Will we ever have a reunited Yugoslavia?

A question that has been bugging me of late. Yugoslavia was rather powerful all things considered, a reunited one could create some very interesting dynamics in the Eurasia sphere.
I looked around a bit concerning the question, but I think the members here would make for a much more interesting discussion on the topic.

Maybe when some of the Political Elite looks at the population drain and national suicide balkan wide, then we'll understand all that the future lies at home. Period. The missing crown jewel of Yugoslavia was Albania IMO, it would have linked Greece and Gang and presented far more inclusive structure and probably mitigated some tensions regarding "ethnicity".

But as we speak there's ZERO chance to go back to that. The Divide ed Impera plan has worked too well.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Maybe when some of the Political Elite looks at the population drain and national suicide balkan wide, then we'll understand all that the future lies at home. Period. The missing crown jewel of Yugoslavia was Albania IMO, it would have linked Greece and Gang and presented far more inclusive structure and probably mitigated some tensions regarding "ethnicity".

But as we speak there's ZERO chance to go back to that. The Divide ed Impera plan has worked too well.

Well it wouldn't have been a -slavia anyway.
But a Balkan Union is not such a bad idea, it would make more sense than current EU that includes Malta, Romania and Ireland (wtf).

KiloGolf wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Maybe when some of the Political Elite looks at the population drain and national suicide balkan wide, then we'll understand all that the future lies at home. Period. The missing crown jewel of Yugoslavia was Albania IMO, it would have linked Greece and Gang and presented far more inclusive structure and probably mitigated some tensions regarding "ethnicity".

But as we speak there's ZERO chance to go back to that. The Divide ed Impera plan has worked too well.

Well it wouldn't have been a -slavia anyway.
But a Balkan Union is not such a bad idea, it would make more sense than current EU that includes Malta, Romania and Ireland (wtf).

That's the point, it's not about Jugoslavija (it's gone baby, we all regret it, but it's gone forever) but about folks that have a big interest of being together, instead of separated.

It was never powerful. Never, ever. Or a "third way", a myth that survises to this day.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, collectivisation, nationalisation, "agrarian reform" etc. led to famines and social tension. The situation was saved by US food. US help in shape of money, loans, military and technical aid will continue and keep the country afloat, untit its usefulness expired, when it was pushed down the drain.


The people in charge of Yugocommunists were a sick, sadistic bunch rivaling Lenin and Bolsheviks in scale of treasonous activity and suffering they caused. Opportunistic psychopats who wouldn't stop at anything to further their "cause" and agenda. I could write a whole book going detail by detail over the systematic and calculated criminality and villainy of Yugocommunists, and their ideological descendants that pollute this area to this day.

SturmGuard wrote:It was never powerful. Never, ever. Or a "third way", a myth that survises to this day.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, collectivisation, nationalisation, "agrarian reform" etc. led to famines and social tension. The situation was saved by US food. US help in shape of money, loans, military and technical aid will continue and keep the country afloat, untit its usefulness expired, when it was pushed down the drain.


The people in charge of Yugocommunists were a sick, sadistic bunch rivaling Lenin and Bolsheviks in scale of treasonous activity and suffering they caused. Opportunistic psychopats who wouldn't stop at anything to further their "cause" and agenda. I could write a whole book going detail by detail over the systematic and calculated criminality and villainy of Yugocommunists, and their ideological descendants that pollute this area to this day.

Thoughts on the Weight of Chains documentary? The authors of that were pretty dead certain that Yugoslavia was all set to become an economic powerhouse after the end of the Great Onion, along with its own "workable" socialist economic system. All seemed to tie into NATO's destruction of the nation pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08 (probably seen it already)

The movie is full of nonsense, fabrication and most importantly, simplification.

I had written a probably 5000+ word post, but then decided to erase it and not publish it. Honestly, our histories and ethnogenesis better be forgotten. Trust me. Let the world remember our few meaningful people, some distant culture and events, but forget all those details and dark times.

This area is a shithole, every nation is to blame, but not equally.

I gave up on the inhabitants quite some time ago. If you meet a Yugonostalgic, send him to hell; it is a 100% guarantee that he and his family are a POS, or opportunistic backstabbers, or total retards.

The Yugocommunist economy was always a disaster, kept alive by Germany and Austria opening their borders to literally millions of our unemployed workers; foreign loans and donations; exploitation of bipolar world trough the so-called "Unaligned" by selling overpriced but crappy goods and services to other "Unaligned" nations, acting as a Trojan Horse for their Western funders. The corruption, nepotism, spoil-system and general inefficiency were mind-boggling. The political and ideological descendants of Yugocommunists plague these nations to this day, playing their political theatre shows. The descendants of so-called "liberal communists" and their teachings are the empty-headed autochauvinists, fifth-column and social relativism spreaders.

SturmGuard wrote:It was never powerful. Never, ever. Or a "third way", a myth that survises to this day.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, collectivisation, nationalisation, "agrarian reform" etc. led to famines and social tension. The situation was saved by US food. US help in shape of money, loans, military and technical aid will continue and keep the country afloat, untit its usefulness expired, when it was pushed down the drain.


The people in charge of Yugocommunists were a sick, sadistic bunch rivaling Lenin and Bolsheviks in scale of treasonous activity and suffering they caused. Opportunistic psychopats who wouldn't stop at anything to further their "cause" and agenda. I could write a whole book going detail by detail over the systematic and calculated criminality and villainy of Yugocommunists, and their ideological descendants that pollute this area to this day.

You are demonstrating clear symptoms of schizophrenia.

US food? Saving what situation? Do you understand that from 1946 to 1948 Yugoslavia was Cuba before Cuba was hip? You shot a couple of planes occupied a quarter of Austria and a chunk of Italy, nothing short of getting the USSR and the US in a full blown war over the Foibe massacres. Then Tito decided not to be Cuba anymore, and flipped the bird to Stalin. That cut effectively Yugoslavia from the Eastern bloc and as the grudge with Italy was until 1952, impossible to solve, cut from most of the European countries.

So if you think that Liberal Socialism in Yugoslavia was bad, I got news for you, it wasn't. It was the only thing Tito found to benefit from both sides. In vision, this was both effective (as the strategical position of the SFRY guaranteed that the US wouldn't mind the whole socialist thing, but that the USSR wouldn't mind having it Hungarian border with a bunch of 'crazy lunatics".

Actually the Titist solution allowed a good part of us to be in peace, for 50 years, comparatively, we too had issues that were both ethnic and social, yet we didn't had a patchwork of a country and compared with the previous lunatics running Albania like it still Was Vilayet Arnautlik, those "crazy lunatics" actually formed the national backbone that allows us to call ourself "A Nation".


All the rest is really bad spinning a of complex international relation with both camps in a world that would see either squash your people under their heel without a second thought. Ironically, the split era, was largely propagandised by the Soviets as how they traded within the Komintern. Without violence (off course this was 4 years before Berlin).

So really there's clearly something you need to reflect on. LIke talking shit about times you probably have no idea about.

Ironically you're the exact equivalent of the Yugostalgics in reverse. Everything was bad bwahahahahah.

Also, it's really phony to claim that it was Yugoslav migration that was propping up the economy when in reality the numbers for Yugoslav migration were nowhere near the same numbers both countries absorbed from Itlay and Spain. What was propping the systems was what will prop the Chinese. Cheap labour margins which will bring foreign direct investment in Yugoslavia. In fact Yugoslavia was Germany's first Ostraum before the fall of the USSR. Croatian coastline was vastly improved by German loans.

It's mind boggling to see how people can talk against the numbers and data.

Oh and you've given up on us? I guess that's not a great loss.

First of all, Stalin denounced Tito first, the myth of "Tito's NO to Stalin" lives on to this day obviously. A month after KPJ was outcast, Tito praised USSR and Stalin on the party congress. For an almost entire year he tried to normalise the relations. My family lived through the times of harsh existence post-war, and their descriptions were first-hand. They were malnourished, and remember all too well those American powdered egg and milk they were given. I can never be on the same side as mass murderers are, whatever "antifascist" and "progressive" wrap they apply on themselves. And there was plenty of mass murders, from politicides accross towns and regions to mass shootings and camps for Volks, Italians, "enemies of the revolution and people" and various POWs and fleeing civilians.

Secondly, you as an Albanian are not part of "us" from my post, and neither were part of Yugoslavia. Actually, the deportation of "Karađorđević colonists" from Kosovo and influx of Albanian immigrants was a deliberate policy which would pay its dividends handsomely later on.

The "Titoist solution" allowed peace? Yep, definitely. So did the Treaty of Versailles. By carving up peoples along ahistorical and unethnic borders, fabricating political nations, and colonising some areas with implanted communities. By depopulating rural areas and artificially enlarging cities and developing regions which have no natural basis for such extensive economies. Look at pre-communist BiH and Dalmatia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo. And look at what is left of those industries to this day. Those were subsidised, non-profitable companies, in the pursuit of "equal development", solidarity for "underdeveloped regions" and "full employment".

Too bad the moment the money started running out the so-called brothers and sisters went for each others throats, starting with Slovenia, "the most cultured country", where bands executed "fellow Yugoslav" military and police officers and their families in their apartments, and ambushed and killed youngsters serving military service. Do I have to keep on with description of "Yugocommunist peace" and how it broke apart, which events occured? Atrocities, ethnic cleansing, missing people?

I mean, this Yugoslav identity was in theory embraced, the party numbers swelled, but for some completely weird reason, the plebiscitary support for separatism, war and that monstrous breed of national-socialism that transpired afterwards points to the fact that it was a ticking time bomb. How many of the Yugoslavs rose up to defend the "liberal socialism" and the Yugoslav paradise? How many continued to be atheists? That is the only test of a country or ideology, how many are willing to defend it.

Supranational identities were driven with an agenda. The Bolsheviks and Yugocommunists both started as usurpers of popular will and instruments of foreign powers. Which fits right in with their actions and policies afterwards.


It doesn't take a lot of imagination to connect the events and border drawing in USSR and Yugoslavia, and their outcome in the 90s and especially today in Ukraine, Nagorno, Nakhichevan etc. There is always a strata of society that benefited from the revolution and "redistribution" of power and wealth, I am perfectly aware of that. Just as I am aware of the fact where was the current breed of politicans born, raised, educated; and what have been the consequences of their leadership.

To avoid the name-calling and emotional responses in the future, I suggest we start analysing census data, primary historical evidence, proclamations, letters, economic information and statistics etc. If the situation was worse in Albania during the same period, it is not just due to leadership and the system. Albania was comparatively poorer, more backward and less developed to start with, there was less to loot, nationalise, err... "redistribute".

This isn't coming from a typical anticommunist for these areas, which would be scum combining clericalism and national-socialism. I know them all too well, grew up surrounded by them, watching and listening to them in the media, meeting them during education and family meetings.
Cooperation, political and economic, good neighbourly relations, prosperity and peaceful coexistence don't require living in a superstate and a common superidentity.
Now tell me whether and when will these things happen. Because I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

SturmGuard wrote:First of all, Stalin denounced Tito first, the myth of "Tito's NO to Stalin" lives on to this day obviously. A month after KPJ was outcast, Tito praised USSR and Stalin on the party congress. For an almost entire year he tried to normalise the relations. My family lived through the times of harsh existence post-war, and their descriptions were first-hand. They were malnourished, and remember all too well those American powdered egg and milk they were given. I can never be on the same side as mass murderers are, whatever "antifascist" and "progressive" wrap they apply on themselves. And there was plenty of mass murders, from politicides accross towns and regions to mass shootings and camps for Volks, Italians, "enemies of the revolution and people" and various POWs and fleeing civilians.

There's no myth. It's a tit for tat movement. Stalin would denounce pretty much everyone that had too much power over select area. Including his "spiritual successor" in the Balkans, Enver HoXha. You didn't fold to the Soviet ukaz, you were a micro-bourgeois and a socialist. The split no matter how you try to spin it, was a clear refusal from Tito to apply stricter republic rules in the region and the fact Tito would absolutely try and wrestle Albania out of Soviet influence. Mass shootings? Maybe you missed that before those you had a ethnical cleansing and a political purge within the territory of KSSH. It's one twisted sense of reality, if you thought that the winners of the conflict will not try and take revenge and use that movement to settle all scores. Is this some kind of fantasy you're living in or is it some post-hoc fixation. Context in Yugoslavia is EVERYTHING.

US supplies? From where and when? The actual stocks that were SOLD to Yugoslavia around the year 1948/49 were British owned US military supplies that were not going into the local market anyway. Furthermore, a good chunk of "foreign" stocks were "liberated" from Carinthia and from Friuli. Then Stalin set up Tito in Bucharest. Or is that too a myth?

Secondly, you as an Albanian are not part of "us" from my post, and neither were part of Yugoslavia. Actually, the deportation of "Karađorđević colonists" from Kosovo and influx of Albanian immigrants was a deliberate policy which would pay its dividends handsomely later on.

Actually we were part of the Yugoslav space, first of all we were part of the SFRY ethnically, although Kosovar Albanians are a strange breed, then the Albanian communists would not have existed without Yugoslavia. For that we are to be thankful instead of talkin sh*t vs Serbs and Slavs. Without a clear Communist Leadership, Albania as a unified country would probably not have existed. This one is to be pinned on both the Stalinists and Titists. First because the Stalos opposed the Unification with Yugoslavia and Bulgaria and the seconds because they turned their coat when Stalin tried to remove Tito.

You clearly show a complete lack of context. Mass murderers? Hah, I guess Tito's feats should make the likes of the French republic and British Raj pale in comparison right? God I'm aggravated right now.

The "Titoist solution" allowed peace? Yep, definitely. So did the Treaty of Versailles. By carving up peoples along ahistorical and unethnic borders, fabricating political nations, and colonising some areas with implanted communities. By depopulating rural areas and artificially enlarging cities and developing regions which have no natural basis for such extensive economies. Look at pre-communist BiH and Dalmatia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo. And look at what is left of those industries to this day. Those were subsidised, non-profitable companies, in the pursuit of "equal development", solidarity for "underdeveloped regions" and "full employment".

Huehuheheueheuheuheuheueh. Is this for real? How old are you? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you want me to compare the peaceful and rather conflictless urbanization of Yugoslavia with the one in Italy? Have you seen the Mezzogiorno in Italy? It's 10 million people (at least) that are living of narcotraffic proceeds. 10 fucking million people. That's because the Italian state refused a comprehensive Urbanization and instead made a pact with the US and the Mafia to keep it clean from Communism. Do you understad what the Camorra and Cosa nostra are? They're democracy in action. Your brand of "natural" movement democracy. My dad had still a kryeplak in his village unti l1951. That's the "natural" side of developpment. Basically what you would have wanted is for the countryside to still linger in late 19th century and look like rural Greece by 1981. Well good luck with that. And no Communists in Greece either.

Why even check Italy, check us in Albania, total national disaster. No different "nations", a single people and we still went at it. Yeah, buddy, nothing to do with Tito, everything to do with a shift in political economy.

Too bad the moment the money started running out the so-called brothers and sisters went for each others throats, starting with Slovenia, "the most cultured country", where bands executed "fellow Yugoslav" military and police officers and their families in their apartments, and ambushed and killed youngsters serving military service. Do I have to keep on with description of "Yugocommunist peace" and how it broke apart, which events occured? Atrocities, ethnic cleansing, missing people?

Coming from a Croat, I find that rich. But then again, we killed each other in Albania too and we had no "foreign culture" either. It's just a struggle for power, an FFA. No body takes prisonners in such conditions and that's what the causes of this aren't ideological, they're typically material. The nice coating about nation and ethnicity is cristal-clear in Kosovo itself. When real mobsters have become ministers and are settling their accounts by operative groups. I don't see how that makes Yugoslav ideal worse than national ideal. To the contrary, the national deal is the bottom of the barrel.

I mean, this Yugoslav identity was in theory embraced, the party numbers swelled, but for some completely weird reason, the plebiscitary support for separatism, war and that monstrous breed of national-socialism that transpired afterwards points to the fact that it was a ticking time bomb. How many of the Yugoslavs rose up to defend the "liberal socialism" and the Yugoslav paradise? How many continued to be atheists? That is the only test of a country or ideology, how many are willing to defend it.

No one and no one defended communism either. And no one defended the Monarchy when it fell. The fact systems decay doesn't tell us anything about their validity, just about the circumstances and context of they decadence. Otherwise, fuck me, religion should have been banned for ages...see the point.

Supranational identities were driven with an agenda. The Bolsheviks and Yugocommunists both started as usurpers of popular will and instruments of foreign powers. Which fits right in with their actions and policies afterwards.

National identities are even worse, because they are inherent bias. Foreign powers...yeah, that's why Bolos insured Russia is safe and sound...for now. Because Zionist Illuminatis. Holy Gospodin, you're really loosing it.

Fact is, that without the Yugoslav block, all former Republics and affiliates are dying out. People are leaving en masse, and they're reaching boiling point. How fucking quaint for a plebiscit of Nationalism in the Balkans. Shall i deliver on Islamist inflitrations and bonkers Supranationalism in the European Union or shall we stop there?

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to connect the events and border drawing in USSR and Yugoslavia, and their outcome in the 90s and especially today in Ukraine, Nagorno, Nakhichevan etc. There is always a strata of society that benefited from the revolution and "redistribution" of power and wealth, I am perfectly aware of that. Just as I am aware of the fact where was the current breed of politicans born, raised, educated; and what have been the consequences of their leadership.

I see most of these issues as distraction of the real questions. How come Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are basically authoritarian corrupt systems, if the fault was on Communism alone? Very easy, these "national" issues are a definite testament of the corruption that Chauvinism instills in people. Look at Ukraine for instance. That country could have boomed, it had everything. People, Support, a future. Instead it went to hell because it was more important, for people like you, to name some dumb fucking street Mykola Pidoriv instead of Nicolai Pisdetz? This isn't about communism, these fucks were naturals, former communists, hell here I am, I don't go around stealing and cheating people, I see a slav, I don't look at him in anger, don't tell him to go and fuck himself, don't wish for his wife and kids to die. I pop up my Raki bottle and try and talk about common points, including how fucking cheap we both are and how we didn't stood up to th gang of fuckers that betrayed us all.

The fact is that in yet another reference, Southern Italians each and every time there's a Mafia related tragedy, they go to churches, march, cry, swear to Fight the Mafia and still Mafia grows larger. Does this mean that there's support for the Mafia from the people in the street?

To avoid the name-calling and emotional responses in the future, I suggest we start analysing census data, primary historical evidence, proclamations, letters, economic information and statistics etc. If the situation was worse in Albania during the same period, it is not just due to leadership and the system. Albania was comparatively poorer, more backward and less developed to start with, there was less to loot, nationalise, err... "redistribute".

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, SSH was a fucked up place when compared to SFRY. The fact SFRY disintegrated in Abu Hajaar fashion doesn't mean SFRY was a worse idea than the Kingdom of Serbs Slovenes and Croats. Not at all.

This isn't coming from a typical anticommunist for these areas, which would be scum combining clericalism and national-socialism. I know them all too well, grew up surrounded by them, watching and listening to them in the media, meeting them during education and family meetings.

From what I'm reading it's exactly that, especially the 'Natural evolution' part.

Cooperation, political and economic, good neighbourly relations, prosperity and peaceful coexistence don't require living in a superstate and a common superidentity.
Now tell me whether and when will these things happen. Because I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes they do, starting from a common market area. It's an historical trend, if you want prosperity, you need a common market, you need common standarts, peace in difference lasts as long as both sides remain matched. That's an historical constant. While no superstate is needed, national groups will be far more prone to back off when things go sour for what ever reason vs the neighbour. Nationalism is never 100% tamed, there's always an angry beast waiting to roar.

KoTeMoRe wrote:There's no myth. It's a tit for tat movement. Stalin would denounce pretty much everyone that had too much power over select area. Including his "spiritual successor" in the Balkans, Enver HoXha. You didn't fold to the Soviet ukaz, you were a micro-bourgeois and a socialist. The split no matter how you try to spin it, was a clear refusal from Tito to apply stricter republic rules in the region and the fact Tito would absolutely try and wrestle Albania out of Soviet influence. Mass shootings? Maybe you missed that before those you had a ethnical cleansing and a political purge within the territory of KSSH. It's one twisted sense of reality, if you thought that the winners of the conflict will not try and take revenge and use that movement to settle all scores. Is this some kind of fantasy you're living in or is it some post-hoc fixation. Context in Yugoslavia is EVERYTHING.

US supplies? From where and when? The actual stocks that were SOLD to Yugoslavia around the year 1948/49 were British owned US military supplies that were not going into the local market anyway. Furthermore, a good chunk of "foreign" stocks were "liberated" from Carinthia and from Friuli. Then Stalin set up Tito in Bucharest. Or is that too a myth?

The rift is usually placed on the Soviet advisors, the Albanian issue (military presence) and the tolerance of private property "to a too large a degree", lack of Marxist-Lenininst principles. Interestingly, when the first official Stalin letter came, there were more than 3000 private stores in Croatia, March 1948. In June 1948, there were none. The number of Soviet style collectivised farms grew five times from 1948 to 1949. Another interesting fact is that out of 65 foreign plays, 60 were Soviet, in addition to 500+ Soviet films that were imported in the 1949 season. And all of this after the "historic NO to Stalin". Tito's first outburst of "independence" came only in 1949, despite that, the official media and party narrative was that "Stalin may be slightly wrong about KPJ, but he is still the greatest living authority in the democratic world" - words from Borba.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Actually we were part of the Yugoslav space, first of all we were part of the SFRY ethnically, although Kosovar Albanians are a strange breed, then the Albanian communists would not have existed without Yugoslavia. For that we are to be thankful instead of talkin sh*t vs Serbs and Slavs. Without a clear Communist Leadership, Albania as a unified country would probably not have existed. This one is to be pinned on both the Stalinists and Titists. First because the Stalos opposed the Unification with Yugoslavia and Bulgaria and the seconds because they turned their coat when Stalin tried to remove Tito.

You clearly show a complete lack of context. Mass murderers? Hah, I guess Tito's feats should make the likes of the French republic and British Raj pale in comparison right? God I'm aggravated right now.

No, you were not. You were not represented in Partisan movement or congresses, and the Partisans spent quite some time fighting Albanian collaborationists and auxiliaries. AVNOJ has no Albanian component, and neither did the Partisans have any Albanian armed formations. There were more Italians, Bulgarians in the Yugoslav Partisans, not to mention more Volks and Italians living on the territory. Well, things worked out well for you. It didn't for others. On the contrary.

Do you have any idea what is the total number of Yugoslav casualties of WW2? As percentage of total population? Some regional populations were exterminated almost to the last man. Census data prior and after the war shows the scale of suffering and losses. No nation can compare to those relative figures, not even the Soviet Union.

And in the ending days of the war and immediate post-war period, significantly more than a hundred thousand people of all ethnicities were executed or perished during forced labour and camp internment. When put into relative figures, the numbers are staggering.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Huehuheheueheuheuheuheueh. Is this for real? How old are you? Do you know what you're talking about? Do you want me to compare the peaceful and rather conflictless urbanization of Yugoslavia with the one in Italy? Have you seen the Mezzogiorno in Italy? It's 10 million people (at least) that are living of narcotraffic proceeds. 10 fucking million people. That's because the Italian state refused a comprehensive Urbanization and instead made a pact with the US and the Mafia to keep it clean from Communism. Do you understad what the Camorra and Cosa nostra are? They're democracy in action. Your brand of "natural" movement democracy. My dad had still a kryeplak in his village unti l1951. That's the "natural" side of developpment. Basically what you would have wanted is for the countryside to still linger in late 19th century and look like rural Greece by 1981. Well good luck with that. And no Communists in Greece either.

Instead of this (though hardly possible to compare the areas of southern Italy, Greece and Albania to Yugoslav rural ones due to differing climate and natural conditions) we have significiant areas of country completely devoid of human presence or inhabited only by dying old people. Naturally, the agriculture is a disaster and food imports reach all-time high. Moreover, you only referenced the least problematic part. The other economical ones were left untouched. The urbanisation by itself is a civilisation thing, but when it is done for the sake of itself and not due to increasing demands of real economy in cities, it leads to bad outcomes. The incredibly overgrown judicial and beaurocracy system in ex-Yu has foundations in Yugocommunist period, when the general maxim was "You should go to school so you get to work in an office and live an effortless and labour-free life unlike me".

KoTeMoRe wrote:Why even check Italy, check us in Albania, total national disaster. No different "nations", a single people and we still went at it. Yeah, buddy, nothing to do with Tito, everything to do with a shift in political economy.

Your attempt at "going at it" pales in comparison to Yugoslav Civil Wars, revolutions and separatism. The casualty numbers and devastation are not even in the same ballpark. Again, I advise you to have a look at historic census data and maps in the past, and today. I can totally get it that Croats and Serbs nowadays despise Yugocommunists, while Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Macedonians and Albanians glorify it. The irony is when one takes a look at partisan fighting force composition.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Coming from a Croat, I find that rich. But then again, we killed each other in Albania too and we had no "foreign culture" either. It's just a struggle for power, an FFA. No body takes prisonners in such conditions and that's what the causes of this aren't ideological, they're typically material. The nice coating about nation and ethnicity is cristal-clear in Kosovo itself. When real mobsters have become ministers and are settling their accounts by operative groups. I don't see how that makes Yugoslav ideal worse than national ideal. To the contrary, the national deal is the bottom of the barrel.

What is that supposed to mean? Do you think I am some kind of Ustaša, some right-hand waiving Tuđman Freikorps? I am not a typical Croat, you are not a typical Albanian, but let us not delude ourselves about representing some meaningful percentages of population. The wars were decidedly ethnic and nationalist, all of them. To the extreme. Even the "proletarian revolution" was a Serb Civil War on one side, and an open war on Croatian and Serb nationalism on the other. I honestly don't give a damn about someones ethnicity, race, nationality, religious affiliation; their traits and character is the criterium on which I base my judgment.

KoTeMoRe wrote:No one and no one defended communism either. And no one defended the Monarchy when it fell. The fact systems decay doesn't tell us anything about their validity, just about the circumstances and context of they decadence. Otherwise, fuck me, religion should have been banned for ages...see the point.

The Monarchy didn't fall, it was toppled. By a British sponsored coup. The country was immediately attacked by the overwhelming invasion force on several fronts, and faced with desertion and fifth-column. There were almost 200 000 POWs taken into captivity to Germany. Actual soldiers. The number of effective fighting men was never reached by Yugocommunists. This isn't taking the Royal Yugoslav resistance into account, which was actually initially deemed more dangerous by Germans, and later equal bounties were placed.

KoTeMoRe wrote:National identities are even worse, because they are inherent bias. Foreign powers...yeah, that's why Bolos insured Russia is safe and sound...for now. Because Zionist Illuminatis. Holy Gospodin, you're really loosing it.

This is a rather bad red herring case. What Zionist Illuminatis? Both the Bolsheviks and Yugocommunists openly proclaimed their goal of destruction of Russian culture, identity, tradition, religion on one, and Serb/Croat/Royal Yugoslav on the other. National identities are results of long-term cultural and historical processes, shaping the mentality and feeling of belonging. What inherent bias? I am an atheist, but ridiculing people for religious views while celebrating Marxism/Leninism in Slavic countries seems obnoxious - Marx hated Slavs, and Lenin denigrated Russians. Religions have a lot in common with communist dogmas, as they do with neoliberal and globalist nonsense. Bolsheviks insured Russia? Sure, if you leave out the millions killed in the Civil war and the ensuing Red Terror and famines, the millions that emigrated, the millions that were assimilated into Ukrainians, Belarussians (korjenizacija project) and millions left outside Russia proper. Not to mention the Soviet legacy and cadre that made 90s possible, and that had sown the seeds of conflicts that plague the area of former Russian Empire.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Fact is, that without the Yugoslav block, all former Republics and affiliates are dying out. People are leaving en masse, and they're reaching boiling point. How fucking quaint for a plebiscit of Nationalism in the Balkans. Shall i deliver on Islamist inflitrations and bonkers Supranationalism in the European Union or shall we stop there?

Fact is, the world won't miss us. Each region/nation gets a historical chance/opportunity to rise and achieve something meaningful - we squandered ours in blood soaked wars, sectarian violence and chauvinism, or revolution. The Italians and Germans overcame larger religious, linguistic and cultural regional differences. We didn't, and are on the path to irrelevance. Not a first case in history, not the last. Nothing of value and note was created since WW2 here, anyway.

KoTeMoRe wrote:I see most of these issues as distraction of the real questions. How come Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are basically authoritarian corrupt systems, if the fault was on Communism alone? Very easy, these "national" issues are a definite testament of the corruption that Chauvinism instills in people. Look at Ukraine for instance. That country could have boomed, it had everything. People, Support, a future. Instead it went to hell because it was more important, for people like you, to name some dumb fucking street Mykola Pidoriv instead of Nicolai Pisdetz? This isn't about communism, these fucks were naturals, former communists, hell here I am, I don't go around stealing and cheating people, I see a slav, I don't look at him in anger, don't tell him to go and fuck himself, don't wish for his wife and kids to die. I pop up my Raki bottle and try and talk about common points, including how fucking cheap we both are and how we didn't stood up to th gang of fuckers that betrayed us all.

The fact is that in yet another reference, Southern Italians each and every time there's a Mafia related tragedy, they go to churches, march, cry, swear to Fight the Mafia and still Mafia grows larger. Does this mean that there's support for the Mafia from the people in the street?

You can add Russian Federation into the mix, easily. It was a failed country and continues to underperform to this day, when everything is taken into account (average education, natural resources etc.). Nope, the Ukrainians are an artifical political nation fabricated to be anti-Russia, by both Habsburgs and Bolsheviks. They have no history or historic background, their only common thing is hate towards Russians and forsaken ancestors, which leads to them displaying ever greater signs of retardation, like them hating Lenin and Bolsheviks, who literally created them. Completely unlike me, and completely like some other Yugoslav nations. I could pull out the census data for the area of Ukraine, or the demographic history book from the most UkrOp of all places, University of Ivan Franko. The Russian majority of most cities and regions is evident.

Ukraine was colonised and developed by Soviets, it wasn't spontanenous growth. The shaky foundation of forcefully assimilated people into a political nation usually shows during first stress tests. I mean, I could identify three distinct breeds of UkrOp nationalism in this mess. One is statist, building on Soviet Ukrainian identity and Soviet Ukrainian statehood, that places no value on ethnic background and dwells on the allegiance to state. The other is Banderism, Uniats, Sich Rifles - Orcs. The third is "Ukrainains are real Russians - Moscals are Ugro-Finno-Tatars that usurped Russian identity" that gathers former Little and Great Russians together to oppose everything from Soviets to Putin to western liberalism etc.

Here we are, you and me, an Albanian and a Croat, discussing about Yugoslavia, while there are some Serb members as well. Now compare it to mainstrem Croats, Serbs and Albanians, and how do things work out when Croats and Serbs meet, and Serbs and Albanians.

KoTeMoRe wrote:I don't think you understand what I'm saying, SSH was a fucked up place when compared to SFRY. The fact SFRY disintegrated in Abu Hajaar fashion doesn't mean SFRY was a worse idea than the Kingdom of Serbs Slovenes and Croats. Not at all.

It was set up to fail. Literally. From the beginning, starting with those "only administrative borders", but completely obvious in 1970./1971. and 1974. Constitution. It was a tool of massive social destruction, the damage it inflicted can't be repaired.

KoTeMoRe wrote:From what I'm reading it's exactly that, especially the 'Natural evolution' part.

You would be wrong, then. A country of people like you and/or me could be Socialist. Above a certain level, I honestly don't care about material, let them have their gold, cars, wines, real estate. Too bad most of the Yugocommunists were opportunistic bastards that would sell out their family, friends and compatriots for a piece of jewellery, some land, a nice flat or other looted property; while others were malevolent power-hungry sociopathic demagogues. I wasn't born like this, it is the growing up, travelling and socialising, hearing and witnessing horrible accounts and occurences that made me this way. People forsaking their family and friends, coworkers. Changing names and surnames, digging up dead parents and reburying them. Sectarian and ethnic hate and violence. People getting fired, thrown out, disappearing (several hundred civilians missing from cities never heard of again are still on the list here) etc.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Yes they do, starting from a common market area. It's an historical trend, if you want prosperity, you need a common market, you need common standarts, peace in difference lasts as long as both sides remain matched. That's an historical constant. While no superstate is needed, national groups will be far more prone to back off when things go sour for what ever reason vs the neighbour. Nationalism is never 100% tamed, there's always an angry beast waiting to roar.

Without stubborn nationalism, there would be no smaller nations surviving to this day. I guess you are familiar with the medieval history and roots of Albanian statehood, just as I am familiar with mine. Primitive tribalism maintained religious and national affiliation during long centuries of foreign rule and domination.

I mean, I agree with you about never tamed nationalism. On the other hand, the supranational constructs have shown their bloodthirsty face as well, as have the multinational empires. Ideology and system actually don't matter that much during dark times. What can be said about the Soviet and Yugoslav experiment when even during their social engineering and nation building period, they were obviously raising nationalist and separatist population, that went too war at first chance?

The starting points of various Yugoslav regions were simply too varied. As was the productivity and mentality. So adding to the already existing divisions in language, ethnicity/culture and religion, it created ideological and especially economic tensions. I am a nationalist by ideology, but would never answer a call to arms of my country. I owe nothing to it, or the people inhabiting it, certainly those leading it. Everything I achieved was more a case of "despite" rather than "owing to". If I actually paid attention to what they were conveying and teaching, I would be a failure of a human being like the most.

SturmGuard wrote:
The rift is usually placed on the Soviet advisors, the Albanian issue (military presence) and the tolerance of private property "to a too large a degree", lack of Marxist-Lenininst principles. Interestingly, when the first official Stalin letter came, there were more than 3000 private stores in Croatia, March 1948. In June 1948, there were none. The number of Soviet style collectivised farms grew five times from 1948 to 1949. Another interesting fact is that out of 65 foreign plays, 60 were Soviet, in addition to 500+ Soviet films that were imported in the 1949 season. And all of this after the "historic NO to Stalin". Tito's first outburst of "independence" came only in 1949, despite that, the official media and party narrative was that "Stalin may be slightly wrong about KPJ, but he is still the greatest living authority in the democratic world" - words from Borba.

Basically because there was no opening to the West yet (Foibe issue) and Soviet presence in Neighbouring Albania. The tightening of grip happened not because of Stalin, but because the party needed "orthodxy". Nope Tito's "outburst of independence was when he refused to get "killed" in Bucharest in 1948 in february. Later that Year the Bulgarians will lambast Tito on behalf of the USSR. Clearly we're upside down in the timeline. Leeway was nothing for Stalin, Czechoslovakia was still largely a market economy 'externally' by 1948, and those guys were de facto Soviet Satellites. It had to do with the fact Yugoslavia wanted to add the Albanians to the Bled Agreement and Stalin didn't want that.

No, you were not. You were not represented in Partisan movement, and the Partisans spent quite some time fighting Albanian collaborationists and auxiliaries. AVNOJ has no Albanian component, and neither did the Partisans have any Albanian armed formations. There were more Italians, Bulgarians in the Yugoslav Partisans, not to mention more Volks and Italians living on the territory. Well, things out well for you. It didn't for others. On the contrary.

Do you have any idea what is the total number of Yugoslav casualties of WW2? And in percentage of total population? Some regional populations were exterminated almost to the last man. Census data prior and after the war shows the scale of suffering and losses. No nation can compare to those, not even the Soviet Union.

Wow you clearly don't understand the point here. Albanian communist regime could not have seen light without Yugoslav Support. PERIOD. We were during honeymoon phase firmly in the Yugoslav space, we even traded peace in Kosovo and Kosovo integration in SFRY. Something kaçak assholes wouldn't forgive Albania until late in the 80's. What does foreign volunteers have to do with Yugoslav Sphere? Like it or not, we were part of it, hence the last war to end Yugoslavia was the Kosovo conflict.

Regional populations, like the Italians (Foibe Massaccres)? That's called revenge, from an objective viewpoint it was fairly obvious it was going to happen given the name of the structure was going to be Yugoslavia...

And in the ending days of the war and immediate post-war period, significantly more than a hundred thousand people of all ethnicities were executed or perished during forced labour and camp internment. When put into relative figures, the number are staggering.

Vae Victis is staggering? You really want to talk about that?

Instead of this (though hardly possible to compare the areas of southern Italy, Greece and Albania to Yugoslav rural ones due to differing climate and natural conditions) we have significiant areas of country completely devoid of human presence or inhabited only by dying old people. Naturally, the agriculture is a disaster and food imports reach all-time high. Moreover, you only referenced the least problematic part. The other economical ones were left untouched.

Nothing to do with climate, everything to do with structural bottlenecks in Yugoslav territory and total absence of investment in rural areas. Zero, nothing.

Your attempt at "going at it" pales in comparison to Yugoslav Civil Wars, revolutions and separatism. The casualty numbers and devastation are not even in the same ballpark. Again, I advise you to have a look at historic census data and maps in the past, and today. I can totally get it that Croats and Serbs nowadays despise Yugocommunists, while Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Macedonians and Albanians glorify it. The irony is when one takes a look at partisan fighting force composition.

It's funny because it's retarded simple. Separatism wasn't fueled by "Yugoslac Ideal", it was always there, only put in the freezer. Now you're separated the demographic decline and emigration are killing your nations faster than any civil war. Nationalist success 11111. Meanwhile, Slovenia and Croatia are on board to the EU non-sense, totally coherent. I'm not glorifying it, local governments are by joining the EU and checking the Acquis Lists...all 33 of them. Like...a supranational structure.

What is that supposed to mean? Do you think I am some kind of Ustaša, some right-hand waiving Tuđman Freikorps? I am not a typical Croat, you are not a typical Albanian, but let us not delude ourselves about representing some meaningful percentages of population. The wars were decidedly ethnic and nationalist, all of them. To the extreme. Even the "proletarian revolution" was a Serb Civil War on one side, and an open war on Croatian and Serb nationalism on the other.

Given Croats and Serbs were the two main national groups that wanted supremacy in the region (check your former quote about despising SFRY), I find your criticism rich. I'm not talking as a normal Albanian, I'm talking as the normal "Cohabitation Idealist". Also defending cohabitation with guns is kinda pointless, it achieves the contrary of your goal. That's why splitting is easy, but coming together is hard.

The Monarchy didn't fall, it was toppled. By a British sponsored coup. The country was attacked by the overwhelming invasion force on several fronts, and faced with desertion and fifth-column. There were almost 200 000 POWs taken into captivity to Germany. Actual soldiers. The number of effective fighting men was never reached by Yugocommunists.

Yeah, yeah yeah yeah. Ironically, no one wanted to pick up arms to restore it, while even in freaking debiloid Albania they could find 10 guys stupid enough to die for the cause.

This is a rather bad red herring case. What Zionist Illuminatis? Both the Bolsheviks and Yugocommunists openly proclaimed their goal of destruction of Russian culture, identity, tradition, religion on one, and Serb/Croat/Royal Yugoslav on the other. National identities are results of long-term cultural and historical processes, shaping the mentality and feeling of belonging. What inherent bias? I am an atheist, but ridiculing people for religious views while celebrating Marxism/Leninism in Slavic countries seems obnoxious. Religions have a lot in common with communist dogmas, as they do with neoliberal and globalist nonsense. Bolsheviks insured Russia? Sure, if you leave out the millions killed in the Civil war and the ensuing Red Terror and famines, the millions that emigrated, the millions that were assimilated into Ukrainians, Belarussians (korjenizacija project) and millions left outside Russia proper. Not to mention the Soviet legacy and cadre that made 90s possible, and that had sown the seeds of conflicts that plague the area of former Russian Empire.

Yes Communists everywhere managed to actually impose cultural traits from the main ethnical group even worse than the previous system. BTW National identities change overtime, there's nothing set in stone. Case in point Bosnians and approach to islam. Same for Bulgaria for instance. If anything by fossilizing them, SupraNational regimes tend to preserve the worst out of it. Case in point, the USSR/
I'm not ridiculing religion, I'm ridiculing the need for religion. It's two different things that by now should be clear and concise.

Fact is, the world won't miss us. Each nation gets a historical chance/opportunity to rise and achieve something meaningful - we squandered ours in blood soaked wars, sectarian violence and chauvinism, or revolution. The Italians and Germans overcame larger religious, linguistic and cultural regional differences. We didn't, and are on the path to irrelevance. Not a first case in history, not the last. Nothing of value and note was created since WW2 here, anyway.

Fact is that the world never misses anyone, but it's the sheer mass and difference in views that were joined, that created "Italy" or "Germany" or even "Russia". It's a total antinomy to think you can get away with claiming Yugoslavia is shit, while "Germany" is exactly the same deal, pursued often by very chauvinist powers and executed in the same violent way. If anything the country we name now Germany is exactly what Yugoslavia could have become if foreign influence would have gone in the same direction it went for Germany. But hey...Commies bad everything else good.

Irrelevance is giving up, I'm not giving up on my Nation, my region and my neighbours. And I'm on my way out.

You can add Russian Federation into the mix, easily. It was a failed country and continues to underperform to this day, when everything is taken into account (average education, natural resources etc.). Nope, the Ukrainians are an artifical political nation fabricated to be anti-Russia, by both Habsburgs and Bolsheviks. They have no history or historic background, their only common thing is hate towards Russians and forsaken ancestors, which leads to them displaying ever greater signs of retardation, like them hating Lenin and Bolsheviks, who literally created them. Completely unlike me, and completely like some other Yugoslav nations. I could pull out the census data for the area of Ukraine, or the demographic history book from the most UkrOp of all places, University of Ivan Franko. The Russian majority of most cities and regions is evident.

I don't add Russian in that mix, because underperforming is not failing. Ukraine isn't a fabrication, it's a feeling, same feeling might not be mutual. That's maybe where Ukraine as a state has a future (not bright) but as a people they're dead in the water. It's funny how Ukraine is anti-Russia, but Croatia not anti-Serbia. Fact is that ghost nationalisms have always been the Norm. And will be so. That's where the parity enters. Break the parity, see "hate".

Ukraine was colonised and developed by Soviets, it wasn't spontanenous growth. The shaky foundation of forcefully assimilated people into a political nation usually shows during first stress tests. I mean, I could identify three distinct breeds of UkrOp nationalism in this mess. One is statist, building on Soviet Ukrainian identity and Soviet Ukrainian statehood, that places no value on ethnic background and dwells on the allegiance to state. The other is Banderism, Uniats, Sich Rifles - Orcs. The third is "Ukrainains are real Russians - Moscals are Ugro-Finno-Tatars that usurped Russian identity" that gathers former Little and Great Russians together to oppose everything from Soviets to Putin to oligarchs.

It doesn't change a thing from the fact that now it has its own life. We're talking objectivity, not religion.

It was set up to fail. Literally. From the beginning, but completely obvious in 1970./1971. and 1974. Constitution. It was a tool of massive social destruction, the damage it inflicted can't be repaired.

In that we agree, let enough holes in a wall and it will crumble at the slightest push. I separate ideal from execution.

You would be wrong, then. A country with people like me (modest, industrious, atheist, tolerant) could be Communist. Too bad most of the Yugocommunists were opportunistic bastards that would sell out their family, friends and compatriots for a piece of jewellery, some land, a nice flat or other looted property; while others were malevolent power-hungry sociopathic demagogues. I wasn't born like this, it is the growing up, travelling and socialising, hearing and witnessing horrible accounts and occurences that made me this way. People forsaking their family and friends, coworkers. Changing names and surnames, digging up dead parents and reburying them. Sectarian and ethnic hate and violence. People getting fired, thrown out, disappearing etc.

It's showing in the discourse. I'm not perfect either, we can join at some point, I guess we just did.

Without stubborn nationalism, there would be no smaller nations surviving to this day. I guess you are familiar with the medieval history and roots of Albanian statehood, just as I am familiar with mine. Primitive tribalism maintained religious and national affiliation during long centuries of foreign rule and domination.

I mean, I agree with you about never tamed nationalism. On the other hand, the supranational constructs have shown their bloodthirsty face as well, as have the multinational empires. Ideology and system actually don't matter that much during dark times.

It's a matter of balance yes.

Pardon my ignorance, but what "your Kosovo"? What do you mean "give up Kosovo integration"?

See right there, that is how conflicts flare up. Skadar was a Serb capital in medieval times, Kosovo was their heartland, completely filled with their medieval monuments.
I hope you are aware that the story is not over. The moment and if Serbs rise to prominence again, they will want to settle the score. Just like BiH is a powder keg. Because they have all those census data, Ottoman defters, church books, Müller, Kukulj, Ludwig Salvator accounts etc. telling them what had happened, as well as the case of vandalism and devastation of their historical heritage. The defeats, stolen heritage and perceived historical injustice are powerful rallying banners and causes.

Even you as a self-declared communist insist on national issues. Just as self-declared Croatian and other communists insisted on their national issues. Or in the case of "liberal" and "reformist Communists", outright nationalist agenda and separatism.

I am knowledgeable enough that I can detect clear presence of anti-Serb foundation of modern Croatian nationalism, as well as knowing some rather rarely spoken facts on Croatian ethnogenesis and the population exchanges during Austrian and Venetian wars with Turks. Not to mention he often left out details of Starčević life, Illyrian movement timeline or background and backing of Frank. Or the gradual uniatism and catholisation. It would be farsical if I didn't know the ins and outs of my own national history while discussing others'. The greater part of my original post that I deleted before posting consisted in setting up the historical stage for events that unfolded.


The various shades of Communist ideology have all failed, because they were utopian/dystopian ideas not taking human nature into account, not to mention the various atrocities commited and sociopathic tendencies their leaders have shown. We are egoistic, opportunistic, lazy, xenophobic, collectivist, materialist and power-hungry in a vast number of cases. Which brings us to the reasons why you and me discussing on this forum, and not on our respective national ones. We are both tired of our mainstream compatriots and "their" "opinions".

SturmGuard wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but what "your Kosovo"? What do you mean "give up Kosovo integration"?

See right there, that is how conflicts flare up. Skadar was a Serb capital in medieval times, Kosovo was their heartland, completely filled with their medieval monuments.
I hope you are aware that the story is not over. The moment and if Serbs rise to prominence again, they will want to settle the score. Just like BiH is a powder keg. Because they have all those census data, Ottoman defters, church books, Müller, Kukulj, Ludwig Salvator accounts etc. telling them what had happened, as well as the case of vandalism and devastation of their historical heritage. The defeats, stolen heritage and perceived historical injustice are powerful rallying banners and causes.

Even you as a self-declared communist insist on national issues. Just as self-declared Croatian and other communists insisted on their national issues. Or in the case of "liberal" and "reformist Communists", outright nationalist agenda and separatism.

I am knowledgeable enough that I can detect clear presence of anti-Serb foundation of modern Croatian nationalism, as well as knowing some rather rarely spoken facts on Croatian ethnogenesis and the population exchanges during Austrian and Venetian wars with Turks. Not to mention he often left out details of Starčević life, Illyrian movement timeline or background and backing of Frank. Or the gradual uniatism and catholisation. It would be farsical if I didn't know the ins and outs of my own national history while discussing others'. The greater part of my original post that I deleted before posting consisted in setting up the historical stage for events that unfolded.


The various shades of Communist ideology have all failed, because they were utopian/dystopian ideas not taking human nature into account, not to mention the various atrocities commited and sociopathic tendencies their leaders have shown. We are egoistic, opportunistic, lazy, xenophobic, collectivist, materialist and power-hungry in a vast number of cases. Which brings us to the reasons why you and me discussing on this forum, and not on our respective national ones. We are both tired of our mainstream compatriots and "their" "opinions".

Problem is that Skadar/shkodra, is an Dardanian Settlement, before you guys came along...Between "us and them", them are the newcomers. If you're going to set up a limit and then claim that's the beggining, we're ot exactly into objectivity. I'm not interested into national matters at all. To me they're the now, we don't know what happens tomorrow.

The various shades of Communist Ideology, to the contrary are in full swing; they are clearly mustered by the deterioration of the "democratic process", the "rise" of nationalisms and the perception of whole swaths of population that the system is rigged in favour of some.

That's the scary part of the deal with Communism, it's a good critical tool, but there's no implementation vademeccum. And it also stems locally despite preconditions that aren't there.

Failure of a system of thought is when you don't use that system anymore. Communism is alive in heaven, that's the actual scary thing. People want communism as long as they don't have to take responsibility for it. Yet they have no issue taking responsibility for mass murders and wars and suffering.

Interesting results

d_taddei2 wrote:Interesting results

Many on the "benefit" side from Macedonia and Montenegro could be ethnic Albanians.

I base this suspicion on results from Kosovo which are very heavily on the "benefit" side, and on the fact that both of these former Yugoslav republics have significant ethnic Albanian minorities, especially Macedonia.


If these ethnic Albanian votes are excluded, then the results become even more in favor of a unified Yugoslavia.