The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Saying 1989 is a political statement, one I may or may not agree with, relating to actions Milosevic took relative to an internal Serbian matter on the statute of Kosovo. A political statement, not a statement of fact. Otherwise, why stop at 1989? We can go to 1981...that wasn't even Milosevic...or again, why stop there, we can go back to the famous 11th century or whatever that Serbian nationalists are always on about.
Again, you present a political statement as a fact. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
"The history books" - charming.
The destruction of the self-government of Kossovo was a fact and I watched it back then in real time. It was a internal yugoslavian matter, destroying the balance of Yugoslavia.
Tito died in 1980. What followed was predictable, and predicted. Except maybe to those perpetually and irresponsibly naive, which is my cheif criticism here.
Of course, this makes me a Milosevic lover. In the same way, I suppose, that AJP Taylor is called a Hitler lover by some equally naive people. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
But in this case the famous "recognition§ had no influence on events anyway.
"You should have noted instead that, even if 1991 be the starting date, the Ten-Day War was months before Germany's recognition."
Why? I didn't caim teh war started with recognition. The facts are obvious after all.
That's a way too cavalier summary of the events between March 1989 and June 1991. To make that claim, there would have to been near-continuous civil war during that period, but even the (not yet fighting) paramilitaries appeared in late 1990 only and hostilities started in March 1991.
Why?
Because it would have been a valid argument against redstar's position, obviously. 1989 as the starting date of the civil war is most definitely not standard history, but you don't need that to disprove redstar. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Oh come on. That is as close to standard history as it is going to get.
What is your interpretation? That the dissolution of Yugoslaiva started in Slovenia and serb politics had nothing to do with it?
proto civil war in december 19889
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_of_Truth
Yugoslav Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Yugoslav Wars were ethnic conflicts fought from 1991 to 2001 on the territory of former Yugoslavia.
Every civil war obviously has non-immediate causes and background, and how far back in time you follow those depends on the historian. I note that by referencing the "anti-bureaucratic revolution" in another comment, you already followed it back to 1986.
If you are curious about my personal interpretation of the events, I think even with the bad preconditions – the loss of Tito as a symbolic connecting figure (a Croat fighting WWII with mostly Serb supporters), existing nationalist movements reaching into the top ranks, and a federal make-up giving structure to rather than mitigating conflict –, for the total escalation, the specific ambitions and style of power of the leaders was crucial. Above all Milo's tendency to attempt to grab more power with an ever firmer grip but losing even more of it slipping through his fingers: a more intelligent supreme leader wannabe would have realised that it's not good to have everyone against him at the same time. But several others bear responsibility for not attempting to wait longer and play for Milo's eventual overthrow and further the escalation one way or another, above all Tuđman, with his de-Serbification campaign and his little deal with Milo regarding Bosnia (March 1991!). Among foreign meddlers, in addition to the IMF, the USA, Germany and Russia, I could mention Hungary's first democratically elected government which secretly sent a large cache of arms to Tuđman's government in late 1990. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Thta was the timeline. Babbling about early 1980s, there after all no civil war was staretd, is irrelevant in that context.
And yes, deflecting form the situation in 1989/1990/1991 by talking about the eraly eighties isn't much of an argument
A situation starting to develop in mid 1989 was not caused by something happening in december 1991.
I still don't get why you're so hung up on March 1989 when June 1991 already destroys redstar's argument. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Once you go there you understand.
Timing is everything.
I suppose, in a more perfect world, Gysi is chancellor and Redstar not only isn't Germanophobe, but is busy learning German and sick of the ball - less french among whom he has lived for years.
But hey, you go to war with the Germany you have, not the one you wished you have. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 18 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10