IMF and war in Yugoslavia

[Loflar]

This is a question mainly for Giladis. According to recent articles, IMF advised economical reforms in Yugoslavia caused social unrest which led to war. Is it true? Did economical reforms in 90's cause social unrest? And was it this social unrest what started the war?

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article ... balkan-war
http://www.nspm.rs/hronika/stratfor-mmf ... aviji.html

[Giladis]

Short anwser is NO it is not resoponsible but their measures didn't help either. The wars of the '90 have their immediate cause in the unresolved issues of the WWII but the basis of the conflict can be traced into the 19th century during the spring of nations while the symptoms that a conflict is likely in the future between these ethnic groups can be read as far back as late 17th and early 18th century. That doesn't mean there is a "centuries long hatred" as western media and certain authors would like to believe. Though I admit there had been for centuries a Christian vs Muslim thing going on. The pillars of the Yugoslavia were Croats and Serbs and as ethnic groups they were in excelent relations (mostly) until two ideas clashed. The first idea was the idea of the Croatian Kingdom and the so called "Croatian Rights" which called for the restoration of the Kingdom in it's legendary borders, the other idea was the idea of Serb led "liberation" of all south slavs from foreign rule and ultimate transformation of all other south slavs into just Serbs. The first idea was supported only by the Croats as it clashed with the plans of the Habsburgs, the Magyars, the Italians, the Ottomans and the Serbs, the second idea had a lot of international support especially from France and Russia as a strong Serbia meant weaker Austo-Hungary and Ottoman Empire.

What French though and what Serbs were aiming to do, at least in the west


and what Croats wanted (the pink and orange parts)



What happened in the '90 was bound to happen since 1918 when first blood was drawn just 5 days after the "unification" unless some serious changes happen, though I guess buterflying WWII could do much to prevent at least Croat-Serb conflict but the Muslim Intifada in Bosnia is not unlikely some time in the future even if pre WWII Croat-Serb agreement stands.

IMF actions was not the cause but they were like throwing oil onto a open fire instead of water.

[Loflar]

Thanks.

BTW, in a past, you have posted some lenghty and quite informative articles about Yugoslavia. Do you have them backed up somewhere? So I could print them?

[Giladis]

I don't have them saved, but I guess they should still be on the site.

edit@ print them? are you doing some kind of research? because if you are I would more than willing to help.

[Loflar]

I am not doing research, but war in Yugoslavia is sometimes still a hot topic around here. I would even say that it is one of our sore points. NATO attack on Yugoslavia started days after we became a member of NATO, hoping that we are joining block of democratic countries intent on ensuring world peace. Since our media and many politicians always unquestioningly support activities of USA, there was little doubt at the time that it is a necessary action to stop evil Serbs. However, since that time, information from the other side of conflict got to alternative media, which often push completely opposite view that Serbs were the good guys. Between these two views, it is very hard to have a reasonable debate. Are we the good guys who protected oppressed Croats from Serbian ethnic cleanses, or are we evil agressors who interfered at a time when the two sides might settle the situation more peacefully? Add to it our president at the time Václav Havel[1], who called the bombing of Yugoslavia "humanitarian act" (which earned him a nickname "humanitarian bombardier") and who is now worshipped by some and despised by others, and you get an athmosphere of high tension where rational evaluation is almost impossible. Czech sources mostly follow official canon (NATO are the good guys, Serbs were evil), and since western media keep that canon as well (not surprising, considering that they are all attached to NATO as well), I do not trust them either[2]. The (according to some sources) suspicious death of Slobodan Milosevic makes the situation even more confused.

In that situation, your articles provide that missing, reasonable approach of trying to describe the situation in historical background without looking for scapegoats.

[1]: Whose recent funeral, BTW, had an eerie quality to it - for a week, there was almost nothing else in our news, journalists reported every nonsense, like that the body will be carried on the same gun carriage like our first president, T.G.Masaryk. At the same time, there was funeral of Kim-Chong-Il in North Korea. North Korea is usually portrayed as The Most Evil Country by our TV, and the funeral was partially ridiculled. However, it was so similar to what we were doing at the same time....

[2]: OK, it is possible that if they all say it, it is true. Then it could also be true that all Russians are communists and WWII happened, because Germans suddenly turned evil and decided to exterminate Jews. IMHO world is a bit more complicated.

[Giladis]

I can't call Serbs evil, but they are definatly not good guys. Every side shares a part of the responsibility for the conflict with most (IMO) resting on the shoulders of the serbian leadership and serb dominated JNA leadership. The Serb leadership made a mistake of not being patient enough, had they waited for a decade more resistance would be hard to pull since by then I guess Jugoslavia would have joined the NATO and any resistance would be treated as terrorism as it was during the Tito reign. Also the west would have presured seccessionst forces into submission. But they got gready to fast igniting response from the others who were at that point in time very resentful of the goverment but docile as long as Serb aspirations for complete control were covert.

Feel free to ask any question you are interested in and I will try to anwser them to the best of my knowledge and abilities.


edit@ the Czech republik joined in 1999 when the only unresolved conflict was on Kosovo. I would say there is little doubt NATO were the good guys preventing an ethnic clensing on a WW II level. That doesn't mean NATO and the western allies haven't done some serious mistake in post conflict organisation of the situation in the field.

[Loflar]

Feel free to ask any question you are interested in and I will try to anwser them to the best of my knowledge and abilities.

OK. I think that in your earlier article (which probably disappeared when old asur.org crashed), you wrote that part of the problem was created after WWI, during Versailles negotiations. What was it? Creation of Yugoslavia without local support?

From what you wrote, I understand that supporting Serbian ambitions was a way to weaken Turkey. I can understand that, especially considering, that I have recently learned, that even at that time, England wanted Iraqi oil fields. However, how did those ambitions appear? Was idea of mighty Serbia result of conflicts with Ottoman empire?

And about Croatia. Was it really just a romantic memory of 15th century kingdom, or was there some stronger incentive to expand? Or was it just a response to Serbian expansiveness?

[Giladis]

I'll start with your last question and I think I can evolve the anwser to encompase the other two as well.


Though it is mostly unknown by people outside these parts and even often ignored by historians from around the world, especially British and French ones Croatia never stopped being a kingdom until 1918. The world just see the kingdom of Hungary from 1102 onwards but that is not the complete truth. The Crown of Croatia (including at the time of the union Dalmatia and Slavonia) and the Crown of St.Stephen (aka Hungary) were joined in a personal union united in the person of the king (since the Arpads were relatives of Croatian Trpimirovichs) but with separate diets, laws and very importantly army. So calling the kingdom ruled by the Arpad dinasty Hungary is the same mistake as calling United Kingdom, England. The Arpads also had to perform a separate crowning with the Crown of Croatia and it was customary that the heir to the throne of the joint kingdom first be crowned as king of Croatia with the title duke of Slavonia while the current king was still alive. That often resulten in civil wars with the older brother/cousin marshaling the resources of the Kingdom of Hungary while the younger claimant marshaling the resources of Croatia in the struggle for the throne. Also though Hungary was the bigger and more powerful of the two main kingdoms (there were other in the union) there were times when Croatia was a senior partner in the union best visible between 1291 and 1312 when the new king of the union came to the throne only because the Ban(viceroy) of Croatia willed it.

During the Ottoman wars and the crisis of the 15th century Croatia was wittled down but remained defiant and when in 1526 the last legal king of the union died at Mohach the Croatian diet declared the personal union void since there was no one left to accept the crown by the right of blood and on their free accord voted to invite Ferdinand of Austria to take the emptied throne of Croatia. But as centuries rolled on the kingdom was more and more treated as an Austrian province which sparked revolts, conspiracies and unrest. Even in those troubling times the diet of Croatia and the Ban kept the traditions and the existance of the kingdom alive. Following the liberation of large areas of Hungary from Ottoman ocupation the Hungarians (previously Croatian allies in resisting the court in Vienna) turned their intention of submersing Croatia under the Kingdom of Hungary in an atempt to claim Croatia was just a part of Hungary like Upper Hungary (todays Slovakia) or Siebenburg (todays Transylvania). This lead to a military confrontation in 1848 when Ban Jelačić invaded Hungary trying to save the Monarchy which also meant the prevention of Croatia falling under complete Hungarian influence. Unfortunately after the failures in wars against Italy and Prussia Hapsburgs were forced to make a deal with the Hungarians and one of their prizes was a formal recognition that Croatia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary but an area with considerable autonomy. The Hapsburgs considered Croatia as part of kingdom of Hungary as early as 1570 when they exclusivley inherited the lands of the Crown of St.Stephen from Sigismund Zapolya. From a political point of view it was better to inherit something that to be elected becuse if you are elected it means you can be equaly deposed by a vote. So the exact nature of coexistance between Croatia and Hungary remained unresolved from 1570 to 1867, nearly 300 years of limbo where one side claimed one thing and the other side claimed the opposite while the Hapsburgs enjojed the "divide et impera" position.

So in the 19th century the Croatian political elite worked on reforming the kingdom of Croatia as an equal partner within the Hapsburg monarchy. In addition to that idea there were two other; the Pan-Slavism (created as an idea by a Croat priest Juraj Krizhanich) and the Illirian movement or Yugoslavism (also invented by Croats - some time I think we are our own worst enemies ). In a way these three ideas were complementary. They called for the creation of a separate (south)slav state within the Monarchy or independent of it which would be centred around the idea of the medieval kingdom of Croatia more or less (in the case of pan-slavism Russia would have been the mother nation and Croatia her's main ally on the Adriatic). Sufice to say these ideas clashed with Serbian nationalism that was in a swing at the same time and was supported by France and Britan. The purpose of either creating a strong Serbia or creating conflicting ideas that would cause havock in the region was simple. The first was to prevent the Hapsburgs from taking Tesalonica on the Aegean and the second was to prevent Russia taking the Bosporus and Dardanells and geting a port in the Adriatic.

At the same time for the rest of Europe Serb nationalism was not see as threatening because all they knew of Serbs was their brave resistance to the Ottoman Empire and especialy their recent war of liberation. On the other hand there were bad memories about the Croats. During the 30 Years War, Austrian War of Succession and the Napolenic wars Croats made a name for themselves that no person in their sane mind should be proud of. Recent research has a tendency to show that Croat units brough war crimes to central Europe during the 30 Years War after them being mostly absent for over 300 years. The call "the Croats are coming" caused widespread panic among the civilian populations during these conflicts, resulting in many people freezing to death in the winter months. The Europe just wasn't ready for the barbaric border guard soldiers that had evolved in a culture acustomed to a war of survival and anihhilation for the past 200 years. Such memories die hard though few writen evidence remain why western powers weren't inclined to support Croat ambitions.

Fast forward to the 20th century and the end of the WW I and Croats were in a bit of pickle so to say. Because they were part of the defeated A-H Empire there was little they could do to shape their future. During the war France and Britain promised both Italy and Serbia large areas inhabited by Croats and out polititians were made aware of those plans so tried to mitigate the problem by starting negotiations of creating a joint state with the Serbs. The line of thinking was if we create a joint state with Serbia we would no longer be treated as part of the defeated block and jointly we could keep the Italians at bay. Croats and Slovenians wanted to make a federal state where all three nations Serbs, Croats and Slovenians were equal, the Serbs wanted to enlarge the Serbian kingdom just under a different name. In the end the union was ilegal because the merger was perfomed without the consent of the Croatian diet which had been the supreme body of goverment in Croatia since the fall our last native king in 1097. The new kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians was formed amids protest in Croat and Slovenian majority areas which culminated in clashes between units of Army of Serbia and protestors in the main squar in Zagreb. The blood was drawn and in that moment just 5 days after the union was made it was doomed to fail at some point in the future. Serbs treated everyone else like subjects while Croats and Slovenians wanted to be treated as partners. The spiral of violence had begun and ih had still not reached its end.


Woah this was a long one. I think I may have lost myself on the way so feel free to ask for any clarfications.

[Loflar]

OK, so it seems to me, that situation of Croatian kingdom in Hungary was similar to Czech kingdom in Austria.

Wikipedia says, that Serbians were supporters of Pan-Slavism as well, they just wanted to be the ruling nation. Which is a position I can understand, given that they were independent while most other Slavic nations were not. But I also understand that their Slavic neighbours did not like it.

I have never heard about those fearful Croatian soldiers. May be they never reached Bohemia.

In all your description, you are missing Bosnia and Hercegovina and Crna Gora. And looking at map, they form the core of the region, and the biggest cities (Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar) were IIRC places of the fiercest battles. So what is their role? Simply a contested territories?

[Giladis]

I am a little swaped with work so just a short anwser.

Bosnia (and Herzegovina) along with Monte Negro are a sort of borderlands between the two dominant ideologies (croatian and serbia) but they have also developed their own identities. Sort of like Poland and Russia strugling over who should control Belarus and Ukranie while both Belarus and Ukraine stuggle to be destinct from the mentioned two.

Sarajevo and Mostar were the places of fiercest battles due to their mixed population usually surounded by a country side almost uniquely inhabitet by a single ethnic group that tired to claim the town as theirs.

[Loflar]

I have also had some pressing issues, but now I am back.

edit@ the Czech republik joined in 1999 when the only unresolved conflict was on Kosovo.

Well, yes. I went so far that I looked it up on Wikipedia We have joined NATO on 12th March of 1999, at the time of Rambouillet talks. Of course, the decision to join was effectively made in our 1998 elections, when the only party which did not want to join NATO were communists. This led to a feeling of some people that the membership was forced on us. (I remember reluctantly giving my vote to social democrats, because I did not want to vote communists.) Start of bombing campaign was declared on 23th March 1999.

Anyway, now to modern history. IIRC, during WWII, Croatia was German ally, but Serbia was occupied. which suggests some split already formed before war. So was this alliance anti-serbian move, or was there more to it?

[pjohnson]

you really have some good information on you, i was interested to read the threads as well as i was interested in this Yugoslavia war topic as well. You seem pretty brilliant and you know a lot about this I do hope to learn a lot about the Yugoslavia war since we have been talking about it in school and i would love to share this information as well. Thank you for sharing your knowledge to us curious beavers!

[Giladis]

I was in Edinburgh for the past few days so I apologise for not replying, I have a short day at work tomorrow and will respond once I get back gome.

Cheers

[fireblade]

So in the 19th century the Croatian political elite worked on reforming the kingdom of Croatia as an equal partner within the Hapsburg monarchy. In addition to that idea there were two other; the Pan-Slavism (created as an idea by a Croat priest Juraj Krizhanich) and the Illirian movement or Yugoslavism (also invented by Croats - some time I think we are our own worst enemies ). In a way these three ideas were complementary. They called for the creation of a separate (south)slav state within the Monarchy or independent of it which would be centred around the idea of the medieval kingdom of Croatia more or less (in the case of pan-slavism Russia would have been the mother nation and Croatia her's main ally on the Adriatic). Sufice to say these ideas clashed with Serbian nationalism that was in a swing at the same time and was supported by France and Britan. The purpose of either creating a strong Serbia or creating conflicting ideas that would cause havock in the region was simple. The first was to prevent the Hapsburgs from taking Tesalonica on the Aegean and the second was to prevent Russia taking the Bosporus and Dardanells and geting a port in the Adriatic.

Serbian nationalism supported by France and Britain? I'm not so sure you can really call it continuous support, being the british still being in their "splendid isolation" and France behaving rather erratically depending on the ruler. (for example, Napoleon 3 didn't really make the most consistent and wise foreign policy decisions). From how I see it, there main backers has been Russia, being orthodox playing a role there.

I believe in Austria-Hungary the Austrians prefered the Croatians as a counterweight against the hungarians (they even supported Jellacic, in 1848) The hungarians on the other hand, were far more opposed to more autonomy for Croatia.
It is said that Von Aerenthal, the minister of foreign affairs of Austria-Hungary engineered the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 to use it in order to create a south-slavian pillar in the dual monarchy.

I'm not sure if preventing the Habsburgs from taking Thessalonica was really a concern there, in the way that they had access to Trieste as their main seabase and weren't a very maritime country after all. But then most local countries wanted to occupy it, as it was on of the major goals in the Balkan wars of 1912/1913. (where russian backed Bulgaria would have gained acces to the mediterranean, but the British didn't really enjoy the prospect of the Russians gaining a foothold beyond the Bosporus).

As to Loflar's question, I don't really think Serbia was used as a force to weaken the ottoman empire, at least not by the British, in the late 19th century. They seemed to have been more afraid of a rapid implosion of the Ottoman empire from which Russia could gain a lot. Given the fact that the Ottoman empire might as well have been disbanded around the early 1830s and yet again in the 1870s if all the "great powers" could have agreed on it, but for some of them holding the ottoman empire in place offered more advantages.