Talk:History of Croatia/Archive 1

Content moved
Big parts of this talk page has been moved to the new Talk Pages of the History of Croatia-series articles. Refer to Talk:History of modern Croatia, Talk:Independent State of Croatia, Talk:Croatia in the second Yugoslavia and Talk:Medieval Croatian state to see them.

By the way, it would be nice, if this page could become even shorter now that the content got seperated into a number of own articles. Especially the Habsburg and modern time Croatia parts are still far too long (especially in regard to the other times). I tried to shorten them already, some more work in this direction would be great. --denny vrande&#269;i&#263; 15:01, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that it should all be cut out. There's not much reason for all the duplication, i.e. either have it all in one or all separate. --Shallot 17:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No, don't cut it all out. There should be a short overview article like this one. And I think the differences in the texts of this page and the detail pages will grow bigger with time, and redundancy will decrease. --denny vrande&#269;i&#263; 08:39, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've now condensed the content myself and I think it's okay. It could probably be condensed further. --Shallot 21:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Now it's about the size I hoped to achieve. --denny vrande&#269;i&#263; 08:39, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Diacritics
149.101.1.130, please stop removing perfectly valid diacritical marks from the page! --Shallot 11:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * diacritical marks appear as "?" in the text--wouldn't it be better to fix these eyesores??


 * They only appear like that if you have an old web browser without support for Unicode. Reasonably new Internet Explorer and Mozilla will display them right, try that.


 * These people's names are really Radi&#263;, Ra&#269;i&#263; and such, they're only transcribed without the diacritics when it's impossible to store them properly. For example in the page titles (that's why I use those pipe links), but not in the page contents itself. The words "Radi&#263;" and "Radic" have two different pronunciations in Croatian ("rah'dich" and "rah'ditz"), they're not equivalent. --Shallot 17:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * This is an English page. Just because you can display foreign languages doesn't mean your audience can read it.  Would it make sense to you if I said something like "Emperor &#35029;&#20161; of Japan ascended the throne in 1926..."?  Why not write in English and put the original non-English words & names in parenthesis like we do in pages such as sushi? Mdchachi 16:44, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * In principle, I have no objections to using native Japanese terms, but do observe several important practical differences -- readers of Latin alphabet in general are able to discern the non-diacritical versions of letters from what they see (the carons, acutes and bars only modify the basic letter), and the pipe links always point to a version without the diacritics for those few that don't have Unicode fonts which is equivalent to putting everything in parenthesis (and I think better than it, because it avoids taking up a lot of screen estate along the way). --Shallot 17:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Mir Harven's comments
well, I visited "page history" for Cro history page. My, my,...what an obsessive-compulsive Cro-junkie Igor something is. Geez- this fella essentially does nothing except wanking (pardon my French) on Cro wiki (or Cro-related) pages. Get a life, freak.

M H ---

Looks like Cro-obsession is on rampage among SS (Serbian sickos). Wacko linx del'ed.

M H

too much 20th century
It occurs to me that we have four sections for the 20th century and four for everything before. We could probably group the latest four into a supra-section... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Leave Igor alone, MH ... prat!
He is a smart guy, while you are a fool. Pardon my French!

"Serbian sickos"? Racist Dickhead!

Talk about "Cro-obsession", the Western media during the nineties was "Serb-junkie" -- though, I would personally use the term "Serb-Bashers". Some will look back and argue that the "Serb-junkies" of the nineties were obsessive-compulsive in their propaganda effort. These days, even now the media likes an occasional bash or two. But looking forward now!, you anti-Serbs will be seeing a decline in the near future! I promise you. ;)

PS: All those "killer" comments on Bosnia and Herzegovina's history you made, claiming they "disprove" Serbian claims to Bosnia, didn't even scratch! Indeed, some didn't even debunk, while others weren't even true.

Alan. --81.79.245.249 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heavens forbid
I am a victim of the Ustashi war plans in 1991-1995. I don't know why you don't mention any of the ethnic cleansing activities that Croatia did to the Serb Borderlander population. You only mentioned "four years of bitter fighting against the Serbs" and "rebel territories". I lost my sister and several other siblings in the war, as well as my home and ALL material ownership. I am now forced to live in Serbia and Montenegro, struggling to survive (since I have no apartment, but have to rent a private one). A stranger now lives in my apartment, my two houses were ruthlessly burned to the ground and my estates destroyed. My grandfather's sheep were used as practise targets; and the area spanning my mother's parents, the place where my close family lived and my father's parents is huge, meaning that those actions were forced all over Croatia. I can't return to my homeland, since there is no more a place to return to. When we payed a visit to the man living in our apartmant, it was VERY rough... he threatened to call the police if we would ever return. You MUST add at least something more about it. I hate to see that unjustice will rule EVERYWHERE. I see it only fitting that the history part of 1991-1995 is SERIOUSLY rewritten from a neutral pont of view, because it was entirely pro-Croatian.


 * As I told you already at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina and Talk:Croatia... such particular information is not directly applicable, and in summaries we can't go at too much length about all the issues involved. I'll have a look at the text and see if it can be adjusted further. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I re-read this section here and I don't quite see the problem. This article doesn't talk briefly about the fighting and doesn't say anything about any rebellious nature of the territories. In fact, it says "Croatia started Operation Storm and quickly took most of Krajina, causing a mass exodus of the Serbian population" which looks like the thing you're aiming at. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

You mean this source? Ofcourse this is just to negative for this propaganda article so lets just keep the truth under the lid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.23 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

What have I read? Both ustase and cetnik collaborated with the nazis? Sorry but the Cetniks didn't collaborate with the nazi because they fought against them.

For the sake of our free encycopedia
For God's sake, what is wrong with you people??? This Mir Harven and the user 81.79.245.249 are acting like four-year-olds, which they probably are. "Get a life, freak?" "prat?" "Serbian sickos"??? There is no place for this kind of primitivsm in our... well, now... encyclopedia of low-IQ and the dishonorful. I am seriously thinking about a more-than-24-hour ban to halt this kind of rhethoric nonsence promoted by this primitive 81.79.245.249 and that maniacally depressed Mir Harven... HolyRomanEmperor 11:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article lacks mention of ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia... HolyRomanEmperor 15:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

HRE, what ethnic cleansing of Serbs? When and where did it happened? If you mean on big withdrawal in 1995., that is because rebel Serb leaders organized that withdrawal. Croatian authorities called local Serbs (on all radio and tv station), on every hour whole week (at least), to stay and not to leave Croatia, during liberation operations. Do you find that as an ethnic cleansing?

The only ethnic cleansing in Croatia was when rebelled Serbs from Croatia (together with Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) expelled domestic Croats and other non-Serbs (which remained loyal to Croatia even in such bad times) from areas which were under rebels control.Kubura 13:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I responded at your talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
Zmaj, I would if Jasenovac was bult explicitly for the Chetnik Corps, but it wasn't. The Bleiburg and other massacres were solely of members of the Ustasha forces and government as well as civilians connected to them (i. e. their children, neighbours, friends, etc.). It is well-known that the Ustashas' decendents never lived appropriately in SFRJ. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are lying and justifying a massacre. I (or any Croatian, for that matter) have nothing to discuss with you. --Zmaj 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Justifying a massacre; in the heavens' name, isn't it obvious that that was an atrocity from my upper-mentioned post? (then that means that I have nothing to discuss to myself :) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Croatian state (until 1102)- It should be written Croats and Serbs or only Slavs. In that period of time nobody mentioned Croats. Serbs were mentioned by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. It is not accurate and not historically correct to mention only Croats. It is not article about Croats.

Even in this article where we have Croatia and Bosnia you write "Croats and other Slavs", You could not omit Serbs from here. See discussion about Croatia only.Here it is about Croatia+Bosnia, so it is not historically correct. Serbs were mentioned first by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. So at least should be Croats and Serbs.--Medule 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Two small corrections
I removed the reference to the '"Montenegrin" deputy of the Serbian Radical...' because it may give the false impression that Punisa Racic was an ethnic Montenegrin; Montenegrin ethnicity didn't actually take root until after the Second World War and describing Racic as Montenegrin here makes as much sense as describing Slobodan Milošević as Montenegrin in the articles about wars in former Yugoslavia in the 1990's; it obscures the facts.

Also, the part about "Dubrovnik being included in Croatia for the first time in 1939" makes very little sense. The position of Dubrovnik was almost the same as that of other Dalmatian cities; they were at least nominally a part of the Croatian-Hungarian kingdom for a time in the 14th century before being conquered by Venice (the rest of Dalmatia) or becoming nominal Turkish vassals (Dubrovnik) and in the 19th century were joined in the Austrian province of Dalmatia which could be considered as "Croatian" by population as the kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia which was in the Hungarian part of the monarchy. --Elephantus 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See also section
See also section should not be removed from wikipedia articles. People can use this as a quick reference to related articles, and the list is very helpful. Bzezen 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's helpful only if you don't select the "see also" articles in a biased way, which you are constantly and maliciously doing here. It's a near-vandalism case. When it turns into pure vandalism, I'll take care that an administrator comes knocking at your door. --Zmaj 10:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the links are related to Croatian history. If you somehow think that is biased, it just reveals your POV. Obviously, since you are apparently Croatian, it is a POV that does not like some of the links. But that does not make them vandalism, or anything like that. They are links of articles related to Croatian history adding context for those who want to learn more. If you have objections to the list, you can state your arguments, but you cannot blank the see also section. Indeed, blanking is a simple vandalism, and you should check what is what here on wikipedia. Please read the definition of vandalism - it is pretty clearly stated what vandalism is and what is not! Bzezen 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism, you're right. But it seems you don't understand what the "See also" section is used for, so let me explain. This section should point out topics which have not been included in the article itself, but which are as important as this article and somehow related to it. For example, the "See also" section of the "History of England" has links to the histories of closely related neighboring countries (Scotland, Ireland etc.), the histories of important aspects of the state (constitution, society), and such general subjects as the English people and the Commonwealth.
 * According to these criteria, some links you put there can certainly stay: Austro-Hungary, NDH, History of Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Others do not deserve a special mention: Ustashe and Jasenovac (mentioned in the article itself and belonging to NDH anyway); Srbosjek and Danke Deutschland (irrelevant for a general history). So I'll return those four links. I'll add "History of Hungary", since it was a joint kingdom with Croatia for 800 years. I'll also add "Central Europe" and "History of the Mediterranean region", since Croatia is a part of those two regions along with the Balkans. I hope this has clarified the issue. --Zmaj 07:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Croatian state
Medieval Croatian state (until 1102)- It should be written Croats and Serbs or only Slavs. In that period of time nobody mentioned Croats. Serbs were mentioned by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. It is not accurate and not historically correct to mention only Croats. It is not article about Croats. Even in this article where we have Croatia and Bosnia you write "Croats and other Slavs", You could not omit Serbs from here. See discussion about Croatia only.Here it is about Croatia+Bosnia, so it is not historically correct. Serbs were mentioned first by Einchardt in 822, but Croats are mentioned after 850. So at least should be Croats and Serbs.--Medule 23:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs and Croats came in a second wave of migrations, in 620s, invited by Emperor Heraclius to drive the Avars from Dalmatia. That is according to Porfirogenet. According to Einchardt there are only Serbs and Slavs in that region of Croatia and Bosnia mentioned in disputed sentence. --Medule 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As we already explained to you in Talk:Croatia, a (possible) short stay of Serbs in that area is irrelevant. Many peoples went through the region during the great migrations of the 7th century, but the only people relevant for the history of Croatia is the one that stayed and organized the Dalmatian and Pannonian duchies, i.e. the Croats. --Zmaj 09:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're dealing with a vandal (with several aliases - Medule, Bzezen etc.) whose sole purpose is to mutilate any article that is related to Croatia. No amount of reason will succeed in convincing him to stop. In fact, concessions that have already been made will only further aggravate the situation. EurowikiJ 11:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. While his proposed content for the "See also" section was partly misdirected, it was also partly useful, as I've shown by making it appropriate. I won't revert anything if it has some useful part in it. On the other hand, the proposal to include Serbs in the early medieval history of Croatia is wholly misdirected because they did nothing relevant for the history of the country in that period.
 * Of course, Medule, that is not to say that another people cannot be mentioned in the history of Croatia. In fact, the Serbs played a significant role in the country's history when they came to the Military Frontier, stayed there for three centuries and eventually tried to create their own state. But that is duly mentioned in the article. --Zmaj 11:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see. But something tells me that this vandal will not stop. EurowikiJ 12:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Eurowiki,first of all I never used alias Bzezen and please we could ask administrator to check such false allegation. Please stop calling me vandal or I will ask protection. Second in article about Croatia some users tried to tell me to change this article. Zmaj you could see sentence talking about somebody coming not only to Croatia, but to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 1. Serbs come at same time with Croats 2. In Pagania Serbs they formed long lived entities 3. First naming of Croats is from 850s and Serbs from 822 in region 4. There are more historical domunts naming Serbs than hist. document naming Croats in that very early perios.--Medule 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead and ask for protection. So far your actions (ip 194.106.187.xxx) have resulted in a ban on further modifications on Croatia article. And we're slowly getting to the same situation here. EurowikiJ 13:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll reply on the Talk:Croatia page. We'll continue the discussion there, since the topic is the same. --Zmaj 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is another problem. I have rv changed not only Serbs but also part of article about Tomislav map. Please discuss it if you have objections, Dont revert it.--Medule 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That map is widely accepted in Croatia. Of course, almost any topic has a couple of historians who disagree with the generally accepted facts, it's natural. But an encyclopedia includes only what is generally accepted as truth. No original research, remember? Until those opposing views are widely recognized, you can't put them here. You can include them in the talk page, though. --Zmaj 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Map is not widely accepted. You just deleted link that shows that best Croatian historian Nada Klaic shows possible Tomislav state.That is from well known textbook:Klaic, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975.: Hrvatska i Slavonija za Tomislava http://www.geocities.com/hrvatskapovijest/img/09.gif
 * Another well known mediviel historian Ivo Goldstein in his book "Hrvatski rani srednji vijek", pages 286-291 made conclusion that Croatia was not much larger during Tomislav period.--KHasek 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, those people are in the minority. What Ms. Klaić wrote is not a "textbook", as you call it. It's a book. Textbooks, i.e. what is used for learning history in schools, all have the Tomislav map from this article. So I see no reason why I shouldn't remove your addition. --Zmaj 08:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is sentence "Croatia and Bosnia". In Croatia and Bosnia together Serbs had not been in minor role. Serbs always existed in that region. Tomislav map is disputed as it is said before by important Croatian scientiscts (Nada Klaic and Ivo Goldstein). Nada Klaic book is still used for students of history as textbook.--Medule 11:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths--Medule 21:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look there are 3 Croatian historians Nada Klaic, Ivo Goldstein and S.Koren that dispute that map.Croat historian I. Goldstein stated that Tomoslav never ruled Bosnia (Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, p. 286-291). Croat historian N. Klaic pointed out that Tomislav rule never extended beyond the river Una. Snježana Koren from Univerzity of Zagreb in "Teaching Practice: History" (South-East Europe Textbook Network) also showed that Tomislav borders are just national myths.

There are 2 Croatian historians that use maps but with 60-70% of Bosnia teritory.Tomislav Raukar said that Tomislav ruled over 65% of present BiH territory.Mladen Ancic has similar statement.Serbian historian mainly opposed the view about Tomislav presence in Bosnia.That is at least disputed fact if you look from neutral point of view.--Medule 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Croatian state? Croatia was conquered by Hungarians and became a province of the Kingdom of Hungary, this "Pacta Conventa" must be a bad joke. Personal union? ha ha.

See also section
Of all the countries that link to History of the Balkans page, only (History of) Croatia had a link to it right beneath the title. I moved all such links to See also section where they normaly are in other such pages. History of Croatia should be no exception to this rule.EurowikiJ 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, your last version is the best, I agree. --Zmaj 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda parts
Let's see 2 sentences that are real examples of propaganda: "The conflict culminated with the so-called "log revolution", when the so-called Krajina Serbs blocked the roads to the tourist destinations in Dalmatia and started a mass ethnic cleansing of Croats and other non-Serb populations. " To analyze that part:-log revolution was in August 1990 and at that time was no ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing of Croats and Serbs started in June 1991.

"After the Croatian government had declared independence from Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991, the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) launched an open aggression on Republic backed by the local Serb militia's." -In accordance to NPOV somebody will write that sentence like :YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs.--Medule 01:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethnic cleansing of Croats and Serbs. - Lie.
 * YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs. - JNA POV. --Zmaj 07:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Between 100.000 and 200.000 Serbs left big cities. UNHCR report said.

Big parts of western Slavonia, Serb populated parts in Otocac for example were burned and Serbs expelled.''YNA entered in conflict between Croatian government and local Serbs." is better example than propaganda sentences in text about agression.--195.252.86.186 11:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Eminent historians"
Removed personal attacks per WP:BLP. Highly inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Yugoslavia??
How can a communist state be democratic? That's oxymoron. I removed it - Tomy108 10th July '06


 * Of course. It was an oversight. --Zmaj 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't - SFRY was indeed called DFY at the time. It's not particularly pertinent, but it was accurate. --Joy &#91;shallot] 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

-Wrong again, it was called Yugoslavija, 1943-1949/1950, Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia 1950-1963, and SFRY until the end. Tomy108


 * No, Joy's right - it was "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" in 1943/5-1946, when "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia" was adopted - and then in 1963 "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". --PaxEquilibrium 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbs equal nation to Croats
Why you delete established true like that sentence: "In order to attract Serbs from Krajina to be part of Croatia on 11.5. 1867. the Sabor solemnly declared that "the Triune Kingdom recognizes the Serbian/Vlach people living in it as a nation identical and equal with the Croatian nation." After that, the Military Frontier was reincorporated in Croatia in 1881." That document was passed inside parlament in order to atract Serbs to live with Crots in one political entity. Until that moment Serbs lived in military Frontier outside Croatian control. serbs could choose to live under direct Hungarian rule, or in one bigger entity with Croats under Hungarian smaller control --Medule 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are trying to say here - all citizens of Croatia, whether they be Croat, German, Magyar, Czech or Serb had equal rights. Whether this is explicitly stated or covered in a more generic term such as other citizens doesn't change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that Croatia is also the nation-state for the Croat nation.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  iruka 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Medule, I can understand that you want to write about the Croatian Serbs - but putting it so blindly into the intro is not going to accomplish anything. Maybe, if Croatia's still today a state of Croats and Serbs, then it would've been appropriate - but not now. If you want to write about the Serb Dalmatian medieval realms, there is History of Dalmatia; or even better, Serbs of Croatia. This is not the place for those edits of yours. --PaxEquilibrium 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is you who is trying to re-write Croatian history Pax. The movement for South Slav unification was a 200 year old movement starting from the early 1800's to the 20th century that cannot be simply dismissed as irrevelent Croatian history because today Croatia is an independent state and Serbs are no longer equally defined within that state. In 1848 Ban Jelacic led a force of BOTH Serbs and Croats to fight the Hungarians. Before the revolutions of 1848 Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia and KRAJINA were seperate entities with largely Serbs living in Krajina and mixed populations in Dalmatia and Slavonia. Because of the mutual cooperation the Krajina Serbs said they would join it with Croatia as a gesture of good will on their part, while Croats as a gesture of good will defined Croatia as a state of both the Serbs and Croats. Both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets were official. It seems that those writing this article want to dismiss the parts of Croatian history where they cooperated and were in many ways the leaders of the South Slav movement, simply because today Croatia is an independent state wanting nothing to do with the Serbs. Yugo91aesop (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Krajina was never a separate entity that "chose" to join Croatia. You are clearly making things up to suit your own agenda

Croatia in that medivail time was partly in Serb, partly in Croatian hands. It is important up to present days, since Croatia was until 18 years ago state with two nation. --Medule 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I think you mean 17 years.
 * 2. Which parts of the Medieval Croatian state were partly Serbian-populated? --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Croat and Serb come together in present Croatia. On the coast of Croatia Sebs have probably control up to river Cetina. In the times of Ljudevit Posavski Sebs have control over much of Dalmatia. In the french annals of that time there is no mentioning of Croats at all, but there is mentioning of Serbs. Although French had much more contact to Dalmatians, to Gradascani from Lika region and to Panonians. According to Nada Klaic probable center under Serb control was city of Srb. Serbs in Croatia had been equal nation to Croats until 1990. --Medule 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No they weren't. They were only from the 17th century (or 18th) *equal* to Croats in Croatia.


 * That south from Cetina was not even Croatia at all.


 * Besides - that tiny strip of territory is completely irrelevant - how large is it? Several square kilometers? And keep on mind that a large part (Dubrovnik, etc...) weren't populated by Serbs at all - but by Latins. --PaxEquilibrium 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Medule, you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't studied the matter properly, you're filtering sources. About "common travel" of Croats and Serbs in todays Croatia: Serbs settled at first in Thessaly, and, for some reasons, they didn't like the neighbourhood, so Byzantian emperor gave them the land "to the east from Croats". South from Cetina "was not even Croatia at all"?? No, Croatia only had its capitol there for a period of time, in Omiš (twice the seat of King Slavac, who reigned over Croatia 1090-1093). Kubura 11:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Excluding Omish. It's at the bank of river. Croatia included that territory for the first time in 1939.
 * Serbs settled in Macedonia (that "Old Serbia"), actually. Thessaly is to the south. --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In NDH number of killed was up to 1 milion
First somebody before me was saying up to 200.000, so therefore I changed that part to have up to 1.000.000.

There is several independent data from Germans or Italians about number of dead Sebs, Jews and orher in genocide. The reports differ. some of them from 1942, that means far before the end of war. Some of them onlz mention Serbs and not Jews and Roma. "The Serbs have become slaughterhouse material... from the total of two million Orthodox population, almost 600,000 were murdered. Karlheinz Deschner. Mit Gott und den Faschisten. Stuttgart, 1965.

"The Serbs have become slaughterhouse material... from the total of two million Orthodox population, almost 600,000 were murdered. Srbi su bili materijal za klanje. Od 2 miliona pravoslavnih gotovo 600.000 je ubijeno. Karlheinz Deschner. Mit Gott und den Faschisten. Stuttgart, 1965.

From the Special Assignment in the Southeast, the memoir of German Minister Plenipotentiary to Southeast Europe Dr. Hermann Neubacher."The slaughter of the Orthodox Serbs undertaken the Ustasha leaders and led by the Poglavnik (head of state) of Croatia, Ante Pavelic, reminds one of the religious wars of bloodiest memory. "A third must become Catholic, a third must leave the country, and a third must die!" This last point of their program was accomplished. When prominent Ustasha leaders claimed that they slaughtered a million Serbs (including babies, children, women and the elderly), that is, in my opinion, a boastful exaggeration. On the basis of the reports submitted to me, I believe that the number of defenseless victims slaughtered to be three quarters of a million."Source: Neubacher, Dr. Hermann. Special Assignment in the Southeast, p. 18-30.

The same overall view was presented to the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler, on 17 February 1942 in a detailed Gestapo report. The conclusion of this long document was explicit: Increased activity of the bands is chiefly due to atrocities carried out by Ustasha units in Croatia against the Orthodox population. The Ustashas committed their deeds in a bestial manner not only against males of conscript age, but especially against helpless old people, women and children. The number of the Orthodox that the Croats have massacred and sadistically tortured to death is about three hundred thousand. PA, Büro RAM, Kroatien, 1941-42, 442-449. IV/D/4 RSHA (Gestapo) to Himmler, 17 February 1942. --Medule 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 edits
There is much in this article about life in Tito's Croatia. I don't take issue with that at all - in fact as a tongue-in-cheek aside I will admit that the generally pro-Tito tone of it fits well with my own POV. But if that level of detail is appropriate to the article then it is appropriate too to say something about the royal dictatorship, so I have done that, subject to correction/amendment by anyone better informed. Additionally I repositioned a sentence about the territory of Croatia because it looked like an afterthought where it previously was, at the end of a section about the dictatorship. (If in fact that territory was a direct consequence of the dictatorship then the sentence belongs where it was, but with a clear indication that this territory was established by the dictatorship.) I also made one or two minor changes, for instance to avoid reference to a "...leadership led by..." and to de-tag things I tagged higher up the article. Kirker 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To make the paragraph more "Wiki", I'll move Glenny and Horvat to the references and add footnotes. I assume the Horvat quote is from his Political History? --Zmaj 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the source for Horvat. When putting in direct quotes I like to state there and then who is speaking, but I'll bow to Wikipedia style. Kirker 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having now looked at the effect of Zmaj's repositioning of references, I do see a problem. Taking away the quote-marks and putting the references into footnotes means the article/Wikipedia is now stating those comments as fact. That is going farther than I intended. It is a fact that people of consequence said those things, but I don't think Wikipedia itself should be making such statements, even where it can cite references, since there are other points of view. Maybe the quoted text should go into block-quote format, or maybe quote-marks could be restored but with the references staying where they are? Kirker 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the same problem, especially with the "gangsterism" part. Another solution to avoid the "fact" issue would be to banish the refs to the footnotes, but remove all the "non-encyclopedic" (but poetic and evocative) expressions from the text, which would make it too insipid in my opinion. So I guess your last edit is the best solution. After all, there's no harm in including one's references in the text itself. I've seen this done in such important articles like Martin Luther. --Zmaj 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif
The image Image:Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (1867 - 1918).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Croatian State
"against Byzantine strategos in Zadar" There's just a small issue I have with this sentence, it's either against a Byzantine strategos (being singular) or against Byzantine strategoi (being plural), but the current sentence structure doesn't show which one and is ambiguous. Imperator Talk 10:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The most probably "Strategos" - singular. Strategos was Byzantine highest administrator, positioned in Zadar - the seat of Byzantine theme (province) Dalmatia. Cro king was probably in conflict with 1 strategos, not more of them. Zenanarh (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Croatia in personal union with Hungary name
There is a discussion at Talk:Croatia in personal union with Hungary about the name for both the section here and the name at Croatia in personal union with Hungary (which is sadly a much poorer version of the section here). One concern is that it looks to me like the name "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" already assumes the validity of the Pacta conventa (Croatia), I'm guessing, and a better name may just be based on the years but just wanted to get notice to a wider audience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Wikipedia Web Site!
Re: History of Croatia/Dalmatia (Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio)

I am writing to bring attention to some of the historical information on Wikipedia. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia (Dalmatia). Historical facts are being presented here which were formulated by unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated. The article is using the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians. By carefully using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region.

There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to the Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lack historical information and used it as a template. Chapters also use mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before hand. With this in mind information in De Administrator Imperio concerning Principality of Paganija can be put in doubt. It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Venetian Republic, The Vatican and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslav's Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

Additional: I have been invite to participate in the article in the talk pages concerning Dalmatia. I’ve undertook some research to examine the history of the articles in question. I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings (on their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements). For example dictator worship, support for former communist regime, and ancient anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago). There is also some serious cult of the personality issues. What is this all about? From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me please if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, politically imprisonment, torture etc? Why does Wikipedia have these authors and editors writing historical facts? I choose not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals.

To put the issues of Croatia/Dalmatia history succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths (these issues should be addressed). There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German, and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of it’s writers and editors questionable material.

Regards

123.2.59.195 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Maps
Why are there no maps on this pages? I'm just reading articles like this in which Serbia basicly goes from Tokio to New York (and at that time Serbia itself did not even exist, Raška did). --Čeha (razgovor) 12:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tomislav crowned

 * "The first King of Croatia, Tomislav (910–928) of the Trpimirović dynasty, was crowned in 925"

Putting aside Tomislav being a king or not, it's obvious to anyone knowing anything about Croatian medieval history that there are no sources about Tomislav being crowned in 925. He was just mentioned as a king in 925., in a letter written not about his coronation, but about a completely different affair. He could be crowned earlier, and most likely he was not crowned at all. dnik ► 12:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"most likely he was not crowned at all"

Says who??? Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Says who"? LoL. Anto, let's cut to the chase: either you find a scholarly source listing primary sources  that clearly states "yes Tomislav was crowned, here are the primary sources", or this is just another Croatian history myth. And we all know there's more than enough of them on enWiki. Its time these "Triune Kingdoms", "Pacta Conventas", and "Croatia-Hungaries" get scrutinized for support among non-nationalist sources. Croatian history reads like a fantasy fairy tale as things are now. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick the topic! the topic is something from the era 1000 years ago. All is poorly sourced-yes. There are no explicit sources for coronation-YES. but there are also no sources for assumption like this one

Yes ,national myths do not help! neither saloon left-wing wisdom!Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Croats
Article "Croats" has a history section which directs to History of Croatia. What? That isn't right! It's supposed to direct to History of Croats, otherwise it postulates that Croat people did not exist before 900AD. We need a History of Croats article which tells us the genealogy of Croat people. For example we know they came from the north at about the same time as the Serbs, but the Serb genealogy is much clearer and traces all the way back to first mentions in Rig Veda, Serboi tribes in Caucasus (Tacitus) and much later Serb states in northwest Magna Germania (Ptolemy). tl;dr History of Croats article is needed. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Serbs in Rig Veda? Thats pseudosience you know? Čeha (razgovor) 07:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Vukovar
The statement: "Some historians believe that the city could have been spared and defended, but was left to "fend for itself" to gain sympathy from the west. " has been deleted since the reference is false. It is just a journalist guessing and no historians are mentioned. I simply wonder who can claim that the city under heavy siege could be defended during the embargo of military material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.64.65 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)