Was life for the Bosniaks, Croats, and Slovenes better inside of Austria-Hungary or inside of Yugoslavia?

Nov 2016
82
Serbia
#21
Can you elaborate how Slovenes were dominant in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Did they dominate the army, or perhaps politics? Same questions for communist Yugoslavia.

What defeats are you talking about? As part of Austria-Hungary we only lost ww1.

It is taught in schools that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was the best option available for us at the time, why should we not admit that on other positive things like the stopping of germanisation, finally gaining a university in Ljubljana etc? That doesn't mean there weren't other negative things or that everything was so darn amazing in the perfect country of Yugoslavia.
There was nothing perfect in Yugoslavia. It was disaster from the very begining.

Slovenian dominance was primarily in the economy. They lived in the most western corner of the country, not mixed with the others, with their own language and different mentality. No one was intervened in their business. On the other hand, their infulence in the central government was disproportionately higher than 10%. And since Slovenes have nerver really hiding separatist sentiment, they were always pushing for degradation of Yugoslavia through constitutional solutions and every day politics which included support to other separatists.

Like most of Mitteleuropa and Balkans, Slovenia colaborated with Germany. And just like Croats, in Yugoslavia they were rewarded with teritory stolen from Italy.

It is better for all that we are not in the same country anymore and we are not even neighbours.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,693
Republika Srpska
#22
Slovenia's collaboration cannot be compared to Croatia and Albania's. After all, they had a well-developed resistance force in the Osvobodilna Fronta and even some Chetnik elements.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,526
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#23
There was nothing perfect in Yugoslavia. It was disaster from the very begining.

Slovenian dominance was primarily in the economy. They lived in the most western corner of the country, not mixed with the others, with their own language and different mentality. No one was intervened in their business. On the other hand, their infulence in the central government was disproportionately higher than 10%. And since Slovenes have nerver really hiding separatist sentiment, they were always pushing for degradation of Yugoslavia through constitutional solutions and every day politics which included support to other separatists.

Like most of Mitteleuropa and Balkans, Slovenia colaborated with Germany. And just like Croats, in Yugoslavia they were rewarded with teritory stolen from Italy.

It is better for all that we are not in the same country anymore and we are not even neighbours.
It also contributed a lot of the money made with this economy to aid less developped parts of Yugoslavia. I wouldn't say other's never intervened in Slovenia's business. There was quite a political crackdown on the more liberal Slovene governmenta in the 60s. While the influence in the central government in SFRJ probably was something like you describe, there was barely any in the Kingdom, before ww2.

What kind of silly comparison is that with collaboration. Name me one former Yugoslav country where they didn't collaborate with the occupying forces. Nedić's regime was a puppet state to the Axis, a good part of the Serbian and Montenegrin četniks made common deal with the Axis as well.

Why is that land "stolen" from Italy? It's land where Slovenes lived, not Italians. You can't argue that land was stolen by Yugoslavia from Italy in 1945, as if the same didn't happen in reverse 1918-1920. Then Southern Serbia is stolen from the Ottomans as well. If not, why the double standard?

I agree that it is better not being in the same country anymore. One shouldn't force together, what doesn't go well together.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,885
SoCal
#24
It also contributed a lot of the money made with this economy to aid less developped parts of Yugoslavia. I wouldn't say other's never intervened in Slovenia's business. There was quite a political crackdown on the more liberal Slovene governmenta in the 60s. While the influence in the central government in SFRJ probably was something like you describe, there was barely any in the Kingdom, before ww2.

What kind of silly comparison is that with collaboration. Name me one former Yugoslav country where they didn't collaborate with the occupying forces. Nedić's regime was a puppet state to the Axis, a good part of the Serbian and Montenegrin četniks made common deal with the Axis as well.

Why is that land "stolen" from Italy? It's land where Slovenes lived, not Italians. You can't argue that land was stolen by Yugoslavia from Italy in 1945, as if the same didn't happen in reverse 1918-1920. Then Southern Serbia is stolen from the Ottomans as well. If not, why the double standard?

I agree that it is better not being in the same country anymore. One shouldn't force together, what doesn't go well together.
One does wonder whether it would have been better for Slovenia and the non-Serb parts of Croatia not to join Yugoslavia in the first place. I mean, Yugoslavia would have suffered as a result of this, but then Slovenes and Croats wouldn't have had to subsidize the poorer, less developed parts of Yugoslavia for 70 years.

As for the post-WWII Yugoslav annexations, Fiume and Istria had huge Italian populations but the rest of these territories were either Croat-majority or Slovene-majority, correct?
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,526
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#25
One does wonder whether it would have been better for Slovenia and the non-Serb parts of Croatia not to join Yugoslavia in the first place. I mean, Yugoslavia would have suffered as a result of this, but then Slovenes and Croats wouldn't have had to subsidize the poorer, less developed parts of Yugoslavia for 70 years.

As for the post-WWII Yugoslav annexations, Fiume and Istria had huge Italian populations but the rest of these territories were either Croat-majority or Slovene-majority, correct?
Perhaps, perhaps not. A lot of the industry did well in the first place because there was a common Yugoslav market and that of the Eastern Bloc and the non-aligned countries. Who knows if they could compete in a free capitalist market? The idea back then was that you are doing something for the common good of all Yugoslavs and a lot of people sincerely believed in that. At that time I don't really see any good alternatives and regardles of the country, there always are centers and peripheral regions and usually both provide something for each other.

I wouldn't say Istria had a huge Italian population, certainly a signifficant one though. A lot of Italians left the area at the end of the war on their own out of fear of the partisans, some were forced out, some were murdered. They mostly all lived on the coast, with the hinterland mostly being Slavic. This exodus and moving in of new people, often from more southern parts of Yugoslavia loweree their numbers. I know today they are fully integrated minorities with lots of rights both in Slovenia and Croatia, honestly don't know hot that was back in Yugoslavia though, it must have been a changing situation, somewhat normalising only after the two zones of the Free Territory of Trieste were incorporated in Italy and Yugoslavia.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,885
SoCal
#26
Perhaps, perhaps not. A lot of the industry did well in the first place because there was a common Yugoslav market and that of the Eastern Bloc and the non-aligned countries. Who knows if they could compete in a free capitalist market? The idea back then was that you are doing something for the common good of all Yugoslavs and a lot of people sincerely believed in that. At that time I don't really see any good alternatives and regardles of the country, there always are centers and peripheral regions and usually both provide something for each other.
The alternative for Slovenia and Croatia would have been to remain within Austria-Hungary. Of course, that would have required A-H making a separate peace early enough.

I wouldn't say Istria had a huge Italian population, certainly a signifficant one though. A lot of Italians left the area at the end of the war on their own out of fear of the partisans, some were forced out, some were murdered. They mostly all lived on the coast, with the hinterland mostly being Slavic. This exodus and moving in of new people, often from more southern parts of Yugoslavia loweree their numbers. I know today they are fully integrated minorities with lots of rights both in Slovenia and Croatia, honestly don't know hot that was back in Yugoslavia though, it must have been a changing situation, somewhat normalising only after the two zones of the Free Territory of Trieste were incorporated in Italy and Yugoslavia.
Yeah, Istria's Italian population was located on the western coast as well as in Fiume (Rijeka):

Istrian Italians - Wikipedia



Interestingly enough, some of them were still there in 1991:



I do wonder if it would have been best for Italy to keep western Istria after the end of WWII. Of course, that would have meant that Slovenia wouldn't have had a coastline after independence. Still, the Italians who didn't flee should have probably been allowed to stay there.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,526
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#27
Yeah, Istria's Italian population was located on the western coast as well as in Fiume (Rijeka):

Istrian Italians - Wikipedia



Interestingly enough, some of them were still there in 1991:



I do wonder if it would have been best for Italy to keep western Istria after the end of WWII. Of course, that would have meant that Slovenia wouldn't have had a coastline after independence. Still, the Italians who didn't flee should have probably been allowed to stay there.
Oh, of course some are still there. There's lots of Italian schools in those parts and all. In the mixed areas everyone learns both languages. I've meat some Croatian Italians (I don't speak Italian, so we talked with each other in Croatian), I haven't meat any Slovene Italians, but everyone I know from the Slovene coast speaks Italian too, if they were raised there. Slovenia actually has the most Italian speakets per capita in the EU after Italy and Malta.

If Italy is allowed to keep the parts of the Istrian coast where Italians live, does Slovenia/Yugoslavia get the coast north of Triest where Slovenes live?
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,885
SoCal
#28
Oh, of course some are still there. There's lots of Italian schools in those parts and all. In the mixed areas everyone learns both languages. I've meat some Croatian Italians (I don't speak Italian, so we talked with each other in Croatian), I haven't meat any Slovene Italians, but everyone I know from the Slovene coast speaks Italian too, if they were raised there. Slovenia actually has the most Italian speakets per capita in the EU after Italy and Malta.

If Italy is allowed to keep the parts of the Istrian coast where Italians live, does Slovenia/Yugoslavia get the coast north of Triest where Slovenes live?
Do you mean the coast south of Trieste?
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,526
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#30
I don't see Slovenes living on the coast north of Trieste:



Was this actually the case in the past?
Yes, usually Austrian-Hungarian ethnic maps show it. Slovenes used to and in part still live on the coast roughly between Trst (Trieste) and Tržič (Monfalcone). You can look up the history of places like Devin (Duino) and which place names come from Slavic and which from Italian although that's sometimes hard to tell because of the names the Fascists came up with in a hurry.

 

Similar History Discussions