What do you think of Josip Broz Tito?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Hegumen

Did you think it was crap back then?

Yes. It was a self-righteous regime and system founded on lies and hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Hegumen

Druže Tito, mi ti se kunemo...

You mean: Shoku Tito ne të betohemi, se nga rruga jote nuk do të largohemi?

Originally Posted by Hegumen

Guerrilla tactics.

Yes, but he was not some poor guerrillero left to his own devices, but was aided by Britain and the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by Hegumen

I grew up in Socialist Macedonia and still have many fond memories. It was my country, I loved it.

What was your country which you loved? Yugoslavia or Macedonia?

Originally Posted by Hegumen

I'm not nostalgic or anything, it's just that on the surface it was a simpler and happier time.

Simpler in a certain sense yes. Happier...well...that's up to debate.

Originally Posted by Hegumen

I'm glad it's no more, it's just a shame that it had to end the way it did.

Fully agreed. I also think it's a shame it ended the way it did. A peaceful split-up was possible, but didn't happen. And we all know who is responsible that it did not end in a peaceful way, don't we?

[Hegumen]

Originally Posted by Marulus

You mean: Shoku Tito ne të betohemi, se nga rruga jote nuk do të largohemi?

Šiptar!

Originally Posted by Marulus

What was your country which you loved? Yugoslavia or Macedonia?

You've got me there...

Originally Posted by Marulus

And we all know who is responsible that is did not end in a peaceful way, don't we?

Have you seen the movie Ničija Zemlja where the Bosniak (Đuro) is arguing with the Serb about who started the war?

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Hegumen

Šiptar!

Po, po. Rroftë Shqipëria!

Originally Posted by Hegumen

You've got me there...

So both? OK.

Originally Posted by Hegumen

Have you seen the movie Ničija Zemlja where the Bosniak (Đuro) is arguing with the Serb about who started the war?

I've seen it long ago. And? Since when are cheap movies source of information about important events in - especially recent - history? Many of those movies are made with the ideological intent to relativize the guilt of the real culprits, so as to appear that all are equally guilty. And if all are guilty, then nobody is guilty, in a way.

As I said, we all know who started the whole mess, which clique was in possession of the army and its arsenal, who started to shoot. These are well known facts. I think you know them as well, but feign not to know, for some reason which I cannot detect.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Was the Yugoslavian Socialist regime that bad? I mean, if compared to other Socialist regimes elsewhere.

What does your question refer to? What does not that bad in this context mean?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Just forget for a moment the issue between the different territories united through it.

You mean to say: forget for a moment frictions between different nationalities? I am afraid it is impossible, because the "question of nationalities" was deeply engrained in the political system of the multicultural and multiethnic/multireligious mess called Yugoslavia, it ran through all segments of life, through economy (economy was in Communist systems to some extent subjected to politics), through education, even through everyday life in many cases (although in that respect there were differences from region to region, somewhere this problematic was felt more intensely than elsewhere).

[Hegumen]

Originally Posted by Marulus

So both? OK.

I guess I was just proud of my people being part of something bigger. I certainly don't see it that way now.

Originally Posted by Marulus

Since when are cheap movies source of information about important events in - especially recent - history? Many of those movies are made with the ideological intent to relativize the guilt of the real culprits, so as to appear that all are equally guilty. And if all are guilty, then nobody is guilty, in a way.

That's exactly what this movie was.

Originally Posted by Marulus

As I said, we all know who started the whole mess, which clique was in possession of the army and its arsenal, who started to shoot. These are well known facts. I think you know them as well, but feign not to know, for some reason which I cannot detect.

Ja dobro znam što je bilo i tko je počeo rat. Treba li ih uopće spomenuti?

[Kernunnos]

A stalinist who denounced his fellow jugoslavian communist party members during the stalinist 1938 purges, an opportunistic stalinist who abandoned Stalin when Stalin wanted his skin, and an exterminator of ethnic venetian/italians, not to mentions other ethnicities.

And the creator of artificial nation that exploded badly after his death also because of his political work that was based on fake and oppressive communist philosophical ideals.

Said that, yes, he had a taste for good uniforms and women.

[Laocoon]

Originally Posted by Breha

Said that, yes, he had a taste for good uniforms and women.

An entertaining reading.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Breha

And the creator of artificial nation that exploded badly after his death also because of his political work that was based on fake and oppressive communist philosophical ideals.

I suppose you're talking about Bosniaks? It's not Tito who "created" them. Their history did that. The constitution of ex-Yugoslavia acknowledged their right to declare themselves as Muslims by nationality. Later, in 1993, they chose the name Bosniaks to describe themselves. It seems they had no problem with differentiating themselves from others. It's a matter of self determination really. If they felt like Croats or Serbs, they'd most certainly choose to declare themselves as such.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I suppose you're talking about Bosniaks? It's not Tito who "created" them. Their history did that. The constitution of ex-Yugoslavia acknowledged their right to declare themselves as Muslims by nationality. Later, in 1993, they chose the name Bosniaks to describe themselves. It seems they had no problem with differentiating themselves from others. It's a matter of self determination really. If they felt like Croats or Serbs, they'd most certainly choose to declare themselves as such.

Breha was maybe referring to the artificial "Yugoslav" nation that the Communist regime tried to coin?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Marulus

What does your question refer to? What does not that bad in this context mean?

Calm down..

What I'm trying to find out is about aspects that might help me to link a few loose ties here and there, with respect to one particular even in Spain.

The simplified version of the end of General Franco's regime is that Franco died and King Juan Carlos (or his entourage) worked out the so-called Transition (transition to a western liberal democracy).

However the truth is that the Transition has been arranged from within the Regime itself. So, basically, Francoism (or, rather, Tardofranquismo, "late-Francoism") was responsible for post-Francoism. And there was more than just one direction.

On December 20th 1973, a bomb went off in Madrid as the official car of Admiral Carrero Blanco on his daily route to Mass. He was the President of the Government and, most important, he was Franco's man to lead the Transition under parameters of "continuism".

The terrorist group ETA was the direct responsible for this attack. However Admiral's Carrero Blanco's daily route to the Holy Mass in the same Jesuit church everyday and at the same time was invariable (which would ease the attack), the attack in itself was overdimensioned for ETA. They excavated a tunnel and used 100kg of explosives. The car literally flew over the façade of the church, to fall in the cloister (see graphic).



In the circles near Admiral Carrero a theory is that ETA acted guided by CIA. A theory which I believe that it was supported by his family too. Although ETA (and any author from the Left) denies this relation.

One speculation is that Admiral Carrero's mission was to provide a continuation to General Franco's regime and not allow the transition to democracy. However, this is not likely. Pressumably Admiral Carrero would have allowed a transition to a vigilated democracy.

In any case, whether he would have allowed a transition to democracy or not, did not pose in itself any inconvenience to America. So that wouldn't have to be a reason for CIA to carry out the magnicide through ETA. And it is here where things become most interesting.

From some good sources, I've heared that Admiral Carrero was preparing (or at least considering) a Transition through a double-sided aperturism of the regime. This double-sided aperturism meant that, although there would have been some aperturism towards the western democracies, there would also have been another aperturism towards some moderated eastern socialist regimes.

This sounds odd if you consider how anti-Communist was Franco's regime. But it doesn't mean that Spain would have joined the Socialist bloc. Only that it would have retained a self-styled neutrality and indepence in the western capitalist vs eastern socialist scene of the time. We would not have joined NATO (incidentally, or not so, the early campaigners against joining NATO, the Spanish Socialists, were the staunch campaigner in favour of NATO when they came into office and organized the referendum) or the EEC (and later EU). And this way Spain would have been kept outside the sphere of influence of the U.S. Not something small in the still going Cold War.

My believe is that the best candidate in the Eastern bloc would have been Yugoslavia.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Calm down..

I wasn't uncalm...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

However the truth is that the Transition has been arranged from within the Regime itself. So, basically, Francoism (or, rather, Tardofranquismo, "late-Francoism") was responsible for post-Francoism. And there was more than just one direction.

On December 20th 1973, a bomb went off in Madrid as the official car of Admiral Carrero Blanco on his daily route to Mass. He was the President of the Government and, most important, he was Franco's man to lead the Transition under parameters of "continuism".

The terrorist group ETA was the direct responsible for this attack. However Admiral's Carrero Blanco's daily route to the Holy Mass in the same Jesuit church everyday and at the same time was invariable (which would ease the attack), the attack in itself was overdimensioned for ETA. They excavated a tunnel and used 100kg of explosives. The car literally flew over the façade of the church, to fall in the cloister (see graphic).

I also heard and read about the uncertainties about the real organizers of the assassination of Luis Carrero Blanco. Did ETA actually immediately claim the responsability, as such organizations usually do?

This graphic of what happened seems to me almost surreal. I would never think something like that was possible at all. I am no expert in explosives though.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In the circles near Admiral Carrero a theory is that ETA acted guided by CIA. A theory which I believe that it was supported by his family too. Although ETA (and any author from the Left) denies this relation.

That would make it very similar to the assassination of the Italian Christian Democrat Aldo Moro in 1978., carried out by the Red Brigades, but there are those who allege that CIA or NATO might have been involved. Moro was not too fond of America...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

From some good sources, I've heared that Admiral Carrero was preparing (or at least considering) a Transition through a double-sided aperturism of the regime. This double-sided aperturism meant that, although there would have been some aperturism towards the western democracies, there would also have been another aperturism towards some moderated eastern socialist regimes.

Interesting. Have some sources?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

the early campaigners against joining NATO, the Spanish Socialists, were the staunch campaigner in favour of NATO when they came into office and organized the referendum

...and one of most outspoken of those campaigners, Javier Solana, later became the General Secretary of NATO? It is usually so with European leftists. Sometimes I get the impression that they are part of the American scheme as well: the system needs some internal, politically correct, "critics", who point out at the shortcomings of the system, perfecting it thus. But they are always part of the system, never genuinely against it. That may be true of the most of apparently anti-American left of Europe, with their ridiculous rhetoric and pro-American "anti-Americanism". Once in office the first thing they do is to shake Uncle Sam's hand during some visit.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

My believe is that the best candidate in the Eastern bloc would have been Yugoslavia.

Sorry, I am not sure I understood what you meant. You mean: Yugoslavia would have been the best candidate among the eastern European Communist countries, as a country with which this supposed neutral Spain would establish ties, in defiance to both East and West?

However, Yugoslavia was financially upheld by America, since 1948. First by direct aid, then by loans. Not only that, but America sold (or donated in some cases) weapons to Yugoslavia, American experts built many military installations (some of them it was easy to bomb in 1999, because the US Army had all the contruction plans of those installations handed down to them by the American firms that built them). Politically-formally Yugoslavia was tied to USSR (following its moves in exterior and world politics, for example, in the Middle Eastern conflict), but it was tied to America in many other ways, maybe even closer.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

...
This sounds odd if you consider how anti-Communist was Franco's regime. But it doesn't mean that Spain would have joined the Socialist bloc. Only that it would have retained a self-styled neutrality and indepence in the western capitalist vs eastern socialist scene of the time. We would not have joined NATO (incidentally, or not so, the early campaigners against joining NATO, the Spanish Socialists, were the staunch campaigner in favour of NATO when they came into office and organized the referendum) or the EEC (and later EU). And this way Spain would have been kept outside the sphere of influence of the U.S. Not something small in the still going Cold War.

My believe is that the best candidate in the Eastern bloc would have been Yugoslavia.

This matches with what can be seen of the current US policy toward Serbia, Russia, Venezuela and Iran; no "rogue states" allowed. The Americans seem to have a mania for dividing the world into spheres of influence and power blocs. This possible non-aligned policy for Spain would have been an unacceptable deviation for US strategists, especially coming after De Gaulle's decision to remove France from the military command of Nato.