16:13 Fun fact: Out of all the elite high-ranking officers of the Royal Yugoslav Army who graduated from prestigious military academies, the only one who joined Tito's partisans to fight the fascist invaders was colonel-general Arso Jovanović, a graduate of the Vojna Akademija in Belgrade who became the first Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia during the National Liberation War and a pro-Soviet defector during the Tito-Stalin split. Same in Albania, where the only elite Royal Albanian Army officer from prestigious military academies who joined Enver Hoxha's partisans to fight Mussolini and Hitler during the National Liberation War was Spiro Moisiu, a graduate of Austria's Theresian Military Academy who became the first Chief of the General Staff of the Albanian National Liberation Army and later the Albanian People's Army.
Arso Jovanovic in 1941 was only captain. There were two colonels who joined partisans already in 1941, one of them was Savo Orpvic, who was member of partisans Supreme HQ. Majority of partisans commanders were either junior officers or NCOs or Spanish Civil War veterans
I’m not necessarily on the same political side as you are, but I appreciate your eloquent and open minded approach. And that you’re not just stepping down to a silly level of just mocking your opponent as ridiculous. I feel like you’re the type of person with whom it could be possible to sit down, have a heated political argument and not devolve into insults and ad hominem attacks as is sadly so often the case today.
@Jack Marcuson both collaborated with the fascist invaders of Yugoslavia and represented the reactionary movements of their chauvinistic nationalist ideology so yeah…
@@emptywaterbottle6973 I love how that guy instantly proves your last statement by going for an ad hominem attack on BO right away out of his own ignorance.
It is the same in Romania. Most of my family members, especially the older generations, had fetishized and were obsessed with the concept of monarchy. For example, I was arguing with my grandmother on the subject of Vlad the Impaler's cruelty. She said that his victims, especially the Ottomans, deserved what they got because they were involved in the affairs of the country. When I brought up Ion Antonescu, his involvement with Hitler and that he sent Romanian Jews into concentration camps, she only said: "He was a patriot. A patriot does anything for his country." All my Romanian compatriots whom I asked what they thought about the monarchy were either practically in love with it, or despise it with all their heart, not between them. Monarchy often represents stability, continuity and a connection to a romanticized past. Fascination with the monarchical era is often fueled by longing for a time when the country was seen as united and sovereign despite the historical challenges it faced. The royal family is often depicted as upholding moral values and embodying national unity, adding to their appeal. The fall of communism in Romania in 1989 marked a period of political and societal turmoil. The monarchy, with its historical legitimacy, provided a sense of stability during this transition. Many wanted King Michael I to return. The return of the royal family to Romania was seen by many as a symbol of hope and an alternative to the perceived shortcomings of the post-communist political establishment. This revival of interest in the monarchy can be seen as a reaction against the perceived corruption and inefficiency of the new democratic institutions.
Didn't King Michael I save Romania from being torn apart by soviets by getting rid of the nazis? I don't get how that can be romanticized it seems like a good thing.
It's the same in Russia especially with Putin calling for all Tsarist traditions like the Orthodox Church and other ideals which seeks the same feudalist/capitalist systems that colonize their own people or the people of other impoverished countries
Love the inclusions of Balkan history in your more recent uploads! (I reference your older videos with more focus on the histories from time to time:)) Thanks, as always, for your work, comrade o7
As a Bri'ish the idea that royal families embody traditional family values is wild! Prince Andrew being the most obvious, but by far not the only example of why. Your analysis of why royalty can be attractive matches my own observations from here. Love your videos as ever 🤠💜
@@therealignotus7549 Maybe, however the royals have never acted any other way than degenerate. Royalty as a system of governance is rule by an accident of birth which qualifies the ruler for nothing, especially not telling others how to live.
Pues y? Significa que la república sea mejor Como Británico...agradece de tener la monarquia,si lo que pasó en Francia hubiera pasado de vosotros...pues paso en realidad solo que volvieron a la monarquia...no tendrian NADA,no es como Francia Inglaterra aparte la monarquia no tiene tanto que le da brillo Si Francia fuera una monarquía...aún más le daría brillo
Amblems through its history were used by factions against monarhy (USA ,USSR,SFRJ ) So it's kinda strange that Serbian monarchist party uses a emblem as a symbol
As someone who lives in a constitutional parliamentary monarchy (the Netherlands) I feel both surprised and disappointed that others would long for such a state. Sure our royal family has next to no political power and mostly serves as a figurehead but they're still monarchs. A hereditary family of unelected "officials" that hold vast (tax free) wealth, receive high paying jobs for life as borderline unaccountable public officials and their fame and prestige give them considerable soft power in Dutch society. This is, in essence, deeply unfair and essentially undemocratic. Their main historic claim to legitimacy is that they're remotely related to the Willem I van Oranje (1533-1584) who we call Father of the Nation via his brother. But the family only became monarchs after the British installed them as such after defeating Napoleon in 1815. And yet they cling to their position and have been forgiven many foibles during our history. They're useless, no worse than useless because an elected president would cost the taxpayers less. The age of monarchs has rightfully passed, any remaining ones are nostalgic relics that should be thankful every day that their subjects aren't rolling the guillotines out of museums and the idea that new ones should be instated is misguided and delusional. Monarchy as a viable form of statehood should have died with Louis XVI in 1793 and any that remain do so at the mercy of their own subjects and should be well aware of that fact.
They are first and foremost heads of states, like president and they receive salary for their work and their wealth is accumilated through time. I live in Serbia and I would take monarchy. And yes running a monarchy is cheaper since presidents campaings cost arm and leg(state most pay for ad on various plaforms, political debates also cost money, billboards, candidates traveling from one part to another part of country, holding rallies and so on and all that happens every four to five years)
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy.
An elected president would cost taxpayers less. I came from a fully democratic republic country, and I don't know how that can be measured. And the idea of stability, yes, the president in charge needs to fight to get the implementation of his policies, a king would not be different, but as they are the same, I don't know how it works in other countries, but people don't have to worry that the new elected president destroy the work made by this who came before him/her. You said monarchy should had died with Luis XVI, didn't even ended that time in France, you can ask Napoleon how.
@@slXD100 opet gledaš srpske kraljeve na jedan nerealističan način. Ako pogledamo listu od oslobođenja od Turaka koga imamo za koga možemo da kažemo da je bio dobar vladar? Velika većina su bili korumpirani ili despoti. Ako pričamo o periodu pre Turaka, to opet nema smisla. To je bio period feudalizma. Feudalizam je bio mnogo stvari ali častan nije bio niti će ikada biti. Da li su ti feudalni kraljevi uradili nešto dobro? Da, ali da li je feudalni poredak koji je bio uspostavljen pod njima bio dobar, poredak koji su oni održavali i podržavali? Ne nije bio. Velika većina srpskih kraljeva nisu bili dobri, niti ih je bilo briga za narod
I was wondering if you could make a video on Balkan people’s (not to lump them all together but the general public) thoughts and views of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans/basically non-white people? There are some beautiful places in Central Europe I would love to visit but as a black woman O am sometimes wary about how I will be received, so it’d be nice to hear from you. :)
Let me tell you, and don't get offended, just saying it how it is: black people are seen as unicorns here. Especially in smaller places, towns, people would look at black people almost in shock. As if they don't believe their own eyes (of course because we are ethnically homogenous). After that first reaction start the questions like why you are here, where are you from etc etc.. then they offer you a bunch of weird alcoholic beverages and start hugging you and telling you what a legend you are. After 2 days they forget that you are even black... In the bigger cities people won't even notice you being any different than anyone else (that is if they grew up in those cities and did not immigrate from smaller towns or villages). Well, then again, people in the big cities don't notice anything really (I live in Novi Sad so trust me when I say, someone could die in the middle of the street not one person would bat an eye, everyone is always in a rush on a phone going somewhere really really important....). If you are an Arab/indian however people will mistake you for a local gypsy and hate the crap out of you for no reason (well not really no reason, local gypsies are kinda a-holes) But generally you will have a good time and feel like you are special in a way
As a Dutch person who lives in Croatia, i can tell you the general Balkan opinion on black people is neutral to positive, at least as far as i know. Racism is sadly very much alive in the Balkans, however little of it is based around the concept of “whiteness”. In the five years i have lived here, i have only met one person who had a negative opinion about black people, specifically a taxi driver who went off at two black gentlemen who my friend and i were trying to help out, in the mistaken assumption that they were illegal immigrants. Feel free to tag me if you’d like any more information, or if i failed to properly answer your question.
@@brammeijer5411 yeah, i wouldn't even call it racism (racism is only directed at gypsies as i mentioned). We don't really have any time for hatred based on race since the entirety of our oxytocin hatred capacity is focused on nationalism and our neighbors 😁
@@npanic628Seconding what you said, at least to an extent. I’ve went drinking with a bunch of Turks as well as this African guy, who were here for a social / humanitarian event, and people would regularly tap the man on his shoulder for a chat or a handshake, or to take a picture with him. In smaller towns people might initially be surprised and interested at seeing someone who’s “obviously not from here”. From what i’ve seen, people here will not consider someone lesser purely on the basis of skin colour, and racism i’ve seen and/or experienced was more based on perceived ethnicity.
@@npanic628 I don’t know. I’ve seen and heard racist bullshit regarding non-slavic populations in general, and within the school class where i’m in, i have heard “fuck off to your own country” more than once directed at me. Then again, my situation is different from, say, a black or Asian person who is visiting as a tourist, social/humanitarian advocate or for business reasons. First of all, i’m “white” and generically European-looking, so the novelty is not as evident, and wears off relatively quickly considering i speak the language (me speaking the language relatively well actually does cause issues for me at the current moment, but that’s a whole other story), etc.
It's a pretty strange rabbit-hole in the Anglo-American sphere as well, with distributist and corporatist economic ideologies getting at least mentioned positively from factions of conservative parties that have been disenchanted with neoliberalism, monarchism being supported by some members of the "Republican" Party in the US
That's pretty much how 90% of his videos end. It's the same point every time, "Capitalism is at fault for this", "Those on top are exploiting the poor" yadayadayada. I understand why he thinks that way, but if that is the conclusion for every single video it just becomes boring and predictable.
10:00 "Prestige" it's like they have been playing EU4 and they got the conclusion that monarchy is the better government type, so we dhould just switch for the bonuses. Childs brain.
@@djordjetosic4553 I'm in agreement. I like monarchy because you know who to kill/get rid of in order to change the government. But maybe thats the American in me influencing that.
I think the main problem with reactionary Slavic political parties is that they aren't regressive *enough* , not that they're too regressive. They often want a monarchy, a strengthening of the "native" religion (either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, in Poland's case) and a restriction/expulsion of minorities. I'm far more radical, in that I want Slavs to go back to our old ways before even kingdoms, back to our Horde Migratory past when we fled the Huns on horseback, running and fighting for our lives. Settled agriculture - that's where all of our problems started. When we started living in primitive hovels in the ground, drinking and getting really good at Counter-Strike to ignore our familial issues. Before, we prayed to our old gods, lived freely, were hunted , fought other tribes, and periodically starved and we kurva *liked* it. Not a phone in sight. Just pure vibes across the Eurasian steppe.
I find it weird that Serbia 🇷🇸 and its flag despite being a republic, it still carries the monarchist symbol on it with no king or royal family in Serbia whatsoever. You would think they change it that identifies itself as a Republic and of the people.
The Eagle on the Flag is basically the Coat of Arms of the Nemanjic royal house that ruled Serbia from 1166 to 1371. They were the most important and most powerful Dynasty of medieval Serbia.
@@itsblitz4437 They are at present nothing more then a handful British predators that have tragically and successfully managed to gain land and private property in the country with the claims that it was wrongfully confiscated by the communists. In the Serbian public, most notably the conservative sphere that wants to reestablish the monarchy they are very unpopular and a laughing stock.
As an Algerian I can see why countries in similar positions do require Authoritarian governance , if only because the people have been made so unaware of the internal working of government that they couldnt possibly plan or consent to a program that would actually tackle Corruption and degeneracy within the State. And a Monarchy is an Authoritarian govt with a Higher authority over it, ostencibly God, which all the People consent to insofar as it is a religious country. So I can see why Monarchy would be reasonable at least for the Christian Balkans. The Muslim countries so long as they're not brainwashed by Wahabism like a lot of Eastern europe Muslims are, will not consent to a Monarchy because the Early Caliphs voted as a Parliament, even though they werent voted in en masse by the people (except for Umar RA)..
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy.
@@slXD100 What about Yugoslavia time? Was the Public consciousness altered at the time? Was there a break of Monarchism among the people during Yugoslavia? And is the return of Monarchism as an ideology a reaction to the forced change caused by death of USSR?
@@nadjiguemarful Mostly tito revoked their citizenship and siezed their land which the goverment after tito annulled as illegal the monarchists were one of the biggest partisan groups in yugoslavia during the german occupation
I find this topic interesting, because I consider myself to be a monarchist, but every time I hear about other monarchists I just disagree on so many things.
@@zevleizer-romalis1666 government run by the people with the monarch having no or close to no power and being just a unifying symbol. Also the whole divine right to rule is bullshit.
so do I. my point as a Brazilian monarchist is to separate the day-to-day administration from the Head of State, thus fixing a lot of issues that we do have. I don't care abt the religious purity of the monarch; I don't want European nobility laws to be implemented here; all I want is to the Parliament to taste some of the "fuck around, find out" rule to which they are immune in Presidential countries, & for the ppl not to trust in messianic figures, such as either Bolsonaro (for the right) or Lula (for the left), who would fix all problems in 4 to 8 years, just after spending those very 4 to 8 years unmaking what the previous gov't did.
06:12 "[...] with this, I am refering to the period in Yugoslav history when King Aleksandar the I of the Karađorđević dynasty responded to the decade long failures and insolvable contradictions of Yugoslav parlamentarism by introducing a military dictatorship that outlawed all political parties, introduced mass censorship, dispended parialment and concentrated power into the hands of himself as the ruling monarch." Could you just once be honest with yourself? Tell me please, which of these things did dictator Tito differently in his communist utopia? How many political parties were there besides the communist party in Yugoslavia? What happened to people who critisized the ruling party publically? In the hands of how many people was the power? I mean, that is not only the case for the Yugoslav communist dictatorship, but also for every other communist form of government which ever existed. None of them was liberal. None.
Thanks for the video comrade. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I found monarch-worship of the colonized nations is subtly different from monarch-worship of the imperalist core States. There they have the "prestige" by defending the current lineage of heritage still dominant (some would say "is actively being chipped away", but dat's just protofascist rhetorics). In the colonized nations, the "prestige" always appealing to the days long gone, before the current suffering inflicted by capitalist.
Yeah I noticed that in the colonized world, monarchy worship stems from a strong desire for a strong national history that is somewhat mythical against a perceived inferiority. In Southeast Asia, the history books I read tend to glorify the old monarchies against European colonialism and lament their downfall
I would not say we are obsessed with Monarchy. After all, all national parties that are declarably for monarchy never go into a parlament. They never get even close to a significant vote. Also, Kosovo is Serbia. Serbian working class in imperialistic pupet state of Kosovo cannot spove their position while being prosecuted.
That's a terrible benchmark for how much the public is nostalgic about the monarchy. I mean the fact that there even exist pro monarchy parties in Serbia is kind of a big sign that there's not an insignificant obsession with it in the population. Even here in Austria, where a lot of people are still nostalgic about the Habsburgs (even though it's quite obvious and known how fucking awful they were) there at least aren't any political forces (that I know of) yearning for the days of monarchy.
@@castor9683 I would not say that it is terrible benchmark; for more than a decade we have had, in Serbia, propaganda towards monarchy. And it garnered less than 3 percent of votes, which is in total, 1 percent of our population. The video is deeply mistaken in the fact that we do not fatishize monarchy. We fetishize power and stability. As all weak and instable societies do.
@@MarkoFTW You're looking at this from a way too reductive point of view. You cannot look at just one factor like "is a pro monarchy party popular or not" and conclude from that the entire public's sentiment about monarchy. If your argument was accurate then where I live there shouldn't exist any nostalgia or support of monarchical ideas because there are neither any pro-monarchy political parties nor is there any discourse about monarchy in the media happening. There is however a significant amount of nostalgia for the monarchy and rehabilitation of the old royal family happening here. So political parties alone are not a good benchmark for this. That's what I've been trying to tell you. The low support for your pro monarchy parties is more likely to come from them just being bad at PR or having uncharismatic leaders or having bad or no outreach or all of that together. But the fact that there are even are pro-monarchy parties and that people are voting for them certainly proves already that there is a at least a certain support for it in the populace. How much exactly you can only know by looking at more aspects and factors in the society other than political parties.
@@mikeoxsmal8022 Cool, invite guests in your house and let them decide their own future within your house. They'll probably decide to have your house for themselves and that's awesome.
You made good points in the video. A lot of bulgarians have the same obsession with monarchy. Thinking that if Monarchy stayed everything would be ''fine'', even though that isn't true.
The cold way you said Ssrbs in Kosovo, which you also called it a country,, should fight for themselves shocked me. Its like you willingly ignore that their votes are going against albanian an un guns, making them worthless.
Unfortunately in Brazil too some people glorify the Empire, which is absurd because all their arguments are basef on factual errors. For example, they say the Empire abolished slavery forgetting that it was the last sovereign country in the western hemisphere to do so! They say the empire was economically prosperous, but actually it was one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the world even after abolition, and the gap between it and Europe only increased over time during the imperial era. The empire was not totally bad (relatively stable comparable to our neighbors and relatively open politically to the small urban free classes) but it was nowhere near a superpower as they say, a successful country, or even one of the best moments for Brazil (certainly not better than the republic).
Good for your country. But we are serbs we aren't imperialist we want our land in which we lived for 1000 of years. And stop comparing us to your country. We aren't the fucking same!
Desafortunadamente? No son muchísimos,por ahora Y tú hablas sin saber deberías informarte si no sabes lo que luchó a Princesa Imperial para abolir la esclavitud Siento decirte que es al revés de como dices tú,hay muchas verdades que se ocultan históricas...sobre eso Brasil no funciona como República es un DESASTRE,y ya lo vimos
Falta veer todos los países sobretodo de algunas regiones como estaban y como están ahora y realmente muy pocos en general se me vienen a la mente ejemplos en los cuales fue beneficiosa la abolición de la monarquia... Hay muchas más evidencias que la monarquia es mejor de la república pero ustedes siguen negandolo
As a history teacher from Serbia I must admit that your understandings of Serbian history and modern perspectives are pretty rudimentary. I advise you to at lest read the 8th grade history textbook before making any videos.
Don't your 8th grade history textbooks literally praise chetniks as national heroes? A lot of the shit former Yugoslavia has in its shit is inherently political to construct new narratives since the fall of the country
If we dont need a king we will have a ductator and if no dictator we will need a king, Serbian people whant a leader, we always had a leader and whenever it was up to people to lead we could never agree on anything.
This is NOT obsession...simply the majority of people want back to monarchy USA?! Fair,all you think to can impose what do you want for other countries
I dissagree with the unity in national interest, "serbs in rs and kosovo will fight for themselves" they cant, because of bosnian/albanian facist people who will promote violence against them, like in the bosnian war
So having a leader that doesn't do anything except look pretty for the cameras and news articles while the country is becoming poo poo then a leader such as a president that is somewhat and fair in his involvement in the country. Whether it's a hereditary monarch or through through elections your simply anointing and choosing 1% of a population that aren't gods and are just regular human beings to be exempt from working and paying taxes
I do not agree with some things said in this video (and how it is openly supporting Communism and Tito which makes it hard to be open-minded) I do agree with some points related how Serbs brought themselves in this situation. What I heavily disagree with in this video - Serbia (and all other countries to that) have no right to dictate the fate of their own people living aboard. You do realize this means letting that country do anything they want with them, which most of them did over the centuries by integrating them into their own nation and wiping out their Serbian identity. This is also dangerous way of thinking as it gives Serbia the freedom to do the same thing to minorities living inside it's own territory. And we all know how it was during the war in the 90's and this mindset. Serbia and every other country has obligation to assist their own minorities living in foreign countries, to support and protect them anyway they can. Other than that this video presents good points but giving the mentality and way of life of a basic Serb I am doubt anything will change, even all the negative things said here are utterly useless as life in modern liberal capitalism for Serbs is becoming even worse than it was under Ottoman rule or WW1 and WW2 occupations. It does not help that the same countries promoting those values are the ones that are responsible for this whole mess by supporting breakup of Yugoslavia and greatly diminishing the life standard of all Balkan people by diving them among several new countries. Nevertheless, this video material is researched quite well and you got like and sub from me.
I just discovered your chanal and I really like it. I am pretty sure our ancestors who lived under monarchy would think people today are crazy. King is a king. You have no saying in what king wants. That is the whole point of all. Kings where successful just because you, as a pesant, are not allowed to akt or do different. They established "great nations" not for people but their own family, usually for just them self (bcs they wouldn't not care to end their brothers or even children if standarding in a way). So saying to want monarchy and how glorious kings are, for me is just silly.
Is this not the same concept of socialist/communist who describe a future communist utopia? Modern communist also make the romantic view that a new communist system would be great, however the crimes and just the outcome of communist system does not give evidence of that. It also has a view that in a new communist system the worker will be equal and that it will be a glorious time. It also promotes a "unity". Those who do not conform to this "unity" also get repressed. Basiclay all political systems have a philosophy. Many communist systems made atheism as a philosophy as was the idea of the Homo Sovieticus. Every now system needs to proclaim a philosophy to explain that their world would be better than the current system.
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy. Obviously that doesn't mean that Monarchy is the right thing now, I am just explaining why it's viewed positively.
@@slXD100 Is that not a too much romantic view of the Serbian monarchy? A monarchy with a history of forced abdication and assassinations. In reality, most of the people fight in a war because they are forced. or out of desperation. 99% of the people never met or had seen the monarch in those times. It was by storytelling that they were made "heroes". And from a nationalistic view it is easier to associate yourself with the monarchy than with communist Yugoslavia (which is a melting pot), as there is no alternative story in history for Serbia. In a communist mindset, nationality and culture (including religion) is irrelevant. That's why socialist always want monarchy or conservatism (also republicanism and from that point also capitalism) with extreme right and fascism. In reality is fascism, communism fused with cultural and nationalistic influences. Fascist were in their economic view leftists. They bought favour nationalization of free enterprise, big government spending. The collective/group (in communism: the worker, in fascism (the people), but both have more interest of the group thinking than with the individual. Do not forget Mussolini was original a socialist and the Nazi were called the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). But what do communist do, they count the dead tool of fascism with capitalism, but from a correct historical view leftest dead toll is the sum of communism and fascism. Before WWII all people classified fascism and the nazi's as on the left of the political spectrum. Fascism classified as political right is an invention of the 60 and 70' by social democrats, to put them for political gain in the political middle, with on their left and and right extreme ideologies in order to sell their story
@@MyReiners I will only answer your first text as I agree with the rest. It is not true that storytelling made them heroes, it depends what you mean by storytelling? historical facts or just fantastic poetry created to tell children? Serbia didn't have a huge population and the Serbian Empire and its people thrived during the empires existence, quality of life was highest in whole of Europe at that time. It is also well documented (by the enmies themselves) what the leaders of Serbia did and how they died in battle or fought for their people. Even during Serbias time as an Ottoman Vassal, you can see the efforts of Stefan Lazarevic to his people. he could've just been a typical tyrant and request Ottoman help if his people didn't listen, but instead he did everything he could do. obviously the fact that Bayezid had Stefans sister as a wife, has something to do with it. but nevertheless, as soon as he saw chance to free Serbia from the Ottomans, he took it. I am not implying you don't know Serbian History, you might even know it better than I do. My assumption is that what led to Serbia having "goodhearted" Monarchs is the simple principle of Serbdom, something that other groups of people have lost (at least their nobles, elites). in Serbia that however was not the case, not before and not during the Ottoman Empire. There were codes and principles that all people followed, not just the common folks. that's my take on it. (not at all an attack on you)
Well you read history of Serbian kings very kind. You forget the intrigue of those families. After the battle of Kosovo he was very loyal to the Ottomans (against the crusaders oat the battle of Nicopolis). He supported the Ottoman invasions into Bosnia. He fought against Vuk Branković (a fellow Serb ruler) and got his lands. Then he joined the order of the dragon but he remained loyal to the Ottomans at the battle of Ankara (because he needed support against the Hungarians), where he rescued Musa Çelebi. Then he betrayed Đurađ Branković (to eliminate a serbian compitition). Then fought with Musa at first and then betrayed him, mad an alliance with Sigismund (Hungarian ruler in support for Mehmed I) and joined Mehmed I. Stefan and Đurađ Branković after the battle acknowledged supremacy of Mehmed I, who gave to Stefan rich gifts and some areas, including the fortress Znepolje and the area Koprijan. After that when the Hungarians invaded Bosnia against the Ottomans he at first remained neutral and than supported the Ottomans and the played intermediate to release Hungarian prisoners. Than after that het wrote that if an anti-Ottoman coalition (by Hungary, Byzantines and Venice) he would support it (which can be very doubtful). So Western Europe reads Stefan Lazarević history very different as Serbians do. From Western Europe perspective he was not an goodhearted" Monarch, and just seen as an example of Serbian infighting and duplicity. And with Đurađ Branković it continued. Durad fought with John Hunyadi (against the Ottomans), then formed a peace treaty (against wishes of Western support), had his daughter Mara married to Murad II for regaining his Serbian rule. And for this, Branković was forced to bribe John Hunyadi with his vast estates (was not in the interest of the Serbian people), to get his rule (own interest). The second battle of Kosovo was lost because the Albanian army was delayed by Serbian despot Đurađ Branković, whose army occupied the mountain passes on the Serbian-Albanian border. After that Skanderbeg ravaged and pillaged Branković's domains as punishment for deserting the Christian cause. The Christian Balkan states were unable to resist the Ottomans after this defeat, eventually falling one after the others under control of the Ottoman Empire. Hunyadi was captured by Branković and release was negotiated against a ransom of 100,000 florins, the return of the domains that Hunyadi had revocated from Branković, and the engagement of Hunyadi's heir to Branković's daughter. After that Skanderbeg had to fight on his own. Although later the Ottoman invasion was for a time halted after the siege of Belgrade (1456), the time of Serbia and Bosnia was up. As such, it ceased to exist. Romanian lands (Wallachia and Moldova) remained fighting bach (a kind of guerilla/ long term war). At last the Ottomans became frustrated and the Romanian territories became vassal states (with semi-independece). I am always surprised that Serbians see history differently. Serbians see that time as a time of "goodhearted monarchs". The west sees that history as betrayel of alllies and internal power play.
@@MyReiners yeah that's bullshit. Lazarevic managed to keep bosnia and serbia independent and both Hungarians and ottomans and Vatican were our enemies. Is just funny how the ottomans attacked us the least during and were out most helpful allies during his time. Both serbia and bosnia which is serbian land anyway got conquered 30 years after his death anyway. So yeah he managed his best and history isn't black and white anyway. And the west 😂😂😂 lmao. Yeah comon.
I mean, it is expected from a marxist to have such a standpoint. To each their own. Still, the most of the things the party for the restoration of the monarchy stands for is, in fact, good. Is it not? "Territorial imperialist claims" has become such a buzzword, unfortunately. I mean, look at what the government of Kosovo has been doing to the Serbs lately. The desire to restore order and to protect one's own people is not "territorial nationalist claim". What Serbia is doing now is what the Albanians were doing during the 90s. There is no imperialism involved. As for Alexander's establishing a dictatorship, I ask you this: what would you have done in such a climate? You are making out Serbs to be the only one responsible. Namely, the king himself. That is a very narrow minded point of view which stems from the marxist disdain for the monarchy which ultimately leads to looking for any kind of correlation without any causation. An analogy for this would be: There is an orchard outside of Sarajevo. The orchard has a bad year due to terrible climate and rampant infestation of harmful, toxic bugs. A marxist will then go "The orchard is grown in a democratic republic, so that is why the orchard has failed". Unfortunately, you have the same reasoning in case of Alexander. You fail to realize that all of the sides were at fault. Not only that, but you are vilifying Alexander simply because he was a monarch, something inherently evil to all marxists. Hence why, again, without any causation, you pin the blame on him. Look at the centuries long divide between the people: religion, culture, values. Ones under the Austrians, others under the Ottomans. Ones liberated themselves, ones chose to fight for their overlords. Ones are eastern Orthodox, ones are Catholics. This is a combination that almost never could have work. Any chance of it happening were squashed by the already terrible recent history the Yugoslavs had during WW1. Croats saw themselves as above everyone else, due to them serving the modern, enlightened Austrian monarchy, hence why they saw themselves as very important in the union and that they are right. Serbs saw themselves as natural leaders of the new union, because it is their efforts which led to the creation of Yugoslavia and saving Croats and Slovenes from sitting at the losing table after WW1. Not only that, but you do realize that this huge economic disparity between the north and the south is also one of the major points of contention which you have always failed to address in your videos while glorifying Tito, a dictator who was doing basically the same thing as Alexander: clamping down on nationalism with far more extreme measures, implementing censorships, gathering riches for himself which far surpassed the alleged "gold" of the royal family. Tito did nothing to reduce the wealth disparity between the north and the south. Your fantasies about his socialist policies working fall apart the moment you realize how much foreign capital was pouring into Yugoslavia in order to keep Yugoslavia neutral in the cold war perior (something which, obviously, wasn't a "gift"), only for Yugoslavia to face the largest inflation the world has ever seen. The moment the dictator's yoke loosened, all sides started getting at each other's throats. What Tito did was the prime example of imperialism under the guise of "brotherhood and unity". I mean, he wanted to incorporate Bulgaria and Albania in an already unstable country. Yes, Tito's Yugoslavia was also unstable. Just because you have secret police and violently clamp down on opposition and nationalists, does not mean you don't have problems. You are suppressing those problems with violence. But history knows that the harder you suppress it, the more volatile it becomes. Or is it okay if the dictator claims they are a communist? Not only that, but Tito was obviously obssessed with what Alexander was doing during his dictatorship: personality cult, presenting the baton and singing songs to the king/marshal, parades in the glory of the dictator. The king forbade tribalism and promoted a new Yugoslav artificial identity, even tried to pull efforts to create a unified language and script, even going at odds with the Serbian Orthodox church in order to make them adopt a unified calendar. He even implemented a form of federalism which YOU yourself proposed as a solution for Bosnian federalism - not based on ethnic grounds. I will inform you of an idea which the Serbian intelligentsia proposed during the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes: referendum federalism, a model of federalism based on the United States of America. The people get to have a referendum whether their municipality will be a part of an existing state or be a new one. Do you know who was the greatest opponent of this idea? It wasn't the king. It wasn't the Serbs. It was the Croats. So before you continue constantly blaming the people who actually had good ideas, look at who were against those ideas. And what for? For the "ancient Croatian claim over the lands" and that the Croatian federal territory should incorporate every single place where there is even a single Croat house. King did not vouch for the same when it comes to Serbs, even though he was a Serb. And let's not forget the ideology you stand for and what is integral for such ideology: violence. Tito's reign was marked with violence, prosecution and censorship against anyone who opposed his vision and the illusion of brotherhood and unity. What makes him different than Alexander? I will tell you what: the title. One was a king of the kingdom. The other was a president of a socialist republic. One is a monarchist, the other a marxist. They are more similar than you would like to admit. Let the monarchists be monarchists. People have been betrayed by the socialists, not the monarchists. Besides, the world monarchies are doing just fine. They managed to do far more for the national unity than socialism ever did. Let people have free will. Morever, if you really think that the idea of a monarchy is so bad and evil, let the people try it and feel for t hemselves that it is evil. Not the socialist way of "Let's cause ideaological chaos through terrorism in order to show how bad this regime is". I didn't care about monarchism basically at all before. But the idea of it is good. You can claim that it is all a ruse for the "ruling elite to oppress and brainwash the masses" holds no water, especially because every communist regime ever has actively done the very thing you are accusing others that might do if they get to power. We've seen the brutality of "benevolent socialist leaders". People might not even care anymore what kind of dictator is in power anymore, people just want to be happy and live at least well enough. People tried your ideal society. It didn't work. Kingdom of Serbia worked, until it became Yugoslavia.
The difference is that Tito liberated the nation, earning his position on the battlefield; & later through his charisma and grasp of real politic, managed to keep Stalin at bay, uniting the country, lifting millions out of poverty & illiteracy. I've met the current pretender several times in the UK Serb diaspora, & i didn't find him impressive at all, particularly his apparent lack of interest in learning the language.
@@zivkovicable are you some kind of degenerate??? Didn't you read his comment??? Macedonia was poor south Serbia was poor. Tito didn't do shit. Ironically my family was rich before socialist Yugoslavia. After socialism took control my family didn't even have something to eat. F off tard.
@@zivkovicable and he united the country so well that it immediately broke up after his death. Not to mention how the economy of Yugoslavia immediately crashed after his death. And how Serbia still needs to pay his debts till 2050. F off tard. No to mention the horrible borders he created. Dividing serbs.
@@zivkovicable and what are you talking about??? He literally tells you how all of this is bullshit. Not to mention the horrible infrastructure Yugoslavia had. I shit you not today's bosnia has way better infrastructure then Yugoslavia.
it's astounding how many of your points against Monachism can be argued against a Titoist or Stalinist socialist regime. if you crown a communist prince, like Laos tried to, would you have a dynasty with the "right" worldview, that defends the actual people as the Head of State, while the head of the Communist Party rules the country as its Prime Minister?
Fair opinion, Serbia needs in my opinion more active society in all aspects. The same is for many Balkan nations including mine. I like the historical symbol of monarchies but I dont think they are for the good. In Bulgaria the idea of monarchy to be returned doesn't exist, people create groups to share artifacts and photos and facts from such times. Any order would work if people acted with morality to keep it clean.
Serbian society first and foremost needs to be *deradicalized* from their genocidal sick svetosavlje supremacist world views, before there can be any peace in the Balkans! >80% percent of serbs (not only from Serbia) entertain ultranationalistic and fascist supremacistic world views and have horrible opinions about their ex-Yugoslav neighbors!
@@Katze400 I kinda feel like I know why. They have retained a mindset born in the 19th century. All European nations had it, that of ultranationalism as we see it today. The difference is that in the strife for power in that time due to different reasons ( power, ambition, diplomacy, treachery ) they won in all conflicts after that and they got the wrong impression that this is for the best nad right way, what they had as a view of themselves and the rest of the nations was solidified. In the age of propaganda that followed they couldn't see clearly that there is something fucked up in what they do or did, especially in the Yugoslav wars, not like us Bulgarians who were blamed for everything before in the same period and lost greatly, we had to prove to ourselves too that what we did was right for us and our people but curcumstances weren't in our favour so right now we have little to nothing to defend or prove in our view or what history as events was. Serbians ( to not go outside of the topic ) skipped that moment and again now with almost everything considered propaganda or conspiracy people won't look into themselves and blame the world and countries like the US for their missfortune. They have recent bitterness to come out of, we had similar but prefered to not bother the rest that much I think or we had the luck to not have Internet to show it that much when our fate was settled.
@@vasil.kamdzhalov hey bro. What if it isn't propaganda what if we realy want to have a "greater" Serbia???? Were all serbs with every religion can live peacefully together??? Remember the only reason why the war in bosnia started was because Muslims didn't want to be serbs and tryed to make bosnia independent. Which lead to a horrible war were half of my family members got expelled and their villages burned down.
@@tomgu2285 Propaganda in my mind is not that you wish to have Greater Serbia ( which would be troublesome as it would mean more bloodshed in trying to make it ) but in the idea that you didn't really feel that parts or even the whole thing you have done was bad ( this would be expected from the other side too but lets see who is more prideful to not admit shared guilt ) and too look into yourselves as the problem, the propaganda is for you to blameo others near and far "enemies" and going on a path which keeps the hate for others who are the same as you but on the other side, they are with the same goals dreams and expectations but with a different face. Chauvinistic comments are glorified more often it seems when I can see them easily while sometimes it is hard for me to find such group in my own country.
The Serbian monarchy would have no power but it could bring in alot of economic potential as one of the few monarchies in Europe honestly few downsides lots of upsides as you would have alot of marketable potential it could also encourage national unity
Also alot of the monarchs of Serbia unlike most modern monarchies continued to lead men in battle and actively fight for the country and be men of the people as for the pact with hitler statement its an inherently dishonest diesgenous statement and lie by omission since your leaving out very very important details as for residing till this day the prince of Yugoslavia lives in serbia currently
I got to the end and to your conclusion. Presenting communism as something that frees people from "the rule of the few" is an outright lie. Communism simply transferes the power from one small group of people, to another small group of people. Man, you seem to be equally blinded as the monachy supporters, in every regard. Nonetheless, I wish you well.
One of the silliest videos I have seen. I suppose if we just disappear or become a British colony and have a westminster government with their yelling and laughing everything would be just fine.
Ja sam za parlamentarnu monarhiju, ali nisam neki konzervativac niti nacionalista niti za "neku staru slavu". Niti će monarhija da promeni sve za jedan dan. Tako da nije baš sve tako kao što misliš i predstavljaš, što je još opasnije.
Ne gledaj onda ostale njegove bljuvotine , slošiće ti se. Ja se zajebao pa odgledao ovih dana , istina je da smo mi srbi sami sebi najveći neprijatelji. Ovakve u Engleskoj nećeš naći.
04:30 "[...], who's failures of efficiency are self- evident to most working class people." A more desastrous failure of efficiency than in literally every communist dictatorship which ever existed, should be equally evident. Even a monarchy doesn't seem to be so backward as the communist dictatorships of the last century. There are reasons why both systems of government never worked particularly well, although communism demanded a way higher cost of human lives.
You can easily destroy all of POKS feeble attepts at advertisment by asking the simple question "but how?" to their every point lol. And thankfuly only a very small minority would actually support such am insane idea.
@@Mildau30 The Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Đakovica was destroyed by the communists in 1949. Prior to 1968, the Yugoslav state carried out the destruction of churches, the listing of church properties as state cultural heritage, the seizure of church and monastery artifacts to be displayed in state museums, as well as, the appropriation of property for state functions. During 1968 and 1981 protests, Serbian Orthodox religious sites were the target of vandalism, while vandalism continued during the 1980s. There were attempts to devastate Devič, damage Visoki Dečani and desecrate Gračanica and the Hermitage of St. Peter of Koriša. In March 1981, the Patriarchal Monastery of Peć was set on fire, which destroyed a 2,000-square meter residential section along with valuable furniture, rare liturgical books and some of the monastery's treasury.
@@DzoniMakaroni independence fron the Ottomans,technological progress,wars won, If you were in debt they couldn't take your land and house and was it not Milos who said "the land belongs to the one who farms it". They were not perfect but you can't deny that they did what they tought was best for Serbia
Its the communist talking about hegemony and nacional unity and war and genocides hehe im not for sebian royalism but im for german and sustrian hegenomisam and emprisam and constitutioal monarchy
while i agree that we have to jump out of capitalist and monarchist ship i don't think that socializam is awnser bc for socializam to work u have to destroy almost all of your nacional identety, like destroying your religion. I know many people in my life who didn't had been save from psychologist but from the bible people who could had done suicide didn't bc when whole world is crumbling(there will be crisis is any political sistem) u have to get porpise in life and find only stable pillar that is holding you in socializam will fail you ( not as badly as capitalizam and others) u have to have something to do in that rough times
Ima ljudi koji bi vratili monarihuju, ali ne izlaze na izbore. Ni ja nisam glasao za monarhiste jer su u istom kosu sa ostalim strankamam. Ali sam vise za vracanje monarhije. Tako da nije sve crno belo.
Most republics don't have a "restore monarchy party" at all. Let alone one that actually gains seats in Parliament. Support for the monarchy in Serbia isn't restricted to people who vote for monarchist parties. Most polls show that pro monarchists are in the majority.
@Пыль глотаю You are correct, & I'm not saying there will be a monarchy in Serbia. even if the majority are in favour, none of the major political parties are, & people don't tend to vote for a single issue.
@@excentrik5725 Ako treba da glasam za stranku koja je slicna vladajucoj, bolje i da ne glasam. Moje neko misljenje je sa sam narod nije nikad ni bio spreman za demokratiju. U tom sistemu svaki gradjanin treba da ucestvuje, i zna kako mu funckionise sistem. I ove danasnje demokratije nisu nista drugacije od bilo koje monarhije. Samo te umesto jesnog jase stoo ljudi na cetiri godine. Ako cemo pravu demokratiju, prvo obrazovanje stanovnista, menjaje mentaliteta i ono sto je najvaznije sistem decentralizacije, gde su odluke na lokalnom nivou najbitnije. Ovako imas piramidu vlasti kao i u monarhiji a nema napretka. Treba nam mnogo promena na licnom nivou, onda mozemo da se nasamo necem boljem. Da se neguju dobre vrednosti, ovako samo se zavaravamo da ce nesto da se promeni i stavljamo zivote u ruke ljudi koji hoce samo da vladaju. Daj nesto i sami da uradimo, sposobni smo. :)
You should be ashamed of the amount of wrong information you provide in this video. If you want to make a video, make it fair, people don’t want to watch your own opinion. Just one of the lies that you said in this video, you said royal family is still in the UK, wrong, they live in Belgrade since fall of communism in Serbia. So stop lying people on this platform.
adressing a commies consciousness is like talking a schizophrenic out of his nonsense - whatever you say only reasures him hes right. The only thing true they actually tell you is their true nature - they attribute it to their 'dialectical' nemesis - impersonal force following capital concentration routes - charlatan, predatory and hungry for power, using any narrative to further their goals. No issue is particular (so that you never even try fixing one), no belief is anything more than silly superstion (so that you abandon hope for anything but violence)., anyone looking into the past for alternative is fascist (so that you keep going in circles). This type is exactly the type of people who collectively push their countries into misery
16:13 Fun fact: Out of all the elite high-ranking officers of the Royal Yugoslav Army who graduated from prestigious military academies, the only one who joined Tito's partisans to fight the fascist invaders was colonel-general Arso Jovanović, a graduate of the Vojna Akademija in Belgrade who became the first Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia during the National Liberation War and a pro-Soviet defector during the Tito-Stalin split. Same in Albania, where the only elite Royal Albanian Army officer from prestigious military academies who joined Enver Hoxha's partisans to fight Mussolini and Hitler during the National Liberation War was Spiro Moisiu, a graduate of Austria's Theresian Military Academy who became the first Chief of the General Staff of the Albanian National Liberation Army and later the Albanian People's Army.
Arso Jovanovic in 1941 was only captain. There were two colonels who joined partisans already in 1941, one of them was Savo Orpvic, who was member of partisans Supreme HQ. Majority of partisans commanders were either junior officers or NCOs or Spanish Civil War veterans
I’m not necessarily on the same political side as you are, but I appreciate your eloquent and open minded approach. And that you’re not just stepping down to a silly level of just mocking your opponent as ridiculous. I feel like you’re the type of person with whom it could be possible to sit down, have a heated political argument and not devolve into insults and ad hominem attacks as is sadly so often the case today.
@Jack Marcuson both collaborated with the fascist invaders of Yugoslavia and represented the reactionary movements of their chauvinistic nationalist ideology so yeah…
@Jack Marcuson they were enemies but democratic and republic party are enemies and they’re the same
@@emptywaterbottle6973 I love how that guy instantly proves your last statement by going for an ad hominem attack on BO right away out of his own ignorance.
@@emptywaterbottle6973 but it ain´t just that simple
@@NeverNotHoopin please enlighten me.
It is the same in Romania. Most of my family members, especially the older generations, had fetishized and were obsessed with the concept of monarchy. For example, I was arguing with my grandmother on the subject of Vlad the Impaler's cruelty. She said that his victims, especially the Ottomans, deserved what they got because they were involved in the affairs of the country. When I brought up Ion Antonescu, his involvement with Hitler and that he sent Romanian Jews into concentration camps, she only said: "He was a patriot. A patriot does anything for his country." All my Romanian compatriots whom I asked what they thought about the monarchy were either practically in love with it, or despise it with all their heart, not between them.
Monarchy often represents stability, continuity and a connection to a romanticized past. Fascination with the monarchical era is often fueled by longing for a time when the country was seen as united and sovereign despite the historical challenges it faced. The royal family is often depicted as upholding moral values and embodying national unity, adding to their appeal.
The fall of communism in Romania in 1989 marked a period of political and societal turmoil. The monarchy, with its historical legitimacy, provided a sense of stability during this transition. Many wanted King Michael I to return. The return of the royal family to Romania was seen by many as a symbol of hope and an alternative to the perceived shortcomings of the post-communist political establishment. This revival of interest in the monarchy can be seen as a reaction against the perceived corruption and inefficiency of the new democratic institutions.
good hope they get their monarch back
Didn't King Michael I save Romania from being torn apart by soviets by getting rid of the nazis? I don't get how that can be romanticized it seems like a good thing.
It's the same in Russia especially with Putin calling for all Tsarist traditions like the Orthodox Church and other ideals which seeks the same feudalist/capitalist systems that colonize their own people or the people of other impoverished countries
Love the inclusions of Balkan history in your more recent uploads! (I reference your older videos with more focus on the histories from time to time:))
Thanks, as always, for your work, comrade
o7
As a Bri'ish the idea that royal families embody traditional family values is wild! Prince Andrew being the most obvious, but by far not the only example of why.
Your analysis of why royalty can be attractive matches my own observations from here.
Love your videos as ever 🤠💜
Just because that house is degenerates doesnt say anything about the system
@@therealignotus7549 Maybe, however the royals have never acted any other way than degenerate.
Royalty as a system of governance is rule by an accident of birth which qualifies the ruler for nothing, especially not telling others how to live.
Pues y? Significa que la república sea mejor
Como Británico...agradece de tener la monarquia,si lo que pasó en Francia hubiera pasado de vosotros...pues paso en realidad solo que volvieron a la monarquia...no tendrian NADA,no es como Francia Inglaterra aparte la monarquia no tiene tanto que le da brillo
Si Francia fuera una monarquía...aún más le daría brillo
Since when is marrying your cousin called "traditional family values"
@@filippovismara7889 Not sure entirely sure what you mean and have nothing to say, other than above.
Even if we get a king in Serbia it really is not going to change much
@user-lk7cv8vg7r nobody really cares for our country unless its to use us a cheap work force
There's literally a fake royal living in the palace. This is just all identity politics.
Well, if it’s the same royal family that gets reinstated, I don’t think they’ll try to pal up with Russia, much like the Serbian government does now
@@paolotorres8537 whats worst its gana be the same level of corruption
@@unfunnyserbian I doubt that.
Its very similar in Albania somehow people think that a monarchy will give the country more political stability.
That's correct. And same in Brazil.
Lol Albania doesn't even know what economy is.
The only thing that will revive Albania is if they go back to Comrade Hoxha!
And Albania had 1 monarch
Albania have royal family? wtf hahahaah
I was hoping to get an interesting video on Serbian monarchists. Instead, I got communist propaganda.
Both is good
Havent watched the video yet. Should i click off (if its communist propaganda i will)
Still better than monarchist loser
@@theisticsatanistfromfinland do you love Satan being you think he's the true God, or because you luv evl
Believe it or not, satanism is just a parody of Christianity @@jtzoltan
Amblems through its history were used by factions against monarhy (USA ,USSR,SFRJ )
So it's kinda strange that Serbian monarchist party uses a emblem as a symbol
As someone who lives in a constitutional parliamentary monarchy (the Netherlands) I feel both surprised and disappointed that others would long for such a state.
Sure our royal family has next to no political power and mostly serves as a figurehead but they're still monarchs. A hereditary family of unelected "officials" that hold vast (tax free) wealth, receive high paying jobs for life as borderline unaccountable public officials and their fame and prestige give them considerable soft power in Dutch society. This is, in essence, deeply unfair and essentially undemocratic. Their main historic claim to legitimacy is that they're remotely related to the Willem I van Oranje (1533-1584) who we call Father of the Nation via his brother. But the family only became monarchs after the British installed them as such after defeating Napoleon in 1815. And yet they cling to their position and have been forgiven many foibles during our history. They're useless, no worse than useless because an elected president would cost the taxpayers less.
The age of monarchs has rightfully passed, any remaining ones are nostalgic relics that should be thankful every day that their subjects aren't rolling the guillotines out of museums and the idea that new ones should be instated is misguided and delusional. Monarchy as a viable form of statehood should have died with Louis XVI in 1793 and any that remain do so at the mercy of their own subjects and should be well aware of that fact.
They are first and foremost heads of states, like president and they receive salary for their work and their wealth is accumilated through time. I live in Serbia and I would take monarchy. And yes running a monarchy is cheaper since presidents campaings cost arm and leg(state most pay for ad on various plaforms, political debates also cost money, billboards, candidates traveling from one part to another part of country, holding rallies and so on and all that happens every four to five years)
Thats realy cool that you come from the Netherlands but this is Serbia... Over 2000km away from your country. Just leave us alone? To much to ask?
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy.
An elected president would cost taxpayers less.
I came from a fully democratic republic country, and I don't know how that can be measured. And the idea of stability, yes, the president in charge needs to fight to get the implementation of his policies, a king would not be different, but as they are the same, I don't know how it works in other countries, but people don't have to worry that the new elected president destroy the work made by this who came before him/her.
You said monarchy should had died with Luis XVI, didn't even ended that time in France, you can ask Napoleon how.
@@slXD100 opet gledaš srpske kraljeve na jedan nerealističan način. Ako pogledamo listu od oslobođenja od Turaka koga imamo za koga možemo da kažemo da je bio dobar vladar? Velika većina su bili korumpirani ili despoti. Ako pričamo o periodu pre Turaka, to opet nema smisla. To je bio period feudalizma. Feudalizam je bio mnogo stvari ali častan nije bio niti će ikada biti. Da li su ti feudalni kraljevi uradili nešto dobro? Da, ali da li je feudalni poredak koji je bio uspostavljen pod njima bio dobar, poredak koji su oni održavali i podržavali? Ne nije bio. Velika većina srpskih kraljeva nisu bili dobri, niti ih je bilo briga za narod
I was wondering if you could make a video on Balkan people’s (not to lump them all together but the general public) thoughts and views of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans/basically non-white people? There are some beautiful places in Central Europe I would love to visit but as a black woman O am sometimes wary about how I will be received, so it’d be nice to hear from you. :)
Let me tell you, and don't get offended, just saying it how it is: black people are seen as unicorns here. Especially in smaller places, towns, people would look at black people almost in shock. As if they don't believe their own eyes (of course because we are ethnically homogenous). After that first reaction start the questions like why you are here, where are you from etc etc.. then they offer you a bunch of weird alcoholic beverages and start hugging you and telling you what a legend you are. After 2 days they forget that you are even black... In the bigger cities people won't even notice you being any different than anyone else (that is if they grew up in those cities and did not immigrate from smaller towns or villages). Well, then again, people in the big cities don't notice anything really (I live in Novi Sad so trust me when I say, someone could die in the middle of the street not one person would bat an eye, everyone is always in a rush on a phone going somewhere really really important....).
If you are an Arab/indian however people will mistake you for a local gypsy and hate the crap out of you for no reason (well not really no reason, local gypsies are kinda a-holes)
But generally you will have a good time and feel like you are special in a way
As a Dutch person who lives in Croatia, i can tell you the general Balkan opinion on black people is neutral to positive, at least as far as i know. Racism is sadly very much alive in the Balkans, however little of it is based around the concept of “whiteness”. In the five years i have lived here, i have only met one person who had a negative opinion about black people, specifically a taxi driver who went off at two black gentlemen who my friend and i were trying to help out, in the mistaken assumption that they were illegal immigrants. Feel free to tag me if you’d like any more information, or if i failed to properly answer your question.
@@brammeijer5411 yeah, i wouldn't even call it racism (racism is only directed at gypsies as i mentioned). We don't really have any time for hatred based on race since the entirety of our oxytocin hatred capacity is focused on nationalism and our neighbors 😁
@@npanic628Seconding what you said, at least to an extent. I’ve went drinking with a bunch of Turks as well as this African guy, who were here for a social / humanitarian event, and people would regularly tap the man on his shoulder for a chat or a handshake, or to take a picture with him. In smaller towns people might initially be surprised and interested at seeing someone who’s “obviously not from here”. From what i’ve seen, people here will not consider someone lesser purely on the basis of skin colour, and racism i’ve seen and/or experienced was more based on perceived ethnicity.
@@npanic628 I don’t know. I’ve seen and heard racist bullshit regarding non-slavic populations in general, and within the school class where i’m in, i have heard “fuck off to your own country” more than once directed at me. Then again, my situation is different from, say, a black or Asian person who is visiting as a tourist, social/humanitarian advocate or for business reasons. First of all, i’m “white” and generically European-looking, so the novelty is not as evident, and wears off relatively quickly considering i speak the language (me speaking the language relatively well actually does cause issues for me at the current moment, but that’s a whole other story), etc.
It's a pretty strange rabbit-hole in the Anglo-American sphere as well, with distributist and corporatist economic ideologies getting at least mentioned positively from factions of conservative parties that have been disenchanted with neoliberalism, monarchism being supported by some members of the "Republican" Party in the US
Balkan odyssey endings are kinda predictable
That's pretty much how 90% of his videos end. It's the same point every time, "Capitalism is at fault for this", "Those on top are exploiting the poor" yadayadayada. I understand why he thinks that way, but if that is the conclusion for every single video it just becomes boring and predictable.
10:00 "Prestige" it's like they have been playing EU4 and they got the conclusion that monarchy is the better government type, so we dhould just switch for the bonuses. Childs brain.
Lmao a childs brain is thinking the republic government represents you.
@@cfroi08 Agree?
@@djordjetosic4553 I'm in agreement. I like monarchy because you know who to kill/get rid of in order to change the government. But maybe thats the American in me influencing that.
Love your content bruv
this fits one on one with romanian monarchism. thank you for your synthesis of thoughts in this video
Why is it bad to want a system that saved your country from nazis and being destroyed by soviets?
I think the main problem with reactionary Slavic political parties is that they aren't regressive *enough* , not that they're too regressive. They often want a monarchy, a strengthening of the "native" religion (either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, in Poland's case) and a restriction/expulsion of minorities. I'm far more radical, in that I want Slavs to go back to our old ways before even kingdoms, back to our Horde Migratory past when we fled the Huns on horseback, running and fighting for our lives. Settled agriculture - that's where all of our problems started. When we started living in primitive hovels in the ground, drinking and getting really good at Counter-Strike to ignore our familial issues. Before, we prayed to our old gods, lived freely, were hunted , fought other tribes, and periodically starved and we kurva *liked* it. Not a phone in sight. Just pure vibes across the Eurasian steppe.
I got so scared after 'expulsion of minorities. I'm more radical"
@@BritishRepublicsn glad you kept reading then :)
Based and steppepilled
While we are debating whether monarchy, capitalist republicanism, communism or fascism is better this gentleman here just want a anprim speedrun.
Sounds like anarcho-primitivism to me.
I find it weird that Serbia 🇷🇸 and its flag despite being a republic, it still carries the monarchist symbol on it with no king or royal family in Serbia whatsoever. You would think they change it that identifies itself as a Republic and of the people.
Royal family is in Serbia in king family house
@@mitarristanovic2299 weren't they still living in the UK or the United States?
The Eagle on the Flag is basically the Coat of Arms of the Nemanjic royal house that ruled Serbia from 1166 to 1371. They were the most important and most powerful Dynasty of medieval Serbia.
That, in and of itself, is an attempt to hark back to the "glory days".
@@itsblitz4437 They are at present nothing more then a handful British predators that have tragically and successfully managed to gain land and private property in the country with the claims that it was wrongfully confiscated by the communists. In the Serbian public, most notably the conservative sphere that wants to reestablish the monarchy they are very unpopular and a laughing stock.
As an Algerian I can see why countries in similar positions do require Authoritarian governance , if only because the people have been made so unaware of the internal working of government that they couldnt possibly plan or consent to a program that would actually tackle Corruption and degeneracy within the State. And a Monarchy is an Authoritarian govt with a Higher authority over it, ostencibly God, which all the People consent to insofar as it is a religious country. So I can see why Monarchy would be reasonable at least for the Christian Balkans. The Muslim countries so long as they're not brainwashed by Wahabism like a lot of Eastern europe Muslims are, will not consent to a Monarchy because the Early Caliphs voted as a Parliament, even though they werent voted in en masse by the people (except for Umar RA)..
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy.
@@slXD100 What about Yugoslavia time? Was the Public consciousness altered at the time? Was there a break of Monarchism among the people during Yugoslavia? And is the return of Monarchism as an ideology a reaction to the forced change caused by death of USSR?
@@nadjiguemarful Mostly tito revoked their citizenship and siezed their land which the goverment after tito annulled as illegal the monarchists were one of the biggest partisan groups in yugoslavia during the german occupation
I find this topic interesting, because I consider myself to be a monarchist, but every time I hear about other monarchists I just disagree on so many things.
As a monarchist what do you believe in?
@@zevleizer-romalis1666 government run by the people with the monarch having no or close to no power and being just a unifying symbol. Also the whole divine right to rule is bullshit.
so do I. my point as a Brazilian monarchist is to separate the day-to-day administration from the Head of State, thus fixing a lot of issues that we do have.
I don't care abt the religious purity of the monarch; I don't want European nobility laws to be implemented here; all I want is to the Parliament to taste some of the "fuck around, find out" rule to which they are immune in Presidential countries, & for the ppl not to trust in messianic figures, such as either Bolsonaro (for the right) or Lula (for the left), who would fix all problems in 4 to 8 years, just after spending those very 4 to 8 years unmaking what the previous gov't did.
ДА СРПСКОГ КРАЛА ПРАШУЈЕ
ЗА НАШИ ЈАДИ КАЗУЈЕ
БРЕ КРАЛЕ,ТАТКО,ТАТКО ЛЕ
ПРАЋАЈ НИ ТВОЈЕ СОКОЛЕ
🇷🇸🏴☠️🇲🇰👑
Живео краљ!
@Nikola S. Marš smrade bugarski
Živeo kralj!
06:12 "[...] with this, I am refering to the period in Yugoslav history when King Aleksandar the I of the Karađorđević dynasty responded to the decade long failures and insolvable contradictions of Yugoslav parlamentarism by introducing a military dictatorship that outlawed all political parties, introduced mass censorship, dispended parialment and concentrated power into the hands of himself as the ruling monarch."
Could you just once be honest with yourself? Tell me please, which of these things did dictator Tito differently in his communist utopia? How many political parties were there besides the communist party in Yugoslavia? What happened to people who critisized the ruling party publically? In the hands of how many people was the power? I mean, that is not only the case for the Yugoslav communist dictatorship, but also for every other communist form of government which ever existed. None of them was liberal. None.
Stiil better than your monarchy loser
Thanks for the video comrade. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I found monarch-worship of the colonized nations is subtly different from monarch-worship of the imperalist core States. There they have the "prestige" by defending the current lineage of heritage still dominant (some would say "is actively being chipped away", but dat's just protofascist rhetorics). In the colonized nations, the "prestige" always appealing to the days long gone, before the current suffering inflicted by capitalist.
Yeah I noticed that in the colonized world, monarchy worship stems from a strong desire for a strong national history that is somewhat mythical against a perceived inferiority. In Southeast Asia, the history books I read tend to glorify the old monarchies against European colonialism and lament their downfall
The text seems to have been copied from Bolshevik literature. Long live the Kingdom of Serbia
Smrt kralju.
Opinion from a Serb that lives in Germany is a non opinion and should not even be considered.
True Jasenovites are svetosavlje nazis! 🤡
I would not say we are obsessed with Monarchy. After all, all national parties that are declarably for monarchy never go into a parlament. They never get even close to a significant vote.
Also, Kosovo is Serbia. Serbian working class in imperialistic pupet state of Kosovo cannot spove their position while being prosecuted.
That's a terrible benchmark for how much the public is nostalgic about the monarchy. I mean the fact that there even exist pro monarchy parties in Serbia is kind of a big sign that there's not an insignificant obsession with it in the population. Even here in Austria, where a lot of people are still nostalgic about the Habsburgs (even though it's quite obvious and known how fucking awful they were) there at least aren't any political forces (that I know of) yearning for the days of monarchy.
@@castor9683 I would not say that it is terrible benchmark; for more than a decade we have had, in Serbia, propaganda towards monarchy. And it garnered less than 3 percent of votes, which is in total, 1 percent of our population.
The video is deeply mistaken in the fact that we do not fatishize monarchy. We fetishize power and stability. As all weak and instable societies do.
The kosovan should decide their own future
@@MarkoFTW You're looking at this from a way too reductive point of view. You cannot look at just one factor like "is a pro monarchy party popular or not" and conclude from that the entire public's sentiment about monarchy. If your argument was accurate then where I live there shouldn't exist any nostalgia or support of monarchical ideas because there are neither any pro-monarchy political parties nor is there any discourse about monarchy in the media happening. There is however a significant amount of nostalgia for the monarchy and rehabilitation of the old royal family happening here. So political parties alone are not a good benchmark for this. That's what I've been trying to tell you. The low support for your pro monarchy parties is more likely to come from them just being bad at PR or having uncharismatic leaders or having bad or no outreach or all of that together.
But the fact that there are even are pro-monarchy parties and that people are voting for them certainly proves already that there is a at least a certain support for it in the populace. How much exactly you can only know by looking at more aspects and factors in the society other than political parties.
@@mikeoxsmal8022 Cool, invite guests in your house and let them decide their own future within your house. They'll probably decide to have your house for themselves and that's awesome.
Industrial revolution and its consequences:
Monarchists in Brazil are literally the same as Serbian monarchists. Fascists always think the same
No not realy.... Stop comparing us. We aren't imperialist you are!
My butt is itching, must be fascism!
You made good points in the video. A lot of bulgarians have the same obsession with monarchy. Thinking that if Monarchy stayed everything would be ''fine'', even though that isn't true.
The cold way you said Ssrbs in Kosovo, which you also called it a country,, should fight for themselves shocked me. Its like you willingly ignore that their votes are going against albanian an un guns, making them worthless.
Unfortunately in Brazil too some people glorify the Empire, which is absurd because all their arguments are basef on factual errors. For example, they say the Empire abolished slavery forgetting that it was the last sovereign country in the western hemisphere to do so! They say the empire was economically prosperous, but actually it was one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the world even after abolition, and the gap between it and Europe only increased over time during the imperial era. The empire was not totally bad (relatively stable comparable to our neighbors and relatively open politically to the small urban free classes) but it was nowhere near a superpower as they say, a successful country, or even one of the best moments for Brazil (certainly not better than the republic).
Good for your country. But we are serbs we aren't imperialist we want our land in which we lived for 1000 of years. And stop comparing us to your country. We aren't the fucking same!
Desafortunadamente? No son muchísimos,por ahora
Y tú hablas sin saber deberías informarte si no sabes lo que luchó a Princesa Imperial para abolir la esclavitud
Siento decirte que es al revés de como dices tú,hay muchas verdades que se ocultan históricas...sobre eso
Brasil no funciona como República es un DESASTRE,y ya lo vimos
Falta veer todos los países sobretodo de algunas regiones como estaban y como están ahora y realmente muy pocos en general se me vienen a la mente ejemplos en los cuales fue beneficiosa la abolición de la monarquia...
Hay muchas más evidencias que la monarquia es mejor de la república pero ustedes siguen negandolo
As a history teacher from Serbia I must admit that your understandings of Serbian history and modern perspectives are pretty rudimentary. I advise you to at lest read the 8th grade history textbook before making any videos.
This dude is a serb who has been making documentaries on Serbian history for years...
@@alexandertheok5649 Wow, thanks for letting me know what to avoid.
Možeš bit spesifičniji za nas u diaspori?
Yeah, he is a Marxist, not a historian.
Don't your 8th grade history textbooks literally praise chetniks as national heroes?
A lot of the shit former Yugoslavia has in its shit is inherently political to construct new narratives since the fall of the country
When is the new Balkan Curse episode dropping
If we dont need a king we will have a ductator and if no dictator we will need a king, Serbian people whant a leader, we always had a leader and whenever it was up to people to lead we could never agree on anything.
Now make a video about Tito's communist regime crimes against humanity. Would be nice. 😃
Didnt happen, communist cant be bad.
What crimes? You mean killing chetniks and ustashas? Titos only fault is the fact that he didn't kill enough.
The etnic cleasing of italians in the western side of the Balkans and the slovenes buried alive in Huda Juma.
Well I'm a Karađorđević monarchist and I must disagree with your even before I've watched the video because - Bez Kralja ne valja.
And why do you think that? No seriously I want to know that.
Servian monarchists in a nutshell
This is pure recommendation for Communism/socialism over kingdom and monarchy
This sounds so damn familiar, only the names (and maybe a date or two) change....
This is NOT obsession...simply the majority of people want back to monarchy
USA?! Fair,all you think to can impose what do you want for other countries
I dissagree with the unity in national interest, "serbs in rs and kosovo will fight for themselves" they cant, because of bosnian/albanian facist people who will promote violence against them, like in the bosnian war
Funny how this phenomena also replicate in Latin America countries that were monarchies (Brazil and Mexico)
King is a much better figurehead than a "president"
So having a leader that doesn't do anything except look pretty for the cameras and news articles while the country is becoming poo poo then a leader such as a president that is somewhat and fair in his involvement in the country. Whether it's a hereditary monarch or through through elections your simply anointing and choosing 1% of a population that aren't gods and are just regular human beings to be exempt from working and paying taxes
I do not agree with some things said in this video (and how it is openly supporting Communism and Tito which makes it hard to be open-minded) I do agree with some points related how Serbs brought themselves in this situation.
What I heavily disagree with in this video - Serbia (and all other countries to that) have no right to dictate the fate of their own people living aboard. You do realize this means letting that country do anything they want with them, which most of them did over the centuries by integrating them into their own nation and wiping out their Serbian identity. This is also dangerous way of thinking as it gives Serbia the freedom to do the same thing to minorities living inside it's own territory. And we all know how it was during the war in the 90's and this mindset.
Serbia and every other country has obligation to assist their own minorities living in foreign countries, to support and protect them anyway they can.
Other than that this video presents good points but giving the mentality and way of life of a basic Serb I am doubt anything will change, even all the negative things said here are utterly useless as life in modern liberal capitalism for Serbs is becoming even worse than it was under Ottoman rule or WW1 and WW2 occupations. It does not help that the same countries promoting those values are the ones that are responsible for this whole mess by supporting breakup of Yugoslavia and greatly diminishing the life standard of all Balkan people by diving them among several new countries.
Nevertheless, this video material is researched quite well and you got like and sub from me.
I just discovered your chanal and I really like it. I am pretty sure our ancestors who lived under monarchy would think people today are crazy. King is a king. You have no saying in what king wants. That is the whole point of all. Kings where successful just because you, as a pesant, are not allowed to akt or do different. They established "great nations" not for people but their own family, usually for just them self (bcs they wouldn't not care to end their brothers or even children if standarding in a way). So saying to want monarchy and how glorious kings are, for me is just silly.
I'm sure half the comments are Lavader fans
...And some people are obsessed with good health.
What is the background tune? I GOTTA know it. Love your videos, this was another fantastic one
Ergo Phizmiz - Open your head
It sounds like Erik Satie Gymnopédie
You did good slavic brother
Interesting video. Wrong on almost everything but still interesting to see things from left perspective.
ugh. this would be watchable, and even interesting, without all the insufferable leftist condescension that ruins it for me
Is this not the same concept of socialist/communist who describe a future communist utopia? Modern communist also make the romantic view that a new communist system would be great, however the crimes and just the outcome of communist system does not give evidence of that. It also has a view that in a new communist system the worker will be equal and that it will be a glorious time. It also promotes a "unity". Those who do not conform to this "unity" also get repressed. Basiclay all political systems have a philosophy. Many communist systems made atheism as a philosophy as was the idea of the Homo Sovieticus. Every now system needs to proclaim a philosophy to explain that their world would be better than the current system.
Monarchy is met positively in Serbia because many past Kings, Tsars, Monarchs fought for their people and went to war as well as died for their country. You can't name countries (if any) where it was like in Serbia, what it meant to its people and the honor of being a Monarch. Serbia and Serbs (without counting the outside influence during serbias history, e.g. Ottoman Empire) have had a great time and honorful centuries with its Monarchy.
Obviously that doesn't mean that Monarchy is the right thing now, I am just explaining why it's viewed positively.
@@slXD100 Is that not a too much romantic view of the Serbian monarchy? A monarchy with a history of forced abdication and assassinations. In reality, most of the people fight in a war because they are forced. or out of desperation. 99% of the people never met or had seen the monarch in those times. It was by storytelling that they were made "heroes".
And from a nationalistic view it is easier to associate yourself with the monarchy than with communist Yugoslavia (which is a melting pot), as there is no alternative story in history for Serbia.
In a communist mindset, nationality and culture (including religion) is irrelevant. That's why socialist always want monarchy or conservatism (also republicanism and from that point also capitalism) with extreme right and fascism.
In reality is fascism, communism fused with cultural and nationalistic influences. Fascist were in their economic view leftists. They bought favour nationalization of free enterprise, big government spending. The collective/group (in communism: the worker, in fascism (the people), but both have more interest of the group thinking than with the individual.
Do not forget Mussolini was original a socialist and the Nazi were called the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).
But what do communist do, they count the dead tool of fascism with capitalism, but from a correct historical view leftest dead toll is the sum of communism and fascism.
Before WWII all people classified fascism and the nazi's as on the left of the political spectrum. Fascism classified as political right is an invention of the 60 and 70' by social democrats, to put them for political gain in the political middle, with on their left and and right extreme ideologies in order to sell their story
@@MyReiners I will only answer your first text as I agree with the rest.
It is not true that storytelling made them heroes, it depends what you mean by storytelling? historical facts or just fantastic poetry created to tell children? Serbia didn't have a huge population and the Serbian Empire and its people thrived during the empires existence, quality of life was highest in whole of Europe at that time.
It is also well documented (by the enmies themselves) what the leaders of Serbia did and how they died in battle or fought for their people.
Even during Serbias time as an Ottoman Vassal, you can see the efforts of Stefan Lazarevic to his people. he could've just been a typical tyrant and request Ottoman help if his people didn't listen, but instead he did everything he could do. obviously the fact that Bayezid had Stefans sister as a wife, has something to do with it. but nevertheless, as soon as he saw chance to free Serbia from the Ottomans, he took it.
I am not implying you don't know Serbian History, you might even know it better than I do.
My assumption is that what led to Serbia having "goodhearted" Monarchs is the simple principle of Serbdom, something that other groups of people have lost (at least their nobles, elites). in Serbia that however was not the case, not before and not during the Ottoman Empire.
There were codes and principles that all people followed, not just the common folks.
that's my take on it. (not at all an attack on you)
Well you read history of Serbian kings very kind. You forget the intrigue of those families.
After the battle of Kosovo he was very loyal to the Ottomans (against the crusaders oat the battle of Nicopolis). He supported the Ottoman invasions into Bosnia. He fought against Vuk Branković (a fellow Serb ruler) and got his lands. Then he joined the order of the dragon but he remained loyal to the Ottomans at the battle of Ankara (because he needed support against the Hungarians), where he rescued Musa Çelebi. Then he betrayed Đurađ Branković (to eliminate a serbian compitition). Then fought with Musa at first and then betrayed him, mad an alliance with Sigismund (Hungarian ruler in support for Mehmed I) and joined Mehmed I. Stefan and Đurađ Branković after the battle acknowledged supremacy of Mehmed I, who gave to Stefan rich gifts and some areas, including the fortress Znepolje and the area Koprijan. After that when the Hungarians invaded Bosnia against the Ottomans he at first remained neutral and than supported the Ottomans and the played intermediate to release Hungarian prisoners. Than after that het wrote that if an anti-Ottoman coalition (by Hungary, Byzantines and Venice) he would support it (which can be very doubtful).
So Western Europe reads Stefan Lazarević history very different as Serbians do.
From Western Europe perspective he was not an goodhearted" Monarch, and just seen as an example of Serbian infighting and duplicity.
And with Đurađ Branković it continued. Durad fought with John Hunyadi (against the Ottomans), then formed a peace treaty (against wishes of Western support), had his daughter Mara married to Murad II for regaining his Serbian rule. And for this, Branković was forced to bribe John Hunyadi with his vast estates (was not in the interest of the Serbian people), to get his rule (own interest). The second battle of Kosovo was lost because the Albanian army was delayed by Serbian despot Đurađ Branković, whose army occupied the mountain passes on the Serbian-Albanian border. After that Skanderbeg ravaged and pillaged Branković's domains as punishment for deserting the Christian cause. The Christian Balkan states were unable to resist the Ottomans after this defeat, eventually falling one after the others under control of the Ottoman Empire. Hunyadi was captured by Branković and release was negotiated against a ransom of 100,000 florins, the return of the domains that Hunyadi had revocated from Branković, and the engagement of Hunyadi's heir to Branković's daughter. After that Skanderbeg had to fight on his own.
Although later the Ottoman invasion was for a time halted after the siege of Belgrade (1456), the time of Serbia and Bosnia was up. As such, it ceased to exist. Romanian lands (Wallachia and Moldova) remained fighting bach (a kind of guerilla/ long term war). At last the Ottomans became frustrated and the Romanian territories became vassal states (with semi-independece).
I am always surprised that Serbians see history differently. Serbians see that time as a time of "goodhearted monarchs". The west sees that history as betrayel of alllies and internal power play.
@@MyReiners yeah that's bullshit. Lazarevic managed to keep bosnia and serbia independent and both Hungarians and ottomans and Vatican were our enemies. Is just funny how the ottomans attacked us the least during and were out most helpful allies during his time. Both serbia and bosnia which is serbian land anyway got conquered 30 years after his death anyway. So yeah he managed his best and history isn't black and white anyway. And the west 😂😂😂 lmao. Yeah comon.
I mean, it is expected from a marxist to have such a standpoint. To each their own.
Still, the most of the things the party for the restoration of the monarchy stands for is, in fact, good. Is it not? "Territorial imperialist claims" has become such a buzzword, unfortunately. I mean, look at what the government of Kosovo has been doing to the Serbs lately. The desire to restore order and to protect one's own people is not "territorial nationalist claim". What Serbia is doing now is what the Albanians were doing during the 90s. There is no imperialism involved.
As for Alexander's establishing a dictatorship, I ask you this: what would you have done in such a climate? You are making out Serbs to be the only one responsible. Namely, the king himself. That is a very narrow minded point of view which stems from the marxist disdain for the monarchy which ultimately leads to looking for any kind of correlation without any causation. An analogy for this would be: There is an orchard outside of Sarajevo. The orchard has a bad year due to terrible climate and rampant infestation of harmful, toxic bugs. A marxist will then go "The orchard is grown in a democratic republic, so that is why the orchard has failed". Unfortunately, you have the same reasoning in case of Alexander. You fail to realize that all of the sides were at fault. Not only that, but you are vilifying Alexander simply because he was a monarch, something inherently evil to all marxists. Hence why, again, without any causation, you pin the blame on him. Look at the centuries long divide between the people: religion, culture, values. Ones under the Austrians, others under the Ottomans. Ones liberated themselves, ones chose to fight for their overlords. Ones are eastern Orthodox, ones are Catholics. This is a combination that almost never could have work. Any chance of it happening were squashed by the already terrible recent history the Yugoslavs had during WW1. Croats saw themselves as above everyone else, due to them serving the modern, enlightened Austrian monarchy, hence why they saw themselves as very important in the union and that they are right. Serbs saw themselves as natural leaders of the new union, because it is their efforts which led to the creation of Yugoslavia and saving Croats and Slovenes from sitting at the losing table after WW1.
Not only that, but you do realize that this huge economic disparity between the north and the south is also one of the major points of contention which you have always failed to address in your videos while glorifying Tito, a dictator who was doing basically the same thing as Alexander: clamping down on nationalism with far more extreme measures, implementing censorships, gathering riches for himself which far surpassed the alleged "gold" of the royal family. Tito did nothing to reduce the wealth disparity between the north and the south. Your fantasies about his socialist policies working fall apart the moment you realize how much foreign capital was pouring into Yugoslavia in order to keep Yugoslavia neutral in the cold war perior (something which, obviously, wasn't a "gift"), only for Yugoslavia to face the largest inflation the world has ever seen. The moment the dictator's yoke loosened, all sides started getting at each other's throats. What Tito did was the prime example of imperialism under the guise of "brotherhood and unity". I mean, he wanted to incorporate Bulgaria and Albania in an already unstable country. Yes, Tito's Yugoslavia was also unstable. Just because you have secret police and violently clamp down on opposition and nationalists, does not mean you don't have problems. You are suppressing those problems with violence. But history knows that the harder you suppress it, the more volatile it becomes. Or is it okay if the dictator claims they are a communist?
Not only that, but Tito was obviously obssessed with what Alexander was doing during his dictatorship: personality cult, presenting the baton and singing songs to the king/marshal, parades in the glory of the dictator. The king forbade tribalism and promoted a new Yugoslav artificial identity, even tried to pull efforts to create a unified language and script, even going at odds with the Serbian Orthodox church in order to make them adopt a unified calendar. He even implemented a form of federalism which YOU yourself proposed as a solution for Bosnian federalism - not based on ethnic grounds.
I will inform you of an idea which the Serbian intelligentsia proposed during the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes: referendum federalism, a model of federalism based on the United States of America. The people get to have a referendum whether their municipality will be a part of an existing state or be a new one. Do you know who was the greatest opponent of this idea? It wasn't the king. It wasn't the Serbs. It was the Croats. So before you continue constantly blaming the people who actually had good ideas, look at who were against those ideas. And what for? For the "ancient Croatian claim over the lands" and that the Croatian federal territory should incorporate every single place where there is even a single Croat house. King did not vouch for the same when it comes to Serbs, even though he was a Serb.
And let's not forget the ideology you stand for and what is integral for such ideology: violence. Tito's reign was marked with violence, prosecution and censorship against anyone who opposed his vision and the illusion of brotherhood and unity. What makes him different than Alexander? I will tell you what: the title. One was a king of the kingdom. The other was a president of a socialist republic. One is a monarchist, the other a marxist. They are more similar than you would like to admit. Let the monarchists be monarchists. People have been betrayed by the socialists, not the monarchists. Besides, the world monarchies are doing just fine. They managed to do far more for the national unity than socialism ever did. Let people have free will. Morever, if you really think that the idea of a monarchy is so bad and evil, let the people try it and feel for t hemselves that it is evil. Not the socialist way of "Let's cause ideaological chaos through terrorism in order to show how bad this regime is". I didn't care about monarchism basically at all before. But the idea of it is good. You can claim that it is all a ruse for the "ruling elite to oppress and brainwash the masses" holds no water, especially because every communist regime ever has actively done the very thing you are accusing others that might do if they get to power. We've seen the brutality of "benevolent socialist leaders". People might not even care anymore what kind of dictator is in power anymore, people just want to be happy and live at least well enough. People tried your ideal society. It didn't work. Kingdom of Serbia worked, until it became Yugoslavia.
Ohh shit you absolutely nailed it.
The difference is that Tito liberated the nation, earning his position on the battlefield; & later through his charisma and grasp of real politic, managed to keep Stalin at bay, uniting the country, lifting millions out of poverty & illiteracy. I've met the current pretender several times in the UK Serb diaspora, & i didn't find him impressive at all, particularly his apparent lack of interest in learning the language.
@@zivkovicable are you some kind of degenerate??? Didn't you read his comment??? Macedonia was poor south Serbia was poor. Tito didn't do shit. Ironically my family was rich before socialist Yugoslavia. After socialism took control my family didn't even have something to eat. F off tard.
@@zivkovicable and he united the country so well that it immediately broke up after his death. Not to mention how the economy of Yugoslavia immediately crashed after his death. And how Serbia still needs to pay his debts till 2050. F off tard. No to mention the horrible borders he created. Dividing serbs.
@@zivkovicable and what are you talking about??? He literally tells you how all of this is bullshit. Not to mention the horrible infrastructure Yugoslavia had. I shit you not today's bosnia has way better infrastructure then Yugoslavia.
Iran: ......
Monarchy Larper are like Ethno State Larper
give an actual argument
Both are based
@@clericaltotalitarian they are 2 contradictory systems
@@BozheTsaryaKhrani They are not.
@@clericaltotalitarianboth are stupid and loser
Fantasy is better than reality........
za kralja i otadzbinu!
S KEROM U BOGA BREEEE 🤪
@@Katze400 komunjaro smrdljiva
база сербия
Koje je ime pesme
imash u deskripciji
So you're saying that monarchism is just a different flavour of fashism?
Nah, he most likely thinks that both are just different forms of capitalist domination, including liberal democracy.
it's astounding how many of your points against Monachism can be argued against a Titoist or Stalinist socialist regime.
if you crown a communist prince, like Laos tried to, would you have a dynasty with the "right" worldview, that defends the actual people as the Head of State, while the head of the Communist Party rules the country as its Prime Minister?
Четнике на лешнике
Wow
Fair opinion, Serbia needs in my opinion more active society in all aspects. The same is for many Balkan nations including mine. I like the historical symbol of monarchies but I dont think they are for the good. In Bulgaria the idea of monarchy to be returned doesn't exist, people create groups to share artifacts and photos and facts from such times. Any order would work if people acted with morality to keep it clean.
Serbian society first and foremost needs to be *deradicalized* from their genocidal sick svetosavlje supremacist world views, before there can be any peace in the Balkans! >80% percent of serbs (not only from Serbia) entertain ultranationalistic and fascist supremacistic world views and have horrible opinions about their ex-Yugoslav neighbors!
@@Katze400 I kinda feel like I know why. They have retained a mindset born in the 19th century. All European nations had it, that of ultranationalism as we see it today. The difference is that in the strife for power in that time due to different reasons ( power, ambition, diplomacy, treachery ) they won in all conflicts after that and they got the wrong impression that this is for the best nad right way, what they had as a view of themselves and the rest of the nations was solidified. In the age of propaganda that followed they couldn't see clearly that there is something fucked up in what they do or did, especially in the Yugoslav wars, not like us Bulgarians who were blamed for everything before in the same period and lost greatly, we had to prove to ourselves too that what we did was right for us and our people but curcumstances weren't in our favour so right now we have little to nothing to defend or prove in our view or what history as events was. Serbians ( to not go outside of the topic ) skipped that moment and again now with almost everything considered propaganda or conspiracy people won't look into themselves and blame the world and countries like the US for their missfortune. They have recent bitterness to come out of, we had similar but prefered to not bother the rest that much I think or we had the luck to not have Internet to show it that much when our fate was settled.
@@Katze400 lol we serbs from bosnia are way more right wing then serbs from Serbia. And that for good reasons!
@@vasil.kamdzhalov hey bro. What if it isn't propaganda what if we realy want to have a "greater" Serbia???? Were all serbs with every religion can live peacefully together??? Remember the only reason why the war in bosnia started was because Muslims didn't want to be serbs and tryed to make bosnia independent. Which lead to a horrible war were half of my family members got expelled and their villages burned down.
@@tomgu2285 Propaganda in my mind is not that you wish to have Greater Serbia ( which would be troublesome as it would mean more bloodshed in trying to make it ) but in the idea that you didn't really feel that parts or even the whole thing you have done was bad ( this would be expected from the other side too but lets see who is more prideful to not admit shared guilt ) and too look into yourselves as the problem, the propaganda is for you to blameo others near and far "enemies" and going on a path which keeps the hate for others who are the same as you but on the other side, they are with the same goals dreams and expectations but with a different face. Chauvinistic comments are glorified more often it seems when I can see them easily while sometimes it is hard for me to find such group in my own country.
The Serbian monarchy would have no power but it could bring in alot of economic potential as one of the few monarchies in Europe honestly few downsides lots of upsides as you would have alot of marketable potential it could also encourage national unity
Most of your arguments revolved around monarchy bad since bourgise and fancy
Also alot of the monarchs of Serbia unlike most modern monarchies continued to lead men in battle and actively fight for the country and be men of the people as for the pact with hitler statement its an inherently dishonest diesgenous statement and lie by omission since your leaving out very very important details as for residing till this day the prince of Yugoslavia lives in serbia currently
I got to the end and to your conclusion. Presenting communism as something that frees people from "the rule of the few" is an outright lie. Communism simply transferes the power from one small group of people, to another small group of people. Man, you seem to be equally blinded as the monachy supporters, in every regard. Nonetheless, I wish you well.
Commies lol...
Monarchy can be good , if it is kept "humble" . Can anybody name a single Scandinavian monarch?
One of the silliest videos I have seen. I suppose if we just disappear or become a British colony and have a westminster government with their yelling and laughing everything would be just fine.
I can see that
Shame of Europe
Ja sam za parlamentarnu monarhiju, ali nisam neki konzervativac niti nacionalista niti za "neku staru slavu". Niti će monarhija da promeni sve za jedan dan. Tako da nije baš sve tako kao što misliš i predstavljaš, što je još opasnije.
well you are wrong brother, lot of false facts.
Ovo je nesto najsubjektivnije i najgluplje sto sam pogledao ovih dana.
Ne gledaj onda ostale njegove bljuvotine , slošiće ti se. Ja se zajebao pa odgledao ovih dana , istina je da smo mi srbi sami sebi najveći neprijatelji. Ovakve u Engleskoj nećeš naći.
Za Kralja i Otadzbinu
Zivela Kraljevina Jugoslavija
Just few Serbs are obsessed with monarchy. Most are not. Or are against monarchy per se.
Really most of serbian people want monarchy back!
Not true, most want the monarchy back.
@@clericaltotalitarian They want it, not knowing why they want it, and they want it not enough to do anything about it.
So.
Society is rooted in hierarchy, of course traditionalist people would want a monarchy to protect their intrest
Nooooo you cant simply protect your peoples interests, people are just economic things, culture is fascism!!!1
04:30 "[...], who's failures of efficiency are self- evident to most working class people."
A more desastrous failure of efficiency than in literally every communist dictatorship which ever existed, should be equally evident. Even a monarchy doesn't seem to be so backward as the communist dictatorships of the last century. There are reasons why both systems of government never worked particularly well, although communism demanded a way higher cost of human lives.
You can easily destroy all of POKS feeble attepts at advertisment by asking the simple question "but how?" to their every point lol.
And thankfuly only a very small minority would actually support such am insane idea.
You never even lived in Serbia. Why are you talking about Serbia?
He's just an expat lol, which is arguably even worse.
@@putinpunhere and he said that the comunists "liberated" yugoslavia. doesn't look like liberation, when churches get destroyed by comunists
@@milos.orthodox Better local communists than foreign nazis, so at least it was the lesser evil option.
@@milos.orthodox the church doesnt feed you,doesnt heat or build your home,doesnt give you useful education or healthcare
@@Mildau30 The Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in Đakovica was destroyed by the communists in 1949. Prior to 1968, the Yugoslav state carried out the destruction of churches, the listing of church properties as state cultural heritage, the seizure of church and monastery artifacts to be displayed in state museums, as well as, the appropriation of property for state functions. During 1968 and 1981 protests, Serbian Orthodox religious sites were the target of vandalism, while vandalism continued during the 1980s. There were attempts to devastate Devič, damage Visoki Dečani and desecrate Gračanica and the Hermitage of St. Peter of Koriša. In March 1981, the Patriarchal Monastery of Peć was set on fire, which destroyed a 2,000-square meter residential section along with valuable furniture, rare liturgical books and some of the monastery's treasury.
Monarchy is the only form of government that showed any good results
Please tell me you're joking.
@@DzoniMakaroni independence fron the Ottomans,technological progress,wars won,
If you were in debt they couldn't take your land and house and was it not Milos who said "the land belongs to the one who farms it". They were not perfect but you can't deny that they did what they tought was best for Serbia
@@vanjasoskic9454 Zamisli da si toliki degen da odgovaras Dzoni Makaroniju na sugavom Engleskom.
@@evilceochad884 retard kaze sugavom engleskom a ime mu na engleskom ajde sine lepo lastu sa obliznje zgrade
@@vanjasoskic9454 Takav tretman ide onima koji stavljaju svoje puno ime i prezime onlajn van Fejsa na njihove profile.
Kingdom in heaven and king on earth
That king is called god and no-one is allowed to put themselves in the same position as him
Bez kralja ne valja.
Its the communist talking about hegemony and nacional unity and war and genocides hehe im not for sebian royalism but im for german and sustrian hegenomisam and emprisam and constitutioal monarchy
while i agree that we have to jump out of capitalist and monarchist ship i don't think that socializam is awnser bc for socializam to work u have to destroy almost all of your nacional identety, like destroying your religion. I know many people in my life who didn't had been save from psychologist but from the bible people who could had done suicide didn't bc when whole world is crumbling(there will be crisis is any political sistem) u have to get porpise in life and find only stable pillar that is holding you in socializam will fail you ( not as badly as capitalizam and others) u have to have something to do in that rough times
You don’t really need to destroy religion in order to established. Only the religious fundamentalists and reactionary part of religion.
If we serbs work together how the fuck do we destroy our nationalintrest???? You mean Yugoslavia? Well our dictator was a croat....
Komunjaree
Ma samo fasizam brate
"liberated" yugoslavia😂
Hate to break it down to you, but there is no obsession with monarchy. Just check how little votes the "restore monarchy" party won in last elections.
Ima ljudi koji bi vratili monarihuju, ali ne izlaze na izbore. Ni ja nisam glasao za monarhiste jer su u istom kosu sa ostalim strankamam. Ali sam vise za vracanje monarhije. Tako da nije sve crno belo.
@@zoltankramer3383 pa tesko da ces je vratiti bez glasanja.
Most republics don't have a "restore monarchy party" at all. Let alone one that actually gains seats in Parliament. Support for the monarchy in Serbia isn't restricted to people who vote for monarchist parties. Most polls show that pro monarchists are in the majority.
@Пыль глотаю You are correct, & I'm not saying there will be a monarchy in Serbia. even if the majority are in favour, none of the major political parties are, & people don't tend to vote for a single issue.
@@excentrik5725 Ako treba da glasam za stranku koja je slicna vladajucoj, bolje i da ne glasam. Moje neko misljenje je sa sam narod nije nikad ni bio spreman za demokratiju. U tom sistemu svaki gradjanin treba da ucestvuje, i zna kako mu funckionise sistem. I ove danasnje demokratije nisu nista drugacije od bilo koje monarhije. Samo te umesto jesnog jase stoo ljudi na cetiri godine. Ako cemo pravu demokratiju, prvo obrazovanje stanovnista, menjaje mentaliteta i ono sto je najvaznije sistem decentralizacije, gde su odluke na lokalnom nivou najbitnije. Ovako imas piramidu vlasti kao i u monarhiji a nema napretka. Treba nam mnogo promena na licnom nivou, onda mozemo da se nasamo necem boljem. Da se neguju dobre vrednosti, ovako samo se zavaravamo da ce nesto da se promeni i stavljamo zivote u ruke ljudi koji hoce samo da vladaju. Daj nesto i sami da uradimo, sposobni smo. :)
20
Long live the king!
Whi will be the monarch? 🤔
They can have all that if they work and build the country. It wont come from sky.
You should be ashamed of the amount of wrong information you provide in this video. If you want to make a video, make it fair, people don’t want to watch your own opinion. Just one of the lies that you said in this video, you said royal family is still in the UK, wrong, they live in Belgrade since fall of communism in Serbia. So stop lying people on this platform.
adressing a commies consciousness is like talking a schizophrenic out of his nonsense - whatever you say only reasures him hes right. The only thing true they actually tell you is their true nature - they attribute it to their 'dialectical' nemesis - impersonal force following capital concentration routes - charlatan, predatory and hungry for power, using any narrative to further their goals. No issue is particular (so that you never even try fixing one), no belief is anything more than silly superstion (so that you abandon hope for anything but violence)., anyone looking into the past for alternative is fascist (so that you keep going in circles). This type is exactly the type of people who collectively push their countries into misery
Komunjara
komunjare su zlo
Monarchy shall forever be supported in Serbia, and that is a good thing, this is a Kings nation!