From: josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:32:58 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1992Dec15.182440.18541@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.215121.21959@eng.umd.edu> Josip Loncaric wrote:
>>In article <1992Dec12.125633.18428@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>>>In article <1992DOAec10.190436.1759@src.umd.edu> J.Loncaric wrote:
>>>
>>>When I claimed that "the Party of Rights and Clerical wing won over 
>>>Croatia," I was referring to the present days, as well as 1941.  
>>>And I should add in 1914.
>>
>>Your statment is incorrect today, was incorrect in 1941 and 1914.  What
>>is that supposed to prove, anyway?
>
>It seems to me that you have no strong background in the history of the
>internal struggles within Croatia.  The rough division is between
>those who think that Croatian national interest should be found 
>within common South Slavic cause and those who think that Croatia 
>should find its separate way within frames given by Catholic 
>church.

You are still not making any sense.  In the first Yugoslavia, the parties
which thought Croatia should find its separate way included all three
major parties: Frank's Party of Rights, Radic's Croatian Peasant Party
(the major political force in Croatia) and also the Communists.  Only
marginal political groups disagreed.

Now, Communists and "Clerical wing" really do not have much in common.
Besides, the major political force was the Croatian Peasant Party, stronger
than all other parties combined, but distinctly anti-clerical in its
orientation.  Only Frank's Party of Rights could have been "clerical" but
it was in a distinct minority.  So your statement above, and your
attempt at reasoning, are incorrect.

>At the same time I am not denying that for the compromise to be 
>reached, there has to be a profound understanding of the Croatian
>national question among Serbian politicians, combined with the 
>strong pro-Yugoslav party in power in Croatia, and both things were
>always lacking.

And they always will be lacking.  If 70 years did not bring understanding,
Serbian politicians will not suddendly be enlightened.  And for their
part, Croats are unlikely to support a pro-Yugoslav party because it's
a discredited idea.  Frano Supilo, a Croat and one of the founders of
the Yugoslav committee (conceived Nov. 22, 1914; constituted Apr. 30, 1915)
eventually resigned because of his conviction that Serb exclusivism 
would spoil everything.  He was right; but Serbian leaders at that time
were not smart enough to heed his warnings.  Full 76 years later, 
nothing has been learned.  Serbian leaders still reject his equitable
confederation of the South Slavic peoples and push for Serbian hegemony.

>>>>Today, Serbian nationalists want to execute their land grab.
>>>>They are pushing for war, grotesque violence and ethnic cleansing
>>>>in an effort to make coexistence of the two peoples so difficult that
>>>>it destroys borders which had existed for three centuries (except for
>			    ---------------------------------	
>>>
>>>	Which borders existed for three centuries?  This is really too 
>>>much.  You should check about how Dalmatia voted regarding becoming part of
>>>Croatia during the last century! When was Baranja part of 
>>>Croatia?  When was Ilok part of Croatia?  When was Vukovar part of 
>>>Croatia?  When was Krajina part of Croatia.
>>
>>Of the 2,028 km of Croatia's land borders, only 200 km (about one tenth)
>>are sections of the border drawn for the first time since Yugoslavia
>>was first created in 1918.  
>
>>The Croatia-Bosnia border was established in the 17th century.  In eastern 
>>Slavonia, the border along Drava-Danube-Sava rivers was established in 1699
>
>Again missing military frontier?
>Drava, yes, parts of it will be border now!
>
>>and in 1718.  Vukovar and Ilok are within these borders, and have been
>>within these borders some 100 years longer than the USA have been in 
>>existance.
>
>Would you mind checking what was really Croatia here?  I think
>that you are missing many points!  I am not here to give you lessons
>in historical details.
>
>>Military Borderland was no longer military nor a borderland by the 19th
>>century, since Ottoman threat had receeded; thus, it was reincorporated
>>into Civilian Croatia in 1881.  
>
>So is this three centuries?  
>Did someone ask people there whether they want to join Croatia?  

Military Borderland was a defense line established within Croatia in
the 16th and 17th century.  It was a borderland of Croatia, not Serbia.

>So we are left out of Dalmatia again.  How is Dalmatia fitting into 
>this "for three centuries" picture?  Aren't you trying to do 
>something sinful again?

The Croatian border in Dalmatia is over three centuries old.  Across
the border is Bosnia-Herzegovina.

>>...............deleted two points.................................
>>(iii) The 1939-41 Banovina Hrvatska had largely followed the old borders,
>>    and the few changes it introduced in those borders did not survive 1945.
>
>So which old borders? 

See the map.  The present borders of Croatia, the same ones you'd see in the
17th century.

>>Military Borderland was historically a part of Croatia, administered from
>>Vienna for military reasons.  
>
>Oh, are we talking here about historical rights?  Dalmatia was 
>historically under the rule of the following nations, and they all
>have equal if not greater historical rights than Croatia:

Not just historical rights.  This is was a borderland of Croatia, not
of Serbia or anything else.  It was administered differently during
Ottoman invasions for military reasons, but this does not mean that
it had ceased being a part of Croatia.  Dalmatia's masters have indeed
changed in the past 2000+ years.  What does this have to do with the
fact that Dalmatia is a part of Croatia?  And the fact that its borders
are over 300 years old?

>So, the point is that it is important only what is today.  Historical
>rights are food for uneducated nationalists, given by cheap politicians.
>Dalmatians claim that they are Croats, so be it.  If they change
>their mind, and want to be Dalmatians, so be it.  But, Krajina is
>mostly Serbian, so it will be Serbia, and no "historical rights" will
>stop it. If you mention Kosovo, read my posting on that problem.

So Krajina and Kosovo are subject to different principles?  But Krajina
is 300 km from Serbia, while Kosovo is contiguous to Albania.
If anything, it would make more sense to assign Kosovo to Albania than
it does to assign Krajina to Serbia.  Geography speaks against you.

Besides, the solution to minority rights problem is spelled out in the
U.N. charter, Helsinki accords, and in the Croatian law.  Oh, I forgot--
Serbian law does not believe in minority rights--not in Kosovo, anyway.

>>Borderland was returned to civilian authorities in 1881.  Slavonia, in
>>its present form, has been a part of Croatia since 1699.  Dalmatia was
>						    -----	
>Indeed?  Profound sense for historical details, I guess.  Situation
>is much more complex, and includes some reading on the 19th century.
>Also, have you ever seen military frontier on the map? I suppose not.
>Was there any connection between military frontier and present
>days Slavonia?  How does this fact fit with your claim about 1699?

Croatian Military Borderland was a borderland of Croatia, not of Serbia.

>>A month later, unification with the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro
>>followed.  In May of 1991, Croatia held a referendum on independence which
>>passed by 94%.  Today, Croatia is recognized as a separate state.
>
>Sure, as one day Krajina would.  People of Krajina voted 99% to be independent.
       not likely^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^
                                 wasn't this reported as 104%?
(Didn't only those Serbs who favored Krajina's secession - even if they
didn't live in Krajina - get to vote?  This "vote" was a joke.)

>>[in WWI:]
>>>Serbian politicians sought nothing, they were offered what was accepted
>>>as Serbian by everyone.  
>>
>>Huh?  What was accepted as Serbian by everyone?  In particular, Croatia
>>never accepted to be "Serbian."  Who is "everyone?"  Where do you get
>>the idea that Serbian politicians "sought nothing?"  
>
>It depends how do you define Croatia.  Large chunks of Dalmatia were
>offered to Serbia.  Parts of Slavonia were to be negotiated.
>
>Sought nothing which was not accepted as Serbian, should be better 
>sentence. 
>[...]
>Read Safarik, Miklosic, even Jagic where ethnic Croatia starts.

You mean "sought nothing which Serbs did not consider Serbian."  But Serbs
appear to have incorrect ideas of what's theirs, and if the majority
of the population disagrees, tough, they'll just have to be "ethnically
cleansed."  This is akin to racism, and worse.

-Josip
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:236 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10121