Tito's Yugoslavia - a look back...

[glorygloryeze]

I have to say i've always been given an impression about the pre-war Yugoslavia being one of the few major countries to have existed in Europe that wasn't a satellite of The Soviet Union but was also not fully 'Westernised' or under the full influence of "The West".
I have also been given the impression that from an Economic point of view the Economy was relatively rich due to it's great natural local resources and was able to be economically independent as well (i.e. not dependent on Russia and not dependent on any Western European/American Economic ties).
In modern Europe (particularly when you look at the current European Union) this seems very unique from my point of view..

I also recognise that perhaps it's boundaries were breaking at the seams in terms of the ethnicities within them "outliving each other" and those cracks led to the very sad ethnic and civil war that led to the formation of counties such as Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia etc etc.

I've created this thread after remembering how Denmark entered the Euro 92 tournament because Yugoslavia were thrown out due to the growing war in Yugoslavia.

So i wanted to ask people on here who know or knew The old Federal Yugoslavian republic well what life in Tito's Yugoslavia was really like from their point of view and where things went wrong (or right?) in the end.

Discuss..

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes, or at least that's been my impression for sure. Though I'm not an expert.

Somewhere between the west and Stalinist/Soviet east is not a good middle ground to be in. The ethnic strife you talk about did not ignite over night, it was always there.

I thought i'd reply in this brand new thread

Can you clarify why exactly being somewhere between "The West" and "Stalinist/Soviet East" is "not a good middle ground"?

 

[scaramanga]

It was under the control of a dictator and the Communist Party - is there anything else we need to know?

 

[NorwegianSpursFan]

The world is rarely as black or white as that Scara, I to would be interested to hear what anyone who knows how it was has to say.

 

[braineclipse]

I thought i'd reply in this brand new thread

Can you clarify why exactly being somewhere between "The West" and "Stalinist/Soviet East" is "not a good middle ground"?

Because the Stalinist/Soviet East was a horrible horrible place. Somewhere in between that and the relatively well off Western Europe isn't likely to be great.

What I've heard (can remember) about Yugoslavia hasn't made a good impression.

The world is rarely as black or white as that Scara, I to would be interested to hear what anyone who knows how it was has to say.

Myself too. Like I said in the original conversation with myself and @glorygloryeze I'm not an expert. If no one chimes in with better and closer information I might have to read up as it got me a bit curious. Might be that my impressions have been wrong.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Because the Stalinist/Soviet East was a horrible horrible place. Somewhere in between that and the relatively well off Western Europe isn't likely to be great.

What I've heard (can remember) about Yugoslavia hasn't made a good impression..

I guess it all depends on the definition of 'great'; perhaps being 'well off' relatively but being a satellite state of "The West"/America and having to toe their lines is something some nations and cultures would not necessarily want and would rather be 'so-so' in economic terms but politically much more 'independent' (however that actually plays out).

It does seem Tito broke off relations with Russia and also made Yugoslavia a founding member of the "Non-Aligned Movement" in the 60s which was a group of states who sought to not be formally aligned with or against any major Power Bloc (hence not subservient to NATO or the american dominated 'West' or the Russian-controlled 'Communist Bloc').
I find that fascinating and would love to know what that meant for the day-to-day reality of life for Yugoslavians from that time up until the civil war...

 

[braineclipse]

I guess it all depends on the definition of 'great'; perhaps being 'well off' relatively but being a satellite state of "The West"/America and having to toe their lines is something some nations and cultures would not necessarily want and would rather be 'so-so' in economic terms but politically much more 'independent' (however that actually plays out).

It does seem Tito broke off relations with Russia and also made Yugoslavia a founding member of the "Non-Aligned Movement" in the 60s which was a group of states who sought to not be formally aligned with or against any major Power Bloc (hence not subservient to NATO or the american dominated 'West' or the Russian-controlled 'Communist Bloc').
I find that fascinating and would love to know what that meant for the day-to-day reality of life for Yugoslavians from that time up until the civil war...

At the risk of sounding arrogant... How much do you actually know about Yugoslavia beyond that it was between the east and west?

Your description of things like social cohesion, nations, cultures and independence doesn't resonate with my impression of Yugoslavia at all.

 

[glorygloryeze]

At the risk of sounding arrogant... How much do you actually know about Yugoslavia beyond that it was between the east and west?

Your description of things like social cohesion, nations, cultures and independence doesn't resonate with my impression of Yugoslavia at all.

I have not visited the country or lived there, if that's what you mean.
I have worked with many who were from and had heritage there; who would all speak of different things when the conversation about Yugoslavia would come up: it would range from being happy the country split up and new nations formed who could go in their own more 'Western' direction, to bitterness about what some felt was "Western meddling" because 'Yugoslavia wouldn't toe America's line.' Some were fairly neutral but still mentioned that often family and friends would have what was referred to as "Yugonostalgia" and constantly hark back to "the good old days" under Tito.
All said that Economically, Yugoslavia was reasonably 'well-off' and under Tito they would not have wanted for anything..

As i say, i started this thread because it is an interesting subject given the state of Politics and Economics in Europe (and the world) today and i wanted to see and hear views and accounts from people much more 'in the know' than me...

 

[scaramanga]

The world is rarely as black or white as that Scara, I to would be interested to hear what anyone who knows how it was has to say.

I'd also be interested, but the question of quality of life really stops at the point where someone declares themselves "President for life"

 

[glorygloryeze]

I'd also be interested, but the question of quality of life really stops at the point where someone declares themselves "President for life"

Interesting....but is that any different to someone being "Head of State for life" (like our very own Monarchy)?

 

[Craig_J]

I would also be interested to hear more about this subject but also don't have anything to add. I sense a Glory Glory Balkan Bookclub coming!

 

[scaramanga]

Interesting....but is that any different to someone being "Head of State for life" (like our very own Monarchy)?

Yes - the ultimate power of the government rested in Tito's hands - our own monarchs are nothing but tomorrow's chip wrappings.

Tito (with some concessions to the, also unelected, Communist Party) ruled the country. Whilst pretty much all democracies leave much to be desired, I think the discussion on quality of life starts somewhere after the point of democracy.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes - the ultimate power of the government rested in Tito's hands - our own monarchs are nothing but tomorrow's chip wrappings.

Tito (with some concessions to the, also unelected, Communist Party) ruled the country. Whilst pretty much all democracies leave much to be desired, I think the discussion on quality of life starts somewhere after the point of democracy.

Ok, let's talk about the Monarchy: In the UK if the Monarchy are nothing "but tomorrow's chip wrappings" and are not "The Ultimate Power of Government" then what is the point of having one and why are they listed as "the Head of State"?

 

[scaramanga]

Ok, let's talk about the Monarchy: In the UK if the Monarchy are nothing "but tomorrow's chip wrappings" and are not "The Ultimate Power of Government" then what is the point of having one and why are they listed as "the Head of State"?

Because the upheaval of change would be huge with no end effect except a small drop in tourism and international relations.

In everything but name the Queen is merely a figurehead - nothing but the wording would actually change.

 

[NorwegianSpursFan]

I'd also be interested, but the question of quality of life really stops at the point where someone declares themselves "President for life"

Probably, but I wonder if that for alot of the everyday people, the chaos that ensued with the baltic turmoil during the ninetys, Titos reign might have been looked upon more favourably. I really don't know and would like to learn more about it.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Because the upheaval of change would be huge with no end effect except a small drop in tourism and international relations.

In everything but name the Queen is merely a figurehead - nothing but the wording would actually change.

The Monarchy don't come cheap - in an age of 'austerity' and Government cut-backs you are honestly telling me the Monarchy have lasted this long/are staying purely because the Queen is 'merely a figurehead' and that if the institution was to go the effect would be 'negligible'?

 

[scaramanga]

The Monarchy don't come cheap - in an age of 'austerity' and Government cut-backs you are honestly telling me the Monarchy have lasted this long/are staying purely because the Queen is 'merely a figurehead' and that if the institution was to go the effect would be 'negligible'?

At risk of taking this way off topic (whatever your thoughts on the monarchy, they have no net effect on any individual citizen), the royal family is worth more than they cost both in per annum and in time-weighted-to-infinity measurements.

 

[glorygloryeze]

At risk of taking this way off topic (whatever your thoughts on the monarchy, they have no net effect on any individual citizen), the royal family is worth more than they cost both in per annum and in time-weighted-to-infinity measurements.

Really?
Please take it off-topic because it can probably be discussed alongside other Government/State leadership: provide numbers, stats, figures please to back up that statement.

 

[scaramanga]

Really?
Please take it off-topic because it can probably be discussed alongside other Government/State leadership: provide numbers, stats, figures please to back up that statement.

Consider the source on this one, but I can't see any reason for bias:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

This is pretty comprehensive. Follow the onward links and you'll be able to pick apart any of the individual reports - they all seem reasonable to me though.
https://fullfact.org/news/royal-family-are-we-getting-our-moneys-worth/

 

[glorygloryeze]

Consider the source on this one, but I can't see any reason for bias:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711

This is pretty comprehensive. Follow the onward links and you'll be able to pick apart any of the individual reports - they all seem reasonable to me though.
https://fullfact.org/news/royal-family-are-we-getting-our-moneys-worth/

Thanks; i'll take time and have a good look at these...