From the time of Josip Tito’s death in 1980, to the rise of Slobodan Milosevic in 1989 tides were changing in Yugoslavia and Bosnia. The brotherhood and uniting that Tito fought so hard for was quickly being dissolved by hate and disarray. For fraction of time the bits of Yugoslavia looked to be in favor of new multi-party systems; however, as Milosevic came to power he pushed autonomy and rejected the multi-party agenda. Milosevic’s rise to power along with the regions destabilization leading into the Bosnian War and Milosevic’s role in spreading Bosnian Serb Nationalism, are three main factors that lead to the Bosnian War and genocide. On the back of communist leader Ivan Stambolic, Slobadan Milosevic rose to second in charge of the Serbian …show more content…
Milosevic’s true intentions much like Hitler’s in Germany were to use some ethnicity as a scapegoat, offer no real solution to a failed economy, and then gain political power (Posa p.70). Unfortunately, his plan worked and his Ideology quickly become the focal point for the justification of the Bosnian Muslim genocide. As Bosnia declared independence in 1992 backed by the United States and European Community recognizing Bosnia’s independence Serb Nationalism was launched in Bosnia. With the support of Milosevic and the Yugoslav Army (largely Serb makeup), Bosnian Serb forces began their offensive on the capital of Sarajevo and many of the outlining Muslim towns such as Zvornik, Foca, and Visegrad (History.com Staff). This was the beginning of the offensive of Bosnian Serb Nationalism because it was using mainly Serbian forces to remove another ethnic group from “their” …show more content…
Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia made the first pushes for independence in the early 1990’s. However, as these countries were formed with diverse ethnic demographics and no clear political aims for each ethnic group, it was a mere free for all as ethnic groups throughout attempted to gather as large of a following for their own “cause” and slander the other ethnicities with propaganda in hopes of slowing their opponents’ growth. The campaigns destroyed the interethnic trust that Tito worked so hard to build for four decades to build. This coupled with the urban middle class being particularly hard hit by unemployment as noted by Mary Kaldor in her extensive research into the Bosnian Case (Kaldor. p.37) led to a harsh breeding ground for interethnic conflict. Furthermore, we see that when these conflicts do occur urban areas are especially vulnerable to conflict. In fact, the urbanized cities can be the less populated cities and still spark the conflicts (Varshney. p.371-373). Closing with this quote from the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, “while it can be [granted] that religion was not a central factor in the conflict, the argument that whatever role it did play was solely negative in nature is open to question (Johnston & Eastvold. 2004).” Perhaps someone without a grasp on the difference between ethnicity and religion could argue a whole paper on the notion that
In fact, sometimes it is actively encouraged as part of preserving the culture and the traditional aspects of the nation in question; for example, routine celebrations of national holiday and the wearing of cultural clothing demonstrate moderate forms of nationalism. However, it is when extreme pride in one’s nation leads to acts that contravene common decency that the forces of nationalism become dangerous. A historical example of such an event was the Bosnian war and the resulting Bosnian genocide that occurred shortly after the partition of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s. In this event, extreme Serbian nationalism called for the unity of the Serbian peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina - an event that echoes the words of the source. Serbian leaders and followers believed that their culture and people were superior to that of the neighbouring ethnic groups - the Bosniaks and the Croatians - and thought that they needed to be eliminated because of the potential threat they posed to the establishment of an autonomous Serbian Republic, or “Greater Serbia”. In the course of the war, and the ethnic cleansing that followed, more than 100,000 Bosniaks and Croatians were to be killed in a mass act of genocide. This appalling and gruesome figure shows the extent to which extreme nationalism is unacceptable and how unification of a people by force is both detrimental and wrong on all
The United States Involvement in Bosnia; is it positive or negative. After a lifetime of war in Bosnia, can the United States really offer positive change? To truly get a feel for the conflict in this region we must first look at the long-standing hatred between the occupying ethnic groups: Serbs, Muslims, and Croats. From 1481 to 1903 the Ottoman Empire was the ruling body over the entire Balkan region. By the early nineteen hundreds the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. In 1918, at the end of World War One, Russia annexed the Balkan region renaming it Yugoslavia. In 1919 Joseph Stalin, Communist ruler of Russia and its satellite states (i.e. Yugoslavia), appointed Tito to be the head of Yugoslavia. Tito quickly became an iron fisted and ruthless dictator. The Machiavellian characteristics exhibited by Tito have given all Serbs a reputation as being strong armed and merciless. With Tito’s death in 1991, Yugoslavia collapsed and split into 3 independent states: Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia. In 1994 Slovadon Malosovitch was elected ruler of the Serbian state. Incidents of mass genocide and several other war crimes became regular occurrences under his rule. The Bosnian crisis has shown the world the worst of human nature. On behalf of the United Nations, in an effort to settle the unrest in the Balkan region, The United States became involved in 1995. The United States involvement includes: the commitment of twenty thousand troops, the troop support of legions of tanks and other vehicles, and the “full support” of the United States Government.
struggle, however, fought under the guise of ethnic hatred. Bibliography Glenny M, "The Balkans, 1804-1999", 2000. Lampe JR, Yugoslavia as History. Twice There was a Country, 1996. Kegley and Wittkopf, "World Politics", 2001.
Q6. Nationalism was both known as a unifying and a disunifying force, your opinion depended on your perspective and background knowledge of the topic. Nationalism could be seen as a uniting force by bringing those together who believed in a single "nationality," or ancestors. Those who believed that nationalism was a unifying force also refused to be loyal to a king or queen, but they did remain loyal to those whom shared a common bond. Naturally, there were other who had different beliefs towards the topic. There were people who believed of nationalism as a disunifying force die to the fact that it would disrupt their wants to restore the old order before the French Revolution.
A new leader arose by the late 1980s, a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist who had turned to nationalism and religious hatred to gain power. He began by inflaming long-standing tensions between Serbs and Muslims in the independent provence of Kosovo. Orthodox Christian Serbs in Kosovo were in the minority and claimed they were being mistreated by the Albanian Muslim majority. Serbian-backed political unrest in Kosovo eventually led to its loss of independence and domination by Milosevic. In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia both declared their independence from Yugoslavia soon resulting in civil war. The national army of Yugoslavia, now made up of Serbs controlled by Milosevic, stormed into Slovenia but failed to subdue the separatists there and withdrew after only ten days of fighting. Milosevic quickly lost interest in Slovenia, a country with almost no Serbs. Instead, he turned his attention to Croatia, a Catholic country where Orthodox Serbs made up 12 percent of the population. During World War II, Croatia had been a pro-Nazi state led by Ante Pavelic and his fascist Ustasha Party. Serbs living in Croatia as well as Jews had been the targets of widespread Ustasha massacres.
World War I, also known as “The Great War”, was a global war that revolved mainly around Europe. It took place from 1914 to 1918. This was a very brutal war that caused many casualties. The soldiers who survived experienced severe trauma and mental discomfort. This trauma was a direct result of the violence and agony they experienced during the war. Motivation for this war was the idea of nationalism and the pride in one’s country. This war was the cause of disillusionment among many of the soldiers that were involved in it.
Although Milosevic was a key figure during this period whose actions undoubtedly influenced the chain of events that unfolded, I believe his power-seeking motives were not unique to him; his actions in the former Yugoslavia could have been committed by a number of others who had the same desire for power driving them. Nevertheless, as he was president of Serbia and essentially commander-in-chief of Serb forces who carried out unconscionable acts of cruelty against Muslims and other non-Serb civilians, particularly in the attempt to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina, he bears responsibility for his actions as an authority figure. Though his main goal seemed to be focused on territorial expansion of the Serbian state, he led military forces to deport and murder non-Serb civilians in massive numbers and therefore was in vi...
Many people across the globe argue that nationalism within Canada is simply not feasible. It is said that we as a people, differ so greatly with our diverse cultures, religions, and backgrounds that we cannot come together and exist together as a strong, united nation. In his book, Lament for a Nation, George Grant tells the reader that “…as Canadians we attempted a ridiculous task in trying to build a conservative nation in the age of progress, on a continent we share with the most dynamic nation on earth. The current history is against us.” (1965) Originally directed towards the Bomarc Missile Crisis, the book argues that whatever nationalism Canada had was destroyed by globalization as well as the powerful American sphere of influence. Although it is true that the book was initially written as a response to the events that took place in the late 1950s, many of the points are still valid today.
Yugoslavia came to be because of a group of people wanted their own nation, and worked out as the Allies of Britain wondered what could come of dominating the Austro-Hungarians. The beginning of Yugoslavia is well known, but why did the country fall apart completely? As stated in the thesis, there was always a sense of nationality and diversity between the republics of the nation. The six never came together as one nation, and if there would have, many of Yugoslavia 's conflicts would have ceased to happen.
Bosnia is a country in Europe and its capital is a city called Sarajevo. Bosnia is bordered by Serbia and Croatia. In this genocide, between 1992 and 1995, the Serbians wanted to pursue genocide against the Muslims of Bosnia. After World War 1, a country called Yugoslavia was created in 1918. It was created out of the Austria-Hungary empire that lost the war and lost its land. Serbians, Croatians, Slovenes, and Bosnian Serbians and Muslims lived all in one country. The problem was the people didn't get along and each republic wanted to take control of the country. This went on until after WWII, when the Soviet Union took power and control over the country. Joseph Broz (Tito) was leader of Yugoslavia until the 6 republics separated. Then in 1992, Bosnia declared its independence from Yugoslavia. Soon after, the Bosnian
... that other republics felt to the need to be the same so that they did not become disadvantaged. Exaggeration was an integral part of the huge amounts of propaganda being beamed at the common people, all in an attempt to imbue them with the nationalist ideologies (Rogel 45). The Serb death count at Jasenovac was a wildly varying number, grossly overinflated by the Serbs and downplayed by the Croats. The Serbs even asserted that the Bosnia was just an administrative creation of Tito, designed to thwart the rights of the Serbs (Rogel 43). The Croats countered that the whole Yugoslav system under the communists had been run for the benefit of the Serbs, and Croatia had borne the economic brunt of it. All of this propaganda was disseminated in order to make the common get people feeling anxious enough that they felt it was necessary to take up arms to defend themselves.
Nationalism is the idea that a people who have much in common, such as language, culture and geographic proximity ought to organize in such a way that it creates a stable and enduring state. Nationalism is tied to patriotism, and it is the driving force behind the identity of a culture. Nationalism had many effects in Europe from 1815, The Congress of Vienna and beyond. In the following essay I will describe many of the consequences of nationalism on European identity, as well as some of the conflicts that it created.
The history of modern Bosnia began with the country of Yugoslavia in the 1900s. At the beginning of World War I, the Baltic region was controlled by Austria-Hungary. The trigger for WWI actually took place in Sarajevo, Bosnia, when a group of insubordinate Serbs assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand (heir to Austria-Hungary). In the ashes of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, the Baltic countries formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918. The Kingdom united as the country of Yugoslavia in 1929, of which Bosnia was a constituent republic until Nazi Germany invaded in 1941. After Nazi Germany fell, President Marshall Tito took over the country and controlled it. Although President Tito was a Communist, he did do some good in the country, especially by keeping the Soviet Union at arm’s length, which planted unity in his country against a common enemy. When Yugoslavia was under Tito, it had some of the best times in Slavic
Imagine waking up one day to the thundering of blows given at the door telling you to “open up or be shot down.” It is the Serb police, and they are telling you that you and your whole family had to leave your home immediately. This is how it went for many Albanian people during what some Serb extremists called “demographic genocide.” This was the beginning of what many would call the Kosovo War, and it lasted from March to June 1999. After NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, something strange happened. Now the people being victimized were the Serbs and anyone who was “friendly” to them. In this paper, I will speak about what happened before and after the war in Kosovo.
The conflict between the Albanians and Serbs has been a continual issue since the fourteenth century. Ethnic conflicts rose again after the death of Tito who was the leader of Yugoslavia. Tito set up a national Yugoslav government and let the five Slavic nationalities (Serb, Croat, Slovene, Montenegrin, and Macedonian) govern their own part of Yugoslavia which suppressed any ethnic fighting (Andryszewski 14). After the death of Tito in 1980, ethnic conflicts began to come to surface again. Slobodan Milosevic gave a speech to the Serbs in Kosovo saying that “No one will dare to beat you again” (Andryszweski 18). In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia which led to the outbreak of war since the Serb-dominated central government wanted to preserve the state. In 1995, the Dayton Peace Settlement was signed to end the war and Yugoslavia broke apart ove...