What Was Yugoslavism? | The Messy Birth of the South-Slavic State
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2023
- Yugoslavia existed for over 70 years but never managed to truly unite its three main nationalities. According to proponents of Yugoslavism, the Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes were all one people (the Yugoslavs) split apart only by the empires of foreigners. Their attempt to forge a Yugoslav identity would be stymied by the messy reality of ethnicity and nationality in the Western Balkans.
Subscribe for more history:
ua-cam.com/users/LookBackHis...
Instagram (behind the scenes!):
/ james_king3125
More Videos:
How Did Romania Unite?: • How Did Romania Unite?...
How Did Austria-Hungary Actually Work?: • How Did the Austro-Hun...
How Did Bulgaria Unite?: • How Did Bulgaria Unite...
Why Did the Kaiser HAVE to Abdicate?: • Why Did the Kaiser HAV...
Why Was Hungary Partitioned After WWI?: • Why Was Hungary Partit...
Sources Consulted:
Babac, Ivo. “Antecedents and Antipodes.” In The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins,
History, Politics, 21-140. Cornell University Press, 1984.
www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j....
Kosnica, Ivan. “State Authority and Competing Arrangements in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats
and Slovenes/Yugoslavia (1918-1941).” Administory 5, no. 1 (Dec. 2020): 152-166.
doi.org/10.2478/adhi-2020-0010
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.
Milosavljević, Boris. “Drafting the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes
(1920).” Balcanica 50. (Jan. 2019): 225-244.
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Šurlan, Tijana. “International Legal Recognition of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.”
Istorija 20. Veka 1/2023, no. 1 (Jan. 2023): 1-18.
doi.org/10.29362/ist20veka.20...
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Croat here and I have to say your video is the first one that really manages to describe the misgivings people had about Yugoslavia in a detailed manner, usually this interwar period is left just as a footnote when discussing the history of the region, or outright idealized by people who are ignorant and believe Yugoslavia was always a sunshines and rainbow state until "evil ethnic nationalism" caused it all to disintegrate overnight.
exactly! as if macedonian, croatian and bosnian nationalism didn’t exist pre-1990
@@MindOfFischI know they existed but why didn’t they form a state instead of making a union ?
@@suleyman8696 too little foreign support for smaller ethnicities, besides the Austro-Hungarians saw all of them as the same people, which impacted how they were viewed internationally.
@@suleyman8696 there was some resistance but they were put down
If you watched the video, you as a Croatian, should see that everything stated in it is untrue and misleading. I have noticed that videos of this nature produced by British creators contain the same inaccurate and false information, which makes me believe they do it intentionally.
I'm a law student and one interesting thing we learned when we had our history classes was that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't have a unified legal system. Only some aspects of criminal law were the same across the nation, but otherwise there were 6 distinct legal systems present.
Firstly. Slovenia and Dalmatia wer eunder direct Austrian rule so they had a similar legal system. Secondly, the former Kingdom of Croatia-Slovenia had it's own laws. Some parts of yugoslavia on the northern borther were under dircet Hungarian rule (Međumurje, Prekomurje, Baranja, Bačka and Banat), so again had a diferent legal system. Bosnia was a condeminium between Austrian and Hungarian government and had it's own law system, including sharia courts which operated all the way throught the end of world war 2 and up untll communsit rule. And finally the former Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro had their own laws, for a final total of 6 different law systems.
As I said, Criminal law was mostly made the same, but most private law (commercial law and customary law) was different, as was the court structure.
Yeah, so it had 5 supreme courts. That was something
You might enjoy this article:
www.researchgate.net/publication/339395938_Drafting_the_constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Serbs_Croats_and_Slovenes_1920
Kingdom of SHS did not have it. It was finally unified during King Aleksandar's personal rule. Same for the schools, taxes etc...
@@darkodjokic4432 I don't think there ever was a unification of much of the law across Yugoslavia. In fact, there were considerable differences even in SFRJ. I hear Serbs even today don't yet have a land registry, which I find baffling
@@sempersuffragium9951 true. the only real (and failed) attempt was during king aleksandar rule, when he oversee all of the laws in the country. But, by 1939 and with formation of Banovina Hrvatska, all hell will break loose. Constitution will be broke, National Assembly suspended, and we will have country within country a week before WWII. Knez Pavle was a really a piece of work!
A wise man once said: "History isn't a tool to make arguments because history is complicated"
Who?
I literally cannot find the source of that quote anywhere
@@ChanceKearns i paraphrased it (yeah it technically doesn't count and i got it from a yt channel called zwee on his most recent video)
@@EdbertWeisly damn aight, thanks for explaining
History is simply his story if you don't know someone trust worthy to verify.
I loved how you covered the subject. Youre the only channel I remember that went deeper into the politics of the 1st Yugoslavia. As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated, and in 10 min you did an excellent job of covering the inner politics of yugoslavia.
"As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated"
That is incredibly true. The research and writing process for this video was mostly just me going down a series of rabbit holes!
@LookBackHistory hello
I was gonna tell you I have an idea for a video
2 actually
How does the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Or how does ISIS run their state ?
How do you know or believe that this video talks the truth? It contains no references or bibliography
Look who's back
Haha 😂
Croats had their own parliament since medieval times, not since 1868....the oldest parliament records are from the 13th century.
😂
Amazing. Only if they had their own country it would've been even better. But they didn't, for almost 1000 years...
@@Reebarb Still, we had parliament
@@Reebarb we had our own country, under personal union
@@user-ik3xt1bx2n what you laughing at orthodox turk
Very good video 👍🟦⬜🟥
Love your videos
Thanks!
as always a great vido looking back at history
this was intresting and very joyfull and educational
i hope the next vido is going to be about north africa but no matter what it is i will watch it
I love these types of video's from you
hey there
Look out for more!
Mistake made at 4:16. Croats and Slovenes didn't live in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Croats lived in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Slovenes lived in the Duchies of Styria and Carniola (Austrian part of the Dual Monarchy).
Great video however and good summary. You also skipped the Banates era of Yugoslavia. In 1929 Kingdom was divided into Banates (banovina).
Thanks!
Originally I was going to discuss the Banates (I even made the maps!) but as the script progressed I decided to zero in on the early to mid nineteen twenties.
As for 4:16 I think that's less a mistake and more a bit of ambiguity on my part. I intended it to be interpreted as,
"Virually all Croats and Slovenes lived in: the Hungarian Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, some southern regions of Hungary, Austrian Dalmatia and Illyria and the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Which is true, but that colon is doing a lot more work than it should have to.
@@LookBackHistoryIllyria was abolished shortly after the Napoleonic wars. After that the area was reorganised back into Carniola, Carinthia and the Littoral which were also the areas where the majority of the Slovenes lived(+ Lower Styria and the Prekmurje region in Hungary)
Great video, love all the maps!
Would love to see a video on the Goryani movement of the 50s in Communist Bulgaria.
I'm not familiar with that, I'll have to look into it.
This is very quality video, you did your research well.
Glad you think so! If you haven't already seen, my sources are linked in the description.
@@LookBackHistory I agree! it's a shame you didn't mention the cvetkovic-macek agreement and the establishment of the Croatian banovina!
Thanks. Was looking for a video that covered it’s creation
Beautiful video. Really appreciate your work!
You still have that as your pfp🤔
@@YMVZ1 yes. i should change it, right?
@@NorthPoleSun Up to you but did that dude get canceled, I can't quiet remember?
The maps are 100% wrong.
@@NorthPoleSun Update he deleted his channel due to posting child porn, so yea everyone who made him their pfp looks pretty cringe now..
Glad your back. Please tell me you are going to do a video on the break up of Yugoslavia as well(it gets really dark)
Possibly!
2:07 Small Correction the flag of the State of SLovenes, Croats and Serbs was red white blue not blue white red.
You're right, my bad!
@@LookBackHistory Just because you replied to my comment which while I was commenting I thought in my head "no way he responds" you are getting another subscriber (me)
I like how you have found your neiche as a history UA-camr to often channels cover the same topics and all probably just use the same sources (mainly wiki being real)
great vid keep it up!! ❤
You've earned a subscription. I love your content!
great video. Interesting that the croats fought intensively to not be under a centralized serbian majority state, yet were mostly passive under austria.
Somewhat misleading. Croatia already had its own parliament which meant significant legislative and judicial autonomy. In other words, it had pretty much everything it wanted and was concerned primarily with cultural issues e.g. language rights.
Austria gave us something in return, Serbs didn't. Not to mention Austria was and still is far superior to Serbia in every aspect, from culture to economy.
@@mgel7311 And they had everything, from own political fraction of KPJ to police and security agency under Tito from 1974 and yet they werent happy. So Serbs werent the problem.
It's because the austrian rule was not opressive
@@mithrandil420 Nominally i agree, the '74 constitution was a step in the right direction. But let's not kid ourselves and assume that it was followed through completely. The economic meltdown coupled with increasing Serbian desire for hegemony were the main contending issues for Croatia as well as the other republics.
Croats under Hungary had their parliament since 1102.
Hey, could you pls do a video on how the United Kingdom works? Or about the Troubes of Northern Ireland pls?
Cool video, just going to mention that Timok-Romanians were more back in the early 20th Centuries in the Timok Valley. They make the majority of the Timok region
The funny thing is, the official language of SHS was actually slovene-serbo-croatian. There is no such language and the slovenes weren't having any of it from the start
Da Janez, videlo se od pocetka da ne zelite s nama, dobro je da ste konacno priznali.
@@mithrandil420 Nikol nismo tega tajil. Juga ni delala ne 1919, ne 1991. Imamo svoj jezik, svojo državo. Vašga nočemo, svojga ne damo
@@sempersuffragium9951 Pa tajli ste malo na pocetku, pa malo za vreme Tita. Niko vam ne spori da imate svoj jezik, identiet i kulturu. Samo se manite price da smo mi Srbi nesto krivi jer ste u Jugoslaviji imali sve pogotovo u drugoj.
@@mithrandil420 Ja, če te za eno žal besedo odpeljejo na goli otok verjamem da je marsikdo mal glumu. Pa komunajzrji seveda, oni itak
yeah, it was oficially srpskohrvatskoslovenacki or drzavni jezik. But, what you fail to mention is that very same langauge was thought and called slovenian in both ljubljana and maribor province (later dravska b), with 90% of slovenian and 10% of serbocroatian material. If someone should be pissed, then it should be Croats, books in serbocroatian contained 40% cyrilic, 40% latin script (plus 20% slovenian material), but everthing was in ekavica.
Great video. Now I understand why the role of Croatia was what it was in ww2.
All in all I think I'm not the only one for saying Yugoslavia was a mistake. The way it ended is extremely sad.
Perhaps not as an idea, but certainly in the execution of said idea. Forced centralisation and unification under oppression pretty much cemented resentment as inevitable. Perhaps it could've become something over time had it remained a federation at the start and gradually tried to smooth over the differences over the decades and had mostly equal repressentation rather than being Serb-dominated.
This doesn't even explain WW2. Only the invasion and occupation of Yugoslavie by the fascists and Nazis from Germany and Italy explains this. In the 30s the Ustashe were a fringe right wing group (roughly less 10% popular support). Even when they were installed they didn't gain popular support, this is why they didn't hold any elections to legitimize their rule. This makes it different from the likes of Germany, Austria and Italy were their regimes were an expression of the peoples' desires.
I'm going to Serbia. I can't wait. Thank you for this history
You can write books about why Yugoslavia didn't work but it all comes down to one simple thing - there was never a Yugoslavian nation...nobody other than some people who were products of mixed marriages considered themselves Yugoslavs...
One more generation and there would have been. In fact many already considered themselves Yugoslavs
@@doudeau1988 one more generation? Many considered themselves Yugoslavs?
Hardly. In 1981. cenzus after over 60 years of existence of Yugoslav state only 5.4% of people considered themselves as Yugoslavs. In 1971. that number was 1.3% and has in fact decreased compared with 1.7% in 1961. Highest % of those identifying as Yugoslavs in 1981. were from Croatia and Vojvodina, mostly from ethnically mixed regions and/or people of mixed ancestry. On the last pre-war cenzus of 1991. % of Yugoslavs dropped to 3%.
I missed you
This one definitely took a while but I'm hoping to be back to a regular schedule now!
interesting, i never knew anything about the early history of yugoslavia
No, there's tons of focus on its collapse (which is certainly interesting) but not so much on this period.
@@LookBackHistory yes
LETS GOOO
9:53 the eagle tail looks like teeth
Can't wait until you cover the Belize Guatemala border dispute, eventually you'll run oit of European/middle eastern topice and have to cover it 🙃
It was an attempt to unify a horse and a donkey as a single being.
javio se dalmatinski kenjac u borbi za svoju čistu rasu😂
6:46 its mind boggling how in the same territory just over in 100 years albanians would grow from 3.5% to 12% of the population if yugoslavia woukd reunite
some of us still think that we could have stayed together and prospered..
Maybe, if there was a national effort to support civic nationalism, not an ethnic one
@@jtgd Civic nationalism could have only worked in a federalized system. Once Milosevic attempted to recreate a centralized state, nationalism became more ethnic again. Before the war - as shown in multiple surveys - the identification with Yugoslavia came first, Europe second and then local / national identification (e.g. identification with the 6 republics).
Lore of What Was Yugoslavism? | The Messy Birth of the South-Slavic State momentum 100
to see HIDDEN comments as well, sort by time - Newest first.
I find Yugoslav's fate sad and not unavoidable. Apart from different religion Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats were pretty much the same thing. Romania had a similar situation after WW1 with Romanians from Old Kingdom, Transylvania and Bessarabia being under one state. These people were not part of the same country for centuries and there were differences but the feeling of "I am Romanian" seems to have been stronger than the feeling of "I am Transylvanian, Wallachian or Moldavian". Even after USSR tried to make a fictitious 'Moldavian =/= Romanian' ethnicity via the state, there are still Moldavians/Bessarabians in Moldova today looking for union because they consider themselves Romanians. In Yugoslavia, not only that didn't happen, but they fought each other.
Romania after WW1 also had a strong local representation vs strong state authority issue. In fact Transylvanians told the Romanian (Old Kingdom) government that they would only accept a conditional union where Transylvania will be an autonomous region inside the Kingdom of Romania. But Hungary tried to use this as a pretext that the Transylvanians do not really want union with Romania at Trianon so the Transylvanians dropped this and went for an unconditional union. Bessarabia likewise wanted a conditional union originally as an autonomous state, only dropping it in favor of a conditional one, after Transylvanians dropped their own conditional union. But there was still a condition, an unofficial one, that Transylvanians and Bessarabians would have a say in the new constitution (which happened in 1922) which I guess fair and probably one of the things that kept the country together. The first years of the new kingdom were full of regionalism. With Transylvanian parties, Bessarabians parties, etc; it was only after a few years that the situation cooled off and regional parties disintegrated in favor of ideological ones like liberal and conservative. So I think Romania wasn't that far off from Yugoslavia (religion aside), but one is a success story while the other ended in failure.
"not unavoidable" coud be replaced with "avoidable", don't use double negatives
@@igoralmeida9136 true, but I wanted to emphasize that, because it feels to me like the common narrative is that Yugoslavia's fall was just a matter of time, where I think it was just bad management and not something that had to happen sooner or later. I don't find it unrealistic to have an Yugoslavia that didn't break up after the end of communism, but I think the king made mistakes with the forced centralization (this didn't happen in Romania, there was centralization, which Transylvanians and Bessarabians didn't like, but this was fixed by them having a say in the constitution, a fair share in the government as opposed to underrepresented, and their culture "different from Old Kingdom" was not touched and instead cherished as also being Romanian). But the worst mistakes were made by the communists after Tito died.
a lot of the issues I think was the Serbs pushing for too much centralization too hard and too fast.
The Croats and Slovenes wanted to be equal partners in the new state. Maybe with enough time a "Yugoslav" identity could've formed naturally, but forcing it didn't help
Idk, as a Romanian, I feel Romania is pretty special. Romanians had a very strong sense of unitary national identity as a result of them being the only Latin culture in the eastern half of Europe. Also, they tend to avoid violent means to solve their issues. Whereas Bosnia, for example, went through Islamisation. Though I don't know too much about the situation in Yugoslavia to be able to compare.
@@noahjohnson935 If you want to see how much centralization will be accepted by similar peoples see how much would you accept, for example when the serb government disowned chatolism they should have also disowned orthadoxy and see how their own people handle it.
A united Yugoslavian Basketball team, would be a great thing to watch. Luka Dončić, Nikola Jokić, both Bogdan and Bojan Bogdanović, Boban Marjanović, Ivica Zubac, Dario Šarić, Vasilije Mićić, Aleksej Pokuševski, Tristan Vukčević, Nikola Vučević and Jusuf Nurkić...
Don't forget Hezonja, Musa, Tepic...
@@user-zo4wp4lg8i those too, and many more.... Squad has 12 players, so I chose those first. Theoretically Avdija and Osman could also play.
What about Germany? They have so many different principalities with big differences in religion i.e. protestentantism and roman catholicism and very distant dialects. Yet Prussian chancelor Bismarck united them. Though after WWI Bavaria wanted to break from Germany.
The Macedonian and the language in bulgaria have 13 letters difference. 😇
In Yugoslavia, there was no Yugoslav language (the official language was Serbo-Croatian), and on population censuses, we had Yugoslavs only in small percentages. So, the Yugoslavism never really took hold. The first Yugoslavia was Monarchist, the second was Socialist, and both collapsed in bloodshed. I think it is because roughly half of the country was under Austria-Hungary for centuries, and the other half under Ottoman Turkey also for centuries. These were different cultures, religions, mentalities. And religious differences were a big thing - there were three big religions - Orthodox, Catholic, and Islam... and the roles some vs. others had in WW 1 and WW 2, so there were a lot of factors at play.
With blood and tears of innocent people
11:23= Very good video , but no cookies , missing the constant fight between the 3 mayor of them , and the suffer the all minornities ! Etc...
you failed to say how Croatians and Serbs managed to make an agreement before the German invasion of Yugoslavia. Croats received autonomy within the framework of the Croatian Banovina.
This wasn't ever implemented. Also, right after the agreement wad made, the Croatian Paseant Party and the Serbian government had different interpretations of contents of the agreement. So this might have never been implemented, even if WW2 hadn't had happened.
The data used at 6:45 is incorrect. Noel Malcolm provides a much better outlook into the actual minorities of Yugoslavia. Serbian propaganda was in fact diminishing the number of muslims and what they considered non-serbs, to ultimately provide a sense of majority of serbs within Yugoslavia - the number albanians being a prime example of this skew of data.
Alexander I was shot by bulgarian IMRO revolutionary Vlado Chernozemski for oppresing bulgarians in Macedonia.
Hvala Geroi Bulgarian Zorro R.I.P Vado
One correction: The Allies did not liberate Serbia in WW One. The Serbs did, with the help of the Allies. Big difference.
Yeah
contentious European countries with complicated international dynamics. It is a region full of discord and interactions between countries
Cool video, thank you for talking about Balkan history. One nitpick though: "Bosnian Muslim" is not an ethnicity. It's either "Bosniak" which is their endonym or "Muslim" when talking about the SFRJ era ethnicity.
Anyone else notice that this guy is copying the cadence and tone of that bald guy from Geographics (and a dozen or more other major channels)?
In 1886 there were 220.000 romanians in Timoc region. In vest Banat in 1921 were 78.000 romanians(we claimed that there were 130.000).So in reality in Serbia alone there were at least 300.000 romanians. Where are they now?
Vlachs in Timok region, not romanians (even though official Romania for some reason considered them Romanians) are mostly serbianised. Only 20 000 or so call themselves vlachs, even though there are 5 times more of them (similar story with the gypsies and aromans, for example). On the other side, romanians in banat after 1921 exchange homes with serbs who stayed on the other side of rnew romanian-serbian border.
@@darkodjokic4432 no, no. Romanians in the "Serbian" Banat didnt migrated to Romania in large numbers. They were asimilated. In Romania we still have around 20-25.000 serbians out of a initial population of 50.000 people. Some Serbians were discriminated, deported during the Russian occupation of Romania.
@@dacicus090 I don't have the books with me right now, so I really have no idea how much people changed homes from both sides of borders during twenties and thirties, my guess is some 20-30 thousands. I could look up, if you want. But there was some movement of serbs from romania and hungary, and romanians and hungarinas from new state in those days. What i rmember form school is that during causeku's times, lot of serbs from banat were sent to danube delta region or just simply slaughtered. Was this true?
@@darkodjokic4432 It wasnt any genocide of serbs. During the Soviet occupation of Romania, because of soviet-yugoslav tensions and the hungarian revolution of 1956, soviet installed comunists of Romania deported serbians, germans, romanians, aromanians, croats, hungarians, banat bulgarians from the border regions of Banat, mostly to south-eastern Romania, in a steppe region. They considered them possible allies of Tito. Many of them died. It wasnt Ceausescu at that time. Most of the pro-soviet leaders were jews, hungarians, ukrainians, romanians and bulgarians(some of them from the Soviet Union itself). They deported up to 50.000 people by which, 5 to 7.000 have died.
Am I the only one who thinks Macedonia looks like Yugoslavia's testes? Lol
Imagine being on the winning side of a world war and then being annexed by your neighbour.
I'm trying so hard to figure out what you're talking about. If you're saying Austro-Hungarian south Slavs (mostly Croats) were on the side of the Entante, that's just wrong on so many levels. They were but only when Central powers started losing the war. Up until 1917 most people supported the government in Vienna which has always been odd to me. I will never understand the Croatian love for being ruled by foreigners as long as they see themselves equal to them (even tho those same foreign leaders see them as inferior). One sided relationship covered with a fascade of fake and imaginary brotherhood, usually native people reject this type of imperialist propaganda but many Croats for some reason embrace it idk why 🤷♂️
@@Reebarb Umm no, I was talking about montenegro getting annexed into serbia.
@@TheEGrievous oh lmao i got that way wrong. Well I mean they chose to unite with Serbia. And Montenegrin Whites vastly outnumbered the Montenegrin Greens, so it's safe to say that majority of people of Montenegro wanted a state union with Serbia.
@@Reebarb Austria Hungary was not a German ruled state. It had a German-speaking aristocracy to be sure, but they treated all their lands as fundamentally equal. Though it can be said, that the German population had more political influence, all the nations (at least under Cislaithanien, the Hungarians were a bit more repressive) enjoyed a lot of freedom for their time, and the general development of the Empire was going towards federalisation (unlike the unitary Yugoslavia). Just to give you a few examples, just from the Slovenian perspective: We had the only living Grand Admiral, who wasn't a Habsburg in Austrian histroy be a Slovene, a Slovene was writing the new federal constitution for a new federal Empire (that never came to be, because of the Entante efforts to destroy the Empire), we had 3 out of 9 suoreme court judges of the Empire be Slovenes (who, after the breakup of the Empire came back to Slovenia)... so, I wouldn't describe that as "living under foreign rulers".
@@TheEGrievous montenegro was literally ruled by serbian dynasty and montenegro itself is a serbian state at the time, thats why it followed serbian politic
0:03= WRONG MAP ! MISSING THE CIRCA 1700 YRS OLD OF HUNGARIAN TERRITORY PARTS ! Etc...
0:50 What is that Slovenian flag?????
Carniolan eagle. Main symbol of Slovenes for many centuries but it got less prevalent after ww2 due to its use by Slovene homeguard which was a group of nazi collaborators durring occupation
@@amberanubis8336 Iirc it was not the main symbol but it was a popular one. Tho why didn't they use the tricolor?
@@Ma_ksi i mean the actual national flag Slovenes used was a tricolor without coat of arms. Same as Russian flag but colours were taken from Carniolan coat of arms(eagle). The flag in this video is made up as far as i know because there were no official flags for different nations in Kingdom of Yugoslavia due to mentioned obsession with central authority.
Nice video , but mostly incorrect data and maps.
And Stjepan Radic was shopt becaose he said how much your Serbia blood is worth so we can buy it ( implementing ww1 Serbian Casualties) and thats why he was shoot, dont speak auslander if you never read shit about yugoslavia and is proud abour your powerpoint presentation.
Difference between serbo-croatin is the same like anglo-australian language :)
Australian is anglo
@@AdistuffRBX So is serbo-croatian one language
@@martinjakovetic8347 Australian is English with a thick accent and a few slang words, so your saying Serbian and Croatian is the same
@@AdistuffRBX more the same then your australian english
@@martinjakovetic8347 oh I see
Well we are one people divided by politics and influences of surrounding empires through centuries
Nonsense. Croats, Serbs and Bulgars came to Southeastern Europe as different peoples 1500 years ago.
@@Harahvaitiwhat he was referring to was culture and language
@@tone713 that does not make him any les wrong. There was never such thing as Yugoslav or South Slavic culture, never. Almost from day one, Slovenes and Croats were under influence of Western church (later Romancatholicism) and the culture that sprang from that circle while Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins belonged to Eastern church (later Orthodoxy) and that cultural circle. Add to that Islam which came in 15th century and shaped Bosniaks... and you have zero common cultural basis.
As for language, even that is not right. Same as Danish and Norwegian are closely related but separate languages so are Croatian and Serbian.
Yugoslavia lasted less than an average lifespan in USA or Europe. Before it, South Slavs lived quite or at least rather well next to each other. Yugoslavia was a mistake.
@@Harahvaiti I as a Croatian can understand 100% of Serbian,bosnian and Montenegrin and about 70% of Bulgarian and Slovenian.we all have mostly the same culture with some regional differences.finaly many people during after ww2 Yugoslavia considered themselves yugoslavian
@@tone713 Similar language does not make one and the same people otherwise Scandinavia would be one country same as Czechoslovakia would still exist. Also Bulgaria and Macedonia would be one people and country. As for culture - LMAO. What do Dalmatia and Istria have in common with Šumadija or Vranje?
Drop the yugocrap.
Kingdom of SKS or later Yugoslavia was a nice disguise for Greater Serbia, which was the the very first proposal for this fledgling country's name.
Without ska or yugoslavia, many parts would have annexes by other bordering countries. Ofcourse the concept of yugoslavia was nationalistic, that is the only way to establish a nation as such.
*At a meeting somewhere in Belgium* "They're all different kinds of Serbs, right?" "Yes old chap." "Alright, kingdom of the united serbs. I mean Slavs." And thus, the war crimes were solidified.
It's interesting that today Bosnia, 'Kosovo' and Albania are all Muslim majority nations right next to one another. The reason for this was actually because they were once areas that had a really high quantity of Catholics, who were loyal to the pope rather than the Orthodox Patriarchate that the Ottomans had enslaved, so they couldn't control them. Rather than trying to indoctrinate them over time with the child soldier Janissaries, they instead forcefully converted and influenced an independent linguistic and cultural identity. So today, both Albanian and Bosniak have heavy Turkish influence and frequent loan words, moreso than any other language in the area, and over 400 years, it is no surprise that the peoples of these areas become increasingly more Islamic. When Skanderberg and the League of Lezhe revolted against the Ottomans, the lands of Albania were Catholic and Orthodox, Skanderberg himself being a devout Catholic, rampaged across the western countryside and was quite successful in staging his rebellion against the Ottomans. But nobody aided him and the rebellion didn't last long. Same can be said for Vlad Dracul of Wallachia, known as Vlad the Impaler for the 20,000 Ottomans he had placed on stakes. Had he had more support from the catholic world the balkans would have evolved with a very different cultural identity. Had something come from the Crimean War instead of Britain and France ganging up to oppose Russia and keep a weak Ottoman Empire in place, it is likely that the First and Second Balkan War would have happened in the 1870s rather than the early 1900s. History is a funny thing
No one said "They're all different kinds of Serbs, right?"
@@saccount-z3 ok...then give me the source or the proof. By that logic I can say Napoleon said "Give me 10000 Croats and I will conquer the world" without any proof of it being said, and then I can support my statement the same way you're supporting the previous one without any proof of it's existence being out there
@@saccount-z3 first of all, there again is no proof of that statement, so your argument is invalid and proves my point lmao. Second of all why did you change the topic all of the sudden and why did you bring "post socialist countries" in this...they were not even mentioned. Third, Croatia was in personal union with Hungary, their statehood remained but in cooperation with another kingdom...research something and then talk
@@saccount-z3 what the hell are you actually talking about...personal union is the combination of states under the same monarchy, well known to the world. It's not something "Croats came up with" lmao. Congo state had a personal union with the Belgium, Brazil had the personal union with Portugal, the United Kingdom is the personal union uniting Scotland, Wales...with the monarchy of England...you actually don't know what you're talking about. And how the hell do you combine Spain with USA when talking about personal union...USA never had a king and they didn't have any cooperative relationship with Spain...grab a book and educate yourself
@@saccount-z3 you're crazy xd...I did my part and proved you wrong and yet you still ignore it and change the subject...just admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're wrong XD
You forgot to mention the chrismas uprising in Montenegro
Was a mistake to add Croatia & Slovenia into Yugoslavia and to have signed Concordat with the Vatican. Croatia and Slovenia have more in common with the Germans anyway...
What? Ok orthodox turk
serbs are more related to turks and arabs by culture an behaivour then to any european people...because they were ancestors of 500 years ottoman rulership.
serbs may speak slavic (croatian), but that does not make them slavic at all...
@@KukuLele-mx8sq they are orthodox turks or better said mix of orthodox croats and turks
@@KukuLele-mx8sq Serbs are among tallest nations on the world, in top 5 tallest nations, Turks and Croats are below us, and Bosnians and Montenegreens are also tall, Croats are mix of nations, that's why they are shorter, look today's Croats: Stier, Rainer, Gutvald, Knoll, Roys, Raus,Tot, Nemet,Čiz, Pastvečka, Hrenek, Totgergelli, and so... surenames and names are Serbian, Hungarian, German, Czech, Slovakian,Polish, Italian, lol, you are milk shake nation, hahahaha
@@KukuLele-mx8sqlet's see what newspapers Croatia's week said:
10 tallest counties:
1. The Netherlands - 183.78 cm
2. Montenegro - 183.21 cm
3. Denmark - 182.60 cm
4. Norway - 182.39 cm
5. Serbia - 181.99 cm
6. Germany - 181.00 cm
7. Croatia - 180.49 cm
8. The Czech Republic - 180.26 cm
9. Slovenia - 180.28 cm
9. Luxembourg - 179.90 cm
As Serbs would call it today: "our biggest mistake in the last century".
KorošeC. Not Korošek. It's a C, so it makes a 'ts' sound.
Why would you group Macedonians and Bulgars? There was never a Bulgar minority in Yugoslavia anyways??
Disrespectful to a whole national identity...
You are missing Bosnia
Croats have had their own parliament since the middle ages and not since 1868. Hrvatski Sabor is an institution that has been active for more than 1000 years.
What decisions that parliament made?? Something for AU empire, maybe???
One of the first decisions is Pacta Conventa which unified Croatia and Hungary in a personal union in 1102.
What was personal there??? Name, rule, decisions in monarchy?? Lol
Serbia had a personal union with the Ottomans if you use the same logic
@@icxcnikasrbNo, Serbia didn t exist under Ottomans, no single element of independece,not even name of a region, only religion left..
The worst maps ever, the population % is the worst you ever did, as I studied every map of population of YUgoslavia, you made your own.
Slovenes we’re basically an integral part of Austria and Venetia for centuries and Croatia was its own kingdom within Hungary before Yugoslavia. Just as today, Slovenia and Croatia are western oriented with EU, rather attached to Austria and Italy while the Serbs are too small to be a force but thinks it’s as dominant as Russia.
Yeah, i'm fascinated by it. Imagine not having a country for almost 1000 years, having your language, religion, culture and alphabet be changed and influenced by foreign powers. Losing all of your power you had for a short time and then handing it all to a foreign monarch with them promising that you'll be sovreign, which they were (on a piece of paper) having your "parliament" be influenced and changed by your ruling foreign monarch. This type of existance literally does nothing but make a people group depend on someone stronger and more powerful to protect them because they are incapable to do so themselves. Then when another people group that is more similar to you than any other foreign ruler you had in 1000 years offers to create a union with you, you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people. Result, those (now former) foreign leaders see that you'll be obediant and so they aid you basically making you their subject with an illusion of sovreignty yet again and you only have bitter hatred towards someone who is linguistically, culturally and genetically almost exactly the same as you are.
Balkans are crazy man this is why the whole world laughs at them. Like they literally had something that worked, good economy, great healthcare, education etc. and then they just fell so down they're worse then before they even started, literally modern Yugoslav states. Except Slovenia and Croatia, their economy is like a little better in comparison to Serbia.
@@Reebarb here’s the thing: the Balkan countries are on the crossroads of the Roman/German, Russian and Turkic sphere of influence, plus the British waiting to strike in their Mediterranean possessions. It’s like a tectonic volcano line waiting to erupt every now and then. Now, looking at around 1900’s, if only one Empire had taken over and incorporated all of the Balkans, which would be best? Italy/Germany&Austria also retaking Constantinople and Anatolia and drive out the Muslims once and for all and allow the Balkan nations to coexist as autonomous European cultures and expand prosperity. Russia which might act similarly to Italo-German dominance in regards to culture, only difference is, there is no progress and poverty is high. Or Turkic dominance as seen for centuries, with forcing Christians to pay extra taxes and enslaving white girls to sell them within their Sultanate.
Nobody cares about the bickering of Croats and Serbs or if the Banat and Transylvania is Hungarian or Romanian. These are pawns in the chessboard of history between Italo-German, MuslimTurkic or Russian sphere of influences. The West supporting independence for the Kosovo alone shows how hypocritical they are when they usually say diversity is a strength and borders should be open etc. The Drei-Kaiser Pakt between Russia, Germany, and Austria should have been holy and indestructible, securing Central and Eastern Europe and retaking Byzantine. Plus put Italy in charge of the Mediterranean. Britain and France didn’t want this. They see the Mediterranean as a gateway for their empires in Africa and Asia and not as a wall to not be crossed by non-Europeans. France and Britain and now America meddling in the Balkans always creates tumult because there is never a definite solution, and final decision who and how the Balkans are administered by the strongest local power’s sphere of influence. Russia/Germany/Turkey. Balkan is too small and weak to be independent and the British/French/Americans simply support Balkanization to keep meddling there with the illusion of independence within the EU-Nato network as client states without calling them client or satellite states. Resettling Anatolia with Greeks and Armenians under Italian protection in the Mediterranean and have German influence include all of the Danube plus a friendly brotherhood between Germany and Russia who might even rule the Balkans as a condominium like Bosnia was within the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Balkan countries must sacrifice their sovereignty which is simply an illusion perpetrated by the West and their Nato troops stationed there. The Balkans must be integrated into either German, Russian or Turkic rule with certain autonomy regarding culture etc. You pick your master.
@@user-nm3nb4oj5d exactly. That's exactly what i'm saying, but usually what would happen in history is that these groups of people will realize they're stronger together as they have common enemies, especially if they're all as similar as Balkan people. But Balkan people just hate each other more and more. I mean lets be real when it existed communist Yugoslavia was diplomatically incredibly influential. Both the west and the east needed them. Was it simply a prodzct of their lucky circumstance? Yes. Was it beneficial for them anyways? YES. So you'd think they would be more than happy to stay together, build a strong and sovreign nation that can stand up to foreign oppressor. But nope, they just divide even more and more causing them to be in an even worse position then before they even started.
@@Reebarb This shows how little you actually know about the whole situation. "you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people" well actually serbs oppressed Croats from the beginning, maybe not serbs as people directly, but their king and his decisions. Croatian politicans were killed just for being agains centralism ( atentat u beogradu ). The personal union with hungary couldn't have been avoided and yet union with serbia was unavoidable too. Serbs started propaganda about the idea of "the greater serbia" which included Croatian territories and ofcourse being in the same country with those people who want you territory is not gonna end well
@@letecitoster3469 last time i checked the idea of "Greater Serbia" included mostly Serbian ethnic lands, a lot of Dalmatia and Slavonia was populated by Serbs. Up until 1995 ofc when, correct me if i'm wrong, Croats started a military operation that led to mass immigration of Serbs from those regions.
Greatest Balkan civilizations, know nothing but to slaughter, murder and hate people who are genetically, linguistically and culturally the same as they are.
View of Yugoslavia from the perspective of people who lived in the countries that colonised and exploted half of the world is always halarious, much different then the perspective of Yugoslavs and people from the countries of Non Aligned Movement.
That may be true, though I will point out that all of my sources (bar a general history text I use for most-every video) are by people from former Yugoslavia. You can check them out in the description.
Why do people think that attacking the person instead of the argument is a valid tactic? It just shows a lack of willingness to engage with the topic.
Pan-Slavism didn't work, Pan-Germanism didn't work, Scandinavism didn't work, Yugoslavism didn't work. You can't just glue together different people, histories and faiths just because there's a linguistic connection.
I don't think we can be quite that assertive.
Those are all definitely examples of failures to merge people together into nation states, but there are also plenty of examples of successes. Italy, France, and Spain pop into my mind as examples.
@@LookBackHistoryby iron and blood u can unify anyone. France specifically had to eradicate local languages to achieve its national unity. I don't think you can unify a young diverse country into a nation state while staying as a liberal democracy, not to say I oppose liberal democracy or even nation states.
@@williamthebonquerer9181 I think I agree with you. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just pointing out counter-examples.
Pan-Germanism didn't fail, Germany is still standing to this day, the only "failure" was not including Austria, something caused by losing 2 World wars.
@@LookBackHistory Apples and oranges, all of them still have particularist movements (Brittany, Corsica, Aragon, Catalonia, Basque country, Sicily etc.). Further more France united in middle ages, Spain in early modern period and Italy is only somewhat recent model. Majority of Italians thought themselves as such regardless of the polity they served prior to unification.
Anglosaxon and Germans provoked war conflicts and separation of Yugoslavia
So... Yugoslavia was just a woke version of Austria
One correction: Croats did not speak Serbo-Croatian. Within Yugoslavia Croats spoke Croato-Serbian but even this was a political construct during Yugoslavia. The evidence you use for the term Serbo-Croatian is from a Yugoslav source. Try to find any source pre-1918 that Croats or Serbs spoke Serbo-Croatian. It doesn't exist. Croats speak Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian. Closely related and mostly mutually intelligible but different nonetheless. It took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian and it will take many more to forget.
In communist Yugoslavia days, Croats were speaking Serbo-Crat ( like Serbs ) just different dialects.True that "it took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian" just like it took many decades for Croats (after their independence) to invent Croat language by literally creating big number of words that have never existed before. No such thing as "Croato-Serbian" btw. . Croats today speak Croat.
🍅 toomaro
Serbocroatian language was never accepted by Serbs and neither by Croats. For Serbian imeprialistic politics Serbian is only Štokavian (West and East Štokavian), plus some Croatian literature in West Štokavian.
For Croats Croatian is Kajkavian, Čakavian, and West Štokavian without Serbian East Štokavian, and Croatian have four literature types (Čakavian, Kajkavian, West Štokavian, and amalgam in zrinsko-frankopanski cultural cyrcle).
For Croatian linguistics Serbian and Croatian are different lanugages based on these sociolingusitic criteria:
1. the speakers understand each other - true for the modern standards
2. language has the same name throughout history used by the authors in that language - false
3. the language is based on the same written corpus - false
4. language has the same cultural-communication community throughout history, and the awareness of speakers that they speak the same national language, an abbreviated- the same cultural-identity community - false
5. they are essentially standardized at the same place and in the same time - false.
@@saccount-z3 ?
You are confused. Those were dialects, not languages. Serbo-Croat was official language for huge majority of the people. Only Slovenians and Macedonians did not use that language officially. Croat language as we know it today, was created after the war.
Wars aside, I think it’s a shame a successful federal Yugoslavia wasn’t achieved. Yugoslavia could have been another major European power.
Serbs wanted to liquadate other ethnic groups but keep their own, that is why it failed
Why did croats commit genocide of the Serbs in WW2?
@@locybapsi174 because serbs literally invaded and occupied Croatia for 20 years
@@fusionreactor7179 No they didn't. Croatia didn't exist prior to WW1 so Serbia couldn't invade Croatia and Croatian representatives from Austro Hungary wanted to joing Serbia and voted in favour of it.
But somehow, let's imagine you are right, and Serbs did invade Croats. That explains and justifies in your opinion killing half a million of civilians and committing a largest mass murder ever recorded on Balkan territory? Than you truly are sick and despicable
the biggest problem that led to war were croatia obviously wanting to take parts where its Serb majority but the biggest complication was Bosnia muslims because those people were ortodox or catcholics before ottoman empire and they want to create a country on a territory that have people who were loyal to their religion that is whats gonna separate them forever and like they thought in 90s only a war will solve this
Biggest problem that led to were were Serb chauvinists and their mythomania of which your comment is perfect example.
What that country really needed was a caste based society like that of india (with slovenes on top of course), than mabye today these countries would not be so bad today.
Your "solution" is not sustainable, it would be an endless conflict to determine which of our many tribes would be at the top of society.
What i would propose is that the three main South Slavic tribes (Croats, Serbs and Bulgarians) absorb the smaller tribes (without erasing their regional identities) and agree to view each other as equals.
Slovenes and most Bosniaks would be placed under the Croatian umbrella.
Montenegrins and a smaller number of Bosniaks would be placed under the Serbian umbrella.
Macedonians would be placed under the Bulgarian umbrella.
Should any of the three tribes decide to disturb the status quo, the other two would have a duty to restore it (without harsh punishment).
The project would have to be guided and protected by Russia (neither Soviet nor modern), as Russia is undoubtedly the most powerful Slavic state.
honestly, that wouldnt have worked bc the three main tribes wanted to be equal partners in the union, Serbs the one with more power caused the issue and honestly having anybody else at the top wouldve done the same.
@@Pajdas610 thats retarded, you are arguing from a basis of population numbers alone. Which is the worst thing you can do as a state.
Slavic people came from Russia in Europe
Overall decent video, with two red flags.
First, there was no Macedonian nationality before socialist Yugoslavia and Tito's rule. There are many accounts of Macedonian Serbs, such as vojvoda Jovan Babunski in the 19th and 20th century who fought against Bulgarians in the east.
Second, although Yugoslavia was very centralized at the beginning it did become de-facto federal when the Banovina of Croatia was established, with plans to create a federal unit for Serbs and Slovenes as well. Then WW2 happened and the Croatian Ustashe used the basis of their federal unit to create the fascist Independent State of Croatia.
Првиот дел е искрен српски шовинистички национализам, Македончиња никогаш не се биле Срби
The first part is pure Serbian nationalism, Macedonians were never Serbs
Go spread propaganda somewhere else
@@brm5844 If it is propaganda lies then who was and what was Vojvoda Jovan Babunski? Who were those peopl from Macedonia who identified as Serbs and who fought for Serbia then? You leave this guy and go spread your propaganda somewhere else.
@@urosjoncic2770 Those were widely known serbomans, who were the absolute minority, even in their home regions. Just like there were grecomans who spoke Slavic yet fought for Greece, or patriarchists who fought again macedonian independence because they were loyal to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The wide majority of the population either supported joining Bulgaria (as a minority within the elite of the VMORO, not really the common people) or just independence in general. How could have things like the Tikvesh uprising happened had the people not wanted a free Macedonia? Why was the biggest uprising in our history Illinden which had a bulgaroman charecter? Why were there never any big pro-serb uprisings other than chetas known for terrorising the locals? Truly you are incredibly brainwashed
@@brm5844 why yall have Serbian custom of Slava in Orthodoxy ? 😭😭 bro its like serbians from backa say they are backanians or smth
@@lilbunbun6327 We don't. We were Orthodox literally centuries before you too, so you're showing how stupid you are by claiming that.
Let me correct you about something, during the kingdom of Yugoslavia Kosovo was Majorly Serb , albanians were a minority in that region. Other than that great video
no, it was not. 45/55% for albanians, but we were gaining.
To be honest, I see Yugoslavia as a slavic Austria-Hungary(I understand their differences, just saying to avoid some people from beating me up in the replies).
Yoguslavia wished it was Austro-Hungary lol. What an understatement of the nature of the Austrian empire
@@thenoobprincev2529 true
It should be mentioned that Serbia lost 30% of its people in ww1 and as a victorious country liberated all parts of Yugoslavia and established new state. People accros the country were indeed thankfull, (regent) king was warmly welcomed in every city even in croatia but especially in dalmatia. Unification of balcan slavs was an idea/dream centuries old but it was all handled poorly by each side. National identities were strong and king Aleksandar coming from homogenous Serbia and Montenegro didnt have proper uderstanding for that nor did he saw danger and importance of that problem. I think that country had future, in the begining everyone wanted it, after ww2 everyone loved it, in the end and even now everyone hates it. Right country, greedy and shortsighted politicians.
Wonderful country.............
The first ten years of Yugoslavia (1918-1928): Twenty-four political death sentences, 600
political murders, 30,000 political arrests, 3,000 political emigrants and countless masses of political expulsions.
At the first meeting with members of the National Council, on November 12, 1918, Dušan Simović stated:
Wikiquote »As a soldier, I can tell you this: Serbia, which in this war gave one and a half million victims for the liberation and unification of its brothers of the same blood across the Danube, Sava and Drina, cannot in any case allow a new state to be formed on its borders, which would take all its compatriots into its composition and that, after four years of suffering and the complete defeat of the enemy, it would remain in the background and leave all the fruits of the victories to another who dried up in the war on the enemy's side. Serbia - by the right of arms, and based on the contract with Hungary signed by Duke Mišić, as the plenipotentiary of the commander of the Allied armies on the Thessaloniki front; of General Franchet d'Esperey, the following territory belongs: Banat to the Horgoš-Subotica-Baja line; Baranja to the line Batasek-Pečuj-Barč and further along the river Drava to Osijek; Srijem and Slavonija to the railway line Osijek-Đakovo-Šamac; all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia up to Cape Planka. Outside that territory, you can decide as you wish: to go with Serbia or to form a separate state for yourself.
But don't forget that Croatia provided 1/3 of its soldiers in World War I, at least according to the words of the Minister of the Army, Petar Pešić
Bosnian Muslim called themselves Serbs of Muslim faith back then.
Im french and I find this complicated imagine explaining this to an american
Croats spoke croatian. There isnt serbocroatian... Its just made up
On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language.
To be clear, Serbs and Croats are different ethnic groups, but their dialects are mutually intelligble and differences between the two aren't great enough to justify considering them different languages in an academic sense. Specifically modern standard Serbian and Croatian (as well as Montenegrin and Bosnian) are both based on a dialect from eastern Herzegovinia.
If you're interested in learning more, I recommend this book:
www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvrf8bft.7
@@LookBackHistory well i speak both soo... If you soke them you would know that though they are similar in word pronounciation they differ greatly in sentence building... We understeand each other but to say its same language is insult to both and propaganda. In croatia linguists who say its the same language are on agenda, not considering historical and lingual stuff. Ist just like saying ukrainian and russian are same or czech and slovak.
@@LookBackHistory "On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language." Really? Which linguists? The Serbian linguists who consider it all to just be a Serbian language? Or the former Yugoslav linguists who did so as part of state narrative? Or maybe Western or Eastern linguists who made their worldview on the topic based on the works of those same Yugoslav/Serbian linguists without (in most cases) not even speaking these languages ?!?
What you are talking about and what I'm talking about could, just a few decades before, get me killed or at best imprisoned for countless years and get you a very nice salary and state benefits (now imagine if you are a linguist, which one would you chose :)). It is true that the Serbian and Croatian languages were brought together in their standardized forms in the late 19th century and that only intensified after the formation of Yugoslavia, but to just lump it all together as a general historical and linguistic rule is ludicrous. We no longer say there is such thing as Czecho-Slovak language, even though there was just a few decades prior. People and languages change, and yes, language is primarily a political construct. It is therefore insulting when someone denies the fact that these are in fact different languages brought closer together during the past 200 years or so, but have been differentiating in the past 30 years to the point of considering them separate languages.
Also, what does Banac's book have to do with anything? I mean, it's a good book, but Banac was by no means a linguist, and while his book is a very good read on the subject of Yugoslav unification and early political activity in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it's also full of politically correct Yugoslav undertones (which he put in since the book came out in the 80s and Yugoslavia was still standing). He would later tone down this rather soft sentiment and, when given the opportunity to speak his mind, would be much more critical of many of its aspects.
@@glaonrielelsinoth7243Croatian and Serbian language are not singular example of two languages based on the same dialectal basis. Hindi and Urdu, Danish and Norwegian, Bulgarian and Macedonian... but for reasons that have more to do with politics and ideology than linguistics the fake _SerboCroatian_ language is being kept "alive". Just today I was in a bookshop in Croatia and books in Serbian are kept with other literature in foreign languages.
@@Harahvaiti I agree, but as I've said I find the Czechoslovak language case very interesting since it shows how one mixed language can be at times considered one and then later for that single language to be considered a socio political construct. However, if someone even mentions that Serbo-Croatian is just the same thing, then that someone (usually Croat) comes off as some backwater Balkan nationalist who denies proven "scientific (sic!) facts".
The past 200 years saw books being printed into the world looking at this subject (as well as those of history and politics) with pro-Yugoslav or Yugoslav-apologetic views in 95% of cases. Unfortunately, modern Croatia has (as far as I know) done little to remedy this. Very few books on this subject are translated into major languages, let alone present on the internet bookstores, and God forbid audiobooks. This has left historians, linguists, political scientists and lawyers with very little material to work with and to look at these subjects from a different point of view. Therefore, I don't wish to be too harsh on Look Back History who has done an overall very good video on the subject without the usual Yugonostalgic babbling.
South Slavic = Yugoslavia + Bulgaria
So the serbs doomed it when they refused federation. I see.
serbs ruin everything
pasic accepted not a federation, but almost a kind of confederation when he signed geneva protocols, supported by Jugoslovenski odbor, Narodno vijece SHS and serbian oposition parties. There would be 12 cabinets, 6 from serbia, 6 from shs. He renegede on a deal soon as he come back to belgrade and shove a new constitution down the troath with minority of votes. 2 out of 3 constitutonal elements of new state boycotted not only new constitution, but new country. So, yes, Pasic fucked up big time.
@@darkodjokic4432 I dont get Pašičes dislike of federation. When looking at countries from large to medium size federations have more stability cos people have closer local government which does a better job of adressing regional issues.
Not Serbian sided. Serbs were majority even in AH leftovers.
this is the essence of the story of Yugoslavia: from the beginning, and through all its versions, until the tragic end, Yugoslavia was a way to extinguish Serbian statehood and Serbian state-building potential. why ? because the Serbs are loyal allies of the Russians, so it was unacceptable to the Western powers that there is a state of Russian loyal allies that goes out to the Mediterranean. that's why they used all their colonial and manipulative methods to push Serbs as a people and as a nation backward, convert them into other identities, destroy, exterminate, push them from the sea to the east.
identities and _nations_ (for lack of a better word) created after the breakup of Yugoslavia are all (except Serbs, logically) manufactured identities. All their _"histories"_ and _"academies"_ with which they prove their _"non-Serbian roots"_ are quasi-scientific political projects. Most of those manufactured identities still speak the Serbian language even though they call it by different names, and quasi-scientifically prove that _"their language is not Serbian"_ .
@@branimirnikolic4559 Branimire lupaš gluposti
Those "quasi-scientific political projects" have more physical proof that they are legitimate and correct than you could ever stomach.
One of such proofs is the Baška tablet, a stone tablet found in Croatia, in which it is written:
”I, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I abbot Držiha wrote this about the land which gave ZVONIMIR, THE CROATIAN KING, in his days to St. Lucia, and witnesses župan Desimir in Krbava, Martin in Lika, Piribineg deputy in Vinodol and Jakov on island. WHOEVER DENIES THIS, MAY HE BE CURSED BY GOD AND THE TWELVE APOSTLES AND THE FOUR EVANGLEISTS AND SAINT LUCIA. AMEN. May he who lives here, pray for them to God. I abbot Dobrovit built this church with nine of my brethren in the days of knez Cosmas who ruled over the entire Krajina. And in those days Nicholas in Otočac was one with St. Lucia."
Another proof is "De administrando impeiro", a work written by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII, who mentions that Tomislav, the King of Croatia, repelled a Bulgarian invasion in the year 925. This is another piece of proof that the Croats existed as a distinct ethnic group in the early medieval period.
Or are you going to tell me that a Byzantine emperor bore false witness?? That a Byzantine emperor simply decided to lie for no reason at all?
The real story is that, in the 19th century, Serbia wanted to expand its borders and eventually gain access to the Adriatic sea. And in an attempt to legitimize their claims, they pulled a neat little lie that the Croats are an artificial nation. A lie that Serbs, like you, still believe to this day.
You now only turned the story around to make it seem as if you are victims of a grand western conspiracy, even though in reality YOU were the conspirators.
Bosniaks are croatian muslim 🇭🇷⚜️☪️
@@KalashnikovMD63 True, except that "Bosiniak" is not "ethnicity" at all. It is name given to the Muslims by Americans (for the needs of their propaganda so that U.S. population does not realize that U.S. is helping in war Muslims against Christians) Muslims of Bosnia are not ethnicity separated distinctly from Serbs and Croats. It is only religious appurtenance. "Bosniak" means= "from Bosnia ". The logic of its etymology is IDIOTIC. Because Serbs and Croats from Bosnia can also be called "Bosniaks"(Bosanci) = "from Bosnia".
Macedonia is Macedonian! 🇲🇰
Creating Yugoslavia was the most natural thing, splitting Yugoslavia was the atrocity.
The opposite of what you wrote is the truth.
From the start plenty of details that are either inaccurate or not exact at all.
You must check your facts before explaining to the others.Yugoslavia was created by Kingdom of Serbia only. Serbia was sovereign country, unlike Croatia and Slovenia that were not independent countries but only part of Austria-Hungarian Empire (defeated enemy). Serbia as allay of Triple Entente (the winners alliance in the 1st World war) had received right to initiate demand for creation of Yugoslavia (that was called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians at the beginning when created). The other "provisional state" of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (that you mention) was NEVER recognized as state and is of no importance. So them "declaring independence" was just formality in Austria-Hungary that was falling apart anyways. And that has concerned only Slavic populations (Slovenians, Croats, Serbs) on those territory(of Austria-Hungary Empire) and not on Serbs in Kingdom of Serbia proper. etc. etc...