Mohács: Learning to Live Together

 

 

The last country we visited on our journey through the Balkans was Hungary.

Sadly, due to mobility issues we had to pass on the intriguing Guided Tour of Pécs to see its 4th-century Christian underground tombs. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, with fascinating murals and what we were told by those who attended was an outstanding organ concert. Old people must learn they can’t do it all, and we are trying to recognize that. We humbly took a less adventurous excursion.

Our tour director said it would not be wise for Christiane to take this excursion and I decided to stay with her. Mohács is a city on the Danube River that is famous for its battle in 1526 when it was fought over by the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (Turks) in a battle very near to here. The Turkish invaders were led by Suleiman the Magnificent who this day at least was pretty magnificent in that he managed to overcome the Europeans by means of better planning, fire-power and a very well-organized encirclement that overwhelmed the Hungarians. The Turks stayed for 150 years after that.

The Turkish forces been duped the local Hungarian nobility to engage the Turks prematurely. As a result, most of the nobles were killed, the royal army destroyed, and the dynasty at that time of Hungary and Bohemia was ruined. After that battle, Hungary was partitioned between the Turks, the Hapsburg Empire, and the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.

After that battle, for centuries, Ottoman-Habsburg wars ensued and the  eventual decline of Hungary as an independent power followed.  In Hungary, it is still considered a major tragedy. In this part of the world, tragedies are not swiftly forgotten. They are remembered and later used to kindle new flames of outrage. Mohács is viewed by many Hungarians as the decisive point at which things went wrong and many want to make Hungary Great Again. Hungarians often say, “More was lost at Mohács.” Many Hungarians, hundreds of  years later are still stung by the humiliating defeat. They see this event as the point at which it lost its independence and power.

 

Really, Hungary lost because of happened next, namely, 200 years of constant warfare between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires that turned Hungary into a perpetual battlefield and during which its traditional territories were divided into 3. The country was frequently ravaged by armies moving back and forth across it and devastating the population.  What should have happened—but did not—was that the empires should have learned to live together in peace. The constant battles proved futile and costly. Had both sides concentrated on living together and building up their countries both Turkey and Hungary would have been much better off. Once again, extremists who preferred battles to peace led the people astray. I keep coming back to the idea of pluralism—people getting along with each other instead of fighting. It may not be as grand, but it sure is a lot better.

 

Mohács is a quiet town on the Danube River and there we toured the remarkable medieval St. Nicholas Watermill—one of only a few remaining watermills performing stone-ground grain processing.

 

It had been recently restored as it suffered serious damage during the Croatian War. Interestingly, on the grounds there was a large image of what it looked like in 2007 more than 10 years after the war.

Our guide Zsuzi, tried very hard all day to make the day interesting for us. She cleverly loves Mohács and tried to make us understand why. The mill is one of of the very few remaining watermills performing stone-ground grain processing.

There are actually 4 active mills here and I was particularly interested by the one mill there which was not driven by stream power, but instead human power. Originally, the humans who did the work of driving the huge mill, were slaves. Apparently, this is now unique in the world. The slaves  had to tread on the mill’s wheel for many hours every day. I guess that is where the word “tread mill” comes from—The wooden wheel is large and heavy. It would have been extremely hard work, but who ever said slave’s work was interesting?

 

Yugoslavia: No Stranger to Extremism

 

Those who are still with me on this journey will be happy to know we are nearing the end. Only one country left to go and I have been talking too long about Yugoslavia. I am almost done. I have taken so long because I think Yugoslavia and the countries that emerged when it broke up are so important.  And all of the problems, I believe, relate to one very important issue. That is an issue that is get increasingly important in the modern world, including, of course, Canada and the United States. That is the rise in extremism.

 

By now it is obvious that extremism was rampant in Yugoslavia when it splintered in the early 1990s.  As a result, I think Yugoslavia is a country to which more of us in the west should pay attention.  Why is that? Because it can be a lesson to us all. Perhaps, we can learn enough to avoid their painful mistakes. The key lesson is, that it is incredibly dangerous to turn our country over to the extremists in our midst.

 

In Yugoslavia, people of various ethnicities lived together in relative peace for many decades. And peace is like health, if you take it for granted you are not appreciating it properly. It is too easy to forget how vital peace is to the good life. Canadians and Americans both take them for granted, at our peril.

 

In Yugoslavia after their charismatic leader, Tito, died, literally all hell broke loose. The dogs of war were running free and wild after he died. As soon as Tito died, the country became polarized all over again.  People moved to the extremes. The centre was hollowed out. People began to see other people who had different political or religious viewpoints from them, as enemies, rather than opponents. And this happened quite suddenly. From neighbours to enemies in 60 seconds. People could no longer live together with their foes. Some wanted to live separate and apart. Friendship turned to hatred. And the hate curdled and turned to violence.

 

In Canada, I shuddered when I first saw the Truckers’ Convoy that got international coverage carrying signs on their trucks that said, “F**ck Trudeau.”  I saw the same signs in Ottawa, and Steinbach. Trudeau was very popular, until he wasn’t and with amazing speed he  was hated when many Canadians considered him their enemy. It seemed like there was no room in the country for calm reasoning, or a middle ground. The extremist voices were the loudest. Some Albertans wanted to separate from Canada. Some still do. If these voices win the day, what makes us think that the violence that happened in Yugoslavia won’t happen here too. Albertans think they can no longer live with people in Quebec. Many in Quebec have felt that way for decades. What went wrong? Why do so many of us turn towards the loudest voices? Why are so many of us so quiet? Why do so many of us hate the other side? Even our leaders seem to turn to the extremes. Our Member of Parliament in Steinbach offered coffee and treats for the Truckers’ Convoy when it passed nearby. He found time for them, but never found time for the Pride Parade. He clearly admired the extremists. The LGBTQ* community not so much. This was during the time of Covid-19 when we were all on edge. Many hated Covid restrictions. Many of the truckers thought that freedom meant they could do whatever they wanted. They wanted a country without rules or regulations.

 

We in Canada, and even more in the US, are deeply polarized. Yugoslavia can show us what can happen in such circumstances. It is not pretty.

 

Eric Hobsbawn, another brilliant British historian, wrote about extremists in his series of history books on Europe. He pointed out how

 

“in the period from 1880 to 1914 nationalism took a dramatic leap forward, and its ideological and political content was transformed.  It’s very vocabulary indicates the significance of these years. For the word ‘nationalism’ itself first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century to describe groups of right-wing ideologists in France and Italy, keen to brandish the national flag against foreigners, liberals, and socialists, and in favor of aggressive expansions of their own state which was to become so characteristic of such movements. This was also the period when the song ‘Deutschland Über Alles’ (“Germany above all others) replaced rival compositions to become the actual national anthem of Germany. [Sort of like America First] Though it originally described only a right-wing version of the phenomenon, the word ‘nationalism’ proved to be more convenient than the clumsy ‘principle of nationality’ which had been part of the vocabulary of European politics since about 1830. And so it came to be used for all movements to which the ‘national cause’ was paramount in politics: that is to say for all demanding the right to self-determination, i.e. in the last analysis to form an independent state, for some nationally defined group.”

 

Love of country can be a beautiful thing. Who after all does not love her country? But when it turns to hating the other country, the rival,  it can turn powerfully ugly. This is what all nationalists must guard against, whether they are Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump.  As Hobsbawn wrote,

 

“The basis of ‘nationalism’ of all kinds was the same: the readiness of people to identify themselves as emotionally with ‘their’ nation and to be politically mobilized as Czechs, Germans, Italians, or whatever, a readiness which could be politically exploited. The democratization of politics, and especially elections, provided ample opportunities for mobilizing them. When states did so they called it ‘patriotism’, and the essence of the original ‘right-wing’ nationalism, which emerged in already established nation-states, was to claim a monopoly of patriotism for the extreme political right, and thereby brand everyone else as some sort of traitor. This was a new phenomenon, for during most of the nineteenth century nationalism had been rather identified with liberal and radical movements and with traditions of the French Revolution.”

And extremism and nationalism go together like rum and coke, but they don’t taste as sweet.

Throughout the Balkans, after World War II this became a big problem. Whether in Romania, Bulgaria, Bulgaria, Serbia, or Croatia, this became a big problem. It is becoming a big problem in the United States today.  Canada seems to be following its big brother into troubled waters. Hitler exploited it. Now Trump is exploiting it. Poilievre would like to exploit it. That’s how the world turns.  But we must be careful.  Look at Yugoslavia to see what could easily happen.

 

Has the newest American Civil War started?

 

 

Ignatieff pointed out when he first published Blood and Belonging in 1993 that federal states were all having trouble remaining unified.  He mentioned of course, Yugoslavia which was in the act of breaking up violently.  It actually had 5 Civil Wars in quick succession. All of them violent. But he also mentioned Canada which was facing strong chances of breaking up with the rise of Quebec nationalism. He also mentioned that most other federal states, such as India, Belgium and the former USSR were also facing challenges to thier  federal system.

 

Of course, since then things have got worse. Canada is now facing a threat to its union by Alberta in addition to Quebec. More importantly, the United States which is also a federal state but was not on his list of trouble federal states is now clearly in that camp as many of its so-called red states and blue-states seem to find living together increasingly difficult. Federalism is a political system designed to permit people to live together even though they have some pretty big differences without breaking up.  Such a system did not allow Yugoslavia to stay together. I would add another factor that is challenging federal states, and this is the rise of polarization. Polarization is clearly affecting federal states by driving its elements apart.

 

One of the regular political commentators I read, even though I often disagree with him, is Thomas Friedman, who has won 3 Pulitzer prizes.  That is pretty outstanding for a journalist. I read an article by him this week in the New York Times  in which he said this about his country, “in my view, we are in a new civil war over a place called home.” He thinks the United States is already in the midst of Civil War!   Last year I watched a film called Civil War, about an imagined Civil War in the United States. It was horrifying. Is that what the US is facing?  Even if it is not that kind of a break-up we have to ask, ‘What is happening to the United States?’

It’s horrifying about sums it up.

Nationalism and Pluralism

 

I think we all know what nationalism is. It has been with us much longer than pluralism. Unfortunately, nationalism is also much more common than pluralism.

 

Nationalism is usually considered an ideology which emphasizes loyalty to a particular nation. It can be a force for good. Often it is a force for bad. It often promotes devotion to one’s own country above all.  The lates strong iteration of it, is the MAGA movement in the US. Make America great again. Or for those who already think it is a great, make it greater.  America First would be a more important principle for American nationalists. When it leads to feelings of superiority it has usually gone too far. A strong love of one’s own country is a natural feeling and unobjectionable.  But feelings of superiority are often unjustified and not very productive.

 

Pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a society, where different groups, interests, and beliefs coexist and interact peacefully. It sees strength in diversity which all can benefit from. It not only tolerates diverse views, and even peoples, it celebrates in diversity. Respect of other cultures is essential to the philosophy of pluralism.  Feelings of superiority are an anathema. Nationalism can be a fierce opponent of pluralism. In such a case, in my view, nationalism has gone too far. Pluralism is incompatible with extremism. You can one but not both. Pluralism is born out humility.

 

The struggle between nationalism and pluralism is often fraught. For example, recent examples close to home, are the relationship between Quebec and its separatists, who want to form the independent, or sovereign nation, as they like to call it, of Quebec. In Canada, Alberta is the latest example of where feelings are tending towards separation. How far those feelings will lead that province are not known.

 

In Yugoslavia feelings of pluralism were swamped by nationalism, except in those states where a yearning for separation by smaller groups  prevailed. After their leader Tito died, many Croats wanted to have Croatia secede from Yugoslavia. At the same time, Serbians within Croatia did not want to secede because they felt they would become a minority in the new country, when they had been a majority in power in Yugoslavia. As well, some Slovenians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia, and that was opposed by the Croats within as well as Serbians.

 

The struggle for separate national states often leads to serious political problems. It can, and has, frequently led to serious conflict. Around the world people have come to favor nationalism at the expense of pluralism. That is usually a serious mistake. In the former Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, clearly nationalism had the floor. Pluralism seemed dead. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wanted to be sovereign states even if violence was the only way to achieve it.

 

There was no credible force for pluralism.  I often quote William Butler Yeats who described this phenomena well: The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Serbia claimed to be the leader for unity of the states, but all the others lacked confidence that its claims were not based solely on its interest in dominating the other states. No one argued for all for one and one for all that is the precondition pluralism requires.

Pluralism was dead; war of all against all commenced. And the people suffered.

Why is Yugoslavia’s History so Important?

 

This is a very unclear photograph I took  of a photograph through a dirty window which  I saw in Vukovar. It shows what Vukovar looked like after its war that lasted less than 4 months. Perhaps it is best that we can’t see it clearly?  What would Canada look like after a Civil War? Or the United States? Do you think that is impossible? History suggests otherwise.

A friend of mine told me recently, he found history boring. He did not want to learn anything about European countries fighting each other in “ancient” wars. I was surprised, but I suspect that is a common reaction. I did not challenge his point of view.  After all, we are all different. I suspect that most of my readers are bored by my comments about history. I hope not, but as I have said at the outset of this blog, I am writing for myself, because I enjoy it and because I write to organize my thoughts and as a result, I learn more. I hope some others enjoy what I write, but I write for myself.

 

Well, I think Yugoslavian history is very important. Even though that country no longer exists. When Yugoslavia broke up the extremists took over. That is the worst thing that can happen. Extremism in Yugoslavia led directly to savagery and barbarism. That is where extremism often leads.

 

As a  recovering lawyer, I know one thing is very important. That is that divorce is never simple. Who gets the kids? Who gets the new computer? How much should one of the couple pay the other for support? Does it matter if one is at fault? Does it matter if one earned much more money than the other during the marriage?

 

And rarely, have the couple planned it out carefully before the divorce. After all they were in love forever.

 

We must multiply the difficulties in the case of a country breaking up.  That is even much more complicated. First, there are no clear rules. That means it is a minefield. It can quickly turn into a melee. Secondly, there are a lot more than 2 people and kids involved. Millions have their millions of opinions. So you get a great variety of opinions on both sides (or really, all sides) on every issue. Some of the questions are still the same. Who gets the good stuff? Like oil. Or nuclear reactors? Or the army? Who gets the debt?  How are the new boundaries to be determined? What about the people left behind in the “wrong country.”  How do we resolve these issues when there is no court to determine it.

 

We also have to remember that the loudest voices are often not most thoughtful voices? Extremists always seem to move to the podium in each country from where they speak the loudest. Level heads rarely count for much. The quiet ones seem out of the picture. The hot heads are screaming and we know where they stand.

 

Canada has a lot in common with Yugoslavia. And that’s the problem. Let’s consider a few issues. Consider Quebec. If it separates what happens to the national debt of Quebec or Canada? What if the Cree or Innu from northern Quebec want to stay in Canada? What if other first nations want to stay in Quebec? What are the new boundaries going to be? Some are pretty arbitrary. What if Labrador wants to be part of Quebec, rather than Newfoundland. What if St. Boniface wants to be part of Quebec?  What about those that don’t want to follow their leaders? Where do the Maritimes go if they are no longer connected to the rest of Canada.

 

Consider Alberta? Who gets the oil wells? What if indigenous people don’t want to stay in Alberta? What about the massive subsides that have been poured into the oil and gas industry over the decades? What if Alberta is landlocked? Is it too bad so sad for Canada? What about guarantees of religious freedom? What if LGBTQ don’t want to be part of Alberta? What if some people, from Saskatchewan want to be part of the new country of Alberta?  What if others, let’s say farmers, don’t want to join? What if Manitoba says, well then we will join the US as their 51st state (assuming the US would be stupid enough to agree to this)?

 

What if some first nations want to stay with Alberta and others want to stay with Canada? What if some want to join the US? What happens to the treaties between Canada and First Nations?

 

We have to remember what Ignatieff said:  “One essential problem with the language of self-determination and nationhood is its contagious. Quebec has discovered a people who also call themselves a nation.” The Cree in that province have been fighting back.

 

Separation will be incredibly complicated. And tempers will be running wild. Remember, hot heads will rise to the top. Cooler heads will likely not prevail. On both sides. Things can get out of hand quickly. Witness what happened in Yugoslavia. Neighbours there who had got along well for many years, all of sudden took up arms against each other?

What can we learn from Yugoslavia?  One thing, is that such questions are extremely divisive, and partisans can quickly appear who want to fight it out and will insist on belligerence from their leaders, not wisdom. History is important, and it must warn us and we must learn to be careful. Another lesson is that we must not turn our country over to the extremists. Finally, we learn from history that violence and anger don’t solve any problems. They just make things worse and they are unlikely to be in short supply.

We must learn humility. Hubris will be deadly.

And finally, such issues won’t be easier to resolve in this age of technological amplification of divisions and the rapid spread of disinformation, particularly disinformation that inflames matters. Things will be exponentially worse.

And if this happens too in the USA, which is flooded with firearms and other weapons and a history of violence that seems to be baked into their DNA, things are bound to be much worse than in Canada. As if all of that is not bad enough, the recent history of Americans choosing explosively ignorant leaders will also not be helpful. Times of tension require cool heads not hot heads. And they will be in short supply.

Learning history of places like Yugoslavia could help us to avoid the worst excesses of what happened there when that country broke up. Maybe it could even help us to avoid the break-up by reminding us of how precious our country is and we should not become complacent. It does not take much to slip into extremism. A little knowledge might help to avoid it.

All in all, things could get ugly. Quickly. The photograph above is what it means to look through a glass darkly.  That is also what the sleep of reason brings.

Who was to blame for the tragedy of Yugoslavia?

 

It is not hard to find people in the Balkans worthy of blame for the mess of the Yugoslav wars. It is much more difficult to find the blameless. As Tony Judt said, “There was certainly enough responsibility to go around.” The UN at first showed little concern about what was happening in Yugoslavia.

 

The UN Secretary-General at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali dismissed Bosnia as “a rich man’s war.”  When the UN finally arrived, it spent most of its time blocking the victims from defending themselves while the brutal aggressors were given a free hand to practice their lethal butchery. France not only was very reluctant to get involved, but also reluctant to even blame Serbia. Frequently it chose to blame the victims instead. It also took the Americans an awful long time to get engaged, but when they did it led the way against Milošević and his thugs. Their initiatives finally drove the allies towards intervention. Yet the US also dragged its feet while innocents were being slaughtered, because after Somalia in particular it was loath to take any risks at all, even though it had the most powerful armed forces in the world, because it felt, as James Baker the former Secretary of State had crudely said, “we’ve got no dog in this fight.”

 

The whole problem of humanitarian intervention in domestic wars or aggressions is truly, as another American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher had said, is “a problem from hell.”  Samantha Power wrote a brilliant book with that title. And in hell there are no easy solutions.  That does not mean we are justified on that basis alone from not doing what we can do to save innocent lives. It just means that the job will be enormously difficult and we must be ready for the task, or stay home and permit the exploitation of innocents. We must proceed with humility, but that is no excuse for inaction. After all the case for humanitarian intervention is always at best, an uneasy one. We must have a great deal of confidence to send our young soldiers into harm’s way in order to set the world right. It takes inordinate hubris, outright foolishness, or, perhaps, profound compassion.

 

The Yugoslavs themselves are also not without blame. As Tony Judt said, “no one emerges with honour.”  The Serbs held primary responsibility for the disaster, but the Croats and Slovenes were by no means lily white. Bosnian Muslims had minimal opportunities to commit atrocities so they at least committed few war crimes. They might have if they had claws. It is not clear what they would have done had they enjoyed more opportunities to wreak havoc too. They were largely on the receiving end.  And as Paul Thorne the American singer/song said so wisely, “I’d rather be a hammer than a nail.”

 

The losses of lives and homes were staggering.  The losses of civilization were appalling. For example, Sarajevo, one of the most beautiful, most cosmopolitan, and most civilized cities in Europe was left in ruins.  As Judt said, “it can be rebuilt but it can never recover.” The same happened to Vukovar and others.

The Croats were responsible for innumerable acts of violence against civilians.  This was directed by their political leaders in Zagreb. For example, in Mostar, a city that I visited that first time I was in this region,  a town in western Bosnia with an unusually high percentage of interfaith marriages, Croat extremists deliberately set about expelling Muslims and mixed families from the western half of the city and replaced them with Croat peasants. They paid back the ethnic cleansers by engaging in it as well. Then they set siege to the eastern districts of Mostar and in 1993 systematically destroyed the sixteenth century Ottoman bridge across the Neretva river even though it had been a symbol of the town’s integrated and ecumenical past.  It would have been like the fascists destroying the Ponte Vecchio in Florence.

In fact, as Judt said,

“The Croats then, had little to boast of—and of all the post-Communist leaders who emerged from the rubble, Franjo Tudjman was one of the more egregiously unattractive.  More than anyone else he made it a personal project to erase the Yugoslav past from his fellow citizen’s memory:  by March 1993 the very word ‘Yugoslavia’ had been removed from textbooks, readers, encyclopedias, book titles and maps published in the new Croatia.”

 

Needless to say, this did not help bring unity or pluralism. Only after he died did Croatia attain semblances of the old civilization. However, as Judt concluded,

“But in the end the primary responsibility for the Yugoslav catastrophe must rest with the Serbs and their elected leader Slobodan Milošević.  It was Milošević whose bid for power drove the other republics to leave.  It was Milošević who then encouraged his fellow Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia to carve out territorial enclaves and who backed them with his army.  And it was Milošević who authorized and directed the sustained assault on Yugoslavia’s Albanian population that led to the war in Kosovo.

Belgrade’s actions were a disaster for Serbs everywhere.  They lost their land in the Krajina region of Croatia; they were forced to accept an independent Bosnia and abandon plans to carve out from it a sovereign Serb state; they were defeated in Kosovo, from which most of the Serb population has since fled in justified fear of Albanian retribution; and in the rump state of Yugoslavia (from which even Montenegro has sought to secede) their standard of living has fallen to historic lows. This course of events has further exacerbated a longstanding Serb propensity for collective self-pity at the injustice of history and it is true that in the long run the Serbs may be the greatest losers in the Yugoslav wars.  It says something about the condition of their country that today even Bulgaria and Romania rank above Serbia in present living standards and future prospects.

But this irony should not blind us to Serb responsibility.  The appalling ferocity and sadism of the Croat and Bosnian wars—the serial abuse, degradation, torture and rape and murder of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens—was the work of Serb men, most young, aroused to paroxysm of casual hatred and indifference to suffering by propaganda and leadership from local chieftains whose ultimate direction and power came from Belgrade.  What followed was no so unusual: it had happened in Europe just a few decades before, when—all across the continent and under the warrant of war—ordinary people committed quite extraordinary crimes.

There is no doubt that in Bosnia especially there was a history upon which Serb propaganda could call—a history of past suffering that lay buried just beneath the misleadingly placid surface of post-war Yugoslav life.  But the decision to arouse that memory, to manipulate and exploit it for political ends, was made by men: one man in particular.  As Slobodan Milošević disingenuously conceded to a journalist during the Dayton talks, he never expected the wars in his country to last so long.  That is doubtless true.  But those wars did not just break out form spontaneous ethnic combustion.  Yugoslavia did not fall: it was pushed.  It did not die: it was killed.”

 

 

And primarily blame fell at the initiative of the Serbs led by Slobodan Milošević who took advantage of deeply burning resentments. Resentment is rarely a good motive for anything, as Friedrich Nietzsche showed us.

I would merely add, that it was the people of Serbia who voluntarily turned their country over to extremists who were also at fault as well. When extremists take over, it is not just their fault. The people should not let that happen, at least if they have a choice. Just as the people don’t get off in Gaza, or Israel, or the United States, or Canada.

The history of the Balkans is not over.    Yet it appears, that Serbia has at least temporarily lost its teeth.  We will have to watch with interest what happens.  Hopefully it will be peaceful.  History however, would suggest otherwise. History would suggest that violence will return and domination from some power, perhaps foreign will prevail.

Hopefully history will not repeat itself. Again. But sadly, those old resentments can always flair up again, as Ukraine and so many other countries have discovered.

Krajina: A Village War

I was sitting on the top of our river boat, in great comfort, probably with a drink in hand, when I saw this on the Danube River and it made me think of Krajina and the battle for Vukovar. I was very lucky.  Others were not.

Michael Ignatieff described a battle he witnessed near Krajina, where he said, “Everywhere in Krajina, the democracy of violence rules.” The Serbs who lived there wanted Vukovar to be part of their country. The Croats resists.

 

The war was everywhere and everyone was involved. This was an inclusive war. DEI not necessary. It was a village war, where people who lived together fought a brutal war against their former neighbours with whom they not so long ago shared drinks. Now they shared blows, bullets, and brutality instead. The front line sometimes ran right through two backyard gardens.  As he said, “This is a war where enemies went to school together, worked in the same haulage company, and now talk on the CB every night laughing, taunting, telling jokes. Then they hang up and try to line each other up in their gunsights.”

 

 

The battle for Vukovar was battle for Yugoslavia. It was battle of an idea.  What would happen after fall of Tito?  Serbians were the largest group. Could they rule the country? Somehow, pluralist options like living together were not available. Why?

 

Yugoslavia was a complex society.  A complex of several states or societies.  What was at issue in Yugoslavia was the fairness of the deal that everyone got within the federation.  Unfair states will not hold. After 1945 Yugoslavia would probably not have been re-constituted were it not for the Communist Party.  They were the only ones who developed significance during war and seized power after the war.

 

Later, the greatest discovery of Milošević was that Tito had died. It opened the door for a top predator like him.  By 1991 a large Serbian army gathered at Vukovar and serious shelling began.  Many people fled Vukovar.  Patriots stayed behind to defend the city in a hopeless cause.

 

 

The war for Vukovar has been called “a holocaust of betrayal”.  People turned against neighbours. War fronts divided neighbourhoods.  A new word entered the English language “Srebrenica.”  And a new expression, “ethnic cleansing.”

 

After the war it was very hard to live in town.  Someone pointed out, “Every day one meets people who were butchers.” I remember listening to a CBC radio program about how the women faced men who had raped them and there were no consequences for those men.  The men continued to be respected. The women not so much. Of course, the consequences for the women were permanent. How can people live there?  They forget, that’s how.  Or at least they try. As best they can.

 

 

After the war, Serbia declared the city of Vukovar  part of the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina and in fact its eastern headquarters. This until then was part of the newly formed country of Croatia, which it defied, and where many Serbians in Croatia lived. The Republic was an unrecognized geopolitical entity but rather a self-proclaimed state that created many problems for Croatia. It was active during the Croatian War of Independence fought between Croatia and Serbia, from 1991 to 1995 when Serbs tried to get their independence from the Croats as the Croats had tried to get their independence from Serbia. A Serbian state in Croatia was never recognized internationally and eventually was part of Croatia, but only after many soldiers died in fruitless war. In the end, after all the incredible destruction and desolation, this little piece of land was given back to Croatia. There was only one question left: what was it all about?

 

After the war for Vukovar was over, and Serbia had “won,” again, if it can be called that, the Serbians placed a banner over one of the streets in the crushed city. Almost every building was ruined. Ignatieff described the scene this way,

 

In the town square, a banner had been stretched over the road from one pulverized house to another. It reads: “Welcome to Vukovar, Year One.”  But eighteen months after entering the town, the Serbs have done nothing to rebuild it. It should be left as it is. UNESCO could fence it off and declare it a European heritage site. What could be more European, after all, than our tradition of senseless nationalist warfare?

 

Is this different than the current war between Ukraine and Russia. We think Russia is clearly the aggressor.

 

In the evening back on the boat, we had a great happy hour with old friends and new friends. We forgot about war. We could do that. Ukrainians find that difficult now. They are not so lucky. Neither were the people of Vukovar.

 

Vukovar: Hell is Empty; The devils are all Here

 

When I went on our guided walk through a part of Vukovar, I realized I was wearing a Belgrade, Serbia, baseball cap, which my sister-in-law bought me as a souvenir.   I asked our guide, Marda if that bothered her. I had been thoughtless to wear it. Marda said it was not a problem. It happened before my time. She was really too young. It was 30 years ago. To me a short time ago. To her a lifetime ago.  I was happy that she held no resentments against the Serbs.  If there is anything the wars of Serbia teach us it is, as Nietzsche pointed out, resentment is a sterile feeling that helps no one.

 

Places like Vukovar make clear the language of nationalism.  It turns the world into one of black and white. Us against Them.  The Good against the Bad.  Dostoevsky said that ‘if God is dead then all is permitted.’  Though profound I believe that he did not quite get it right. Rather I would say that if you reduce the other to an object, to an it, then all is permitted. Then it is not just possible, but honorable, to destroy towns in order to free them. Like Vukovar had been completely destroyed. Then it is possible to make rape an instrument of warfare.  Rape as national policy.  Then there is nothing wrong with shooting hostages. Or your neighbours.  Then heroes commit mass murders. It does not matter if young boys are included. All is permitted in the holy cause.  All is permitted when the other side is reduced to things.  They are no longer people.  They are objects of our wrath. It has nothing to do with the death of God.  All is permitted when the world is transformed into a world of Us against Them.

In such a world, as Ignatieff said, in his book Blood and Belonging,

 

“It was in Vukovar that I began to see how nationalism works as a moral vocabulary of self-exoneration. No one is responsible for anything but the other side… The pistol toting hoodlums, holed up in the ruins of the Hotel Dunav, who came out and threatened to kill my translator simply because he was Hungarian; the Krajinan Minster who had no information that was not a lie; the mayor of Vukovar, who went around the Vukovar hospital handing out Serbian flags to men whose legs ended at a bandaged stump—not one of these creatures ever expressed the slightest shame, regret, or puzzlement that the insensate prosecution of their cause had led to the ruination of their own city.  For all of them, the responsibility was solely Croat.

That is what happens in the world of Us v Them.  Bob Dylan put it well when he said, “you don’t count the dead with God on your side.” Or as our guide for the day, Marda said, “We’ve been to hell and back.”

 

When fighting subsided in Croatia a 14,000-person UN force was installed to keep Croats and Serbs apart. Croats had obtained an independent State and Milošević suffered the second of his string of ignominious defeats. Defeats that never gave him pause to consider the wisdom, or lack thereof, of his approach. Brutes like him rarely seem to reflect on their lives. At least I have seen few records of such reflections. That’s too bad. They might be able to offer some insights.

Shakespeare wrote, “Hell is Empty, the devils are all here. After walking through Vukovar I think I think I know what he meant.