Talk:Greater Croatia

message: Interesting. I got a death threat on my talk page from someone who's IP is located in Vancouver, Canada.
I wonder who lives in Vancouver. Frankman 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Threat 

message: Could C-c-c-c please explain me what he meant by These ideas have stubbornly persisted from Ante Starčević, Eugen Kvaternik, Mihovil Pavlinović, Josip Frank, Frane Supilo, Stjepan Radić and Ante Pavelić to Franjo Tuđman.
I see no reference for claims that people marked with "" are somehow related to ideas of Greater Croatia. Of course, some people believes that every Croat "stubbornly persist" in idea od "Greater Croatia", but that's already explained in Croatophobia atrticel.
So, C-c-c-c-, could you please give valid references? And, please, do not remove  signs before concluding this conversation. Please, read WP:CITE, just in case. 
--Ante Perkovic 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-c-c-c, please provide references 

message: No doubt that this article deserves many POV-weasel-peacock tags, but in my opinion we should not concentrate our energy on this, but rather try to improve the article itself.
What happens here:
* User:Bormalagurski (Serbiana) copied here a full text of long essay from http://www.suc.org/culture/library/genocide/k7.htm (May 4, 2006)
* The text is copyrighted and it not clear to me, whether the 1997 copyright was lifted by the author, Vasilije Krestic. 
* In every case, we must try to rework the text as thoroughly as possible, not only because of copyright, but also because Krestic is one of the leading Serbian war ideologians: To let his words here unnoticed is IMHO like to allow Goebbels to write encyclopedia article about WW II.
* I've tried (and will try) to remove the most blatant POV parts of the text and to rework the rest. But I am not well-versed in the Balkan history and I need help here.
* There is already a lot of scholarly literature about this complex of question. It would be nice if somebody with access to the literature could help to rework and to source the article.
I hope that at least these questions should be answered:
* Who discovered the term "Greater Croatia"?
* Which Croatian political personalities and parties (if any) used it in their propaganda?
::The concept of Croatian state rights over historical Croatian lands was used by the HSP (Croatian Party of Rights).  During the Yugoslav wars, it supported a unitary and whole BiH, and evisaged a confederation between Croatia and BiH, subject to a referendum in both countries on the proposal.croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is part of the platform of the modern day HSP b/c of the international recognition of BiH. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In his book Da nije bio Oluje (if it wasn't for operation Storm), diplomat for BiH and Croatia, Vito Rugas notes that Tudjman had no such plan as it was in the interests of Croatia to have Bosnia as a tampon zone.  He also noted that partitioning BiH would result the kiss of death for the Croat regions under Serb occupation.  The Croat community Herzeg-Bosnia was a necessary step in the absense of the govt of BiH protecting it's citizens form Serb aggression for a number of reasons including a)to form a bulkwark to protect the region of Dalmatia in Croatia; b) vehicle to ensure the cultural and political rights of Croats andas such a bargaining chip in international negotiations; & c) in the worst case scenario of Western govts recognising Serb gains and abandoning BiH, it would join Croatia proper. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Evidence provided at the ICTY by Croat left wing political opponents, Josip Manolic and Stipe Mesic claim that Tudjman was obsessed with concept of the Banovina of Croatia and fattening the unnatural croissant shape of Croatia.  Peter Galbraith, ambassador to Croatia during the Yugoslav wars testified in the trial of "the Bosnian Croat 6", that Tudjman thought that Bosnia was an artificial state and reiterated the notion of Tudjman's interest in the historical precedent set by the Banovina of Croatia that existed in the first Yugoslavia. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Pavelic on the other hand was an extreme militant offshoot of the Party of Rights that supported the notion of national rights over historical Croat lands i.e. BiH.  croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Other Tags: What Happens Here 

message: Removed 
although they had never been a part of Croatia.
from
In their programme of 1893, the Rightists included Styria, Carinthia, Kranjska and the whole of Bosnia and Hercegovina.
because it is inaccurate.  Most of modern day Bosnia, West of the river Vrbas was part of the medieval kingdom of Croatia.  Under Kings Tomislav and Peter Kresimir IV, the boundaries included all of modern day BiH. Note that modern day Western Bosnia was known as Turkish Croatia up until the massive Vlach migrations in the 17th Century when it became known as Bosanska Krajina. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit 

message: I wonder why Red Croatia isn't mentioned in the article. The whole story plays an important role in this subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Croatia? 

message: I object to the negative bias of the Serbian contributors to this article. This article is regularly edited by individuals that I cannot term as anything else but Serbian propagandists. Serbian contributors unfortunately should be restricted from contributing to articles about other nations and ethnicities in the Balkans as apparently they are unable to do so without bias and with respect to facts. 
I will personally do my best to glance over this article whenever I have the time, and will edit with an eye to accuracy and neutrality.
- r.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.183.154 (talk • contribs) 
:Mister anonymous, please stop blanking parts of the article including references. Your opinion that "Serbian contributors should be restricted from contributing to articles about other nations and ethnicities in the Balkans" show much about you, about who you are and about why you are here, and therefore I doubt that any serious discussion with you is possible. PANONIAN (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you first blanked references in the article and now you claim here that article cannot be verified (in the exact momment when you blanked those reference I knew that your next step would be to claim that article cannot be verified, so is any other comment needed?). Also, if you consider that any part of this article is biased, please say it here (It is not good that we have biased articles, of course). And regarding borders, I only support those borders that were drawn to protect Serbs from genocide and persecutions. PANONIAN (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do it, I hope we will cooperate. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This was just one long ad hominem attack. Please make or counter points. Personal attacks only reflect poorly on the strength of your own case.--estavisti 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References can be easily verified - you can come to library in Serbia, and you can see that these references exist. What stopping you? There is simply no rule that references for English Wikipedia should be in English. They can be in any language if their content is translated here into English. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For mister 70.70.183.154: those borders that I support were defined by the International community (not by Serbs) and Serbs are majority in the territories encircled by these borders, so I really do not understand what you talk about? Regarding ethnic cleansing, I already said that I support these borders to PREVENT ETHNIC CLEANSING, not to support it. Regarding the references, this is English Wikipedia but it also accept references written in other languages, so I do not see why mentioned references would be "irrelevant". If the content of these references is translated here into English, then such references could be used (another question would be usage of non-translated non-English text from these references, but since everything is translated, I do not see what possibly could be a problem here). And yes, please refrain from personal insults, ok? If you say that somebody is "unable to free himself of his own particularly repulsive bigotry and bias", then you should prove such statement, not just to repeat it 1000 times like a parrot. PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't kid yourself that the Serbian exodus from Krajina was a fairy-tale in which the national army did nothing but peacefully move in and the population just relocated willingly. They left just as "willingly" as the pre-1991 Croats from Krajina did, and just as willingly as the Kosovar Albanians left Kosovo before March 1999, just as willingly and free from violence and threat as Serbs continue to drop in number in Kosovo today. If I were to believe everything my own relations down in Macedonia told me about the 2001 Albanian crisis, I'd believe that from many Western Macedonian villages, Albanians left peacefully too, but I know for a fact contrary to what my own kith and kin have told me that Macedonian security forces did comit atrocities to wipe out some of the villages even though western media never even reported this. People do not leave just because power has switched, not at least in tens of thousands, not in straight colonies, not on trucks with as many belongings as can fit having left the rest behind, not with the old women reduced to tears, struggling to walk: my grandparents, God rest their souls, never left their homes through World War II, not when their village was under the Germans, nor the Bulgarians, and this despite dangers and local unrest, so what the Hell would have caused them to go in their final days if not evicted? Now look from the Croatian angle, many of those Serbs were active in holding Krajina for four years, I don't mean those who took up arms, I mean those who sponsored them, those who supported Serb Krajina from within, those whose name the Krajina-Serb authorities were representing. Without such sentiment, there could have been no would-be Serbian state inside Croatia's present borders in the first place. I am strictly neutral when it comes to "which land should belong to whom" but that does not mean that I deny when one comits atrocities. Evlekis 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That the Serbs were ordered to evacuate by their own leaders is not disputable: it is a matter of public record. JWDL Discussion Florence Hartmann: Possible Gotovina defence witness? -r.64.59.144.21 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is the same all over: in all cases where people flee there is recommendation by their own leaders to do so ahead of an onslaught. Be that as it may, tens of thousands do not flee in the fashion that these Serbs did, and nobody would leave if there was no threat. If the national army simply said "we are taking over", then naturally there would have been civilian casualties because those civilians did themselves support the administration which controled the region for the last four years. And if you want to believe those sources, I'll find you thousands saying that the Armenian massacres never happened in the Ottoman period either. You can dispute and prove anything with plain internet documents. Evlekis 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  objection to bias 

message: My sympathies and condolences for all who may have suffered in any of the wars in the Balkans. My hope is that, for the sake of all parties past and present, we can make this article a testimony to the truth, reflective and impartial. Let's try to see if we can start adding in citations to references to improve the scholarly nature of the work. --Petercorless 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sympathies and gentle entreaty to cite references

message: It is funny how Serbian books are good enough source for articles Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia. Maybe I am little paranoid but this sources are POV. In near future I will start to edit this article so that can become really neutral. For now using copy/paste I have changed begining of this article with words from article Greater Serbia. In my thinking nobody can say that this statement in this article are POV and in article Greater Serbia is neutral. --Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The 20th century section is entirely POV. How could Radic or Macek have supported a Greater Croatia? Croatia did not even exist as a political entity during the majority of their political careers, so the very idea of them supporting "greater" Croatia makes no sense. --Thewanderer (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th Century

message: I removed :Image:Greater Croatia 01.png. I marked it with {[tl|fact}} 51 days ago, and noone reacted. 
Tnis image is pure propaganda. Today, noone in Croatia calls for moving borders that far to the east. Some of the areas have never benn part of any fictional Greater Croatia. I don't understand who created this image and based on which sources. It would be nice if someone could make some image that isn't a propaganda. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created it back when I was still trying to work with Boris Malagurski... In retrospect, it was a mistake and I fully support the removal of that image. I intended to revise it later, but never came around to it. Sorry for any trouble it may have caused. --Dr.Gonzo (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Greater Croatia 01.png 

message: And that is that Croatia never expressed a collective political desire "spread" into "historical Croatian lands". There was never any "conquering", "imperialism", "invasion" or such involved. The closest to realisation of the aforementioned "greater Croatian" (a term that made up, because there is no such thing as Velika Hrvatska mentioned as a political programme, as opposed to Velika Srbija, which is an existing term still often used by politicians, sang about in songs etc.) state was that of Independent State of Croatia, which was in itself, a nazi puppet state, and there was never an "army of Croats", invading and claiming the whole of Bosnia and wider areas to the east. It was merged with Croatia politically, but there was never any "forceful invasion". 
Moreover, a vast majority of Croats today (as back than, after WWII) are/were ashamed of the atrocities commited by such a regime and are not the supporters of such ideas. The supposed plan of "expanding" to historical lands of Croatia is made up. It never existed in such a way. What did exist were atrocities commited by ustasha regime. What did exist were historically Croatian lands lost after the invasion of Ottomans, and some others which were lost as well as gained in various periods of history (also known as territorial changes, see territorial changes of Poland, for instance). But there was never a national Irredentism or expansionism in Croatia as it is known in various European countries. This is simply false.
The term itself is coined after the term "greater Serbia" (ofcoures) in order to equalise the guilt for ethnic violence that occured in 1990s. However, unlike the greater-Serbian national program, which had it exact proponents, exact historical periods of functioning, exact parts of lands to be occupied, exact supporters and clear messages with clear definition, none of such thing existed in the case of Croatia. Hard to believe that? Go figure. Lands occupied by Yugoslavia for Yugoslavia, some of which trully reside in present-day Croatia? Yes. Croatian lands which were occupied and annexed for the political purpouse of "broadening the Croatian territory"? None. When was there a political programme in Croatia as defined by this article? When? Who were the politicians who executed and supported them? What was the name of the "Croatian Army of Conquerers"? None, never.
Thus, this whole article is a made up thing. There was Croatian Nationalism, and there were crimes commited by Croats. As they were crimes commited by any nation. But there is no such thing as Greater Croatian homegrown political programme. It's silly.
And while we talk about "historical areas" (a topic that I wouldn't personally want to touch with a 30 meter stick), let's take into consideration the number of areas which were taken and occupied in various periods throughout the last few centuries. How about partition of Poland and it's territorial changes. How about German occupations, and Soviet occupations. How about the partition of Galicia, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Dobrudea, Alsace, Lorraine etc. Or definition of Hungary-Slovakia border? Or massive expulsion of Germans after WWII? At some point in history, there was a need to say: "STOP!" and the territorial borders to be firmly defined. As such, almost all European nations feel and think that there is something at some point in history that was "taken away" from them. In much larger conflicts which involved incomparably larger (by numbers) ethnicities then Croats. As such, I find it ridiculous that this is mentioned as an "expansionist programme", when far larger and more massive atrocities and expansionist/militarist/colonialist ideologies have been happening and are still happening throughout the world.
Peace, everyone!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.47.24 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is just one problem here 

message: The image :Image:Map of ndh.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Map of ndh.jpg

message: There are no sources for this article except for Serbian nationalist propagandist writers. The "improvement" of this article is done by removing peacock terms and biased sentences, and even this is not done properly. Since the sources for the article remain the same (and those are serb propagandist writers), it's still the same thing. The Croatian expansionism as written here never existed. Or if it did, it was never executed. Since Croatia is not one of the states that ever executed any proper imperialism, expansionism, risorgimento movement or so, this article must be deleted. Or else we should write about any national movement as "Greater *insert country name*", whether this is Israel, East Timor, Zimbabwe, Poland, Finland or any other.
But we don't do it. Because there must be proof of this. Such as sources written by unbiased writers. Which there is none of here. Therefore, if the topic of Croatian expansionism ever gets mentioned by some writer (such as the case with Phillip Cohen and greater Serbian imperialism), than an article like this can be written. 
But when there are no proofs, then this topic mustn't be opened, as it is harmful to the reputation of Croatian people. Harmless unbiased visitors will stumble upon this topic as a link and get a wrong impression. And since this is a world-wide visited internet encyclopaedia, it's a pretty important thing to clean it from such lies and biased propaganda.
So shall we, please, delete it...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.22.208 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove this article! 

message: ...that Croatian objections towards this biased article have been continously ignored.
I also see that some user stubbornly refuse to listen to the Croatian side.
And Croatian, side claims that the term Greater Croatia doesn't exist as an irredentist ideology. Therefore it must be removed. When some unbiased source from any other country outside of successors of ex-Yugoslavia writes it down, it can stay. But untill then this is just a fiction.
I kinda have a theory that some people here obviously refuse to listen to Croatian side deliberately. Something's going on here. There's no even hand to regulate this, because if it were, this article filled only with Serb propaganda wouldn't be allowed here. 
Read Phillip Cohen's "Serbia's secret war" to understand where these sources and texts come from. After that, we can talk about Croatian Nationalism. If there's an article on Croatian nationalism in it's pure form, which never includes ideas of imperialism, then we can deem this piece of crap superflous. THERE'S NO GREATER CROATIA AND THERE WAS NEVER A FULLY REALISED POLITICAL PROGRAM AS SUCH. REMOVE IT!!! NOW!!! AND STOP SPREADING HARMFUL LIES, DAMMIT!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.18.211 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I SEE... 

message: i would like to see a map added, just so people can see what lands the craotas are claiming  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.115.39 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding a map 

message: I'm 26 year old and have lived in Croatia my whole life. Never ever, have I heard of anyone talking about "Greater Croatia". 
You people, those who wrote this article -- who the hell are you and what do you gain by spreading this misguiding propaganda?
This article is no more true than say "Greater Slovenia", "Greater Albania", etc. It should be deleted outright.--85.10.50.109 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is fiction 

message: I only have one totally straight-forward question. Under the image/map in the upper right corner it says, quoting: "Maximum extent of lands claimed by advocates of a Greater Croatia", while below under the second section titled "Birth of the modern idea of a Greater Croatia in the 19th century", the article mentions twice (or even more, I only quickly read it) also areas of land in the present-day Slovenia (for example, "provincial names" mentioned in newspaper Hervatska: Southern Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Gorizia), actually, as you can see, it's quite many areas, not just one or two...
So my question is then: why these territories being part of Republic Slovenia (and just as a by the way: these territories were never inhabited by Croatian folks, at least not in numbers worth mentioning, with the exception of Burgenland Croats) are also not in red color on the map since, again, it says "Maximum extent..." (the term "maximum" is the key/problem here) below the image.
/UPDATE: OK sorry all, I see that this was already mentioned/discussed above under Map section, however, I won't delete this section of mine (though it's redundant) for "legacy/archiving purposes".
--Wayfarer (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, proponents of the term Greater Serbia (Croats) measure the extent of lands claimed by Serbs by wherever the areas of the Balkans populated by more than 50% Serbs. I see no reason why the same standard shouldn't apply to Croatia, of course there is the entire "Kill a third, convert a third and exile a third" mentality which may make it hard to mark off areas on the map. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why areas in Slovenia are not included in the map? 

message: Hello, I saw you are trying to add a lot of data  without any references. You inserted one today (wapedia that is mirroring wikipedia information. only in this case, information from the Croatian wikipedia project). Wikipedia (or pages that mirrors information from it) can`t be used as a reference (self-reference issue WP:CIRCULAR). If you want to insert any data, please try to provide references for it WP:SOURCE, in this case at-least one reference per section. If you have any questions don`t hesitate to ask. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge data addition - no references 

message: I've been writing this stuff from my own experience and knowledge so i didn't provide sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.117.44 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the way Wikipedia works, so sorry. Content must have reliable sources because otherwise it cannot be verified by the reader. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I have explained also everything in the previous section. Please consult it to understand further this problem. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But i provided refs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.117.44 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You provided wappedia (wapedia is mirroring wikipedia information. only in this case, information from the Croatian wikipedia project). Wikipedia (or pages that mirrors information from it) can`t be used as a reference (self-reference issue WP:CIRCULAR)). There are a few that are acceptable, but still most of then doesn`t have any references. Please provide references for the data you are trying to insert, or if you want, insert only data (sections) that you have valid references for -WP:SOURCE. Adrian (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I provided most of references

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion