Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Unify Yugoslavia by Atamolos Unify Yugoslavia by Atamolos
Yugoslavia was once symbolic of the international bonds forged from the defeated grasp of the imperialist Austrians and Turks, but after the death of communist president Josip Broz Tito, ethnic nationalism among the Serbs created tensions between the various provinces of Yugoslavia, and after a series of civil wars, being bombed by NATO, and an incident of genocide against the Bosnians, the former Yugoslavia is gone and in its place are six/seven squabbling states.

To dispel any confusion, I'm not a Yugoslav nationalist.  It isn't my intention that seven kinds of nationalism should be replaced by one, rather I'm an internationalist, but I think that steps should be taken before the total unification of Europe.

"Fight the forces of nationalism!  Fight the forces of the imaginary lines!"
Add a Comment:
 
:iconshernod9704:
Shernod9704 Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2015
But Donetsk is also nationalist.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner Dec 2, 2015
I'm no fan of Nationalism, but a re-unified Yugoslavia would just be a bad idea and you'd just have the threat of a one powerful and abusive government. There should certainly be trade and cooperation between these countries, but they're far better off with decentralized and smaller local governance than dealing with a centralized authority.
Reply
:iconancylostomiasis:
ancylostomiasis Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016
Reunited Yugoslavia would be no more centralized than Poland or Italy regarding population and land mass.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016
Just remember people weren't happy with the previous Yugoslavian government enough to want to break the country apart. What you think would be is usually a lot different from what it will be.
Reply
:iconancylostomiasis:
ancylostomiasis Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2016
That's why I won't argue with Capitalists, they always blame the people.

Remember this because I will only say it once: It's the politicians who manipulated the situation to maximize their political gains, Serb, Croatian, Albanian, American, French, Russian...they all have their fair share of guilt in this mess.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2016
Who lets the politicians rule? The people. During the break up they were beginning to allow elections through Yugoslavia and the people elected ardent Nationalists and Separatism. It really didn't help when the Serbs supported Serbian Nationalist seeking a Serbian centric Yugoslavia. Also a lot of blood was shed during the break up. There is probably a lot of bitter memories that will likely hamper thoughts of reunification for generations. Really they're all better off governing themselves.

Socialist Federal Republic failed in large part do to over borrowing and the collapse of the Communist model world wide. Republics like Croatia increasingly found their fortunes better as a separate state than as part of Yugoslavia, especially one becoming more Serb centric. Really the only way a Yugoslavia would return is through a largely decentralized system and really a better default to this would be the European Union. They're better off governing themselves on most affairs allowing the people of each state to craft policy that better fits their needs and interest. The only benefit to unification would be free trade and movement between the states, but once again that is something the European Union is already providing member states.
Reply
:iconancylostomiasis:
Democratic legitimacy is as delusional as divine providence, as long the people are too preoccupied for anything other than their basic survival needs. They got manipulated not because of stupidity, but because they were deprived from any chance of enlightenment. It's the Capitalists' cunning trick to exploit the masses' freedom and liberty without publicly announcing it.

This is essentially what Marx has concluded, and it remains true to this day.

I agree with you that the collapse of former yugoslavia is a result of financial crisis. However a sensible solution would be a mixture of transfer payment and financial responsibility as we've seen in today's EU, but instead the politicians deliberately manipulated the situation into a racial conflict which ends bitterly. (The same strategy was resonated by modern day right-wing Eurosceptic parties like UKip and FN, which made them especially dangerous.)

Which is exactly what the west and Russia had hoped, because they all want their puppet state in the region.

And Former Yugoslavia became the first victim of post coldwar NWO.
Reply
:icongmcity:
GMcity Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2016
Going into the "NWO" trope are we? 
Reply
:iconancylostomiasis:
ancylostomiasis Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2016
I can see you clearly lack the knowledge of the 90s and its political rhetoric.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2015
that is not going to happen anytime soon, never ever underestimate the power of nationalism! 
Reply
:iconlebanesephalangist:
LebanesePhalangist Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015
Your a communist retard, internationalism is a stupid idea.

Yugoslavian Nationalism for the win!
Reply
:iconandro123:
Andro123 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
>be slovenian
>have to pay for all of the other Republics because these fuckers have no work ethics
>get population displaced and language suppressed to "unify the nation"
>corruption everywhere
>get arrested and killed for criticizing communism
pls no, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply
:iconcommie12:
Commie12 Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2015
don't know where you're talking about, Slovenia wasn't half a place to live in, i mean, at the time i openly criticized the current government reforms with no repercussion, i had a small but comfortable house and enough to eat, and given a job as an economic professor at the University of Maribor.  Not like now where despite studying for 3 years i can't find shit to do with my field.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Sep 14, 2014  Student Writer
Last time that happened it ended in genocide.
Reply
:iconyautjavasquez:
YautjaVasquez Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014
J. B. Tito was the only thing keeping Yugoslawien together... Most of the people in there were too savage and to no surprise they still are to even know who is Marx, Engels or Lenin and Yugoslawien (FSRY) was created in 1943 not in 1918, from 1918 to 1939 there was a ultra serb regime there with their kings: Peter, Alexander and Pavle.
Reply
:iconemperorkirkwall:
emperorkirkwall Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Yugoslavia was a pretty damn good Idea.....before all that ethnic tensions.......and genocide....much genocide e.e

Oh and NATO, so much NATO
Reply
:iconshepherd11:
Shepherd11 Featured By Owner Edited Apr 23, 2015
you think Yugoslavia was a good idea and NATO is responsible for the shit that happened?

wow, i bet you think that Somalia is a nice place to live too!

Don't comment on what you don't understand
Reply
:iconemperorkirkwall:
emperorkirkwall Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2015  Student Traditional Artist
Originally it was because it brought Unity to a region ripe with rebellion, and every man in Yugoslavia fought like wolves to hold back the oppressive Nazi's and Italian Fascists.

The idea failed due to years of abuse by a Communist system, plus it is NATO's fault. Yugoslavia was stable before the fall of Communism in the eastern world, than we "Support" ethnic tensions, start bombing, and boom. Violent upheaval, and genocide!

Somalia is a product of the coldwar, the West and East put it where it is today. But in Yugoslavia, there was unity.
Reply
:iconshepherd11:
Shepherd11 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2015
there was unity in Yugoslavia, just like there was unity in the Soviet union. when you bottle up ethnic and religious based nationalism for so long it tends to explode violently once there is any possible outlet.

it was a totalitarian government that provided no option for a successor other than Tito, which caused a massive power vacuum. If it wasn't for Milošević and the Serbs starting their genocide campaign things would have been and the Bosnian and Croatian actions wouldn't have occurred in response

NATO is a strategic defensive pact, it only intervened in Yugoslavia after genocidal action had been confirmed. not before the crisis began. it's mission was to try to salvage as many lives as they could, not an easy task in that war.
Reply
:iconduke-nidhoggr:
Duke-Nidhoggr Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I do agree with this to a certain extent, despite using it as a counter argument in a debate with you once. 
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hm?  I'm not sure I remember that.
Reply
:iconduke-nidhoggr:
Duke-Nidhoggr Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
When there was a debate over my ideology of a unified British Isles. 
Reply
:iconemilion-3:
Emilion-3 Featured By Owner May 6, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
They should make it the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia, like the USA.
Reply
:iconjaydesertfox:
JayDesertFox Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Instant Fave I I LOVE YOU YUGOSLAVIA
Frozen - Elsa Crying Icon still will not accept that you are no more
Reply
:iconrodegas:
Rodegas Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2014
good luck :)
Reply
:iconlorddarionmograine:
LordDarionMograine Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2014
even if the Serbian Socialist Milosevic and the nationalist Croat Tujdman and the Pro-multiculture politicians Izebegovic and KLA Fighters have led the war. Personally i blame a little bit the Communist government for the collapse of Yugoslavia, the boundaries were a disaster and it was not done enough for coping with past(World War 2)
Reply
:iconsoaringaven:
SoaringAven Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Or a monarchy ^_^
Reply
:iconerzherzog007:
Erzherzog007 Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2014
Indeed.
The Serbian monarchy ought to be restored. In fact, Prince Alexander is quite popular and active, as a result 54% of all Serbs support a restoration.
Reply
:iconsoaringaven:
SoaringAven Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
We'll get there one day :D
Reply
:iconerzherzog007:
Erzherzog007 Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2014
Yep, since the Crown Prince of Serbia/Yugoslavia is popular among the people, Serbia could have a restoration.
I believe the next restoration in a former-monarchy will be Serbian. Although the last restorations were in Cambodia in 1993 and Spain in 1975 (But Franco declared Spain to be a kingdom in 1947).
Reply
:iconsoaringaven:
SoaringAven Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Vive la monarchie!
Reply
:iconerzherzog007:
Erzherzog007 Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2014
Oui.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
I don't agree with countries to unite under one state, one language, one capital! USSR failed, Yugoslavia failed, Ottoman Empire failed!
States should be free, independent and sovereign, not united in force and lies under one state that will never work, you cannot force different nationalities, cultures and faiths into one state especially one that will have one nationality to force others to be one, like the sovietization and russification in USSR, nationalism is everywhere even left-wingers are nationalists, stop demonizing something you don't truly understand but you misinterpret because of the ideology you believe in, but this is how is communism, denying or finding excuses for their crimes and start to blame others and demonizing them in order to get people away from them and make them join their ideology who died along with the Iron Curtain
Reply
:iconbudcharles:
BudCharles Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014
Ottoman Empire failed did you say?!?! It was around longer than the f---ing United States! It died out because it STOPPED expanding! That's like saying the Roman Empire failed! Every country ends but it lasted a hell of a long time, and until the 1700s had a very stable politcal system. Meanwhile tens, maybe hundreds, of crappy little states in Europe disappeared, formed, then disappear again.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
The world is better without imperialist states like USSR, British Empire, Japanese Empire. All countries must be sovereign not united in other states. You want instead of Australia, Canada, India and Egypt to have only the British Empire on the map?
Ottoman empire appeared in 1299 while USA appeared in 1776, Ottoman empire slowly decreased in power while the western world thrived, you don't hear people that were under the Ottoman empire talk about it, saying that they were better under the Ottomans, all countries under the Ottoman empire fought for independence and the Ottoman Empire ended with genocides. What do you care? You on an island
Reply
:iconbudcharles:
BudCharles Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
The Ottoman Empire INCREASED in power until the late 1600s. That's longer than the USA has been around, and the USA is starting to get a bit stagnant and shaky already. It wasn't a typical empire either, up until the (largely European-caused) political 'reforms' of the 1700s that led to the downfall of the empire, there was a large degree of religious freedom, people were judged based on their OWN religious laws. You don't see that in Islamic countries today. And obviously people today who witnessed the Ottoman Empire don't like it, because they only saw its downfall. They didn't see the peak of its golden age. While I don't think we should have another empire, we should move towards a global democratic government, because lots of little states means stupid little wars, and nothing gets done in the interest of humanity in general. If we had a world government we'd have fixed climate change and war and colonised Mars by now, as well as being well on the way to ending poverty.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
All countries in the world should be free, independent and sovereign, a global government means too much power and too much power corrupts and leaves to dictatorship, global governments are too risky and I don't want to risk for all countries to be controlled and enslaved by one government that will get rid of democracy, restrict freedoms and keep humanity under a leash and do what they think is good for humanity. 
Reply
:iconpandaren-chaplain:
Pandaren-Chaplain Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Aye-aye.
Reply
:iconbudcharles:
BudCharles Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
Free independent countries are hopeless. Councils of tiny countries have pretty much achieved nothing, big governments can actually get stuff done. Provided there are elections I don't see why. And perhaps we could ditch the idea of presidents and parties, everyone elected should have equal power to everyone else elected. That way nobody has the power to make a takeover.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
But if you think countries are better off divided, then why do you support Moldova's unification with the rest of Romania?  Surely you see the double standard you're holding here.

This isn't about states, it's about people.  Without getting too philosophical, in the modern age, the reasons to remain divided become increasingly lessening.

Nationalism is dangerous.  It caused both World Wars, as well as numerous other conflicts and genocides.  I fully understand nationalism and its effects on the world stage.

And this has nothing to do with communism, so I fail to see how I'm, "denying or finding excuses for their crimes and start to blame others and demonizing them in order to get people away from them and make them join their ideology who died along with the Iron Curtain".
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Countries with their own culture, history that were independent should stay independent! Russia good, USSR bad, UK good, British Empire Bad, Japan good, Japanese Empire bad. Moldova is part of Romania, it was always a part of Romania but it was always divided by Russia just like you precious communism divided other states like Germany and East Germany, North Korea and South Korea, PRC and ROC www.deviantart.com/art/Communi…

Reunification is one thing, but a union of states is another and PEOPLE wanted to be independent and sovereign, that is why where is no more USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire.

Nationalism is one thing, nationalist extremism is another. If there wasn't for nationalism we wouldn't have sovereign states but states united unions, empire, colonies and protectorates, nationalism is what made people have a national identity and not forget their heritage, history, language and the need for freedom and national states.

If it wasn't for nationalism we wouldn't have many states like USA, Latin American countries, African countries, former soviet countries, the world would be formed only from colonial empires, is this what you want?

Saying that nationalism is dangerous is like saying that all religions are dangerous.
Reply
:icontwiggierjet:
Twiggierjet Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2014
The existence of multi-cultural nations such as Canada and India proves that many cultures can coexist together. It does not have to be held together through force.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yes, I've seen that.  The national division of those countries is far more complicated than "thecommiesdidit".  You could just as easily say that capitalism divided them.  The issue of their division is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

And for the record, the UK is a collection of Anglo-Saxon, Druidic, Irish, and Gallic cultures, so by your logic, the UK shouldn't exist either.  And don't get me started on multiculturalism in the Western Hemisphere.  The US should be divided into several nations if culture and language determine what nations should become.

Nations, and by consequence, nationalism, create division and abstract cultural imprisonment.  True global freedom can only be achieved with the abolition of nations altogether.

Nationalism is what created colonial empires in the first place.  The fact that it ended them only goes to further my point.  It's a self-destructive social construct that fosters national romanticism and supremacism.

And by the way, the US was a colonial empire at one point, just ask anyone from Cuba or the Philippines (or the Native Americans for that matter).  technically, it still is as per the US administration in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Islands.
Reply
:iconsaint-tepes:
Saint-Tepes Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Compare USA and its territories with British Empire and its colonies, different!
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Why is it different?  Different because they controlled less territory?
Reply
:iconprincesselemix:
PrincessElemix Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014
Yes lets return to Yugoslavia and have everyone kill each other again.

Great idea!
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Considering the civil wars didn't start until a surge of Serb nationalism aroused ethnic conflicts, I doubt "everyone would start to kill each other".
Reply
:iconprincesselemix:
PrincessElemix Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2014
You mean Croatian and Bosnian nationalism. Seeing how Croatia and Bosnia declared independence first, they wanted to see the break up of Yugoslavia because they could not stand the Serbs and the Serbs could not stand them. Even then every type of people have a right to their own nation. If the people of Yugoslavia wanted their own independent nations, they have every right to it.

The only advantage of being one nation that the former Yugoslavs would have over being independent is that they would have a slightly better economy but even then it would just break apart again.

Advocating the reunification of Yugoslavia is like asking Ireland to rejoin the UK. It would never happen.
Reply
:iconatamolos:
Atamolos Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Actually, Slovenia declared independence first, but I digress.  It went far beyond, "they couldn't stand the Serbs".  The JNA had become increasingly Serb-supremacist, especially during the Milosevic administration.  And let's not forget the "Greater Serbia" idea to carve up Croatia and Bosnia into different regions according to the Serbian populations in the republics.

But touching on your comparison to Ireland, I disagree.  Ireland rejoining the UK would make them subservient to the English monarchy, and reunifying Yugoslavia would do no such thing.  Think of it as creating a "united states" in the Balkans, with a federal government, rather than a parliamentary monarchical one.
Reply
:iconprincesselemix:
PrincessElemix Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2014
Well Yugoslavia has always been headed by Serbia, ever since the end of World war one actually. If anything Yugoslavia should have never been formed in the first place, it was a multi-ethnic mess waiting to happen, you can't just take completely different cultures, religions and languages and mix them and expect them to get along just fine. The "Serb-supremacist" idea probably stemmed from the fact that most of the land in Yugoslavia rightfully belonged to the, seeing how Serbians made up the majority of the population. I'm Glad my nation is no longer part of Yugoslavia, Seeing what the Croats did to Serbia in world war 2. Fuck the Croats.

It's not the idea of them being subservient to monarchy but uniting with people they do not like. Lets say Britain became a republic and Ireland was offered to join the United Republics of Britain. It'd still be the same answer as before.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 14, 2014
Image Size
382 KB
Resolution
1006×1900
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,978
Favourites
46 (who?)
Comments
96
Downloads
13
×