Nationalism in Yugoslavia?
535379
OK well first...Yugoslavia no longer exists. ...\n\nThese are the countries that it used to comprise...\n\nSlovenia..Croatia...Bosnia..Se... (and now)Montenegro - only this week they have had a referendum to split from Serbia...Kosovo is still a province of Serbia..but is likely to become independent soon.. \n\n\nTo answer this you must first know a little about the history of Yugoslavia.... \n\nYugoslavia only came into existence after world war 2.\nBefore that roughly the same area was called the kingdom of the Serbs, Slovenes and Croats. This only existed after the first world war.\nBefore that Serbia and Croatia, and Bosnia etc had separate histories and cultural influences. Serbia was under the Ottoman empire whilst Croatia was under the Austro-Hungarian.\nSome people say that Yugoslavia only stayed together because of Tito's firm grip. Tito died in 1980. In the 1980's Yugoslavia economy first started showing the signs of strain that had already existed but were hidden well by Tito's position in the world, and Yugoslavia prestige of not being neither West or East.\nThis was the time when nationalist tensions first became to show (they had appeared before but were dealt with efficiently by Tito -- both Tudjman and Izabegovic 1st presidents of modern Croatia and Bosnia respectively had spent time in prison for nationalism)\nBy the times of the late 80's , Yugoslavia was ready to fall apart... \nNationalism was everywhere..\nIn Serbia started by a nationalist memorandum in 1986 by intellectuals... \nBy 1989 (a then new) Milosevic had removed autonomy from Kosovo and Vojvodina...\nThrough out Europe communism was falling, and people were wanting changes of government.\nSlovenia first wanted indepence. Partly because it was the richest province in Yugoslavia and was sick of seeing it's money spent on poorer areas. Partly because it was wanted to be more democratic and was worried by Milosevic's pro Serb, and neo communistic tendencies....\n\nSo when Slovenia declared indepence it was impossible for Croatia not to as well... Croatia had a strong natioanlist history lead by it's leader Tudjman. And wanted to regain 1000 years of Croatian history.\nIf Slovenia and Croatia were both accepted as independent by the EU , which they were..\nIt was impossble for Bosnia to stay in Yugoslavia...\n\nBUT.. \n\nThey were many Serbs who lived in all areas of the former Yugoslavia especially Croatia and Bosnia...\nThey did not want to leave Yugoslavia, and wanted to stay with Serbia...\nThey were also scared of nationalism in Croatia because during the second world many Croats were supporter of the Ustasa who were supporters of Hitler. The ustasa had massacered many Serbs in death camps such as Jasenovic.\nSome modern Croats were sympathisers with the Ustase and some of the decisions made by Tudjman gave Serbs a reason to fear living in an Independent Croatia.....\nWhilst in Bosnia alot of nationalist propganda brought to the forefront a hate of Islam, and of the Ottoman past..\n\nThis is why the civil war happened....\nOf course now relations are much better between all countries and current politicans are trying to make ammends for the past and build a future.
243417
The capital of the Former Yugoslavia, comprised of Serbia & Montenegro, is Belgrade. The republics that have ceased to be part of Yugoslavia, such as Croation and Slovenia, obviously have their own capitals.
456299
Romania and Bulgaria are Axis satellites; Greece and Yugoslavia are members of the United Nations; Albania is occupied territory; and Turkey has been a fairly consistent nonbelligerent. Bulgaria was happy with German permission to occupy Yugoslavian and Greek Macedonia and Thrace. Obedient to its master’s voice, Romania did not complain out loud when Hitler ordered the cession of northern Transylvania to Hungary in 1940. But Romania has not forgotten this enforced loss of territory, and underneath the surface of common membership in the Axis, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria are seething with territorial jealousies and ambitions. Greece and Yugoslavia are also insistent that their seized provinces shall be restored to them.\n\nSuch trouble spots as Transylvania, Thrace, Macedonia, Northern Epirus, Kossovo, and the Banat may be just words to other people. But to the people of the Balkans they have been fighting words. Much had been done before the war, however, to make boundary disputes less dangerous to peace. Only one of the six Balkan states, Bulgaria, was still unreconciled, and even Bulgaria had undertaken not to try to modify its frontiers by force of arms.\n\nAdded to these disputes between the nations are the internal divisions between various groups within (or exiled from) each country. That between the Chetniks and the Partisans is only the most spectacular and most publicized conflict. In Greece and Albania as well, struggles are in progress between the popular, forces of resistance and liberation on the one hand, and the elements of reaction and collaboration on the other, although the latter are almost negligible. The real fight is rather between bands with conflicting ideas of patriotism. Some people think there are pro-Allied movements in Bulgaria and Romania too, awaiting the opportunity to throw out pro-Axis governments. In all the Balkan countries, as in the rest of Europe, there are seeds of civil strife.\n\nIn this pamphlet, much of the blame for past Balkan troubles has been freely placed on the great powers. But of course they are not solely responsible.\n\nUncritical nationalism is particularly strong in the Balkans. And it is just in the Balkans, a small area crowded with many different peoples, that unbridled nationalist rivalry is perhaps most dangerous. The great powers have been as much motivated by nationalism as the small ones—and perhaps will continue to be. But if it is questionable whether they can afford to prolong a system in which aggressive nationalism is curbed only by the force of opposing nationalism, it is certain that the Balkan countries cannot afford it.\n\nTo put it the other way around, if the great powers have had to “recognize the necessity of establishing ... a general international organization ... for the maintenance of ... peace and security,” in the words of the Moscow Declaration, the Balkan nations are still more obliged to seek for peaceful ways of settling conflicts through cooperation or else destroy themselves.\n\nIn the settlements after World War I it was clearly not possible to draw national boundaries in the Balkans according to the wishes of all the people. Unavoidably a great many people in the mixed populations had to be left on the “wrong” side of the line wherever it was drawn. To resolve this difficulty, population exchanges were suggested and tried as the easiest and most durable solution.\n\nIn one instance—between Greece and Turkey after 1923—that method proved, in its outcome, highly successful. It removed the cause of incessant quarreling between Turkey and Greece who have since become good friends instead of bitter enemies. In a second instance—between Greece and Bulgaria—it was also beginning to show good results.\n\nPopulation exchange might work as well in other instances and again in some it could not be applied. To uproot the half-million or so Albanians who live in the Kossovo region of Yugoslavia and dump them into an already pov
693707
I think that the right to self-determination is largely misunderstood. It applies in places like Sudan, where one group holds the reigns of power and is trying to impose its personal beliefs on a group that doesn't share those beliefs. It arguably applies less in countries that have representative democracies and constitutions that abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think ethnic nationalism is one of the 20th century's greatest, and most dangerous, fallacies and, while I support democratically-decided secessionism, I don't necessarily see it as a good thing (in all cases).\n\nBut that's not your question. I had a professor at university who said, 'You know, before 1948, we weren't Palestinians. We had no emotional attachment to that word. We were Arabs. The creation of Israel also created Palestine. It was only under Israeli control that we developed a sense of ourselves as a distinct people.' The problem with this, of course, if it's true, is that the Palestinian sense of self is entirely dependent on oppressive factors from an outside people. Their national identity is built upon outside factors. East Timor, similarly, exists as an 'ethnic group' largely because of power plays hundreds of years ago between the Netherlands and Portugal. I'm not sure how healthy that is.\n\nYet it exists. Timorese identity exists because Indonesia exists. The point I'm (vaguely) trying to make is that it's probably the struggle for autonomy that creates a national identity, not the autonomy itself. In Switzerland, they have a strong sense of themselves as distinct ethnolinguistic groups, but the lack of a struggle has probably hindered the development of a sense of seperate 'nations', since the Swiss government has always gone out of their way to accommodate the linguistic differences.\n\nIn many cases, I think that once autonomy is achieved, a lot of the passion is lost. They used to emphasise their differences in order to foster a sense of regional identity, but once the regional identity is recognised, it becomes business as usual and then people start to emphasise their similarity with their neighbours. Conflict creates the 'us-and-them' mentality; that mentality dissipates when the conflict ceases.\n\nNot much of an answer, I realise, but it's the ideas that come into my head.
381439
Eeee Bila Jednom...\nToo bad because doesn't exist anymore.\nFor sure it was better under DRUG TITO than any other president.\nHe did impossible thing who can keep so many ethnic group and so many religion at one terrtory and to every1 be hppy and satisfied.\nand about future who knows, you will never know what will happen in Balkan tomorrow, for 1 year, for 10 years?\nFuture of Balkan is unpredictable.\nAnyway it was the greatest country ever.
106566
I’m getting too old, I can’t believe anyone would need to ask such a question.\nWorld War I, 1914–18, also known as the Great War, conflict, chiefly in Europe, among most of the great Western powers. It was the largest war the world had yet seen.Causes \nWorld War I was immediately precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. There were, however, many factors that had led toward war. Prominent causes were the imperialistic, territorial, and economic rivalries that had been intensifying from the late 19th cent., particularly among Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.\nOf equal importance was the rampant spirit of nationalism, especially unsettling in the empire of Austria-Hungary and perhaps also in France. Nationalism had brought the unification of Germany by blood and iron, and France, deprived of Alsace and Lorraine by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, had been left with its own nationalistic cult seeking revenge against Germany. While French nationalists were hostile to Germany, which sought to maintain its gains by militarism and alliances, nationalism was creating violent tensions in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; there the large Slavic national groups had grown increasingly restive, and Serbia as well as Russia fanned Slavic hopes for freedom and Pan-Slavism.\nImperialist rivalry had grown more intense with the new imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th cent. The great powers had come into conflict over spheres of influence in China and over territories in Africa, and the Eastern Question, created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire, had produced several disturbing controversies. Particularly unsettling was the policy of Germany. It embarked late but aggressively on colonial expansion under Emperor William II, came into conflict with France over Morocco, and seemed to threaten Great Britain by its rapid naval expansion.\nThese issues, imperialist and nationalist, resulted in a hardening of alliance systems in the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente and in a general armaments race. Nonetheless, a false optimism regarding peace prevailed almost until the onset of the war, an optimism stimulated by the long period during which major wars had been avoided, by the close dynastic ties and cultural intercourse in Europe, and by the advance of industrialization and economic prosperity. Many Europeans counted on the deterrent of war's destructiveness to preserve the peace.\nWar's Outbreak \nThe Austrian annexation (1908) of Bosnia and Hercegovina created an international crisis, but war was avoided. The Balkan Wars (1912–13) remained localized but increased Austria's concern for its territorial integrity, while the solidification of the Triple Alliance made Germany more yielding to the demands of Austria, now its one close ally. The assassination (June 28, 1914) of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo set in motion the diplomatic maneuvers that ended in war.\nThe Austrian military party, headed by Count Berchtold, won over the government to a punitive policy toward Serbia. On July 23, Serbia was given a nearly unacceptable ultimatum. With Russian support assured by Sergei Sazonov, Serbia accepted some of the terms but hedged on others and rejected those infringing upon its sovereignty. Austria-Hungary, supported by Germany, rejected the British proposal of Sir Edward Grey (later Lord Grey of Fallodon) and declared war (July 28) on Serbia.\nRussian mobilization precipitated a German ultimatum (July 31) that, when unanswered, was followed by a German declaration of war on Russia (Aug. 1). Convinced that France was about to attack its western frontier, Germany declared war (Aug. 3) on France and sent troops against France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Germany had hoped for British neutrality, but German violation of Belgian neutrality gave the British government the pretext and popular support necessary fo
405448
Pan German nationalism is the idea that there should be a great German state encompassing all the people who are ethnic German or "Aryan". It is most associated with Adolf Hitler, who made this one of his key policies, calling for anchluss or union with Austria and for the Sudentenland to be handed over to Germany on these grounds.
248973
Yes. Europeans imported the concept of nationalism to Africa, which is meaningless to people that have expressed loyalty toward their own ethnic group or culture than their "nation". If you look at a place like Nigeria, there are several different languages spoken there besides English.\n  At the Berlin Conference of 1888, when European nations carved up Africa for themselves, that did it irregardless of the cultures in the region. Nationalism is one issue that African nations are going to adjust to.\n  Also, I would have to agree with the first answer, European customs have done away with the modes of government that have worked for them, long before Europe was even interested in African colonization.\n  Another issue is the issue of education. Europe used Africa for raw goods and resources and left Africans in a poor position to function well on their own. One example is the Congo. The Belgians robbed the Congo of their natural resources( Congo is one of the most resource abundant nations on Earth, yet it is one of the poorest) and left the Congelese uneducated. All of the professionals in the Congo such as doctors, etc were all Belgian.By analogy, Botswana also was colonized by Britain, and they are well-educated and have incorporated ancient customs with Western ideas.\n  In short, nationalism, education, and erosion of some of Africa's ancient forms of government are some of the causes of the problems in Africa today.
317124
Bosnia Herzegovina was one of the states of former Yugoslavia. The majority of the population is Muslim. The capital is Sarajevo.\n\nThe state (now country) was the subject of much war and ethnic cleansing in the '90s when the Christian Serbs attacked and raped and pillaged the Muslim Bosnians.\n\nThe United Nations stepped in..
683973
In the United States, such coerced nationalism has been called un-Constitutional by the U.S.Supreme Court. In countries such as South Korea, even law-abiding model citizens among Jehovah's Witnesses are still penalized for refraining from joining in such ostensibly heartfelt expressions.
647681
The Serbs don't take defeat very well, and that's too bad because they will have to live with it.  Montenegro was forced into the Yugoslavian enclave almost 100 years ago.  They haven't forgotten and they haven't lost their identity, they have finally gotten their just due.\n\nThe Serbs have paid dearly for their past indiscretions thanks to Milosevic.  Yet, many Serbs still look at his dead as*s as that of a national hero.  Folks, national hero's don't loose what Serbia has lost and still get accolades.  Maybe that tells the world a little bit about the Serbian mindset.\n\nMontenegro will thrive over this move, it was courageous and popular.  The world at large will protect Montenegro.  Serbia has an opportunity to show that it can still be magnanimous by supporting this decision.\n\nBoth countries can help the healing process by keeping the soccer team together!
1025661
The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed in 1918; its name was changed to Yugoslavia in 1929. Occupation by Nazi Germany in 1941 was resisted by various paramilitary bands that fought each other as well as the invaders. The group headed by Josip TITO took full control of Yugoslavia upon German expulsion in 1945. Although Communist, his new government and its successors (he died in 1980) managed to steer their own path between the Warsaw Pact nations and the West for the next four and a half decades. In the early 1990s, post-TITO Yugoslavia began to unravel along ethnic lines: Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were recognized as independent states in 1992. The remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro declared a new "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (FRY) in April 1992 and, under President Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Serbia led various military intervention efforts to unite ethnic Serbs in neighboring republics into a "Greater Serbia." These actions led to Yugoslavia being ousted from the UN in 1992, but Serbia continued its campaign until signing the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995. In 1998-99, massive expulsions by FRY forces and Serb paramilitaries of ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo provoked an international response, including the NATO bombing of Belgrade and the stationing of a NATO-led force (KFOR), in Kosovo. Federal elections in the fall of 2000, brought about the ouster of MILOSEVIC and installed Vojislav KOSTUNICA as president. The arrest of MILOSEVIC in 2001 allowed for his subsequent transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity. In 2001, the country's suspension from the UN was lifted, and it was once more accepted into UN organizations under the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo has been governed by the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) since June 1999, under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, pending a determination by the international community of its future status. In 2002, the Serbian and Montenegrin components of Yugoslavia began negotiations to forge a looser relationship. In February 2003 lawmakers restructured the country into a loose federation of two republics called Serbia and Montenegro. The Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro includes a provision that allows either republic to hold a referendum after three years that would allow for their independence from the state union. In 2003 Svetozar MAROVIC was elected president of Serbia and Montenegro. \n\n### LINKS : -\n\nhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/yi.html\n\nhttp://www.answers.com/topic/serbia-and-montenegro\n\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108157.html
645352
No. Nationalism itself will get outdated when humans become responsible and honest. After all when it comes to making money, how many people are concerned about nationalism? Money is the only religion that has no division of races, nations or even notions! Even religion and its development needs helluva lot of money. Communism was born for equitable distribution of money - to make the poor rich and rich the poor (equitable!!). Unfortunately, they did not have a proper capitalistic calculator and results were terrible - everyone except the accountants(members of the politbureau) became poor! Do you think people from those communist countries die for nationalism?? They are trying to run away to find jobs and money - so much for nationalism. So where is the question of good nationalism?
868424
the war in bosnia was about the serbs, croats, and muslims killing and commiting genocide against eachother. It was over land and religous differences.\n\nYugoslovia was split into new countries like Serbia, Bosnia & Hercegoniva, Slovenia, and Macedonia. \n\nYugoslovia is still around, just not as big\n\nBosnia & Hercegoniva is the only dangerous country today.
649074
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nationalism
319192
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20011002\n\nPatriotism can be defined simply as 'love and loyal support of one's country'. Yes, it's centered in feeling–and, as we've seen in past weeks, the emotion is deep and intense. \n\nBut when people take patriotism to a fanatic extreme, this is usually called nationalism. (The terms jingoism and chauvinism are near synonyms.) Nationalism is more centered in thought than in feeling; it's actually a political and social philosophy. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines it as "a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict." So, because nationalism is the belief that national interests and security are more important than international considerations, it often goes hand in hand with a militaristic foreign policy. It also tends to encourage cultural conformity and intolerance.
287093
In the aftermath of the First World War, the Austria-Hungarian empire splintered due to the tensions of nationalism. Some people argue that Wilson's 14 points, which supported nationalism and the rights of free people to independence, was a catalyst for this. However, I believe that the Austria-Hungarian empire was already under the enormous strains of nationalistic pressures before the war, and it was their defeat in the war itself which precipitated its collapse.