Talk:Lika/Archive 1

population stats
I found the Lika-Senj and Zadar county population numbers for 1991 at http://www.citypopulation.de/Kroatien.html -- the region of Lika which is split between those two counties (mostly in the former) can't have had much more than 100,000 inhabitants at the time, and yet Igor has the audacity to claim that a 100,000 "were chased from" Lika in 1995. This would be sad if it wasn't funny... --Shallot 23:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I never came back to this... fixed now. Mir Harven stated 30,000 fled in "Storm", that would be 35.3% of the 85,135. Granted, there could be some in Gra&#269;ac (which is in Zadar county), which would be another ca. ten thousand? I can't find a 1991 census Lika-only table. --Joy  &#91;shallot&#93;   21:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

previous POV
Mir Harven, you probably shouldn't rip that much out of the page just because Igor was twisting it. Although I'm not sure whether much of the article is specifically pertinent to the title, I'm pretty sure it will become edit war material... --Shallot 00:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The article, as I found it, was almost completely worthless, full of insignificant and/or false statements. It's not a basis anything can be build on. An entirely new article should be written.Mir Harven 09:36, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Confusion
A question if someone can help me. I have heard of Nikola Tesla, and coming from Canada, I always thought him to be American. am sure that most Europeans know that over the great lake people maintain their identity as well as being Americans, we have for example American Jews, Irish Americans, Silesian Americans, Occitan Americans etc. What I want to know is: if Tesla was from modern-day Croatia? Why does it say he is Serb? I mean both nations are homogenous in that they have routes in the Slavs, I thought that Croatia was the western bit and Serbia was the southern-eastern bit. Can someone elaborate please? User:AlfredG


 * Yes, Nikola Tesla was from a place in modern-day Croatia. He was a Serb because "Serb" designates his ethnicity/nationality - his parents were of that ethnicity, and raised him as such. Here in Europe, many countries have this concept of nationality being correlated more with ethnicity, rather than citizenship. Also, his citizenship would have been Austro-Hungarian, because that was the country this place was in at the time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Joy. You nearly explained it to me but I still fail to understand entirely how the system works. Let me give you an example. In parts of Finland, you have ethnic Swedes. They and the Finns live in the same towns and have done so for hundreds of years having maintained their identity. Ethnicly Finns and Swedes are completely different, but Serbs and Croats as I have understood from ALL sources are hybrid nations, in other words homogenous, descended from the Slavs who occupied the region from AD 555 onwards.


 * Well, hybrid is a biological term that would give the adjective you want to use an overly specific and scientific tone - it's more accurate to say that they don't come from two homogenous groups of tribes, but instead they come from a series of tribes that occasionally intermingled, and in those areas they were later distinguished more after markers such as religion and dialect than after ethnic origin. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

If we take Zagreb as an example: supposing you have a street full of Serbs whose ancestors settled when the Slavs arrived - adjacent to them you have a street full of Croats. How does one distinguish Serb from Croat? ie.how do you point to 'Ivan' (fictional example) and say 'oh he aint Croat, he is Serb because Tesla was his great-uncle?' etc. Please explain this to me if you can. User:AlfredG


 * Except that you don't have a single street full of Serbs in Zagreb - at least not such that are autochthonous. Zagreb is a bad example.
 * Also, Ivan is a pretty bad example too - Ivan is the Croatian rendition of John, while the Serbian rendition is Jovan. If you picked all the people named Ivan in Zagreb, chances are that 95% of them would be Croats.
 * You would probably run into a problem with places such as Boka Kotorska or other areas where there aren't that many real distinctions other than religion or recent history. Each current national group in such areas claims that the other one is composed mostly of immigrants or converts, scientists can't ascertain which of them are right because of a lack of clear historical records, and then basically you get no work done. That's why nationality is treated as a subjective matter, a matter of personal preference in the local censa. That way people don't have to stick to some sort of an elaborate policy and instead simply state who they think they are. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

oops I forgot - I don't think 'citizenship' was quite an issue in those days as it is now. I know that the region was under Austria-Hungary but that didn't mean nothing beyond some identity document for those who were neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Take me, I am a British citizen and no longer Canadian but I can only ever see myself as Canadian... anyhow, ignore this last statement, I just want to know the above. User:AlfredG 27/08/05


 * Yes, I agree, I made the remark about citizenship just as a side note. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Almost there


 * Thank you Joy for the extra information. It's beginning to help me. Maybe hybrid was a bad choice of word but I think you know what I meant. As I have learned, Slavs compose Europes largest ethnic group and both Serbs and Croats are modern descendants of this group. Now, the dialect spoken by Serbs differs to Croats indeed. Regardless whether their language has the same name or not, it would be folly to suggest that in Belgrade the people speak word for word exactly the same as in Zagreb, of course they do not. But, being Serbian from Croatia means that one is indigenous to that region having settled the same time as his neghbours who declare themselves Croatian in which case, his speech will not differ from theirs. in fact the whole reason that the local speech sounds as it does is because of contributions from generations of people calling themselves Serbian and Croatian but descending from the same group/s.  This leaves religion, now: I am given to believe that the orthodox Church is synonomous with Serbia where-as Croatia is linked closely to the Roman Catholic faith.  Assuming now (elsewhere in Croatia, not Zagreb), say this region, Lika (since Tesla was from here), you have a family of Serbs living next to a family of Croats. I trust this will mean that the Serbs are of orthodox faith and the Croats and of Catholic faith. Their language is the same and they are historically settled on the same land from the same time but simply choose to follow different religions! This religion may have been passed down but tell me, what would happen if missionaries converted the Catholics to Orthodox, would they now become Serb? And if the Orthodox family accepted Catholisism, would that make them Croats? Or if either suddenly dropped religion and became athiest, what would that make them...baring in mind that on arrival to their homeland, all were pagans and it was there that they accepted Christianity, AND were the same until some of them split following conversion to the other faith. What of them if they all became Buddists?  You see, Joy, I can never see how religion is a ground for nationality. To take an example - I am a Roman Catholic and I do believe in Christ (my ancestors were Dutch) - no religion implies that you point a finger on a fellow human being and say 'he is not a member of my nation because he worships in that building on Wednesdays where-as I worship in this one on Thursdays.'  If a person is deeply religious (by that I don't mean those who blow themselves up on busses) then he is peaceful, and as for nationalism: his only allegiance is to mankind; all people from everywhere, of all faiths. In Sarajevo, the Orthodox church, Catholic church and Mosque all work closely with each other, side by side. They even did this during the dark period of the Balkan in the 90's.  At the same time, my cousins who live in Maastricht (Holland) are catholics (like most of the southern Netherlands) but although the centre and north and mostly lutherin, there are some living in Maastricht too. They call nationality 'Nederlands' and so do my cousins, now if the relationship between Serbs and Croats is susceptible to the laws that govern all communities, then it must also be recognized that my catholic cousins and their lutherin neighbours are also different nationalitites too.

So was this why Tesla was Serb? Just for being Orthodox? By the way, I did know a lad from Belgrade called Ivan; here at this computer firm where I work there are lots of Slavic people from various countries, many from Bulgaria and quite a few Ivans! So I really don't think this variation is strictly Croatian even if another term doers exist among Serbians. Please tell me what you can Joy. User:AlfredG 28-08-05

I am going to revert all edits until the arguement is brough here to the talk page. HolyRomanEmperor 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alfred I would be glad to explain you what is this all about. The inhabitants of the Lika region are not Serbs in the meaning of Serbian Serbs. After the liberation of Croatia from the Turkish invaders Lika, before the Turkish arrival 100% domicile Croatian, was colonised with some domicile Croats who kept their Lika tradition during the occupation, and the other part of colonisators were the so called "Vlasi" (in english it would be "Vlahs" i suppose...) They came from eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe in one single goal - to save their lives from the Turks. They brought orthodox religion beacuse eastern Europe was orthodox since 1054.A.D. as your probably know. The Drina river, the natural border beetween Bosnia and Serbia was the line that divided two Empires bak in 395.A.D. and so it was decided for it to be the religion border in 1054. But when Turks came it was all, I allow mself to say, "messed up". Many nations fled from them and when they came to Lika there was a variety of nations among them but the domicle Croats and Austrians decided to call them "Vlasi". The credibility of that term is to be doubted. So, the western part of Lika was inhabited with Croats, so the immigrants there accepted Roman Catholic religion. With religion they got names such as Ivan (and Joy told u right, Ivan really is a name common to Russians, Bulgarians, Ukraines and Croats, Serbs have the mentioned different variant - Jovan) and Josip. Those name are not Croatian nor Serbian. Those are Jewish Biblical names. Ivan as John and Josip as Joseph. Serbs are not common to names like that and the reason is unknown. Although there were Serbs called Josip and still are, and Ivan as well. In example, the male name Josip was very popular in whole ex-Yugoslavia after the year 1945. beacuse it was the name of Croat, and later Yugoslav partisan leader who liberated Yugoslavia. I've gone too far from the subject. The eastern part of Lika, however, remained mostly orthodox. But inhabited with orthodox Vlahs NOT Serbs. In the late 17th century there was more than one migration of the Serbs from Serbia. Some of them went to Hungary, some to Slavonia(part of Croatia as well) and some of them went to Bosnia. The Turkish empire became more tolerant to other religions in that time so the Serbian orthodox priest were given the opportunity to spread their religion in that whole area. Remember, it was Bosnia back then, not Croatia(I am talking about eastern Lika). It became Croatia in 1791.A.D. The point and very diference of orthodox religion from catholic is in it's connection to the state. The state of Serbia had wide authonomy within the Turkish Empire and even marriage connections to the Turkish throne.(in example Mehmed-pasha Sokolovich was a Serbian boy(from Serbia) converted to islam and taken to the Turkish Army, the so-called "blood tax". He led the attack on Sziget in Hungary in the 16th century. So he was a real hotshot among the Turks but not a true Turk. He knew that and appointed his brother to be the archiepiscope of The Serbian Orthodox Church in that time. Imagine that.) So the Serb church had clearly expansionistic ambitions. Areas inhabited with Orthodox population was the ideal ground for them to spread their state. Now, You will probably ask how can they be spreading their state. Easily. I've already said that the Orthodox Church is connected and addicted to it's state. Take it your family fled from Romania in 15th century and migrated to eastern Lika. It would took them about 100 years( so at least 3 generations) to complete the journey. You come in the 16th century. You have no state. You dont even remember where you originated(people in the 15th century didn't even have an ethnic choice. They didn't know who they were. It's not like they had a TV back then and watched the news). So, the people were very common and they had traditions and religion. Serb priests(from Serbia and Bosnia) came in the late 17th century(as the article says) and started to convert them to The Serbian Orthodox religion (or the then-so-called "eastern religion"). They were then connected to the state of Serbia. But only in that matter. You see, their tradition and last names is nothing like the ones in Serbian state. Even the language they speak(which is 95% similar to Croatian, the accent, everything...) If you start a search of last names in Serbia, you won't find anyone last-named Tesla. It is a specific Lika last name. But even there, a Lika Serb is recognised among the Serbian Serbs. Language and last name differs them. Tesla's father was an Orthodox Serb priest called Milutin. It is not a strictly Serbian name as Ivan is not strictly Croatian. However the chances of someone called Milutin to be a Serb are about, I'd say, 90 to 95 %. On the other hand, the name Nikola is about as common within Serbs as it is within Croats. But here as everywhere else where there are Christians people get their names in Church as children. Some people have one name of their own, and one that they got in Church. But in history, the name you got in Church as a baby used to be your name until you died, with some possible deviations as in ex. you converting to islam in medieval Bosnia.

Greater Serbia
Milan Babic a former leader of Serbs in Croatia, testified about establishing Greater Serbia. More info

The Charges

The Indictment charges Milan Babic on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) with:

one count of crimes against humanity (persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds punishable under Articles 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal), and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war (murder; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; and destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion punishable under Articles 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal).

Guilty plea On 27 January 2004, Milan Babic entered a guilty plea on Count one of the Indictment, namely persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds as a crime against humanity (see Press Release No. 818). On 28 January 2004, the Trial Chamber accepted the Plea Agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence. It found Milan Babic guilty of persecutions as a crime against humanity and added that the crime of persecutions was committed within the objectives of the Joint Criminal Enterprise, of which Milan Babic was a co-perpetrator (see Press Release No. 819). The Prosecution recommended a sentence of no more than 11 years and the Defence made no specific recommendation.

Sentencing Judgement On 29 June 2004, the Trial Chamber sentenced Milan Babic to a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled to credit for 211 days served in detention prior to his sentencing (see Press Release No. 861). --Emir Arven 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice you could state the source where you got that information. Additionally, claiming that Serbs joined in hopes of forming a Greater Serbia is POV-ed generalising. Many (most, perhaps) did that because of two resons: 1) unagreeing with the secessionist and separatist tendencies of Croatia and 2) self-defence against growing Croatian (Greater) nationalism 3) I guess that some had also dreams of a unified Serbia, but generalising is simply overstreched. HolyRomanEmperor 22:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on plea bargain, then laugh hard at yourself. Babic was not proven guilty, nor he admitted that he is guilty. He bargained with the prosecution to plead guilty and be convicted for one of the charges, while the prosecution dropped harsher charges held against him. Thus his plea has exactly zero value to us. Related to this, Biljana Plavsic f.e. admitted that she lied in her plea. Nikola 12:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not true. Sorry...Emir Arven 18:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You cannot simply deny something, Emir Arven; give arguements. Additionally, could you explain the importance of a Greater Serbia link in the article of Lika? That sentence was used as an temporal indicator (prior to Croatia's independence...) And your adding such NPOV arugements because of...? HolyRomanEmperor 20:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Babić's testimony against Milošević
A good source on the Serbia's plan for annexation of parts of Croatia and the creation of Greater Serbia is the testimony of Milan Babić as a prosecution witness against Milošević at the ICTY in the fall of 2002: 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day. --Elephantus 00:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * fair enough HolyRomanEmperor 19:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Milan Babic is funny. He posed as a secret witness, remember? Under the pseudonym of "C-061", from 18th November to 4th December. Look for that testimony on the UN site.


 * Besides he's considered treacherous by many Serbs. Not because he's telling the truth, but because he's just saying such things to get a lighter sentence.


 * And Elephantus, do remember that Milosevic's trial hasn't quite finished, though Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice wished it was (two months ago! :-D). In fact, Seselj's testimony has been very helpful, in that he claimed that only his Radical party advocated a Greater Serbia. So, let's avoid claiming any Greater Serbia.


 * Alan. --84.68.131.28 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A large part of Babić's testimony was about mundane stuff "on the ground" – events, meetings, people, not about ideas and such, so that his status as a protected witness and a wish to downplay his involvement in the affair couldn't have influenced his testimony very much. And it's pretty clear from this testimony that the state institutions of Serbia basically "took over" parts of Lika (and other parts of Croatia) in everything but the name. --Elephantus 14:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We discussed this above. The testimony was a part of his plea bargain. It is completely worthless as evidence to anything. Nikola 11:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The testimony against Milošević happened almost a year before Babić was even indicted by the Prosecution, so there couldn't have been a plea bargain. Babić himself expressly states this at the beginning of the testimony and confirms that he wasn't promised anything in return for testifying. Also, even if it were a part of a plea bargain that fact alone wouldn't make it worthless - cases where one of the co-perpetrators testifies against the others in return for reduced sentence or immunity are not that uncommon and aren't "worthless". Many crimes are solved and criminals punished in this manner. --Elephantus 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The Greater Serbian part is sourced. But I still see no real relevancy with Lika itself... HolyRomanEmperor 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I understood that Babic's testimony refers to the one given under plea bargain. However, ICTY is not a credible source, and so this still can't be considered as a fact. Nikola 11:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ICTY is as credible as any other source, especially when it comes to details like these. --Elephantus 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ICTY is very uncredible source, and its claims should not be used as facts. Nikola 11:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently Milošević in his cross-examination didn't even bother to disprove the fact that his secret police chief Stanišić was working in parts of "Krajina" including Lika during much of 1991 and later, putting reliable people in positions of influence, distributing weapons, inciting violence etc. --Elephantus 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How is that in any way related to supposed plan to create Greater Serbia? Nikola 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is related in every way possible to the real plan to create Greater Serbia. --Elephantus 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The plan did not exist, so nothing can relate to it. Nikola 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcement
A bunch of historic info coming right up... HolyRomanEmperor 09:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbia's planned annexation of parts of Croatia
...like User:Elephantus said. But why would Yugoslavia (Serbia) withdraw from the war early, in 1992 then. What's more, indeed there was such such thing; but it was specifically meant for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem; an idea that spanned across the (mythic?) Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87-Tu%C4%91man-Holbrooke_Agreement; and fade out completle between 1995 and 1998... Still, it aint Lika... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Velika Srbija
...Nikola, I am a Croatian and a Serbian Frontiersman and there is no one that knows the Croatian/Serbian Frontier history more than me (as you already saw). Why won't you trust me? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't trust you, among other things, because you wrote "Thruought the second half of the 19th century, a Serbian movement was raised, founded by Ilija Garašanin, which called Lika a part of a future Greater Serbia." which is patent nonsense. I wouldn't trust my brother if he would say that. That there exists some plan for creation of Greater Serbia and that Milosevic attempted to do it and that creation of RSK was a part of it and so on is plain Croatian propaganda. I don't trust people who spread propaganda, and now that includes you.


 * You saw pumpkins with the devil, and they have very conveniently smashed onto your head on house of Boshko. As I said, don't expect any help from me. Nikola 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All that I tried to do is draw a middle between you and Elephantus. My original plan was to mention Greater Serbia from the Nacertania of Garasanin and the Cetniks's plan throughout World War II, but to drop the present mention of Greater Serbia. It's creating equality. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Elephantus' version of the article mentioned it once, mine didn't mention it at all, your had it twice. How the hell is that creating equality? You are even more extreme than him! Nikola 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I was planning to put the oppression of Serbian ethnic population in Croatia, the number of Medak assassinated civilians and because I am interested in truth and compromise, not nationalism. --HolyRomanEmperor 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So. You have put excessive and incorrect references to supposed plan of Serbs to create "Greater Serbia" because you were planning to put the oppression of Serbian ethnic population in Croatia and the number of Medak assassinated civilians? What a load of bull. Not only are you interested in nationalism, but you are interested in supporting Croatian nationalism, and what you wrote didn't ever passed close to truth and is complete opposite of a compromise. Nikola 09:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

When I write something; Elephantus is bound to show up and delete (as he usually does to my contirubtions :) I judged this only by the way that he expresses severe nationalist tendencies. I would much rather write a truthful or at least a nearly-truthful article and feed his nationalist hunger than fight pointless edit wars!

By the way, watch your language, you're close to Personal Insults. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what I'm close to, but if you write articles that you know are not fully truthful so that you could satisfy someone's nationalist tendencies, ask yourself what are you close to. Nikola 10:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, fine... I'll leave Lika to be destroyed in a campaign of scorched earth between you and Elephantus. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Elephantus (Returned to the NPOV version)
Elephantus, I have no problem with your rv, but I made many obvious grammatical fixes after the controversial edit made by somebody else, and they have now been lost. Such poor English really reflects badly on all of us - maybe you could look at my edits in the first part and transfer them over? - Adam Mathias 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed that. Will be fixed. --Elephantus 02:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That was quick! Thanks - Adam Mathias 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit War
Hey kids, I think it's time for some mediation. This edit war gets old, and besides, if it weren't for the fact that nobody outside of Yugoslavia has ever heard of Lika, somebody would have definitly cited all of you for breaking Wikiquette. I would suggest that next time you make an edit, think about making it something the other side can also live with. Also, try and use the following rule: if somebody can tell from my edits whether I am a Serb or a Croat, then maybe there is a problem. Instead remove things that are irrational and add things that are informative and cited, as if you were an international observer (though they have their share of sh**). Or you can try imagining the article with the words Serb and Croat switched, and then ask yourself if your edit is in any way bombastic. Also ask yourself if your conduct on Wikipedia is the virtual parallel of the conduct in real life that perpetuates all these problems anyways. Of course, it's much better to type angrily at each other than to shoot angrily at each other, but it's still kind of ridiculous and should probably take place on this page rather than in the actual article. Adam Mathias 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote an article regarding Lika's history, but it turned out into an edit war; mainly fought by User:Nikola_Smolenski and User:Elephantus (but also me) I was going for NPOV but some users kept removing mentions of Greater Serbia while the other side basicly enforces as much mention of Greater Serbia as possible and removing anywhere where Croats are presented as (roughly) the "bad guys" changing the POV against the Serbian side. It's simple as that. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up... Adam Mathias 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too. :) I am putting the entire sentence - out! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Croats and Serbs as constitutional peoples
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.

The first traces are the Croatian-Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.

The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.

The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.

It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.

In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.

That's it.

Croats and Serbs as constitutional peoples
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Croats and Serbs were completly equal on the territory of Croatia in every way.

The first traces are the Croatian-Serbian League that had its roots from Cavtat. It was the leading figure of the Austro-Hungarian Dalmatia. The Croatian delagates signed the agreement in Rijeka and the Serbian in Zadar. Although its goal was to unite Dalmatia with already united Croatia and Slavonia and create a nation-state of Croats and Serbs, it utterly failed due to the First World War.

The tradition was continued in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as well as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia needs no mention. There was only only the short-lived period of the nationalist-driven Croatian Banate and the Ustaša fascist World War II.

The question of Serbs in Croatia was finally decided (during the World War II fight) in 1944 on 8 May and 9 May in Topusko by the State Anti-Fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia. There were two choices: either create autonomous provinces in the likehood of Kosovo and Vojvodina, or create a People's Republic of Croatia as a Republic of two nations - Croats and Serbs and the national minorities. Due to the territorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (all over the place), full constitutional equalty was given. After the 1970s Croatian Spring the Croatian authorities had atempted to push the division of the Croato-Serbian language by stating Croatian or Serbian language instead, technicly having both Croatian and Serbian languages official in Croatia, but formally still as one.

It was evident that the Croatian authorities wanted to seperate from Croatia by the late 1980s; as was evident that the Serbs, disliking a new disunity, would boycott it. According to the constitution, if one nation of a Yugoslav Republic boycotts something (e. g. a constitution), it would be rendered invalid and illegal. The necessity to evict the Serbs from a constitutional nation of Croatia (as Croatia was a nation-state of both Croats and Serbs) appeared.

In a new constitution of 1990 the Serbs were refered to as an ethnic or national minority, rather then one of the nations of Croatia. The constitution was naturally boycotted by Serb delegates, but it was enforced, and after the enforcement there was no more a possibility for the Serb delegates to lodge an appeal. This led to many events one by one - the Serbs desired a full-scale territorial autonomy on a part of Croatia according to the secondary constitutional plan from 1944. The government of Croatia rendered their provinces as illegal and viewed them not as a responce to the nationalist-driven constitution, but as a rebellion. This led to the Serbs' cooperation with the Socialist Republic of Serbia and growing ethnic tensions; culminating when Croatia officially declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, again in the crossfire, the Serbs have officially declared independence from the Republic of Croatia, forming their own Republic of Serbian Krajina... The rest of the story is irrelevant for this exact case.

That's it.


 * Actually, a look at the constitutional texts in question paints a somewhat different picture:
 * Constitution of SRH (1974-1990), article 1, line 2:
 * "Socijalistička Republika Hrvatska je nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda, država srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i država narodnosti koje u njoj žive."
 * Constitution of RH (1990-1997), preamble (the whole nations talk was moved out of the text of the constitution itself to preamble):
 * "Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika inih naroda i manjina, koji su njezini državljani: Srba, Muslimana, Slovenaca, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Madžara, Židova i drugih, kojima se jamči ravnopravnost s građanima hrvatske narodnosti i ostvarivanje nacionalnih prava u skladu s demokratskim normama OUN i zemalja slobodnoga svijeta."
 * So, the only change is in fact an added element of ambiguity (naroda i manjina, nations and minorities), i.e. whether Serbs are to be considered a nation or a minority. But given that they were numerically the largest group and that the word "nation" was mentioned in the text, it could have hardly been any other group but the Serbs. --Elephantus 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that I presented an explaination of why the Serbs' status was degrated. Anyway, regardless that it was simply to evade the "illegal" seccession of Croatia from Yugoslavia because of the expected Serbs' boycott, the Serbian nation actualyy generally looks at this as an act of fascism, since it was contrary to the oldest Croatian Serbian relations document from 1867, after the Croato-Hungarian deal, in which Croats and Serbs were the two peoples(nations) of Croatia. AFAIC, this doesn't cross with the Military Frontier's annexation into Croatia in 1881, so it would be logical that the soil of Krajina was not "Croatian (just)" from the 15th century to 1991 (with a brief strictly Croatian period in 1939-1945). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I provided the relevant constitutional texts above. Both texts (pre-1990 and post-1990) distinguish Croats, with Croatia being their "nation-state" and Serbs, with it being only their "state". No "degradation" of Serbs' status apparent, except maybe for being mentioned together with other ethnicities, but still first, and the definition clearly including both "peoples and minorities". Once again, facts and propaganda should be clearly distinguished in articles, and propaganda claims marked as such. If Serbs interpreted the constitutional change as "degradation", using it as an excuse for seccession, that's a different matter. But, Constitutions mentioned are easily obtainable, can be read, translated and examined. If you have real arguments, it's time to bring them up. --Elephantus 14:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get so baselessly angry :). I'll provide sources that you can view if that is what you need. For now look at Serbs of the former Socialist Republic of Croatia:


 * The attitude towards the Serbs in Croatia was much more favourable whenever the Croats expected some help from the Serbs in solving their difficulties with Austria or Hungary (the 1848 revolution and the war against Hungary, the 186711868 Compromise with Hungary, the national movements of 1883 and 1903). A fine example of the Croatian-Serbian co-operation is the Croatian-Serbian coalition which was the leading political force in Croatia from 1905 to 1918.[18] The partisan movement in Croatia 1941-1945 recognised the Serbs the same rights with the Croats. This movement pleaded for universal equality of lights of all the constitutive peoples in Yugoslavia. National minorities also had considerably greater ethnic lights above those required by international standards. The first article of the Declaration of Basic Rights of the People and Citizens in the Democratic Croatia adopted at the 3rd session of the National Anti-fascist Council of People's Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH) on May 9, 1944, which was the basis of the constitutional and legal development and order first in the People's/Socialist Republic of Croatia and then all the time before the moment when the latest constitution of this republic was adopted (December 22, 1990) reads: "The Croatian and Serbian people in Croatia have entirely equal rights." However, this country was proclaimed the state of Croats in the latest constitution of the Republic of Croatia. The Serbs were reduced to the national minority status It should be emphasised that in World War II on the territory of the former SR Croatia the Serbs fought against the German occupying forces and the Ustashi for a democratic Croatia and their own physical survival. The abolishment of "the status of a constitutive people for the Serbs in 1990 was one of the main reasons of their revolt and rebellion in 1991 Deep in the consciousness of this people was their remembrance of the genocide of 1941-1945 and their great/ear that the same situation might repeat.


 * It is also a fact generally accepted at the Hague.


 * It is true that it was used as a reason to secede from Croatia; but so was the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 in Sarajevo used as a reason to impose ultimatums on the Kingdom of Serbia, and eventually start World War One. In Yugoslavia, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Muslims each had one Republic where they were constitutional; the Croats had two (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the Serbs three (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia)


 * For a better undestanding of Serbs in Croatia in 1944-1990, see Albanians in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


 * You mentioned facts and propaganda. The Croatian side declares it as an attempt to "ease-down" Serbian nationalism and the fact that the Serbs are only a parchment of the population of Croatia (and the they've got Serbia fact); while the Serbian side acused it of fascism and eventually moved to a separatist movement. Both of these views are propaganda. The actual removal of Serbs from the constitution is fact. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the text of the Constitutions again. No removal or significant change in the status of Serbs occured in 1990. --Elephantus 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. Since 1944, Croatia was the land of Croats and Serbs. Since 1974 (Croatian spring), it became a nation-state of Croats, but also a state of Serbs. Since 1990 the Serbs became a national minority. You mentioned that this could be understood differently, but so far, it is generally accepted that the Serbs were left out, or, rather exiled as some people use the word. Can you mark a basis why would you consider that other wise? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Check your facts. Croatian spring was over in 1971. Constitution was proclaimed in 1974. The constitution of 1990 didn't bring any significant changes, as seen from the texts. So, you're claiming that Serbs rebelled in 1990 because of the changes made in 1974? That's another matter. --Elephantus 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, my friend. You have greatly misunderstood everything. The Croatian Spring was in 1971. What I said is it was what forced Yugoslavia to feed the hunger of some nationalist powers in Croatia, three years later drawing a new constitution. What ever did you mean when you said ...check your facts. And you have misundestood; no where did I say that the Serbs rebelled because of the 1974 constitution. In 1974, Croatia was a state of Serbs; and since 1990, the Serbs were one of the national minorities. You yourself put the quote. Sorry. :) You'll have to be more specific if you've got something on your mind.


 * Let me add that since then 1974 the official language of Croatia was Croatian or Serbian language, contrary to other Republics. What I meant to say that it was a rather slow campaign of moving the Serbs out of the image; but the 1990 constitution with its national minorities pushed the matter too extreemly and too far.


 * P. S. - the SR (Socialist Republic) of Croatia is sarcasticly called "Serbian Republic of Croatia" because of its double-nationality constitution. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that some Croatian Serbs had Belgrade do most of their reading (and thinking) for them in 1990 and 1991, but I thought things had improved somewhat in the meantime. --Elephantus 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's hard, now that they have no choice bu to live in Belgrade. :)

Let's take it from the top now:

The 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia:
 * The Socialist Republic of Croatia is the nation-state of the Croatian people, state of the Serbian people in Croatia and the state of all the national minorities that live in it.

The 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia:
 * The Republic of Croatia is... the nation-state of the Croatian people and the state of the members of national minorities, that are its citizens: Serbs, Muslims, Slovenians, Italians, Hungarians, Jews and others..."

Maybe you can clarify how did you get that there was no change in the Serbs' status? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A "mistake" sneaked into your translation of the 1990 document: you translated "inih naroda i manjina" as "members of national minorities" whereas it should read "other peoples and minorities". Now, it's because of "mistakes" like these that I've stopped assuming good faith with you. --Elephantus 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mistake, well, correct me. How would the translation sound correctly?

Let me make a comparison. Presently, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs are constitutional nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In the Republic of Macedonia, two nations are constitutional: Macedonians and Albanians. The others are national minorities.

It's the following: Република Македонија е држава на македонскиот народ,како и на албанците кои живеат vo nea,и на останатите народи во неa како што се срби,турци,власи итн...

You can see how the Albanians are upgraded from a national minority to a constitutional nation. Roughly, in the same manner as Serbs were degrated from a constitutional nation to a national minority. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't obfuscate. You made a specific claim, which has nothing to do with Albanians, Macedonians, Bosniaks or Bosnia. Apparently, you never bothered to read the actual texts of the Constitutions. --Elephantus 22:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to make less personal attacks and more explainations and comparisons. You might also know that people who think that they are always right aren't necessarily correct.

You should also learn this: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppression of the ethnic Serbian population in parallel with the growth of the Serbian nationalism
Regarding this fact that Elephantus deleted, Eleph, please see Human_rights_in_Croatia --HolyRomanEmperor 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Go back to the edit in question and re-read it instead of repeating silliness. If you want to whitewash things here by ignoring such trivialities as chronology of events don't expect understanding or sympathy. --Elephantus 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're being very helpful here, mate. :-D --HolyRomanEmperor 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tesla's picture
The text under the picture of Tesla smells like a POV (some may think that Isaac Newton is the greatest scientist of them all). It should be more neutral. KNewman 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it, so now it actually says a field he is renowned in, and not just that he's the best ever. Candidesgarden (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

?
Why isnt there Geography section?

Constitution of Croatia
I just read the Constitution of Croatia. I noticed that Elephantus was wrong (I hope he didn't intentionally lie) about the Constitution's text. Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Mađara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina i drugih, So, there is no "inih" and Serbs are definately a national minority. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I some single nation in some, let's say imagined state, made 12.65% of general population and some other single nation made 86%. 1.35% would be some other nations and people that are not nationally aware. Let's say those 12.65 divide in to twho groups. One group made of 8% that decided to from their state within this imagined state and other group made of 4.65% total population that decides to live as common and loyal citizens of that imagined state. The 86% group among with the 4.65% suffers heavy bombardment from the 8% group because they have no weapons to defend theirselves. The 8% group sistematically annihilates 35% of that imagined country's territory and claims 18.5% of it's territory. The annihilations take place every day - daytime/nighttime. It doesnt matter to them. They just want to defend themselves although nobody is attacking them. From areas that they find theirs to have there are many unarmed members of the 86 and 4.65% groups. They are certainly in the way so they should find home in "their" country. So it lasts like that for 5 long years. Then, all of a sudden, the joined 90.65% group tired of being abused by a MINORITY OF 8% decides to strike back. They dont want them in their back yard. It is all over in 4 days. No more 8% group.

So if someone asks you - is 12.65% of, lets say metaphorically, correct test answers to get a positive test score, what would u say? Hm...we could maybe talk about 40% with a lower criteria, but 12.65% is an F-. Someone who gets F in a school full o A graders is clearly insigniicant. Maybe this is not the best way to compare, but anyone who looks at this imagined state from some other far away imagind state hardly gets how a minority could possibly abuse all other. Weapons embargo could maybe do the trick.

Mrfgh... Are you trying to justify changing the constituional status? 'cause that's not even the point here. :) And the majority abused the minority, whereas that type of Constitution prevented the majority from abusing the minority. Of course, many (most of the world) would agree that such a guarrantee through the Constituion is needless, and that the minority (Serbs) aren't jeoperdized - however, they would all be wrong - as it turned precisely like everyone feared from 1945 - so yes, that's needed. --PaxEquilibrium 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jankovic not a Serb surname? What was Stojan then - an Orthodox Croat? An Orthodox Croat whose descendents became Serbia's politicians? An Orthodox Croat whose "Tower of Jankovic Stojan" was destroyed by Croatian armed forces during the war because it was a "symbol of Serbdom" in the northern Dalmatian hinterland? --PaxEquilibrium 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself.

Lika vandal
I have already discussed this on your talk page, but wiki isn't your personal website to add whatever you wish. Your edits are blatantly and shamelessly inserting serbian extras into the page. Who on earth cares who the most important Serb Uskoks were? Not even the famous Croat ones are mentioned, and they are the vast majority of the real Uskoks. And I have no idea why the Metropolitanate of Karlovci is so important here, but attempt to explain if you are capable. Lika was part of the military frontier, but those census are just that--for the military frontier of lika, not Lika itself. i don't really have a problem with this part, just explain why it is relevent in the Lika page (besides for Serb users trying to stake a claim that they were some "majority" in Lika). --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reason for revert are:
 * Claim that Vlach is abusive word for Serbs is claim that Vlach nation is not existing in Lika.
 * We are having emperor Statuta Wallachorum from 1630 so if this has been abusive word we are having 1 very rude Habsburg emperor which is speaking against "Habsburg" soldiers ??
 * Deleting claim that Senj Uskoks are must known and strongest Uskoks is funny. I do not know any other group os Uskoks because of which it has started war between christian states which has been in danger from Ottomans.
 * This both deleted claims are for me examples of POV version of Balkan history.. Please show me that I have made mistakes with arguments if not I will revert again. --Rjecina 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. What emerges is an interesting thing - the Turks have never ever called them Vlachs, but "Serbs" already since on - such a term might originate from the usage of the Catholic clergy and Croatian nobility. Nikola Jurisic and Emperor Ferdinand (first half of the 16th century) use only the terms "Serbs or Rascians", at one occasion claiming that they are also called Vlachs.
 * 2. The Varazdin General calls the local Serbs under that name, "Serbs", in two edicts (1604 and 1605).
 * 3. On 21 November 1611 the Papal edict refers to the Serbs that overran Catholic Croatia.
 * 4. Marča Bishop Simeon Vratanja, who accepted the union of the Churches, is ordained by Emperor Ferdinand II as "Bishop of Vlachs and Serbs"
 * 5. In the privileges granted by Ferdinand II of 15 November 1627, they are just called plainly "Serbs"
 * 6. Habsburg rulers of the entire 17th and 18th centuries Rudolph, Leopold, Joseph II, Charles VI and Maria Theresa all just know "Serbs" in their edicts. (see 1690 and 1695 Leopold's edicts for yourself)
 * 7. The supreme War Council in Graz (head of the Military Frontier), the Imperial Chancellor, the Supreme War Council and the Hungarian Court all just know Serbs for that time period. There was a "referee for Serb businesses" and Minister Baron Bartenstein (who was one of the people to hold that spot) issued documents in which he calls them "Serbs".
 * 8. Count George Zrinski settles them in 1602 and explicitly calls them "Serbs or Vlachs".
 * 9. Croatian Ban Acam Bacani in 1696 issues a Protectorate to the Serbian a.k.a. Wallachian people.
 * 10. Bishop Matija Karaman in 1744 calls the Dalmatian Serbs "Servians, that came from Bosnia" and in 1750 claims that ..Austrian from Dalmatian Servs are separated by Mount Velebit...
 * 11. The Zadar Archbishopric from 1760 calls them "Illyrian, Wallachian, Slovin or Serbian people", uniting all names given to it in one sentence.
 * 12. In 1572 eastern half of Slavonia is called Little Rascia in Voflgang Lanz's map. The very same region is in 1706 called Little Wallachia; baron Nechem clearly writes Serbs of Little Wallachia too.
 * 13. Zagreb's Bishop Ignjatije Mikulic in 1688 makes a contract with his Serbian workers, calling them "Serbs, which are usually called Vlachs".
 * 14. Bishop of Nin Blaz in 1609 claims that two emissaries wrote a letter in Serbian, regarding their moving to work in Dalmatia.
 * 15. Bishop of Senj Glavinic (early 17th century) reports that Lika is overflowing with "Serb shismatics"
 * 16. Zagreb's Bishop Viskovic notes the local Orthodox bishop as "Serb Episcop" in his letter from 23 January 1640 and always mentions its subjects as "Vlachs or Serbs".
 * 17. His successor Petretic (from 1648) in decrees almost always calls them "Serbs", but on several times he writes "Vlachs or Serbs"; the language spoken by Varazdin's Serbs he calls "the Serbian language, which we call Wallachian".
 * 18. In 1703 Bishop of Sinj Martin Brajkovic calls the Dalmatian Orthodox "Morlaks or Serbs".
 * 19. Cardinal Kolonic from the 17th century recommends conversions of "Serbs" to Catholicism.
 * 20. Greek Catholic Bishop Konstantnin Stanic in his letter from 1810 writes that there are a lot of "Serb" migrants to Croatia.
 * 21. Mid 19th century Austro-Hungarian ethnographer Karl von Czoernig writes about "The so-called Vlachs". In it he explains that ...although many call them Vlachs, they have nothing to do with the real Vlachs who live at the east of the Monarchy, and that it is a derogatory term for Serbs.
 * 22. In 1596 in some Hungarian sources the Orthodox migrants are called "Serbians or Thracians".
 * 23. In 1770 Croatian writer Adam Krcelic writes about "Duke Kovacevic, a Serb", writes about migrations of Serbs to Croatia and Slavonia and calls them "Serbs, which are ordinarily called Vlachs". He also writes that "...the Croatian Vlachs are not Romans like Vlachs themselves, but they are Serbs".
 * 24. In 1862 the Romanian Metropolitan Saguna in his work "History of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Austrian Empire" writes that "..."Vlachs" is a foul derogatory term used for Serb colonists by the Croatian Catholics, to mark their inferiority and later, to separate them from their own people in the Servian Kingdom".
 * 25. In 1877 Hungarian writer Capalovic writes in his work: "Because of the same faith with the Wallachians, the Roman Catholics also call the Serbs, derogatorily, Vlachs".
 * 26. The Croatian and Austrian historiography always notes that Vlachs in Croatia are Serbs, only called under that name, which is being derogatorily pushed (Konstantin Jireček, Franjo Rački, Vatroslav Jagić, Ferdo Šišić).
 * 27. Croatian Ban Ivan Mazuranic calls them under this name: "the western Serbs Vlachs".
 * 28. In all censuses, Vlachs themselves are clearly separated from the Serbs. E.g. the 1821 population census 125,528 Serbs and 122 Vlachs in Civil Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 29. 15 January 1633, Catholic report from Zagreb: On the territory of the Zagreb bishopric live over forty thousand shismatic souls of Serb ethnicity, which are nominally called Vlachs. They have moved from the Turkish state some 40 years ago and present the only line of defense on those borderlands.