What went wrong?

>There was a continues migration of Serbs from the south to the north since the Ottoman conquest, and especially after the great turkish war.
Sorry, those are the migrations I meant, nothing about post WW2 since the vast majority of migrations happened after the Turkish invasions. That's what planted the seeds for conflicts later, I wouldn't say.

The reason for the conflicts between Croats, Bosnians and Serbs may have been disconnected from ethnicity and religion on a political level (although I would say that it was certainly not the case during WW2; the wars in the 90s were a bit different, I agree) but they would not receive the support of the people if there were no tensions present among them.

why do hercegovinians and montenegrins always fill the voids left in the land by genocide?

Because they live in the mountains.
Yes, WW2 was an eruption of violence, but the pressure that resulted in it had political elements. But still such brutality doesn't come from politics alone.
We agree on the 90s.

the mountain is the truly manly way of life tho

Socialism. Socialist governments needs strong centralization to work. Yugoslavia could have only succeeded as a federalized entity at best.

>Yugoslavia failed because of socialism.
>Which is why under socialism Yugoslavia was a country, and before and after they were killing each other.

They were killing each other in WW2.
And yes, the failure of socialism lead to the violent breakup of the country.

Correlation =\= causation

It wouldn't last as a federation. Maybe it would last a little longer as a confederacy but even then, it would collapse sooner or later.

You shouldn't greentext about stuff you don't understand.
Communists planned the violent takeover since the beginning. In Slovenia (the situation was a bit different in the other parts) - while Hitler and Stalin were still allies -, communists started the killing, murdering anyone they saw as the enemy of the revolution; politicians, teachers, priests, wealthy farmers,... They terrorised people and stole, which led many into collaboration as they saw the occupying forces as the only one who could protect them. The resistance movement was taken hostage by the communists who turned the partisans into their own army, using it to take care of the last remnants of opposition as well as turn on their allies in the resistance. They started a civil war that left a mark which is still felt today.

Turks.

They do?

serbs

you really want to make that argument?

serbia is basically a cancer in any decade

Slavic donkey farmers with no real differences each believe they are God's chosen race over the other inferior donkey farmers.

>What went wrong?

Serb megalomania and the desire for a Greater Serbia, which they essentially had prior to and after WWII, as Serbs held most of the important positions in government, military, business, academia, etc.

The argument that socialist rule must've been great because there was no fighting during it is pretty stupid in itself.

>Yugoslav ethnicity but the problem was, the differences are far too big, which is why something like the unification of Italy or Germany was impossible.
I'm sorry but what? Germany is a mixture if Catholics and predominantly Lutheran Protestants, both were involved against each other during the 30 years war. Numerous states fought against each other.
The Croatian Ustashe proved that a union of Catholics and Muslims was feasible, allied with the Bosniaks.

Germans are still far more united as a nation, even if they do have their differences. They were willingly united under the banner of Germany while Pan-Slavism among the South Slavs was popular only among some intellectuals. In the end, Yugoslavia was formed because it was in the interests of Slovenes and Croats to join Serbs for protection. They were three nations in the monarchy - even if the king wanted to create a Yugoslav nation, he couldn't achieve it because on one side the Serbian faction wanted it to be a Greater Serbia and on the other side, everyone else wanted autonomy.
There are far bigger differences between the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (as well as Bosnians, Macedonians and hell, let's also mention Albanians) and those differences prevented Yugoslavia from reaching the same kind of national development as Germany or Italy. Of course, there were many other factors involved in it in addition to what I've written.

Nationalism.

Jews don't like united Slavic lands. Nuff said.

t. normie

yeah where i live any void where turks or albanians have been chased away is now full of montenegrins, mainly in the mountains or some places where agriculture is hard. i think it's because serbs didn't really want the land unsuitable for agriculture but still needed manpower in case of war, so they gave the land to montenegrins who are renown lazy but very warlike

my grandmother's parents are from hercegovina, she was born in a village near here where it's reasonably small hills but there is almost no water there which limits agriculture. her brother told me the king imported his grandfather from hercegovina in 1908 as part of a plan to reinforce and defend the border against turks and bulgarians

But Montenegrins are Serbs. Also, they were given the most fertile land in Vojvodina.

they are one type of serb
and yes many parts of serbia are now infested my montenegrins
another subgroup are southern serbians who speak a dialect different that is a bit different than mainstream serbian, and often looked down upon by montenegrins who call them šopovi (which is a generalization, although there are many šopi in the south not all southerners are, or are mixed)

Are those speakers of the Torlakian dialect?

i've never heard "torlakian" here
every region has its own dialect tho, leskovac, vranje, pirot and so on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torlakian_dialect
Torlakian is the name I've seen mentioned for it everywhere but I can't say I know much about the dialect; I know more about the various dialects in Croatia, to be honest, as they're out neighbours.

I always read about some supposed "serbification" of the yugo armed forces in the late 70's onwards. What was that? Was it real?

well it's what people call it everywhere but here... we call it southern serbian dialects
it's basically a simpler version of serbian grammar with mixed bulgarian and macedonian vocabulary and people look bad at you if you speak it in the rest of serbia

It didn't have based Albanians to bunker up and keep it together

Most of the leadership was Serbian and Montenegrin by the end. Serbo-Croatian was the official language of the army from the beginning, though.
The shift towards the vast majority of officers being Serbs and Montenegrins didn't really matter, though, because the republics established their own autonomous armed forces, like the Territorial defence in Slovenia.

Literally what the fuck, i hate dipshit commies but thats wrong, any kind of Yugoslavia needs a strong centralized states because of the multiple states and ethnicities.

>It didn't have based Albanians to bunker up and keep it together

No instead it had Albanians that broke it apart.

And when you have a centralised organisation, everyone other than Serbs is repressed and that leads to collapse again.

Every model that you can think of leads to the end of the Yugoslav experiment in one way or another.

>Every model that you can think of leads to the end of the Yugoslav experiment in one way or another.

That i agree with. But its not inherently socialisms fault.

Multiculturalism. Literally just multiculturalism.

Exactly. Poland didn't descend into war after the the fall of the curtain. Socialism had hardly anything to do with it.
The reason the nation collapsed is because of diversity.

>this bullshit
Socialism was the catalyst that led to Yugoslavia's collapse because the failing economy led to more and more tensions. Another major factor were centralist tension in Belgrade.

>Socialism was the catalyst that led to Yugoslavia's collapse

No it wasn't, the problem lay with ethnic rivalries (i.e. the Serbs wanting a Greater Serbia)

It does tho, you mong. The type of nationalism you blame that flared in Croatia and Serbia was created, spurred, spun and weaved by factions within the communist party who wanted to keep themselves in power, and the best way to stay relevant in a failing economy is to divert the public eye from said economy.
Even the "ethnic rivalries" you mention are basically about government spending. Slovenes wanted to keep more of their tax money in Slovenia and not give it to the federal government. It was Slovenia that walked out first. Serbs could have had their ethnic land after WW1, but at that point Serbs and Bosniaks were the two ethnicity that had the most to lose from the breakup.
Serbs because they lived in multiple republics, and Muslims, because they don't have any real identity or home outside of Yugoslavia.

Failure of Yugoslavism
No heir to Tito groomed
Rotating presidency giving each nation a chance to beat the others and enrich themselves
Death of WW2 leadership generation

Ethnic conflicts only popped up later. As long as the economy kept working (as long as Yugoslavia got loans), the situation between the ethnicities was alright, but with the horrible inflation and when thebadeconomic management caught up, brotherhood andunity withered away. Slovenia was the first to see this, with Croatia following soon after. There wasa faction of communists who saw a confederacy possible but the more prominent group was that of more economically liberal politicians who saw Yugoslavia as the coffin and who looked towards the EU.
Before the 80s, ethnic conflicts between the South Slavs were not a thing, it was still about brotherhood and unity. It started with Albanians in Kosovo and then there were the infamous Rallies of truth. But all that only came after the socialist economy's shaky legs finally gave weight.

Serbs

Wars with turks