The Dismemberment Of The Former Yugoslavia

One of the youngest nations of Europe, Yugoslavia was created after World War I as a homeland for several different rival ethnic groups. The country was put together mostly from remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Demands for self-determination by Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and others were ignored. Yugoslavia thus became an uneasy association of peoples conditioned by centuries of ethnic and religious hatreds. World War II aggravated these rivalries, but Communist dictatorship after the war controlled them for 45 years. When the Communist system failed, the old rivalries reasserted themselves; and in the early 1990s the nation was rent by secessionist movements and civil war. Within several years these conflicts

Many different ethnic and religious groups resided together for at least 40 years under Yugoslavia’s repressive communist government. During the World War II Yugoslavia was invaded by the Nazi Germany. The Serb who was opposing the breakup of Yugoslavia started a war against the Slovenians. In the year of 1945, Yugoslavia began to economically develop differently than its socialist counterparts by creating a unique form of decentralized market socialism based on workers that are self- management. The first goal of the Serb was to completely wipe out he educated wealthy and any other type of non - serbs who actively opposed their rule. Tito was a strong leader who maintained ties with the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Tit did manage to keep ethnic friction at a minimum for a long period of time. Then Tito died in 1980. By the late 1920’s a new leader a Serbian named Slobodan

Nobody chose for it to come to this point, yes there could have been better ways to deal with the disagreement or there were ways to end the genocide before the Bosnians had to rise above. It wasn't fair that the Bosnians just wanted power in their country but they could have confronted the subject differently than just trying to overthrow the already set people in charge. Everyone likes power, but when is it enough to where you should give it up or you have gone too far. If you believe that the way to deal with disagreements is to turn to genocide you shouldn't be in charge at that point you’re over using your power for evil things. In my opinion and beliefs I think that the Bosnians could have waited a little bit to demand power because the cold war. The Serbians could have also given up power because the economy wasn't that good for them and they were just in the cold war which made the Bosnians angered because the Serbians got them in the cold war. It doesn't do much justice for the Serbians saying as they got them involved in the cold war, refused to give up after power, and the genocide was began against the Bosnians. Not only were the Bosnians killed but they were beat, killed, raped and humiliated. They didn't always do a “quick death” they wanted the Bosnians suffering to last (Bosnian Genocide). We notice the genocide but we

The geographic location of Bosnia and its past history of colonization help explain why non-Serbs were targeted and

The Balkan Peninsula was filled with an assortment of ethnic groups, with its history of uprisings and clashes between the ethnic groups, the Balkan region was known as the “powder-keg” of Europe. Being named the “powder-keg” of Europe, wasn’t an understatement. It was justified to be called the “powder-keg.” Below, are reasons defining why, it was justified.

Josip Broz came to power in 1943, and he made sure to keep everyone in check, making sure that no ethnic groups controlled the country.Unfortunately, after his death in 1980, Yugoslav went through many ups and downs due to different ethnic groups wanting independence. Finally in 1987 Slobodan Milosevic grew to power and he changed many things, so that it could favor Serbs. “He created an army that was 90% Serbian, and he extended his power over the country’s financial, media, and security structures. Later, with the help of Serbian separatists in Bosnia and Croatia, he convinced them that other ethnic groups posed a threat to their rights”(The Bosnian War and Srebrenica Genocide). That’s when the genocide started, of mass killings. Croatia and Bosnia wanted independence as well. Yugoslav began to attack Croatia to help any ethnic Serbs that lived there. They took over the city, Vukovar, and had

Nationalism, Security, and the Death of Yugoslavia Norma Percy’s “The Death of Yugoslavia” frames the political events that took place towards the end of the Cold War that would ultimately result in the dissolvent of Yugoslavia. After the death of Josi Broz Tito, the once suppressed nationalism between the Serbs and Croats was reignited under the control of Slobodan Milosevic. The Serbs claimed that their people were poorly treated at that the Albanians yearned for an ethnically pure Yugoslavia. Unlike his predecessor, Milosevic catered to the Serbs, lending an ear to their nationalistic tendencies instead of crushing it.

Di Giovanni, a senior foreign correspondent for The Times, lived through the Balkan wars in the former Yugoslavia. This book focuses mainly on the conflict in Kosovo in 1999 but Di Giovanni also reports on the situation from the initial dissolution of the country up until the attempt at reconstruction. The author also provides the reader with the historical context of the wars, such as the events since the death of Tito and especially since 1992. It was in 1991 that the Catholic- dominated Croatia and Slovenia declared themselves independent. This began the armed conflict between Croatia and Slobodan Milosevic's Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. Milosevic was not going to allow the country to be split up.

Precariously poised between the Balkans and Central Europe, this land has been passed between competing kingdoms, empires and republics for millennia. If there's an upside to this continual dislocation, it's in the rich cultural legacy that each has left behind. Venetian palazzos snuggle up to Napoleonic forts, Roman columns protrude from early Slavic churches, and Viennese mansions face off with Socialist Realist

Writing and film are both very common ways of representing conflict and genocide, each offer their own advantages and disadvantages. A film is able to show accurate physical imagery that allows us to see things that our mind might not have the capability of creating on its own. A film is also able to relay much more in a shorter span of time. Something that takes five pages to explain in writing can be represented in just five second of film. A piece of writing can give us a deeper perspective on almost anything, as there is no limit on the amount of detail one can put into a single page. Through writing, a reader is also able to comprehend and store a lot more information than they would just watching a film. Though each are ideal representations of the Bosnian conflict and genocide, the writing and the film combined are much more effective.

My modern world problem is on the Bosnian civil war which took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina from April 6, 1992 until December 14, 1995. Following the Second World War the states of Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia, which were previously controlled by the Axis forces became part of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. Their leader, Josip Broz Tito focused on peace and cooperation between the different states and avoided Nationalism to avoid conflict. He was successful in doing so until his death in 1980. A growing sense of nationalism started between the different states which intensified after the rise of Slobodan

In 1990 Yugoslavia started to weaken from a multitude of political upheavals and other conflicts. Later resulting in the total separation of Yugoslavia, which was the main cause for why the war started.

Known as Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II, the Yugoslav Wars (also known as the Wars of Yugoslav Succession, the Yugoslav Civil War, or the War in the Balkans) were a series of wars fought in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Though the entire conflict can be divided up into four distinct wars, they are related due to their common origin and the presence of the same ethnoreligious groups in the multiple wars. These wars have become notorious due to the atrocious war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by all sides.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Henry Hale’s article “Divided we Stand: Institutional Sources for Ethno federal State Survival and Collapse”. Hale’s attempts to respond to the criticism leveled against ethnofederalism, which posits that ethnofederal institutional arrangement leads to secession and consequently failure of central state. He argues that existence of a core ethnic region facilitates separatism and secessionism, which if addressed will resolve the misconception about ethnofederalism. His theory of a state’s collapse is solid and well argued. However, there are some contradictions in its casual mechanism, which can be perfected with further research. This review proceeds as follows. The first section provides a brief summary of the article. The second section discusses the articles methodology, and the last section provides critique of the article.

As one of the most troubled region of the Balkans in Central Europe, the Balkans were affected by strife and hostility. The problems in the Balkans not only affected the people living in this region, but also other large European powers that fueled many of the major conflicts and events of Europe at the time. The First Balkan War and its profound effects on European history will be discussed, while also exploring the future conflicts in both the Balkans and the rest of Europe.