For kicks and giggles and because my wife was born in Yugoslavia I bought Yugoslavia.org a few years ago. Would like to do something meaningful with it.
Just select one of the 5 successor states to Yugoslavia, forward all traffic to their ministry of foreign affairs, and then enjoy the heartfelt exchange of brotherly love and munitions that ensues!
The fall of Yugoslavia was a horrible tragedy and a stark example of the horrors of nationalism.
Neighbors, brothers, friends, who spoke the same language and occupied the same cultural space, suddenly reduced to their narcissism of small differences and committing horrible atrocities in the name of a tribe.
And for what? For the chance of living in a dysfunctional rump state with nowhere near the relevance of what they used to have.
If Yugoslavia had survived it'd have the relevance of maybe a combined Bulgaria and Romania today.
Slovenia and Croatia were the most developed parts of it and would be burdened by fiscal transfers to undeveloped regions of Bosnia Macedonia and Kosovo. I'd argue Croats and Slovenians enjoy a higher quality of living with a government that can focus on the needs of its own citizens.
You don't need political relevance or even resources to develop a great country. Look at Denmark as an example.
The fall of Yugoslavia was a tragedy in a sense, but on the other hand maybe it should have never existed as a single state in the first place. It was always an artificial construct with the central government barely holding the country together, sort of like Iraq. People can mourn the loss but it was doomed from the start.
I saw a YouTube short video recently that claimed something that might seem obvious to many but not to me — it claimed then Prime Minister of UK and the President of France were displeased by the reunification of Germany because their own countries' relative status would go down. Is this really how people think?
The old quip about NATO is that its purpose was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. I don't know how much that really reflected elite sentiment or not.
Yes, France had the idea to weaken Germany in exchange by forcing it off the D-Mark. A move that unexpectedly had the opposite effect and further strengthened Germany's economy.
In post war Germany the sentiment of relative status compared to our allies in the most powerful people was mostly gone. You can expect as we move more towards the right, and WW2 gets more and more forgotten, it will come back.
I don't think it was concern about relative status, more the risk that a reunited Germany could once again become a significant economic/military power that could threaten the stability of Europe.
When you say it like that, it sounds like we didn't have a side that started all wars, like we killed each other for fun. And it was all because of the "all Serbs in one state" ideology.
So Croats and Muslims fought each other bloodily because all Serbs wanted to live in one state? Funnily enough, they were already living in one state - Yugoslavia - so they certainly had no reason to start the war.
Brate, this is exactly the toxic nationalism that caused this all.
No side is without blame. Everyone did horrible things, everyone is trying to tune out their own atrocities and emphasize the ones committed by the others.
Yes, the Serbs did horrible crimes. But ask the population of Mostar if the Croats were without blame. Ask Serbs how they felt about their treatment by Bosniaks in Čelebići.
As long as we keep this pretense of "our side good, other side bad", we are falling for the same trap that caused this mess in the first place.
ICTY has the same conclusion as you, except it is totally opposite :) It can't be only "everyone did horrible things", and to talk the same about the aggressor and the victims. Yes, all sides did SOME horrible things, but one side started all of it, did the majority of the horrible things, and has 99% of the ones prosecuted by ICTY. What the hell was JNA doing in Bosnia when Bosnia was an independent country? Gradjanski rat, ali u qrcu. Bratstvo i jedinstvo umrlo s Titom.
This whole category of thinking in terms of sides is the problem in the first place. Thinking in these categories only strengthens the nationalist prosecution complex that drives the hatred in the first place.
Which subethnicity started it or whatever doesn't fucking matter., this whole line of thinking only leads to more hatred, more destruction, more dysfunction.
As a Croat, my enemy is not my fellow Yugoslav, my enemy is the nationalist thugs on all sides that destroyed my country so they could rule over their hateful little fiefdoms.
Bratstvo i jedinstvo is coming back, under a blue flag with yellow stars. Montenegro is joining the EU next, with Schengen etc bratstvo i jedinstvo between crna gora and hrvatska will be restored.
I think the problem is every tribe/nation/area has a percent of psychopaths (the estimates are 1 in 25), and if they run unchecked they end up doing evil things. This can then echo as the other side seeks retribution, etc. It takes significant effort to stomp out the fire.
Yugoslavia was a great thing that europe lost, and perhaps it shouldn't have. The EU membership and shengen area might make a big impact in the region though.
I don't remember which HN thread I've heard this joke originally from, but...
People in Montenegro: it's not .yu, it's .me
For kicks and giggles and because my wife was born in Yugoslavia I bought Yugoslavia.org a few years ago. Would like to do something meaningful with it.
Just select one of the 5 successor states to Yugoslavia, forward all traffic to their ministry of foreign affairs, and then enjoy the heartfelt exchange of brotherly love and munitions that ensues!
I suppose I was mistaken, or perhaps outdated, in getting my geopolitical news from the NYT instead of HN comments apparently.
The fall of Yugoslavia was a horrible tragedy and a stark example of the horrors of nationalism.
Neighbors, brothers, friends, who spoke the same language and occupied the same cultural space, suddenly reduced to their narcissism of small differences and committing horrible atrocities in the name of a tribe.
And for what? For the chance of living in a dysfunctional rump state with nowhere near the relevance of what they used to have.
If Yugoslavia had survived it'd have the relevance of maybe a combined Bulgaria and Romania today.
Slovenia and Croatia were the most developed parts of it and would be burdened by fiscal transfers to undeveloped regions of Bosnia Macedonia and Kosovo. I'd argue Croats and Slovenians enjoy a higher quality of living with a government that can focus on the needs of its own citizens.
You don't need political relevance or even resources to develop a great country. Look at Denmark as an example.
The fall of Yugoslavia was a tragedy in a sense, but on the other hand maybe it should have never existed as a single state in the first place. It was always an artificial construct with the central government barely holding the country together, sort of like Iraq. People can mourn the loss but it was doomed from the start.
Every country is an artificial construct.
I saw a YouTube short video recently that claimed something that might seem obvious to many but not to me — it claimed then Prime Minister of UK and the President of France were displeased by the reunification of Germany because their own countries' relative status would go down. Is this really how people think?
Is this how our allies think?
> Is this how our allies think?
The old quip about NATO is that its purpose was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. I don't know how much that really reflected elite sentiment or not.
EDIT: well it was coined by the first Secretary General of NATO so make of that what you will https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay
Yes, France had the idea to weaken Germany in exchange by forcing it off the D-Mark. A move that unexpectedly had the opposite effect and further strengthened Germany's economy.
In post war Germany the sentiment of relative status compared to our allies in the most powerful people was mostly gone. You can expect as we move more towards the right, and WW2 gets more and more forgotten, it will come back.
I don't think it was concern about relative status, more the risk that a reunited Germany could once again become a significant economic/military power that could threaten the stability of Europe.
I love reading historical documents, and this is how people have been thinking for as long as there is recorded history.
> I saw a YouTube short video recently
You could’ve stopped there.
Why do you think the Trump admin is so set on sabotaging the EU?
They even put it into their National Security Strategy: https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/make-europe-great-...
Did you miss all the explicit American messaging about "we need to keep China down, or else it might surpass us"?
It's how the psychopaths in charge think
When you say it like that, it sounds like we didn't have a side that started all wars, like we killed each other for fun. And it was all because of the "all Serbs in one state" ideology.
So Croats and Muslims fought each other bloodily because all Serbs wanted to live in one state? Funnily enough, they were already living in one state - Yugoslavia - so they certainly had no reason to start the war.
Brate, this is exactly the toxic nationalism that caused this all.
No side is without blame. Everyone did horrible things, everyone is trying to tune out their own atrocities and emphasize the ones committed by the others.
Yes, the Serbs did horrible crimes. But ask the population of Mostar if the Croats were without blame. Ask Serbs how they felt about their treatment by Bosniaks in Čelebići.
As long as we keep this pretense of "our side good, other side bad", we are falling for the same trap that caused this mess in the first place.
Bratstvo i jedinstvo, a ništa drugo.
ICTY has the same conclusion as you, except it is totally opposite :) It can't be only "everyone did horrible things", and to talk the same about the aggressor and the victims. Yes, all sides did SOME horrible things, but one side started all of it, did the majority of the horrible things, and has 99% of the ones prosecuted by ICTY. What the hell was JNA doing in Bosnia when Bosnia was an independent country? Gradjanski rat, ali u qrcu. Bratstvo i jedinstvo umrlo s Titom.
This whole category of thinking in terms of sides is the problem in the first place. Thinking in these categories only strengthens the nationalist prosecution complex that drives the hatred in the first place.
Which subethnicity started it or whatever doesn't fucking matter., this whole line of thinking only leads to more hatred, more destruction, more dysfunction.
As a Croat, my enemy is not my fellow Yugoslav, my enemy is the nationalist thugs on all sides that destroyed my country so they could rule over their hateful little fiefdoms.
Bratstvo i jedinstvo is coming back, under a blue flag with yellow stars. Montenegro is joining the EU next, with Schengen etc bratstvo i jedinstvo between crna gora and hrvatska will be restored.
I think the problem is every tribe/nation/area has a percent of psychopaths (the estimates are 1 in 25), and if they run unchecked they end up doing evil things. This can then echo as the other side seeks retribution, etc. It takes significant effort to stomp out the fire.
Yugoslavia was a great thing that europe lost, and perhaps it shouldn't have. The EU membership and shengen area might make a big impact in the region though.