Serbs destroyed Yugoslavia - The Death of Yugoslavia

Sounds like a good plan. It worked, too. Unfortunately Kosovo Albanians messed it up.

 

In fact, it was a plan which resulted as an epic fail !

 

Vuk Karadzic
Serbs All and Everywhere (1849)

An article detailing the linguistic and ethnic 'predominance' of the Serbs in most South Slavic lands !

Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864) was a linguist and writer who travelled throughout the Balkan lands studying the various languages and dialects and collecting folk songs. He wrote widely on linguistic subjects and problems, and published many grammar books and a dictionary. He is rightfully considered the founder of modern Serbian language reform and Serbian culture in general.

One of the main themes of his work is that all speakers of the Stokavian dialect are Serbian (even though most Croatians speak a form of this dialect as well). This line of thinking is seen quite frequently in Karadzic's work, and influenced Serbian attitudes toward other Balkan nations.

The article "Serbs All and Everywhere", first published in the book "Treasurebox for the History, Language and Customs of Serbians of All Three Faiths" in 1849, is a typical example of Karadzic's views on the language and ethnicity of Serbia's neighbors. He also tries to negate the existence of any significant number of Croats, distorting historic and linguistic facts to prove his arguments. At this time, the Croats, along with the Bulgarians, were seen as the biggest obstacle to Serbian dominance on the Balkans. In this way Karadzic, either consciously or unconsciously, fits into the scheme of Greater Serbian ideology quite well.

* * *

It is known for certain that Serbs now live in present-day Serbia (between the Drina and Timok rivers, and between the Danube and the Sar mountains), in Metohija (from Kosovo over the Sar mountains, where Dusan's capital Prizren, the Serbian patriarchate of Pec, and the Decani monastery are located), in Bosnia,Herzegovina, Zeta, Montenegro, Banat, Backa, Srijem, the western Danube region from Osijek to Sentandrija, Slavonia, Croatia (Turkish and Austrian), Dalmatia, and in the entire Adriatic littoral from Trieste to Bojana.

I said at the start that it is known for certain because it is still not known how many Serbs are in Albania and Macedonia. Along the Cetina river (in Montenegro) I was talking with two men from Dibra, who were telling me that in those places there are many Serbian villages, in which Serbian is spoken the way they speak it, that is, across between Serbian and Bulgarian, but always closer to Serbian than Bulgarian.

In the aforementioned places there are at least 5 million people who speak the same language, but by religion they can be split into three groups: it can be estimated roughly that about 3 million are Greek Orthodox, and of this 1 million in Serbia (with Metohija), 1 million in the Austrian provinces (Banat, Backa, Srijem, western Danube, Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia and Boka), and 1 million in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Zeta and Montenegro; of the remaining 2 million it can be said that about two-thirds are Muslim (in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Zeta etc) and one-third are Roman Catholic (in the Austrian provinces, and in Bosnia, Herzegovina and the Bar nahija).

Only the first 3 million call themselves Serbs, but the rest will not accept the name. Those of the Islam faith think that they are real Turks, and call themselves that, although only one in a hundred can even speak Turkish. Those of the Catholic faith use the name of the place in which they live: for example Slavonian, Bosnian (or Bosniak), Dalmatian, Dubrovnian, etc., or, as is common among writers they use ancient names such as Illyrian or Illyrianist.

However, in Backa they are called Bunjevacs, in Srijem, Slavonia and Croatia they are called Sokacs, and around Dubrovnik and in Boka they are called Latins. Bunjevacs possibly get their name from the Herzegovinian river Buna, from where these people, as it is told, migrated some time ago; the Sokacs may be called so out of a sense of irony (from the Italian word sciocco), but today they say: "I'm a Sokac", or "Sokica" as with Bunjevac, Bunjevka.

All of the wiser people among the Orthodox and Catholic Serbs recognize that they are one people and strive to totally uproot or at least lessen the hatred because of different religions as much as they can. Even so, those of the Catholic faith still have a hard time calling themselves Serbians, but they will adjust to this in their own time, because if they don't want to be Serbs, then they have no national name at all. To say that one is Slavonian, another Dalmatian, still another Dubrovnian is useless, because all these are place names and do not describe any nation. To say that they are Slavs is too general, as Russian, Poles, Czechs and all other Slavic peoples fall under that name.

To say that they are Croats, I would say that in truth only the Cakavian speakers could use this name. They are the descendants of Constantine Porfirogenitus' Croats whose language is a little different from Serbian, but still closer to Serbian than any other Slavic dialect. Today's Croatians in the Zagreb, Varazdin and Krizevci districts, whose land was called Croatia after the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 (and was until then called upper Slavonia), speak a language which is a crossover from Slovenian into Serbian. I don't know how the name Croatian can be used for our Catholic brothers who live in Banat, Backa, Srijem, Slavonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina or in Dubrovnik, who speak the same language as the Serbs.

According to the Byzantine emperor and historian Constantine Porfirogenitus (d. 959), Croatians settled in our area from somewhere in the Carpathians in the first half of the 7th century (when the Serbs settled in Macedonia and Illyria). Having come here they divided into two groups, one settling in today's Croatian boundaries, as well Turkish Croatia and Dalmatia, and the other group stayed in Pannonia between the Drava and Sava.

The borders of this first (Dalmatian) Croatia were as follows: along the sea to the Cetina river in the South, in Hercegovina at Imotski, in Bosnia at Livno, along the river Vrbas to Jajce, and its capital was in Biograd near Zadar and later in Bihac; for Pannonian Croatia it is known that their capital was in Sisak, but the borders of this district are harder to determine than that of the first.

In Dalmatia (except for the littoral and the islands), on the dry land that was once the heart of Croatia, there is today nobody who by language differs from the Serbs. However, on the islands and in the littoral, where the people hardly mixed with those from the slightly different from Serbian, and I believe that these coastal people and islanders are the remainders or descendants of the old Croats.

From all this it is apparent that all the South Slavs, except the Bulgarians, can be divided into 3 language groups: first are the Serbs, who say sto or sta (what) (and are thus called Stokavians) and at the end of the past-perfect verb forms say 'o' instead of (therefore called Cakavians) and on the end of the past-perfect verb forms say 'l' instead of 'o', but otherwise do not differ greatly from the Serbs; and the third are the Slovenians, or as we call them, Kranjci, who say kaj instead of sto (Kajkavians), who by language differ more from the Serbs and Croats than do the Serbs and Croats from each other, but they are still closer to them than to any other Slavic people.

Among today's Slovenes can be counted today's Croats from the districts of Zagreb, Varazdin and Krizevci, whose language is gradually becoming Serbian; but where did these people come from to where they are now? If what Porfirogenitus said is true, that the Pannonian Croats were between the Drava and Sava, and that their capital was in Sisak, it would follow that they would be Cakavians and not Kajkavians.

As for the numbers of these dialects among the South Slavs, I would say that the Stokavians are at least three times as numerous as the Kajkavians and Cakavians combined, and that there are certainly more Kajkavians than Cakavians.

 

Not at all. The region developed this way and generations of people had good lifes.

 

There probably simply was no significant number of Croats at this time. Population all over the world raised in the beginning of the 20th century. Splitting down Serb people along religious lines or language lines was part of the "divide et conquer" approach of Austria-Hungary, when the Ottoman Empire lost ground in the Balkans. This is the main reason, Albania exists at all. Austria-Hungria wanted to keep Serbia away from the sea. This way they invented Albania.

 

Ex- Yu wars (serbs being guilty for that) proves exactly the opposite of your comment !

 

No sea for serbia, that was the main goal and perfectly accomplished !
You should do more research regarding Croats, Slovenes and others....Albania did existed long time ago ! How the hell can you tell about Albania, when you don't know your own history, and deny the expulsion of Swabians by serbs in Vojvodina ?

No one wants to live with serbs ! Anyway, must once again show my admiration for the Republic of Germany by recognizing the Republic of Kosovo !

 

Serbs being guilty for Albanians attacking police stations?

 

Serbs are guilty for the biggest atrocities, massacres and genocide on Europe soil after WWII !

 

Albania existed long ago? As what? A Turkish province?

I deny the expulsion of Bavarians by Italians in Tibet, too. Mainly because it never happened ...

Really? Why are there minorities in Serbia then? Compared to more and more Albanian-only Kosovo?

Stupid mistake.

 

So many question marks
A true "German" must really impress me, considering his profound "knowledge" over his nation's history !

So you deny atrocities against Swabians ?

Because, Serbia is the biggest land stealer in Balkan during last century !
Backa region - belonged to Hungary !
Banat region - to Romania
Srem - Croatia
Sandzak - Kosovo
Pirot, Bosilegrad - to Bulgaria !
This is the reason why they have all the minorities there !

They did recognized it , must thank them once again. Sentiments of certain individuals , completely irrelevant !

 

Nikola Stojanovic

To Extermination: Ours or Yours? (1902)

An article detailing views of Serbian cultural and political superiority over the Croats, which basically negated the existence of the Croatians as a separate nation !

Nikola Stojanovic (1880-1964) was a politician and lawyer from Mostar. Before World War I he was very active in opposing the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and founded an opposition paper called "Narod" (Nation). During the war he was part of the Yugoslav Committee, which worked to unite the South Slavs. He was considered an expert on Bosnia-Herzegovina, and was an adviser for that region during the Peace Conference of 1918-19.

The following article, first published in "Srbobran" (a Zagreb-based Serbian periodical) number 168-9 in 1902, shows that his commitment to the Yugoslav ideal only went as far as it would help to realize greater Serbian aims. It is apparent that Stojanovic was influenced by scholars like Karadzic, who tried to negate the validity of any claims the Croatians make to a separate nationhood, by saying that the Croatians can only be defined by Catholicism and as a "subservient" people. Stojanovic also displays a certain disdain and even hatred for the Croatians, a trait that later Greater Serbian ideologists and politicians would exhibit towards any other nation that hindered the realization of their goals.

Immediately after its publication, this article touched off an anti-Serbian riot in Zagreb, the Croatian capital.

* * *

"Serbs and Croats are, according to some, two tribes of the same nation; to others two separate nations (nationalities); still to others one nation, one tribe.

A tribe originates in the time before the formation of a state, a nation emerges in a state at the initiative of one tribe. In our history, this role was filled by the tribe of Stevan Nemanja, but after this we have many examples showing that Serbian leaders didn't want or didn't comprehend the union of interests of all religions, without which there can be no talk of a political union. The Serbs were politically united during the defense of Kosovo and by the subsequent shared fate of slavery under the same authority.

Cultural unity, founded by Saint Sava, was at its best in this magnificent defense and in the later amalgamation of the Serbian aristocracy with democracy into one indivisible, wonderful whole-democracy with aristocratic pride. In this lies the importance of the Battle of Kosovo, in this sense the Serbian defeat in Kosovo meant one great victory.

During the time of their independence, or after their union with the Hungarians, the Croatians did not have a developed national consciousness nor a comprehension of the common interests of all Croats. The Congress of Split in 924, when the Croats changed their church liturgy from Slavic to Latin, and the fact that before the pact with Koloman there was 12 tribes (which is shown on the Croatian coat of arms) most clearly shows this. The Croatian nobles united with the Hungarian nobility in 1102, with whom they were united by religion-the one unifying element of those times.

Feudalism was imposed on the common people. The difference in religion between the nobles and the serfs, which was the key to Serbian resistance, could not play a role among the Croats, because they all had the same faith. Of course, the clergy helped make the people even less capable of political action. This is how it came to today's situation, where the mass of people do not participate in any political struggles, and the Croatian interests are represented by a few cliques who serve everybody's interests except those of the Croatians, and have succeeded in having them identified with the Croatian people.

The Croatians have neither a separate language, nor unified customs, nor a firmly unified lifestyle, nor, most importantly, a sense of mutual affiliation, and because of this cannot be a distinct or separate nation.

The Croatians are thus neither a tribe nor a separate nationality. They are now something between a tribe and a nationality, but without hope of ever becoming a separate nationality. . . Their wandering in the 19th century from Gaj's Illyrianism to Strossmeyer's Yugoslavism to Starcevic's Croatianism proves this quite well. Their leaders, who wanted to create a nationality to fit the needs of others, forgot that a nation as a product of history is not created over night, and that various myths cannot destroy the Serbian pride in their past, expressed in their epic poetry, and put in its place pride in the 'shining Croatian past'.

Their celebration of Zvonimir, who by choice became the pope's vassal, of those thousands of soldiers, who in the service of Austria fell on the battlefields of central and southern Europe, their elevation of Ban Josip Jelacic as a national hero, who was nothing more than a servant of the Viennese camarilla used against the Hungarians, are very typical of the Croatian people. That nation which sees its ideal in the service of others cannot seek anything more than to be that-servants. This is the morale that rules Croatia today.

It is a sad fate of a nation that is ever a servant and a toy in someone else's hands! Can there even be talk of national pride? And what can this group accomplish in a battle with a nation whose image of a hero is identical to the image of a Serbian and where along with democratic rule there is a great noble feeling and pride?

Croatians often assert that they have some sort of cultural advantage over the Serbians. Those who do not have a distinct view of the world (in religion, customs, education etc.), no national art nor literature, dare to speak of Croatian culture.

Croatians, therefore, are not and cannot be a separate nationality, but they are on the way to becoming part of the Serbian nationality. Taking on Serbian as their literary language was the most important step in this unification.

The process of blending is unstoppable, as these are masses speaking the same language, and by the same token we must reject without any declamation of unity a battle between the intelligentsia and the middle class; as the Serbs and Croats in today's form are two political parties.

The struggle which is going on between liberalism and conservatism is personified in the struggle between the Serbs and the Croats. The contrast between the historical state right which serves as the basis for all Croatian parties (which is not found in any liberal parties-at least not in Europe) and the natural ights expressed in Serbian national thought which is the basis of Serbian political programs (and shows no trace of clericalism or conservatism) is the best proof of this.

There are hardly any Croatian newspapers that do not have priests in the editorial staff or managing them; there are no important corporations where the clergy is not represented. Identifying Catholicism with Croatianism, they have truly succeeded in setting up a great obstacle for the penetration of Serbian thought. It is interesting that in Djivo's (Ivan Gundulic) classic city this did not come to pass.

The proud people of Dubrovnik decided on Serbianism, although the other Dalmantian cities, which were under the influence of the same Italian culture, decided on Croatianism. Dubrovnik was a free republic, but the remaining cities were under the domination of Venice. The liberated people decided to go with the liberated and progressive Serbian nation, the subjugated people chose subservient and regressive Croatia.

This is the best proof that only concepts of freedom separate us, that we are simply two political parties.

In the struggle between these parties there can be no talk of unity, as their principles come from a separate foundation, and because the Croatians are somebody else's avant-garde, whereas the Serbians represent the principle of the "the Balkans for the Balkan people".

On the basis of this principle the Serbs must unite with other Balkan nations, leaving internal Balkan questions for another time. Croatians, as the representatives of foreign expansionist desires, are totally excluded from this, not because of their national characteristics, rather as a nation that allowed its fate to be managed by a few cliques who are obviously serving the interests of foreign governments.

This struggle must lead to an extermination "of ours or yours". One side must submit. That this will be the Croats is assured by their small size, geographic location, surroundings (as they are mixed in with Serbs everywhere) and the general process of evolution, where the Serbian ideal means progress.

With the education of the masses and their participation in politics, the clericist idea will finally subside. The fall of clericalism in our nation means the fall of Croatianism.

We hope that this will happen soon, for there is a sizeable number in the intelligentsia among the Croats who are spurring this process along, seeing that a unified Serbian nation means economic, political and cultural independence, and freedom from German encroachment.

 

This sounds like a complete exaggeration. Have you an idea about what was going on after WWII?

 

You have no answer?

I say, they have not been expelled from Vojvodina. They left.

What? Romania? When has it ever been Romanian?

Kosovo is a Serbian province.

All these minorities did not want to leave?

It was a betrayal. NATO bombed Serbia claiming it was not about Kosovo separatism, but it was.

 

You acknowledge South Ossetia and Abkhazia? You acknowledge Transnistria? You acknowledge Karabakh?

 

whatever the truth is You can be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed certain Americans never got a jot of it about the entire matter.

 

Now let me reflect a bit, you accusing me of having lack of ideas, while you deny sufferings of your own people, only because you had an enterprise in Vrsac ?
Please, give me a break !

 

Which answer ? About Swabians being expelled amd killed by serbs in the republic of Vojvodina ?

It is you who says that ! They were expelled and killed ! And you call yourself a "German" ?

So many questions, but since you lack so much of knowledge about your own history, I think you should navigate more through net - you might find some interesting informations

The Republic of Kosovo will never be under serbia again ! Considering that this "insult" is coming from you, the one who deforms its own history, and rejects certain painful(horrifying ) events which Swabians went through, I will not mind it !

???

It was one of the greatest moments in mankind's history where one evil nation was bombed ,to prevent them for carrying on genocide actions against Albanians !
serbs got what they deserved !

 

Who are those ?!?

 

I don't accuse you of not having ideas, you make up one thing after another. This post shows it again.

 

Jovan Cvijic
Selected statements
****

Excerpts written mainly around the turn of the century, revealing his Greater Serbian inclinations !
Jovan Cvijic (1865-1927) is considered the founder of modern geographic science in Serbia. He did extensive research and writing on Balkan geography. He had a great knowledge not only of the geography of Serbia and the surrounding regions but also of the history and current events of those areas.

He was also interested in Serbia's political advancement and because of this he often lost his scientific impartiality when writing about Serbia or the Balkans in a geographic context. Much of is work was and is used as a scientific justification for Greater Serbian politics.

There is no one work of Cvijic that can be set aside as some kind of geographic doctrine for the Greater Serbian idea, but his political inclinations regarding Serbia's expansion can be seen throughout his body of work. In this section, statements from various articles and publications by Cvijic in which he clearly shows his Greater Serbian inclinations in the context of an academic/scientific work are presented. All of these statements reflect the assertions of present Greater Serbian ideologists, and it can be seen that Cvijic's work, since he was a reputable geographer, is used as 'scientific proof' of their territorial claims.

* * *

First, some of Cvijic's general thoughts on Serbia's need and fitness to dominate the surrounding areas. Here he displays a great deal of emotional involvement in the subject at hand: ". . . all Serbs were inspired by high national morale and a desire to avenge the old defeats and found a new, even larger state." (Cvijic, "Balkansko Poluostrvo i juznoslovenke zemlje, osnove antropogeografije, I, Zagreb 1922.)

"The world must know and realize that Serbia can operate with a much larger entity that the territory it now holds. The greatest possible territorial transformations may take place with Serbia. And we must not flinch from this fear pouring into the world if it is useful to our national interests." (Cvijic, "O nacionalnom radu", commemorative speech 1907, reprinted in Govori i Clanci, I, Beograd 1921 p. 51-76).

"The Serbian problem must be resolved by violent means. Both Serbian states must chiefly prepare themselves militarily and educationally, sustain their national energy in the military portions of the Serbian population, and use the first possible opportunity to debate Serbian questions with Austro-Hungary." (Cvijic, Aneksija Bosne i Hercegovine i srpsko pitanje, 1908. reprinted in Govori i Clanci I, Beograd 1921, p. 202-233.)

Cvijic also claims provides reasons for the incorporation of surrounding Balkan territories into Serbia. The Dinaric region he speaks of is Bosnia and Dalmatia: "Outside of the Morava-Vardar depression (South Serbia and Macedonia) there are no territories in the western half of the Peninsula suitable for forming durable life. . .The economic and trading interests of certain Dinaric regions even now aim for the Morava-Vardar depression; these lands canot acquire life and importance unless they join with the Morava-Vardar state. . ." (Cvijic, "Geografske osnove makedonskog pitanja", Questions balkaniques, Paris 1916. Reprinted in Govori i Clanci I, Beograd 1921, p. 27-51.)

He has this to say about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Note that he boldly assumes the Serbian nature of this region thus making it seem that Serbia has a right to claim territory that it never held: ". . . it is widely known that Bosnia and Herzegovina are lands settled entirely by people who are purely Serbian in race. . ." "As an unassailable minimum for the principle of nationality it must stand that one cannot relinquish that central dominion, the heartland of a nation to another country, a foreign state (Austro-Hungary); this is what Bosnia and Herzegovina are to the Serbian people." (Cvijic, Aneksija Bosne i Hercegovine i srpsko pitanje, 1908. Reprinted in Govori i Clanci I, Beograd 1921, p. 202-233).

He has the following to say on Serbia's need and 'right' to an Adriatic outlet: ". . .the aspirations of Serbia for the Albanian coastline are justified and conditioned not only by geographic but also by historic tradition." ". . .for economic independence, Serbia must acquire access to the Adriatic Sea and one part of the Albanian coastline: by occupation of the territory or by acquiring economic and transportation rights to this region. This, therefore, implies occupying an ethnographically foreign territory, but one that must be occupied due to particularly important economic interests and vital needs. Such occupation might be called an anti- ethnographic necessity and in such a form it is not against the principle of nationality. In this case it is all the more justified because the Albanians of northern Albania came about through a merging of the Albanians and Serbs."

(Speaking of the Serbian army in the Balkan Wars): ". . .every soldier knew that this military march must secure one part of the Adriatic castline and an Adriatic port, on which economic independence of his country would depend. . . a single thought and a single will led all members of the Serbian people to spread their state territory to the shores of the sea and an Adriatic port." (Cvijic, "Izlazak Srbije na Jadransko More", Glasnik Srpskog Geografskog Drustva, 1912. Reprinted in Govori i Clanci II, Beograd 1921, p. 9-25).

He also made ethnographic arguments for Serbian claims to coastal regions when, like Vuk Karadzic, he asserted that the people of Dubrovnik were Serbians: "It seems that the Slavs who settled these lands in the 6th and 7th centuries were settled at first on the steep cliffs above the town where the is located today, on cliffs that used to be wooded with an oak forest, known then as a 'dubrava'. This, then, is the origin of the Serbian name form the city of Dubrovnik, that replaced the earlier Greek-Romanese name (Ragusa).

Subsequently the development of the city was marked by this two-fold Slavic- Roman identity. The Latin and Slavic people merged here, a mixture that can always be noted though the population quickly and completely became Serbian." (Cvijic, "Iz drustvenih nauka." Selected texts. Cvetko Kostic, editor. Beograd 1965.)

 

And I am not so keen to have a conversation with someone who denies sufferings of his own people ! As I said in the beginning , no "German" blood in you !

 

Try to keep up, this was the question.

I don't twist German history the way I like it. I wonder, why you do.

You made a false claim, get called on it and act arrogant. Incompetence and arrogance often come with the same person.

I wouldn't be surprised about the following development: If it is all Albanian, it will probably go down the hill rather fast, Albanians move to another place, declare independence, mess this new place up, too, and so on ...

You said , no one want to live with Serbs, but these minorities are in Serbia.

Stupid Albanian hatred propaganda. The NATO supported Albanian terrorists and criminals, because a dirty Yank wanted to distract from having sex with Jewish Lewinsky and because this fat, ugly Albright Jew wanted a war.

Albanian criminals got support from Jewish warmongers, but this did not stop them from kicking out Jewish people later out of Kosovo, who had nothing to do with it.

 

It looks like you focus on hating Serbs and don't care much about other countries.

 

This blood thing seems to be important for Albano hatred preachers. You guys only reproduce within the inner family? After a few centuries this is what you get. Isn't there an island we can ship these Kosovo Albanos to?