course, then there's the big question: "Why have you not taken the speech as a whole in itself and studied it for inconsistency?" The fact is that by bookending a little socialist rhetoric with a bunch of tripe cheering on the Serb nation, Milosevic himself calls into question whether we should take his "socialism" seriously. Here is the end of the speech,

quote:

---

I am convinced that this awareness of harmony and unity will make it possible for Serbia not only to function as a state but to function as a successful state. Therefore I think that it makes sense to say this here in Kosovo, where that disunity once upon a time tragically pushed back Serbia for centuries and endangered it, and where renewed unity may advance it and may return dignity to it. Such an awareness about mutual relations constitutes an elementary necessity for Yugoslavia, too, for its fate is in the joined hands of all its peoples.

The Kosovo heroism has been inspiring our creativity for 6 centuries, and has been feeding our pride and does not allow us to forget that at one time we were an army great, brave, and proud, one of the few that remained undefeated when losing.

Six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they cannot be won without resolve, bravery, and sacrifice, without the noble qualities that were present here in the field of Kosovo in the days past. Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, finding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilization in which people will live in the 21st century. For this battle, we certainly need heroism, of course of a somewhat different kind, but that courage without which nothing serious and great can be achieved remains unchanged and remains urgently necessary.

Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself in the field of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. Serbia was at that time the bastion that defended the European culture, religion, and European society in general. Therefore today it appears not only unjust but even unhistorical and completely absurd to talk about Serbia's belonging to Europe. Serbia has been a part of Europe incessantly, now just as much as it was in the past, of course, in its own way, but in a way that in the historical sense never deprived it of dignity. In this spirit we now endeavor to build a society, rich and democratic, and thus to contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful country, this unjustly suffering country, but also to contribute to the efforts of all the progressive people of our age that they make for a better and happier world.

---

Reading this, one thing is important to remember. In the [i]context[/i] of late-1980's Yugoslavia, such proclamations were unheard of. They were actually the kind of thing that would have had you thrown in [i]Goli Otok[/i] once upon a Titoist time. And prattling on about the historical innocence of the Serbs while everyone else has done them wrong (even their own leaders) is the kind of of laughable jingoism that would be mocked as infantile sloganeering if it came out of, say, George Bush. In [i]that[/i] place, at [i]that[/i] time, he was putting match to tinder. Moreover, he was employing a shift in ideology set out by key academic opinion-makers like Mihailo Marković - who's work essentially outlined the move from "socialism" to "socialist nationalism" under Milosevic beginning in 1986. Combined, you had the beginnings of a mini-revolution in Yugoslav politics. As Slavoj Zizek put it, Milosevic was the first politician to act as though Tito was actually dead. Stambolic, reflecting on the speech in 1987 remarked that he knew that day was "the end of Yugoslavia".

But if you really need evidence, go look at the tapes of the speech - the crowd knew what they were hearing, even if a few people on this side of the pond still can't...

Anyway, you've done - yet another - hack job on the history worthy of the MSM.

[ 04 January 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

B.L. Zeebub LLD:

The infamous speech was one of three pieces of evidence I brought forward regarding media manipulation.

You say that selected a portion of the speech. This is true, I selected the centre of the speech that talked about the benefits of plurinationalist societies. My claim was the Milosevic was Neo-Titoist more than a nationalist. He saw himself as the inheritor of Titoism.

Nevertheless, you failed to mention that I linked the whole speech so that babblers may access it and see it in its entirety. I posted a portion with a link to the whole. The portion was to make a point, the whole is to allow babblers to judge for themselves.

Is this what you call a Hack Job?:

quote:

---

The evidence:

1- the 1989 Gazimestan speech you refer to is known in the western psyche as the battle cry of Serb nationalism where Milosevic lead his clarion call for an ethnically pure greater Serbia. The speech is never fully quoted in the Media. Parts are selected but not the whole speech.

Here is the speech in its entirety.

This does not seem to me to be an ethno-nationalist speech. Especially this part (but the whole speech should be read):

---

I don't see how this could be misrepresenting. The forum moderators always ask that we do not copy paste a whole article. So, logically, I quote the portion which makes my point but I provide the link to the whole speech.

I see nowhere in that speech a sentence of fascist Hitler-type jingoistic ultra-nationalism. I use these epithets because they were the ones used by the mainstream media regarding the speech, without quotes of course.

It is well known that the Gazimestan speech was on the anniversary of the fall of Serbia to the Ottoman Empire. Yes, this was seen as a clash of western civilization vs barbarism. A eurocentric point of view that is ubiquitous on the continent. There is an element of nationalism in that speech, no kidding it is a naitonal holiday. The fall of Kosovo-Metohjia does have a symbolic significance in the Balkhan Orthodox psyche much like the fall of Constantinople to Mehmet II.

If one knows this and sees the literature on how such events are exagerated and glorified by certain sectors of these societies (the more religious and ethnocentric ones), the contrast between this speech and what it could have been becomes even greater.

You claim of a hack job. I provided a portion of a speech with the link to the whole speech in its entirety showing that it was never what it was claimed to be.

Your psychological insight into the speech is quite fantastic but I still don't see how this speech was the battle cry of Serb nationalism and racism as it was called in the media. I think this is why it is never quoted.

Was the speech about a strong central government dominated by Serbs? Maybe. Was it about wiping out Albanians and ethnic cleansing (like Turkish Kurdistan in the 90's)...I allow babblers to judge it. But they should ask themselves why was the speech never quoted?

I doubt that our media made the psychological/historical/cultural analysis (interpretation) you present here. I don't agree with your assessment (interpretation) but I claim that the media didn't make such an analysis or any kind for that matter (they didn't even read the speech). They merely spun what the PR groups representing one narrative that reflected the policy objectives of Washington wanted to be spun. It was picked up much like the photo of Fikret Alic, Deichman uncovered it.

I made no presentation whatsoever. I linked the speech and I merely contasted the speech as it was said with the way our Media presented it. I see great inconsistencies and I think most reasonable people will.

As far as I know Serbs are not different from other peoples and they do not have a secretive special language in which certain things really mean other things. I fully understand context, and this was no nationalist battle cry. That is why the media does not quote it.

Yes, many Serbs called Albanians "Shiptar" (instead of "Albanac") still more called them "Shqiptar" and the term "Shqiptari" or "Shqip" is the actual Albanian word for Albanian. [url=http://www.argjiro.net/fjalor/]See Albanian - English Translator here[/url]. Dropping the "q" sound was seen as offensive. On the street people were more disgruntled with the UCK, who was a violent criminal organizaiotn according to Nato. I think again, there is an exageration of what Serbs thought and said in order to serve the Nazi narrative and justify the humanitarian intervention.

I am somewhat familiar with Popov's work, I do though base myself much more on Herman and Chomsky (who in my view have a solid record on so many other topics).

Context is important, and we should look at the context of what our own governments were thinking?

I quoted above the following:

quote:

---

Norris says that the motive for the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was not humanitarian concerns. It was because Serbia was refusing to enact the socio-economic reforms that the US wanted. Those are the reasons given by the highest level of the Clinton administration. It was not humanitarian in intent. We know what the rate of atrocities was after the bombing. The idea that it was humanitarian intervention is very self-serving propaganda.

---

This comes from the highest level of the US administration. Wouldn't it be useful to demonize the side you want to bomb, to exagerate its crimes and ignore the crimes of the other side. And afterwards wouldn't it be useful to re-interpret what was said or meant because people figure things out since in 1989, we didn't have internet access and now we do, to discover translated speeches on our own? I provide only three example of this, there are many many more...unfortunately since Yugoslavia opened the door to recent "humanitarian" adventures. This is the part of the story that western progressives should be interested in, in my view.

[ 06 January 2008: Message edited by: Tom Vouloumanos ]