Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:
• Serbia and Montenegro
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Serbia and Montenegro
Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 4, 2009.

No merge

FRY was a Socialist state that politicaly was distinct from today's Serbia and Montenegro and no longer exists. In the study of contemporary history, FRY occupied a very unique geopolitical position in the world. IN addition, FRY was a union of multiple modern day states, which included among others, Serbia and Montenegro. While there are clear linkages between the two, they are not the same. The articles should not be combined.

comment from M.Shcherbak, Bulgaria

Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were different countries ;)

comment from 172.174.77.138

This is Ex-Yougoslavian articel. Up her Kosovo is sepereted for every think. They don hawe nothink to do with S-M wich is waiting for referendum to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.77.138 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 April 2006

What's up with the bad grammar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.28 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 26 May 2006

This Articel

Becose of the cronolygie of the changen the name and the problems wich are the point of the conflict and Edit wars in En:Wikipedia, we need the articel with this name. This is the last existin rest-state acceptied from UN in wich was Kosovo, Serbia, Vojvodina and Montenegro. This articel it must explean the changes wich hase hapend after the rez. 1244. Cronologie of agreement:

Rez 1244 in wich Kosovo was a part of this state
Referendum in Kosovo
Decleration of the Provinc Kosovo as Autonom Provice in Balkan from UN
UN rez in wich the territoryal integrety of the rest-Yugoslavia is going to be respectyt and the name it was changet to Serbia and Montenegro wich is going to be acceptiedt als souch till the referendum in Montenegro is going to be hold.--Hipi Zhdripi 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. That should be put in the Serbia and Montenegro article, since the Country was renamed. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is renamed or not that is not the point. The point is that befor renameng are maked same refrerndums and declaration wich are importen for Wikipedia to explayne the user wat are the differens betwen the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montener. Or you think that in UN they have maked so #redirect. No, my friend see the Cronologie is talking better then I, the English L. --Hipi Zhdripi 23:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Montenegros :http://www.vlada.cg.yu/eng/biblioteka.php

Declaration on Relations with the Republic of Serbia after gaining Independence

No, no, no. You didn't understand me. I think that this page shouldn't exist, since no such article exists; all this should be at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro, since the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article doesn't exist. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I strongly object to the split of this article from Serbia and Montenegro. Why did everyone got berzerk because pf the referendum. What, now you're gonna write a series of articles about Economy, Transportation etc. by copy/paste? Duja 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Serbia and Montenegro talk page, we first should find general solution whether we should consider that these two are separate countries or just two names for one single country. PANONIAN (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose this split. SiM and FRY are the same country. Do not mix with SFRY. FRY should redirect to SiM. Alinor 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(from Talk:Serbia and Montenegro#FRY Split). We should not make different articles for each correction to the constitution of each country... The history is the following: from the SFRY emerged 5 states: Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Macedonia, FRY (FRY is NOT a succesor state to SFRY - it even applied for fresh UN seat in 2000). Then every one of these 5 countries adopted multiple changes to its constitution. On of the very notable changes of course is the FRY constitution change that even renamed the country to SiM. But just because this is very notable doesn't mean that we should separate the country in two articles! I propose speedy revert of FRY to redirect to SiM. Alinor 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FRY existed for 11 years, therefore this article should be kept separate from Serbia and Montenegro.

Let's keep the discussion at one place, here--Jiang 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor said that the FRY was "NOT as successor state to SFRY", however, from 1992 until 2000 the FRY did claim to be the successor state to the SFRY and had wished to inherit the SFRY's seat in the UN (which the UN didn't accept). The FRY only applied for a fresh UN seat in 2000 only because there was a major change in government (and thus policy) in the FRY. Thus for most of its history (1992 - 2000 or eight years) the FRY claimed to be a successor to the SFRY and only in its final 3 years did it drop this claim after which it became reconstituted as Serbia-Montenegro. I don't see why the articles have to be merged however....it seems odd to want to merge these but still have United Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as separate articles. All of the 3 different British states were monarchies, with the same national anthem, motto and currency (and in the case of the last two, the same flag) the only difference being in the extent of the territory. In addition, if a simple re-naming is not enough to warrant a separate article the Zaire should redirect to Democratic Republic of the Congo (and the difference between FRY and Serbia-Montenegro is more than just a name, there was also a difference in how the constituent parts related to each other in the federal FRY and looser Serbia-Montenegro).72.27.72.163 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the FRY flag have the coat of arms on it?

I have seen the official flag of the old Kingdom of Yugoslavia and saw that it had a coat of arms very similar to that of the FRY. I have looked a lot of places, however I have not seen any official FRY flags with the coat of arms on them. Do no FRY flags not have the coat of arms. If it is better to discuss this in the Serbia & Montenegro section, I will post this question there as well.

The national flag had no arms on it. Basically the SFRY flag without the star. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How?

I would like to know how Serbia & Montenegro and Yugoslavia are different coutries, as it seems like the only difference is a change in name. What else had changed? Please will someone tell me!

FRY should be a separate article from Serbia-Montenegro one

FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) should be a separate article from Serbia-Montenegro one. FRY was a different state from Serbia-Montenegro not only by name, but also because FRY was a federation (Serbia-Montenegro was a confederal state, a different concept). They covered the same territory and both states were some kind of union between Serbia and Montenegro, but they were different types of union. This is significant enough to justify having two separate articles. --64.46.5.62 03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article has a lot to do with Yugoslavia and currennt events

This article talks about the dismantling of Yugoslavia and how it is linked to current world events including NATO expansion and the wars in Iraq, Lebanoon and Afghanistan...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

GR are a bunch of kooks; not an WP:RS in any sense of the word. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

How about a merge to Serbia and Montenegro. It seems weird that the two are separate articles. --PaxEquilibrium 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it. They're separate entities. —Nightst a llion (?) 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor — but maybe a best alternative would be a name that could embrace both periods of History, maybe something like History of Serbia and Montenegro (1992-2006), Serbian-Montenegrin state (1992-2006) or Serbian-Montenegrin union.--MaGioZal 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're separate constitutional entities, just like the United Kingdom of Great Britain was different from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and today's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I'm *adamantly* against merging. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FRY and S&M are not the same. The reason why the emblems were the same was because there was not enough time to change them, though there were people proposing a flag such as a split flag with half the Serbian flag, the other half the 93 Montenegrin flag. Serbia and Montenegro was a legitimate dual-republic state with both republics having a significant say and independence on issues. I am very certain The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the result of the coalition of Greater Serbian nationalists and Serbian communists who advocated a Serb dominated state which could lay claim to Bosnia and parts of Croatia under the flag of Yugoslavia to legitimize the wars as a "retaking" of Yugoslav land from separatists, and to keep Montenegro due to its significant Serb population and because it had access to the sea, allowing Serbs to retain the Yugoslav navy. When Montenegro lost Milosevic's puppet Bulatovic in the mid 90s and gained a pro-independence President, Serbia went ahead on military strategy against Kosovo without Montenegrin forces. In Serbia and Montenegro, this type of action would be illegal due to its nature as a dual state. Serbia and Montenegro was a failed attempt to copy the post-war Bosnian state, with two independent entities within it. The FRY was a Greater Serbian state in the early 90s, intending to take back Bosnia under Mladic's Bosnian Serb army, and hoping that Krajina Serbs could also join. Greater Serbian aims began to collapse in the FRY after Croatia began expelling Serbs and tensions between Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leader made unification impossible by 1995 onward. After this, the FRY began to unravel with Milosevic stubbornly trying to save Greater Serbia (FRY) by taking over as Yugoslav president. By the time S&M was created, it was hoped that it could hold off further separatism by recognizing Montenegro as independent from Serbia while still remaining in a union, to avoid tensions, but it failed in 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.168.97 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Security council and UN about Yugoslav and Serbian aggression on Bosnia

91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their non-compliance with existing resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the London Peace Accords of August 1992;

3. Demands that Serbia and Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately cease their aggressive acts and hostility and comply fully and unconditionally with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 752 (1992) of 15 May 1992, 757 (1992) of 30 May 1992, 770 (1992) and 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, 781 (1992) of 9 October 1992 and 787 (1992) of 16 November 1992, General Assembly resolution 46/242 and the London Peace Accords of August 1992;" ......

For intelligent person which do not have POV thinking this is enough but for others I will return clock few months more in history to Security council resolution 752 and later 757.

Resolution 752 (1992)

..."Demands that those units of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and elements of the Croatian Army now in Bosnia-Hercegovina must either be withdrawn, or be subject to the authority of the Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina, or be disbanded and disarmed with their weapons placed under effective international monitoring, and requests the Secretary-General to consider without delay what international assistance could be provided in this connection;"...

Demands also that all irregular forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina be disbanded and disarmed;

Resolution 757 (1992)

...that action be taken as regards units of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the disbanding and disarming with weapons placed under effective international monitoring of any units that are neither withdrawn nor placed under the authority of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ...

..."Decides that all States shall adopt the measures set out below, which shall apply until the Security Council decides that the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), including the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), have taken effective measures to fulfil the requirements of resolution 752 (1992); ""....

This is for everybody who want to write on this page how Yugoslavia has not attacked Bosnia --Rjecina 16:35, 6 June 2007 (CET)

Read "your" text again and find its part that say "Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - that refer to army of Republika Srpska. PANONIAN 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you do not know to think then I will explain:

91st plenary meeting 18 December 1992

..."2. Strongly condemns Serbia, Montenegro and Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for violation of the sovereignty",.... Signification of this is that there are 2 sources which are making violation of the sovereignty. First source is Serbia and Montenegro, second source are Serbian forces. Is this clear enough for you do understand ?

--Rjecina 18:18, 6 June 2007 (CET)

Well, this resolution is certainly politically motivated and is not based on reality: 1. In December 1992, there was no forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (or "Serbia, Montenegro" how they called it) on Croatian or Bosnian territory, and 2. "Serbian forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" was in fact army of local Bosnian Serbs, i.e. of the native Bosnian citizens, thus I really do not understand how can they to "violate sovereignty of their own country". This only speak about stupidity of the people who wrotte such thing - they simply were brainwashed by Croatian and Bosnian Muslim propaganda that aimed to hide the fact that members of the Serb armies in Croatia and Bosnia were native local Serbs who fought against nationalistic Croatian and Bosnian governments and note some "foreign invaders" like they wanted to present them. PANONIAN 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All offensive attacks made by JNA and Serbian paramilitaries from September 1991 to 1993 were done by weekends. Take a calendar and check it. Dates when Croatian villages and towns were occupied. All offensives were started mostly on Fridays and were ended by Sunday. There were car and rail caravans from Serbia through Bosnia and Montenegro on Fridays to the west and on Sundays back to their "normal" lives. In Croatia these people were called "Vikend-Četnici" ("Weekend Chetniks"). JNA was just a "service" for these "tourists" and local Serbs were "war infrastructure". It was like this: from Monday to Wednesday local Serbs and JNA were playing with artillery toys. It was much safer. The front was very long so they covered by heavy fire a lot of territory under Croatian control including a few bigger Croatian cities. Thursday or Friday were start whistle days for neverending artillery barrages, Weekends were reserved for hunting tourists. They had some good caches in the begining of their hunting careers. One such a good catch was Škabrnja massacre. Zenanarh 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what happened when you woke up? Nikola 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than a half of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was destroyed. You're the one who should wake up... Zenanarh 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This text:
The state's two main ethnic groups, Serbs and Montenegrins, were almost ethnically and culturally identical, though nationalist strains amongst Montenegrins claim that they constitute an ethnic derivative of their own, while others, especially those who support union with Serbia claim that Montenegrins are a sub-group of Serbs.

is simply not true. The fact that Montenegrins registered on the census is sufficient to accept a Montenegrin national identity. Nobody has the right to question on what grounds an individual chooses his ethnicity. At the same time, calling oneself Montenegrin does not imply that he considers his kin to be a sub-group of Serbs and one did not have to identify as ethnic Serb in Montenegro to prove his belief in the union. If from the very beginning, the union had been a Serbia-only venture, Montenegro would have been nothing different from Jablanica or Banat: a geographical region, or okrug at most. The minority who voted for continued unity in 2006 outnumbered those registered as Serbs, and it is known from some publications that a handful of people identifying as Montenegrin did choose unity. The essential element of being Montenegrin means that, united or not, Montenegro remains one whole part which is a partner of Serbia, not a chunk of Serbia. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to suggest that the odd Serb may not have voted for Montenegrin independence. It is unlikely, I accept, but we cannot use "unlikely" as a veritable source on WP. Evlekis (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Serbia and Montenegro

FR Yugoslavia altered its internal structure (federation to confederation) and changed its name, but its the same state we're talking about. I propose a merge into the Serbia and Montenegro article. The subject matter is the same. The single article would cover both periods (of this same state) in a more organized manner. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be merged. When a country changes names due to government change it is notable enough to have a separate article, for example Zaire and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, it is the same government. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]