Worst case outcome of the 1990s Bosnian War

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,546
Republika Srpska
If so, shouldn't the Presevo Valley be entitled to independence (by joining Kosovo) as well? I mean, if even a post-Milosevic Serbia can't be trusted to treat Kosovar Albanians well, how exactly can they be trusted to treat Presevo Valley Albanians well?
Yes and the Albanians wanted to secede in 2001 and yet somehow according to the West the Albanians were the instigators in that conflict. So, according to the official version from the West, Serbia was oppressing Albanians in Kosovo, but just a few kilometers away the situation was different. The Albanians of course claim that they were the victims there as well.

For that matter, why should Kosovo Serbs be forced to remain in Kosovo if they fear that they won't be treated well?
It is a reasonable fear. The Albanians were harassing them BEFORE Milošević even came to power.

As in, why not allow northern Kosovo to secede from Kosovo and join Serbia so that at least some of the Serbs in Kosovo will be free of Kosovar Albanian rule?
I am not really in favour of having North Kosovo join Serbia because that would require Serbia to give up its claim on the rest.

What is interesting is that the pre-WWII Yugoslav government did not attempt to create a territorial unit out of all of Bosnia like the post-WWII Yugoslav government did. In the 1939 Cvetkovic-Macek Agreement, Bosnia was split and a part of Bosnia was given to an autonomous Croatia.
With the exception of Banovina Croatia (which was created under special circumstances), territorial units in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were deliberately created not to reference Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc. Instead, they were named after rivers, for example Vardar Banovina, Dunav Banovina, Sava Banovina etc. It was part of the policy of "integral Yugoslavianism" supported by king Alexander I. It was a policy that wanted to create a single, Yugoslav people out of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and thus started de-emphasizing those divisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,726
SoCal
Yes and the Albanians wanted to secede in 2001 and yet somehow according to the West the Albanians were the instigators in that conflict. So, according to the official version from the West, Serbia was oppressing Albanians in Kosovo, but just a few kilometers away the situation was different. The Albanians of course claim that they were the victims there as well.
TBH, if a democratic, Western-friendly, post-Milosevic Serbia can't actually be trusted to treat the Kosovar Albanians well, how exactly can it be expected to treat the Presevo Valley Albanians well? One could say that the actions of the Presevo Valley Albanians were simply a logical response to Serbian actions in Kosovo. Basically, they don't want to risk having a repeat of (real or alleged) Serbian atrocities in Kosovo on their own territory.

It is a reasonable fear. The Albanians were harassing them BEFORE Milošević even came to power.
Yep.

I am not really in favour of having North Kosovo join Serbia because that would require Serbia to give up its claim on the rest.
If Serbia wants to continue its current strategy indefinitely, then it can go ahead. That said, though, I just don't think that Serbia's current strategy is ever actually going to work in regards to this. After all, a lot of wealthy countries recognize Kosovo and can trade with it even if Kosovo never actually joins the EU and/or the UN.

With the exception of Banovina Croatia (which was created under special circumstances),
You mean the threat of a Nazi conquest of Yugoslavia?

territorial units in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were deliberately created not to reference Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc. Instead, they were named after rivers, for example Vardar Banovina, Dunav Banovina, Sava Banovina etc. It was part of the policy of "integral Yugoslavianism" supported by king Alexander I. It was a policy that wanted to create a single, Yugoslav people out of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and thus started de-emphasizing those divisions.
That's very interesting and that makes perfect sense, actually. :)
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,546
Republika Srpska
No democratic, post Milošević Serbian government controlled Kosovo so we cannot know how they would treat them. As far as Preševo Albanians go, well, until 2013 they had a monument dedicated to their terrorist UCMPB group. That would have been unthinkable under Milošević. Sure, the monument was removed, but what country would allow such a monument. Would Croatia allow such a monument for Krajina soldiers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,726
SoCal
No democratic, post Milošević Serbian government controlled Kosovo so we cannot know how they would treat them. As far as Preševo Albanians go, well, until 2013 they had a monument dedicated to their terrorist UCMPB group. That would have been unthinkable under Milošević. Sure, the monument was removed, but what country would allow such a monument. Would Croatia allow such a monument for Krajina soldiers?
FTR, I don't think that a democratic, post-Milosevic Serbia would have treated the Kosovars any worse than it treated the people of the Presevo Valley. Heck, it might have even treated them better due to Serbia's view that Kosovo should have "more than autonomy, but less than independence".

I was simply using the West's arguments against them here. Serbia really did end up being on the receiving side of national self-determination. It lost Kosovo but didn't get to acquire either Srpska or Krajina and even saw most of the Krajina Serbs get expelled by the Croats--an action that the West did not punish the Croats for.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,957
Iowa USA
FTR, I don't think that a democratic, post-Milosevic Serbia would have treated the Kosovars any worse than it treated the people of the Presevo Valley. Heck, it might have even treated them better due to Serbia's view that Kosovo should have "more than autonomy, but less than independence".

I was simply using the West's arguments against them here. Serbia really did end up being on the receiving side of national self-determination. It lost Kosovo but didn't get to acquire either Srpska or Krajina and even saw most of the Krajina Serbs get expelled by the Croats--an action that the West did not punish the Croats for.
Did not punish the Croats!

That's as shocking as the gambling that was exposed at Rick's Cafe!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,957
Iowa USA
There was gambling at Rick's. The supporting leading man had to fake being "shocked, shocked" as a pretext for closing the saloon.

The end was important which meant Rick's had to be closed immediately, the personal integrity of the supporting leading man (Claude Reins, better known for playing Sykes to history film fans) mattered MUCH LESS.

In Bosnia only the ends mattered after almost 4 years of conflict. Washington told the diplomats and European theater generals to bring it to a conclusion. The moral niceties weren't important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,726
SoCal
There was gambling at Rick's. The supporting leading man had to fake being "shocked, shocked" as a pretext for closing the saloon.

The end was important which meant Rick's had to be closed immediately, the personal integrity of the supporting leading man (Claude Reins, better known for playing Sykes to history film fans) mattered MUCH LESS.

In Bosnia only the ends mattered after almost 4 years of conflict. Washington told the diplomats and European theater generals to bring it to a conclusion. The moral niceties weren't important.
I wonder if Republika Srpska was stripped of as much territory at the end of this war as was realistically possible. In other words, would RS have lost even more territory had the war continued?

After the end of the war, Bosnia was left looking like a jigsaw puzzle:

 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,546
Republika Srpska
I wonder if Republika Srpska was stripped of as much territory at the end of this war as was realistically possible. In other words, would RS have lost even more territory had the war continued?

After the end of the war, Bosnia was left looking like a jigsaw puzzle:

Republika Srpska's current percentage of Bosnia is larger than the percentage it held at the end of hostilities. It received some territory back, but was forced to give up its positions around Sarajevo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,726
SoCal
Republika Srpska's current percentage of Bosnia is larger than the percentage it held at the end of hostilities. It received some territory back, but was forced to give up its positions around Sarajevo.
Which territories did it get back?