Jump to content

Talk:Breakup of Yugoslavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"U.S. Policy towards Yugoslavia."

[edit]

Under "Economic collapse and the international climate" the whole "Reagan administration specifically targeted the Yugoslav economy in a Secret Sensitive 1984 National Security Decision Directive NSDD 133" bit makes it sound like conspiracy theory fodder. Oooooh seeeeecreeetttsssss!!! Must be something vile and wicked!
When in fact that very NSDD talks about financial assistance and support of "Yugoslav independence, territorial integrity and national unity". This section should be amended to make that clear. --89.146.166.170 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to make the same point as the IP above already did. The interpretation of NSDD 133 offered in this article is not supported by reading the actual document. This document from 1984 affirms the long-standing US policy of supporting Yugoslavia as a Communist country in Eastern Europe that was independent of the Kremlin as a way of destabilizing the Soviet bloc. It warns the "severe financial situation" in Yugoslavia with its heavy debt load might cause Yugoslavia to fall into the Soviet bloc and wants the US as the IP noted above to offer financial assistance of "Yugoslav independence, territorial integrity and national unity". It is true that the document does talk about promoting "market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure" as the best way of keeping Yugoslavia out of the Soviet bloc and bringing it closer to the West, but that is miles away from the claim being advanced in this article that the Reagan administration was "targeting" the Yugoslav economy in 1984 as a part of a bid to break up Yugoslavia. NSDD 133 does not say that at all.
And by the way, this journal Oriental Review that is being cited here does not seem to me to be a RS. A quick visit to the website shows that it is an "alternative" journal written by various bloggers, most of whom appear to be ardent fans of Vladimir Putin as everything this "alternative" journal promotes is a tendentious and tedious glorification of the thuggish Putin regime. I suppose one may like Putin if one is inclined that way. As for myself, I do not like Putin. I don't mean to impose my political preferences here, and to disqualify a source for its political stance is problematic. However, when an "alternative" journal starts claiming that Ukraine was the aggressor in the 2014 war and it is just a lie promoted by the western media that Russia was supporting separatists in the eastern Ukraine despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then it seems to me that the journal has stepped into the realm of propaganda.
And that is to say nothing of the various conspiracy theories that this "alternative" journal engages in, as it suggests that break-up of Yugoslavia was all due to a plot by the West. I try to be objective and neutral with my contributions, but there are incorrect interpretations of history and correct interpretations of history. I do my best to stick to the latter, not the former. The theory of a Western conspiracy to break up Yugoslavia is most definitely an incorrect interpretation of history. Any journal that has Eric Margolis as one of the leading contributors does not strike me as a RS. For those unfamiliar with the work of Mr. Margolis, he is an American journalist living in Toronto who is far too close to Pakistani intelligence than what any self-respecting journalist should be, who traffics in various whacked out, barely veiled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories fed to him by his friends in Pakistani intelligence, which he always takes at face value. Mr. Margolis wrote a column in 1996 praising the Taliban taking Kabul as a triumph for "the boys" as he calls Pakistani intelligence, which seems to me that he gone stepped beyond journalism to serving as a sort of spokesman for Pakistani spooks and for the Taliban, which he is remarkably sympathetic towards. Mr. Margolis was fired from his job as the foreign affairs columnist with the Toronto Sun tabloid in 2010 after he ran a column which seemed to make out that Israel staged 9/11 attacks and framed Osama bin Laden(!), which reflects what his friends in Pakistani intelligence were saying. Mr. Margolis is not being cited here, but it makes me very uneasy that this "alternative" journal that lists him as one of its leading contributors is being cited as a source because shows the people who contribute to this "alternative" journal are comfortable rubbing shoulders with him. Finally, beware of those who are looking for the "secret history" of World War II, as it will take you down the rabbit hole. At present, this "alternative" journal has articles seeking the "secret history" of World War II with the series of articles about the flight of Rudolf Hess to Scotland. I fail to see what is the extract point of the Hess articles-I'm not certain if the author even knows for sure what it is that she is trying to say other then that the "official" story about Hess's flight is a lie-but somebody has fallen down the rabbit hole of the searching for the "secret history" of World War II as my late father used to call it. If the British government really wanted peace talks with Germany in May 1941, then there were considerably better ways of going about it then having Hess fly to Scotland to see the Duke of Hamilton who did not speak for Britain and was not even at his estate. that night. Apparently the two Scottish police constables who arrested Hess after various farmers complained that there was some German wandering the countryside that night foiled the entire plot, which is exactly why diplomacy is not conducted like that. I don't think that any journal that cannot see that very simple point can be considered a RS. That whole section should be rewritten as the IP noted two years ago.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just came to say the same thing as OP, made a post below. It's been unaddressed for 6 years now. Could someone start working on this? I'll contact the Serbo-Croat wiki, they have some older scholars from ex-Yugo countries on there from what I remember. In addition correctly interpreting NSDD 133 (as above) an article (though in Croatian language) mentions a leak from a 2009 strafor memorandum confirming the IMF was at least in part to blame for the Yugoslav wars. https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/Stratforov-memorandum-procurio-na-WikiLeaksu-MMF-je-dijelom-kriv-za-rat-u-Jugoslaviji/602020.aspx edit: Sadly the SH-Wiki community is a bit dead as they already have most of the important articles semi-finished and people just lost interest in this Wiki project thing. I dont think they can help much so maybe somebody else can?
@ A.S. Brown, you're far too lenient. NSDD 133 warns of economic collapse if the loans do not continue, just like the US economy and government would collapse over night if loans would not continue, thus all the "government shutdown" sessions that country has had and despite that they continue to borrow. So the US-Reagan administration, despite knowing this initiated a policy of first freezing loans to Yugoslavia, then forcing shock therapy. Whether they wanted the country to completely disintegrate is up for grabs, but as a hawkish politician Reagan wanted to force Yugoslavia firmly into its sphere of influence by bringing it to its knee's with a complete 180 on international relations (for no apparent reason, other than political). KostaKusta (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Breakup of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Breakup of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevinumd0502—Preceding undated comment added by Kevinumd0502 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backgrounds and Overview in the lead text

[edit]

I suggest improving the lead text to increase information content and improve accuracy / reduce misleading generalizations while keeping it short.

  • "as a result of a series of political upheavals and conflicts" - fails to mention original reasons for the upheavals and conflicts.
  • "the unresolved issues caused bitter inter-ethnic Yugoslav wars" - this is blurry, misleading and inaccurate because "unresolved issues" can be anything and "inter-ethnic" suggest ethnic tensions as the main or one of the main causes. The wars were caused by interested and able parties - in case of Yugoslavia that were parts of the Communist regime and state apparatus, the old structures in power in wake of the inevitable economic collapse and following social upheaval - in an attempt to stay in power or secure as good as possible position for themselves for the future to come - no matter what. External factors come as secondary causes, as opportunistic influences and are more the background than the causes. The majority of unprivileged population did not want the war - it is easy to see that while looking at mobilization responses and percentage of deserters on Serbian / Yugoslav side. The ethnic tensions are a tool - they were heated up mostly intentionally on fertile ground of the economical and political situation - their intensity is more a consequence and much lees the cause of the original problems.

I suggest: "The breakup of Yugoslavia occurred as a result of the failure of its political and social system and in the wake of the collapse of its national economy - a crisis culminating in the breakup of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990 and broad awareness of the failure of the system and its imminent collapse among the population. After a period of political and economic crisis in late 1970s and in the 1980s, constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia split apart. The struggle for power, control of the development, profit, privileges and to avoid lustration, revenge and persecution caused bitter, mainly inter-ethnic Yugoslav wars while the common interest of the majority of (unprivileged) people was economic prosperity, peace and freedom which presumed the end of the communist dictatorship and ideology, end of the one-party system, liberation of the market and democratic development."

In short simple words: Yugoslavia breaks up because the Communist League breaks up. The Communist League breaks up because their politics, social system and economy have failed. The population is broadly aware that the system has failed and that it will dissolve. The structures in power in Serbia, in Montenegro and in the Army that want to stay in power start the wars. The communists in other republics mostly turn their coats inside-out and position themselves as new democrats and advocates of a liberated market.

Please review and comment. --Zzzrin (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

$500

[edit]

Why would an unsecured amount of $500 US equivalent cause a major scandal? It seems there is a typo here. Maybe it was supposed to be $500 million? -- 208.81.184.11 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that part and I think I understand what it means. It currently says "...the managers of Agrokomerc had issued promissory notes equivalent to US$500 without collateral, forcing the state to assume responsibility for their debts when Agrokomerc finally collapsed." I assume 'issued promissory notes without collateral' means that they created and gave away unofficial banknotes for free and treated them as if they were worth $500, basically spending government money without the government's permission. Therefore, the $500 would make sense given that they distributed many of these banknotes. IFixBadArticles (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UN Peacekeeping Actions in Croatia and Bosnia

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to place a section in this article to talk about the UN Peacekeeping actions that occurred in Croatia and Bosnia after the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian war, or should this be put in an article of its own? Thanks. - IntPolCC (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction its claimed that western countries were unwilling to help Yugoslavia as the Soviet Union opened up and relations got more "friendly"

[edit]

I'm 99% Sure that this is not so simple and that there was proof (let alone indications as per interviews) that the Americans wanted to cause an economic collapse and essentially completely changed their policies towards the country over a few weeks, despite it moving in a westerly direction for a while. It entered a period of economic stagnation in the early 1980's after Tito's death but its debt never rose above 25% of GDP. US current debt is over 100% of GDP, some the worlds most stabile countries like Sweden have a debt to gdp ratio of about 25-35%. If I remember correctly, what happened was that future loans were abruptly cut as a political decision before any serious economic crisis happened. This forced inflationary spending by the government and led to economic stagnation. Later the country was driven into the abyss by radical shock therapy more or less forced upon its new liberal leadership under Ante Marković who quite willingly obliged. Loans are not "help" and today all of the republics of former Yugoslavia have a debt to GDP ratio that's higher than that of Yugoslavia. Its not causing any of them to collapse and they keep getting new loans. So saying that the debt was a problem for such a "poor" country (it wasn't very poor) is really a joke. I don't have access to the literature to prove this and I'm not a Yugoslav scholar but it doesn't make any sense. Could someone help in this regard? KostaKusta (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup of Yugoslavia → Dissolution of Yugoslavia – WP:CONSISTENT with the pattern of similar articles' titles: Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, Dissolution of Austria-Hungary etc. A plain Google search and the Google Scholars search show that both are equally commonly used terms. Balkovec (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect referencing

[edit]

In the econonimc collapse and international climate section , there consistant reference to PJ Cramptons A concise history of Bulgaria , particularly pages 386-387. This is untrue and impossible considering both the 1997 edition of the book and the 2006 second edition only have 284 and 313 pages respectively. This is also not a mere mistake misstating the page numbers, as the book does not address or talk about any of the facts whic this article claims it does 2A02:8084:122:6580:1822:B9D0:D4E2:E120 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WorldCat and it confirms that the page numbers can't match, so I tagged those with {{failed verification}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Crampton cite was removed, but was still in use by other refs. I've rescued it to the sources section. This is just a technical fix, and not an endorsement of the refs themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Partition of Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Partition of Yugoslavia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § Partition of Yugoslavia until a consensus is reached. –Vipz (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Collapse Yugolsavia" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Collapse Yugolsavia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § Collapse Yugolsavia until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Bosnia and Herzegovina map

[edit]

The independent map of B&H didn’t have his full borders, the independent B&H fell directly apart. (Srpska was never a part of RB&H 188.172.108.163 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breakup_of_Yugoslavia&oldid=1255384328"