From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:24:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec15.182440.18541
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

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.   External factor had huge influence on the strength of those
parties.  Tudjman's work, his speeches and speeches of his HDZ 
officials point from the very beginning that he belongs to the
Clerical/Party of Rights wing.  No matter that HDZ does not 
bear this name.  His " pro-Croatian " campaign was at the same
time strongly anti-Serbian.

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.

This is to prove that situation was essentially same
for Serbs as was in 1941.  The constellation within Europe is
different, there might be better mechanism to protect Serbs in
Croatia from the same type of persecution as in 1941, there are
no Germans to hold Serbian hands, but that is it. 

Of course, Tudjman is less lunatic than Pavelic is, but "vetromlat"
example clearly shows that they are near.  Not ot mention his book.

Unfortunately, now our discussion will get more nasty.  You again
did something you have done few times before:


>>>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
			    ---------------------------------	

Now, we have here statement that has nothing to do with truth!
Instead of admitting that he again exaggerated to leave a good 
impression on the average, unaware and uninterested reader, J.L.
goes on:


>>
>>	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.  

Patchwork history is working here!
So where are those three centuries? And Dalmatia as a part of Croatia
in present borders?  

>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?  


>Baranja became a part of Croatia after
>the end of WWII (it had become a part of first Yugoslavia in 1918, after
>being a part of Hungary).  
>

Only thing which is undisputable up to now.

>Regarding voting, you should check how Croatia voted in the
>referendum on independence in 1991.  This is much more relevant to the
>present situation than what happened 100+ years ago.

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?

Croats voted on their referendum, Serbs voted on their referendum.
And the ex-Socialist Republic of Croatia split.  That would be the
history of the region in one hundred years.


>...............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? 


>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:


- Illyria.  Present day Albanians have rather strong historical right on
whole Balkan peninsula.  Short question: Where was Delminium, thecapital of Dalmatians who fought Romans so bravely?

- Romans - Italians no need to elaborate

- Eastern Roman Empire - thus both Greece and Turkey !

- Croats from Cetina ( Tzentina ) to the north

- Serbs from Cetina to the south, including Ragusa ( Dubrovnik )
( It was always great puzzle to everyone, how did Croats came to the
Dubrovnik? ) This is not to claim that Serbs ever held very city, but
complete surroundings, yes.

- Venice, thus Italy today

- Hungary

- Ottoman Empire

- France

- Austria

- Serbia again ( London Treaty )

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.


>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?


>taken over by Venice in the 15th century, Austria got hold of Dalmatia 

Venice, yes.  But whom from?  Not Croats, you forget that detail!

>in post-Napoleonic era.  With the division of the Austrian monarchy
>into a dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Croatia had been divided into
>regions.  With the end of the WWI, and the proclamation of the State

One of the regions had a name of Croatia.  That is it.  Rest was
by definition not Croatia.  Everything was Hungary !( Dalmatia was under
direct rule of Austria!)  

There is, I have to  admit, still dispute between Hungarians and 
Croats about the status of Croatia within Hungary.  

>of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (by the National Council of the Slovenes,
>Croats and Serbs in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) with Zagreb as its
>capital, Croatia was reunited as a constituent part of this new state.

What was the name of this "state?" Croatia ?  
Was this really a state?  You are again making things look much simpler that
they really are.


>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. ( The same way people of Croatia voted 94% ).

>
>[in WWI:]
>>Serbian politicians sought nothing, they were offered what was accepted
>>as Serbian by everyone.  
>>
>>Milan
>
>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.


>This sentence of yours is simply unbelievable.  First, your guys "seek
>nothing", then they are offered that which they do not even seek and "everyone"
>accepts this.  Then we find that "everyone" apparently does not include
>the inhabitants of the regions never sought by Serbian politicians, who 
>make an attrocious war in order to keep that which they did not even seek.
>


The sentence was about WWI, not present days.  So cheap shot, nothing new.


>Josip


You are reading too much Klaic and offsprings, and he is not
good source.  Representing glorified and falsified history
might seem as a pleasure to you and might look useful to 
show some highly disputable "historical rights."  But it has nothing
to do with reality.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:197 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10040