Srebrenica: a ‘safe’ area Appendix VI The Background of the Yugoslav crisis: A review of the literature 2 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Selection criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1 The history of the Yugoslav state ...................................................................................................... 8 1. South-Slav national ideology ........................................................................................................................ 8 2. The history of the Yugoslav state (1918-1992) ........................................................................................ 11 3. The legitimacy of the Yugoslav state ........................................................................................................ 12 4. The legitimacy of the Yugoslav state and the Serbo-Croat conflict ..................................................... 16 5. The legitimacy of the Communist Yugoslav federation, 1945-1992 .................................................... 18 6. The demystification of Communist history ............................................................................................. 20 7. The ideological background of extreme nationalist movements and political parties ....................... 24 Chapter 2 Theories concerning the disintegration of Yugoslavia ................................................................. 27 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 1. The question of succession: Tito after Tito? ........................................................................................... 27 2. The economic crisis ..................................................................................................................................... 29 3. The crisis of the federal system .................................................................................................................. 31 4. The question of the responsibility for the disintegration of Yugoslavia .............................................. 33 5. Definitions of the nature of the conflict .................................................................................................. 35 6. Historical alliances and rivalries ................................................................................................................. 37 7. Hereditary alliances: Russia, Serbia and Montenegro ............................................................................. 39 8. Traditional geo-political alliances: England, France, Germany ............................................................. 42 9. A historical conflict ...................................................................................................................................... 44 10. Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and the disintegration of Yugoslavia ..................... 46 11. Ethnic conflict ............................................................................................................................................ 55 12. Religious conflict ........................................................................................................................................ 60 13. Ideological conflict .................................................................................................................................... 63 14. Political conflict .......................................................................................................................................... 66 3 Introduction There is no consensus among experts about the causes and even the course of the conflict, and the factual details of this conflict and their interpretation are still under discussion. The British Yugoslavia expert James Gow1 pointed out in his review of the relevant literature entitled “After the Flood: Literature on the Context, Causes and Course of the Yugoslav War - Reflections and Refractions” that the publications devoted to the former Yugoslavia often reveal a situation in which each fact, claim or interpretation given by one author is refuted by another: “It is clear that not only was the Yugoslav war hideously complex in its detail and in the variety of issues raised, but comprehension of it was made more difficult by the welter of competing narratives seeking to explain it.”2 Another important remark by Gow referred to the many factual errors and dubious interpretations in the literature on both the history of Yugoslavia and the current crisis. Gow concludes that: “Mistakes and important omissions are common in the literature - and both inevitable and understandable, given the complex nature of the subject and the period in question. There is a danger for the non-expert reader (or even for the expert reader who may have happened to have missed something) that, where a mistake is repeated from one author to another, it will be taken as correct.”3 In “Instant History: Understanding the Wars of Yugoslav Succession,” four Yugoslavia experts review recent English-language publications dealing with the war in the former Yugoslavia.4 On the basis of a limited number of books, they try to find answers to a series of questions which have been regularly posed since the start of the conflict: “While the peoples of the former Yugoslavia have suffered and died, a horrified but nevertheless fascinated world has wondered how it was possible that a seemingly prosperous and stable country could collapse into such brutal internecine war. Was this caused by “ancient ethnic hatreds” breaking loose? Who was at fault, the Yugoslav communists or ethnic nationalists, western financial pressures or indecisive western policy? Could the wars have been prevented? What to do now?”5 The literature on the history of the Yugoslav state and the crisis of the nineties is vast but of variable quality. The authors of “Instant History...” point out a wide diversity of themes and a lack of theoretical orientation in the literature they select. They distinguish between books written by academics (historians, political scientists, sociologists, etc.) and those by non-academics (journalists, diplomats and other writers). The American historian Sarah A. Kent also stressed the problem of the lack of a proper theoretical framework in the publications about the recent war in the former Yugoslavia in her review article “Writing the Yugoslav Wars: English-language books on Bosnia (1992- 1996) and the challenges of analysing contemporary history”.6 She considered that “The challenge for historians is how to employ the distinctive analytical tools of our discipline to evaluate the basically ahistorical body of work on a current event”.7 While she also stressed the distinction between publications written by scholars and those by non-scholars, she pointed out that the three best books on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia were actually written by non-scholars.8 1 The main books by Gow on this topic are Legitimacy and Military: The Yugoslav Crisis (London 1992) and Triumph of Lack of Will: International Diplomacy and the Yugoslav War (London 1997). 2 Gow (1997) 477. 3 Ibid., 481. 4 G. Stokes, J. Lampe, D. Rusinow, J. Mostow, ‘Instant History: Understanding the Wars of Yugoslav Succession’ Slavic Review 55 (Spring 1996). 138-162. 5 Ibid., 136. 6 Sarah Kent, A Writing the Yugoslav Wars: English-language Books on Bosnia (1992-1996) and the Challenges of Analyzing Contemporary History; American Historical Review (October 1997) 1087-1114. 7 Ibid., 1086. 8 Kent means the books by C. Bennett, Yugoslavia’s Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course, and Consequences (New York 1995). B. Magas, Destruction of Yugoslavia: Tracking the Break-up, 1980-92 (London 1993), and L. Silber and A. Little, Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation (New York, 1996) 4 On this basis, Sarah Kent warned against looking for the “truth” in the literature on the Yugoslav crisis: “A general reader’s principal task in approaching these books, like those produced by similar contemporary conflicts, is therefore to develop a critical perspective: that is, to examine authorial intent, to reconstruct the context of the author’s experience, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an author’s interpretation.”9 In other words, it is important not only to understand the claims made in the books but also to consider who wrote them. A clear impression that the authors are very closely involved with their topic may lead the reader to suspect that they are biased. Most of the authors who have written about the former Yugoslavia - especially those writing about the recent war - have been accused by their colleagues, book reviewers or the parties involved in the conflict of being biased or of favouring one particular side, of being pro-Serb, pro-Croat of pro-Muslim. For example, critics accuse the American Yugoslavia expert Susan L. Woodward of defending Serb policies in her book Balkan Tragedy - but they still regard this work as an indispensable contribution to the debate.10 Other authors have openly taken sides, such as the Austrian writer Peter Handke who is now regarded as pro-Serb. When anti-Serb feeling was at its height in Europe, he travelled through Serbia