Lund University Department of History Joint Faculties of Humanities and Theology Course code: HISA35 Supervisor: Henrik Rosengren Term: Sp ring 2 020

“Moving forward in the past”

- a historical analysis of two speeches made by Slobodan Milošević regarding historical use of nationalism and ethnicity for the employment of divisiveness and fear-mongering.

Author: Ismar Didić

Sammanfattning/Abstract

Under 1990-talet bröt den före detta socialistiska federala republiken Jugoslavien upp längs sina republikers gränser, till stor del på grund av en ekonomisk och politisk kris, liksom en ökning av nationalism och etniska spänningar. Där olika nationaliteter och etniska grupper kämpade för att samexistera, och olösta etniska, nationalistiska och religiösa problem steg upp till ytan - försökte en serbisk politiker vid namnet Slobodan Milošević, att utnyttja det serbiska folkets missnöje och mobilisera det till ett splittrande och skrämmande narrativ som skulle uppnå fantasin om ett "Storserbien". För att illustrera tyngden i Miloševićs ord och hur han använder historien för att framkalla rädsla och delning, kommer denna studie, med hjälp av tidigare forskning och två metoder, historiebruk och textanalys, att undersöka två av hans tal - hans Polje-tal från 1987 och hans -tal från 1989.

During the 1990s, The Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up along its republics' borders, largely due to an economic and political crisis, as well as a rise in nationalism and ethnic tensions. Where dierent nationalities and ethnic groups struggled to coexist, and unresolved ethnic, nationalistic and religious troubles were rising to the surface - a Serbian politician by the name of Slobodan Milošević, sought to exploit the discontent of the Serbian people and marshal that into a divisive and fearsome narrative that would achieve the fantasy of a “Greater ”. To illustrate the power of Milošević’s words and how he uses history to promulgate fear-mongering and divisiveness, this study will, with the aid of former research and two methods, use of history and text analysis, examine two of his speeches - his 1987 Kosovo Polje Speech and his 1989 Gazimestan address.

Nyckelord: n ationalism, etnicitet, historiebruk, Milošević, Slobodan, Storserbien, Serbien, Albanien, Kosovo

Keywords: n ationalism, ethnicity, use of history, Milošević, Slobodan, , Serbia, Albania, Kosovo

1 Table of Contents

Sammanfattning/Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...2 1.) I ntroduction… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...3

1.1. P urpose and research question… …………………………………………………………………………………………….6 2.) F ormer research… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..7 3.) M ethod… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9

3.1. U se of history… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9

3.2. Text analysis… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...10 4.) A nalysis… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...11

4.1. Th e first question… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

4.1.1. E xistential use of history… …………………………………………………………………………………..11

4.1.2. M oral use of history… ………………………………………………………………………………………..14

4.1.3. I deological use of history… …………………………………………………………………………………...19

4.1.4. Th e answer to the first question… …………………………………………………………………………...22

4.2. Th e second question… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………...23

4.2.1. Th e answer to the second question… ………………………………………………………………………..25 5.) R esults… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...26 6.) C onclusion… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...28 7.) R eferences… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

2 1.) Introduction

The territory of the country once known as Yugoslavia, is one that is steeped in nationalist and ethnic tensions and unresolved issues that stem from several hundred years back. It has resulted in several deaths and endless battles over territory, religion, nationality and various other issues. Most notably, the First World War was started in the very heart of this region - Sarajevo - because an enraged and determined Serbian student, Gavrilo Princip, decided to assassinate the Archduke of Austro-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand, in order to liberate and further the dream of a Greater Serbia.1 Princip’s actions would prove to be fruitful, as the end of the First World War would mark a “re-drawing” of Europe’s borders, with the territory of Yugoslavia included. In 1918, this territory would be known as the Kingdom of , Croats and Slovenes. The kingdom was led by a Serbian king, Petar 1 of Serbia. As there were other ethnic groups in the region, such as Croats and Albanians, the fact that the sovereign was of Serbian origin garnered great displeasure among the various ethnic groups of the region. Revolutions followed from the non-Serb-groups, primarily Croats, and the Kingdom would see a small reform in its name in 1929 to; Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as a form of appeasement and call for unity. Although it appeared to work, nationalistic, ethnic and religious animosty never really seemed to wither away. It was not until the communist reformation of the land that occurred during the Second World War that tensions seemed to subside for a while. It would present some stability and peace in the region, although it would not last forever.2 With the invasion of the Axis powers, the many peoples of this territory needed unication more than ever, or the outcome could result in even more tragedy and animosity. At the forefront, ghting against the fascists, were the partisans, led by . His leadership was hailed and supported globally, which not only enabled him to take charge of the land, but also framed

1 The term “G reater Serbia” or “G reat Serbia” describes the Serbian nationalist ideology of a Serb state which would encompass all the neighbouring regions of Serbia that hold “traditional signicance to Serbs” and where Serbs reside; Resić, Sanimir, “J ugoslaviens undergång: Krigen. Freden. Framtiden.” , Historiska Media, 2018, pp. 10, 42.

2 Resić, Sanimir, “B alkans historia ”, Historiska Media, 2014, pp. 195-210.

3 Yugoslavia’s image for the years to come, as the sole communist country to abstain from Stalinism and the Warsaw Pact. This, combined with the semming decline in etnic, nationalistic and religious tensions, was often seen as the most prosperious period in the region.3 With this in mind, one begs the question of how , deportation, religious proling, mass murder and genocide could occur merely two years after Tito’s death? The answer lies in the fact that the tensions that plagued the region were never quite extinguished, but merely swept under the rug. They were never resolved, but “temporarily replaced” by a unied idea of comradeship and brotherhood through socialism and communism. Ideologies such as the ones which Gavrilo Princip ignited the whole of Europe in ames for, would see the light of day again 80 years later, and the message of in Yugoslavia would be used as a means of inspiration and motivation to perform unspeakable cruelty and evil. On April 24 1987, Slobodan Milošević, then to-become leader of the Serbian Communist Party, delivered a speech at the now famous Kosovo Polje, to large crowds of supporters that were gathered to hear his words. During that time, ethnic tensions between Albanians and Serbians had risen, especially in Kosovo, where several had accused ethnic Albanians, Kosovo's majority ethnic group, of abusing their power. It resulted in a demonstration by Serbs and towards the Kosovo-Albanian authorities. Albainians and Serbians in the region had been at odds against one another for several centuries, mainly over religious and ethnic issues. This was something that Milošević seemed to agree with and decided to use this ethnic tension in his favour. While Milošević was addressing the leaders inside the local cultural hall, outside, the local Kosovo-Albanian police force were being hurled stones at by demonstrators. A crowd of around 15,000 Serbs and Montenegrins threw rocks at the police after they actively tried to push people away from the entrance to the cultural center of Kosovo Polje.4 Milošević seemed to notice this, and went outside to address the crowds and try to ease the tensions. In reality, he was doing just the opposite - fueling hate and divide among the people. Milošević, who at that time was still a member of the Communist Party, chose to take power by adressing concerned crowds of Serbians at Kosovo, and by

3 Kumm, Björn, “Ti to: Folkets diktator” , Svenska Historiska Media Förlag AB, 2015, p. 152.

4 Reuters, “P rotest Staged by Serbs In an Albanian Region” , The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/26/world/protest-staged-by-serbs-in-an-albanian-region.html, 26/04-1987, accessed; 10/05-2020.

4 using the rising etnic tensions in the area to his advantage, Milošević managed to gain enough support to succeed in his political aspirations and eventually become in the following years.5 The speech at Kosovo Polje was instrumental to Milošević’s rise in power as it spoke to the Kosovo-Serbs with a sense of promise of political change and reduction of Kosovo-Albanian autonomy in the area. Milošević also promised that the police force would be disciplined, implying that Serbs and Montenergins protesting were actually right in their claim that Kosovo belonged to them. Furthermore, Milošević managed to address the crowds during a period when news cameras were lming, and his speech would later be broadcast to thousands of inuential individuals who chose to believe in Milošević’s message of strengthening Yugoslavia with Serbia at the forefront. It appeared to work, as only two years later, on 28 June 1989, Milošević, now President of Serbia, delivered a speech on Serbian victory against the Albainian aggression, at the Gazimestan monument on the Kosovo eld. It was delivered to a big crowd of spectators and occured amidst the rising tensions between ethnic Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, as well as political tensions between Serbia and other republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The speech, which would be known as the , took place on the 500th anniversary of the , fought at the site in 1389. The outcome of the battle was the defeat of the medieval Serbian state by the , and the subsequent annexation of a majority of Serbia's principalities. The notoriety of the speech lies in Milošević presaging the revenge of Serbia’s defeat in the Battle of Kosovo, and thus, unintentionally, marking the beginning of the collapse of Yugoslavia and advancing the gruesome bloodshed of the that followed.6 Milošević spoke about the Battle of Kosovo as being a victory for the Serbs, whereas it appears to have been a defeat. There are scarce reports from the event, but all known records, whether of Serbian or Albainian origin, describe the battle as a horric event with several Serbian casualties leading to a Serbian defeat and Albainian victory. Milošević chose instead to portray the battle as a Serbian victory to appease the crowd and gain support. By speaking of themes such as unity, brotherhood and a greater Serbia, Milošević managed to rallie the listeners and promote the readiness for future potential battles, as he explained;

5 Macdonald, David Bruce, “Balkan holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia”, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2002, p. 65.

6 Resić, 2018, pp. 29-33.

5

“we [the Serbs] are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles although such things cannot be excluded yet”.7

1.1. Purpose and research questions The history of the region, although at times brutal, was nothing if not complicated and long, with several historical events that have been used as motivational tools by nationalists to promote divide between people. As such, this study has chosen to analyze two speeches made by Slobodan Milošević, that have been viewed as the prime motivators and/or launching points for the atrocities that followed. The speeches are rooted with historical events which Milošević used to evoke a nationalistic sense of pride and unity among the spectators that heard his words. Therefore, the primary focus of this study is to analyze the historical use in Milošević’s speeches and further explain how his use of history could have had such a strong impact that they managed to eventually lead to genocide and other deplorable actions. It is also imperative to note that the usage of history has been a powerful apparatus for war-and hate-mongers throughout the ages. However, the history presented by these individuals is always one that has been distorted and/or falsied to t their narrative. The art of spreading fear, hate and lies through speech-giving has not curtailed into oblivion, even in the 21th century, and will undoubtedly never do. It could therefore be argued that this topic will never fall out of relevance. With this in mind, this study will work of of two research questions;

1.) How does the use of history interplay in Milošević’s speeches?

2.) How does Milošević convey and use nationalism and ethnicity to motivate and promulgate divide and fear to his supporters?

7 “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , Political Speeches, last modied 12/04, 2009, http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/spch-kosovo1989.htm, accessed: 12/05-2020.

6 2.) Former research

The material that will be used by this study to answer it research questions, will consist of assorted relevant research on this topic. It has been written by various researchers and authors that dier in their respective eld of research. For instance, as this study will cover topics such as history, nationalism, ethnicity and others - the works of dierent authors, from historians to political scientists, will be encompassed in this study. As the usage of history within Milošević’s speeches is quite strong, and as the aim of this study is in due part to locate this in his speeches - works that detail the long and complex history of Yugoslavia will be useful for this study. Such an example is the book, “J ugoslaviens undergång: Krigen. Freden. Framtiden” , by Sanimir Resić. The author describes how Yugoslavia could fall into such despair and tragedy during the beginning of 1990s. By recounting the historical events that led to genocide and ethinc cleansing, as well as examining the dierent reasons for why it could have occured at all - Resić analyzes the country through a historian’s ‘lense’ and provides the reader with a greater understanding of Yugoslavia and the tensions that eventually destroyed it. By going into great detail through the events of this time period, Resić manages to shed some light on how things actually unfolded, which is useful when examining the historical usage of Milošević in his speeches. It is also important to note that Resić himself is from the former Yugoslavia and has therefore a unique perspective in that he has experienced many of the events that his book covers. At the same time, he is also a peer-reviewed researcher from Lund University who has published several books on the topic, one other which has been briey used in this study (Balkans historia, 2013), and is therefore not likely to write his book with any personal biases. To gain further understanding of how Milošević uses nationalism and ethnicity as motivating factors for fear, and for this study to be able to answer its second question, works that examine such topics will be used. The rst of which is the book, “B alkan holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia” , by professor in Political Science, David Bruce MacDonald. The book is a conict analysis that highlights how both the Croatian and Serbian nationalist propaganda were based on creating fear through threats of genocide. MacDonald illustrates

7 how this was a tactical way to persuade residents to participate in war by advocating self-defense. Although the book focuses on both the Serbian and Croatian sides of propaganda making, this study will solely focus on the Serbian aspect. Further material that explores the use of propaganda in speeches, is the work of journalist, Marija Sajkas. Although Sajkas is a journalist, her article "F rom the Cradle of the Nation to the Most Expensive Serbian Word: Changes in Serbian Public Language in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century" is based on extensive research made by Sajkas during the years of the wars in the region, and it highlights signicant parts of the propaganda used by Milošević. Sajkas draws attention to various used phrases by Milošević, as well as dierent events that were comprehensive in shaping and its underlying purpose. The last material to mention is one by author, Jelena Macura, who writes in the “P olitical Science Undergraduate Review VOL. 1 NO. 2 (2016)” , about how Milošević could eectively mobilize and motivate hundreds of people to take action and commit unthinkable atrocities. In the article, “H e’s Just Not That Into Yu(goslavia)” , Macura explores the very same speeches that this study is interested in. However, Macura’s work does not go into detail as much as this study intends to do, thereby serving as a useful starting point for this study.

8 3.) Method

As the purpose of this study is to examine the usage of history and how terms and topics such as nationalism and ethnicity are used to promulgate fearmongering in two speeches by Slobodan Milošević, two methods will be applied - use of history and textanlysis. This study has also formulated two questions, and although the two chosen methods to answer them will in due part be applied to both questions, use of history will be applied more ‘heavily’ on the rst question, while text analysis will be more useful for the second question.

3.1. Use of history To analyze the speeches by Milošević, this study aims to apply a method known as ‘use of history’. This specic method is explained by Klas-Göran Karlsson and Ulf Zander in their books; “H istorien är nu: en introduktion till historiedidaktiken” (2009) and “H istorien är närvarande: historiedidaktik som teori och tillämpning” (2014). History as a subject can be found in many dierent contexts and for many dierent purposes. From street names, advertisements and lms on TV, to in school textbooks and on the Internet. The reasons for how and why history as a subject is used in a certain way, is known as use of history. It can be divided into a number of dierent categories based on the purpose of the use. The main purpose of this research method is to examine how history is used and why, not particularly if it is used in the ‘right’ way, whether that way may be.8 There several dierent categories of use of history for researchers to apply to their chosen research material, however, as this is a relatively short study, only the categories that will be used in this study will be briey described in this paragraph. They are as follows; existential use of history, which is used to reinforce an identity, e.g. nationality or ethnicity (an existence). By highlighting historical events or conditions, this use can strengthen shared beliefs or twist historical events to t the desired narrative. It is neither denitely a positive or negative use of history, as it can be used as an

8 Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Zander, Ulf (red.), “H istorien är närvarande: historiedidaktik som teori och tillämpning”, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2014, p. 72.

9 exclusion and inclusion method. The purpose may be to unite people around a common identity.9 The second use is moral use of history, which highlights injustices committed against dierent groups by using historical events. The purpose is to question certain, sometimes valid and/or invalid, perspectives on history to ignite a certain idea within a specic group of people. The purpose may also be to criticize individuals who hold higher power in a society and commit misdeeds. The third use of history is an ideological use of history, which is used to detail how dierent political groups use history to t their narrative or political ideology. Ideological use of history is therefore very common in dictatorships or countries where one, or few, parties rule undemocratically. It can also work in the manner where groups that want to take power use history to show why they are a better alternative than those who currently govern. Ideological use of history is not primarily based on what is historically true but rather on discovering political views and ideologies. These uses of history all share some characteristics and can be applied to Milošević’s speeches, as these are elements that are bound to occur within speeches given by a fear mongering war criminal.

3.2. Text analysis The second method that this study will take use of is a text analysis from Peter Esaiasson. It will use a qualitative text analysis, as the speeches are more qualitative than quantitative. A qualitative text analysis also manages to provide the researcher with the tools to see the structure of a text by studying the key factors that formulate the very foundation of the text.1 0 It is a method that can be very useful when one is interested in wanting to “reveal” the main contents, whether they be latent or not, of a text through the examination of all of its fundamental aspects (the author, or in this case, the speaker’s intentions, former research, and other various aspects). Combined with the use of history, this method can provide a clearer understanding regarding certain expressions, concepts and events that are being detailed in the two speeches.

9 Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Zander, Ulf (red.), “H istorien är nu: en introduktion till historiedidaktiken” , 2., [uppdaterade och bearbetade] uppl., Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2009, p. 59.

10 Esaiasson, Peter, “M etodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad” , Stockholm: Norstedts juridik, 2012, p. 211.

10 4.) Analysis

This chapter will be divided into two sections, each dealing with one of this study’s proposed research questions. The section covering the rst question will be divided into three paragraphs; existential, moral and ideological - the three chosen uses of history. The reasoning behind arranging the analysis in that manner, lies primarily in trying to structure the speeches in a clear and coherent way, as they contain a large amount of information that needs to be examined. The speeches will also be analyzed simultaneously and parallel to each other.

4.1. The rst question As mentioned previously, this section will try to answer the rst question, namely; how does the use of history interplay in Milošević’s speeches? Since this question is interested in the use of history, that particular method will be emphasized more, while text analysis will be more prevalent at the second question.

4.1.1. Existential use of history Within existential use of history the purpose is to bring people together towards a unanimous objective through the means of historical events.1 1 In order to do that, one would have to focus on events that have occurred throughout history, that would elicit pride and a sense of accomplishment with the audience that one is targeting. Evoking pride and honour amongst the spectators belonging to the nationality of which Milošević is so fondly speaking of, is mainly done by referencing the Battle of Kosovo. In his two speeches, Milošević emphasizes how it is a form of ‘right’ for the Serbs to remain on this land, and to not do that, would be a disservice and dishonor to their ancestors and future descendants. In his speech at Kosovo Polje, 1987, Milošević maintains this;

11 Karlsson; Zander (red.), 2009, p. 61.

11

“But our goal is to emerge from a state of hatred, intolerance and mistrust. That all people on Kosovo live well. And that is why, in relation to that goal, I want to tell you colleagues, yes, you need to stay here. This is your land. Your homes are here, your memories. You won't very well give up your land just because life in it is dicult, just because you've been pressured by crime and humiliation. It was never in the spirit of the Serbian and Montenegrin nation to bow before adversity, to demobilize when they need to ght, to demoralize when times are tough. You need to stay here because of your forefathers and because of your descendants. You would shame your forefathers and disappoint your descendants. But I'm not proposing that you should stay tolerant, hold on, and bear this situation with which you aren't satised. Quite the contrary. You need to change it, together with all the progressive people here, in Serbia and in Yugoslavia.”1 2

It appears that the objective with which Milošević is trying to bring people together around, is a ght over land with which he believes rightfully belongs to the Serbian people. His speech that followed two years later at the Gazimestan monument at Kosovo eld, begins with Milošević trying to ascertain that the cause which Serbian soldiers fought for 600 years ago, is the same cause which the spectators of his speech must ght and uphold for. He asserts that Serbian nationality and ethnicity must be protected unanimously by the Serbian people, for otherwise they would face extinction by the Albainians. Resić asserts this in his book by explaining that the anniversary at which this speech was giving, is an important part of Serbian culture and Serbian identity, which is a sort of ‘Serbian Jerusalem’ where every Serb must avenge the injustices that had befallen on the Serbian people, according to Resić.1 3 MacDonald also agrees with this notion, by emphasizing how myths and legendary tales played a part in creating this ‘Serbian Jerusalem’, where Serbian heroes would be remembered and avenged.1 4 The introduction of Milošević’s second speech emphasizes the importance of ‘social relationship’ or ‘comradeship’ among the Serbian soldiers who fought in the Battle of Kosovo, which

12 “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , accessed: 14/05-2020.

13 Resić, 2018, p. 29.

14 Macdonald, 2002, p. 63.

12 results in a sense of community for the spectators who chose to listen to him. It begins as follows:

“By the force of social circumstances this great 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo is taking place in a year in which Serbia, after many years, after many decades, has regained its state, national, and spiritual integrity. Therefore, it is not dicult for us to answer today the old question: how are we going to face Milos [Milos Obilic, legendary hero of the Battle of Kosovo]. Through the play of history and life, it seems as if Serbia has, precisely in this year, in 1989, regained its state and its dignity and thus has celebrated an event of the distant past which has a great historical and symbolic signicance for its future.”1 5

In these sentences, Milošević tries to elicit a sense of pride and honour from the listeners. He does this by describing the individuals who are listening to him, and who choose to side with him, as ghters who champion the cause that the Serbian folk hero - Miloš Obilić, fought for 600 years ago. Obilić who fought at the battle and had since become a martyr for Serbia, as well as obtained a sainthood.1 6 Comparing the listeners of the Gazimestan speech to the greatness that was taught in schools about Obilić, creates a certain unity and pride. And following the previously mentioned events that had occurred with the Kosovo-Albainian police force - a sense of righteousness towards the Albainian ‘oppressors’ has been ignited even more. As Sajkas notes in her article - the speech given by Milošević was given at the ‘best’ moment, at least for him, as it solidied the spectators with a sense of comfort and protection from Milošević himself. Sajkas ascertains that this was one of the strongest points for Milošević’s political success.1 7 The existential use of history in Milošević’s speeches is primarily focused on the Battle of Kosovo (which seems ‘reasonable’ as these speeches are centered on ethnic tensions between Albainians and Serbians, and because it is the biggest documented conict, up to that point, between these two groups) and by framing the battle as a ‘unresolved’ ght with which the Serbians must ‘join together’ and continue on ghting into the 20th century. In these sentences from the Gazimestan speech,

15 Quote from the English translation by the National Technical Information Service of the US Department of Commerce. Reprinted in “Th e Kosovo Conflict and International Law: An Analytical Documentation 1974-1999”, ed. Krieger, Heike, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 10-11.

16 Resić, 2018, p. 29.

17 Sajkas, 2008, s. 629-32.

13 Milošević explains this;

“Six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they cannot be won without resolve, bravery, and sacrice, without the noble qualities that were present here in the eld of Kosovo in the days past. Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, nding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilization in which people will live in the 21st century. For this battle, we certainly need heroism, of course of a somewhat dierent kind, but that courage without which nothing serious and great can be achieved remains unchanged and remains urgently necessary. Six centuries later, now, we are being again engaged in battles and are facing battles. They are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded yet. However, regardless of what kind of battles they are, they cannot be won without resolve, bravery, and sacrice, without the noble qualities that were present here in the eld of Kosovo in the days past. Our chief battle now concerns implementing the economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity, nding a quicker and more successful approach to a civilization in which people will live in the 21st century. For this battle, we certainly need heroism, of course of a somewhat dierent kind, but that courage without which nothing serious and great can be achieved remains unchanged and remains urgently necessary.”1 8

4.1.2 Moral use of history With the existential use of history in mind, one can then go on to the moral use of history. The purpose of this form of history use, is to examine how historical events are used to highlight injustices committed against dierent groups.1 9 The previous section covered what specic events (the Battle of Kosovo and the Kosovo riots in 1987)2 0 were used by Milošević to unite the spectators of his speeches.

18 Krieger, 2001, pp. 10-11.

19 Karlsson; Zander (red.), 2014, p. 72.

20 Although the riots of 1987 were contemporary events during the time of Milošević’s speech, they were also the culmination of several years of high-rising tensions between Albainians and Serbians, stemming far before the Battle of

14 In this section, the focus will be on how Milošević uses these events to advocate that injustice has befallen the Serbian people, and that they need to ght against their claimed oppressors. The speech given at Kosovo Polje, starts out with a proclamation by Milošević to the people, about how no-one, essentially, but themselves can liberate Kosovo from aggressors that threaten peace and stability within the land. It begins accordingly:

“There is no need for us trade places with each other in order for us to seek accountability for you, as our colleague suggested a short time ago in the discussion. That is our duty. When the issue is about this unpleasant event today and the police intervention, responsibility will take shape regarding this intervention for which there was no reason. When our friend Mitar lled us in on what happened in front of the building, you know well that in a single minute we agreed that order isn't maintained by the police, but you take this upon yourselves in the interest of the safety of the citizens and children who are there. Proof that we correctly agreed is that order was thoroughly maintained and that the issue is about the people who behaved in such a lordly way.”2 1

What Milošević is essentially saying, is that the power for change lies with an already oppressed and angry group of individuals, who are sick and tired of the oppression that they have endured. He further solidies this notion in the following paragraphs:

“In material growth Kosovo is constantly investing, separatism and nationalism have received an infusion of counter-revolutionism and have achieved larger and larger procedural changes, but are being rooting out via legal, administrative and politico-ideological measures. Nobody is satised with the speed of this process, not in PK, not in SK SKS, not in SK SKJ. Yesterday we determined this in the meeting of the Presidency of PK. But the process has gained some speed

Kosovo even, and are thus a continuation of several dierent historical events. Therefore, this study will take the liberty of advocating that they may serve as historical events even at the time of the speech-giving. 21 “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , accessed: 16/05-2020.

15 and I am condent that this speed will increase. And you need to know that. But, it's understood, from that I don't think to suggest that the matter is settled and that we have reason to be satised. On the contrary, Kosovo is still poor today; the poorest portion of our country. Albanian separatists and nationalists have calmed down somewhat. They're banking on time, and it's understood that conditions are working for them. But they need to know, on this plain tyranny will be no more. Progressive people won't give up Kosovo, neither will Serbia nor will Yugoslavia. And in a political light the perception is very present that the desire for an ethnically pure Kosovo is well-founded and possible. That foundation is here [in Kosovo].”2 2

With these sentences, Milošević has proclaimed that the current state of aairs in Kosovo, which are upsetting several Kosovo-Serbians, are in essence the fault of Albainian nationalists and that the only way to rectify matters, is to create an ethnically pure Kosovo. It is a powerful and undoubtedly eective strategy which Milošević has applied here, where he uses the current strenuous situation to his advantage. He plays on peoples’ disapproval of how Kosovo has been run, and assures the Kosovo-Serbians that the fault for that does not lie with them, but rather with the Kosovo-Albainians. His method of ‘rectifying’ this, is unfortunately a gruesome objective which would be further strengthened in his speech at the Gazimestan Monument. There, Milošević appears more open about his fondness for justice for the Serbs in Kosovo. Perhaps this lies on the fact that he had obtained more power now, and could speak more freely without worrying about the consequences. Or perhaps it pertains to the people being more ‘riled-up’ regarding how the situation had escalated from his previous speech. An ethnically ‘pure’ Serb was running Yugoslavia, and was addressing the people on the 600t anniversary of an event which had been ingrained in Serbian history as a victory. However, Milošević also manages to elicit the fact that Serbians are simultaneously also oppressed whilst also being the victors of the battle that transpired on that location 600 years ago. It is quite interesting how Milošević frames the situation as being both a victorious celebration, whilst also a proclamation for ‘revenge’ or justice. He does this by instilling the

22 SKJ (The League of Communist of Yugoslavia); SKS (The League of Communists of Serbia); (PK (Province Committee); “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , accessed: 14/05-2020.

16 pride that was mentioned in the previous section concerning existential history use, while simultaneously eliciting that Serbia needs to rectify past injustices.2 3 Now, even though this is somewhat oxymoronic, this statement appeared to work. The following sentences from his 1989 speech may explain why that is:

“In the memory of the Serbian people, this disunity was decisive in causing the loss of the battle and in bringing about the fate which Serbia suered for a full 6 centuries. Even if it were not so, from a historical point of view, it remains certain that the people regarded disunity as its greatest disaster. Therefore it is the obligation of the people to remove disunity, so that they may protect themselves from defeats, failures, and stagnation in the future. Unity brings back dignity. This year, the Serbian people became aware of the necessity of their mutual harmony as the indispensable condition for their present life and further development. I am convinced that this awareness of harmony and unity will make it possible for Serbia not only to function as a state but to function as a successful state. Therefore I think that it makes sense to say this here in Kosovo, where that disunity once upon a time tragically pushed back Serbia for centuries and endangered it, and where renewed unity may advance it and may return dignity to it. Such an awareness about mutual relations constitutes an elementary necessity for Yugoslavia, too, for its fate is in the joined hands of all its peoples. The Kosovo heroism has been inspiring our creativity for 6 centuries, and has been feeding our pride and does not allow us to forget that at one time we were an army great, brave, and proud, one of the few that remained undefeated when losing.”

Milošević has, in these sentences, explained how he views the situation that unfolded in Kosovo during the late 1980s. He has ‘advanced’ from being an advocate of peace and unity between the two ethnic groups, to being a staunch supporter of ethnic cleansing of a ethnic group which he deemed to be far less inferior to the Serbian people. He achieved this by ‘shaping’ historical events to his favour, and walking a ‘ne line’ between martyrdom and victory for Serbia. MacDonald explains that during this time, an expression known as ‘Se rbophobia’ . This was a coined expression to explain the propaganda and claims that Serbian writers had about the disdain and persecution that other

23 Resić, 2018, p. 29-33.

17 ethnic groups were subjecting the Serbs to. As mentioned previously, MacDonald and Resić both mention the ‘Serbian Jerusalem’ - MacDonald ascertains that this was a nationalist theology to create a Serbian antisemitism.2 4 The moral use of history is interested in nding injustices claimed by individuals who use historical events to do so. However, it is not quite clear as to what events Milošević is referring to, as he tends to ‘simplify’ and ‘summarize’ large portions of Albanian/Serbian history. Even in the quotes from his speeches, it becomes dicult to dierentiate and ascertain what these injustices towards the Serbian people may exactly be. It could therefore be argued that Milošević does not really care about which historical event he is referring to - they all appear to have transpired in the same manner, according to him. It is his way of ‘bending’ and ‘twisting’ history to t his own narrative. The Battle of Kosovo is perhaps the prime example of this. As mentioned in the introduction of this study, it is not quite clear as to how the battle transpired entirely, but judging merely on the amount of Serbian casualties and a need to ‘re-claim’ that land - it could be argued that the Serbs ended up losing that battle. With that in mind, it is fascinating that the battle is referred to by Milošević as a celebration of Serbian victory and superiority. Kosovo's role in this formulation is therefore symbolic as well as nationalistic because according to Serbian nationalists, the Serbs won the Battle of Kosovo.

“At the time when this famous historical battle was fought in Kosovo, the people were looking at the stars, expecting aid from them. Now, 6 centuries later, they are looking at the stars again, waiting to conquer them. On the rst occasion, they could allow themselves to be disunited and to have hatred and treason because they lived in smaller, weakly interlinked worlds. Now, as people on this planet, they cannot conquer even their own planet if they are not united, let alone other planets, unless they live in mutual harmony and solidarity. Therefore, words devoted to unity, solidarity, and cooperation among people have no greater signicance anywhere on the soil of our motherland than they have here in the eld of Kosovo, which is a symbol of disunity and treason.”2 5

24 MacDonald, 2002, pp. 63-64.

25 “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , accessed: 14/05-2020.

18

4.1.3. The ideological use of history As mentioned in the previous chapter, Method - the main focus of the ideological use of history is to identify how individuals use history to prove why their way of governing is better than any other. Such uses of history may often occur within dictatorships. In the two previous uses of history, this study highlighted how Milošević frames history to t his own personal narrative by relying on historical ethinic tensions between Serbians and Albainians and thus enabling a sense of victimhood whilst also perpetuating an ethnic superiority. It also touched upon who he wanted to rally into action, namly the Serbian people. This particular section will focus on who he desires to remove or replace from the land - the Albainians. It was explained in the previous sections that Milošević had a certain disdain for the Albainian people. By exemplifying his statements of ethnic cleansing and ‘safeguarding’ the land by any means necessary, even deadly one - Milošević shows that the ultimate angle of his speeches is to cause divide and fear by exploiting several centuries of rising ethnic tensions and historical conicts between these two ethnic groups. In his rst speech, Milošević sees the opportunity to garner the anger and disapproval for the Kosovo-Albainian led authorities, by ‘ring up’ the Serbian demonstrators. Arguably, Milošević does it in a relatively ‘assuring’ manner that would not be seen as hostile or vile at rst glance, and perhaps it would not because this is how it goes;

“Since, from the premise that SAP Kosovo political party of the nation of Kosovo, who propounds counter-revolution, is proposing the natural consequence that in that sense the province should be eectively transformed into a republic, through which in reality are taken the rst, but not ignorant, steps toward shattering the territorial integrity of SR Serbia and SFRJ. We have, with our colleagues, understood the cost, progressive people in Kosovo have understood it also, and in Serbia, and in Yugoslavia. When one has in sight all that we've accomplished, and all that is left that must be done, and what is remaining is inappropriately more than that which is accomplished, what is before us aren't tasks and responsibilities, but

19 rather a great patriotic oensive whose goal needs to be material and cultural growth of Kosovo and free and fullling life for its citizens.”2 6

As stated, that may not seem worrisome, because Milošević speaks of cultural growth and economic advancement by enriching the patriotic duty of every citizen, much like it was during the times of Tito. However, the following sentences that Milošević utters show that this patriotic duty of which he speaks, is merely a veiled excuse to rid the land of a specic ethnic group.

“The premise of an ethnically pure, economically and politically autonomous, untethered Kosovo isn't possible by political ideals or ethically, but at the end of the line, that premise isn't in the interest of the Albanian nation. This kind of nationalism would exclude it from all circles, and it wouldn't just slow down, but stop its growth in both economic and a completely spiritual sense. Just like Enver Hoxha with his politics, so is the tiny Albanian nation still one very underdeveloped people, isolated from Europe, shut o from any possibility of taking part in the dynamic life of today's world.”2 7

That distinction between Serbians and Albainians is an important notation to be made. He insinuates that the Albanians are ‘lesser’ in comparison to the ethnically pure Serbians. One might argue that Milošević is implying an ethnic cleansing of the Albainian people from Kosovo, in order for the Serbian nation to advance and survive, something which by basing on the events that occurred in the following years in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Kosovo - was not far from the truth.2 8 Milošević tries to provoke fear amongst the listeners of a form of cultural elimination from the Kosovo-Albainians. Having used the events that had occurred previously, he assures the spectators that in order to combat this injustice that they had been subjugated towards, they have to ght together.

26 Krieger, 2001, pp. 10-11.

27 Krieger, 2001, pp. 10-11.

28 Resić, 2018, 98-101.

20 Milošević chooses to do this by exemplifying Serbia, almost as an individual, who has fought many a battle through the centuries, but has only recently found ‘peace’ and unity because of the very people who are listening to his speech. The reason for this may be because Milošević brings up the national hero, Miloš Obilić, who fought at the battle and had since become a martyr for Serbia, as well as obtained a sainthood. Comparing the listeners of the Gazimestan speech to the greatness that was taught in schools about Obilić, creates a certain unity and pride.2 9 And following the previously mentioned events that had occurred with the Kosovo-Albainian police force - a sense of righteousness towards the Albainian ‘oppressors’ has been ignited even more. Macura explains that Milošević “appealed to the emotions of grieving Serbs”, and gave them an incentive to continue protesting against the people who he wanted to oppose - Albainians.3 0 What it appears that Milošević aims at doing, is restoring a sense of ‘integrity’ from when the Serbs attempted to push back the Turks from Kosovo. The Ottoman Empire consisted mainly of Muslims, and by claiming Kosovo, Milošević believes that the "right" religion of the country could reign. This results in a distinction between us and them (Serbs v. the rest of Kosovo’s population) but also an encouragement of the Serbs' inferiority and that they are portrayed as the ‘dominant’ and rightful people of the land. Milošević therefore also evokes a sense of ethnically pure citizens of Kosovo, and those who are only ‘pretending’ to be something else.3 1

“Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself in the eld of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. Serbia was at that time the bastion that defended the European culture, religion, and European society in general. Therefore today it appears not only unjust but even unhistorical and completely absurd to talk about Serbia's belonging to Europe. Serbia has been a part of Europe incessantly, now just as much as it was in the past, of course, in its own way, but in a way that in the historical sense never deprived it of dignity. In this spirit we now endeavor to build a society, rich and democratic, and thus to contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful country, this unjustly suering country, but also to contribute to the eorts of all the progressive people of our age that they make for a better and happier world.

29 Resić, 2018, p. 29.

30 Sajkas, Marija, ”From the Cradle of the Nation to the Most Expensive Serbian Word: Changes in Serbian Public Language in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century”, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 36, Issue 4, 2006, p. 117.

31 MacDonald, 2002, p. 254.

21

Let the memory of Kosovo heroism live forever! Long live Serbia! Long live Yugoslavia! Long live peace and brotherhood among peoples!”

4.1.4. The answer to the rst question With the contents of the previous sections in mind, what is the answer to the rst question that this study poses, namely - how does the use of history interplay in Milošević’s speeches? This study proposed that three uses of history may be applicable to Milošević’s speeches, existential, moral and ideological. The main reason for this was because they all displayed the fear-mongering and divisive elements of Milošević’s speech that will be further discussed in the next paragraph that will detail the second question. It is also important to note that several elements that were mentioned in one use of history were brought up in another - for instance the objective which Milošević bases his speeches on, namely the ethnic-cleasing of Albainians from the region, is referred to in all three uses of history in some form. That is also one of the reasons as to why these three specic uses of history were used in this study, as they interplay well with one another whilst still presenting dierent elements and details of use. With the existential use of history, this study highlighted how Milošević used historical as well as contemporary events to rally the listeners of his speech into fear-mongering and divisiveness towards the Albaininan-population of Kosovo. By introducing the moral use of history it became clear as to how he managed to do this on such a massive scale - by creating a false narration of historical events to t his narrative. He also managed to use the ethnic tensions between Albainians and Serbiens as a tool to portray the Serbians as being subjugated to injustice and cruelty by the Albainians (Serbophobia).3 2 This was done by depicting the Battle of Kosovo as a victory for Serbia, which judging by known accounts may not have been the case, and also claiming that the Albainians killed and exterminated more of the Serbian population during the battle. By doing this, Milošević could illustrate the Serbians as victors while also still depicting them as victims. In the nal use of history, the ideological, this study

32 MacDonald, 2002, p. 63-64.

22 showed how Milošević managed to ‘tie it all together’ , so to speak. By using the high-rise tensions between the Serbians and Albainians at the time of his speeches, Milošević managed to advocate that the authorities of Kosovo had failed its Serbian-population and that the only way for any change to occur, would be if he were in charge. By twisting history and using the anger and resentment from his listeners, Milošević managed to claim and advocate quite cruel solutions to the Serbian population of Kosovo’s problems. In the following section a text analysis will be used to showcase how his words managed to do this.

4.2. The second question This study’s second question was interested in nding out how Milošević conveys and uses nationalism and ethnicity to motivate and promulgate divide and fear to his supporters? While this was somewhat presented through the use of history, the full extent of his nationalistic fear-mongering and divisiveness is best seen by analysing certain phrases and words through a qualitative text analysis. From the rst speech at Kosovo Polje, Milošević starts o as a sort of arbitrator between these two ethnic groups. However, he quickly takes a stand, siding with the Serbs of Kosovo and against the Albainians. The beginnings of his speech speak of brotherhood and unity in the face of opposition and nationalism. This then evolves into questioning and criticising the way that Kosovo was being run during that period. Milošević acknowledges the issues that the Serbians are upset about, and assures them that Serbia and Yugoslavia would do anything to rectify them. The way to do this is by standing together in unity against nationalism. The nationalism that Milošević is referring to is in no way Serbian but rather Albainian. This is quite interesting as Milošević goes on to end his speech by uttering phrases such as; “an ethnically pure, economically and politically autonomous, untethered Kosovo isn't possible by political ideals or ethically, but at the end of the line, that premise isn't in the interest of the Albanian nation”, or; “You need to stay here because of your forefathers and because of your descendants. You would shame your forefathers and disappoint your descendants.”. These are all sentences that convey a strong nationalistic view of history that pertains the land of Kosovo as a Serbian belonging. During the time of this speech the concerns from the Serbian protester of Kosovo were high, with a woman even asserting, “If I have to leave [Kosovo], I would rather die before I leave”.

23 33 Milošević quite famously uttered the phrase, “Ne sme niko da vas bije”, meaning; “nobody is allowed to beat you”.3 4 This was a conforming phrase that assured the spectators of his speech that they were in the right, and that any action that they might take would be appropriate and justiable. As Jelena Macura points out in her text, this way of speaking creates a narrative that alienates the Albanian people and portrays them as brutish aggressors and inferior people.3 5 It also presents Milošević as an assuring and charismatic leader that supports his people. The importance of words such as ‘forefathers’ and ‘shame’ emphasizes how important historical events should be for the Serbian people of Kosovo, and that they should be the driving force of their resistance towards any kind of ‘oppression’. It is also a form of ‘verbal contract’ that Milošević is proposing between him and his listeners. Dictators throughout history have a tendency to proclaim several dierent things that they intend to fulll once in power, and by doing so they prove to the people that they uphold their promise. Milošević suggested that the people continue with their protests and that they engage in a nationalistic way of thinking by supporting him. In turn, he would see to it that things would change favourably for the Serbian people in Kosovo. The rst thing that he did to maintain his promise, was to re the Albanian Kosovo chief of police, and by doing so, could proceed to reduce the autonomy of Kosovo. These actions made it easier for Milošević to gain notoriety and followers who saw his methods and leadership as the ultimate way forward for Kosovo and the surrounding regions. However, Yugoslavia was still in a rapid decline from when Tito had died, and ethnic tensions had not declined but were escalating. The reason for this was because Milošević did nothing to hinder their escalation, but merely added re to the ethnic ame that was burning in the region. In his speech at Gazimestan, Milošević spoke more frivosly about ethnic cleansing and ethnic inferiority and superiority. The reason for this may be, as stated in a previous section, that he had gained so much support and that people were willing to return the favour of support to him after he had fullled his promises after the speech at Kosovo Polje in 1987. By installing the same words and phrases of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘unity’, but

33 “Slobodan Milošević 25. IV 1987. u Kosovom Polju: ‘ Ne sme niko da vas bije, ” YouTube video, 7:07-7:21. Posted by “Duklja-Zeta-Crna Gora,” March 22, 2011. h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__csVX8-Vg; MacDonald, 2002, p. 65.

34 Ibid.

35 Macura, Jelena, “H e’s Just Not That Into Yu(goslavia)” , Political Science Undergraduate Review, Vol. 1, no. 2, Feb. 2016, p. 116.

24 with a more vigorous less concerning aggression towards Albanians, Milošević managed to rally the listeners into believing his words of hatred and fabrication of history. Through the text analysis by Essaisson, we can see the importance of framing a situation in a certain manner. Essaisson pertains that latent messages can be important to discovering a person’s motivation, however, with Milošević it is quite obvious and not so latent as he states most of the things which he wishes to express.3 6 The particular phrasing that he utilizes such as ‘brotherhood’ and ‘unity’ are interesting aspects which managed to garner a sense of shared identity with his spectators.

4.2.1. The answer to the second question So, how did Milošević convey and use nationalism and ethnicity to motivate and promulgate divide and fear to his supporters? In both of his speeches, Milošević ‘played’ the emotions of concerned Serbs. He portrayed the Serbians as victims that deserved justice however possible, even through the use of violence. It is important to note Milošević’s tactic of using the time and place to achieve this feat. In the Kosovo Polje Speech, he turned to the concerned Kosovar Serbs and addressed listeners that believed in the historical ideology of a Greater Serbia. This notion was then empowered further during the Gazimestan Speech, and judging by the increase in support during the period of interval between these two speeches - it appears as though many Serbs were receptive to his ideas. It also helped to address the people on the 600th anniversary of a historic battle. As Macura maintains, he managed to elicit a strong sense of nationalism by utilizing specic uniting phrasing.3 7 Milošević’s speeches were used as a tool to interpret history in a fabricating manner, and to assert that Serbs were simultaneously victimized by lesser ethnic groups, whilst also being victors that once again would win in the battles to come. Sajkas refers to this by ascertaining that Milošević knew what to say and when to say it, essentially.3 8 By advocating that the possibility for future war and conict was possible, Milošević fueled a perpetuated mentality of ethnic hatred, and the incentive to ‘preserve’ Serbian nationalism by any means necessary and at any cost.

36 Essaisson, 2012, p. 211.

37 Macura, 2016, pp. 117-118.

38 Sajkas, 2008, s. 629-32

25

5.) Results

The interests of this study were twofold; examining how Milošević uses history in two of his speeches, and how his speeches promulgate divide and fear to his supporters through the use of nationalism and ethnicity. By using two methods - use of history and text analysis, and with the use of favoroble former research - this study managed to come to the conclusion that Milošević took advantage of the current situation at the time to gain support from the Kosovo-Serbians. The Kosovo-Serbians were disgruntled with the way Kosovo had been governed for the past years, and felt that they had been subjected to injustice and unfair treatment. Whether or not the Serbians of Kosovo believed that this injustice stemmed from an ethnic angle, as the Albainians and Serbians of Kosovo had a long history of ethnic tensions that had been occurring - they would certainly start to believe it when Milošević started to talk about it. As Sajkas maintains, a lot of the ‘momentum’ that Milošević managed to gain in order to rally his supporters into action, had in great deal to do with the timing. With ethnic tensions rising to such a high extent, and with the death of Tito just a few years earlier - Milošević found an opportunity to make his move.3 9 The way in which Milošević used history to promulgate fear and division among the people, was to use an already dissatised audience who felt that they had been unjustly treated, and to proclaim that this injustice had in fact been occurring for quite some time, all throughout the Kosovo-Serbians’ history as a matter of fact. MacDonald explains that this form of self-victimization was created long before Milošević’s time, and had been used by Serbian writers and inuencers to frame a certain narrative where Serbs were the target of unfair treatment and/or injustice from others - MacDonald refers to it as “Serbophobia”.4 0 Milošević managed to create a narrative that portrayed the Serbians of Kosovo as being both heroic, while still being the victims of imaginable cruelty and injustice from the Albanians. This oxymoronic narrative appeared to work, as it made the spectators of his speeches feel that the battles of their ancestors were not in vain (even though the casualties of the Serbians were

39 Sajkas, 2008, s. 629-32.

40 MacDonald, 2002, pp.63-64.

26 higher than the Albainians, and could thus mean that Albainians won that battle), while feeling that their ancestors needed to be mourned and revenged.4 1 He spoke about how the Albainians threatened the prosperous future that lay in front of the Serbian people of Kosovo, and that the only way to stop this would be to engage in further battles, hostilities and ethnic cleansing, in order to save the land that Milošević advocated rightfully belonged to the Serbs. The two speeches that were chosen for examination by this study delineate how Milošević employed considerate rhetoric and discourse to propagate the dream of a Greater Serbia. Through the use of martyrdom, heroism, injustice and historical deception, to name a few, Milošević created an image of the Serbian people that was accepted by some of the Serbian people to be the truth for which would represent ‘the hill on which the would die upon’. Macura explains that through this systematic ethnic grouping that portrayed the Serbs as the superior and dominant people of the land, Milošević laid the groundwork for all the conicts and cruelty that would follow.4 2 The dream for which Gavrilo Princip red those shots on the 28th June 1914, and which Josip Broz Tito fought hard to quench - would come to fruition through Milošević’s words. The divisive and hateful words that marked his speeches, formed the future of Serbia and its neighbors. They promulgated an ethnic hatred that was born out of his obsession with Serbian history, which was interpreted greatly and which grew and led to genocide, ethnic cleansing and to this day prohibits attempts of reconciliation and memorialization amongst the various ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia that suered by this mans words and ‘aspirations’.4 3

41 MacDonald, 2002, pp. 69-72.

42 Macura, 2016, pp. 118-119.

43 Resić, 2018, pp. 121-372.

27 6.) Conclusion

It is dicult to try and understand the wordings of a dictator and perpetrator of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Sentences uttered by such individuals are almost always covered in a veil of deception and fabrication of the truth. Milošević’s two speeches are no exception of this, as they convey the bending of historical events to deceive an entire people into following his wicked and hateful fantasy of a Greater and ethnically pure Serbia. This study attempted to examine his phrasing of historical events and to shed some light on how he uses history to achieve his goal. Through the use of a text analysis, it became more clear that the specic terminology that Milošević employed was as equally important to his success of division and fear-making. By utilizing the former research that this study chose to work of of, it also emphasized that the aspirations that Milošević had regarding a Greater Serbia, was not just something which was unique to him, but was rather a goal and/or fantasy that Serbian nationalists had been trying to realize for centuries. The most notable one being the event that set the entirety of Europe a blaze because of a young student’s eagerness to bring about an old nationalistic fantasy. With the words that Milošević utilized, a region that had been plagued with ethnic tensions for centuries, and had ‘momentarily’ found some stability with the governance of Josip Broz Tito - would be destroyed because of ethnic division and nationalism. The words uttered at Kosovo Polje in 1987, and at the Gazimestan monument at Kosovo eld in 1989, would be the precursors for the horrors and injustices that followed.

28 7.) References

Unpublished sources:

● “Slobodan Milošević 25. IV 1987. u Kosovom Polju: ‘N e sme niko da vas bije, ” YouTube video, 7:07-7:21. Posted by “Duklja-Zeta-Crna Gora,” March 22, 2011. h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__csVX8-Vg.

● “S lobodan Milošević’s 1989 St. Vitus Day Speech” , Political Speeches, last modied 12/04, 2009, http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/spch-kosovo1989.htm, accessed: 12/05-2020.

Published sources: ● Reuters, “P rotest Staged by Serbs In an Albanian Region” , The New York Times,

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/26/world/protest-staged-by-serbs-in-an-albanian-region.html, 26/04-1987, accessed; 10/05-2020. Published literature:

● Esaiasson, Peter, “M etodpraktikan: konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad” , Stockholm: Norstedts

juridik, 2012. ● Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Zander, Ulf (red.), “H istorien är nu: en introduktion till historiedidaktiken” , 2., [uppdaterade och bearbetade] uppl., Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2009.

● Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Zander, Ulf (red.), “H istorien är närvarande: historiedidaktik som teori och tillämpning”, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2014.

● Krieger, Heike, the National Technical Information Service of the US Department of Commerce. Reprinted in “Th e Kosovo Conflict and International Law: An Analytical Documentation 1974-1999”, ed. , Cambridge University Press, 2001.

● Kumm, Björn, “Ti to: Folkets diktator” , Svenska Historiska Media Förlag AB, 2015.

● Macdonald, David Bruce, “Balkan holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia”, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2002.

● Macura, Jelena, “H e’s Just Not That Into Yu(goslavia)” , Political Science Undergraduate Review, Vol. 1, no. 2, Feb. 2016.

● Resić, Sanimir, “B alkans historia ”, Historiska Media, 2014.

● Resic, Sanimir, “J ugoslaviens undergång: Krigen. Freden. Framtiden.” , Historiska Media, 2018.

● Sajkas, Marija, ”From the Cradle of the Nation to the Most Expensive Serbian Word: Changes in Serbian Public Language in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century”, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 36, Issue 4, 2006.

29