Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mideur-l
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:01:11 -0500
From:         "Andrej Brodnik (Andy)" <abrodnik@WATDRAGON.UWATERLOO.CA>
Subject:      Re: On Bosnia, and the Plight of Sarajevo, (#803)
              "POOK@ZENO.MSC.COLORADO.EDU" at Jan 12, 93 11:22 am

> From: POOK@ZENO.MSC.COLORADO.EDU
>
> Would smebody be able explain the following: if all the Serb occupied
> regions in the Balkans were given autonomy (along with other ethnic
> regions), these are areas the Serbs occupied in Croatia and B-H, then
> would these areas form a contiguous region to be called greater Sbia,
> or would they be separated by geography.

Depends from which point of view you are looking at the situation. Let
me try to elaborate some of them. The first one is 10th century or so.
At that time Serbs formed such a contigous region, though not so far
to the West as they are now stretching inside Croatia. In 13th or so
century there was established a Bosnian state (not Serbian) and they
were effectively pushed to the East. In 15th century or so Serbs ran
from Turks and they moved to territories they are still living in
Croatia and partially in B&H. At that time also dissolved the afore
mentioned Bosnian state. Some Slavs (mostly those of bogumil faith)
converted to Islam in order to save their lives.

Not much changed until eve of 19th century. The territory was Turkish
with mostly local (Muslim Slavs) rulers. At the break of century A-H
empire got B&H. More interresting was the moment after formation of
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (pre-WWII Yugoslavia). The
official interpretation was that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes are just
three tribes of the same nation (no mentioning of any Macedonians or
Muslim Slavs). Therefore all census data from that time does not
include Muslim Slavs as nation (nor even a tribe).

During WWII B&H was part of Independent State of Croatia, German and
Italian ally. Though the numbers from different sources on the number
of Serbian casualities are different, the common conclusion is that
Serbian losses were big. At the eve of WWII it's up to some sources
and data even possible to claim that Serbs were living on the
contigous territory (but note, once more to emphasize, that Muslim
Slavs were not recognized as a separate nation).

After WWII the possibility to declare onself as a Muslim was
introduced. Serbs are claiming that this was made in order to make
them weaker as Muslims Slavs are only converted Serbs. I'd agree with
Serbs to some degree. Namely the Communists (and Tito on their head)
were aware that they can rule Yugoslavia well if Serbia is weak. But
this was true not only for Serbs but also for Croats (they crushed
their movement in early seventies) and Slovenes (crushing of Slovene
economical liberalization at the end of sixties). Anyway, the census
data after WWII clearly show that Serbs were no more representing a
majority on a contigous territory.

As somebody else already pointed out, this was the real reason for the
war in ex-YU; all Serbs wanted to live in one, contigous country, but
demographical situation was not in favour of this. I still remember a
talk with one of my Serbian friends in late 89 or early 90. We were
exactly discussing this problem and he was fully aware of it, but said
that it will be settled somehow. I'm sure that he was not thinking and
far from wishing of the solution as it is now.

The Serbs, as I said, were aware of the situation that they have the
majority on East (in Serbia proper) and on the West (in Eastern
Croatia and Middle-Western B&H). They tried to establish a "corridor"
to bridge these two territories. They had several possibilities; on
the North through Croatia (key cities there are Osijek and Vukovar,
well Vukovar was a city, but now is a city of ruins) or in South
beside the Adriatic coast (key cities Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar).
This failed and even a greater problem emerged when B&H was also
recognized as a separate country. Therefore they had to fulfill the
plan in some other way. On the South of B&H we have Herzegovina and
key city of Mostar, but to the West of Herzegovina Croats were too
strong majority and hence their attempts failed there. It remained
North and Middle. Roughly in the Middle is Sarajevo. On the North they
managed to establish the corridor. These are actually the areas of the
biggest ethnic cleansing and the situation stands now, they represent
a majority there as well. So they have a contigous country (if you
don't count on all killed and well over 2 million refugees).

As the conclusion I'll add two thoughts. The first one is that the
answer on your question is very hard and, even more, different from
which side you are getting it. IMHO, the only reasonable situation is
one before this war and hence Serbs do not have a contigous country.
Nobody is claiming that the current situation is the one to be
considered as the most proper. Though Serbs, when one brings forward
the argument of majority like to bring forward pre-WWII data.

The second think which needs to be added in the whole storry is also
the problem of the land itself. Namely Muslims were mostly living in
cities, while peasents were Serbs. Now the another argument about the
country also goes along these lines saying, that Serbs own most of the
land and therefore this has to Serbia.

As you can see the situation is very complex. I believe that Serbs
would have much more sympathies on their side and for their cause if
the situation would be settled (from the beginning) in a peaceful way.
But whatever the solution is to be, the precondition will always have
to be to observe the demographical facts and hence have a large amount
of understaning for other side. Balkans are to complex that there can
be one ruling side. Communist were the last such side.

Best regards,

Andrej
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU