Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The disintegration of yugoslavia
Effect of propaganda on politic
Effect of propaganda
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The last two decades of the twentieth century gave rise to turbulent times for constituent republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, eventually leading them to split apart. There were a number of damaging aspects of past history and of the political and economic circumstances that contributed to the breakup and eventually caused the situation to snowball into a deadly series of inter-ethnic conflicts. Yugoslavia was reunified at the end of the war when the communist forces of Josip Broz Tito liberated the country. Under Tito, Yugoslavia adopted a relatively liberal form of government in comparison to other East European communist states at the time and experienced a period of relative economic and political stability until Tito’s death in 1980. In addition to internal power struggles following the loss of their longtime leader, Yugoslavia faced an unprecedented economic crisis in the 1980’s. As other communist states began to fall in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, some former Communist leaders abandoned communism and founded or supported ethno-national parties, blaming the economic suffering on the flaws of communism and other ethnic groups. The ethnic violence that followed would not have been possible without the willingness of politicians from every side to promote ethno-nationalist symbols and myths through media blitzes, which were especially effective due to low levels of education in the former Yugoslavia. Shadows of the events of World War II gave these politicians, especially the Serbs, an opportunity to encourage the discussion and exaggeration of past atrocities later in the century. The ethnic violence in the former Yugoslavia can be traced back to a series of linked damaging factors such as the de...
... middle of paper ...
... that other republics felt to the need to be the same so that they did not become disadvantaged. Exaggeration was an integral part of the huge amounts of propaganda being beamed at the common people, all in an attempt to imbue them with the nationalist ideologies (Rogel 45). The Serb death count at Jasenovac was a wildly varying number, grossly overinflated by the Serbs and downplayed by the Croats. The Serbs even asserted that the Bosnia was just an administrative creation of Tito, designed to thwart the rights of the Serbs (Rogel 43). The Croats countered that the whole Yugoslav system under the communists had been run for the benefit of the Serbs, and Croatia had borne the economic brunt of it. All of this propaganda was disseminated in order to make the common get people feeling anxious enough that they felt it was necessary to take up arms to defend themselves.
In fact, sometimes it is actively encouraged as part of preserving the culture and the traditional aspects of the nation in question; for example, routine celebrations of national holiday and the wearing of cultural clothing demonstrate moderate forms of nationalism. However, it is when extreme pride in one’s nation leads to acts that contravene common decency that the forces of nationalism become dangerous. A historical example of such an event was the Bosnian war and the resulting Bosnian genocide that occurred shortly after the partition of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s. In this event, extreme Serbian nationalism called for the unity of the Serbian peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina - an event that echoes the words of the source. Serbian leaders and followers believed that their culture and people were superior to that of the neighbouring ethnic groups - the Bosniaks and the Croatians - and thought that they needed to be eliminated because of the potential threat they posed to the establishment of an autonomous Serbian Republic, or “Greater Serbia”. In the course of the war, and the ethnic cleansing that followed, more than 100,000 Bosniaks and Croatians were to be killed in a mass act of genocide. This appalling and gruesome figure shows the extent to which extreme nationalism is unacceptable and how unification of a people by force is both detrimental and wrong on all
The 1990s were a period of extreme ethnic conflict in the former nation of Yugoslavia. In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina passed a referendum for independence, which was not met with an equal enthusiasm amongst the republic's population. The group most against this independence was the Serbian minority, who were convinced by leaders such as Slobodan Milosovic and psychiatrist Jovan Raskovic in the idea of a "greater Serbia." Serbs were told they needed to dominate the surrounding Croats and Muslims based on their psychological superiority. Serb fighters carried out vicious campaigns of ethnic cleansing, killing over 100,000 people with another 1.5 million being forced from their homes to created predominantly Serbian areas. In 1995 Bosnia Croatia and Serbia signed the Dayton peace accords and focus shifted towards Kosovo, where discord had been emerging between the Albanians and the Serbs.
struggle, however, fought under the guise of ethnic hatred. Bibliography Glenny M, "The Balkans, 1804-1999", 2000. Lampe JR, Yugoslavia as History. Twice There was a Country, 1996. Kegley and Wittkopf, "World Politics", 2001.
A new leader arose by the late 1980s, a Serbian named Slobodan Milosevic, a former Communist who had turned to nationalism and religious hatred to gain power. He began by inflaming long-standing tensions between Serbs and Muslims in the independent provence of Kosovo. Orthodox Christian Serbs in Kosovo were in the minority and claimed they were being mistreated by the Albanian Muslim majority. Serbian-backed political unrest in Kosovo eventually led to its loss of independence and domination by Milosevic. In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia both declared their independence from Yugoslavia soon resulting in civil war. The national army of Yugoslavia, now made up of Serbs controlled by Milosevic, stormed into Slovenia but failed to subdue the separatists there and withdrew after only ten days of fighting. Milosevic quickly lost interest in Slovenia, a country with almost no Serbs. Instead, he turned his attention to Croatia, a Catholic country where Orthodox Serbs made up 12 percent of the population. During World War II, Croatia had been a pro-Nazi state led by Ante Pavelic and his fascist Ustasha Party. Serbs living in Croatia as well as Jews had been the targets of widespread Ustasha massacres.
...s it liable and unique. It is descriptive and provides a lot of information but in the same time it is also analytical because it presents different aspects and primary sources of the Serb’s history. The parts of the book which relate to the origins of the First World War and the Balkan crisis are focused on the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, so it does not analyze all origins of the War, but it does analyze in depth the influence of Balkan nationalism for the outbreak and provides a large number of evidences for his arguments. The book compares and contrasts political and cultural history of Serbs and it is credible and objective. Relating to the First World War he also provides many primary sources and perspectives of different scholars. The book is authoritative and it is easy to notice that Corovic is an acknowledged expert on the subject.
Reiss, Rodolphe Archibald, and Fanny S. Copeland. The Kingdom of Serbia Report upon the Atrocities Committed by the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First Invasion ; Submitted to the Serbian Government. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1916. Print.
Although Milosevic was a key figure during this period whose actions undoubtedly influenced the chain of events that unfolded, I believe his power-seeking motives were not unique to him; his actions in the former Yugoslavia could have been committed by a number of others who had the same desire for power driving them. Nevertheless, as he was president of Serbia and essentially commander-in-chief of Serb forces who carried out unconscionable acts of cruelty against Muslims and other non-Serb civilians, particularly in the attempt to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina, he bears responsibility for his actions as an authority figure. Though his main goal seemed to be focused on territorial expansion of the Serbian state, he led military forces to deport and murder non-Serb civilians in massive numbers and therefore was in vi...
As source C states that, “…Serbian leader Nicholas Paschich adopted an openly anti-Austrian policy…” Likewise, source E states that, “[Austria-Hungary was] fatally vulnerable to the activities of the Serbs.”
Their action to prevent this was to dissolve the rest of Yugoslavia and created Serbia and Montenegro. This was the end of Yugoslavia.
Gagnon, V. P. (2004). The myth of ethnic war: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Violence marks much of human history. Within the sociopolitical sphere, violence has continually served as a tool used by various actors to influence and/or to control territory, people, institutions and other resources of society. The twentieth century witnessed an evolution of political violence in form and in scope. Continuing into the twenty-first, advances in technology and social organization dramatically increase the potential destructiveness of violent tools. Western colonialism left a world filled with many heterogeneous nation-states. In virtually all these countries nationalist ideologies have combined with ethnic, religious, and/or class conflicts resulting in secessionist movements or other kinds of demands. Such conflicts present opportunities for various actors in struggles for wealth, power, and prestige on both national and local levels. This is particularly evident in Indonesia, a region of the world that has experienced many forms of political violence. The state mass killings of 1965-66 mark the most dramatic of such events within this region. My goal is to understand the killings within a framework of collec...
The history of modern Bosnia began with the country of Yugoslavia in the 1900s. At the beginning of World War I, the Baltic region was controlled by Austria-Hungary. The trigger for WWI actually took place in Sarajevo, Bosnia, when a group of insubordinate Serbs assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand (heir to Austria-Hungary). In the ashes of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, the Baltic countries formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918. The Kingdom united as the country of Yugoslavia in 1929, of which Bosnia was a constituent republic until Nazi Germany invaded in 1941. After Nazi Germany fell, President Marshall Tito took over the country and controlled it. Although President Tito was a Communist, he did do some good in the country, especially by keeping the Soviet Union at arm’s length, which planted unity in his country against a common enemy. When Yugoslavia was under Tito, it had some of the best times in Slavic
Imagine waking up one day to the thundering of blows given at the door telling you to “open up or be shot down.” It is the Serb police, and they are telling you that you and your whole family had to leave your home immediately. This is how it went for many Albanian people during what some Serb extremists called “demographic genocide.” This was the beginning of what many would call the Kosovo War, and it lasted from March to June 1999. After NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, something strange happened. Now the people being victimized were the Serbs and anyone who was “friendly” to them. In this paper, I will speak about what happened before and after the war in Kosovo.
Serbs saw in the idea of Yugoslavia the opportunity to have all Serbs living in a single state, and in addition, gathering around them the other nationalities in such a way that Serbs would play the dominant role.
The causes of ethnic conflict cannot be generalised to fit all incidents, as the conflicts in Sri