|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 12:09:10 [Permalink]
|
| Now, after the bombing, I think there is stronger evidence of abuses by the Milosevic government, and I may be wrong on this, I think if you look at any reasonable evidence against him, you are looking at evidence from that period, and not the period before the bombing. Milosevic was a banker. He was a favorite of the "free market" pushers in the "West." I think, even after the bombing, or during the bombing, you will see Milosevic doing about what any other country does in time of war. They try to move combatants out of the area, and there are abuses, I'm sure. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 14:24:03 [Permalink]
|
You might appreciate some of the information on Srebrenica here:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6566&whichpage=2
Another topic on which "everyone knows" what happened, but few have the facts. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 01/20/2007 14:24:32 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2007 : 14:54:35 [Permalink]
|
Economic situation up to 1960
As promised, some more background on the former Yugoslavia, so we can analyze the reasons for its downfall. This will take up the next couple of posts. I've been reading a lot on the economic and political developments, but good, impartial information is hard to come by.
After WWI and WWII Yugoslavian economy was pretty much devastated. In 1946, with the financial aid of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the economic level was again restored to what it was in 1938. In the case of Yugoslavia this meant that per capita income was around 30 percent below average. With Tito coming into power, first a Soviet-like economic system was established. This meant a central planning economy where all agriculture, trade and resources were brought under state control. This process reached its height in 1950. 1947 saw the start of the first five-year plan. It was directly managed by the state and aimed to overcome industrial and technological backwardness. In the first half of the terms, this development forced ahead as planned. However, starting by the end of 1949 the developments started to fall behind schedule. This had a number of reasons. First, the targets were too ambitious. They did not take into account important aspects such as the inadequate power resources and scarce natural resources of Yugoslavia. Second, it failed because of poor investment policies. For example, the goal to increase agricultural production by 52 percent (compared to 1939 levels) was funded with only 7 percent of the state investments. Third, it failed because of imbalances between import and export. To maintain the planned growth, a lot of raw materials, fuel and food needed to be imported. But export products were of low quality and too few to balance the imports, resulting in a trade deficit. To still maintain the development projected in the five-year plan, the government took loans from the Western European nations and the United States. Tito was forced in this direction, because the bad relationships with the cominform (the Communist Information Bureau) resulted in a boycott of Yugoslavian trade by the Eastern European countries (to the point of not delivering goods Yugoslavia had already paid for). Last but not least, a lot of money was lost due to droughts and famine, as well as spending to rebuild the Yugoslavian army.
From 1950 onwards, reforms were in the air. Most important in this period was the abandonment of the failing central planning economy. The planning was decentralized and control of the factories and agriculture was given to local communes and worker's councils. From now on, the state only gave the general economic guidelines. The state did retain the right to appoint enterprise directors and allocate funds, which still gave it considerable economic control. From 1952 to 1957 no 5-year plan was used. Economic planning was ad-hoc year by year, but did succeed in maintaining a high investment and savings rate. The second 5-year plan was called the perspective plan because it's stated goals were not mandatory. In the trend of the 1950's the government set the guidelines and the worker's councils, companies and republics had a high level of freedom in determining how to achieve the expected production levels. The program was considered a success and its goals considered met in 1960, 2 years ahead of time. Economic growth was amongst the highest in the region and much higher then in Western European nations and . However, still the problems that had come up in the first 5-year plan were not solved.
Now some comments need to be made in order to understand some things about the economic situation here, because this provides the set-up for the economic hardships that were to come up later. A lot of the sites I've read in the past few days have a tendency to view the 1950's to 1960's (and sometimes all through the 1980's) as a ‘golden era' in Yugoslavian economy (for |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 06:28:56 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for continuing. The nicer I am to people, and try to talk to them as equals here, the more they call me asshole. Since I used the old tried and true skepticfriends approach of being insulting, you're continuing. I like it.
Anyway, what you are saying here sort of illustrates my point. What happened in Yugoslavia is difficult to talk about at all because there are so many versions. What you have here is the victor's version. Each faction has their official version, and a lot of it ignores the truth. From what I can see, Yugoslavia was doing fairly well. Certainly much better than most of Eastern Europe. The mistake its leaders made was taking loans from people who told them they'd do better with those loans. They were told they could expand their industrial base and export more. Since capitalism failed, and "The West" went into recession, those promises of wealth never materialized. Having no way to pay "the West" back, the IMF stepped in and began to gut the Yugoslavian economy and help the process already begun by "the West," mainly German interests, to tear it apart. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 01/27/2007 : 13:08:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Thanks for continuing. The nicer I am to people, and try to talk to them as equals here, the more they call me asshole. Since I used the old tried and true skepticfriends approach of being insulting, you're continuing. I like it.
Picture me confused by the above. Do you really think that I would not have continued if you had not been insulting. I'm doing this as much for me as for anybody else. I am going to find as much as I can about this and write about it here, no matter whether anyone responds or not.
quote:
Anyway, what you are saying here sort of illustrates my point. What happened in Yugoslavia is difficult to talk about at all because there are so many versions. What you have here is the victor's version. Each faction has their official version, and a lot of it ignores the truth. From what I can see, Yugoslavia was doing fairly well.
Yup
quote:
Certainly much better than most of Eastern Europe.
Quite possibly, yes. I'm still in the 1960's with where I am, but remember that by this time many Eastern European countries were doing fairly well. The countries in the communist block got off to a fairly good start, but keep in mind that this good start was in part due to a very bad starting position. What I mean to say with that is that almost all Eastern European countries had a very bad economic situation, which made quick growth relatively easy. It's easy to have an economic growth of 10% when you had nothing before. We see the same now with China and India, whose economies are growing like hell. But economic growth can be a deceptive measure in these cases, because if I make 100 bucks this year, and 110 bucks next year, the percentage growth is enormous. But if I make 10.000 bucks this year, and 10.010 bucks next year, I've made the same net increase, but it looks a lot worse.
quote:
The mistake its leaders made was taking loans from people who told them they'd do better with those loans.
But part of the cause for these loans lies principally (at least up to the 1960's) with the Yugoslavian government by that time. Sure, the West was trying to gain Yugoslavia in it's sphere of influence and providing for loans was one way to achieve that. But when you are presenting the picture this way, you are not presenting the complete picture. You are ignoring that spending heavily on industry was inherently a Marxist idea (remember, this investment policy already started before Yugoslavia took any loans from any country) and when its ties were solely to the USSR). You are ignoring the faux-jobs that were created by the government (no Western country would have adviced that). You are ignoring the detrimental effect that 5-year plans have had in all former communist countries, not just Yugoslavia (which also were a communist invention). You are ignoring the rigidity of the Yugoslavian economic policy and the overspending and ad-hoc cuts that were inherent in their way of bottom-up formation of economic policy. Yes, the demanded repayment of foreign loans later (not there yet, but it's going to come) added to the destabilizing years afterwards. But you cannot pretend that were the only, or even the main reasons. Well, you can, but you need to completely ignore the bad choices in economic policy made by the Yugoslavian government.
quote:
They were told they could expand their industrial base and export more.
Well, they could, had they used the money of the loans a bit more wisely. And they did expand their industrial base and export more. But also remember that this was not an idea that was purely instigated by the "West". It is also an idea that was inherently grounded in Marxism/communism, which was inherently a worker's movement. In all Communist countries of the first hour, and Yugoslavia belonged to those, industry was setup ahead of everything else. Industry was important, workers were important. Farmer's were basically the food providers for the workers, and farms were set up in basic structures as factories. Mao Zedong, who brought to China a form of "Communism for the farmers" because he realized that China was very much an agricultural community instead of industrial, was never truly accepted by Moscow or the cominform because it didn't focus on industry.
quote:
Since capitalism failed, and "The West" went into recession, those promises of wealth never materialized. Having no way to pay "the West" back, the IMF stepped in and began to gut the Yugoslavian economy and help the process already begun by "the West," mainly German interests, to tear it apart.
Now, I haven't reached this time period yet, but in the 1960's I can already see some policy reforms that would be necessary to have a healthy, sustainable economy. None of those policies would have ever been adviced or enforced by the "West", but they were wholly in line with communist thought. By the 1960's Yugoslavia had a problem of overspending which left the economy fragile. As I see it as this point, it wouldn't have taken much to topple that economic system, like a house of cards that topples when you remove one card at the bottom of its base. In 1960, Yugoslavia seemed to be doing alright, but that was the surface. The fundamentals of its economic system were crummy and you can't blame "the West" for that. And those fundamentals needed reform at that time. Now I hope to be able to do some research again tomorrow to continue to the 1970's or '80s, and I know there were reforms by 1965. But if those reforms did not address issues that I have presented in my previous post, the Yugoslavian economy could do nothing but topple at some point. The question then just becomes who will take away the first card.
Compare it to America now. If China and Japan ask the money back for the obligations they have in your country (ie, the foreign loans the USA has) its economy might well topple and you will probably hit a recession, big time. Because in your economy you don't Are China and Japan than to blame for the fall of the USA economy, or is a crummy US economic policy to blame? I'm fairly certain some of the more hardcore USA-fanatics fundy rightwing nutjobs will be happy to put all the blame to those Eastern commie bastards. That's their full right of course. I just don't think that is realistic. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 19:11:26 [Permalink]
|
Because of the military makeup of the U.S., China will not lie to the U.S. (well, not a lot, anyway) about what it will do, China will not gut social programs in the U.S. and make sure that Chinese companies have slaves in the U.S. the way that the U.S. and Germany and others tore Yugoslavia apart.
We can all find fault with things that were done, but when it gets down to it, it's easy to blame "marxism" or "five year plans" instead of looking at the whole picture. It's easy to blame the loser. It's easiest to blame the weakest of the parties involved.
That's all. Please continue. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 19:32:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Because of the military makeup of the U.S., China will not lie to the U.S. (well, not a lot, anyway) about what it will do, China will not gut social programs in the U.S. and make sure that Chinese companies have slaves in the U.S. the way that the U.S. and Germany and others tore Yugoslavia apart.
We can all find fault with things that were done, but when it gets down to it, it's easy to blame "marxism" or "five year plans" instead of looking at the whole picture. It's easy to blame the loser. It's easiest to blame the weakest of the parties involved.
That's all. Please continue.
But it's just as easy to only look at the outside forces and ignoring the forces inside. In fact, for those living inside a country (and that is where the criticism is coming from as far as I can see, those living in (especially) Serbia or having close connections to it), that is much easier then looking at the problems that plagued the country. It may well be that I am looking at the economic situation in 1960's Yugoslavia too negatively, as I am someone looking at it from the right side of the economic system (well, the dutch economic right, which is still center to left for America). But you can also take a view of the Yugoslavian economic system which is too positive towards it, and that is what you seem to be doing at present. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 05:01:52 [Permalink]
|
| I don't think I've been necessarily pro anything. Your statements are quite biased to the far right. Tito's rise was cynical, he wasn't really popular, he just pretended to want to help people. It's all communism bad, capitalism good. Everyone knows that five year plans will fail, and government decisions about markets (which never happens in the U.S.) will always fail. The supernatural "invisible hand" won't allow it. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 17:07:29 [Permalink]
|
Political situation up to 1960s
I'm going to take a short detour from the economic situation up to the 1960's to delve into the political situation in this time. It has been a while since I posted last, due a severe lack of time in previous weeks. Before I do this however, I should correct a mistake I made in the previous posts, where I referred to the economic policies as Marxist and stressed its emphasis on industry. This is not correct. What I should have said that it was Stalinist, focused on heavy industry and against consumer industry. This was up to 1952, when Stalinist doctrines were completely abandoned.
Yugoslavia was able to prevent becoming a Soviet satellite state. This was in part Tito's doing. He managed to organize partisan warriors in Yugoslavia so that these could liberate Yugoslavia in 1944 largely without the help of the Soviet Union. The Soviet army mostly just passed through Yugoslavia en route to other nations that still had to be liberated. Reports surfaced from Yugoslavian leaders about raping and looting by the Soviet army after the war. This allowed Tito to gain power and made sure Yugoslavia was not indebted to the Soviet Union. However, this victory did come with a cost. During the war the mainly Croatian Ustase (an fascist party) collaborated with the Germans and Italians and committed an extreme genocide against minority populations in Croatia. Also, Titos communist partisans had fought the Cetnik groups, another resistance group located mainly in Serbia. These conflicts during the war continued to strain relationships between ethnicities for decades after the war.
Yugoslavia became a one-party state. The communist party dissolved the monarchy of Yugoslavia and established Yugoslavia as a federation of six republics under central control with a Soviet-like constitution. Opposition against the communist party was stifled, for example through collaboration charges. Immediately the problem of possible Serbian domination was addressed. Serbia had up to then included Montenegro and Macedonia. These were made separate republics within the federation. Within Serbia itself the province of Vojvodina (with a mixed ethnicity) and the region of Kosovo (primarily Albanian) were made autonomous.
Directly after the Second World War relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union became strained. In 1948 the Soviet Union began claiming that they had facilitated the liberation of Yugoslavia by the partisans, accused the party of perversion of Stalinist doctrine and withdrew Soviet military and civilian advisers. At first the Yugoslavian party tried to reconcile with the Soviet Union. It denied the charges made, but carefully refrained from criticizing Stalin. It supported Soviet foreign policy and implanted further Stalinist economic measures, as already discussed. Industry, means of communication, national resources, power supply, agriculture etc were all nationalized. By 1950, 96% of the agricultural land was under state control. However, the collectivization of agriculture decreased agricultural output and this (together with a draught in 1950 and peasant revolts) threatened the cities with starvation. For this reason, the collectivization was abandoned in 1951.
By 1949 Yugoslavia saw itself completely internationally isolated. Soviet troop movements on the border convinced Yugoslavia that invasion was imminent. This caused Yugoslavia to stray from the Soviet party line. This was quickly picked up by the Western nations, who commenced economic aid. This prevented widespread starvation in the 1950s and covered much of Yugoslavia's trade deficit up to the 1960s. Stalins death in 1953 made a temporary relief possible in the relations with the Soviet Union. The support Yugoslavia gave for the Hungarian revolution in 1956, quelled by the Soviet Union, caused relationships to deteriorate again.
Leaving Stalinist economy behind, farms ownership was returned to the peasants. This increas |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 17:40:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I don't think I've been necessarily pro anything. Your statements are quite biased to the far right. Tito's rise was cynical, he wasn't really popular, he just pretended to want to help people. It's all communism bad, capitalism good. Everyone knows that five year plans will fail, and government decisions about markets (which never happens in the U.S.) will always fail. The supernatural "invisible hand" won't allow it.
Well, given the fall of communism, I think some severe flaw in its dogma has been shown. Communism hasn't done much good for the countries that were affected by them.
And yes, the 5-year plans as used in all communist states I know of were destined to fail. They did some good things, but also some bad things, but on the whole I think they did more bad then good. The reason for this is that 5-year plans as employed by Stalinst doctrine (for example in the DDR, Russia and Yugoslavia) are not dynamic. If a factory overproduced a thing, it could not decide on its own to produce less of it. If it did not produce enough, it could not take steps on its own to increase its production. Perhaps I am strange in that way, but I see serious flaws in that.
Another problem of the Stalinst 5-year plans was its emphasis on heavy industry and neglect of consumer industry. This stifles economic development in the long run, because nobody is making things that people want to buy.
This is also my criticism on the Yugoslavian economic policy. Nowhere have I stated that government interference in the market is a bad thing. What I have said is that the methods employed by the Yugoslavian government to direct the market (at least up to the 1960s) were very rigid, wasteful, inefficient and hence bound to fail.
Up to the 1960s I really do not think the West is to blame for much. I do not think this is a strange position. In many ways Yugoslavia looked East in its policy decisions. The loans given by the West after 1949 were given in self interest (duh), but they were needed, not extremely high and did not, as far as I can see, influence policy decisions by the Yugoslavian government. At least up to 1949 economic policy was driven by trying to appease Stalin. After this Yugoslavia was allowed to go its own way, there were no requirements on the loans given (requirements were not set by countries or banks on loans to developing countries until after the 1980s). With better policy, I am convinced that the economic downfall of Yugoslavia would never have been as hard. Again I stress that with this I am not saying that Yugoslavia should not have invested in its own economy or wellfare state (the Netherlands has always invested heavily in its wellfare state and economy and seems to do quite alright, thank you very much). I even think that But the way investments were made were inefficient, focused on the wrong issues the decision making process behind the economic decisions could not help but lead to overspending.
Heck, I even think that the idea of worker-led industries as instituted from 1958 onwards in Yugoslavia might have a chance of working, albeit that I don't think the chance is high and I think Yugoslavia gives quite some insight in why the idea has a small chance of working. I will elaborate on that in a later post.
I really would ask you to lay-off the strawmen. I have not said that communism is bad (although I do not think it works, if you want me to elaborate on that I'll be happy to), neither have I said that government decisions about markets are bad. What I did say is that the decisions Yugoslavia made were unwise. If you have specific reasons why you think I am incorrect in that, I would be happy to hear it. If it seems like I am letting the Western countries off the hook until now, it's because they just haven't done much yet. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 03:24:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, given the fall of communism, I think some severe flaw in its dogma has been shown. Communism hasn't done much good for the countries that were affected by them.
quote:
I really would ask you to lay-off the strawmen. I have not said that communism is bad (although I do not think it works, if you want me to elaborate on that I'll be happy to), neither have I said that government decisions about markets are bad.
In other words, "Communism bad." Because it was overthrown, it was bad. What is the fallacy here? Someone help me? Couldn't be due to something else, could it? I'm not saying communism good. I'm not saying that Tito made all the right moves. I'm saying that so far, you're using the standard history of the victors without any attempt at investigating. If what you've said so far is irrelevant to your point, that's fine, continue. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 07:48:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Well, given the fall of communism, I think some severe flaw in its dogma has been shown. Communism hasn't done much good for the countries that were affected by them.
quote:
I really would ask you to lay-off the strawmen. I have not said that communism is bad (although I do not think it works, if you want me to elaborate on that I'll be happy to), neither have I said that government decisions about markets are bad.
In other words, "Communism bad."
No, in other words it probably does not work. Does not work and bad are different things. And if you had been paying attention, nowhere have I criticized the Yugoslavian policy for being communist. I've criticized it for lacking some of the key elements that would make an economic policy successful. Inefficient spending, decision making processes that lead to overspending, policies that are not flexible and thus not able to react quickly to markets etc are in principle not communist flaws of policy-making, they are just bad policy in any country that has them, be they communist or not. France and Germany at this point are heading in that same direction, especially on the overspending part. I am equally critical of their policy decisions at this point. They've just got a more solid foundation then Yugoslavia has ever had. I've also criticized the emphasis of the Yugoslavian policies on heavy industry. But this is not a specific communist policy (else China would not be seen as a communist country), although it was a big part of the Leninist/Stalinist version of it.
quote:
Because it was overthrown, it was bad.
Okay, let me rephrase that. I think it might work, but not in the way it was implemented in the communist economies up to now. But I do think it has some severe flaws that may be fatal to letting it work. It has an idealized image of humans, where humans do not work for personal gain but the good of society. Humans are willing to work for the good of society, granted. But not as much as communism wants them to be, and definitely not in the way it was implemented in the countries that had it implemented up to now. Still, I would see ways to make communism work, if it is able to stimulate personal innovativity and satisfaction. The communist economies of the 50s to the 80s did not do that.
quote:
What is the fallacy here? Someone help me? Couldn't be due to something else, could it? I'm not saying communism good. I'm not saying that Tito made all the right moves. I'm saying that so far, you're using the standard history of the victors without any attempt at investigating. If what you've said so far is irrelevant to your point, that's fine, continue.
Then tell me what I am missing Gorgo. Tell me where I'm going wrong. Just complaining that I am telling the 'victor's version' doesn't do anything. You apparantly agree with me that the economic policy of Tito's government was crappy, otherwise you'd have some comments on that. So what is it that I'm missing? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/23/2007 08:12:49 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 08:20:35 [Permalink]
|
| Again, there are no outside forces involved her at all. You're just repeating what "everyone knows." War Good. Capitalism Good. Communism Bad. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 08:47:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Again, there are no outside forces involved her at all. You're just repeating what "everyone knows." War Good. Capitalism Good. Communism Bad.
Up to the 1960s outside forces did not play an important part, no. At least not as far as setting the stage goes for what happened in the 1990s. Both the West and the East tried to gain hold in Yugoslavia, both failed. Both loaned money to Yugoslavia and that's it. It's not like what I'm saying here is controversial, Gorgo. None of your criticasters that I have read articles of on the internet have much to say on this period either.
So again, if I have missed something important, spill it out. As commentary, what you are saying above is worthless in the extreme. Come up with something specific that I have missed. Something specific that I should elaborate on. Apparantly I'm missing something according to you, but if you don't tell me what it is in other then generalizations, I can't figure out what it is. How would a different stance affect what I've written until now? It doesn't seem to affect what guys like Michael Parenti have written on the period up to the '60s, so why should my version be different. As far as I can see, everyone agrees on it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Yugoslavian war
