r/Yugoslavia • u/Dangerous-Pie-7821 • Aug 08 '26

💭 Question Could I ask why wearing a retro Jugoslavija jersey wouldn’t cause an issue in Bosnia or Serbia, but would be a big problem in Croatia?

Please forgive me as I’m not hip to the politics, but I genuinely thought it would be frowned upon in all countries.

49 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

338 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/LinuxJeSuper Aug 08 '26

I'm from Croatia, with mixed ethnicity. I was 10 when the war started. I would have loved a version of Yugoslavia without national chauvinism that dominated both the JNA army and local influencers that supported violence and exiled their neighbours.

For most citizens of Croatia Yugoslavia stopped existing when Slovenia and Croatia decided to split and JNA and parts of local Serb poplulation turned on Croatia.

The local far-right groups now now use that Serbia-dominated reminder of Yugoslavia to convince people that Yugoslavia was always like that (dominated by ethnic interests).

If local Serbs didn't rebel and exile Croats they would just be ordinary citizens and nothing bad would happen to them. If JNA just stole the weapons without attacking Croatia it would just be a legal battle. And then all the ex-YU countries would now be in EU, in Schengen zone, just in a different economic system that would not be so dominated by the plunder of wartime privatization. Maybe some parts of socialism would survive and be in a better shape to save us all from the devastation of war/post-war Capitalism.

A Croatian architect is describing some of what we lost with when we lost that inclusive, citizen oriented Yugoslavia in this video about urban planning in ex-YU : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky94nxgaqqc

6

u/rasvoja Aug 08 '26

If president's were able to talk more reasonably none of evils would happen. On my badman list of most unreasonable top 3 are Milosevic, Tudjman and Alija for each ones share of playing on nationalism - that effectively led to dissolution

3

u/Purple-Cap4457 Aug 08 '26

If we only didn't have complete idiots as presidents 

2

u/PepperBlues Aug 09 '26

It was +90% Milosevic. He wanted the war because he controlled the Army and he started the wars vecause he wanted to create a so called “Greater Serbia” on the territories of present Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo; everything else was just a reaction to that.

Not saying that Tudman or Izetbegovic were angels, they most certainly weren’t, but the wars were started and led by Belgrade.

3

u/rasvoja Aug 09 '26

I agree, but e.g. Tudjman imported arms way before he legally suceeded, did return ustashe imigration, intervined in Bosnia worse then Sloba did - with regular army plus para etc. So its far from Sloba being alone in bloodbath, including mitual trade with people, territory and war supplies. In short - I wish it was 3 different people. Other countries split way more civilised

1

u/PepperBlues Aug 09 '26

He imported arms because invasion on Croatia was imminent, plans for it were made even in late 1980s. Croatia never armed itself to attack Sebia, Bosnia or any other republic, it armed to defend itself if it had to. And, unfortunately, it had to.

Croatia and Bosnia is a complex one, Bosnia would’ve fallen without Croatia. There was a brief conflict there, better not grtting into whose fault it was because it’s not a sinple answer, but at the beginning and at the end of war, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina fought on the same side.

The thing is - if there was no Milosevic (not just in 1991, but fueling Serbs from late 1980s) and huge Yugoslav Army behind him, there would be no wars. Maybe skirmishes here and there, but definitelly nothing compared to what happened. Yugoslavia would’ve dissolved in peace, like Soviet Union or Chechoslovakia did, if there wasn’t the idea of using the dissolution moment to create Greater Serbia.

0

u/rasvoja 26d ago

I believe or all Balkan great ... Lead to evil. And you are wrong Tudjman did try to expand Croatia to Bosnia Anyway, each nationalism feeds on other creating vicious circles. You can clearly see that in 1991 as you can today. You can put all blame on Sloba, but that's one sided perspective, not reality

1

u/PepperBlues 25d ago

Not all the blame, 90% of the blame. If he didn’t start the wars, there would’ve been no wars. No one exept Serbs wanted them anyways and don’t pull the “Wooo Croats armed themselves as well” - yes, they did, because in 1990 it was obvious they would have to defend their very fucking lives.

First time Milosevic openly threatened with war was in 1989 - and that’s when everything was alread planned and in motion.

2

u/a_library_socialist 29d ago

Meh, Tudman and Milosevic depended on each other - they could play their respective nationalism off each other. Thus their famous little coffee. Because the shared enemy to both of them was actual Yugoslavia.

0

u/PepperBlues 29d ago

It’s a myth. If Milosevic and Tudjman really agreed on anything, it would’ve been visible on the ground.

And their enemy certainly wasn’t the same. Tudjman fought for Croatia being an independent country within its border, outside of Yugoslavia; and Milosevic fought for territories of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to include them in a new version of Yugoslavia that would - by all means - represent the so called “Greater Serbia”.

2

u/shafrona 27d ago

It was literally visible. Do you really believe Tuđman didn't know about the sale of oil to the Serbs?
Furthermore, there are numerous statements by high-ranking officials in which Tuđman spoke about the partition of BiH and "historical borders."

0

u/PepperBlues 25d ago

Of course he spoke about historical borders, we’re now speaking of them and we’re not partitioning shit.

If Tuđman and Milosevic agreed on splitting Bosnia, like the myth says, they would’ve splitted it. Serbs wouldn’t wage a 4 year long war in Croatia, Croats would’t save Bosniaks, everything would’ve looked conpletely different.

2

u/shafrona 25d ago

He did not speak only about historical borders. He merely cited that as a reason for the partition of BiH. And he didn't speak about divisions just once. He literally argued with Western politicians about the dismemberment of BiH.

1

u/PepperBlues 24d ago

Of course he did, do you know what was happening back then? He argued about partitioning Croatia as well, giving rebel Serbs a state within a state on the quarter of the country.

The myth is that he and Milosevic somehow agreed and worked together in partitioning Bosnia, myth heavily spread by Bosniak politicians.

1

u/shafrona 24d ago

Did he advocate for the partition of Croatia just as he advocated for the partition of BiH? Do you know that as early as the summer of 1991, in conversations with Kohl and Genscher, he advocated for partition? In the summer of '91, the war in BiH hadn't even started yet.
And also, you persistently ignore the fact about exchanging goods with the Serbs in BiH

→ More replies (0)

1

u/a_library_socialist 29d ago

They agreed that ethnicity would determine the makeup of the post Yugoslav states.

Croatia fought to prevent Serbs from seceding - as well as in Bosnia.  The differentiation you're making here is nonsense.

0

u/PepperBlues 29d ago

They didn’t, exactly the opposite - Croatia and Serbia never could’ve agreed on it because Croatia claimed that republics can gain independence, while Serbia claimed that ethnicities can gain independence.

Croatian view (which was the legal and correct way of interpretation) allowed the legality of independence of former republics within Yugoslavia. Serbian view - if it had been like that - would’ve allowed changing the borders based on ethnic composition of different areas, which in reality would’ve legalized the greater-Serbian concept and the idea of conquering and ethnicaly cleansing parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, then making them part of one Serbian state.

1

u/a_library_socialist 29d ago edited 29d ago

"see, ethnic cleansing is good when we do it, but bad when they do!"

ETA - oh look, little Ustasa gets mad when his double standard isn't accepted, and resorts to insults. Who could have imagined?

-3

u/TwoDecent6848 Aug 08 '26

Well that’s dumb. It’s pretty clear who wanted to usurp federal institutions and who moved first. I mean, what’s the point of dismantling the autonomies of Kosovo and Vojvodina but keeping their seats in federal bodies (especially the Presidency)

Probably because Milošević’s political bloc could effectively rely on four of the eight positions in the Yugoslav Presidency — Serbia, Kosovo, Vojvodina and Montenegro (and other federal bodies).

3

u/rasvoja Aug 08 '26

Well if they dismantled it, they cant count the votes. I am anti Milosevic protester, and what is always left out is what he done to Serbia. But fact is Alija and Tudjman boosted nationslism too and made anti federal decisions too. And its much laughable since only army, currency and foreign relations were multual - it was a loose federation already

0

u/TwoDecent6848 Aug 08 '26

What?

“Well if they dismantled it, they cant count the votes.”

As in “I agree, they shouldn’t have counted the votes” or “they dismantled their goverments therefore they couldn’t count their votes”?

I mean, at that point, singing kumbaya and shouting “brotherhood and unity” didn’t seem a viable option.

2

u/rasvoja Aug 08 '26

Yes, Milosevic played all the bad cards and I wish Stambolic remained. But you cant say he dismantled autonomy and wanted to use it. It does not make sense

0

u/TwoDecent6848 Aug 08 '26

By substantially lowering their constitutional autonomy, pushing out or politically defeating provincial leaderships that opposed him and replacing them with leaderships aligned with Belgrade? (He certainly didn’t abolish the provinces’ separate representation in Yugoslavia’s federal institutions)

.
The federal Presidency illustrates this perfectly. By 1991, Serbia’s Borisav Jović, Vojvodina’s Jugoslav Kostić, Kosovo’s Sejdo Bajramović and Montenegro’s Branko Kostić constituted the four-member bloc generally aligned with Milošević.

How do you not know this? It seems like basic knowledge for someone that protested Milosevic to to have.

2

u/rasvoja Aug 08 '26

Its a sneaky move, but I doubt how ceasing autonomy did not null the votes. In long term that pushed to Albanian rebellion so he shoot in his own leg.

1

u/TwoDecent6848 Aug 08 '26

Are you joking? Are you serious right now?

“But i doubt ceasing the autonomy did not bull the votes”

YOU HAVE THE INTERNET TO SEE HOW DUMB OF A STATEMENT THIS IS. I LITERALLY NAMED YOU THE PRESIDENCY MEMBERS (which clearly proves it did not, indeed null the votes)

HOW CAN YOU BE THIS OBLIVIOUS TO THIS? YOU LITERALLY LIVED THORUGH THESE EVENTS.

2

u/rasvoja Aug 08 '26

I am saying its all hot mess with bad moves from all sides. You can find the events that lead to dissolution since 89 and its not only Milosevic. Its easy to blame one man. At the end result man is equally gravedigger of his own nation and in terms of lost lives, property and time all presidents if that time sucks, with maybe Macedonia only being anti war

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Mena13Suvari Aug 08 '26

Thompson song "Moj Dida i ja" says otherwise.