Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
That speech and the suppression of the independent administration started the dissolution and the civil wars.

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.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 08:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"1989 as the starting date of the civil war is most definitely not standard history,"

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?

by IM on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 08:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actualaly it was feared in Slovenia that an "anti-bureaucratic revolution, that is Milosevic takeover could happen there too.
by IM on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 08:25:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As in here:

proto civil war in december 19889

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_of_Truth

by IM on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 08:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope, standard history says 1991:

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.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 09:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there a HD Genscher Strasse in your neighbourhood too?

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Tue Feb 17th, 2015 at 08:34:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series