User Reviews

Though not 100% an objective documentary, it comes pretty darn close.

Despite its socialist leanings (think the very informative, but leftist-socialist biased Global Research) AND the slightly heavier pro-Serb leanings, it is a very good film. This coming from a Croat.

One glaring fault, for example, is the producer's astounding inaccurate statement at around the 50 minute mark where he says the Croatian "Operation Storm" killed between 2,000 and 250,000 Serbs!!! This is insane and completely ridiculous. I listened to it again to confirm. What had happened was the exile of between 100,000 - 250,000 Serbs, with perhaps up to 2,000 dead. Furthermore, I feel the Serb massacres were downplayed, even though they were used by the West to paint the Serbs as the bad guys.

This was just an excuse for NATO intervention and to build it into a global police force (to serve under the United Nations world government).

A much needed documentary examining the events accurately, where what I knew all along, that the "West" (aka New World Order) sought to break up this union and stir up the people, paving the way for three power hungry leaders (and so here Tudjman and Izetbegovic were singled out more than Milosevic who was equally hungry in his drive for a Greater Serbia).

Overall, an excellent expose of what happened, if not the best! Who were the greatest culprits with the most blood on their hands? Washington and beyond that, the globalists. Now we all need to unite and fight these evil bastards!

May be a bit of a spoiler** First of all it is important that I discuss and try to explain the harsher comments that viewed this movie as pure Serbian propaganda. During the entirety of the 1990's Serbia was demonized and its image became a worldwide symbol of evil. The propaganda made against the Serbians was absolutely ridiculous, and as Malagunski explains, necessary to convince the people to support the war. In order to balance out this injustice done onto the Serbian people a movie depicting the complete other side of the story was necessary; in fact, although the movie is supporting Serbians, it is also showing the bad things that the Serbians themselves did, things that, in reality were not nearly as bad as the media would depict. The movie, therefore, shows both sides of the story, although mainly the Serbian side and in doing so reveals the true intentions of NATO.

It is a fact that, had a united Yugoslavia been good for NATO, talk of the break up of Yugoslavia would be out of the question. What the other republics of Yugoslavia wanted was not at all a concern of NATO. Allow me to briefly elaborate. Yugoslavia was a nation that truly walked a fine line between the west and the east. It was allies with both America and Russia. This of course was the doing of Josip Titio, Yugoslavia's leader. After Tito's death, however, it was very likely that Yugoslavia, being a Slavic country, would lean towards Russia's side and therefore tip the balance between the East and the West. Since this was such a threat, the existence of such a country as Yugoslavia was no longer favorable for NATO and the US. Logically, but not rightfully, as any other country in a position of power would do, the US decided it was best to weaken Yugoslavia, and what better way is there to do that than to stir up old ethnic conflicts that had been dormant for so long, through economic and political means?

I don't want to go on and talk about things that this documentary so professionally and fully explains. The main point of my review is to contest the "hater" comments left by people for who the propaganda of the 1990's worked out well. It is a fact that in this entire ordeal Serbia got the worst end of the deal, it is a fact that bad things were done by both side, it is a fact that Serbians were wrongly demonized by the media, and most importantly, it is a fact that what was done unto Serbia by its neighbors and by NATO, far outweighs that which Serbia did to them. This war was not started by the Serbians. This war was not desired by the Serbians. This war was simply a strategic move made by the West to prevent the expansion of Eastern influence, a strategic move that was selfish, greedy, unjust, illegal, and destroyed a generation, and a way of life, and a people. Look at this movie as a window to the story of the other side, the side of the downtrodden, the side of the collateral damage that is the result of people's constant need to gain power. As Jimmy Hendrix said, "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, only then will the world know peace."

This documentary is rather familiar Serb propaganda, and is essentially useless for anyone who actually wants to find out about the wars during the 1990s. However, for those of us who actually know about the wars, this film has its uses; it shows us how Serbian propaganda has evolved over the years. Rather than the outright denial of Serb atrocities in earlier Serb propaganda films, Malagurski realises that the evidence for them is too strong, so instead he resorts to obfuscation and relativization to spread blame around to take as much guilt off Serbia as possible.

The way in which Malagurski portrays the rise of nationalism is highly disingenuous. He portrays it as though all three nationalisms arose at the same time, and were all equally guilty for the breakup. Thus, he talks about Izetbegovic (claiming he was a Nazi collaborator, a serious charge for which he neglects to provide any evidence), before Milosevic. Watching this, you would not know that before Tudjman and Izetbegovic were elected, Milosevic had already illegally and unconstitutionally ended the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina, crushed the Kosovo Albanians, held a series of nationalist rallies to coerce the other Yugoslavs and the Federal authorities, toppled the government of Montenegro, attempted forcibly to recentralise the Federation, imposed an embargo on Slovenia and driven the Slovene and Croatian Communists out of the 14th Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists.

Malagurski repeatedly takes facts and events out of context to suit his agenda. He asserts that Croatia armed itself illegally under Tudjman, yet neglects to mention that this was because the JNA, illegally and without Federal authority disarmed the Croatian TOs in April 1990, before Tudjman even took office, sponsored a Serb rebellion in August 1990 and prevented the democratically elected government from responding. Malagurski also presents Operation Storm in a vacuum. Falsely claiming that it was 'the largest single act of ethnic cleansing' during the wars (the Serb assault of East Bosnia was an ethnic cleansing operation far larger in scale), he would like us to believe that it was simply waged against an innocent body of Serb civilians. He would like us to forget that it was waged against Serb rebel military forces who had ethnically cleansed the territory of all non-Serbs, and who were using that territory to shell Croatian cities and attack the Bihac enclave in Bosnia, threatening the inhabitants with a second Srebrenica. He also attempts to minimize Srebrenica by pointing to the long disproved claims of atrocities committed by Naser Oric involving attacks out of the Srebrenica enclave; yet wholly neglects to mention the incomparably larger scale Serbian offensives and atrocities which preceded his actions, and which led to Srebrenica becoming an enclave in the first place. Oric's attacks only took place anyway due to Serbian bad faith by blocking humanitarian convoys and shelling the enclave with artillery.

It distorts the rebellion of the Krajina Serbs, saying that they merely wanted control of the lands they populated. Malagurski does the same for Bosnia, but anyone who has looked at the ethnic maps of these two countries and the areas which the Serbs attacked, will know that this is a falsehood. If they merely wanted to control lands they populated, why did the JNA and the Serb militias spend so much time attacking and ethnically cleansing Slavonia and Eastern Bosnia, where they formed a small minority? Why did they besiege and destroy Vukovar and Sarajevo (which Malagurski wholly neglects to mention), when they did not form anywhere near a majority in either of these cities?

Malagurksi presents the Serb nationalist sound-byte 'If the Croats can separate from Yugoslavia, why can't the Serbs separate from Croatia?' This is an easy argument to refute; 'the Croats' were not given the right to secede from Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was recognized as being 'in the process of dissolution', and the six constituent republics were recognized as the entities that inherited its sovereignty. Thus, it was the six republics – including Serbia – not 'the Croats', whose right to independence was recognized. Serbia was not treated differently from Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia in this respect, and was entirely free to seek and receive international recognition of its independence, just as they did. In fact, the only group on the territory of the former Yugoslavia whose carving out of a wholly new entity has ever been recognized by the international community is the Bosnian Serbs.

Malagurski tries to present the war in Bosnia as a 'civil war' in which Belgrade had little if any direct involvement. He does not mention the fact that the Uzice Corps, a JNA corps based in Serbia, was centrally involved in the Serb conquest of East Bosnia in 1992. Or the fact that all regular Serb forces in Bosnia were under the exclusive and formal control of Serbia and Montenegro until 19 May 1992; or the fact that Serbia's former representative on the Yugoslav Presidency, Borisav Jovic, admits in his own published diary that the VRS was organized by the leaderships of Serbia and the JNA; or the fact that Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic was handpicked for the role by the leaderships of Serbia and the Yugoslav army; or the fact that Vojislav Seselj admitted that his paramilitary forces were under JNA command during their early operations in East Bosnia in 1992 and that their ethnic cleansing operations were directed from Belgrade, or that the JNA illegally and unconstitutionally confiscated the arms of the Bosnian TOs in April 1990 (months before any nationalist party was elected) and redistributed their arms to Serb paramilitaries; or the fact that an officer from Serbia, Momcilo Perisic, directed the JNA's bombardment of Mostar in April 1992, or the fact that the JNA attacked Tuzla and Sarajevo in May 1992.

Unfortunately, space prevents me from addressing any more of the distortions in this documentary, but this should give a good picture of what the documentary is like.

"The Weight of Chains" is a 2010 historical documentary written and directed by the young Serbian-Canadian, Boris Malagurski. It presents an analysis of breakup of Yugoslavia, with particular attention to the role of the United States, NATO and the EU played in this.

The documentary is well-produced and insightful, and has much to offer to both the people of ex-Yugoslavia and foreigners. However, it is also marred by some flaws, most of which stem from a (moderately) pro-Serb bias.

So let's examine some of the most important ideas presented in the documentary: The documentary opens up with the battle of Kosovo, basically the Serb equivalent of the Alamo. This is also the first time a pro-Serb bias is shown: the only thing you learn about the Ottoman Turks who conquered medieval Serbia is that they apparently liked impaling Christians on stakes just because they were not Muslims. Now, there is a bit of truth to this - impalings did happen, but people were not impaled just for being Christian; and medieval Christian rulers were not exactly known for their tolerance either. Any positive influences of Ottoman on Serb culture are ignored.

The core idea of Yugoslavism is well presented: it was intended as a defense against foreign imperialism, since empires had always kept the South Slavs poor, divided and weak. Many saw Yugoslavia as a pragmatic necessity. And there was indeed a sense of jubilation among most of the South Slavs in 1918, when the first Yugoslavia was formed. However, what the documentary does not mention is that this Yugoslavia was a highly-centralized kingdom, that favoured Serbs at the expense of other peoples. This gave rise to nationalist parties, that were brutally suppressed as the king took on dictatorial powers. This caused a lot of people to become disillusioned with the state.

World war 2 is explained simply and to the point. The documentary correctly depicts the ww2 Croatian regime as clero-fascist, though it does exaggerate the influence of the priests somewhat (the ustashe leaders - and not the priests - were always the final authority). The "fact" that 600,000 people were killed in Jasenovac concentration camp is no longer accepted by the vast majority of scholars, and is now usually used only in Serb nationalist propaganda (the 600,000 camp/massacre victims is for the whole area of Axis-controlled Yugoslavia, not just that one camp). The ethnic cleansing conducted by the Chetniks (Serb monarchist guerrillas) is not mentioned at all - and neither is the fact that they actively collaborated with the Axis forces from late 1942 onwards.

The fact that Yugoslavia had a unique, market socialism system is rightly pointed out, though it is seen through somewhat rose-tinted glasses. For example, there is no mention of the political repression and one-party system (though in all fairness, it was not nearly as bad as in the USSR).

The documentary shows the role Yugoslavia played in the cold war, one of walking a thin line between two superpowers. Tito's amazing achievement - that he built the non-aligned movement as a "third option" (despite its numerous flaws) is given proper mention. Tito's funeral was indeed one of the largest in history - and a shining testament to the prestige of the leader of a small, second-world country.

The best part of the documentary is doubtlessly how it points out the hypocritical stance of the West towards Yugoslavia after Tito's death. The description of neocolonialism is very insightful - and worrying. The documentary vividly illustrates how the causes of most wars - and the Yugoslav wars are no exception - are usually economic in nature. Ethnic and religious bigotry is fueled primarily by ruthless, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen for their own ends. This happened in Yugoslavia in a similar way it happened in 1930's Germany: economic pressure made the people desperate, and they turned to nationalism, religious bigotry and blaming scapegoats for their troubles.

Not many people know there were many peace demonstrations before the wars started - how often do you see that mentioned in mainstream media? Ultimately, the wars had little to do with "ancient hatreds" and a whole lot to do with corrupt social elites (both domestic and foreign). Wars, as usual, benefit those on the top of the social ladder while hurting those on the bottom. However, the documentary again isn't wholly honest about the Serbs, as it downplays (though it doesn't ignore) the ethnic cleansing conducted by Serb troops (which is, of course, not to say the Croats, Muslims and Kosovars didn't do it, too).

The documentary also depicts how NATO went from a defensive organization that should have been handed over to the European control after the post-ww2 rebuilding was done, to a tool of American imperialism.

In conclusion: do watch it, but bear in mind the bias.

P.S. Another reviewer mentioned the documentary states that 2,000-250,000 Serbs were killed in Oluja. The reviewer likely misunderstood, as the documentary says 2,000 were killed and 250,000 cleansed (meaning driven out of the country) - which is correct.

This documentary is bare truth about wars on our lands (Balkan - Yugoslavia). This documentary shows the way that America keeps on ,,peace,, in world. It describes how democracy and freedom of American people work. They conquered every country that they came starting from west to east. And then they came here... They though that everyone is the same and weak...They thought that they can just come here and command us like its their own territory... And guess what? They were wrong. We showed them how much life is worth when we stand for something much greater than ourselves. I speak as proud Serbian. I am proud of our ancestors that throughout history defended and stood for what is right. Our ancestors knew that they would all die in Kosovo battle 1389. and still went there and died with honor. Because they died for much greater cause. They all died so that their children have something to look up to, to show us that its not hard to give your life for your country. We stood against the tyranny of much larger forces at that time (1389. Turkish army, I W.W 1914. Austro-Hungarian army, II W.W. 1941. Germany) because we knew if we fall, evil will rule the world of course our brothers by blood and by nature Russians helped us in II W.W. to banish fascism from our lands. We will always stand together with our bigger brother Russia. I just don't understand America. Why did they came here? They knew if we are standing together that America will have power only in its borders. They want to maintain the world to work for them. The democracy that America represents doesn't free people. It enslaves them even more... Together we are strong, divided we fall... That's what happened to Yugoslavia. It fell apart because people living inside were separated. Everyone wanted a piece of cake and America saw that and used it to enslave piece by piece. Imagine Yugoslavia like a cake that America wants to eat. America cant eat whole Yugoslavia at once but can chop it down and eat piece by piece. The knife was NATO and European Union, the knife that chopped Yugoslavia was NATO. In 1999. When Yugoslavia was chopped enough NATO bombarded it and as an excuse it stated some violation of civil rights on KOSOVO... There was no violation of civil rights there. It was a pure battle between Liberation Army of Kosovo (UČK or OVK) and Yugoslavian army... they set a scene in which some OVK soldiers without uniforms were lying dead and later on that picture was a proof that we did some aggression on them. Same in Croatia, same in Bosnia. Same scenario everywhere. We were described to the world as aggressors... How can some country attack itself, i'm speaking of Yugoslavia. Because Yugoslavia was made up of,now already independent countries, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia. Every country that wanted to separate cant blame country that already had power on that land. Croatia cant blame Yugoslavia because Croatia wants to separate. If they want to separate than they have to accept responsibility of that actions. If there were referendum to separate there would be no war. the fact is if there was a referendum it would show that more people would stay in Yugoslavia than those who wanted to separate. Same everywhere. So they started killing Serbs on their territories. Croat extremists (Ustaše) started killing Serbs in Croatian territory. Bosnian extremists (Balije) started killing Serbs in Bosnian territory and there were our extremists (Četnici) that started killing all other extremists and civilians as a way of payback on that territories. Remember. Killings didn't start from our side. It all started 1992. when Bosnian extremists started killing innocent civilians in small and distanced villages. Anyway. Today is 8.26.2015. and world thinks that we were aggressors in 1990's. You need to see this movie to know the truth. I know that the second part came out called The Weight of Chains II long time ago. Watched him too and cant agree more. This is one of the best documentaries i have seen in a long time. Long live Serbia. Serbia and Russia brothers together.

If you judge this film as a rhetorical piece it's a 10 but if you judge it as a documentary it's a complete failure. It deliberately leaves out some facts and after i spotted a few of those i couldn't bring myself to watch the movie with any kind of trust left. As most conspiracy theories the "documentary" oversimplifies the events. For example ... When "explaining" the disintegration of Yugoslavia it fails to mention the power struggle in country's executive council with the Serbs trying to takeover with the help from Kosovo and Vojvodina votes. It never mentions people's wish for democracy after it became evident that the eastern bloc (and its one party rule) is falling apart. It doesn't state how the army (mainly controlled by Serbs) started to violate civil rights. And above all it doesn't take into account people's wish for independence after being governed by a corrupt central government. All of those factors had a significant influence in the whole process. It also fails at geography miserably when it states that the US wanted to "colonize" Serbia to get right on the Russia's border. Well how about Romania, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland etc. that are all closer to Russia. Another piece of manipulation were the interviews from the Slovenian capital Ljubljana where people in the streets were asked if they feel they are better off being a part of the European Union. All of the locals shown say that it's worse now. In reality there are polls that show that at least half of the people in Slovenia still want to be a part of EU even as the crisis started to deepen in the last few years. And i could go on and on ... Indeed i'm focusing more on the failures of the film here but still i'm not saying don't watch it. Just if you do watch it, don't base your image of the events only on this movie. Take it as another point of view and judge for yourself. This BBC documentary series http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283181/ i can recommend as a much more balanced attempt.

I truly enjoy a good documentary that is based on objective fact. I even like a mockumentary type films that use irony and satire to express a view. This movie is none of those things.

The only thing I liked about this film is that it was made in a style of a modern documentary film that I sometimes like(like Super size me for example). Also it does raise some good questions about EU, monetary policies and the future of countries of ex Yugoslavia in EU. That's about it.

I don't like to talk about politics but that is what this film is about. What I dislike most about this film is that it is a Serbian propaganda film disguised as a documentary, based on a very narrow point of view that also pushes a conspiracy theory that the western powers are to blame for the wars in Yugoslavia and the Serbs are just victims, sometimes even heroes for standing up to tyranny in history and now.

The director of this movie is a Serbian and he wishes to make his fellow countrymen look better in the eyes of the world by washing away the guilt of crimes and transferring it to another party. Falsifying history, using false facts, diminishing the victims while equating them with their victimizers and shifting blame away from a country(Serbia) whose politics for 2 decades involved oppressing, waging wars, ethnic cleansing and supporting war criminals is wrong and offensive. The part of the film that is closest to the actual truth is the narrative where facts(often inflated) are used but then distorted by putting them into a different context.Imagine a documentary saying that the holocaust happened but it was not the Germans' fault, the Jews share the blame, it was not that bad, the Germans are just as much as victim and it was all thought of, made possible, decided and done by the Americans? This film is similar in that way. Very poor and one sided research was done for this film. The screenwriter should have started with wikipedia and browsing thru old unbiased media.