Talk:Yugoslavia

1991 events (10 day war)

I have changed chapter...

"However, under orders, the Yugoslav Army did not carry live ammunition and the Slovene territorial defence took advantage of this by shooting at young conscripts. Recently the Austrian ORF tv station showed footage of several young Yugoslav soldiers at Holmec (border crossing with Austria), carrying a white cloth and raising their hands in the air, apparently to surrender to the Slovenian territorial defence, before gunfire was heard and the troops were seen falling down. This and other events are known as the so-called Ten-Day War in Slovenia."

... into ...

"Army however had no logistic support for a long term warfare, aswell as there was no political consensus within the Federal Executive Council to which extent the army was to be used. After ten days and 76 victims the so called Ten-Day War for Slovenia was over and JLA army was forced back in the barracks."

Yugoslav Army did carry live ammunition, there were several incidents involving gunfire, and from 76 persons killed, 19 were on Slovenian side (Territorial defence and Police).

Holmec incident is a subject of current political games between Serbia and Slovenia and it's meaning in the ten-day war is prepotent. It had no obvious impact on the war itself, and no one was shot dead in that incident. Serbian side claims first war crime in 90s happend there, however this was already legaly rejected by the Slovenian court, so unless this is to be legaly proven in the future, such statement is not to be taken as historical fact and as such written down in Wikipedia.

German invasion and Operation Barbarossa

The claim that the German invasion of Yugoslavia resulted in a delay to Operation Barbarossa has been comprehensively exploded by historians.

CIA involvment

several references from mainstream media can be found here [1] 188.2.169.209 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we calling Tiawan the Republic of China?

in the legacy, new states section (meaning yugoslavia today) wikipedia is supposed to be current lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.249.98 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

Hello. The section entitled "===Ethnic tensions and economic crisis===" has overlooked something fundamental. In the midst of its economic crisis caused by the IMF, the U.S. Congress, under the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, passed a law prohibiting further economic aid unless the SFRY split up into separate states, or showed evidence of steps toward doing so. I have placed a copy of the complete Statute book for that occasion at scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/77535908/STATUTE-104-3-2-Law-Passed-by-USA-to-Force-the-Break-up-of-Yugoslavia), however, the segment on Yugoslavia is relatively short, and reads as follows:

"YUGOSLAVIA

SEC. 599A. Six months after the date of enactment of this Act, (1) none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to provide any direct assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose any assistance of the respective institutions to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Provided, That this section shall not apply to assistance intended to support democratic parties or movements, emergency or humanitarian assistance, or the furtherance of human rights: Provided further. That this section shall not apply if all six of the individual Republics of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have held free and fair multiparty elections and are not engaged in a pattern of systematic gross violations of human rights: Provided further. That notwithstanding the failure of the individual Republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have held free and fair multiparty elections within six months of the enactment of this Act, this section shall not apply if the Secretary of State certifies that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is making significant strides toward compl5dng with the obligations of the Helsinki Accords and is encouraging any Republic which has not held free and fair multiparty elections to do so."

Further insight into the relationship between the economic sanctions and ethnic tensions is discussed by author William Engdahl, who draws attention to these economic sanctions in his book: "Yugoslavia Gets Shock Therapy", excerpted from the book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (2004), where he also says:

"Speaking in Washington in 1998, ten years later, and one year before NATO began bombing Belgrade, NED director Paul McCarthy boasted, 'NED was one of the few Western organizations, along with the Soros Foundation and some European foundations, to make grants in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to work with local NGO's and independent media throughout the country.' During the cold war, such internal intervention in a foreign country would have been labeled a CIA destabilization. In Washington newspeak, it was called, 'the fostering of democracy.' The result, for the living standard of Serbs, Kosovans, Bosnians, Croats and others, was disastrous.

What ensued in Yugoslavia after 1990 was understood by only a few insiders for what it was. Washington, using the NED, George Soros's Open Society Foundation and the IMF, introduced economic chaos into Yugoslavia as an instrument of geopolitical policy."

I do believe that no full understanding of what happened to Yugoslavia can start to be achieved without these elements: (a) the 1991 USA statute calling for the SFRY to break up; and (b) the clandestine underground destabilization of that country by Soros-funded groups and others.

A further element that needs to be looked into is the self-serving expansion of the EC-EU by willfully declaring the SFRY "dissolved" to absolve the leaders of its component states of liability for treason; as well as absolving themselves for illegal interference in the domestic unity of a sovereign state, which is illegal under U.N. instruments. The combined effect of the underground destabilization, the havoc wreaked by the IMF, the US statute calling for the break-up, and the EC-EU's EXPANSION as a consequence of its blatant destruction of the SFRY by declaring it "dissolved" in order to then self-servingly "recognize" its components after issuing an invitation to "accede" to the EU system, all point to a radical new form of imperial conquest.

As observed by Professor Dr. Raju G. C. Thomas, External Researcher with Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army War College, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University:

"Disintegration and war in the former Yugoslavia was caused mainly by the hasty and reckless Western policy of recognizing new states who wished to secede from an existing long-standing state."

He continued...

"In 1991, new state recognition policy proved to be an inventive new method of destroying long-standing sovereign independent states. When several rich and powerful states decide to take a sovereign independent state apart through the policy of recognition, how is this state supposed to defend itself? There can be no deterrence or defense against this form of destruction."

Thanks for your time.

70.52.24.166 (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are for requesting that specific changes be made to an article only, not for general content discussion. If you have a specific change you would like to make, please reactivate this request. Mato (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)