History Of Bosnia

[lord of the mark]

vet

I recall reading somewhere that the reason the Croats were so insistent on keeping the Krajina, was that it controlled the only mountain pass leading from the main ethnically Croat parts of Croatia to the Dalmatian coast, which was considered essential to the new Croatian economy. Is that true, at least in part?

Seems to me the real problem in the western reaction, is that the failure to intervene on behalf of the Krajina Serbs, at the moment of Croatian independence, and avoid civil war and accompanying ethnic cleansing in Croatia, made it much harder for the West to get Serbs to take the Wests concerns seriously afterwards, and reinforced support for Milosevic.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ive got nothing against opinion. Lots of stuff in history is a matter of opinion. Was Lee an overated general? Was the Ottoman empire the best rule the Balkans ever had?

Even those eventually have to boil down to definitions of "good" or "best".

I think why you and I misunderstand a bit about the purpose of this forum is because we're attracted to history for different reasons in the first place.

One reason for studying history is because of all the interesting stories it tells of battles, kings, good times and bad times. Another reason is to understand the underlying mechanisms (so much as mechanisms can be said to exist in social sciences), the context, and draw conclusions and parallels.

I am almost completely in the second camp. I don't want knowledge for sake of knowledge. Every piece I get I try to fit into this model or the other and put in relation to other pieces.

It doesn't have to be complex. "Democracies don't go to war against each other". Let me check. Or, I learn about economic history of Sout Korea and I scratch the "government intervention is always bad for the economy" entry from my memory. Stuff like that. The reason I investigated those questions in the first place was precisely because I had questions to answer.

So, not only do I not shun from trying to get useful, practical information I can use in understanding current matters from the anals of history - it's my main motivation!

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2/3 of the total electorate is pretty demanding. What did Croatia get when IT seceded? Sounds like a provision designed to make secession impossible, even while putting it in the constitution. Which is not surprising, considering that the 1974 constitution was written by the Titoists, who werent really interested in seeing secession.

I'll look it up (though not soon). There are copies of that constitution around.

My understanding is that in 1991, what was more important in shaping events was the an absolute majority of the voters, including Croats as well as Bosniaks, voted yes, and this impacted international views of the legitimacy of Bosnian independence, aside from the provisions of the Yugo constitution.

Yes. Western recognition of any country wasn't contingent upon respecting Yugoslavian constitution at all.

To get a legal opinion on the matter of breakup of Yugoslavia (which was going on at that time), western countries commissioned the so called "Badinter's commission". It assessed the situation and published its (non binding, but influential) opinions on most important issues, from legitimacy of borders to rights of minorities, etc.:

http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No1/art13.html

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
vet

I recall reading somewhere that the reason the Croats were so insistent on keeping the Krajina, was that it controlled the only mountain pass leading from the main ethnically Croat parts of Croatia to the Dalmatian coast, which was considered essential to the new Croatian economy. Is that true, at least in part?

Teritory of "Republika Srpska Krajina" did cut Croatia in half:


But even if it hadn't, I don't see how Croats would have given up any teritory.

Seems to me the real problem in the western reaction, is that the failure to intervene on behalf of the Krajina Serbs, at the moment of Croatian independence, and avoid civil war and accompanying ethnic cleansing in Croatia, made it much harder for the West to get Serbs to take the Wests concerns seriously afterwards, and reinforced support for Milosevic.

Well, western failure in the ex-Yu is a big topic on its own, but I disagree that there was a failure to intervene on behalf of Krajina Serbs at any point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Even those eventually have to boil down to definitions of "good" or "best".

I think why you and I misunderstand a bit about the purpose of this forum is because we're attracted to history for different reasons in the first place.

One reason for studying history is because of all the interesting stories it tells of battles, kings, good times and bad times. Another reason is to understand the underlying mechanisms (so much as mechanisms can be said to exist in social sciences), the context, and draw conclusions and parallels.

I am almost completely in the second camp. I don't want knowledge for sake of knowledge. Every piece I get I try to fit into this model or the other and put in relation to other pieces.

It doesn't have to be complex. "Democracies don't go to war against each other". Let me check. Or, I learn about economic history of Sout Korea and I scratch the "government intervention is always bad for the economy" entry from my memory. Stuff like that. The reason I investigated those questions in the first place was precisely because I had questions to answer.

So, not only do I not shun from trying to get useful, practical information I can use in understanding current matters from the anals of history - it's my main motivation!

I dont find anything wrong with your motivation, though id be a little wary about being too quick to read broad lessons from history, simply because of the complexity and uniqueness of historical events. But theres still a difference between understanding history with the view to using such understanding as a guide to political thinking, and actually debating the politics.

Biology is useful for medicine, agriculture etc. But a discussion of medicine or agriculture is different from a discussion of biology. Its kinda like "lets research a cure for cancer" vs "lets understand basic biological reality, since that will help us find a cure later"

And its not event that far down the road. It would be more useful today, IMO, to know the detailed history of how the Lebanese republic was formed, than it is to debate the "principles" of conflicts like the one in Lebanon. If you REALLY believe history is useful, than you will trust that learning history will make you wiser, without having to insert specific policy debates.

[Cort Haus]

This reminds me of a Churchill quote :

"Young man, study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft."

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=617