Comment by Uncle Bob 1
Check out the maps I posted in a reply to Martin. They might help you understand that (especially the one on pre-Ottoman dialects).The history of those peoples is very complicated. So I’ll try to make it as simple as I can.
Just before the Slavic tribes came to the area there had been a huge plague break out. Much of the population had died or fled. Law and order broke down throughout the area. Various Slavic tribes started to move in. Along with them were ones we know as Croats and Serbs. They were all brother Slavs,and mixing was simple and common.The other peoples there fled to the high areas,or to the coastal regions. Those were the last areas (over centuries) to be made Slavic speaking (and thinking).The Northern areas came under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church. While the Southern areas became Orthodox. That didn’t really mean much until the great Schism in the 1000’s broke Christianity in Europe apart. In those days,your religion counted more than language or ethnicity did.And so “basically” those Slavs there (and the newly made Slavs from the older peoples) that became Catholic also became Croats. While those that became Orthodox also became Serbs.
Only in a few mixed areas (especially Bosnia) was that more difficult. It was easy in the border regions to slip from one faith to the other. And it took centuries to harden them into one or the other faiths.Bosnia was the prime example of such a “borderland” back then.Parts of it were ruled at various times by either Orthodox or Catholic rulers.And the churches never really paid much attention to their flocks there. When the Ottomans conquered the region they found it easier there than other places in “Yugoslavia” to make converts to Islam. Bosnians as a whole weren’t attached firmly to one faith or the other. So many of the great Lords (to keep their lands and lives) converted to Islam in larger numbers than elsewhere. While many of the peasants, having no churchmen around anyway. Didn’t see that much of a difference between Christianity and Islam (in those days remember), and also converted more than in other places.While of course most people didn’t convert. The numbers were still huge. Which is why we see so many Muslims in that region today.
During the Ottoman rule and the wars that came with it, many thousands of “Orthodox Slavs” (now considered and considering themselves as Serbs) fled into Bosnia. And even huge numbers into the Croat lands. Many Croats had fled from those areas,or been enslaved and taken to Turkey, or been killed. So the Croatian Lords and their Austrian rulers encouraged the migration of Serbs to those lands.They even promised they could practice their Orthodox faith there if they came. And gave them control of large lands on the border of Ottoman ruled territory as a “soldier militia” land. By the time the wars died down and the Ottomans were driven from the Balkans over 1/4 of Croatia’s population was considered Serbian. Especially those huge borderlands I mentioned. Which were vastly Serb. Today after the monstrous ethnic cleansing of those lands less than 5% of the people are Serb. During much of the early days of nationalism the Croat and Serb elite and upper classes (rightly) considered themselves as one people and wanted to unify together. Later some “ultra nationalists” changed and wanted to divide themselves under the old way of religion, into Croats and Serbs. The problem with that was obvious.
What about the “Muslims” and the huge Serb minorities in the areas the Croats thought of as Croatia. Both groups of Croat and Serb nationalists at that time considered the Muslims as “their people”.They didn’t think how the Muslims viewed themselves mattered much. And both groups considered the Serbs in Croatia as “their people”. The Croats thinking was to convert them,drive them out,or kill them. While the Serbs thinking was they and their lands should be included in Serbia. During WWI the Serbs didn’t take advantage of the chance to unite those areas with Serbia.But instead listed to the “Yugoslav unity” argument. And after being asked by the Croats and Slovenes to unify with them, did so. They messed it up though. By not realizing that “unifying” isn’t the same as being ruled by Serbs. It meant an equal partnership. Which there never was before WW2. Had the Serbs wanted a “Greater Serbia” it would have been better to just annex the Serb populated areas and walked away.But instead they tried the “have your cake and eat it do” idea. And it was a disaster. During WW2 it was a “heyday” for the extreme Croatian nationalist (nazi) Ustase followers. Hitler let them have a state of their own (after he destroyed Yugoslavia). Let them annex Bosnia to that state.And they went into an orgy of blood.Killing,or converting,or forcing to fled,hundreds of thousands of Serbs in that “enlarged Croat state”.They were so horribly cruel as to “shock” the SS. Not a group known for being shocked over cruelty themselves.
The major group in “Yugoslavia” that though of themselves as still one nation were the Communists (remember Communist ideology doesn’t consider national identity as important,class identity comes first.). After a lot of infighting (along with fighting the nazis and fascist Italians),the Communists came to power. And what to do about the “nationalities” problem? Well they picked the worse of all choices. But to be fair,they just copied the USSR policy. And at that time it wasn’t thought it was also a bad choice.Only after the fall of the USSR was it shown “why” it was the wrong choice. Which since Yugoslavia fell first. The Soviets should have seen from that what was coming and prevented it,but they didn’t. After Tito died,the “house that he built” started to show giant cracks. In his days they had avoided making changes to increase unity in the country. And after him it just went from bad to worse.When the “republics” started to breakaway (encouraged greatly by the West) ultra-nationalism “again” came to the front in those countries. And we all know the rest of the story.
Another coincidence that 1 of these “top 10” locations is there, put in after the mayhem & carnage.
These 10 secret prisons, dotted all over the world
http://listverse.com/2016/02/10/10-secret-cia-prisons-you-do-not-want-to-visit/
Diego Garcia
Temara Interrogation Centre
Mihail Kogalniceanu Airport
Detention Site Green
Camp Lemonnier
Antaviliai
USS Ashland
Stare Kiejkuty
The Salt Pit
Camp Eagle
Thanks to Uncle Bob 1 for the historical information . It helps me understand much better what happened in Yugoeslavia .I am sure dozens of historians and anthropologists became consultants to the Pentagon , in order to exacerbate and bring to a boil ancient and not so ancient grudges .
Bodin your comments are being sent to Saker for review for either delete or approve .. moderation rules required ‘All comment have to be impeccably courteous to me, the blog’s author, moderators, any guest author and all the other commentators’ — mod-hs
Comment to moderator removed … mod-hs
Just for my last thing here, would you all be so courteous and skip your meddling into our affairs. Just don’t talk about us and don’t post anything about us, don’t infringe into our affairs. Your liberal-communist Western and pseudo-anti-Western intrusions into our sovereign affairs have brought nothing but misery, death and destruction for all people in the Balkans, for the Serbs most of all. You don’t want to know, you want to rape with your views, dogmas and ideologies. You want to impose your “values” upon us. Well they are not welcomed, and neither are you. And my other post was not offensive in any shape or form, only informative and knowledge-containing, but you still haven’t allowed it to be published. Fine. We have no wish to constantly fight war after war because of your lies and ideologies. We have lost too much already for the sake of your degenerate imbecilic ideologies based on lies and propaganda which have no other function but to centralize power. That has been the sole purpose of all ideologies in the 20th century. So be so courteous and circumvent us all together.
What do you think the purpose of posting on blogs is. If the fire is too hot ,leave the kitchen is an old saying that fits well right here. Personally it wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit if you just didn’t comment on any of my posts. If I wanted your ideas I would read a Ustasha book and change the words Croat with Serb on every page and find the same message I read on your posts.
My purpose of posting here was to debunk your lies, but since my posts debunking them are not allowed to be published, I think we can all assume pretty accurately what the purpose of posting you liberals on the blog such as this is.
it looks like Uncle Bob here is bringing communist/yugoslav narrative (fiction) back to us…I have not heard that bs for a lot of time…Last time it was “official history”, Serbs were sent to prison for practising their Orthodox religious traditions at their homes, or just singing traditional songs….and for truth sake, not many others were prosecuted for that (Muslims, Catholics)….I think that editor of this site should remove this blog, because it is “controversial” at least…
I see another “Nationalist” seeking “purity in history”. You really need to realize that history doesn’t favor any particular group unless it is “manipulated” to do that. I refuse to be manipulated like that. I post unbiased history. Personally I favor the Serbs in the struggle from those days. But that is because I think they had more justice on their side. But I’m fair to all sides in posting. I won’t post what you want unless its true. If you don’t accept that,you are free to not read my posts.
Are there any sources to cross check and fact check these opinions expressed as facts?
Countless of them on google. But if you would point to which part you question I can point you to more exact sources. Remember I did a summary of hundreds of years. And in easy to understand wording. My sources were much more detailed and long winded.And usually only covered one point only. Then I would find another source for another point,etc,etc.
Important to remember this piece by Uncle Bob was expressed as a comment, not a published article. Makes a big difference how you footnote something.
@ Babushka in Oz
I’d say that most of this is completely untrue…for starters there aren’t Bosnian Muslims as such, they’re islamized Serbs. Everyone knows this….well apart from Uncle Bob apparently.
The Bosniaks are “Slav” Muslims (whether Serb or Croat in ancestry is an open question disputed by all sides). I’d think you might know that. I’ll have to figure you don’t read much in the way of history.
Oh, an Ad-Hominem attack?
Well, how lovely. It’s the argumentation of the ignorant that have put ‘Google education’ on a pedestal. There are Croat Muslims, and there are ‘Boshnjaks’. Different people. The Boshnjaks are islamized Serbs, and the only people who don’t accept that are the Bosnians (Boshnjaks) themselves. And western media/academics…couldn’t be further from the truth though. But, I’m not here to make you change your mind – please believe whatever you want to believe – reading be damned!
“The Boshnjaks are islamized Serbs, and the only people who don’t accept that are the Bosnians (Boshnjaks) themselves. And western media/academics…couldn’t be further from the truth though.”
So lets see now. Those people themselves, and historians, dispute your claim. But they are wrong and you are right. OK,I see where you are coming from there. But just so,oh I don’t know,maybe my peace of mind. Could you maybe provide a bit of proof there.
I guess my reply (as carefully crafted as it was) didn’t pass the moderator threshold…careful that you don’t turn this blog into a reverse Western MSM type (you know where only ‘The Narrative is supported)…If my comments aren’t published, I’m quite happy to take my comments elsewhere. Thanks
Please note that Saker site is not covered 24/7 by moderators mod-hs
Muslim is not a race. For example: Rumsfeld’s referral to Shia, Sunni, and Kurds; during Iraq rape was a misnomer. Kurds is a race, while Iraqi people were mostly Arab or Kurds.
Thanks,
Nasir
There is no reference in the above comment to race – it mentions ancestry or heritage. This article has nothing to do with Iraq either. Please don’t bait other commenters.
Bosnians are ethinc Serbs, as well as large part of “Croats” (Dalmatia, Slavonia, Baranja), who were forced to convert to Catholicism. There are facts, not mentioned in this text, which proves that. Firstly, a lot of Muslim Bosnians still have Orthodox icons of Saints which were celebrated by their family in the past, when they were Orthodox Christians (of course, hidden away), much of them knows who they were, some of them acknowledged that (eg. Emir Kusturica, Mesa Selimovic). Furthermore, Bosnian “Croats” were Serbs who conveted by force and threats (eg. Ivo Andrić, Nobel Prize winner for literature, declared himself Serb catholic), as well as Slavonian and Dalmatian Serbs, especially Dubrovnik Serbs, all know their origin, but were forbidden by Catholic Church to express that. And more – a lot of Serbs know their origin to the tribe their ancesters used to belong, by surname – family name (mine origin is in north of Boka Kotorska, Montenegro, tribe Drobnjak). Many of todays Croats carry surnames (family names) of Serb origin, which could be traced to Serb tribe their family used to belong to (eg. former PM of Croatia, Milanovic, former Minister Ostojic, Croat basketball legend Dražen Petrovic, tennis legend Ivanisevic, etc. list is huge…). To cover all this with scientific empiric evidence, there is an DNA analysis made by Anatole A. Klyosov (US scientist (since 1990)) which proves all that I have written.
Well then since they all “know” they are Serb,I expect any day for them to announce the reunion. After all they’ve only had a thousand years to confess the truth,right.And especially during the years from 1918-1941 would have been the perfect time to have done that. Because in those days it was very much to your benefit. So one would think an endless line of Croats and Bosnian Muslims would have been lined up to declare themselves Serbs.After all there was no one stopping them then. They were joined with Serbia.With a mostly Serb government and a Serb King.Did you ever think about that. And if you did think about that. Didn’t, maybe, it make you question that the propaganda your were being told was just that,propaganda.
And BTW,I don’t doubt that part of what you said is fact. As I’ve said before, the difference between those peoples is religious and historical,not ethnic.If you became Catholic you became a Croat. If you became Orthodox you became a Serb. And after the Ottomans came, those of either Christian faith,who converted to Islam became Bosniak (and yes I known that was only in Bosnia. The ones in Sandjak and elsewhere were just thought of as Slavic Muslims.But today the term Bosniak is being used there as well,as a “catchall” term.). Those terms only became widespread with the rise of nationalism in the 18th-19th centuries. Many times people there (especially in the Dalmatia area were known as Illyrians. Called the name of the ancient peoples of long before.) The religious scramble in that area is the absolute crux of the problem.And a big part of that problem came about, because of the split in Christianity.The Roman see had authority over most of that area to start with.But since it was closer to the Byzantine Empire many people (especially in the interior regions) followed the Orthodox Rite.The Roman Rite was mostly followed along the coast and in Northern areas.With the growth of nationalism (as I said) your religion determined who you were.So the coastal Catholics started to think of themselves as Croats,And the interior Orthodox started to think of themselves as Serbs.Nationalism can be a good thing or a bad thing.It started out in the Yugoslav region as a good way to unite people against their foreign (Austrian,Italian,Hungarian,and Ottoman) rulers. But after that was accomplished, it turned ,and created disunity among those same peoples.It is the constant wrangling over what to consider yourselves that has prevented your unity. Am I Serb? Am I Croat? Am I Bosniak? Am I Slovene? And whatever I am,I’m better than the other ones. Why cause yourselves all that trouble for nothing. If you say I’m Serb,Croat,Slovene,you are right on either choice. You are Yugoslav (South Slav).
Check this out:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02694a.htm
Good superficial article. It contradicts itself in a few parts. But some of the figures look accurate.
Btw, Catholic Encyclopaedia was approved by the Holy See.
Only from the begging of the 20th century religious subdivisions inside of the serbian ethos became nations. Almost all of the population of what is now known as Bosnia is populated by the people of Serbian ethnic origin and most of the people (not less then 60%) in modern Croatia is of Serbian origin. As mudriash said before, it is enough just to see their surnames and you can trace their origin back to the Old Hertzegovina tribes.
Not only they are Serbs when it comes to their origin, but all of newly formed languages (Croatian, Bosniak, Montenegrin) are, in fact, just diferent variation of Serbian shtokavian dialect. That is the main reason why Croatian languange policy leans toward linguistical “purism” and introduction of new completely invented words and expressions. They want to make their official languange as more different from the official Serbian spoken in Serbia.
For instance, “real” Croatian language actually belongs to the so-called chakavian dialect and it is now spoken only by a small minority of Croats (mostly those who fled before turkish invasion in 16th century). That variant of Croat languange is almost unuderstandable to most of the modern Croats and Serbs.
So, what is my point here?
Don’t get me wrong, for me personally, I would like the facts I previously listed are not true. But it is crucial to understand them if you want to understand murderous hate most modern Croats and so called Bosniaks feel toward those who consider themselves to be Serbs.
Just how many times must I write that being Croat or Serb was determined by religion in those days,not real ethnicity. It doesn’t matter if 99.9% of Bosnians and Croats of today were in the early middle ages at one time “Serbs” are not.Over the centuries the Slavic people that were Catholics in those regions started thinking of themselves as Croats.And the Slavic people that were Orthodox started to think of themselves as Serbs.And considering the numbers of people (especially in Bosnia and Serbia and Dalmatia) that had ancestry from the Vlach peoples the figures could never be so high unless they were based on,your religion determining your ethnic label.
As to the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source. You will find that in the middle ages where many of the documents used to determine things like that came from. There were no ethnic researchers around. The Serbs were the largest population of the region. The peoples all spoke similar or the same dialects and so they were grouped with “catch all” names. There are also documents calling them all Croats,and some calling them all Illyrians.It was and is meaningless for accurate determinations (if that is even possible,which I doubt).
Personally,I favor the Serbs in this whole dispute. I think there is more justice on their side overall. But the ultra-nationalist Serbs are no better than the ultra-nationalist Croats or Bosniaks. All three are only a hairs breathe away from the bandera Ukrainians. And are the cause of most of the trouble in that region.All of those peoples need to reject that ultra-nationalist BS on all sides.And start looking at unbiased reporting instead of trying to find something that proves “no we are the good one,not the other guy”.By trying to find that you will always be disappointed.Whichever side you are on.
On the off hand, impossible chance, some are truly interested in factual detailed history of the region (as factual as it can be after a 1000 years). There is a set of books that are about the most unbiased I’ve seen.And that I’d recommend,by John V.A. Fine.
1.The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century.
2. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest .
3.When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods.
First of all, I don’t consider myself a nationalist. I don’t hate/discriminate anyone based on nationality, religion, ideology etc.
Second, I agree with most of your talking points in your previos post. For example, when you say “But the ultra-nationalist Serbs are no better than the ultra-nationalist Croats or Bosniaks. All three are only a hairs breathe away from the bandera Ukrainians.” I agree completely on this. There are always a very small minorities in every human population which are very aggresive, xenophobic, intolerant, cruel and often just plain stupid. The main thing which makes difference is “shape and color” of the nationalistic ideology which govern certain nation’s reactions to the different historical circumstances. The ideology of nationalism is shaped by historical flows and if that ideology is shovinistic, it is in that case a perfect tool for aggresive, deviant minority (which exists in every nation) to subdue the will and feelings of the rest of the nation in historicaly critical periods.
The very idea of one, homogenous nation is illogical and irrational. I would dare to go as far as to claim that the nationalistic sentiment is a completely artificial thougt construct which exist to justify the existence of the State and its actions toward other similar social entities. But that’s the other story.
To be honest, I’m not quite sure if there was truly developed the concept of ethnicity in the middle ages (there are many disputes among the scholars on that topic). What I know is the populations in contemporary BiH, Croatia, Serbia, are very similar to each other in terms of languange, mentality and culture. Regardless of the origin of their ancestors, huge majority of them considered themselves Serbs in ethnical sense in the second half of the 19th century. I don’t think that fact justifies ANY teritorial and/or ethnical pretension of the contemporary Serbs to those lands. As I said, I’m convinced that the very notion of national identity is an artifical identity.
What separates them, as you noted, is religion. And that is the greatest weakness of the Yugoslav idea. I observe that those who are the most similar are the ones who hate each other the most. It is not the case in the Balkans only, unfortunately.
And my main point here and the main reason why I think the very idea of Yugoslav nation is impossible and foolish in its root, is the fact that many ancestors of the individuals from which modern Croat and Bosnian nation temporaly contains were forcibly converted to other religion (thus consenquently changing the national declaration of their descendants, regardles of the very artificality of the national concept). The end result of that harsh historical process is a huge identity crisis (wheter that identity is artificial or not) which by mechanism of reactional formation (check that psychological term ;) ) creates enormous hate to those who remained ortodox chistians. Not only they hate Serbs (read Ortodox christians, althought in modern times that religious identity transponds to cultural identity) but Serbs as a collective don’t want to accept those individuals from the other two nations who are eager to cooperate or even join Serbian nation. Many Serbs think they have some kind of moral high ground because of the fact their ancestors (whoever they were) didn’t accept roman catholic or islamic faith under social pressure of austrian or ottoman empires.
That is the main reason why those Balkan populations althougt (beside of religion) very similar often passionately hate each other and there will never be any unity, no matter how historical reasons for that seem trivial to the objective and reasonable outside observer.
I agree with most of your comment. It is very true. My only argument might be over the “forced” part. I see no real examples of anyone being forced.Unless in “forced by circumstances”,as an example. Certainly the Bogimils could have been said to have been forced by both Christian Churches to convert to their branch of Christianity.But that was over by the 1300’s at the latest. And some of them became devoted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy over time. While the unhappy ones mostly converted to Islam when the Ottomans came.Some others may have converted to Islam with the “circumstances” argument.The new elite was Muslim and there were greater rights you could gain by conversion.But as far as out and out forceful conversions.Any of them would have been the “exemption,not the rule”. Which is why history records so few of them.In that time and place,it wasn’t too hard to escape to a surrounding Christian state if you had to. Or take refuge in the mountains. Which is one big reason why you heard throughout the period of partisans or bandits (depending on which side named them) all over the mountain regions there.The Hapsburgs did try for a short period to make a forced Church union in the Croatian lands. And force the Serbs who had emigrated there during the “Great Serbian Immigration” to become Greek Catholics. But that quickly failed.And most of the people returned to Orthodoxy. That really wasn’t the type of forced conversion usually meant by that term.And like I said, it ended pretty quickly in failure.As to the Orthodox,the only enforced conversions I remember hearing about were a few among Albanians or non-religious Vlach tribes. But those also were few and not very important as far as numbers went.
my point was that Catholic Church forced Serbs to convert to Catholicism, and furthermore, forced them to express themselves as Croats, and still do. Not other way around, as you suggest, there are written documents of Serbs Catholics, who were witnessing that process, and who were themselves forced by Catholic Church to identify themselves as Croats, because of the religion, and not because of ethnicity. So, it was not that people themselves decided to change ethnicity because of changed religion, but on the contrary, they were forced to do so by Catholic Church. That process of atomisation and destruction of Serb ethnicity continued, and it is still present. It is a never ending Catholic Jihad (Holy War) which is alive and kicking, and not at all better than Islamic Jihad that we are witnessing today, but just more subtle and vague. Take a look at Montenegro, and processes that going on there. One dictator who backs fake New Montenegrin Orthodox Church, which is Vatican friendly, trying to create fake Montenegrin nation. Similar could be found in Ukraine, and Ukrainians. If you have fail to recognise those processes of denationalisation of Serbs (Russians), through forced conversions and fake new Orthodox Church which recognise Pope as supreme authority, I think that you are missing a lot in your analysis.
You asked me why those Serbs Catholics did not declare their identity in-between wars… After being forced to call themselves Croats, Serbs Catholics were also foced to take part in wars against Turkey/Serbia fightnig their fellow Serbs. That caused bad blood between those convertites and Orthodox Serbs (most recent examples – massive massacre of Serb civilians in Macva by Austro-Hungarian army which was mostly populated by Croats (Tito was one of them) in ww1, and genocide of Serbs by Croat Ustasha during ww2).
I need to bring something to light here. All three sides lived in peace and unity at one time or another, but it is the outsiders coming in and fomenting hatred is what is the main problem here. The Americans did exactly that in the 1990s. If left alone these three ethnic groups would have worked out their differences by now. After the second world war in Tito’s Yugoslavia there were no visible signs of ethnic differences. There were a lot of intermarriages between the different religious groups. Outsiders are the trouble makers and agitators. This goes back a couple of hundred years. Like in the middle east right now Sunni against Shia and so on.
Uncle Bob, you are partially right, but only partially.
I agree with you when you say that a Croat, in feels himself Croat, he is Croat, indifferentely if his surname five centuries ago was from a Serb stock. I am aware that Nations do not exist a aethernal and unchanged gropus, but they are dynamic and changing subjects (One said: “Nations do not exist, they are existing”, it is a bit extremist but is in the spirit I think so).
Soif today they are Bosnian Muslims that they feel themselves as Bosniak, they are, they are not “renegade Serbs/Croats”, even if that identity surged because the Porte’s converting policies. The identities algo go and flow, anf if a century after, the Muslims continue feeling “Muslim by nationality”; then that identity has went beyond the “Turkness” and “Pporte’s policies”. OK.
But you fail in some things. Firstly, there the Serb nationalism is not the only “essentialistic nationalism” in the zone. For example, the same Bosniaks say that they “Nationhood” goes back to King Trvtko’s KIngdom, a thing that is absurd (because it is absurd of thinking of “nations” in a modern sense, like a all-citizen’s political community with asporations to became a politican sovereignty community; and because a “Bosnian” under Trvtko hardly felt himself as “different” to a Rascian, or a “Zetan”). Croats also do, when they get bothered if somebody says that Dalmatia has Serbian roots. And it HAS, the Slavic activism in Dalmatia in the XIX century (when Dalmatia was a different body that “Coratia”, because the latted embodied today’s Celtral Croatia an depended on Hungary, whereas Dalmatia depended on Austria) agains Italian preponderacy and Austrian empire was mostly carrie on by Serb activists and in a Serbian identity. That, of course, was helped by the fact that Serbia was indeed and independents State and the “Slavist nationalisst” activists had Serbia as example. For example, even Stjepan Radic, the Croatian nationalist leader was a Serbophile in the early XX century (before the formation of Yugoslavia).
This was more noted in southern Dalmatia than in Northern Dalmatia. For example, the Hajduk Split football club was funded by Serbs of Split (Kaliterna brothers, which were arrestedd by Austrian police for “Greater Serbian propaganda”; or Dusan Andjelkovic, which fought with Chetniks in the WWII). So can be held taht Split is a non-Serb city? OK, I not saying that is a Serbian city (today belongs to Croatia, is an obviety), but it’s soul is also Serbian (and also Croatian and Italian). It is also wrong to make Split a “only one-identity” city. Or Dubrovnik, when in 1894 the 93% of the citizens declared theirselves “Serbian-speeaking”. If you go today there, there is hardly a trace of Serbdom there, and this is in part because new political authorities try to erase that.
“catholic Serb” identity was very common in XIX century Dalmatia. In fact, in southern Dalmatia, the 1939 Croata autonomy, and the 1945 formation of Socialist Croatian State, did a lot to spread there Croat identity, because included that region in a “Croat political body” (previous to that, Dalmatia was not “Politically Croat”); and a “political body”, with institutions in its hand, can shape the identity of its citizens, better than a “non-political body” can shape of its aderents.
So Serbs feel themselves as the “sacrifices” for Yugolav unity and now feel “treasoned” (Croatia gone, with a lot of “previously Serbian land”; Bosnia gone, Koso0vo gone) and they feel as the “tricked ones”. And I understand them in that point.
So I agree with most of your post here as well. But where in my post did you find the things you are talking about as being there. I never said a word about any of those things (which BTW I do agree with you on).You just agreed with me on the one and main point of my entire post. And that is religion made them “consider” themselves separate.Not their ethnicity,which if not the same (in many or most cases) is very close to each other. That is the base theme of my entire article.Everything else spins off of that one fact.
In my opinion “religion” (and “culture”; ebcause religion is aldso a sort of “Mentalty” or “cultural ideology”), is important, but ALSO, to make a political body with creal borders which says: THIS IS CROATIA. That madre “Croatness” to expand on Southern Dalmatia.
Or in Kumanovo (northern YROM today) being the “Macedonian identity” to be majority. Even today, Kumanovo-dialect is more close to Serbian than to “Macedonian” (or Bulgairan). Officially, FYROM says that “Kumanovski” is a “rare and special dialect of Macedonian”, to not admit that in fact is Serbian (with a lot of Bulgaro-Macedonian words, like in Torlakian dialect of Serbian), but since it has been included in a “Macedonian political body”; “Macedonianess” has expanded there also, because the “by default officiality” is “Macedonian”.
“Firstly, a lot of Muslim Bosnians still have Orthodox icons of Saints which were celebrated by their family in the past, . . . much of them knows who they were, some of them acknowledged that (eg. Emir Kusturica, Mesa Selimovic). Furthermore, Bosnian “Croats” were Serbs who conveted by force and threats (eg. Ivo Andrić, ”
Thanks for mentioning Andric—I was trying to recall his name and the name of his book,
“The Bridge on the Drina,” which I started to read many years ago but didn’t finish. I recall mention in it of a local bey. I am going to give this book another try. Alhthough I read that Andric is now considered to be anti-Muslim, but is that a current piece of PC? I believe that literature (and also “Black Flag and Grey Falcon”) is probably illuminating on many levels. IN particular, much that is at issue on this thread concerns history. Books that were written before the *current* situation developed can be very valuable, as I found with Mansfield’s The Arabs.
Anyhow, what I really wanted to say in connection with the above comment by Mudriyash (?? ) is that in some respects his description of the situation reminds me of the situation with conversos (Jews who were obliged under various circumstances to convert to Catholicism, or at least say they had) in Spain and elsewhere. Much of that is basically a hidden history, but one whose threads reach into the present. It seems ilke almost all past conflicts continue to reverberate in the present.
Uncovering family histories can require a lot of detective work. Many converso families ended up in Costa Rica and Mexico. Many people do not know that their family has a converso history. (A pretty good read on this theme of uncovering converso roots in southern Spain is “http://www.amazon.com/The-Forgetting-River-Survival-Inquisition/dp/1594487391.”)
IN the Balkans these cross currents of religious affiliation and ethnicity are probably that much more complex than in Spain because of multiple religious confessions and complex issues of nationalism with the proximity of two empires adding to the mix: the various sources of pressure to assume one identity or conceal another, the tensions between different classes and their reaction to teh arrival of new masters (I think I have read that more affluent groups were more likely to convert to Islam under the OTtomans, but that may be off-base) the destruction of records that could shed light on personal identities and ethnicities.
Then add in the ongoing “framing” of groups and events for various political purposes, which certainly was not invented yesterday, although the term “framing” if of recent coinage.
I am sure someone has written a book similar in type and intention as The Forgetting River (a personal memoir, general trade title, but backed up with quite a lot of documentation) about family history and identity in Bosnia and/or elsewhere in former Yugo.
Reading suggestions? Anything that has been translated into English?
Katherine
well said
It was reported as a false flag at the time. I remember it, and remember the attack on Serbia as the second war supported by a propaganda blitz, the first being Iraq.
It was reported as a false flag by the French I believe based on the direction the shells came from, but this evidence was ignored and the call for war continued.
You are correct and it was ignored like the evidence debunking the false flag operations in Syria and Ukraine.
The 1994 Markale “Market Massacre”: “French television reported last night that the United Nations investigation into the market-place bombing in Sarajevo two weeks ago had established beyond doubt that the mortar shell that killed 68 people was fired from inside Bosnian [Muslim lines.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
What was the ‘correct’ choice UB?
To foster unity? Is that what you mean? If so!
There isn’t much they could have done about the non-Slav minorities (except in Kosovo,by not admitting thousands of more Albanian immigrants over the years.). But in the Slav regions that is another story. They should have kept the 1929 province boundaries. And instead of working on “separate ” republics, empathized the common origins and “sameness” of the peoples. Never have allowed “regional” (which meant in practice ethnic) party organizations. And used the education system to drum into the youth the “common nationality” of their peoples at every opportunity. Instead of saying Croats,Serbs,Slovenes,Bosniaks,Macedonians,were united into Yugoslavia. They should have said “South Slavs” were united as Yugoslavs. The Germans,French,and Italians (among others) faced the same type of problems with regionalism in those countries. And they have mostly been able to overcome it. Yugoslavia could have as well. Or at least they could have really tried and given unity a chance to work. But instead they made the same mistake the USSR did. Which today gives us all the ethnic disputes within a single Slavic people inside the Rus lands.
I as a Croat can say the story of Yugoslavia is quiet balanced. For example in Australia and in the US your nationality = your citizenship. In Yugoslavia it was not so. When you started going to school you would be asked “What is your nationality”? It would be written down. The same story was at the university, the army and applying for jobs, every time it would be written down. So you can see that the state was doomed. In no capitalist country in the world people were so much obsessed with the nationality . Remember in Yugoslavia was population census every ten years there people were asked again “What is your nationality”? And remember in Yugoslavia was not nationality = citizenship.
Yes,and its that type of thing I meant needed to change. That is what helped to break-up the nation. Thanks for confirming it on a personal level for us to see.
@Anonymous
As a Macedonian I concur
I would say from my experience that I can not agree with your conclusion and suggestions. I am born and live in Ex-Yugoslavia. Ex provinces (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) were somewhat similar to later republics. One problem was while promoting “yugoslavness” quite heavily on many levels even until eighties (especially in army, but also other organisations), there was a level of ethnic infigting for supremacy within top elites. I remember that I (maybe I can even say “we” ie most people) have always considered people from other republics as our “brothers and sisters”. So when there was a reasonable level of balance (of power or “equality”) among Yugoslav nations, situation was under “control” by itself. Only after what appeared to be desire of Serbs for domination (real or imagined) of Yugoslavia did intensive political and later military fighting start. The breakup of Yugoslavia was a process planed long ago, mainy in the West. Considerable means were invested into breakup during long period (I’ve heard about several hundred billion U$). The tactics was “divide and conquer / rule”. Nationality issues were heated up to the point of war by external influence mainly (I can remember that in mid to late eighties there was popular resentment in Slovenia because “we have to send money to Beograd and/or Kosovo”. I am convinced that such sentiments were propagated by those who wanted breakup of Yugoslavia).
What you have suggest as a solution is IMO ultra heavy approach that would never work as a solution. People are proud of their identity. You can not take it away by decree / scheme …
People are proud of their identity….At least by more sage people, TODAY NOT. You might be proud of your ( Croatian ) identity if you live in a Croatian town, and if you never travel to more prosperous EU countries…but if you go to those countries you will quickly forget “the pride”. Croat.
I agree with you that the West was complicit in the breakup of Yugoslavia. They worked with nationalist exile groups over the years since WW2. I remember reading books printed in the West,written by exile Croats condemning Yugoslavia and glorifying the fascist Croats during the war. But I disagree that enough was done to foster unity,and it just didn’t work. Certainly regional groups are proud of their heritage and will remember it. There is nothing wrong with that. But it should have been “framed” within the context of a Yugoslav heritage. Bavarians and Saxons are proud of their heritage as well. But its in the context that they are both Germans. And that ideal was what was lacking in Yugoslavia. We see the same thing was allowed to happen in the Rus lands. And we see the results of that error there today. As we saw the results of that error in the 1990’s in Yugoslavia.Had the government followed the policies that united Germany,France,Italy,etc. My opinion is that things could have ended quite differently. Even with the Western attempts to sow disunity. Already (without trying) you saw several million people in the census put down “Yugoslav” under nationality. With the government pushing I think many more would have become loyal to the united nation.And over time, the unity dreamed of would have become a fact.Already the things that united people there was greater than those dividing them.There was only a single other country on their borders out of 7,that spoke a language anywhere close to the Yugoslavian peoples dialects (Bulgaria). That showed that in their region they were united as opposed to the others.Their history showed them as more related to each other than anyone else,one family (quarreling,dysfunctional,at times family. But a family nonetheless).The positives needed to be built on,and they weren’t.
I cannot agree with you. Are you from ex-Yugoslavia? I live here for more than 40 years. Brotherhood and “Yugoslav” connection was heavily promoted actually. I really have no idea what more could be done. And we people felt like this up until 1980s. But Yugoslavia was because of strategical and political reasons hotspot for all kinds of intelligence amd subversive activities from both superpowers. You also can not compare “Bavaria” and “Saxony” as nations vs for example “Slovenia” and “Macedonia”. Slovenes and Macedonians for example can not understand each other. Must use either “serbo-croatian” or some other language (english / german …)
No,but that is because Macedonian is close to Bulgarian. But if you compare some Northern dialects in Croatia to Slovene its a different story.
» You also can not compare “Bavaria” and “Saxony” as nations vs for example “Slovenia” and “Macedonia”. Slovenes and Macedonians for example can not understand each other. «
When I was a kid and we went to Bavaria on holiday I could not understand the old folks. And I grew up in Lower Saxony, Northern Germany. With standard German, not the Northern dialect, which is closer to Dutch than to standard German, but almost extinct nowadays. Had they not introduced standard German in Northern Germany via school Germany would be less united. Because Northern and Southern dialects are very different, like in Italy. On the other hand it’s a pity the Northern dialects have been ended.
Never lived in Yugo, so, no I make no claims to expertise.
I do think there could be parallels between Bavaria and various Yugo entities. Yes, North and South GErmans can understand each other, but up until the recent past and I expect still, a North German will not understand a Bavarian who speak real Bavarian. Or, say, and older peasant (I recall this when living south of Munich). Bavaria was an independent kingdome/dynasty very closely allied with the Hapsburgs until the Unification of Germany, in 1871 (I think).
But, language cannot really be the point, can it? Look at Switzerland. Look at Belgium. Look at Canada. Look at Indonesia, or China. Even in France, the language was not standardized until surprisingly recently and many regions of the country were definitely “tribal” and outsiders had better not go there. They spoke Occitan in the south and Breton in Brittany and some other dialect in Alsace.
Anotehr point: mountainous areas have always (I think) been harder to integrate and more “tribal” (cf. Caucasus, and the Balkans is another example).
Any discussion of post-Soviet breakup makes me think of Czechoslovakia. Why did that country have to break in two? Supposedly Vladimir Meciar was pushing it from the Communist/Slovak side of things, but I think there was a large component that consisted of Bohemia and Moravia “cutting Slovakia loose.” The former were the more prosperous parts of teh country, closer to and more integrated with Western Europe. They wanted to go out on their own and they wanted to Roma to stay in Slovakia. No one really spoke up for the whole country. Also created in the wake of WWI, like Yugo. INcluded among those who conspicuously did nOT speak up for a united Czecho was Vaclav Havel. REcently I read something critical of him—I think, the first critical commentary on Havel that I have read in the otherwise adulatory Western press. Here is something interesting on Havel:
http://exiledonline.com/velvet-disappointment-vaclav-havels-complicating-final-chapter/
See “At home, it was over before the dust settled on the Velvet Divorce between the Czechs and Slovaks in 1993.” So, teh Havel halo is definitely tarnished. Maybe he was a CIA asset. His social background was intellectual elite.
Seems like Havel became enamoured of the West and joining NATO. That was of greater interest to him than helping keep the country together
Back to Yugo: Again, I claim no credentials as a historian. But my recollection is that Croatia declared its independence quite suddenly, and GErmany recognized the new independent Croatia immediately. My gut reaction: Nanu! Of course, Croatia is closest to Europe. Germany has a questionable “track record” in Croatia when looking throught the WW2 filter . . .
Events were developing fast in Yugoslavia, and the general public sure was having a hard time keeping up. To me it just seems like the Croatian declaration and Germany’s immediate recognition of the Republic of Croatia made me smell a rat of some kind. My own German background made me sensitive to this. A rat coming out of Germany. Or, with 20/20 hindsight, NATO. Or both. All of these countries on the East/West fault line have and continue to be subjected to extraordinary pressures, from within and from without. External players have, obviously, exploited the internal tensions. The West will always try to pull a section away from the East. If it means slashing a country in two, so much the better. The rump will be weaker than the whole would have been. Surely that is that story in the Baltics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and now, Syria. In the Ukraine, this “rump” aspect may mean that the West would be satisfied with a rump Ukraine—except that it cannot accept the loss of Crimea. Too strategically important.
Isn’t really the same story now in the MENA?
Citizens of larger countries *in general* are going to have more say-so in teh world and perhaps better quality of life than citizens of fragments. There is a reason why the US. Army flick genre featuring the company made up of one WASP, one Latino, one Jew from Brooklyn, one Southern redneck, one Native American, etc etc. is so popular. The plot trajectory us always the same: From ethnic slurs, fights, etc. to “grace under pressure” and loyalty in the end, tempered in battle. I am not a chauvinistic American by any stretch, but I think those movies served a PR purpose (in addition to being propaganda about the state of racial/ethnic/class relations in the USA) and also do convey a truth about a multi-ethnic nation. You must stick together against external enemies. Citizenship is more important than ethnicity, and when push comes to shove, that redneck from Georgia may be saving the Brooklyn Jew-boy’s a—, or vice versa.
Also, not to forget the class issues in all of these conflicts.
Katherine
The dialect spoken in Alsatia/Elsaß is Alsatian/Elässisch, a German dialect. Now almost extinct grâce à l’éducation nationale. Same thing for Catalan in Roussillon. By contrast, Italy has never tried to exterminate the German language in Südtirol. But centralist France was very systematic about it. :)
It’s clear that Germany had a hand or two in the breakup of Yugoslavia. Germany sent soldiers in the mid 90ies to fight in Bosnia against the Serbs, unbeknownst to the public, and possibly the Serbs as well.
@Lumi:
> Italy has never tried to exterminate the German language in Südtirol
No? What makes you believe that?
> It’s clear that Germany had a hand or two in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Really? One or two? West-/so called “re-united” Germany had many hands in it, than an average football team has hands.
BTW: Your opinion that “communism is a bad model not suited for Germany” (as you often say), how can you Wessie know that actually? Did Sesamestreet grow you up with such “knowledge”?
Everyone has her/his perspective. As an ethnic Serb that lived in Croatia through all that mess I have my own, and I don’t think uncle bob’s approach would have worked.
No amount of propaganda or “education” can compete with family traditions and tribal feelings.
At least not in the long run. Recent history is the best proof I can provide.
The ordinary people are not the primary problem, but the so called elites.
My opinion is that the best chance in cases like Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Ukraine, USA, Syria, Iraq etc is a system that is based on mutual respect and most importantly on mutual interest.
Yes, education and “propaganda” plays a great role, but if there is not a fundamental mutual interest that is clear to all, then you will always have potential problems.
Look at how many different ethnicities there are in the US, how many federal units, and yet they are still around. They are all bound by the “American dream”. It is hammered into their heads from the day they are born, and they all go chasing it.
If the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia weren’t based on communism but on healthy capitalism, I think they both would still be around.
Kind of agree with you, esepcially regarding “The ordinary people are not the primary problem, but the so called elites”. It was a form of degenerted political dictatorship and heavy superpowers medling in Yugoslavia to start breakup. If it was different, it could maybe survive. Now what do we have: small, pathetic slave colonies of EU and NATO, with weak pathetic, sometimes idiotic leaders (at least I can say so for Slovenian “President” – that is where I live), that are giving away sense of nationhood steadily. They have sold out our countries for pennies.
» fundamental mutual interest that is clear to all … how many different ethnicities there are in the US … all bound by the “American dream”. «
Hmm, but they’re not a proper nation … quite strongly segregated according to race and money, I would say. Also, isn’t the “American dream” rather for the poor? Seems more like a propaganda ploy than a thing that they’re actually chasing. To me, who has only been there twice. Americans correct me, please.
@aunt marry
> healthy capitalism
You are where I was before 1989.
Either you want to have health, or you want to have capitalism.
But healthy capitalism can only be healthy for some in the long run.
Even with a sound honest financial system (where it all starts and ends).
Even with your “healthy” capitalism you have factors like greed and exponential growth.
Then you end in the same situation as after each “Monopoly” game.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the strongest of us all?”
Love, that’s who. For us, love of Russia.
What’s love? Here’s the tough love version:
“Tough mama
Meat shaking on your bones
Hotter than a crotch
Time to carve another notch”
-Dylan
Here’s the soft version:
“Miranda:
O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here
How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world
That has such people in’t!”
-The Tempest
Here’s the scientific:
l = emc x i
l – love
e – energy
m – mass
c – lightspeed
i – infinity
————
-thelovegovernment.com
The saker vineyard is the laser that enables Russia to convert the AZ Empire as Christianity did Rome, and with the new technology it ain’t gonna take no 300 men or 300 years.
“Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of all?” Russia, my dear, Russia. Love from Russia.
@”In his days they had avoided making changes to increase unity in the country.”
Tito weakened the unity of Yugoslavia with his anti-Serb policy. His artificial borders and the albanization of Kosovo had the goal to split and expel the Serb population and weaken Serb influence that was essential for the survival of the country. That made it easy for the German revanchists like the former Nazi Party member Genscher to destroy Yugoslavia again. In contrast to WW2 this time the German imperialists were able to destroy Yugoslavia without a full fledged invasion. It was sufficient to arm and finance the Ustashe.
“Serbia was
6 in a subordinate economic position and that Lazar Kolisevski, the leader
7 of the Communist Party of Macedonia, uncovered this when he pronounced the
8 syntagm ‘a weak Serbia means a strong Yugoslavia,’ which was the guiding
9 idea of the anti-Serbian policy and anti-Serbian coalition headed by
10 Slovenia and Croatia.”
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/trans/en/041216IT.htm
“Return of the German Army 1995”
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=632_1323437313
The Nazi run BND backed the Ustashe since the 60s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed2E3jzwmo8&t=4m
The most evident attempt at the destruction of the Serb nation within Yugoslavia was the creation of the so called Macedonian ethnicity in south Serbia. My family was forced to change its last name from Stefanovic to Stefanovski so that they were no longer Serbs, rather, they are Macedonians now. The families that refused were imprisoned or worse.
Same thing happened in Montenegro, where ethnic Montenegrians appeared for the first time in history. Although, I can’t say how much violence the communist party inflicted on the people there to make it happen.
This process started during WW2, with the forced Croatization of catholic Serbs in “NDH” (Independent State of Croatia – Nazi creation), as was mentioned by a commenter above.
This process continued after the breakup of Yugoslavia, first with the emergence of ethnic Bosniaks in 1990s. No such people exist in any historical documents or official state records (of any state) prior to 1990s. If someone can point a document that proves otherwise, I would love to take a look at it.
This process of dilution and destruction of Serb nation continues to this day, with the most recent emergence of a brand new ethnic group in north Serbia – Vojvodjani (Voi-vo-dja-ni).
As to the question of why is all of this happening to Serbs? My answer is rather simple:
1. For whatever reason – the rules of the western world hate us, and have always hated us. I don’t know why, nor do I care anymore. Christ tells us to judge people based on their deeds. The actions of the rules of the western world have proven to us time and again that they hate us. Simple as that. I have no doubt that those same rules of the western world hate Russia and Russians even more.
2. The perpetrators of the destruction of the Serb nation still rule over us. The communist party of Yugoslavia was a breeding ground for traitors. The children of those traitors still rule over us. Every politician in power in Serbia is either a former member of the communist party, or is a child/grandchild of communists. They call themselves democrats, liberals, socialists, progressives, etc. but they are all communists.
The door was Opened:
It was only through the destruction of Yugoslavia, that the imperialists could enter Eastern Europe and assault Russia.
The German Nazi Regime understood that, and the Zio-American Nazis also understand.
The Turn of the Tide:
The Russian leaders (and, apparently, the Russian People), know in their hearts that they must – Reverse the Tide of History.
Through restoring Yugoslavia, Russia protects themselves from attack. The Serbs are the first line of defense against the terrorist enemies of Russia. The Russian pivot to the South, in Syria, is intended to defeat the imperialists and allow Russia a firm presence within the Eastern Mediterranean (Naval, Air, and Army, and Supply bases, from which (and from where), they may enable the Serbs, as well as the Greek Peoples to defend themselves. Now! Look at a map!
It is not accidental, that the imperialists wax Catatonic against the Russian Pincer into Syria.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35561845 And:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/02/12/syria-ceasefire-russia-bombing_n_9218084.html
And don’t look for help from here. Zionist imperialist Sanders, declared in his last debate, that the Crimea must be returned to the ‘Ukraine.’ The Oligarchs, and their electoral Circus puppets understand, that the reunification of Kiev (the birthplace of Russia), to its Motherland, will happen five minutes after the Yugoslavs, reunite.
In my home:
A restoration of the American Republic would, as its first act, make complete, Statesman Ron Paul’s insistence on the return of all American troops to the USA.
Peace can break out, with liberty and prosperity following. It is not an easy goal, as many powerful evil forces must be defeated. But such a positive goal will be impossible, if we lose the VISION, by surrendering to false ‘easy’ sugared paths laid out by the Oligarchs-themselves, paths that are strewn with minefields and phony circus pretend elections, with the concurrent objective of misdirecting the Great Unwashed Masses (us) with their Hollywood show. They rely on us to pretend not to see beyond our noses. And they rely on our cowardice.
So far they have been quite effective.
For the Democratic Republics!
Even in the 1960’s it was obvious to many US adults – people around me as a boy – that Yugoslavia would disintegrate without Communism and a strong leader like Tito. It was a topic of conversation even when Kennedy was President. The people saying this were rather ordinary lawyers and doctors and university types, not Communists, although many had read Marx.
I heard their commentary with my own ears.
Thus it is difficult for me to accept the idea that “Soviets should have seen from that what was coming” (ie they didn’t see it coming).
I believe they did see what would happen – but that they could not act to prevent it.
Great precis of the history though, thanks. End-notes and a bibliography to support the history would be a good addition.
Any country would disintegrate without strong leadership and central control…proven multiple times throughout history. Yugoslavia’s problems were swept under the rug, rather than them being addressed, that was the problem…well, apart from the false ideology that was supposed to ‘bring the masses together’. It worked until it didn’t.
A funny fact though, is that there is much ‘Yugo-Nostalgia’ in the former republics. Even those that integrated in the EU and NATO, because they now see those organizations for what they are: AngloZionist constructs aimed to keep the populace under wraps. SO without ‘Strong Leadership’ these organizations will disintegrate as well. AGAIN – you can’t hold people under false narratives for long…it only works for awhile.
Takis Fotopoulos “New World Order and NATO’s war against Yugoslavia ”
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/english/brvarious/nps_yugo.htm
Hello Uncle Bob,
I talked with a man from Bosnia – Herzegovina recently. He fits your pattern of communist Yugoslav, despite being apolitical.
I would like to know your views about the Bogomils in B-H. Thanks
They were an interesting group. They were allowed to exist for a while in comparative peace because Bosnia was a borderland region. And its wildness and terrain wasn’t alluring for Churchman to settle in. No real cities and the people spread out. So tithes weren’t easy to come by. It was in that type of land that the “heretical” sects were able to grow in,in that time period.The different Churches tried to crack down on them periodically (especially the Catholic Church that most of Bosnia owed alliance to then).But since many of the local nobles either supported that “church” or were neutral to it. The crackdowns didn’t work like the Vatican hoped they would.When the Ottomans conquered Bosnia many of the Islamic converts came from the remnants of the Bogomils.Their dislike of the Catholic Church made them easier to convert.
My addenda to Uncle Bob’s comment:
Bogomils were quite “important” gruop in Bosnia (and also Dalmatian mountains, a thing that is normally forgotten); but not the “majority in Medieval Bosnia”; as today Bosniak propaganda says to sustain the myth of “Bosnia had always a different identity of Serbia and Croatia; a identity that its continuum lays to nowadays”.
Thanks! Another point that we agree on. And thanks for the Dalmatian information. I didn’t realize they were important there as well. But it makes sense. That region is next to Bosnia and also with mountainous terrain in much of it.
Uncle Bob, at the bottom of the discussion I have left you a comment to your initial commet I would be happy if you give me your opinion of it.
Tito’s Yugoslavia was non-aligned/neutral and got economic aid both from the West and USSR.
Western countries had “friendly” relations with Yugoslavia because of the non-aligned role of Yugoslavia that prevented USSR from gaining access to the Mediterranean sea.
Western banks loaned million to Yugoslavia during the 1960s-1970s and millions of Yugoslavs migrated and worked in Austria/Germany/Switzerland etc as seasonal workers.
In the early 1980s, Yugoslavia was in recession and indebted to Western countries. The West pressured the government to implement harsh austerity measures. As the USSR came to its end, Western plans to dismember Yugoslavia came to fruition. Western powers took an anti-Serbian stance and actively supported the secession and “independence” of the Republics by sanctions, diplomacy and war.
The aim of the West was not only to create small protectorates but also to re-integrate the socialistic Yugoslav economy into the global neoliberal capitalist economy. They succeeded 100%. With the 1998 NATO war against Serbia, Western elites managed to crush any further resistance.
Now the Balkans region in in disarray. Yugoslav countries are weak protectorates that one by one are becoming part of NATO-EU-EUROZONE. Bulgaria, also part of NATO/EU has become very weak militarily and economically as compared to the days of Warsaw Pact. Finally, Greece (which is part of NATO since the 1950s) is rapidly being destroyed (with the pretext of the debt crisis) and its military and economy are being dismantled by EU.
On the other hand, Turkey is getting stronger and gets billion by EU for flooding Europe with illegal immigrants……
So you think that the Russian did not get the naval bases in Yugoslavia because she was non-aligned , misleading point.
Absolutely correct. The “social economy” factor (the ruining of Socialism) is a necessary factor to understang the tearing apart of Yugoslavia.
Basically USA promised aid to alls republics (no to Yugoslavia) that wwere electing non-Communist parties in the 1990 elections So practically Yugoslav State as emptied up to 1990. Really “Slovene independece”, “Croat independence” and so on were not “heroic patriotic acts”, but an exit to the outside provoked dissolution of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia did not dissolved because MAcedonia, Croatia et al. got indpendence, but these got indeendence because Yugolavia was practically disolvved “by international powers”.
Another factor is that the Western ideal of the “nation-State” (an ideal shared by both State-nationalists -French, Spaniards, Italians- and by nationalist of stateless nations -Basques, Catalans, Scots…-): “one nation, one State”, this is “all citizens or our State must be nationals of the State” or “our nation does not have a State, is a obligation to achieve one”. But nbboth agree that “na nation without State is a temporal anomaly”. So applicationg this “analysis” to Yugoslavia they said: “Yugoslavia as multinational State is an anomality, must be national States”. So the tried to build national States there where reality was nont suitable to it.
This false analysis biaised the Western public against Serbs, which were the most “Pro-Yugoslavs” in the 90es.
Erdogan’s Foreign Policy Is in Ruins
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/04/erdogans-foreign-policy-is-in-ruins/
Darn, never imagined I would be such a mutt.. But it stood to reason a lot of behavioral problems was because some ancestor could not keep it in his pants. And because of that some of us have to put up with premature baldness and hair loss amongst our more serious problems. But if we don’t understand where we came from we wont know where we are going. And it also explains culture.. Where people behave a certain way and why different cultures around the world behave the way they do. Why some people run away from trouble while others cause it. The French are an exception where they cause trouble for no reason and run away both at the same time. Sometimes running away while causing trouble like in Vietnam. It is also why one size does not fit all because we are not all the same.
Of course this does not explain psychotic and psychopathic behavior.. That’s because there is a screw loose and happens to every culture….
A whole range of health and psychological disorders, including depression and nicotine addiction, have been confirmed as relating the presence of Neanderthal genes in our DNA by US scientists.
The rigorous genome comparison is the first study of its kind.
It’s been known since 2010 that Eurasian genes may suffer from a series of health problems associated with Neanderthal DNA, after the fact of interbreeding with Homo sapiens was confirmed. But this was the first direct study of the two DNA types, undertaken by scientists at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.
“Our main finding is that Neanderthal DNA does influence clinical traits in modern humans: We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases,” senior author on the paper and evolutionary scientist John Capra said.
The two data sets were linked to find a total of 12 traits we have a significantly larger risk of inheriting because we fooled around with our more ape-like cousins. These included everything from depression to arterial thickening, risk of heart disease, as well as nicotine addiction.
“We hypothesized this because Neanderthals had been living in Central Asia and Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before our recent ancestors ever reached these areas — and thus had likely adapted to the distinct environmental aspects of these regions, compared to Africa, in terms of climate, plants and animals, and pathogens,” Capra told LiveScience.
In this way the previous hypothesis explaining our cells’ weakness to ultraviolet radiation was explained. Neanderthal DNA was found to negatively affect keratinocytes – cells that help protect our skin from such damage.
https://www.rt.com/news/332244-dna-neanderthal-depression-smoking/
Darn, and I thought these issues were a result of Alien dna introduced into humans.
I am sure I can get funding for research and make my own suppositions about it.
Given the nature of the research funding system in the USA which has also infected 5 eyes countries and is spreading through to EU, I take this as no more than bogus propaganda to spread a financialist political agenda.
There are better anthropological research one can read that debunk the out of Africa meme of evolution. One title is Homo Erectus Walks Among Us if I remember correctly. Anyway point being, it is needed todetermine who is fumding research as to what the research is saying. There is a very strong anti European meme being pushed by the ZioNazis of which this current migrant push and I suspect DNA research is part of.
» It’s been known since 2010 that Eurasian genes may suffer from a series of health problems associated with Neanderthal DNA, after the fact of interbreeding with Homo sapiens was confirmed. «
Well, on these questions such as Space, origin of Earth, of Mankind, subatomar physics, that honest sheeple can’t counter-check they can hoax and scam and fraud us to their heart’s content. Works easy, just allocate funds to research in blablabla, and then scientists will invariably produce “findings” to justify the research money they cash in, and also “new questions” hence “more research needed”, meaning “more money needed”. Not saying it’s all a fraud but as long as there are no practical applications of this science that actually work I don’t regard it as relevant.
I am sorry to ruin Uncle Bobs fairy tale, but none of what he said is fact based. The history of Bosnia goes way back, long before the barbaric Slavic tribes occupied the area. Before and after their arrival Bosnia was independent to various degrees throughout long history and was ruled by Bosnian rulers. As far as religion is concerned, there was a specific Bosnian Church established throughout much of the history, which was target of attacks from both eastern (Orthodox) and western (Catholic) Christianity, without much of the success. Islam has arrived to Bosnia roughly about three centuries before Ottoman invasion. Both Islam and Bosnian Church shared many of the same beliefs and that is the main reason for the rapid spread of Islam after Ottoman invasion.
As a quick reply to comment that UN conclusion that “Markale attack” was “falls flag” attack, I would only like to remind you that this was the same UN that was “supervising the genocide” in Srebrenica and rape of (captive) Bosnian girls in east (Serb controlled) Sarajevo. So much about credibility….
The history of Bosnia dates about 800 years B.C.
You seem to know “a lot” about history. And who were these “Bosnian” rulers who ruled before barbaric Slavs? Give me some names. You seem to have access to hidden historical documents, so please enlighten us and the rest of the world
Who gave the name to the area we now call Bosnia? Bosnia was independent to various degrees throughout history? Really? When exactly? In 12000 B.C.? Have you heard of Roman (western and eastern) Empire, Hungarian kingdom, Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire?
What specific Bosnian Chruch are you talking about? Are you talking about bogumils? Do you know who they were?
And please, stop referring to Srebrenica crime as genocide. It ain’t no genocide. You need to look up the official definition of genocide.
The Zioforce is strong with this one. Thank you very much CNN, BBC, ZDF, FOX.
And thank you, Berlin Congress, for “teaching” the Balkan people their history.
In year AD 75, Bosnian nation had own coins, post office, parliament and they printed the first grammar book ” Bosnian language”. In year 259 AD they had already railway and in year 1002 they circumnavigated the world.
Lol. You forgot to add that at the time of Guttenberg, Bosnians already used internet. It wasn’t fiber optics fast but was good enough on simple copper wires.
Really? Your right the history of Bosnia (though there was no Bosnia before the Slavs) as a part of Illyria and in the Roman Empire. But do you really think any of that time has a bearing on today’s Bosnia and her peoples.Any people left from that time became Slavs centuries ago.It is from that time onward we need be concerned with:
” By the 6th century, Emperor Justinian had re-conquered the area for the Byzantine Empire. The Slavs, a migratory people from southeastern Europe, were allied by the Eurasian Avars in the 6th century, and together they invaded the Eastern Roman Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries, settling in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina and the surrounding lands.[1] More South Slavs came in a second wave, and according to some scholars were invited by Emperor Heraclius to drive the Avars from Dalmatia.[1]
Modern knowledge of Bosnia in the western Balkans during the Dark Ages is patchy. Upon the looter invasions by the Avars and Slavs from 6th-9th century, bringing Slavic languages, both probably gave way to feudalism only with the might by the Frankish penetrating into the region in the late 9th century (Bosnia probably originated as one such pre-feudal entity). It was also around this time that the Bosnians were Christianized. Bosnia, due to its geographic position and terrain, was probably one of the last areas to go through this process, which presumably originated from the urban centers along the Dalmatian coast.
It is only from the 9th century that Frankish and Byzantine sources begin to mention early Slavic polities in the region. In this regard, the earliest widely acknowledged reference to Bosnia dates from the 10th century De Administrando Imperio written by Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus,[2] during which period Bosnia is briefly a part of the short-lived Serbian state of Časlav, after whose death in battle in about 960, much of Bosnia finds itself briefly incorporated into the Croatian state of Krešimir II. Shortly thereafter, in 997, Samuel of Bulgaria marches through Bosnia and asserts his over-lordship in parts of it, however, only to be defeated by the Byzantine Empire in 1018 which annexes Bulgaria and asserts its suzerainty in Bosnia. This lasted until later in the century when some parts of Bosnia are briefly incorporated into Croatia and others into Duklja from which the latter Bosnia appears to have seceded in about 1101, upon which Bosnia’s bans tried to rule for themselves. However, they all too often found themselves in a tug-of-war between Hungary and the Byzantine Empire. In the year of 1137, Hungary annexes most of Bosnia, then briefly losing her in 1167 to the Byzantine Empire before regaining her in 1180. Thus, prior to 1180 and the reign of Ban Kulin parts of Bosnia were briefly found in Serb or Croat units, but neither neighbor had held the Bosnians long enough to acquire their loyalty or to impose any serious claim to Bosnia.[3]
The first recorded Ban (viceroy) was Ban Borić, vassal to the Hungarian king. However, he was deposed when he backed the loser in a succession crisis over the Hungarian throne. In 1167, Byzantium reconquered Bosnia and eventually emplaced their own vassal as Ban – the native Ban Kulin (r. 1180-1204). However, this vassalage was largely nominal, and Bosnia had for all practical purposes made itself into an independent state under Kulin.[4] Ban Kulin presided over nearly three decades of peace and stability during which he strengthened the country’s economy through treaties with Dubrovnik and Venice. His rule also marked the start of a controversy with the Bosnian Church, an indigenous Christian sect considered heretical by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. In response to Hungarian attempts to use church politics regarding the issue as a way to reclaim sovereignty over Bosnia, Kulin held a council of local church leaders to renounce the heresy in 1203. Despite this, Hungarian ambitions remained unchanged long after Kulin’s death in 1204, waning only after an unsuccessful invasion in 1254, which also fostered the schism of the Bosnian Church.”
As is well known the Bogomils came into Bosnia around the 1100’s from Serbia and Bulgaria. So the Christian Churches there were Catholic and Orthodox before then (mostly Catholic). And “officially” they remained so. Bogomilism was an illegal religion in the time period (even if many nobles followed it). As to Islam coming centuries before I’ve never seen anything on that. I’ll have to put that down as wishful thinking by some Bosniaks:
“The four centuries of Ottoman rule also had a drastic impact on Bosnia’s population make-up, which changed several times as a result of the empire’s conquests, frequent wars with European powers, migrations, and epidemics.[1] A native Slavic-speaking Muslim community emerged and eventually became the largest ethno-religious group[note 1][6] (mainly as a result of a gradually rising number of conversions to Islam),[7] while a significant number of Sephardi Jews arrived following their expulsion from Spain in the late 15th century. The Bosnian Christian communities also experienced major changes. The Bosnian Franciscans (and the Catholic population as a whole) were protected by official imperial decree, although on the ground these guarantees were often disregarded and their numbers dwindled.[1] The Orthodox community in Bosnia, initially confined to Herzegovina and southeastern Bosnia, spread throughout the country during this period and went on to experience relative prosperity until the 19th century.[1] Meanwhile, the native schismatic Bosnian Church disappeared altogether.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism#Spread_of_bogomilism_in_the_Balkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
But do you really think any of that time has a bearing on today’s Bosnia and her peoples….of course NOT, live him. Even “Die Detscher” [ The Germans of today ] did not know that they are Die Deutscher 200 years ago. People from Bavaria were Bavarian etc.
Subject of Ustasha regime (Croat version of Nazi) is far more complex than presented in this post (and few other posts on this respectable web site). It was criminal regime, no doubt about it, but there is a reason why it was born. If you want the objective view on matter, you should study what was going on in Croatia under the Serbian rule in period of 1918-1941. It was officially Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but in reality it was a Great Serbia and Serbs with a “little” help of the king brutally dominated in that kingdom. It was Croats who initiated unification of South Slavs, but it became a great dissapointment when they learned that Serbs used that idea to conquer other South Slavs and forcefully tried to make them Serbs. Serbs were bullying all other nations in that Yugoslavia. That was the trigger for what happened in period of 1941-1945 and Ustasha’s rampage.
Everything is perfect except this ” and forcefully tried to make them Serbs”…
@Anonymous
Actually, it’s true.
Ethnofiletism is the killer of Slavic unity, though it is pretty widespread…
Of course, in that period 1918-1941 politicians played nationalistic card, it worked by Croats
and it worked by Serbs. It worked again from 1945-1991. Today nobody gives a damn about it. Today we the Croats are in Europe and our nationalistic flame has died out.
During Tito I was a Croatian nationalist, during the war I was ardent Croatian nationalist, today I am Russophile.
And that proves that the masses are being played quite like a violin in Allegro Vivace. If we had a set of unchangeable principles (mine is Orthodox Christianity for instance), we’d never be able to fight or hate each other, regardless of what politics du jour we’re being served and fed. We’d rise above the petty nationalism/ethnophiletism. Sadly when one side plays the ‘nationalist card’ – the other one can only follow. So all ‘The West™’ has to do is play one side, the other will be sure the follow suit…and voila – You have animosity between two (or more) nations, which if left alone, are perfectly capable of mending their differences. It’s ‘Divide et Impera’ 101.
That’s why the US is The Great Babylon with her history of 400 years,she plays the Violin and the song is Divide et Impera
That was why I wrote an easy to read not “detailed” post. You are right the Serbs (and Croats) made mistakes during that period. But “mistakes” does not excuse raging homicidal fanatics, lusting for blood. I’m sorry,but whatever the Serbs may or may not have done is no excuse for the Ustasha during WW2.In the years just before the war the government was (wrongly I believe.Since Yugoslavs,all of them,needed “denationalization” not more separation) trying to give Croatia their own autonomous region.And trying to heal the differences. But instead of cooperating to make the country survive. The fascist Ustasha did everything to destroy it and build a nazi-type racial state.
Ustashe were German puppets, they did a lot what was expected from the Germany.
“Croats initiated the Yugoslav unification”
This is actually false, or not the complete truth. It is truth that some Croat intelleectuals played a great role on that, but you could not sideline the role of Serbs, both in “Austria-dominated lands” (when a lot of Serbs, particylarly of Bosnia suffered from repression) and in Serbia proper.
In “Croatian-Slavonian banovina” the most yugoslavist party was the “Croat-Serb Coalition”, this is recognized the Serbs of Croatia as a people, as well as their efforts In the Zagreb trial of 1906 the Hungarians tried a lot of Craots, but a lot of Serbs to.
About the mistakes made by Yugoslavian monarchy inrregard of Croats and “Bulgaro-Macedonians” I agrree with that, but this is a different story. If you explain the apparition of the Ustasha regimen as an answer to “Serb dominance” in the 20es and 30es; we can then explain the weakening of Serb ethnicity in Lika-Kordun-Banija or in Bosnnia due to anti-Serb genocide in the 40es; or the today “Croatness” of Vukovar due to SRFJ map-drawing.
Cheers!
Okay, folks, get your flamethrowers ready … major heresy on the roll … ;)
» Just before the Slavic tribes came to the area there had been a huge plague break out. Much of the population had died or fled. Law and order broke down throughout the area. Various Slavic tribes started to move in. « — Uncle Bob (and contemporary historiography)
The notion of “Slavic tribes” is a historic concoction. There simply is no such thing in the 9th century, nor in any earlier or later age. What we’ve come to see as the “Slavic peoples” is a linguistic illusion, just like the “Arabic peoples”.
All these peoples are real, of course. They trace back to their ancestors just fine, but probably very hard or impossible to figure out in detail, because people mix and match and mate, as intended by Nature.
If you compare pictures of people from various Slavic countries from Novgorod to Plovdiv, you’ll notice they don’t look alike at all. There’s as much difference as between a typical Swede and a typical Sicilian. So what does that tell you? That the assumption that they’re all one ethnic entity is impossible.
What happened is that Kyrill and Methodios (and others in their wake) used the Macedonian Language to roll out the Christian Faith over the Peoples of Eastern Europe, who had not yet been Christianized. The Christian Faith and the Macedonian Language went hand in hand.
The Macedonian Language, possibly and I’d say somewhat plausibly the language of Alexander the Great, encoded in a new-fangled Alphabetical Technology (that underwent various significant revisions), was the vehicle for the imposition of the Christian Faith at the behest of Imperial Byzance. Just like the Arabic Language was used to roll out the Islamic Faith over the various and different Peoples of the Levante and Northern Africa. Which today many regard as “Arabs” because they all use the Arabic Language even though they are not one ethnic body.
The Macedonian Language and the Orthodox Faith are the two key ingredients of this Great Imperial Byzantine Project, which was a decisive cultural and civilizational uplift for Eastern Europe, and it happened by the Book (as opposed to by the Sword, which is how the Franks christianized the Saxons in Northern Germany, and other Germanic tribes further East). As we know, Byzance/Konstantinopolis is the Second Rome, and Moscow is indeed the Third Rome, because Constantinople is now Istanbul. And Rome is the Empire, Imperium, das Reich. And Moscow made good use of this cultural heritage in the age of national awakening, the European 19th century, by rolling out the Panslavic idea to roll back the Turks. (And also the Germans a little bit – in Bohemia & Moravia.)
But ethnic panslavism is historically wrong … cultural panslavism is historically correct.
Some will see this as an attack on ethnicity, but it is not meant to be. The disadvantage with an overemphasized ethnic approach (just as with a radical religious approach) is that it is conducive to bringing about confrontation, as we currently see in the Ukraine, where a total fake ethnicity about some alleged Ukr tribe is created to cause trouble.
As for Yugoslavia, it became clear to me that Slovenia is at its ethnic core Germanic when I went to Ljubljana/Laibach and, on the bus, heard their local music, which is just like Bavarian Alpendudel, only in another language. It seems that when they talk they even use articles (en and ta), which are absent from other Slavic languages, and which I interpret as a Germanic substratum in their language.
Further South (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia), the music is completely different. It has the typical Balkan sound which is also present in Greek music.
I would say your perception is not correct. Slovenia is not “at its ethnic core Germanic” as whole. Only partly in North and East of Slovenia. “En” and “ta” is maybe used only in dialect(s) of Upper Carniola (that has most Germanic ethos in Slovenia, yes). Local music that you have heard was again probably from Upper Carniola that is very similar to Austrian/Bavarian. “Avseniki” afterall are famous band :) Other regions have completely different mucic tradition …
Then I wrongly took part of Slovenia for the whole thing. Thanks for correcting that, Kaluga!
Its a very complicated issue. And you are right and wrong at the same time:
“The notion of “Slavic tribes” is a historic concoction. There simply is no such thing in the 9th century, nor in any earlier or later age. What we’ve come to see as the “Slavic peoples” is a linguistic illusion, just like the “Arabic peoples”.
All these peoples are real, of course. They trace back to their ancestors just fine, but probably very hard or impossible to figure out in detail, because people mix and match and mate, as intended by Nature.
If you compare pictures of people from various Slavic countries from Novgorod to Plovdiv, you’ll notice they don’t look alike at all. There’s as much difference as between a typical Swede and a typical Sicilian. So what does that tell you? That the assumption that they’re all one ethnic entity is impossible.”
Most “nationalities” in Europe (at least great ones) are linguistic more than purely “ethnic”. They all have vast mixing with their neighbors.You need only look at your own country to see that. Some scholars say that at least 1/3 of Eastern Germans are of Slav ancestry, And the South Germans are very mixed with the Celtic peoples that used to occupy those lands.The original “Germanic” tribes spent centuries wandering throughout Eastern Europe when they came down from the Scandinavian areas.And during that time mixed with the peoples living in the regions they passed through.So the Slavs were no different. The “linguistic” communities that formed the Slavic tribal peoples mixed with all the ethnic groups they came to. In the Balkans it was mostly the Vlachs and other peoples such as Thracians,Huns,Avars,Greeks,and some Franks (Germans).The ones going East,with Finnic,and Baltic peoples. And in the Southeast with “Iranic” and Caucasian Mountain ethnic groups.
This next part is where a bigger problem comes in:
” What happened is that Kyrill and Methodios (and others in their wake) used the Macedonian Language to roll out the Christian Faith over the Peoples of Eastern Europe, who had not yet been Christianized. The Christian Faith and the Macedonian Language went hand in hand.
The Macedonian Language, possibly and I’d say somewhat plausibly the language of Alexander the Great, encoded in a new-fangled Alphabetical Technology (that underwent various significant revisions), was the vehicle for the imposition of the Christian Faith at the behest of Imperial Byzance. Just like the Arabic Language was used to roll out the Islamic Faith over the various and different Peoples of the Levante and Northern Africa. Which today many regard as “Arabs” because they all use the Arabic Language even though they are not one ethnic body.
The Macedonian Language and the Orthodox Faith are the two key ingredients of this Great Imperial Byzantine Project, which was a decisive cultural and civilizational uplift for Eastern Europe, and it happened by the Book (as opposed to by the Sword, which is how the Franks christianized the Saxons in Northern Germany, and other Germanic tribes further East). As we know, Byzance/Konstantinopolis is the Second Rome, and Moscow is indeed the Third Rome, because Constantinople is now Istanbul. And Rome is the Empire, Imperium, das Reich. And Moscow made good use of this cultural heritage in the age of national awakening, the European 19th century, by rolling out the Panslavic idea to roll back the Turks. (And also the Germans a little bit – in Bohemia & Moravia.)”
Alexander the Great’s Macedonians spoke a language “similar” to Greek. Most languages in Europe are what is known as “Indo-European” so yes there are a few words similar in them all.But the Macedonians at the time you are speaking of had become mostly “Slavic” speaking. The moving in of the Slavic tribes and their mixing with peoples there had changed the ethnic and linguistic makeup vastly by then.The reason that they picked Macedonian Slavic to base the “alphabet” off of was became it was close to Constantinople (relatively) and the Slavic language then was almost the same throughout the Slavic speaking World. So they didn’t really change the “language” as much as they created an alphabet to write it with.As to the Russians and Pan-Slavism.The Russians while having some scholars that agreed with it. They were never fully supportive of it. It was the Czechs in particular who were the biggest proponents of it. The Russians (many of them) felt it was too tied to Catholic Slavic peoples. And that they were better off with a Pan-Orthodox Slav movement.So throughout the “heyday” of Pan-Slavism Russians were split on it.
I agree with the next two paragraphs of your post. But in the last section,it has some problems:
“As for Yugoslavia, it became clear to me that Slovenia is at its ethnic core Germanic when I went to Ljubljana/Laibach and, on the bus, heard their local music, which is just like Bavarian Alpendudel, only in another language. It seems that when they talk they even use articles (en and ta), which are absent from other Slavic languages, and which I interpret as a Germanic substratum in their language.
Further South (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia), the music is completely different. It has the typical Balkan sound which is also present in Greek music.”
The first part is actually backwards. Much of Southern Austria has a lot of Slovene ancestry. Certainly with the mixing of peoples since the early middle ages there is some German mixing in the Slovenes as well. But the vast majority of it is the other way around. You can find old maps that used to show the areas of language change over those years. And they show much of Southern Austria was at one time Slovene speaking (in many/some cases until the early 19th century even).And even today Austria has a small Slovene speaking population left in those areas. Though most have been Germanized for a century or more.What you are seeing and hearing in Ljubljana is the results of centuries of being a part of Austria. And a surface cultural Germanization from those years. Similar to there being more of a “Germanic” feel in say the Czech Republic than you would see and hear in Russia.That also for the same reasons. While the Balkan music you talked about has an “Anatolian” sound to it (I’ve noticed it too). That is from around 500 years of Turkish influence. Even Croatia was somewhat influenced by it,since they were a borderland and a fourth or more of the people had immigrated from Serb areas during the Ottoman days.
Haha,so no flamethrowers from me.Just a match or two.
» Most “nationalities” in Europe (at least great ones) are linguistic more than purely “ethnic”. They all have vast mixing with their neighbors.You need only look at your own country to see that. Some scholars say that at least 1/3 of Eastern Germans are of Slav ancestry, And the South Germans are very mixed with the Celtic peoples that used to occupy those lands. «
Sure. I definitely agree. Except that the alleged Slavs were East Germanic tribes. And there should also be other influences in Germany, in addition to the Celtic one, considering the Romans, and some incursions along the Danube, and probably much more.
» The original “Germanic” tribes spent centuries wandering throughout Eastern Europe when they came down from the Scandinavian areas.And during that time mixed with the peoples living in the regions they passed through. «
When they were wandering, they would be mixing as well. But from what we know (Julius Caesar), they were mostly sedentary. Central Europe was mostly woods back then. Making soil suitable for agriculture was hard work. Once that was achieved, I doubt people would leave unless forced. Wandering about, especially in a non-predatory manner, was logistically problematic. What would you eat? The livestock pulling your cart?
» Alexander the Great’s Macedonians spoke a language “similar” to Greek. «
Well, we don’t know. German Wiki says that only very few Macedonian words from Alexander’s time have been passed on to us. The Greeks didn’t understand it. Some think it may have been a Greek dialect, others disagree. Anyway, it would have been almost a thousand years before Kyrill and Methodios. (Would be interesting to check those Macedonian words the Greeks took note of, though.)
» But the Macedonians at the time you are speaking of had become mostly “Slavic” speaking. The moving in of the Slavic tribes and their mixing with peoples there had changed the ethnic and linguistic makeup vastly by then. «
Well, this it the point where I am in fundamental disagreement with historiography. There were no Slavic tribes. :) There were various tribes, Germanic and others, and what made them into Slavs was the language they’ve been Christianized with. Nothing ethnic about Slavs, nothing at all. A linguistic illusion.
I think the conundrums of the ethnogenesis of the alleged Slavs support the theory I’m proponing. Which is called Slawenlegende and not actually mine.
What also supports the Slawenlegende theory is a plain and simple look at the faces that make up Europe. Many people look pretty Germanic in Poland, Czech lands, Slovakia, the Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Russia. And also in Macedonia and even Bulgaria there are people who look Germanic although it is not the predominant look in those countries.
Just take a look at some national football teams with an open eye, from Norway, Sweden, Finnland, Baltic countries, Russia and all the other Slavophonic countries. Discounting guys like Zlatan Ibrahimovic of course (for Americans: a Bosnian playing for Sweden).
Or compare Dmitriy Medvedev and Lothar Matthäus. Do they look so different? I don’t think so.
Vladimir Putin looks different, that is true. And many Russians look different in more different ways. Talking about Europeans only, not even counting Siberians. But that is just because Russia is a huge country where lots of ethnicities from Finnish and Swedish to Iranian (Skythen, Sarmaten) influences have come together.
And the Germanic element is not just some Vikings such as Waldemar/Wladimir and Helga/Olga or Helge/Oleg. There’s much more to it. There were East Germanic tribes before the Vikings came and took charge of things.
Ethnicity in Europe is very complicated (as I say over and over in my posts). People don’t change language ( at least in the past) unless there is a large number of new peoples and their elites that come into the area and take over. And the older population mixes so much with them that they adopt their language. And then over centuries they fuse into one people. There are many cases of the other way around though. Of new immigrants moving in,and new elites taking over. And becoming assimilated over time by the older population.That’s what happened to the Franks in France. The Visigoths in Spain and Portugal. The Vikings in the British Isles,in Normandy,the Normans themselves in Britain, Ireland and Southern Italy.And the Vikings in Russia.That also was the case of the Bulgars in Bulgaria. And the East Germanic tribes (those that didn’t leave Eastern Europe (most did). The newer German settlers in Poland ,Hungary,during the middle ages. That was only different when they settled in compact large groups. Usually in border areas.But also as in Romania it can also be in further areas (though that was the exception not the rule). And if those settlers have a noticed difference from their neighbors that would keep them from easily mixing (Religion being a prime one,the Germans that where Protestants in Romania or the Jews being examples).What you are seeing in Europeans is not necessarily “German features” (though yes there was a lot of mixing both ways in Eastern Europe with Germans).But “white” features. The Romans,before the great migration era (or at the start of it) wrote about how the Celts and Germans,they thought were related. And how they resembled each other. That in the Northern and Eastern areas of Gaul (now Northern France,Western Germany,and the Low Countries) that the Celts and Germans were so alike and mingled that they weren’t sure which tribe could be counted under which group in many cases.And in North Western China have been found murals and graves of people living there before the Roman Era of our period. They show people with blonde and red hair and European features. The best guess from historians is that those peoples were driven West over time (those that didn’t eventually assimilate into the Chinese gene pool).And joined with other groups of like people in the Scythian World. A people the Romans and Byzantines (and Arabs) said were “tall,robust,with blonde or red hair”. They spoke Indo-European languages (as best is known). And many historians count them as a major component of what later became the “Slavic peoples” over many centuries. But by their description,they also resemble descriptions of “Celtic ,Germanic,and Baltic” peoples. Which is one reason why you are not today seeing that much difference among Eastern and North Europeans. And why it was easy for one group or the other to assimilate to each other. As to the Slavs in Germany here is a history of them,not super detailed but a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_Slavs
» People don’t change language ( at least in the past) unless there is a large number of new peoples and their elites that come into the area and take over. «
Yes it has happened, without large numbers of new people. See how the Arabic language spread explosively in the 7th and 8th century by means of superior culture in probably all dimensions, notably the religious and linguistic dimensions. New religion, new concepts, possibly impossible to express in primitive tribal language. Folks eager to pick up the new stuff because of all the funky shiny new culture coming with it, because of the civilizational uplift it affords.
Think about it: The Word was God. It cannot be overemphasized.
And thus the Macedonian language, not just the carrier but the Medium of God, was deployed over Eastern Europe at the behest of Imperial Byzance. This language had probably been developed and enhanced by imperial experts to Christianize the Macedonians. Like Luther developed and enhanced the German language when he translated the Bible.
The Word of God was then applied to peoples who didn’t have a written culture. And the Word of God was Macedonian. This centennial or longer effort was carried by organized clerics.
The Word of God, evangelized by Imperial Byzance, carried by a Phantastic Alphabet and a Holy Mission. Can you see the cultural firepower?
You may not know this but many of the people in that region were of Arab descent already by that time. There had been immigration from the Arab Peninsula for centuries. One of the Roman Emperors from Syria was nicknamed “the Arab”. And some of the Christian Arab tribes held great areas of Palestine, and another group in Southern Iraq. As well as Arabic being a Semitic language wasn’t that different for other Semitic peoples to speak. But regardless of that, Arabic wasn’t adopted by them all, over a short period. There were large numbers of Arab tribes for centuries moving into those countries. And with the mixing that went on. And Arabic being the government language, over many centuries it became accepted in most of the area. But even today many people speak over tongues (especially in Western North Africa). Some of my Algerian friends from years ago spoke Berber (they knew Arabic as well) as their home language. And some of the others spoke only Arabic.Your constant tries to “fit history” into your desires just doesn’t work. Nations histories like people, is complicated. And there is no such thing as “absolute purity” in history.
I am from what is called Macedonia. We are Bulgarians, Constantin Philosoph (Kiril) and Metodi are Bulgarians, their disciples who made kirilica alphabet (as opposed to glagolica, made by Kiril and Metodi) were Bulgarian bishops. The priest Bogomil who founded the bogomilian heresy was Bulgarian. Our language is a Bulgarian dialect. When the West is going to stop lying. Were not there enough persecutions over the last century to make us anything else, but what we are – Bulgarians. Were not enough the concentation camps like Goli otok in Yugoslavia for those who did not want to give up their Bulgarian identity? Even now more than half “macedonians” have Bulgarian passports.
So let me clarify: (1) I have no opinion about the quarrels between present-day Macedonia and Bulgaria, or, for that matter, between present-day Macedonia and Greece. (2) In my comment, I was referring to the historic region of Macedonia of which Thessaloniki was the capital, which is where Kyrill and Methodios were born, but where today people speak Greek.
It could be that just like Greece and Macedonia disagree about who owns the historic heritage of the region and Alexander the Great, Bulgaria and Macedonia disagree about who owns Kyrill and Methodios. They may do as they wish.
“Quarrels” started with the Berlin Congress and were pushed and pushed by persecuting and killing all who identified themselves as Bulgarians. The “quarrels” were and are actively fuelled and supported by the West. And it is a continuing process to this day. It was and is part of the so called Balkanization.
Historic region of Macedonia includes the region of Odrin in the present Turkey, and the historic name of Thessaloniki was Solun – from “sol” (salt) in Bulgarian, the biggest market of “sol”. The name is Metodi, never been Methodios.
Alexander the Great does not belong to anyone, neither Greece, he concurred it , nor contemporary Macedonia, which is slovianik with predominant even today Bulgarian identity. Do you now how we “macedonians” call the fanatics of alleged Alexander’s heritage? Bukefalists – from Alexander’s horse’ name, Bukefal.
Thanks. So K&M were from Solun/Saloniki, spoke the local language (called either Bulgarian or Macedonian) and Greek, which was the language with the greatest cultural prestige in that part of the world. K&M were probably bilingual. Kyrill then studied Latin, Syrian, Hebrew, and learnt Khazarian and Gothic.
My point is: He was a linguistic and spiritual engineer. Or they were both. And they took their local language (whether you call it Bulgarian or Macedonian) and applied it in Christianizing pagans in various regions of Europe. (Of course the effort lasted a century or even much longer.) Just like Western Europe learnt Latin. And North Africa and the Levante learnt Arabic.
About Methodios vs Metodi: Greek theta is transcribed as ф in Russian, not as т. So the Russians say Мефодий, not Методий, like миф, not мит. Which suggests that in Greek M was indeed called Methodios (Μεθόδιος). As it is commonly claimed.
I’m not surprised to learn that the West has been actively fuelling the quarrels. It’s always divide et impera. Create dissent, pit one against the other, and use the resulting mess to rule.
Lumi, Macedonian langage as well as Macedonia (not to confuse with the ancient Macedonian kingdom) are newly minted terms. Not only we Bulgarians, but also south Serbians were forcefully made “macedonians”. Muslim Serbians were forced to become “bosniaks”. Anything to create animosity. Just like south Russians became “Ukrainians”. Who nows what will become of tomorrows Germans for example?
Thanks. That makes sense to me. We can indeed see this nation faking live in the Ukraine.
Today’s Germans don’t know who they are, so tomorrow’s Germans could be anything … but because of inertia, they’ll probably stay Germans. :)
We all in Europe are nothing and nobody if Russia cease to exist.
I initially thought if I studied all these comments I would be able to piece together a better understanding of the general situation in this part of the world.
Guess what!
I’d like to make a few additions and corrections to the article:
1. In those long gone days 2500 years ago, the event of Slavic tribes migrations was known as “Great Migrations”. Not just slavs but many others moved around and conquered new lands.
Anyway, the Slavic tribes migrated from what is today central Russia in 3 directions, and the goup of tribes that came south were known of course as – Southern Slavs. The word “Yugoslavia” literally means “Southern Slavia”, as in – the land of southern slavs.
As they moved further south through Balkans, they conquered and pushed indigenous tribes even further south and when the “locals” eventually retreated into the rocky mountains, the Slavs stopped. I’m guessing they didn’t see the point in going any further, as they already conquered all the fertile lands.
Those indigenous tribes were knows as Ilirians, and in modern times they are known as Albanians. You can research this for yourself, they don’t have anything in common with the rest of today’s population. No common language, customs, genes… nothing.
Croats and Serbs do share common language (different dialects), genetic and cultural heritage, regardless of how much they want to differentiate from each other.
2. The split between the catholic and orthodox religions in the Balkans is simply result of geography. Northern and western parts were closer to Rome, southern and eastern parts to Constantinopol. Later on, the Austro-Hungarian empire and Ottoman empire had their borders right through this region, and it is correct – they gave some religious freedoms to the population of “wrong religion” living near the border, as well as tax breaks in exchange of defence of empire. This is where the word “Krajina” comes from, it means “end of empire”. Not as in temporal sense but in geographical – the empire’s edge, if you like.
So these people were actually border guards for the neighbouring empires. That’s how large Serbian enclave ended up on Coratian territory, and vice-versa.
3. I can’t say what the Austro-Hungarian’s empire view on orthodox population was, but I know exactly what Ottoman’s was on any christians.
There is not very well known historical fact: Ottomans did NOT persecute christians and did NOT destroy churches and monasteries in these areas. In a town where I was born there is a Franciscan monastery better part of 1000 years old. It stood through the entire reign of Ottoman empire in the region, and it still stands today.
What the Ottomans had in mind for christians was far more sinister. It was called “Blood Tax”.
Every christian family was subject to it. If you had a son, you had to give him up while he was still a child. Only one male child was ever taken from a family. These children were taken to Constantinopol (Istambul) and trained to be the soldiers of the empire – yanichars. They were forbidden to marry or own property, so since they were trained from childhood they believed in the empire unreservedly. They simply never knew anything else.
Usually these children were taken very young, but in some cases the Ottomans didn’t find out until it was late, and some of the boys were taken at 5 or even 7 years of age. One of them rose through the ranks of yanichars and was even appointed to be the Governor of Bosnia (Pasha). He was taken a bit late from his family so he remembered parts of his life with his family. He remembered that it was difficult for the villagers to cross the river to get to the markets, so many years later when he became the Governor, he built the famous bridge in eastern Bosnia.
You have to admit, it would be difficult for any family to choose to lose their son instead of converting to Islam. I would argue that this was the largest reason for so many muslims in Balkans today.
4. It is unfortunately true that in WW2, even the Waffen SS were shocked by the cruelty of their Croat allies, but only of them. Germans had a similar agreement on Serb side and gave them some control of their own vassal state, just like they did with Croatia. Neither these Serbs, nor the Bosnian SS volunteers who joined the “Handzar” SS division were particularly merciful to the people of “wrong nationality”.
These crimes on all sides were fuelling the atrocities in the Yugoslavian civil war in the 90s, as the crimes from that war will undoubtedly fuel the next one, and so on and on…
5. There was no infighting within the ranks of communist restance to the Germans in the WW2. What was actually happening is that communists were fighting 3 sides at once (Croatian natinalists, Serbian nationalists and Germans), while Allies (Great Britain in particular) couldn’t figure out who is actually fighting the Germans, so they kept supplying and supporting the Serbian nationalists masquarading as remnants of old Yugoslavian army loayl to the king in exile (in London). They finally figured it out sometime in 1943 and switched completely to supporting the communist partisans, which by 1945 kept “occupied” some 21 German divisions in the Balkans. Had the Germans been able to use these forces elsewhere, the result of the war might have been very very different.
Good article, by the way. Correct and concise.
Thanks! I enjoyed your overview. And you added several good points on the Ottoman Blood Tax. One of those “sons” also rose to became a Grand Vizier as well (in the 1500’s). And one of his brothers (or nephews I don’t remember off hand ) became Orthodox Patriarch of Pec. So the head of the Orthodox Serbs throughout. Its said they cooperated to relieve some of the harshness of Ottoman rule at that time.
Is anyone on this thread familiar with the book “Black Flag and Grey Falcon,” by Rebecca West?
Katherine
yes of course … written in late 1930’s … many pages … very good travel log … a world that does not exist anymore mod-hs
I think this book is considered quite a lot more than a “travel log.”
West spent five years of her life writing it.
Katherine
Oh, forgot to add, anyone propagandizing “south slavic brotherhood” or libtard-communist ideas after all what has happened in the 20th century deserves a shot a the head. We need firm and clear boundaries, and get our land back stolen by the Croats. Not only have the Croats taken our land, but also expanded their borders (Istria) on our blood. Well, what we need is to get some our land back. The only land which is of value i the Balkans is the Adriatic coast. We don’t need Kosovo, and don’t want Kosovo with 2 million Albanians there. So hopefully our Muslim brothers will be wise and smart enough this time around to work with us and get their part of Adriatic coast. They have been Croat servants and useful fools for way too long. Time for them to wise up and understand their national interests. It cannot be that everything of value must be included into Croatia.
So why is it that you didn’t allow my previous 8 comment through? There won’ be any more brotherhoods- only borders and boundaries!
Your other comments ‘trashed talked’ either the author or another commenter. Saker has a firm moderation policy regarding being courteous to authors and other commenters. Your prior comments have been sent to him for review. He may post or trash. Stick to ideas and discussion and avoid personal attacks and you will do fine. mod-hs
Comment removed … no soup for you … mod-hs
Due to mountainous geography the preponderance of neanderthal/early cro-magnoid/proto-chetno-ustashe genes remains quite high.
I’m not even kidding.
The forces making ‘Yugoslavia’ an imposibility come from both above and below.
I wonder if “Bodin” is nickname of a Croat internet troll. The languange and stile of thinking is so similar to how croatian far-right is thinking. He just mentaly switched sides I guess. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be true.
And how Craotian Ustashe is thinking? They are thinking how best to suck up to the West and profit for such endevour. That has been their thinking always. Is that my thinking? No. but they did profit a lot, enormously, by their thinking. We have not. it is high time that we start thinking for ourselves, and not for some “brotherhoods.” Sell your lies to someone else!
personal attack removed … mod-hs What “forces making Yugoslavia?” Those “forces” were always outsiders, foreigners, just like they are on this thread. Quit meddling in the affairs of others and spreading your degenerate liberal ideology, Westerner! There is no such thing as Yugoslav people, never has been. It is just you thinking you can create conglomerates of people and give them new identity, make a new people out of many, and it doesn’t work that way, slur removed … mod-hs
It appears that you are trying to game the system by replying to your own comment … mod-hs
You have no idea what you re talking about, so you couldn’t possibly kidding even if you wanted to.
This sentence ^^ is apparently insulting to commentator C I eh, but comment from him equating Chetnicks who bitterly fought Ustashe and Ottomans, and every other invader, is permitted. Communists are somehow held in high regard according to this Western liberal, because they cherish his liberal ideology. And he even goes to call us Neanderthals. That is, as you can see, not “slur” or “personal attack,” but my sentence from above is.
Please, do not feel ofended by”neanderthals”. Neanderthal genes gave humans immunity and certain resistance to psychiatric disorders. And of course sensitive to UV rays skin.
Thanks for that Uncle Bob, I don’t suppose for a moment that it’s 100% accurate, history is worse than the news for ‘interpretation’ but in broad strokes it gives me a framework for the history of the area on which to hang anything I learn. The event that thinned the previous inhabitants of the area was an explosion of Krakatoa which caused years without summers from around 530ad . So many starved unusual diseases were rife, and to top it all the ‘elites’ depopulated the countryside immediately the weather recovered to serve their urban culture. Rinse repeat for a hundred years. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076713-125-year-mini-ice-age-linked-to-the-plague-and-fall-of-empires/
Thanks,I had forgotten if I ever knew the cause of the plague. Just that historians talked of the great plague at that time depopulating much of the areas. And weakening the population so much that it was fairly easy for the Slavic tribes to move in with little opposition.
» Much of the population had died or fled. Law and order broke down throughout the area. Various Slavic tribes started to move in. «
» … weakening the population so much that it was fairly easy for the Slavic tribes to move in with little opposition. «
It’s always like that with the Slavs. They are always already there in large numbers around the corner and just move in. They never have to fight a battle. There is no epic tale of their migration. Entire peoples disappear by some ill fate and very discretely, the Slavs move in. In incredible numbers, from the vast expanses of the Ukraine, or Belarus, or Russia, where they had been able to multiply in huge numbers, they just move in. The whole history of how the Slavs took Eastern Europe is one freaking hell of an unsung miracle.
How about with the Germans as well.Do you ever wonder how “all” those huge tribes managed to come out of Scandinavia. A cold and in those days barren land. And yet move in vast numbers all other Eastern Europe and today’s Germany,the Low Lands ,into Britain,all over France,Northern Italy,Spain and Portugal. And even into North Africa. Since you seem to doubt that the Slavic tribes could move half that far (and you even doubt they existed). So are you equally as doubtful about the Germanic tribes. And if not ,why not. Could it be because those are your ancestors. And so their history “must” be right. While “of course” the Slavs history is open to question by you. You might want to remember “Let them without sin cast the first stone”.
» Do you ever wonder how “all” those huge tribes managed to come out of Scandinavia. «
I’m not sure it happened like that. Not sure they did indeed come from Scandinavia as is commonly believed. Could well be true but I don’t know. I have no knowledge and no opinion about it. It is history without written records, as far as I know. How can we know for sure?
When the Romans arrived, there were people settling in what they would call Germania. Settling … they were sedentary. Much of the land was sparsely populated. There were unpopulated zones between tribes. It was Urwald. That’s it. We don’t know that much about what happened before.
I doubt all movement of huge tribes that had already become sedentary – for logistic reasons. Young folks leaving home to settle elsewhere – makes sense. Whole tribes leaving land they have already cultivated – doesn’t make sense, unless there is a strong motive.
One thing I’ve become sure about: There is absolutely no reason to believe some bit of history just because it is in a book. Even when it is a very old book.
Just today I’ve been listening to something about Hannibal and his elefants. Crossing the Alpes in autumn. Oh, really? To be honest, I find it very hard to believe.
In order to understand, we need to distinguish truth from lies. There is a huge issue in the second paragraph of the uncle Bob comment 1. For many years, Serbs have been learning that they are Slavic tribes that come to Balkans, but this is wrong. This assumption is based on one sentence in a document copied by Catholic monks. The truth is that Serbs are autochthonous people from Balkan. Balkan is a new name and it was called Helm. For details see work of Jovan Deretic and most recent genetical research from Harvard.
That comes under the same type thinking as the “Ukie tribes” that predated Egyptian civilization in their latest books.
We came from the western bank of Caspian Sea, and we are no Slavs. Search Scythians, and you will know our origins.
Yes. It is crazy how this Slav fallacy is kept going. All these peoples such as Scythians, Sarmatians, Thracians, Illyrians just disappeared? … and some mythical Slavs from some hyperfertile nonstop breeding Ukraine or Belarus took over everything??? Come on … It is impossible!
Of course these peoples such as Scythians did not disappear! According to mid 90ies research, they were europäid although their origin can be traced to Southern Siberia (Tuva, Altai, …), from where they moved West. They must have settled down somewhere. Yes, they could have merged with others … Goths maybe, I don’t know, there were other players.
By the way, the steppe origin also explains the music, that particular sound, these melodies, which doesn’t sound like next door from Germany, but rather like from far away. And I don’t think it is from the Turkish occupation. Not at all. Music stays with the people and is, if you will, in their blood.
Just forget about Slavs and you’ll find the truth about Eastern Europe.
It would be fine for us to forget about “Slav fallacy” (in your words) if it weren’t for the countless racist and murderous attacks and attempts to divide and subdue us coming from the Germans (historically) and their other Germanic and Anglo-Saxon cousins (currently). As it stands the Slavic identities will be around for a lot longer- even if you define them as a purely linguistic concept they are worthwhile and perfectly justified. (for this is the defining factor for Anglo-sphere and German Europe as well)
Hi Primavera. The Slav fallacy is to think of it as phylogenetic.
» As it stands the Slavic identities will be around for a lot longer- even if you define them as a purely linguistic concept they are worthwhile and perfectly justified. «
I totally agree. I’d even say that cultural-linguistic history is much more important than bloodlines. The proof is in the history of Europe. All these wars … think about how many of them were between phylogenetic brothers who just happened to be culturally somewhat different, were hence organized in different nations, and steered by their leaders into confrontation.
It can be that Bosnian Muslims are in fact the most ”purest blood” Serbians. Because if you just look into history books what Turks did to peoples in Balkan which did not ”accept” Muslim religion it will be much ”clear” everything.
Many great words and insights, thank you everyone. All matters little until true genocide against Serbian population in former Yugoslav lands, is recognized, acknowledged for what it is and perpertrators named and punished. Catholic Church at the helm…
if author offer any valid historical prove that “croatian” teritory existed before 1991, I will be thankful!
Text that starts with claim that slavic tribes (term Slavic didnt exist before 6th century) come into Balkan from somewhere is not worthy of spending time. It is better to yail vatican, vatican!!!
You really aren’t trying to play the type of game the Israelis use over Palestine are you.But just for you here you are enjoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Croatia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(925%E2%80%931102)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia_in_the_union_with_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa
And here is one group for Serbia as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_in_the_Middle_Ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_century_in_Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century_in_Serbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Empire
please read carefully .. I need prove that “croatian” teritory existed!! .. I am not asking about Dalmatian (ragusa .. anywhere ..no croats mentioned there; Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia were always separate territory). Moreover pay attention that king od Croats and Hungars are not by definition croat! Dusan the Great was tsar over Greeks but he wasn’t Greek!
Could you send me some link where we can see crown or seal of so called croatian kings! If they were kings you will provide us those documents, would you??
Hardly any can be found as everything about medieval croatia is based on TESTIMONIES from various catholic missionaries and priests, and hungarian bibliography. There is no actual material proof of that, as everything is based on fabricated travel logs or vague mentions by catholic clergy.
On the other hand serbian state actualy existed in varius forms and hard material evidence is mostly in the form of 9-12th century serbian churches, monasteries, laws and is pretty much documented well by various statesmen of the other european states.
Seriously don’t even try to “go there”. The exclusive Croat Kingdom didn’t last that long. Before they came under Hungarian rule. But Serbia didn’t do that great either. She was taken over by the Byzantines and the Bulgarians. Then enjoyed a short period of greatness.And then fell under an “ottoman darkness” that she didn’t escape from until the 19th century. So neither people did well in the lotto of history. It doesn’t behoove one of you to deny the other. That doesn’t aid you at all.
What part of “Duchy of Croatia” and “Kingdom of Croatia” did you miss there.
Your mistaken when you base your knowledge on the austrian and western historic maps.
You probably havent been to modern croatia, and didnt visit any of the historic castles, monasteries and churches.
If you would, youd see serbian orthodox churches. Built by serbian rulers. Because eventhough i respect your comments and find them intriguing, you are way of in your understanding of the history in these lands.
In medieval times, the rulers would build churches and monasteries as a tribute to god and a monument of their rule. Why would you have such monasteries dating even back to 10th century, while every catholic church was built by austrians and hungarians.
So if you really want to do sone research take a trip to the balkans and visit churches and monasteries in croatia which date back to those times, you will find little if none latin churches, and if you read croatian history books they are trying to claim these sacral objects as “croatian orthodox” which is an oximoron, since croatian nation is based solely on anti-orthodoxy anti-serbian sentiment.
Go there and visit and stop reading wiki.
Take care
It also seems that Croatia only started use of the Latin script in the 19th century. Up to then, they had been using the oldest known version of the Glagolica script, suggesting an orthodox history.
Glagoliza: Die älteste slawische Schrift
Also seems like a good opportunity to link back to a comment made by one Rajia a couple weeks ago (simply substitute “Balkans” for “Islam”):
Up until the 1000’s (even later in some area) every Church built in that region was just “Christian”. There was no divide between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. The only main difference was which jurisdiction did the area fall under. Was it headed by the Patriarchy in Rome or the one in Constantinople. In was only in the years after that the split became important. And the closer areas like the Yugoslav region took even longer. They kept some of the “pre-Split” traditions for years. With the language issue in the Churches lasting the longest. When Kyrill and Methodios started out setting up training for the Slavs in Christianity. And devising the alphabet they worked for the Patriarch in Constantinople and as Greeks they used the Western customs more in their teaching. But then they moved into today’s Slovakia and the Czech Republic.And there they came under the authority of Rome.Which wasn’t something important in those days as their was only one Church. And you’ll see they make several trips to Rome to report on their work and get authority to continue it. But some in the Latin Church saw them as trying to work for the Byzantine Empire.So they always had trouble gaining help in Rome.And since they had early permission to use Slavic in the Church services instead of Latin. That was the crux of the problem.The Pope’s went back and forth on that for centuries until they finally totally banned its use in the Roman Churches services.Which is what you were talking about when you said the Churches used Slavic for a long time in Croatian regions.That had nothing to do with those Churches having been Orthodox.
so everything on the west from so called 1054 border is croatian territory? … it is funny! :)
can you help me with more proves … who made that border? who displaced people? who was the ruler of croatia during this days?
You have to give me more information on what you want to know for a full answer.
But to your last question: ” Stephen I Krešimirović (Croatian: Stjepan I Krešimirović) (c. 988 – 1058) was a King of Croatia from c. 1030 until 1058 and a member of House of Trpimirović, first of the Krešimirović branch. Stephen I was the first Croatian king whose given name was “Stephen” (“Stjepan”), as Držislav added the name Stephen at his coronation. “
Stjepan I Kresimirovic is son of serbian king Tjecimir and grandson of serbian king Pavlimir Ratnik (Pavlimir the Warrior). Kresimirs brother is serbian king Prelimir.
so you state that Stjepan was Croat because he lived on territory that is these days occupied for croats by vaticaNATO?
My 2 cents, and pls dont get offended (to anyone who might read this comment, as its the last in the thread).
I have read every comment on this thread as i have been studying the hostory of these lands for the past 20 years, and it is of great interest to me. I myself am slovene by birth, and have traveled and lived in various parts of yugoslavia due to the nature of my work..
What pretty much every comment relies on is wikipedia and incorrect interpretations of various testimonies from times prior to 10th cebtury up to 20th. The superficiality and wrong presumptions will fuel incorect and mythomaniac “knowledge” of history.
1. The first and very wrong presumption is that south slavs or pretty much any “group of people” in europe belongs to a specific ethnicity. Any logical thought will tear the ethnicity theory to shreds, as you have dark skin swedes, blond turks, or slavs with asiatic characteristhics and/or features. So what is far more important is the language and identity attached to it. (more about it below)
2. Slavs as a group are called slavs for a specific reason. The word slav regards the language spoken.” Slovo” is a word (today used in the southern slavic language area describing a single letter and in western slavic areas it literaly means word). So slavs were the people speaking the protoslavic language and it never ever reffered to a clean ethnicity, as ethnicity as we know it today is a fairly new invention meant mainly for “divide and conquer” purposes.
3. Point 2 will destroy pretty much any myth regarding ethnicity, especialy in the balkan regions.
4. The ilyrians have zero connnection with todays albanians, which by their origins, both linguistic and geographic has 0 % connection to ilyrians. In fact, the austrian archives prove (for the lucky ones who get access to the18th and 19th century material will reveal that it was the then german-austrian deep state created the albanian nation from various tribes, by asigning the predominant language (which is extremly poor by todays standards, as the language has actualy been formed by the german linguist Franz bop in 1854). This can mainly be atributed to the decline of the otoman empire, and the fear of the german-austrian rulers that the vacuum would be filled by the resurgent serbian state. Serbs at that time or south slavs, outnumbered the austrians, and would effectively cut off the access to the adriatic.
4. The victors define the history. “those who control the present control the past, those who control the past control the future”. The croats as a nation in fact represent a very small minority with a language different then todays croatian which is in fact serbian language. As the croatian language (true croatian) is no longer spoken, traces are found in the southern hungary and northwest croatia.. The croatian tribe was always culturaly algned with the ancestors of todays hungarians, and has vety little connection with what are todays croatians (istrians, slavonians, dalmatians). One could also define dalmatians as a separate nation then.
5. The austrian-german deep state feared russias influence in the balkans due to the language and culture. Thus they had to divide the serbian nation, and religion was most suitable for the job.
Generaly speaking the difference between germans themselves is far biger than between serbs and todays croats, especially if we consider the language.
The austrohungarians were propagating the croatian nation and the propaganda machine has been keen on displaying serbs as villains and croats as holy warriors of the vatican(again well documented by the austrohungarian state) hoping they would accept this role and distance themselves from the rest of the serbs.
The tactic was successful in poland turning them against russia (containment policy of that time).
6. Bosnia is a geographical region what is pretty much todays easte bosnia and herzegovina. Considering anyone athinc bosnian or bosniak is only succumbing to the westerninterpretation of history.
In fact for anyone familiar with the 90′ wartime bosnian flag can see that its actualy the coat of arms of the Kotromanic dynasty of the medieval times. The dynasty at the height of its power incorporated vast lands, and thelast rulers of the dynasty named themselves “ruler of bosna , raška and all the serbian lands.
Most of todays croatia (slavonia, large chunks of dalmatia) were part of the greater serbian realm, which has always beem plagued by a constant fight for power between various noble houses.
7. SFRJ was an artificial project,which used the peoples need for unification, but has always been sabotaged from the inside and outside. Some of you wrote that croats
Grew tired of serbian rising influence in the eighties, forgeting that they had an attempt at croatian spring well in the seventies. In fact the serbs(todays orthpdox serbs) constituted roughly 65% of kingodm of yugoslavias population to ve dropped to 40% in sfrj and the division of serbia into 3 republics (montenegro, macedonia, serbia. The latter being subdivided into 3 provinces: Vojvodina, kosovo and metohija and serbia proper).
So actually itcwas the other way around, the serbs grew tired of the ever growing influence of croats and slovenes, who actually held true power in sfrj. Most powerful men stane dolanc, kardelj, kidric, tito, etc.
For the end, this is only tip of the iceberg and a proper debate and research is needed. Serbian empire has took on the artificial role of the spiritual and cultural succesor to the byzantine empire, which has been in stark contrast with the wishes of the vatican. Hence the serbs became “small russians” dubbed by several popes and german rulers, and were deemed a dangerous element, should they ever conquer lands and connect with the russian empire.
Quite hard to describe the history to foreigners, when even the people in the balkans are completely unaware of certaim historic facts, even those propagated by the west, since every newfound nation is too bussy fabricating their history and brainwashing the people, which to be honest are mostly uneducated and primitive in their understanding of the world around.
Take care
Thanks for this- a brilliant summary!
I have read all the “Slova” and Your comment, brother, has calmed me down.You are not alone and I am not alone.Funny thing:I have only yesterday learnt that there is “dvojina” in slovenian language.Feeling bit happy in this ugly times.Keep good work and may God be with You.
This makes perfect sense to me. One hell of a great comment! Thanks!
It’s clear the Austrohungarians must have been pretty sophisticated in their ruling given that, as minorities, they kept such an ethnic patchwork empire together. I’d be very interested in bibliographical pointers pertaining to this historic ethno-shaping, if there are any at all.
Great comment Stajerc!
stajerc
“What pretty much every comment relies on is wikipedia and incorrect interpretations of various testimonies… ”
Well said!
Stajerc: Do you know the Albanian philologist Kaplan Resuli-Burovic? He is pretty googd debunking Albianian nationalist myths as “Albanians=Illyrians”.
Well Communists did the worst option, IF WE CONSIDER IT from the 1990es onward POV, but in 1945? It was not clear.
Previous to war analysis by KPJ (Yugoslav Communist Party) saw that one of the main factors that led to turmoil in the “Royal Yugoslavia” was the “Serb predominance”. So KPJ thought that this predominace must be reversed. That ideology made its way when Tito won the National Liberaration War.
I am not justifying, only explaining. KPJ also entered in collaboration during pre-war Yugoslavia with Macedonian Nationalist (the left-side of VMRO, Todor Panitsa and others) and with Croat Nationalist (Stjepan Radic, which was a king of “peasant progressive reformer”, of the Croat Peasant Party. Radic was killed in 1929, but Communists hailed his name, one Partisan brigade carried his name). By the way, Radic was not a “separatist”, but a “federalist”; which may influence Josip Broz Tito in his invision of Yugoslavia. That was a factor with no little importance that years; Communists were more afraid of “Serb-supremacism” than to “other nations enpowering” in 1945 (in 1945, when nobody was predicting Communist ideologic defeat of 1991, and Communist ideas were popular, nobody thought as realistic possibility Socialist Yugoslavia ould tear up)
So when Communists took power in 1945, they thought that “searatism and ethnic diroupt was (partially) ncaused by Ser dominance, we shall make think other way”. So they pursued the idea of “weaken Serbin to strengthen Yugoslavia”; and that way…
1) Separated the Socialist Republic of Montenegro from the Socialist Republic of Serbia. Montenegris were Serbs, including during their independent Kingdom time they were considering theirselves as Serbs. So SKJ (new name of Communist Party) “enforced” Montenegrism saying “Montenegrins ae Serb, but different Serbs, so they need their own statehood”
2) Creating the Socialist Republic of Bosnia. In SRB the major ethnicity was the Serbian, until the 1970es. But they created “bosnia” in the sae borders of Austro-Hungarian condominiium. Ironically Socialist Yugolaavia encouraged the “common Bosnicism” a project started by the Austrians.
3) Autonomy of Hungarians (Vojvodina) and Albanians (Kosovo) inside Serbia, but NOT for Serbs in Croatia or Bosnia. Here tow points mus be made: 3.a) Serbs wee majority in Kosovo until WWII genocide: 20.000 Serbs killed and some thousands expelled. Tito prevented them to return, because thouoght that “Making an easy room for Albanians in Yugoslavia” would eneasy the federation of Albania inside Yugoslavia. This project was a fail; and 3.b) Krajina Serbs had no autonomy iside Croatia, but they were recognized as “Constitution people of Croatia”. This meant that every constitutional change in Croatia must be aproved by Croatian Serbs. This turnet into a “wet resolution” hen Coratina right-wing nationalist changed the Constitution in 1990 withoout consulting Serbs.
(Also the pursued a distinct “Macedonian” identity, different form the “Bulgarian”, which a lot of Macedonians identified prior to WWII. This could be because the Tito-Stalin rift Bulgaria sided with USSR; and to attract better the Slavic-speaking population of Greece (Bulgaria occupied Greece in WWII, so the Slavic population from them was reluctant to spouse “Bulgarian” identity no more).
So that Tito policy probably was mistaken, but had its degree of logic. But after that came 1990s and the demonization of Serbs, and history forgotten the sacrifices Srbs did in 1945 for the sake of Yugoslav unity (a lot of illiterate people still think that Tito Yugoslavia was “Serb-dominated”).
Was this the post you ask me to comment on? If so,I agree with you on it. Those were all mistakes they made. But as you say. At the time it wasn’t known that they were going to be mistakes.
Yes,, this was the comment, I said
I have a question here. Why are Serb nationalists equated with Croat national chauvinists? I understand and approve equating all chauvinism but this? Equating Ustasha’s and Chetniks is like equating Banderites and people of Donbas. First were ardent collaborators of the Nazi Germany and second fought them. First are still allowed to express freely all the symbols and ideology of those systems and latter are questioned at every step.
So,how can these equation still stand,and here of all places,at the Vineyard?
When Serbs say No to any deal with national chauvinists we are branded as such. When we say No to repeat of disastrous policy’s of our past that cost us dearly (and this is an understatement of epic proportions here,for the sake of brevity) then we didn’t fight hard enough for the brotherhood and unity of Yugoslavia and because of us it disintegrated. We are not even allowed to name our enemies. That is not PC. We are not allowed to have a state. Not on historical principle,nor on demographic. Our neighbours can choose either principle freely. And we are expected to take that lying down?
Imagine what will take for people of Donbas to reunite with Ukraine again. Unless Ukraine is purged of Banderism i don’t see that happening. No one sane would unite with those who are allowed to express freely their national chauvinism. That is a sure way for more war. And in both cases,former Yugoslavia and Ukraine,it will be a civil one. A worst kind . That purging must come from inside. I don’t see that purging either in Ukraine nor in Croatia. They both are glorifying their national chauvinist elements at the state level. And that glorifying only intensifies.
And of that fact,not a word! It reeks of exceptionalism and with hypocrisy! Instead we are seeing equating nationalists with chauvinists,victims with their executioners.
For the end,for those who would like to try the equation again i have to say this. Count the innocent victims,manner of their death,number of refugees and their ethnicity. Count also the number of killed occupiers from both sides. Numbers are not even in the same order of magnitude.
So much for “they are all the same”.
Where does the normalised hatred of the Serbian people come from please? Same with the hatred of the Slavic people? A polyglot nation, America has deep hatreds of one another always beneath the surface. The longterm success of a hate imbued US Senator like McCain points to the great interest cultural, normalised, hate brings to ” Democratic “elections. Being in actual fact an isolated land mass, US taking that culture of unstated hate into action rather that acceptance of it in speech means as an isolated nation, blowback is set up never to reach the US homeland. Rigid control of media further silences truth in reporting. IE in short real democracy can never take root in America. Exceptionalism added to isolation, legalises genocide.