The Myths of Yugoslavia - Part I
By: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
Malignant Self Love - Buy the Book - Click HERE!!!
Relationships with Abusive Narcissists - Buy the e-Books - Click HERE!!!
READ THIS: Scroll down to review a complete list of the
articles - Click on the blue-coloured
Bookmark this Page - and SHARE IT with Others!
Written: April, 2000
In her book "The Culture of Lies", University of Pennsylvania, 1998, the Croatian writer Dubravka Ugresic says:
"The Yugoslav war is a dispiriting tale about human solidarity. Very few people sympathized with the Slovenes, when the war began, just as the Slovenes themselves unanimously closed the doors of their new state immediately after the war. The Croats showed no solidarity to anyone, just as few showed any to the Croats. The Serbs had no sympathy for anyone at all, and no one showed any understanding for the Serbs. Few people had ever shown solidarity with the Albanians, just as Albanians were deaf to other people's troubles."
"Your land is here. Here are your houses,
your fields, your gardens, your memories. You are not hoping to
leave them, are you, because life is hard and because you are
subjected to injustice and humiliation? It was never in the
spirit of the Serb and the Montenegrin peoples to succumb before
obstacles, to quit when one has to fight, to be demoralized in
the face of hardship."
Milosevic, Kosovo, 1987
Serb general who wanted to shame conscripts into fighting in Croatia:
"All those who are not prepared to 'defend
the glory of the Serbian nation' had better lay down their arms
and take off their uniforms, the general told them. And,
incredibly, they all did, including their commanding officer...
They were standing there and I got furious and shouted at them to
remove everything including their underpants, and with the
exception of one man they all removed their military issue
underpants and marched off completely naked. I was still hoping
that they would change their mind, but they didn't."
"Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant", Dusko Doder and Louise Branson, Free Press, 1999
"NATO IN THE SKY, MILOSEVIC ON THE GROUND" - a graffito in Belgrade.
"We oppose all those who want to divide
your country because we are on the side of good and against evil."
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ensuring Serbian envoy Dragan Tomic that Iraq is prepared to send troops to Serbia.
"The object of war is not to die for your
country but to make the other bastard die for his."
US Army 4 star General George Patton
"Given the number of sins committed in the
course of 20 centuries, [reference to them] must necessarily be
Vatican official Bishop Piero Marini justifying the brevity of Pope John Paul II's plea for forgiveness of sins committed in the name of the Catholic church In a Lenten Mass on March 12, 2000.
"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores
all get respectable, if they last long enough."
Film director and actor John Huston as Noah Cross, the corrupt magnate at the root of the scandal in 1974's "Chinatown."
I have spent the last decade reading books and articles written about Yugoslavia by luminaries from East and West alike. I wonder if there ever was a subject so enshrouded by myths and inexactitudes, platitudes and wrongs, errors and omissions, lies and distortions. This is a list of the more common of these, organized in chronological order.
1. The Balkans was Entirely under the Domination of a Crumbling and Venal Byzantine Empire
The Byzantine Empire was a well organized, highly structured and intricate urban bureaucracy which gradually diverged from Rome. The latter - the Western remnant of the former unified empire - did, indeed, crumble under the weight of internecine warfare, nepotism, cronyism, corruption and capriciously murderous dictatorships. But Byzantium continued to flourish for yet another millennium.
In any case, only a part of the Balkans was incorporated into the Byzantine reign. The border between Byzantium and Rome still exists today - it is the contemporary line demarcating Serbia from Croatia.
The Balkans were organized in a strictly feudal system. The Slavic tribes who descended from the north during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries AD - fit nicely into this hierarchical scheme. Still, feudalism was much less rigid than it was made out to be. Certain regions - such as Dalmatia and Slavonia in Croatia and Herzegovina in Bosnia maintained a degree of autonomy comparable to that of Kosovo under the Tito era constitution. Balkan feudalism, in other words, was not a replica of the Western variant. It was rather a "federal" approach, a compact between indigenous lords and their nominal superiors.
2. The Croats were always pro-Germanic
When Rome imploded, it left a black hole of stupendous proportions. Both Croatia and Slovenia hurried to declare their independence and to assume a growing degree of sovereignty. "Croatia" and "Slovenia" of that time were not the modern nation-states they are today. They were the rough equivalents of fiefdoms, extended estates of local (and imported) aristocracy, feudal lots. The sovereignty of that era is the equivalent of the autonomy enjoyed today by states within the United States.
Still, the unilateral actions of Croatia and Slovenia were at least evolutionary, if, indeed, not revolutionary. They constituted a loosening and new exegesis of the feudal code. Asserting their new standing among other political units, both Croatia and Slovenia fought off numerous invasions and attempted invasions by Magyar (Hungarian) tribes.
It is only when the pressure became unsustainable and unbearable and further defence of the realms untenable - that they resorted - very reluctantly - to the Germans (Chrlemagne's Franks, at that time).
The Serbs - the contemporary epitome of ultra-nationalism - were the ones who, quiescently, accepted Byzantine rule.
So did Bulgaria (which included today's Macedonia), Montenegro and Dalmatia. A few enclaves remained independent - but this was encouraged by the Byzantine rulers mainly for economic and trade reasons. Thus, Ragusa (later renamed Dubrovnik) continued to trade with Italy uninterrupted by the tectonic political shifts around it. Ragusa was the Balkans Hong Kong for centuries to come.
Inevitably, Slovenia and Croatia became Roman Catholic, while Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia became Eastern Orthodox.
Religion in the Balkans is often a matter of expediency, as we shall see. Religious convictions were the result of granted concessions, economic prowess, brutal repression or political calculations. The right religion - like the right party affiliation years henceforth - guaranteed speedy access to the bureaucracy, a decent living, education and tolerable safety.
Being political-economic juggernauts, all religions in the region were zealously missionary. They all proselytized in rich Dalmatia, for instance.
3. The Bosnians were Good (Orthodox) Christians before They were Forced to Convert to Islam
Bosnia was always considered to be a lowly and primitive place by the other inhabitants of the Balkans - sort of the poor, always needy relative. Tucked between Croatia and Serbia, mountainous and endowed with a prilapsarian nature - Bosnia was almost psychedelic or surrealistic. One of the doctrinally most severe heresies developed among its Christians - Bogomilism. It engulfed the entire destitute and illiterate populace in no time. It was a powerful, populist and rebellious rhetoric. Its subversive messages threatened both the church and the (feudal) state. It bore uncanny resemblance to both the Reformation and to Communism. It looked ominously unstoppable. Thus, all Bosnians were officially branded "heretics" and catholic powers were encouraged to exterminate them on sight.
The Bogomils were largely the ones who later converted to Islam - mostly willingly and for reasons of convenience (they could buy land and obtain positions in the Ottoman administration). The rest of the population - having remained catholic - joined the Croats (also catholics). As centuries passed, these Bosniaks came to regard themselves as perfect Croats. Orthodox Bosniaks identified themselves as Serbs. They were neither Croats, nor Serbs to begin with.
During the 12th century, Rome was forced to collaborate with Hungary against the Bogomils. This enhanced Hungary's stature considerably. Rome repaid Hungary its kindness with the territories of Croatia and Bosnia.
Thus, Christian heretics in Bosnia "helped" introduce Hungary into the region as its uncontested superpower (though not for long). The Hungarians even supported a rump Serb kingdom following the apocalyptic defeat of the Serbs at the hands of the Turks in Kosovo in 1389. Only 70 years later, did this Serb kingdom surrender to the Ottomans.
The only ones to constantly, consistently and continuously rebel against the Hungarian occupation were Bosnian peasants (mostly Bogomils). The Ottomans assisted them in this worthy endeavour (from the Turkish point of view) and later - the Bosnian forces having been depleted - annexed the territory itself.
The first seeds of conflict were sown. The Bosnians welcomed the Turks, converted to Islam, joined their administration and owned land. True, they were Slavs but their religious heresy (Bogomilism and then Islam) was further compounded by their national betrayal. The Serbs hated the Turks. They had no intention of remaining Turkish subjects for long.
4. The Serbs were never Welcome in Croatia, They were always an Alien Body
There were almost no Serbs in Croatia until the Austrian occupation. The Austrians and the local Croat population were terrified by the possibility of a renewed Turkish invasion. To fend off Turkish troops, Croatia called upon Serbs (mortal enemies of the Ottomans) to come and settle its border zones (today's Krajina). The Serbs did. They formed para-military, well armed and rather ferocious militias and declared their settlements "(martial) camps or zones", autonomous, though within Croatia. Their role was not only passive. They joined the Austrian army in its invasion of Ottoman-controlled regions in 1689 (including Macedonia). When the Austrians were defeated, the Serbs throughout the Ottoman empire - by now considered traitors - fled. A sizeable group of Serbs emigrated from the heartland of the ancient Serb Kingdom, a wind swept plateau called "Kosovo". The Albanians hurried back (they were relegated to Albania's mountains by superior Serb forces three centuries earlier). The Turks encouraged them to convert to Islam and they became close allies of the Ottoman administration (see "The Myth of Great Albania").
5. There is a Religious and Cultural Affinity between the Greeks and the Serbs
It goes deeper than that. The Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians and Serbs collaborated in two Balkan Wars against the Ottoman Empire in an effort to re-carve the map of the Balkans. The idea in 1912 was to "liberate" Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania and to punish the collaborationist and separatist Albanians in Kosovo and Western Macedonia. This the invading Serbs did with a vengeance, burning villages and crops, looting and killing.
This precipitated a nationalist movement in Albania proper. Fearful of being conquered and annexed by Serbia and Greece, the Albanians declared independence. The leaders of the independence movement were, inevitably, Moslem.
In the meantime, everyone ganged up on Bulgaria and in the skirmish that ensued Serbia won both Macedonia and Kosovo.
With the Sick Man of Europe thoroughly defeated, the Serbs a regional superpower once again and Russian influence ever growing - the only remaining imperial power (the Habsburgs) became the next logical target.
Go to Part II
This material is copyrighted.
Free, unrestricted use is allowed on a non
The author's name and a link to this Website must be incorporated in any reproduction of the material for any use and by any means.
Go Back to Home Page!
Internet: A Medium or a Message?
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited
Frequently Asked Questions about Narcissism
The Narcissism List Home
Write to me: email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org