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.

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)

"refers to"

Yugoslavia does not "refer to" such and such. It "was", rather, such and such. This is not a dictionary. I'd be interested in knowing what percent of articles in English Wikipedia start with this flawed phrase. It really should be focused on in the style manual. The phrase "refers to" suggests the article is to be about the word or term that is the title of the article. However, this is in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles not at all the case.

In Wiktionary, it would be a fairly good way to start an article, using this "refers to" expression. In Wikipedia, however, it is in most cases simply nonsense. The topic of articles here in Wikipedia are in almost all cases about a topic that the title "refers to" ... not about the article title words themselves. Which is to say, this article should not start out by focusing on the word "Yugoslavia" (which it does as it is now), but should instead focus simply on Yugoslavia. The article should not at all begin with talking about what Yuguslavia "refers to", but should instead start out by saying that Yugoslavia "was" a series of political entities and so on. I hope it won't be too many years until the administrators finally realize how silly it looks how so many articles start out with this "refers to" silliness. Please take this topic to your leaders, guys. :-) It's been a blemish on Wikipedia for years. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The "administrators" aren't the people who can fix this - everyone can, as can you. If you want to entice others to help, please post that to a generic page such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, Joy. I have now posted the message in the page you suggested. Thanks, again. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I made an effort to rewrite the first paragraph, but it is not ideal. The main difficulty is that it is very hard to describe Yugoslavia as 'three countries' without using 'refers to'. So I just described it as one country with three forms of government, which seems OK to be because none of the countries was literally named "Yugoslavia", and because the rest of the lede outlines the successions between the governments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To me the introduction looks alright now.

This link, which I like very much, points out that when that phrase "refers to" is used, it's appropriate to use italics formatting on the word that refers to whatever it is. Precisely because "refers to" means it's the word as such (not the topic) that refers. This is what "refer" means. It means to kind of point to something. The word points to a notion, but the word itself is not the notion. Like a picture of a pizza is not a pizza. So if in the introduction here we were to use "refers to", it should properly say "Yugoslavia refers to ..." And then I think it becomes more apparent that such a statement is better placed far into the article under some subsection on the origins of the name Yugoslavia. And, again, since this is not a dictionary or etymological entry but instead is an encyclopedic article about the former country, the intro must not focus on Yugoslavia but on Yugoslavia. Anyway, Carl, I heartily approve of your edit. I'm officially un-bugged by this article now. :-) --31.45.79.44 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Third Yugoslavia

There were three entities known as Yugoslavia. That can be checked very easily. Third one was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And this article is called Yugoslavia. Therefor... --WhiteWriter^speaks 08:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"known as Yugoslavia"? What does that mean? I would contend that the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was also known as Serbia and Montenegro, and that it is just one among five Yugoslav successor states. It no more warrants inclusion in this article than Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, etc. Its name is nothing more than an abortive bid by Slobodan Milosevich to have his rump state declared the sole successor to Yugoslavia (for the money, of course). -- Director (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You will have to gain consensus for removing stable version from this article, and for this controversial and highly disputed edit. You cannot revert again, as i will instantly go to administrators. Neither you, PRODUCER, can just accidentally revert without consensus here! No one can! Talk page is for discussion and agreement! Official name of that country was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. You, DIREKTOR, already wanted to push your POV years ago, without any consensus, and you are doing it now, again without any consensus, agreement or reason. One comment: SFRY ≠ FRY. I got the impression that you are trying to remove third Yugoslavia from wikipedia, in every possible way, in order to show that FRY is minor dark error in the face of history, and to clearly show that FRY is not only successor of SFRY, despite the name. Well, that is not quite important for the scope of article "Yugoslavia". Federal Republic of Yugoslavia existed. Was a fact for eleven years, since 1992 up to 2003. That is a fact. Country named Yugoslavia should and will be mentioned in this article, named very much the same, Yugoslavia. And further reverts, without clear agreement, will be instantly reported in every possible way i know, starting with AE. This is blatant violation of numerous wiki rules and guidelines. So, you will have to agree here first. You must not revert again, without agreement and consensus here first! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version that was unilaterally altered. You can either discuss the additions you propose (having followed my edits for the sixth or seventh time), or you can try to intimidate people with threats. -- Director (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which existed since 1992 - 2003 be included in the scope of Yugoslavia article? For more information's see threads above, or other international wikipedias. I insist that only unrelated users comment below. --WhiteWriter^speaks 08:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• My preliminary comment is that this is mainly a style issue plus obviously the issue with DIREKTOR's pattern of annoying edits - certainly it's silly to completely censor the notion of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from this article. Its role must not be overstated, given that it was not the sole successor to the notion of "former Yugoslavia", but it's wholly irrational to avoid giving it a section at all. This reminds me of censoring Kosovo War from the Yugoslav Wars, which also seems to be one of DIREKTOR's pet peeves. Amusingly, it's also a place where the two of you agreed about the matter. But the whole thing isn't really amusing because it's a waste of time to discuss things with people who spend more time yammering on Talk pages than on referencing their claims in main space articles. Y'all keep this up and one of these days a less appreciative admin will come along and topic-ban you all for being such horrible pains in the collective ass (which almost happened with Fainites a while back). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Joy, I think I'm starting to get annoyed with you pointing out the annoying nature of my edits. I apologize for you having been "forced" to actually have a requested move in order to move an extremely controversial article [1], but this isn't admin behavior. A real admin would just keep a dignified silence and have one of his buddies block the people he's annoyed with.. or something, get with the program ;). And this is the third Balkans dispute you're participating in within just a couple of weeks. Hopefully you won't be included in the mass-topic ban you're threatening people with.
  • Re this specific issue, do you actually have some sort of constructive suggestion? Or are you just here to talk down on people? (and/or to take revenge for my having "forced you" at Talk:Bleiburg massacre and elsewhere?) Obviously I would not mind having FRY covered here to some extent, but I am opposed (apparently just as you are) to how things were before, i.e. the organization of this article into the "First", "Second", and "Third Yugoslavias". There's the "New States" section. Perhaps we can have a section therein that will cover the FRY?

-- Director (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I get accused of being unconstructive by a person whose demonstrated stance on the matter is to completely drop several kilobytes of text and then revert-war over it. See, that's the kind of attitude that makes these discussions a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Even more nonconstructive quips. Do you have some sort of proposal to solve this?

This may come as a shock to you, Joy, but I'm really a nice guy, who doesn't hold any grudge or ill-will towards you. I think you're a neutral, hard-working Wikipedian. Your edits on Bleiburg massacre were top-notch, excellent improvements, and I dropped all my objections so you can get back to work. But I keep to one objection about the emotionalism of the term "tragedy" - and you take offense immediately. You post an RM with personal remarks, and then proceed to chastise me several times based on.. nothing. Your perception of my tone, I suppose. Joy, keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. You should probably imagine me speaking is a slow, lazy baritone :). My girlfriend tells me I sound like Anthony Hopkins, but I suspect that's a violation of WP:NPOV.. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We will wait for someone else neutral to call, but we will see about that, as for now, we will restore third yugoslavia, as that is outcome of RfC. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter, could you please refrain from "proclaiming victory" after one person stated something partially in your favor? At least without cause. As you said, lets have a few people comment - that's what an RfC is for. And, for the record, you can't "insist" that some people don't comment. I expect you're to decide who's "involved" and who isn't? -- Director (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not quite commenting. That is spam. You are convincing everyone else that only you are right. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, FR Yugoslavia should not be given undue weight by this article because it is one of five countries which became independent through dissolution of the SFR Yugoslavia. That means I think it would be inappropriate to present information about FR Yugoslavia as a form of continuation of SFR Yugoslavia (other then by name alone - and that ought to be stressed to avoid misleading casual readers), but I could see no objection to mentioning it as one of five successor states in an appropriate section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I would elaborate upon it in the New states section, perhaps in a special subsection. I believe its name warrants more detailed coverage than the other four states, but I would not like to see it listed as the "third Yugoslavia" on equal footing with the other two. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomobe03, but we agree that FR Yugoslavia is not a continuation of SFR Yugoslavia, but it have the same name. That is the reason for this RfC. And therefore should be mentioned in article Yugoslavia, IOHO. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the dispute then? Do mention it (if you ask me) in an appropriate place, but as one of five successor states, taking care not to mislead casual readers (not everyone is familiar with the subject) and do not give it undue weight. Shared name is significant (as well as any motive for retaining the name) but it is still one of five successor states and not a continuation of SFR Yugoslavia in any other form whatsoever.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that FRY is NOT mentioned in this article in any way, as user DIREKTOR removed it completely, while is was mentioned before. That is the problem. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay then why don't you replace Montenegro and Serbia with FR Yugoslavia in the successor states table and elaborate on its renaming and breakup then? The same bit should mention that the five original successors were equal legally (remember Montenegro and Serbia had a different arrangement). That would, IMO be fair representation of the issue and FR Yugoslavia would be there in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, but ho cares about that here? We are not talking about successors now, we are talking that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be mentioned in article Yugoslavia, as third country known by that name. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Succession of SFR Yugoslavia in effect is the last stage of history firmly associated with Yugoslavia as a country which has a political continuity until the 1990s. That also creates a nice framework where FR Yugoslavia could be introduced without giving it undue weight. Additional info (in the same area) on its retaining the name, along with stated and perceived reasons for such a move would be very welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the table as well. It didn't occur to me in the first revert.

@WhiteWriter. EMPHASIZING a name doesn't make it more than a name. Emphasizing the FRY's name doesn't give the FRY a special status over other successor states of Yugoslavia. Its name is almost completely irrelevant here. Surely you must also see that the FRY can't really be listed here in equal status with the "real" Yugoslavia? -- Director (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. FRY was real Yugoslavia. Some other one (third) but it was quite real one, and existed for 11 years. So, it was real, nothing less real than kingdom or SFRJ. --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Only on RTS, WhiteWriter. The FRY warrants inclusion herein no more than Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, etc. Building a straw man around the term "real" isn't an argument. Obviously it was "real" and not imagined. -- Director (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• "I insist that only unrelated users comment below" - According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment "All editors (including unregistered or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment."
• The name of this article is Yugoslavia and its topic is every country which name was Yugoslavia.
• Timeline:
  • Initially, this page referred only to FR Yugoslavia and remained as such for two years
  • Then in 2003 it was transformed to article that refers to all Yugoslavias
  • In july 2010 DIREKTOR decided that FR Yugoslavia was not Yugoslavia and deleted it from this article.

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." There were three different states named Yugoslavia (kingdom, socialist state and the republic).

Conclusion: this page should present informations abot all of three Yugoslavias or be replaced with disambiguation page with links to all three of them. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion: no it shouldn't :). All of the above is either irrelevant or just plain dead wrong. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That is just IDONTLIKEIT. You didn't provided even a single real reason of source. Also, wrong by who? You? Also, you are not allowed to create such a massive subject canhges without even a smallest consensus, or community agreement. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No its not "IDONTLIKEIT" and please stop quoting these guidelines and policies, neither you nor Antidiskriminator appear to be very good at wikilawyering.

• Antidiskriminator (and you apparently) did not seem to read WP:DISAMBIG. Your understanding of policy is incomplete, and therefore the claims and statements made on the basis of said understanding are just dead wrong. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
• What the original two sentences on this page were, and its ancient history from 2001(!), are of course completely irrelevant.

So as I said: irrelevant and/or dead wrong. -- Director (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: This is not the first time you violate WP:NPA and comment the contributor instead of contribution. Please don't do it anymore.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think I violated WP:NPA above. You really ought to read these policies. Not being good at wikilawyering is actually a good thing. -- Director (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be mentioned as a successor state of what was once known as "Yugoslavia" in this article, but that's it, and it should be clarified that it is not the 3rd "Yugoslavia" or a continuation of "Yugoslavia." Yugoslavia died after the second one, there is no third "Yugoslavia" until "the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia" unite again - Hello, I qualify as an unrelated editor since I am a US citizen, and dislike all Europeans. From what I see, Yugoslavia was a "union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia, from which the name, essence and identity known as Yugoslavia came from in 1929. This was the first "Yugoslavia." "Yugoslavia" would have disintegrated but the Communists held "Yugoslavia" together with an Iron fist, (because that is what was required) - and this was the "Second Yugoslavia." After the Cold War was won and it was declared that the US is the greatest Nation the Earth has ever known, the Communist Fist loosened and the first state of the Second Yugoslavia declared Independence, the Name and everything associate with what was Yugoslavia died. While the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is mentioned in the Dayton Agreement, it is but a shadow, a corruption of what was known as "Yugoslavia", and is not at all the name, essence and identity of what Yugoslavia is or was - a "union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia." Until the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia unite - there will be no "third Yugoslavia." For what it is worth, we had a similar problem in the United States - which was captured in this banner Join or Die........... i.e. (basis) Is the tail of a chopped up Snake a Snake? No. It is a chopped up snake and one piece is the tail.Patriot1010 (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is article about Yugoslavia. The primary topic is state Yugoslavia, not hotel, cigarettes, restaurants, sport clubs, .... Term Yugoslavia may refer to three different states: kingdom, socialist state or republic. It can not refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Croatia... regardless of the succession issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So Antidiskriminator... are you going to keep repeating the same argument over and over again? Or are you going to read the entirety of WP:DISAMBIG, not just the first sentence? -- Director (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, "US is the greatest Nation the Earth has ever known"... Sure... Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences, Christopher Bennett, Between Past and Future: Civil-Military Relations in Post-Communist Balkan States, Biljana Vankovska, Håkan Wiberg, 2003, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building And Legitimation, 1918-2005, Sabrina P. Ramet, Explaining Yugoslavia, John B. Allcock, East-Central European Economies in Transition, United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, Words Are Something Else, David Albahari,Ellen Elias-Bursać,Tomislav Longinović... ... --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)