Politics, News & Issues >
Politics in Europe
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas the break up of Yugoslavia good or bad for Eastern Europe?
Results so far:
| Good | 67% | 60 votes | Total: 89 votes | |
| Bad | 33% | 29 votes |
Good
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe break up of Yugoslavia, while it came at a very heavy price in terms of life, was ultimately good. The reason is that Yugoslavia was an artificial country which could not last. Thus, it was inevitable that it would split into separate countries.
Under Marshall Tito, Yugoslavia was seen as a relatively prosperous nation with a thriving tourism industry. However, the Serbs were definitely the most dominant ethnic group in the federation. Though Yugoslavia seemed a relatively stable nation, this was far from true. It is important to remember that before Yugoslavia became a nation, virtually all the ethnic groups had independent histories.
The different regions of the former Yugoslavia were held together under a strongly centralized government in Belgrade, but after the death of Marshall Tito, tensions grew. The two ethnic groups which probably had the most tense relationship were the Serbs and the Croats.
The differences among the regions are great. The Slovenes in the north are prosperous and in many ways, similar to their Austrian and Hungarian neighbours. They are also fortunate that they are able to separate with relatively little violence. The Croats consider themselves more western than the Serbs. For example, they use the Roman alphabet and are Catholics unlike the Serbs who use the Cyrillic alphabet and are Orthodox. In the region of Vojvodina live many Hungarians who speak a language completely different from the Slavic Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Macedonian languages. The region of Bosnia and Herzegovina is different because many of the people are mixed with respect to race, being perhaps half-Bosnian and half-Serbian, for example. Also, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many of the people are Muslims. The region of Montenegro, though in may ways similar to Serbia, had existed previously as a separate state under various dynasties. Kosovo is considerably different from the rest of Yugoslavia because of its large Albanian population, a people who are Muslim and speak a very different language. Finally, Macedonia is also different, a region whose people speak a language similar to Bulgarian.
With the differences that the regions had with respect to history, culture, language and religion, it is not surprising that they wished to be independent. The former Yugoslavia simply did not have the constitutional means necessary to prevent and manage ethnic conflict. Perhaps if more favourable arrangements had been implemented for regions such as Slovenia and Croatia, the federation could have remained in one piece. Another possibility is that they could have been granted a higher degree of autonomy, but even so, it is unclear if that would have been sufficient to keep the federation together. With the increasing ethnic tension among the regions of the former Yugoslavia, the break up of Yugoslavia, though violent and lengthy, in the end was good for Eastern Europe.
Learn more about this author, Les Zsoldos.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Bad
Eastern Europe the land of peace, unless you count the countries that came out of former Yugoslavia. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was extremely peaceful where one party of the government handed over power peacefully to another party, much like we do in American elections. The Czech Republic and Slovakia had a Velvet Divorce and the two countries have been peaceful ever since. Poland is building up its country, still trying to recover from Nazi devastation. Even the Baltic States are finally learning Democratic values, maybe one day they will stop beating up journalists. Even Russia, in addition to ending the Chechen War, managed to have Democratic Election, despite that fact that television, (but neither the radio nor the internet) is government regulated. Yet the former Republics of Yugoslavia have been producing one war after another. What's wrong?
Under Marshall Tito Yugoslavia's people firmly bonded together to combat Nazism, and continued to work together building up their nation, despite being stuck between the Soviet Union and NATO. Yet when the country broke up wars erupted. Why? The simple answer is territorial boundaries. During times of trouble, (such as a break-up of a nation) the people tend to stick with their cliques and become more racist. That is to say that when Yugoslavia began to break up, the Serbs stuck with the Serbs and the Croats stuck with the Croats. The national unity so carefully constructed under the Nazi guns in WWII and so preciously guarded was broken. Then wars erupted when all sides started claiming: "This land is my land!" This led to the forming of armed militias and later conventional armies. As the war drags on, it usually gets nastier and nastier, because as one side commits atrocities another does not hesitate to reply.
Once the initial break-up occurred, opportunistic politicians and war profiteers descended on the country like locusts. This led to Yugoslavia breaking up into more and more parts, each new break-up generating its own conflict. The media loves to tone down the wars in the former states of Yugoslavia, but they are still happening. As Kosovo asks to leave Serbia and Montenegro, a bloodier conflict is in the making. When will it all end? So was the break up of Yugoslavia good or bad for Eastern Europe good or bad of Eastern Europe? Is constant warfare on their own soil good or bad for Eastern Europe? Is instability good or bad for Eastern Europe?
Learn more about this author, Sam Clemens Twain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Politics in Europe
- Is a Cold War between the East and the West on the verge of repeating itself?
- Violence in independent Kosovo: Preventable or inevitable?
- Should the US place missile defenses in Europe despite Russia's opposition?
- Should modern day Germans be responsible for making reparation for Nazi terror?
- Will immigration in 21st century help or hurt ecomonies of G-20 countries?
