Who were the good guys in yugo wars?
>>26132
Kebab removers.
>>26132
Confucius say, war does not determine who is right; only who is left.
>>26132
NATO
No good guys, only lesser evils
Didn't the Serbs and Croats trade "oppressor and oppressed" positions to each other every quarter of a decade or so?
![Ustaše_sawing_off_the_head_of_a_Serb_civilian[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OprMRSo.jpg "Ustaše_sawing_off_the_head_of_a_Serb_civilian[1].jpg")
>>26580
pretty much
Croats
>>26580
Quarter of a century, I mean.
The guys who won pic related...
Why EU of course
>>26580
yep, we did, we also intermarried and politicaly integrated each other for decades at a time, basicaly each time theres a war its kind of a marriage squabble or like two old friends getting into a barfight till they start loosing teeth and breaking facial bones
this last war the only ''good guys'' were bosnians, they had nothing to do with nothing, theyr only fault was that they existed as such, we, that is croats, fought for our country and our land and bla bla, and we were in a inferior osition at first so that makes our struggle all that much more heroic and whatnot, but basicaly it kind of saved us from ourselves since we werent in a position to do the things serbs did right from the start, like planned ethnic clensing and mass graves and all the other genocidal crap, i am absolutely certain we would have done if we had the means
serbs on the other hand were well organized, well armed, and backed by the whole fucking JNA, meaning all the guns, ammo, transport, armor, artilery and aviation the whole ex-yu had to throw at us
their goal wasnt so bad basicaly, unite all serb lands into one federation, sounds fine if you ignore the genocide, but that meant they had to be agressors from day one
also, they commited one gross and fatal mistake - they lost the war
therefore fuck their dead chetnik mothers, we won this time, it wasnt even easy, they dont even have the right to be butthurt about it
>>26132
There were no good guys. It's those who were opponents of Serbia in that war that think of Serbs as bad guys, and those who fought for JNA that think of other nations as bad guys.
In reality, there were pogroms, banishments and war crimes committed by every side involved. Though there were serious crimes between the Slavs, we weren't nearly as horrifying to each other as Albanians are to those they consider their enemies.
The only ones who really profited from it were those in charge, our leaders, and their campaign contributors, who had a dozen of chances to come to an agreement instead of killing each other, but they all denounced those who opposed the war for lack of patriotism.
>>26801
>the only ''good guys'' were bosnians, they had nothing to do with nothing, theyr only fault was that they existed as such
I don't even understand this part, maybe you meant Bosniaks? Bosnians is a regional term applied to Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks (or Muslims to make it less confusing). They weren't that innocent either, but it's true they really didn't have a choice.
>serbs on the other hand were well organized, well armed, and backed by the whole fucking JNA, meaning all the guns, ammo, transport, armor, artilery and aviation the whole ex-yu had to throw at us
Not entirely true, the JNA from serbia was conservative in it's support of the rebels and mainly only supplied logistics, equipment, munitions, etc rather than throwing its weight into the fight. Excluding eastern Slavonia that is.
Watch BBC Death of Yugoslavia. It's rather okay for the most part.
Before that, consider the position of Serbs in Yugoslavia.
Serbs in WW2 were killed in great numbers (anything from 300,000 to 500,000) by Nazi Croatian/Muslim group called ustašas. This of course left great resentment after the war, and nationalists exploited it in 80's.
Also, there was an informal motto among communist leadership, ''weak Serbia, strong Yugoslavia''. So Serbia lost shitload of ethnic Serb lands, like those in Bosnia (where Serbs in fact had plurality after the war), Montenegro (where Serbs were brainwashed and ''Montenegrin'' ethnicity became official and enforced), Vojvodina (separated in 1974. partly due to Croatian and Slovenian agitation), and Kosovo (which was important in cultural and moral sense to Serbs, even though Serbs were minority by then).
Especially in Kosovo, there was a slow ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Albanians slowly pushed out Serbs out of Kosovo by combination of constant pressure and high birth rates.
For example, they slaughter your livestock, or burn your barn, or beat up your kid, then they offer you money and you move out and sell your property to Albanians.
Communists ignored this, and they even brought Albanians from Albania who escaped Hoxha's regime and settled them in Kosovo, further increasing Albanian numbers.
So yes, Serbian nationalism played a negative role in Yugoslav conflict, but it wasn't just Serbs suddenly deciding to go to war and kill people, problems were deeper.
As for what happened then, BBC War in Yugoslavia, it's mostly good and somewhat objective.
>>26925
>bosniaks
>bosnians
theres no difference, we all call bosnians bosnians, in ex-yu bosnians were bosnians, some bosnians might be katholic, meaning they are ethnic croats, none are serbs, its all confusing definitely, but after the war the muslim population started calling themselves bošnjaci instead of bosanci, and the basic designation of a bošnjak as opposed to a bosanac is that he is circumcized and considers this important, theres tons of muslim who identify as bosnians and consider the whole thing riduculous, theres people who still declare themselves yugoslavians simply rejecting the whole absurdity, its all silly as all fucks and makes no sense whatsoever
like, what happens if a bosanac who is a bošnjak becomes hare krsna? is he still a bošnjak or is he just a bosanac? silly crap like that, its all just a example of how retarded BiH became because of dayton, dayton was a massive massive mistake and generations of people will pay for it, as well as prolly fight another war because of it sooner or later
Slovenes of course
>>27224
Actually some Bosniaks consider their identity unconnected with religion.
Which of course makes no sense but that's their story.
They believe they were never Croats or Serbs at one point of history, and that they're older than Croats or Serbs or something.
>>27224
>theres no difference
Yes there is, what the fuck.
>in ex-yu bosnians were bosnians, some bosnians might be katholic, meaning they are ethnic croats, none are serbs, its all confusing definitely
Yes, but Bosnian=/=Bosniak. Bosniak is an ethnic term denoting the muslim population of Bosnia. Bosnian is a regional denoting anyone from Bosnia. Thus every Bosniak is a Bosnian but not every Bosnian is a Bosniak.
>but after the war the muslim population started calling themselves bošnjaci instead of bosanci, and the basic designation of a bošnjak as opposed to a bosanac
True, but that doesn't mean the majority of Bosnians call themselve's Bosniaks (Bošnjaci)
>like, what happens if a bosanac who is a bošnjak becomes hare krsna? is he still a bošnjak or is he just a bosanac? silly crap like that, its all just a example of how retarded BiH became because of dayton
I agree that it's stupid and confusing, but still, Bosnian does not equate to Bosniak.
To make a vague example, Dalmatian = Croatian but not every Croatian = Dalmatian.
>>27311
I don't know where you're from, but in ex-Yu (both on /int/ and in real life), everyone says Bosnian, not Bosniak. Bosniak is a formal term with no real meaning in public.
>>27136
problems were deeper, yes, the one party system came to a crisis and each side of the inter-party buerocratic blocks decided to pull out from under milošević and make their own private prćija, which they chose to call a ''national state''
thats it basically, some party fucktards and ex-udba organised under tuđman, started HDZ and made up a capitalist croatia, some party fucktards and ex-udba came together under janša and kučan and made up a capitalist slovenia, the serbfags all conglomerated under milošević and the JNA and started the whole kraina shit, and so the cookie crumbled
>>27330
I'm from Slovenia, and yes everyone says Bosnian, that's not the damn point, it doesn't mean Bosnians = Bosniaks. Bosnian is a regional term, Bosniak an ethnic one.
>>27593
It's just semantics. They used to be called Muslims, now it's Bosniaks. You will never hear a Bosnian Croat or Serb call himself a Bosnian, though.
Also, it's good to know that our agents are already in full force here.
HURRvatska
>>27701
It's Kurvatska, senpai.
>>27701
The Balkans begin at Metlika
t.Slovene
>>28077
>Metlika
You senpai serious? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDrHqNZ9lo
>>28077
well croats dont realy say that, only retarded stormfags have bullshit ideas like that, most croats deeply identify with being balkaners, some out of local-patriotism, some out of pride, others yet out of inferiority complexes and self hatred
slovenes tho are completely in denial, its ridiculous sometimes
>>28316
The only connection the Slovenes have with the Balkans are the last century under Yugoslavia. Before that, the Balkans were where the Turks came raiding from.
>>28316
>some identify as being balkan out of inferiority complexes and self-hatred
That doesn't make any sense
>>26580
Pretty much, the oldest you can get though is that Tomislav basically saved the Serbs from extinction at the hands of the Bulgarians.
>>28316
>slovenes tho are completely in denial, its ridiculous sometimes
Wait, what exactly is denial when it's a geographical fact that Slovenia is only partially (not even in majority) in the Balkans and was never part of any balkan polity excluding Yugoslavia?
>>29433
That's just Balkanite memetalk, disregard it.
>>26132
>good guys
History doesn't deal with "ought" it deals with "is." Fuck off back to /pol/.
>>28789
>implying the Croats, Serbs, and Bulgarians were distinct ethnicities at that time
It was just power struggles among princes and the rest of the ruling classes, the common people mostly just considered themselves Slavs and couldn't care less which random knez of the day ruled them
but it is certainly more fun to think of it as the ancient beginnings of the modern troubled Serb-Croat relationship, even if it's completely anachronistic.
>>30440
Well Croats and Serbs were distinct tribes/nations, so were Bulgarians.
But yeah, in practice, lowly peasant wouldn't give a fuck if he was ruled by Serb or Croat. Religion mattered most.
People tend to transplant modern nationalism to that age, and it simply makes no sense.
Croats
>>26132
>Yogoslavia splits due to end of Cold War
>Rich countries naturally want to move towards the West (Croatia, Slovenia etc)
>Serbs are poor but have strongest military
>fuck shit up
>to be fair, there was violence on both sides, but the Serbs were the most brutal ones by far
>>30575
They split cause of Tito's death
just a compilation of lesser evils ruining the lives of future generations.
>>31315
Tito's death was what made it possible, but it wasn't a reason of its own.
>>26132
Is that hiroshima in first line left?
>war
>good guys
>>26132
KARADIISCZUUUU
>>28316
>slovenes tho are completely in denial, its ridiculous sometimes
Yeah, the connection between slovene and slovak languages is but a illusion.
>>26132
Slovene were the civilized ones. Serbs and Croats were barbarians. They couldn't even, say do a plebiscite to determine who gets what land.
Halo braco.
I did my undergrad thesis on the yugoslav civil wars. Ask away and i will answer to the best of my knowledge. The thesis was done a number of years ago so i may not have specifics or references available.
>>30499
>>30440
I agree with you two to an extent. Peasants tended to not mind who their ruler was so long as the ruler was benevolent. Yet i think cultural identity was important to peasants, whether it be legit or not. Remember that beofre the crystalization of the south slavic identities, the balkans had been a clustercuss of different peoples migrating and warring with one another. Making your identity as something legit is one way of securing your lands, resources, and overall security. This is especially true with lots of diffrrent kinds of peoples as neighbors.
So while the peasant may not care who is ruling them, they surely do care if it be a croat, serb, or slovene because this will allow them certain benefits over others. For example, i desire a croat leader because i am a croat and that means my farm will be safe from land reforms/repossession and other ills that may happen to the lower classes via ruling class.
Just my two cents. Someone with a better understanding of balkan ethnogensis should chime in.
>>30575
>due to end of Cold War
wrong
>Rich countries naturally want to move towards the West
wrong
>Serbs are poor but have strongest military
wrong
There are no good guys in war.
>>26580
Pretty much.
>1918-1939
Serbs are politically dominant
>1941-1945
Croats exterminate Serbs
>1945-1990
Serbia gets progressively more and more neutered. Key year is 1974 with the new constitution, also know as the year most of Serbian law professors were laid off.
>1990
Serbs are getting paranoid. Thus try to get more control.
It fails.
Slovenia declares independence.
Confusion. No one knows what to do.
Croatia declares independence.
They take all the military equipment they can get their hands on.
Serbs in Croatia go hyper because of what happened last time.
They block roads.
Croats send in tanks.
Milosevic rolls over Vukovar.
Milo bombs Dubrovnik.
And so everything went to shit.
Nothing was achieved. Just pointless loss of life.
Serbia got the short end of the stick because they were branded as the aggressor and the sanctions and bombings ruined their economy.
