That is such a short-sighted counter-argument, here's why.
The problem was never the amount of debt in Yugoslavia, but the ability to repay it.
Croatia has a bigger debt as a result of investments in infrastructure and economic reforms, but brutto foreign debt has been steadily declining for a few years now
(as a result of GDP increase and currency deflation among other things such as better credit ratings and reforms),
it also has a much, much better ability to repay it due to being part of EU and free market. The only difference is that Yugoslavia wasn't part of a free market and didn't have liberal
economic models. Without liberalization and decentralization, your ecenomy is worth as much as you can export, and Yugoslavian exports
have been declining as a result of lack of competitiveness (towards west) and by losing the technologic edge it had in the 60s (towards east).
No one wanted to give dollars to increase trade and liquidity with western markets if you had nothing to offer in return.
This is why "the west" wanted Yugoslavia to liberalize in order to increase available loans and amount of trade.
This isn't some "muh joos/cia/vatican" conspiracy to destroy Yugoslavia, it is pure economic logic. Serbs resisted decentralization and liberalization
because they knew they stand to loose sweet croatian/slovenian neetbux, while Slovenia and Croatia supported it.
This is the economic background for war in 90s. Nationalism was just the fuel for the war, not the cause as many, unfortunatly, think.