From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:56:30 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Dec10.190436.1759@src.umd.edu> J.Loncaric wrote:
>In article <1992Dec10.092847.18344@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec8.143904.8166@src.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>
>[Quoting Sabrina P. Ramet's article in the Fall 1992 issue of the "Foreign
> Affairs:]
>

P for Petra?   Just asking.

First we have:

>>>This article also confirms what we both know: that Serbs and Croats had
>>>in fact "lived together peacefully for centuries prior to the twentieth
	    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>century."  "There was no rancor until after World War I, when the two
>>>nations united in a single state."  
>>

This is utterly untrue! I have shown this here:

>>The author is rather ignorant of the internal differences within
>>Croatia.  For example, author skips that Serbs had to wait for
>>Ban Ivan Mazuranic to leave his office to be allowed to use their
>>alphabet and many other events. Author skips the history of the battles 
>>between Clerical and National wings, etc.  Author skips the conclusion
>>which is easily made, that finally the Clerical wing, and the Party of 

I might have not been precise enought.  I am referring to the present 
days, as the time when there is final victory.  So continuity is easily seen.

>>Rights won over Croatia.  Author should go through still
>>existing texts of debates in Croatian Assembly from the last century.
>>Author skips the treatment of the Serbs during the WWI by Croats.
>
>Author does not discuss 19th century.  


So, if the author does not discuss this, how is this article relevant
to the roots of the Serbo-Croatian dispute?  

	I'll soon start posting relevant historical documents
about early relations, where I'll clearly show how Catholic Church in
Croatia viewed the "problem of Shizmatics ( spelling?)."  This includes 
Serbs, protected by Austrians and Hungarians, as well as Protestants, who 
had no one to protect them.  This will show the continuity of the 
Croatian Catholic church politics from early 17th century to the present
days ( interviews of Cardinal Kuharic ). 



>    	.............................Author summarizes the essential
>difference in Croat-Serb relations before and after they were united
>in a single state.
>

How?  If it is like you claimed, than it summarizes wrongly.

>It is blatantly incorrect to say that "the Party of Rigths won over
>Croatia."  The majority in the Croatian parliament was commanded by


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.

>the Croat-Serb Coalition, and this persisted until the parliament had
>been disbanded at the end of the WWI.  As you see, Croats and Croatian
>Serbs could and did cooperate very well, until the "first Yugoslavia"
>was formed.  

As shown in "Great Process in Zagreb."  You will probably write now
few pages of text trying to prove that this was an Austrian plot 
to split Serbs and Croats.  53 Serbs in Croatia, not ordinary Serbs, 
but educated ones, were accused that they were Serbs.  One of them 
was even accused of eating 4 croasans for breakfast, for this is 
"dangerous nationalism," because there are four S ( C ) on Serbian
coat of arms. Looks like a joke, except for Serbs in Croatia.  For
them this was not a joke.

The Croato-Serbian relations were good only when Austrians or Hungarians
would try to repress both of the nations.  Whenever Croats reached any
kind of agreement alone with Austrians they would try to 
destroy Serbs. 

>
>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.


>a brief period between two world wars, under administration of the
>Serbian king).  
>

Quite contrary, Croatia looked most like this under 1939 deal.

And, you are jumping in your own mouth:

>Mr. Stojanovic, of course there were political debates between Croats and 
>Croatian Serbs in the 19th century.  Most of this had to do with the return 
>of the military frontier to the civilian control.  This military frontier
>(which came into being as Croatia was under attack by the Ottoman empire)
>was no longer necessary since the Ottoman threat had receded.  This area,
>which had been under direct control of the Austrian monarch, had no
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So it was not Croatia.  As a matter of fact it was not Croatia for
many centuries.  Not to mention Dalmatia and Slavonia, as non-Croatia
for much longer.    Dalmatia, how to define Croatian
national interest and Croatian nation were constantly debated in 
Croatian Assembly, but you conveniently skip those things.

>military purpose by the middle of the 19th century.  The "military
>frontier" was no longer military nor a frontier.  Over the previous
>two centuries, many Serbs fleeing from Ottoman persecution had settled
>there, accepting the role of part-time border soldiers in exchange for
>various priviledges granted by the crown.  But, once the need to be
>border soldiers disappeared, they found it very hard to give up those
>priviledges.  ..........

>>>This makes sense, otherwise how
>>>on Earth could the idea of forming a common state have arisen?  
>>
>>Either this or loose half of "historical territories?"  Dalmatia
>>was already split between Italy and Serbia, Bosna was declared
>>Serbian, parts of Slavonia also.  Serbia was victorious in WWI, if
>>you remember.   Croatia was on the other side. So the common state was
>>matter of life or death for Croatia.
>
>You are talking about the situation as the WWI was ending.  In WWI,
>you can say that Serbia was on the winning side, but Serbia was hardly
>victorious.  Serbia had been badly hurt in that war, its army had to
>flee, and returned only at the end of the war, after being reconstituted
>in exile.  Serbian politicians sought repayment for Serbia's suffering
>by asking for expansion of Serbia into the southern Slavic portions
>of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.  


Have you ever heard of London Treaty? 1915?
Have you ever heard about collapse of the Southern front?  What event caused
the pull-out of Bulgaria from the WWI and collapse of the Austro-Hungary?
I guess yes, but you are unwilling to represent them here, because
it does not fit into picture you are trying to present here ( of course,
few pages more of irrelevant arguments would be produced now ). 
Serbian politicians sought nothing, they were offered what was accepted
as Serbian by everyone.  

>
>-Josip


Milan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia