Socialist Serbia’s Narratives: FromYugoslavia to a Greater Serbia
Guzina, Dejan. "Socialist Serbia's narratives: From Yugoslavia to a greater Serbia." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 17, no. 1 (2003): 91-111.
In the paper, Guzina presents Serbian national discourses about the relation between the official Yugoslavism and Serbian nationalism. They author suggests that such debate appeared in the early 1960s and continued to the end of Yugoslavia. The early stage of the debate can be seen as an sign of the reawakening of certain elements of Serbian nationalisms that had lain dormant since the World War II. Before 1980s, Serbian nationalism was suppressed by Tito’s strong dictatorship. After the death of the national
…show more content…
P. "Yugoslavia in 1989 and after." Nationalities Papers 38, no. 1 (2010): 23-39.
Gagnon argues that the conflicts in former Yugoslavia were largely the result of long-term political struggles between elite factions over economic and political reform. Conservatives intended to manage control over the process of the changes in Yugoslavia and, therefore, the access to resources. With the growing reformist successes in mid 1980s, the conservatives resorted to violence as a mean of preventing further changes. The author argues that the main strategies used were creating and proving violent conflict and exacerbating existing nonviolent conflicts. Milosevic exacerbated the ethnic grievances expressed by the Serbs and used them to manipulate the ethnic hatred and attack other parts of the republic. Such action caused larger split between Serbs and anti-Serbs. The article provides a possible cause of ethnic hatred between Serbs and Croats. Noted, the theme of conflicts between reformists and conservatives argued by the author received criticisms. Some argue that because of the inconsistency between the polling data, which showed the public favored reformists, and election result, showing the success of conservatives in elections, means the reformists had less influence than the author suggested. Therefore, the reformists were not a worry to the conservatives and the conservatives had no need to provoke violence to counter the momentum of
…show more content…
By showing the polling data and accounts of daily interactions with different ethnic groups, the author argues that before the wars were started the relation among nationalities and ethnicities was good. However, Serbian nationalists repeated fabricated information from national authority and media and limited the exchange of views about the ethnicity. They alleged that Albanians forced Serbs to leave Kosovo and committed “genocide” to Serbs. The exaggerated and fabricated allegations revived the memory of World War II atrocities suffered by the Serbs. Similarly by drawing a line between Christian and muslim, the nationalists posed a view on Serbs which regarded Muslims as a representation of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Islamic invasion of Europe. The ethnic manipulation worked well in the nation and revived the crisis frame of ethic relation. The rise of nationalism in Serbia broke the nationality balance in Yugoslavia, since Serbia gained control over half the votes in all federal bodies and institutions. Therefore, Croatia and Slovenia reacted with their own nationalism. The rising nationalism in all parts of Yugoslavia exacerbated the crisis frame as the hostility between ethnic groups was no longer fabricated but truly
I commend the authors' overall work in being able to effectively present the aims of the reform movement and its progression over time. I am especially was appreciative of what seemed to be a very critical analysis of the policies that came out of the “reformers” at the time. Yet, I do have some minor issues with how they seem to skim though the topic while forgetting to discuss some others important elements of the topic. For example, I thought it was odd that although the reform movement had some major issues within its ideals of "fixing democracy", they did not seem to focus on heavily on some of the positive benefits of the movement. Therefore, with this paper, I hope to hone into what I personally thought were fascinating elements of the reading, which was how the reform Movement was instrumental in establishing strong elite governmental policies against the typical machine city politics at the time, but also in some major cases discriminated and disenfranchised individuals in lower socioeconomic classes within those newly "reformed" cities.
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
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.
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.
Throughout the years, humans have constructed many unique civilizations; all which follow a distinct social, economic, and political structure. Even so, there is one characteristic that prevails among these societies, the concept of nationalism. In short, nationalism refers to the feelings people have when identifying with their nation. This simple notion possesses the ability to divide or unite collective groups, and has played an important role in many historical events.
...s it liable and unique. It is descriptive and provides a lot of information but in the same time it is also analytical because it presents different aspects and primary sources of the Serb’s history. The parts of the book which relate to the origins of the First World War and the Balkan crisis are focused on the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, so it does not analyze all origins of the War, but it does analyze in depth the influence of Balkan nationalism for the outbreak and provides a large number of evidences for his arguments. The book compares and contrasts political and cultural history of Serbs and it is credible and objective. Relating to the First World War he also provides many primary sources and perspectives of different scholars. The book is authoritative and it is easy to notice that Corovic is an acknowledged expert on the subject.
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...
In the Nineteenth Century the natural order of conservatism was challenged by new ideology such as Marxism and Liberalism. Conservatism was the norm and dominated Europe at the time so of course people were going to challenge monarchs because of their disagreement with the way they ruled. So I am here to show why conservatism is better for countries than liberalistic ideas. Also I will give sufficient reasoning why the conservative limits on voting should not change and why the limits are best for a country.
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.
Nationalism is a devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation, with primary emphasis on furthering its interests as opposed to those of other countries. This feeling widely spread throughout Europe during the 19th and 10th centuries and caused many problems. The Slavic people of Bosnia and Herzegovina wanted to break away from Austria-Hungary and unify with other Slavic nations. Russia as a Slavic nation backed up the two countries in this matter, therefore causing tensions between Austria-Hungary and itself. Nationalism was also a source of anger between France and Germany as France resented its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871).
Hungary experienced not only Soviet occupation, but also political oppression and economic decline. Many were critical of Hungary’s problems due to Soviet control, especially political oppression. Hungary developed into a communist state under the severe, dictatorial rule of Mátyás Rákosi. During Rákosi’s control, the Security Police began a series of eliminations, starting with...
... 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.
Violence marks much of human history. Within the sociopolitical sphere, violence has continually served as a tool used by various actors to influence and/or to control territory, people, institutions and other resources of society. The twentieth century witnessed an evolution of political violence in form and in scope. Continuing into the twenty-first, advances in technology and social organization dramatically increase the potential destructiveness of violent tools. Western colonialism left a world filled with many heterogeneous nation-states. In virtually all these countries nationalist ideologies have combined with ethnic, religious, and/or class conflicts resulting in secessionist movements or other kinds of demands. Such conflicts present opportunities for various actors in struggles for wealth, power, and prestige on both national and local levels. This is particularly evident in Indonesia, a region of the world that has experienced many forms of political violence. The state mass killings of 1965-66 mark the most dramatic of such events within this region. My goal is to understand the killings within a framework of collec...
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