Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mideur-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:19:22 -0400
From:         "Andrej Brodnik (Andy)" <abrodnik@WATDRAGON.WATERLOO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Friends responce....
X-To:         MIDEUR-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu
              "Velibor M. Marenovic" at Aug 13, 92 12:33 am

> From: "Velibor M. Marenovic" <VMARENOVIC@MACALSTR.EDU>
>
> I have been asked to post the following. Professor (author of the message)
> wisches to remain anonymous.

Hm, I always feel a bit strange when talking with somebody who doesn't
want to introduce himself. But anyway, let me answer the letter as
readers on the net should get more clear picture as one represented in
the original posting.

> > 1.  Kosovo was CONQUERED by Turks after the Kosovo battle in 1389. Before
 that
> > it was a part of Serbian empire.  So, consequently, it was LIBERATED by
 Serbs
> > in the Balkan wars (1912-1913). It is not only a semantic question and it
 does
> > not depend on point of view. The fact is that Kosovo was NOT AWARDED by big
> > powers to Serbia. The truth is, that Serbian and Montenigrian forces WERE
> > FORCED to withdraw from norther-central Albania (cities of Skadar and
 Dures).

I think that all, who know anything about history, completely
acknowledge the facts listed here. They are facts, but I'm afraid that
you missed my initial point. The Kosovo was liberated (from Serbian
point of view) and awarded (from the Albanian point of view). The main
problem here is, as clearly said Mr.Djilas today on Night-line, ones
victories are seen as defeats of others and vice versa.

And, as Dr.Simic from Belgrade Institute for international poitics and
economy said in "Mladina Weekly", Serbian politics was never rational
and Slovenia, Croatia and whole West never realized that.

Further Mr.Anonymous wrote that:

> > However,these facts do not imply that only Serbs should live in Kosovo.
> > (The reference to such statements can be easily found in the press of the
>  neigh
> > bouring republics: "Croatia to Croats", "Slovenia-my Country" (not yours is
>  imp
> > lied) etc. etc.).

Let me just go to the last slogan listed here. He, Mr.Anono., brings
in _his_ opinion, but because I happened to know Slovenia much better
than he does, all what I can say is, that this is solely his opinion
which is far from reality. In reality the slogan was lounched by
Turistic Association of Slovenia in 1985 (6) in order to attrack more
turists from West and invite people to show them their hospitality.
References? Simply see the posters and brouchures from that time.
Later the slogan was replaced (or there was added a new one):
Slovenia, a country on a sunny side of Alps.

> > 2. Again, the fact that Yugoslavia never was a centralised country is not
> > a matter of opinion. The real financial power was  vested in the bureaucracy
> > of the republics. There were not a decision that could've been made without
 a
> > consensus - and each republic, regardless of its relative size and power
 could
> > have easily vetoed any action ( just imagine that two Senators from North
 Dako
> > ta or Delaware were able to veto the decision of entering the war aginst
>  Iraq).

This is partially true. But the main point of centralization was that
a complete foreign (hard) currency income was immediately deposited at
a Federal bank in Belgrade. Hence all what republics weere allowed to
do was to handle national currency. (Reference: Federal law on
handling of hard currency market.)

> > The very same holds for the military powerSince the mid-60 the Yugoslavia
> > defence strategy was based on the conception of "armed people" ( so called
> > Teritorial Defense Units). In practice, it became the policy of armed
 nations.
> > In plain English, the Commander of Slovenia's teritorial defense units was a
> > Slovenian, in Croatia it was a Croat, an so on... (The FACT is that 2/3 of
> > military budget was spent on teritorial defense units and only 1/3 on
> > regular (JNA) army.).  So, the fact is that Yuogoslavia was a HIGHLY
>  DECENTALIS
> > ED COUNTRY ( the reference to that is easily available in any serious
 literatu
> > re about Yugoslavia).

The claim about military budget mentioned above is at least
ridiculous. Let us first clarify the purpose of territorial defence.
Namely the territorial defence was meant to be used for guerila
fighting and hence it also got appropriate weaponry (i.e.no planes, no
tanks, etc.) From this very fact the distribution of military budget
as mentioned by Mr.Anon. becomes somehow strange. But if we add the
law, accepted in late seventies which put the responsibility to buy
weaponry for territorial defence on republics, the distribution of
military budget is completely incorrect. To complete the picture about
the military budget, let me just mention that whenever a new budget in
ex-YU was considered, Army put in their number and nobody was allowed
to discuss it -- one who would dare to do this was immediately
considered as anti-revolutionar element.

> > 3. There were 3 major  camps in occupied Serbia (Nedich Serbia) during the
> > WW II: Nis (so called Red Cross Camp), Staro Sajmiste and Banjica (both in
> > Belgrade). ALL OF THEM WERE RAN BY NAZI GERMANS. The Jews in particular were
> > imprisoned on Autokomanda (big square in Belgrade),the prison under the
 German
> > control.
> > (Of course, that there were some Serbs who sided with Nazis and against
 their
> > own people. However, Serbia was an occupied teritory during the war, not a
> > state. So, blaming Serbs for running camps is the same as blaming Checz for
> > destroying Lidice).

That is exactly what I was saying: "there were among Serbs ...". If
one would like to compare, there were among Frenchmen as well (or pick
almost any nation). What bothers me is so absolute claim about
"purity" of nation.

> > 4. Scots and Irish who live in England are NOT ENGLISH.  So Serbs who live
> > in Croatia and Bosnia are not Croats or Bosnians. It is dispeakable that
> > these people who were Croats, Slovenes, Muslims, Macedonians etc. and than
> > (if at all) Yugoslavs , now suggesting that Serbs are to be Bosnians first.

Not first, but as well. If you want to compare with ex-YU. There was
no Yugoslavs (essentially). They were whatever nationality _and_
citizens of Yugoslavia.

> > 5. I do not want to quote Volter about the merits of statistics. However,
> > the national structure of JNA was considered as the TOP SECRET.

But how come that official numbers from the Army came into public?

> > 6. There is no need to demolish every building in the world where Swastika
 is
> >    ornamented. It is an old sign (of an Indian origin, I think).  The same
 is
> >  in the case of the Croatian  checkboard (sp.). However, someone should be
> > a real ignorant or (more probably) a Nazi if he/she chooses Swastika as a
 main
> > simbol of his/her state. The same logic applies to Croatian flag.

But how come that nobody (NOBODY!) was ever complaining about Croatian
coat-of-arm which all the time included this sign? Nobody, even Serbs
in Croatia.

> > It is true that Ustasha flag was somewhat different (checkboard started with
> > a white field, while today it starts with a red field). However, it is not
> > true that a letter U was ALWAYS a part of the ustashi flag. It was "reserved
> > for an elite forces called "Black Legion" and "Devil's Brigade". Anyhow, at
> > very beginning the ruling party in Croatia (Croation Democratic Union) was
> > gathering under the flag with the checkboard that started with the white
> > field (comments are more than welcome).

The Nazi (nazionalsocialistic party) flag was swastika on red
background. And similarly Utashas (party) used "U" as their sign. Or,
if one wants, fascists (party) in Italy used "fascio" as their sign
and all these parties also used the national symbols because they were
in power in a respective countries. Hence, it would be ridicolous to
demans from Italians their tre-colori flag or from Germans to forget
about their Aar. And note, that all parties committed crimes "in the
name of (respective) nations".

In my opinion, the main point here is not the flag or sign, but
clarification of the time. And what is more dangerous, the same
tragedy as it happened during WWII is going on now with a similar
consequences -- each side will tell their own storries to their
children and hate will proceed to live in the nation. The solution?
Short term stop killing; middle term bring killers and all criminals
to the international court; long term peaceful coexistence based on
interethnic tolerance and economical basis.

Regards,

Andrej
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU