ENGLISH EXPERT CLAIMS: Yugoslavia would be world power, and Belgrade-Europe's capital

Garrick

Regular Member
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
168
Points
0
British expert for East Europe Phil Butler claims what we know. Federal Yugoslavia was much better then mini states - nations formed after it. But his expertise and perspicacity tell us a lot.

ENGLISH EXPERT CLAIMS: Yugoslavia would be world power, and Belgrade - Europe's capital


What would have happened if Yugoslavia survived? Surely the would would be entirely different place. First of all, because of the Non-Aligned Movement presence, European union would be much weaker and much less influential in the world. The whole Europe would come to Belgrade, and from there to all six republics that are now fighting over Brussels' crumbs - writes Phil Butler.


http://www.telegraf.rs/english/2265...orld-power-and-belgrade-europes-capital-photo

(parts of text, the whole text can be found at the link)

We are all aware of the “facts”. First of all,
Yugoslavia fell apart because of the West influence because they did not find it good for them to have a strong and powerful country in the heart of Europe. Second, Yugoslavia would have never fallen apart if the Yugoslav people did not have that seed of breakdown, if they weren’t fertile ground for downfall.



Taking in consideration those two things, we decided to show you the most interesting parts of the copyright work “How Yugoslavia was Syrianized 25 years ago” by Phil Butler, British expert for East Europe.


We believe that many chapters will surprise you, and some of them will amaze you because of the “what if” parts. Many of you, that have lived in former Yugoslavia would close your eyes and cry because you will understand that you lost much more than a common state. Lost in the light of the future it could have been.


In the alternate universe, what would have happened if Yugoslavia still existed?” In this key moment of history, it is absolutely necessary to deal with the events in the past 25 years, and Yugoslavia and West intervention in it is maybe the best place to start.

Can you imagine Europe where Yugoslavia is one of the key players? I can. Yugoslavia was actually one of the biggest cultural and social experiments in the history.


It was formed and the border of Austro-Hungary monarchy and the Ottoman empire, Yugoslavia has connected the people from both cultural circles in a way that it was not seen since Alexander the Great.

Experiment lasted for more than half a century, and the idea was to create an unique state for all South Slavic nations. Although Yugoslavia was partially Britain and France’s geo-strategic project with the goal to restrain Germany, it was basically a reasonable and legal idea.

Corfu declaration called for constitutional monarchy similar to the one in England, even though king Alexander suspended the constitution and the elections in one moment, this project still seemed promising. War, political machinations, internal and external pressure have collapsed over this world power in its rise as it usually happens in these experiments, authoritative government became necessary, and even desirable.


When national hero, dictator, and global “celebrity” Josip Broz Tito came to power, Yugoslavia emerged to the world’s scene in all its glory. His role in founding of the Non-Aligned movement was both generous and extremely important, especially for the people of the Yugoslavia itself; besides, its foundations were laid in Belgrade 1961.
...

Yugoslavia became a pattern for Afghanistan, Iraq, Arab spring and Ukraine. The story about genocide in the name of democracy is too disgusting to talk about it. Majority of people in these nations were set back 200 years, in the type of medieval existence without hope. The only today former Yugoslavs see in, naturally, EU and NATO.

In the Kosovo conflict, both sides committed crimes of course, as well in other Yugoslavian wars. That is not the point of what i am talking about, but the totality of the disaster.


Primarily, the peoples of former Yugoslavia do not have their own voice anymore. Secondly, the downfall of the nation lead to the death and persecution of millions of people. That is the other story. My “fantasy” about Yugoslavia should enlighten.


Yugoslavia was build on the idea that South Slavs should stop being weak and divided. The united nation of Yugoslavia was not an easy target of imperialistic intentions that we see today.


The fact is that after the World War II, socialistic Yugoslavia became European story about success.

Between 1960 and 1980 that country experienced perhaps the most lively economical and social growth in the world:
decent living standards, free health care and education, guarantied right for work, paid one month vacation, literacy rate over 90% and expected lifetime of 72 years.


As much as i know, non of the newly formed Balkan countries can boast with half of that prosperity. It was a progress that made West interest groups want to destroy Yugoslavia.


All of the Yugoslav peoples also enjoyed free apartments, accessible public transportation and utilities. Non profit companies were also in the public hands, which did not suit well with Western democracy.


That country was not allowed to compete with Germany, France, and especially not with Britain, and London and Luxembourg bankers could not pull out billions from the socialistic system.

...
But what would have happened if the Yugoslavia survived? What if that big ethnic and social experiment survived? Surely the would would be entirely different place today.

First of all, because of the Non-Aligned Movement presence, European union would be much weaker and much less influential in the world. The whole Europe would come to Belgrade, and from there to all six republics that are now fighting over Brussels’ crumbs.


In 1991 Yugoslavia was 24th in the world considering GDP. Bosnia and Herzegovina is 112th today and the situation is getting worse. Croatia is 76th although “Blumberg” recently put them on the list of World’s 10 worst. Macedonia is 130th, Montenegro 149th, Slovenia 81st, Serbia 87th, and it seems to be more stable than all the rest.
...

Phil Butler, is a investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe.

http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php...slavia-was-syrianized-25-years-ago&Itemid=569

...
Someone can agree or not, it is a fact that Yugoslavia was more advanced than the national mini-states today. Overall, federal states are better for their inhabitants than the separate states. Serbs have reputation to prefer federal state and there is truth, in a well-developed federal state 1+1+1>3, and everybody wins.

Too bad, Yugoslavia ended in this way and separatist forces were strong, although admitted or not at their own detriment. But Yugoslavia is good example for any future federal state which from Yugoslav experience has much to learn.
 
If you ask me, the premise is completely nonsensical. Yugoslavia - Socialist Yugoslavia post World War 2 that is, was a state was based around one simple factor - the personality of Tito himself. When Tito died, so did Yugoslavia. I really don't see how the breakup was not inevitable. Beyond that, the way (the glorification and idealization) this Phil Butler talks about Yugoslavia reminds me about the "Ostalgie" glorification of East Germany.
 
Last edited:
Garric, your romantic view of Yugoslavia took you a hostage. Yugoslavia fell apart in a very common way many other countries fell apart. As Taranis mentioned, when a dictator is gone, his country is gone too, especially when it was held in place by his iron fist. When the country was made by few ethnicities and religions. The cause is overwhelmingly internal, and looking for external forces causing the breakup is misguided and not leading to understanding.
Yugoslavia fell apart for the same reason Soviet Union did, Syria or Iraq to give few modern examples. In all cases countries were build of variety of ethnic and religious groups hating each other. Syria is outlier in this group, because it fell apart when dictator is still in the office.

The main issue here is that a dictator (a person or a party) is going against natural grass root forces in population. When dictator is gone these forces become loud and unrestrained leading a country in new direction.

Judging by this observation, I'm predicting that when communist party is gone in China, Tibet will separate and other Western Provinces. Hopefully without a domestic war.
When Turkey becomes fully democratic it will lead to separation of Kurdistan from Turkey.
When dictator is gone in North Korea, people will change economic and political system and will unite with South Korea.

The grass roots forces already exist, and they get unleashed when dictator is gone.
Yugoslavia was actually a typical example of it.
 
How Yugoslavia could stay so united, while appearantly there was so much hatred between ethnic groups, remains an enigma to me.
I guess Tito was a very charismatic leader.
 
I will not agree with idea that others are responsible for dissolution of Yugoslavia and "we" are not,is common myth especialy the leaders that started the wars.We must face our problems.
It was good experiment but unfortunately the problem lies in it's constitution,foundation and basic ideas.Various ethnicities,nations,many were infected with nationalism by their leaders all towards prosperity,while prior Tito-iron fist was good at hunting them,in Yugoslavia even speaking the same language couldn't overcome the different culture influences during the history on various later republics.The problem is here; what people thought about it?could the republic survive based on such ideas,what should be done to survive,the experts should have think on that first if they wanted such republic,just one example;If America could gather all people under American flag of various different races,religions,nations,well what is their conception,is not only let's create republic then we gonna kill eachother,better not to create it at all.
 
Last edited:
Garric, your romantic view of Yugoslavia took you a hostage. Yugoslavia fell apart in a very common way many other countries fell apart. As Taranis mentioned, when a dictator is gone, his country is gone too, especially when it was held in place by his iron fist. When the country was made by few ethnicities and religions. The cause is overwhelmingly internal, and looking for external forces causing the breakup is misguided and not leading to understanding.
Yugoslavia fell apart for the same reason Soviet Union did, Syria or Iraq to give few modern examples. In all cases countries were build of variety of ethnic and religious groups hating each other. Syria is outlier in this group, because it fell apart when dictator is still in the office.

The main issue here is that a dictator (a person or a party) is going against natural grass root forces in population. When dictator is gone these forces become loud and unrestrained leading a country in new direction.

Judging by this observation, I'm predicting that when communist party is gone in China, Tibet will separate and other Western Provinces. Hopefully without a domestic war.
When Turkey becomes fully democratic it will lead to separation of Kurdistan from Turkey.
When dictator is gone in North Korea, people will change economic and political system and will unite with South Korea.

The grass roots forces already exist, and they get unleashed when dictator is gone.
Yugoslavia was actually a typical example of it.

This is a simplified, things are slightly different. Not every multinational country after the death of dictator was sentenced to break-up. We have example of Spain after the death of Franco. It is not disputed that Tito was dictator but he had positive aspects. Difference between Spain and Yugoslavia was what in time of transition Spain had Prince Juan Carlos. After the death of Tito Yugoslavia had Presidium who was collective head of state. And it would not be problem that Presidium led transition toward market economy and democracy. But unfortunately, Presidium hold one-party system and socialist economy. And it was big mistake. Presidium didn't have strength, courage and will to change old socialist system, which gave some results in period since start 60's till start of 80's but it was definitely outdated and required fundamental change. Yugoslavia lost ten years in the maintenance of unfit system, instead of that system had to be changed. That in this ten-year period introduced market economy and democracy federal Yugoslavia would have a big chance to survive.

I'm not romantic, very real, Yugoslavia could survive that implemented fundamental change. However English expert Butler rightly observes that Yugoslavia has survived (and transformed) it would be much better place for live than present mini states. Not to mention the much more opportunities for the individual in such state. The point of Butler's text is that federal state is better place with more opportunities than separate mini state. Federalism is good thing just needs a solid foundation.
 
This is a simplified, things are slightly different. Not every multinational country after the death of dictator was sentenced to break-up. We have example of Spain after the death of Franco. It is not disputed that Tito was dictator but he had positive aspects. Difference between Spain and Yugoslavia was what in time of transition Spain had Prince Juan Carlos. After the death of Tito Yugoslavia had Presidium who was collective head of state. And it would not be problem that Presidium led transition toward market economy and democracy. But unfortunately, Presidium hold one-party system and socialist economy. And it was big mistake. Presidium didn't have strength, courage and will to change old socialist system, which gave some results in period since start 60's till start of 80's but it was definitely outdated and required fundamental change. Yugoslavia lost ten years in the maintenance of unfit system, instead of that system had to be changed. That in this ten-year period introduced market economy and democracy federal Yugoslavia would have a big chance to survive.
Spain fits the mold, Catalans and Basques would like to separate, and possibly will, bringing end to Spain. However they are sort of satisfied in the existing union to the point of not wanting to die for independence, but rather use peaceful means like referendum. If they were of different religion they would have separated already.

I'm not romantic, very real, Yugoslavia could survive that implemented fundamental change. However English expert Butler rightly observes that Yugoslavia has survived (and transformed) it would be much better place for live than present mini states. Not to mention the much more opportunities for the individual in such state. The point of Butler's text is that federal state is better place with more opportunities than separate mini state. Federalism is good thing just needs a solid foundation.
Good point.
 
If America could gather all people under American flag of various different races,religions,nations,well what is their conception,is not only let's create republic then we gonna kill eachother,what is the problem and what not,better not to create it at all.
I like it. It's better to part peacefully and be friends. This opens a door to be united in the future if all parties desire. I like how Czechoslovakia parted. They are still friends and good neighbors.
 
I like it. It's better to part peacefully and be friends. This opens a door to be united in the future if all parties desire. I like how Czechoslovakia parted. They are still friends and good neighbors.
I agree if Yugoslavia parted as did Czechoslovakia would have been much better for us all.
 
I agree if Yugoslavia parted as did Czechoslovakia would have been much better for us all.

Yes, but nazis around the world didn't let peoples of Yugoslavia get apart. This advisor guy is just whitewashing the crimes, terror and genocide western countries are responsible for. Their governments are responsible for tens of thousands of dead here. He is just spreading CIA propaganda on the internet, like everyone there does..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...instream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
 
I agree if Yugoslavia parted as did Czechoslovakia would have been much better for us all.

appearantly it was not possible
there was to much hatred among the different ethnicities, and I think not only from the Serbs, I think all parties were guilty
but I don't know much about the subject
can you tell me where the hatred came fom?
and why it was subdued under Tito? yes Tito was a totalitarian ruler, but I don't have the impression he was worse or better than other totalitarian rulers in eastern Europe after WW II
 
Yes, but nazis around the world didn't let peoples of Yugoslavia get apart. This advisor guy is just whitewashing the crimes, terror and genocide western countries are responsible for. Their governments are responsible for tens of thousands of dead here. He is just spreading CIA propaganda on the internet, like everyone there does..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...instream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
Styll seeing Nazis everywhere? I'm sure there is a name for this disorder, lol.
 
appearantly it was not possible
there was to much hatred among the different ethnicities, and I think not only from the Serbs, I think all parties were guilty
but I don't know much about the subject
can you tell me where the hatred came fom?
and why it was subdued under Tito? yes Tito was a totalitarian ruler, but I don't have the impression he was worse or better than other totalitarian rulers in eastern Europe after WW II
You are confused, because you think there are good, tolerant and peaceful dictators. You also believe that leaving Middle East under dictatorship was a good thing. That's the source of confusion.
Now let's listen to our friends from former Yugoslavia to enlighten us about the "good" dictator...
 
appearantly it was not possible
there was to much hatred among the different ethnicities, and I think not only from the Serbs, I think all parties were guilty
but I don't know much about the subject
can you tell me where the hatred came fom?
and why it was subdued under Tito? yes Tito was a totalitarian ruler, but I don't have the impression he was worse or better than other totalitarian rulers in eastern Europe after WW II

Not all were responsabile. Serbs were responsabile for all what happened.
After the WWII, Yougoslavia was the most terrible communist dictature in East Europe, second only to the SU under Stalin. All this until middle 60s when the serb clan under Rankovic fell from the power. During this 20 years, serbs controlled what was called organs of oppression of dictatorship of the proletariat, secret services, police, etc.
After this started a proces of democratization of the country. Of course we can not speak about an democracy with western standarts. And this process was supported with money from west, big money. All this until the death of Tito. After his death, serbs started again to took power and after some years we know what happened. So the "secret" of Yougoslavia was keeping under control the ambitions of the serbs and the money invested from the west powers. Because without those money, the Yougoslav system proclaimed by Tito and his entourage as a third way, was destined to go bankrupt.
 
You are confused, because you think there are good, tolerant and peaceful dictators. You also believe that leaving Middle East under dictatorship was a good thing. That's the source of confusion.
Now let's listen to our friends from former Yugoslavia to enlighten us about the "good" dictator...

There are enlighten dictators. Tito was one of them. I want to mention an another dictator, Pinochet. This people ruled with harsh metods, but their positive legacy is evident.
 
How Yugoslavia could stay so united, while appearantly there was so much hatred between ethnic groups, remains an enigma to me.
I guess Tito was a very charismatic leader.

Yugoslav system was specific. It was no socialist etatistic system as in East block, but socialist self-management system where companies were organizations of associated labor, something similar as workers are owner of companies in the West. This system had results, Yugoslavia had fast development and it was much better for life than countries in Eastern Europe.

It is ridiculous that Albanians here in forum criticize Yugoslavia, quite opposite, Albania under dictator Enver Hoxha was very very poor country and very closed and dozens if not more than hundreds of thousands of Albanians is due to a very poor life came to live in SFR Yugoslavia, mostly in SR Serbia and SR Macedonia. Yugoslavia was country with the highest standard of minority rights in the world. Among other things, this was one of reason why Yugoslavia was high appreciated in Non-Aligned movement.

Big contribution politics of brotherhood and unity which is promoted by Communist party was Federal state fund and Republic funds for the development of poor areas. Large budget was for SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Macedonia and for Serbian province AP Kosovo and Metohiya. Some areas are for a short time skip centuries. Unfortunately after break up of Yugoslavia some of these areas are depleted again because there was no more funding.

People in Yugoslavia had much more freedom than people in East Europe or in Enver Hoxha's Albania. People of all Yugoslav six republics were friendly with each other, hatred was not allowed to manifest, country was very secure.

Yugoslavia had large production and most of things people bought from own Yugoslav production, but imports of western and world goods was allowed, and this goods were sold in Yugoslav market.

LeBrok is right, although more soft, it was dictatorship yet, although Tito as historical figure is for respect. The whole essence was that in 80s, after death of Tito, country implements reforms, and Presidium didn't do it, Presidium remained locked in Socialist system without seeing profound changes in the world. Yugoslavia had to implement democracy and market economy and country would survive. GDP in Yugoslavia per capita probably would be above the EU average, certainly much higher than in today's mini states.

Again, federalism is good thing. Example of Yugoslavia shows precisely the advantages of federalism. Separatists and nationalists do not want to understand that, but they can not offer a better alternative.
 
You are confused, because you think there are good, tolerant and peaceful dictators. You also believe that leaving Middle East under dictatorship was a good thing. That's the source of confusion.
Now let's listen to our friends from former Yugoslavia to enlighten us about the "good" dictator...

where did I mention the word good?
my comment was very short
please read it before you reply
that shouldn't be that difficult
 
Not all were responsabile. Serbs were responsabile for all what happened.
no offense, but this sounds more like an accusation from your part
please elaborate
After the WWII, Yougoslavia was the most terrible communist dictature in East Europe, second only to the SU under Stalin. All this until middle 60s when the serb clan under Rankovic fell from the power. During this 20 years, serbs controlled what was called organs of oppression of dictatorship of the proletariat, secret services, police, etc.
I don't know, I was not there. But I was in Roumenia in early 1995, 1 1/2 year after Ceaucescu. I'm pretty sure he was worse.
After this started a proces of democratization of the country. Of course we can not speak about an democracy with western standarts. And this process was supported with money from west, big money. All this until the death of Tito. After his death, serbs started again to took power and after some years we know what happened. So the "secret" of Yougoslavia was keeping under control the ambitions of the serbs and the money invested from the west powers. Because without those money, the Yougoslav system proclaimed by Tito and his entourage as a third way, was destined to go bankrupt.
yes, creating an illusion on borrowed money, happens all the time, even today in Europe
 
Yugoslav system was specific. It was no socialist etatistic system as in East block, but socialist self-management system where companies were organizations of associated labor, something similar as workers are owner of companies in the West. This system had results, Yugoslavia had fast development and it was much better for life than countries in Eastern Europe.

It is ridiculous that Albanians here in forum criticize Yugoslavia, quite opposite, Albania under dictator Enver Hoxha was very very poor country and very closed and dozens if not more than hundreds of thousands of Albanians is due to a very poor life came to live in SFR Yugoslavia, mostly in SR Serbia and SR Macedonia. Yugoslavia was country with the highest standard of minority rights in the world. Among other things, this was one of reason why Yugoslavia was high appreciated in Non-Aligned movement.

Big contribution politics of brotherhood and unity which is promoted by Communist party was Federal state fund and Republic funds for the development of poor areas. Large budget was for SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Macedonia and for Serbian province AP Kosovo and Metohiya. Some areas are for a short time skip centuries. Unfortunately after break up of Yugoslavia some of these areas are depleted again because there was no more funding.

People in Yugoslavia had much more freedom than people in East Europe or in Enver Hoxha's Albania. People of all Yugoslav six republics were friendly with each other, hatred was not allowed to manifest, country was very secure.

Yugoslavia had large production and most of things people bought from own Yugoslav production, but imports of western and world goods was allowed, and this goods were sold in Yugoslav market.

LeBrok is right, although more soft, it was dictatorship yet, although Tito as historical figure is for respect. The whole essence was that in 80s, after death of Tito, country implements reforms, and Presidium didn't do it, Presidium remained locked in Socialist system without seeing profound changes in the world. Yugoslavia had to implement democracy and market economy and country would survive. GDP in Yugoslavia per capita probably would be above the EU average, certainly much higher than in today's mini states.

Again, federalism is good thing. Example of Yugoslavia shows precisely the advantages of federalism. Separatists and nationalists do not want to understand that, but they can not offer a better alternative.

ok, things went wrong after Tito's death, but it does not explain where such deep and profound hatred between different groups came from
 
where did I mention the word good?
my comment was very short
please read it before you reply
that shouldn't be that difficult
Indead, I didn't read it right. Sorry.
 

This thread has been viewed 38130 times.

Back
Top