pasha078 wrote:
Pa sta ce drugo reci? Znas li ti da je Yu odmah iza rata bila jedna od najagresivnijih socijalistickih zemalja?
po cemu su bili agresivni , samo su prepoznali hegemonijske polise tadasnjih super sila[/quote]
Ne ulazeci u opravdanost ovih akcija, vec sagledavajuci njihovu agresivnost:
1. Situacija u Trstu, unilateralni zahtjev da se pripoji YU s prijetnjom sile. Dakle ne ulazim u to ko je bio vecina, iako AU popis tvrdi da su bili Italijani.
2. Obaranje dva americka aviona koji prelijecu YU, u jednom svi ginu, u drugom zarobljavaju posadu, iako su nominalno saveznici.
3. Aktivno vojno mjesanje u stranoj zemlji, Grcka
Dakle ovakve stvari nije radio ni USSR tada (1945-1946). Prilicno riskantno i agresivno. Yu je smatrana za najradikalniju socij drzavu. Stoga kazem da je u svjetlu ovog njihov stav malo pristrasan.[/quote]
From that time the U.S. and the Yugoslav governments were in opposition until 1949. Tito continued his anti-U.S. campaign, accusing U.S. Embassy employees of spying and then ordering the closing of the USIS reading room. The United States likewise continued on its anti-Yugoslav course, spurred along by the realization of the fact that the nation to which it contributed 75% of UNRRA aid had, for no apparent reason, shot down two American craft and killed American crewmen. After much arguing, the issue was finally terminated, neither side gaining a clear victory. The incidents were important for what each country had learned. Bipolarity, the Soviet-U.S. dominated framework for international relations, would have to be altered to accommodate third powers. This small incident in the cold war had brought three nations to the brink of hostilities and back to the reality that the uneasy peace, of the post war world had to be maintained regardless of wounded national pride and prestige.
Cudi me da nisu napaliu yu i kako je to posada prezivjela nakon obaranja?
