Talk:Serbia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

ARE SERBS AND CROATS THE SAME PEOPLE???

MOST WILL SAY YES WITH 90% CHANCE

  1. NEITHER ARE SLAV AND BOTH ARE FROM A REGION OF IRAN
  2. BOOTH TOOK ON A NEW RELIGION AND MIXED WITH SLAVS

SOME WELL KNOWN HISTORIANS HAVE SAID IF CROATS CAME TO EUROPE VIA POLAND AND UKRAINE FROM IRAN AND SERBS HAVE SOME LINK TO IRAN TOO....NOBODY CAN RULE OUT THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE...SAME TRIBE BUT DIFFERENT NAME ONLY... UNDER YUGOSLAVIA A IRANIAN TEXT WITH PROOF WAS BURNED AS YUGOSLAV COMMUNIST GOVT (PRO SLAV)WANTED ITS PEOPLE TO THINK THEY WERE SLAV ORIGIN...WHAT IS EVEN WORSE THE PROOF WAS THERE THAT SERBS AND CROATS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE...INTERSTING CONSIDERING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO...THEY COULD WELL BE BROTHERS........ ARNT WE ALL ADAM AND EVE OR APE ...ALL ONE....WAR IS OVER GUYS PEACE AND TRUTH...........IF THIS IS TRUE AND ITS LOOKS LIKE IT IS ....WHAT A HISTORY OF BROTHERS WHO DONT EVER GET ON FOR HUNDRES OF YEARS......SO SILLY

Unfortunately there are even more "nationalities" that fit the same description. What is the actual truth is rather interesting but I would say that all are Slavic (non-Slavic background like described is known for Bulgarians).

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say the Serbs and Croats are very much alike and obvously Bosnians and Montenegrins who are a mix of the two (Bosnian = Croats - MN = Serbs)...the Slovenes Bulgarians Macedonians are a mixture of all including others from Europe. I dont see much of a link between Croats and Poland and Serbs with Russia that people talk about

Actually, both, Serbs and Croats are of mixed Slavic-Illyrian-Iranian origin. Original tribes with names of Serbs and Croats were Iranian indeed, but they mixed with Slavs and left their names to the Slavs, who latter migrated to Balkans and mixed with Balkan Vlachs (who were descendants of Illyrians and Thracians). Also, both, Montenegrins and Bosniaks are descendants of Serbs rather than of Croats. PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds right for the first half ONLY i dont think the Bosniaks have any link to Serbia apart from modern history. Just ask them and they will tell you. Although most will be proud Bosniaks they know origin for most was Croat. In the time of Slav settlement in the Balkans - Bosnia was settled by Croats who in turn were became Muslim under Turkish rule...Serbs came much later... In contrast the Montenrgrins are Serbian - only the Boka Kotorska area was Croat settled, rest was Serbian settled... If you look at the map it makes sence...It also shows why Bosnia was anti serb in the recent war while Montenegrins were on serbian side... In the end i would say in modern history people moved around so the former Yugoslavia is very mixed today...Sure todays Bosniaks are even more mixed than those of the first settlement. Serbs might out number the Croats in Bosnia today...but not when the area was first settled. I tell it how it is ...history books show the story of the Balkans, i have never heard of Serbs settling Bosnia nor Croats in Montenegro (apart from Boka). Intersting note is when Serbs started settling Bosnia in the eg 1900s...many Croats moved to western countries Usa Australia etc...thats why Croats outnumber serbs in all western countries by 10,000 to 1.

"i dont think the Bosniaks have any link to Serbia apart from modern history. Just ask them and they will tell you."

They are brain-washed by their daily political agenda, thus they will tell you what their leaders decide to tell you. By the way, what they will tell you is not that their ancestors were Croats, but that ancestors of Serbs and Croats from Bosnia were Bosniaks. Seems that so far you read only Croatian POV, but not Bosniak one. :) And Serbs did not come much latter, but settled in Bosnia exactly when they came to Balkans. Boka Kotorska was also not Croat settled. The border between Serbs and Croats in that time was river Cetina, which is located deep in the Croatian region of Dalmatia. So, my advice is: read Serbian sorces too, not only Croatian ones. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read it in an English book-where it stated that todays Bosnia Herzegovina was once settled by Croats who converted to Muslims and became Bosniaks. This fact is unpopular with Bosniaks as they like to be known as Bosniak and not Croat...the same goes for Montenegrins who dont like to be callled Serbian-same thing...thats what i read. MR Panonian Boka Kotorska has always been Croat settled dating back before 1900s, look at the familes who lived there, majority were Croat. Today is another story. I was just talking about ancient history. If you are fair you would know that Serbs only came to Bosnia when soem Croats fled the Turks. Thats when the Serbs came to Bosnia in big numbers, not prior. But what does it matter, if we are all the same:)

The "English book" will write what it find in non-English sources. If that book is based on the Croatian sources, then it will contain Croatian POV. The best "English book" would be the one which use all, Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak sources. I know that Croatian sources claim that "Bosnia Herzegovina was once settled by Croats who converted to Muslims and became Bosniaks", but Serb sources claim that "Bosnia Herzegovina was once settled by Serbs who converted to Muslims and became Bosniaks", while Bosniak sources claim that "Bosnia Herzegovina was once settled by Slavic tribes who were neither Croats or Serbs, and who settled there before the Croats and Serbs, who were known as "Bošnjani" in the medieval ages, and after they converted to Islam, they became known as Bosniaks". That is about 3 difrerent POVs. As for Boka, from the Croatian POV, not only Boka, but entire Montenegro was Croatian, while from the Serbian POV, half of the Croatian Dalmatia was Serbian. That is about POVs. And we are same from the ethnological point of view, but not from the political. It is not same if one Serb live in the country whose capital is Belgrade or in the country whose capital is Zagreb (Same can be said for Croat). That is where all our problems came from. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said Panonian. Some very good points. History is a bit like that, many points of view on the one topic. Thats why its important to list all 3 versions in the articles, so people know. Everyone has a different take on the history and writes about it as they think its fact. I have read many books on Bosnia because Iam from there. The war was faught because people thought they had aright to Bosnian land. Well done Panonian you make sence...good on ya...

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

sh: Republika Srpska (RS) = en: The Republic of Serbland = de: Republik Serbland

one-word name: sh: Srpska = en, de: Serbland

(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)

some info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html

Srpska - noun and adjective

You have said "using the previous precedents such as the word "hrvatska" (which means both "Hrvatska" - Croatia and "hrvatska" - Croatian as an adjective, f.), the word Srpska was also declared to be a proper noun". There is no precedent with the word "hrvatska". In Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language almost every name of the state is both noun and adjective - Bugarska (Bulgaria), Madjarska (Hungary), Grcka (Greece), Njemacka (Germany), Francuska (France), Engleska (England), etc. So, the noun "Srpska" was not declared to be a noun. The noun Srpska, as the name of the state, the republic or the entity is completely based on language rules and the spirit of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

I propose that you either delete this part (from the words "because the word" to the words "declared to be a proper noun", or to explain the creation of names of states in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian language.

Stevo


This page is still incoherent despite my last edit. Go back to the page history. Some of the old content should be restored. --Jiang 07:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most of the old content seems to be moved to History of Serbia. Nikola 15:18, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Serbia proper"

Avala, I gather from your comment ("VANDALISM! what is serbia proper? stop writing that!)" that you don't like the use of the term "Serbia proper". It is a common term in English (Google returns 9,560 results for it). I've noted its use in English in what I hope you consider an acceptable fashion. -- ChrisO 14:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it is confusing, I for one agree with Avala, Serbia proper is improper. Kosovo and Vojvodina are both part of Serbia proper. --Igor

I hate to join this argument, but 212.62.63.172's last edit was very unprofessional, and I felt as if I should provide some explanation for my revert. Please refer to the Library of Congress' Yugoslavia glossary, which gives the definition of Serbia proper as "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo; the ethnic and political core of the Serbian state." 212.62.63.172, unless you can provide a good argument against the term Serbia proper, I think it is a well-established term in the English language, whether it should be or not, and therefore deserves mention. Please voice your arguments on this talk page, so we can reach a consensus instead of engaging in an edit war. —Bkell 20:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree that it is a common term outside of Serbia, but it should also be noted that the term is controversial within Serbia, since it implies that the other parts are not 'properly' part of Serbia. There are political connotations with its use. Can we use it, but note that it is a loaded term? Mark Richards 17:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ok this term is not disliked it is not controversial it is just not used in Serbia, it is totally unknown. it is probably mistranslated to English. Maybe there is some completely different name for serbia proper in serbian like central serbia or something else which was really badly translated years ago and now that phrase stayed (Hey why Serbians still call Wienna - Bech? Because it is a human habit).You really can not find much pages on serbian that say serbian proper. But ok i think that article like it is now is perfectly all right.

i found some info that "proper" is just Raska region but not whole central Serbia(central serbia is the name used in books and everywhere)

The another example of name confusion is Republic of Serbia(Republika Srbija) and Serbian Republic(Republika Srpska). First one is normal Serbia and second one is part of Bosnia.

One should probably note the existence of the term uža Srbija (literally "narrower Serbia") as it was used during SFRY and probably still is, and it's probably more sympathetic to the nationalist cause. "Serbia proper" does certainly seem to be the common English usage. --Shallot 21:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The use of "proper" in this context has the following meaning, according to my Chambers' dictionary: "used immediately after a noun: strictly so called; itself, excluding others not immediately connected with it. We are now entering the city proper." Used in reference to Serbia, it has the meaning given by the Library of Congress definition quoted above: "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo." That is what "Serbia proper" means in English, nothing more. It's like saying "France proper" to distinguish European France from the Republic of France, which includes various non-European territories. -- ChrisO 22:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit irritated by certain non-native speakers of English presuming to know my own language better than I do. "Serbia proper" has no political meaning - it's purely a geographical term. Is that clear now? -- ChrisO 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just as I am getting irritated by certain non-native Serbians who presume to know my own country better than I do. I keep removing Serbia proper from the section about political subdivisions simply because it is not a subdivision. The text spells it out clearly, in English, for those that can read their own language. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, whether conciously or not, you are oftenly writing about politically loaded terms as if they are not politically loaded. Even if the phrase is not intended to have political meaning, it is percieved as if it is. Nikola 08:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understand your concerns Chris, but I think it is fair to say that there is a political angle to the phrase. For instance, if I were to use the phrase 'Spain proper' in connection with the Basque region, there would be controversy. I think it's use here is entirely appropriate, but there is no such thing as purely and non-political geography in South East Europe right now... Yours, Mark Richards 23:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is only a "political angle" because paranoid nationalists think that it's a sneaky way of saying that Kosovo and Vojvodina aren't part of Serbia. That meaning simply is not true. The term "Serbia proper" has been used for many years - well before the Yugoslav wars - and probably came into use to denote the difference between the core of Serbia and the provinces which it acquired in the early 20th century (Kosovo in 1912, Vojvodina in 1918).
Actually that's wrong, Kosovo was part of Serbia way before that, Vojvodina as well, but this is not the place for such a discussion, because after all this has nothing to do with Kosovo or Vojvodina, right? -- Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While they certainly are part of the modern Serbian state, they have often been distinguished in English from the "original Serbia" (i.e. pre-1912).
Serbia's borders before 1912 do not coincide with the borders of Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is a very different situation to that of the Basque parts of Spain, which have been part of that country for nearly 500 years. As a matter of fact, "Spain proper" has been used, but only to refer to the distinction between European Spain and Spanish colonial possessions. -- ChrisO 23:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Castilla, Galicia, Andalusia, Catalonia, not Spain proper. However, this has nothing to do with Spain or the Basques either.--Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you Chris. Agreed. Mark Richards 23:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Why do you think everything has political connotation

I AM NOT A NATIONALIST! I am just pointing to difference between languages that's all. And you people who watch news whole day are going crazy of politics. If you didn`t know there are other things then politics in this world that we can argue about. Is it so hard to understand that in Serbia is used different term then the term in English? And i think that we have to write about that not just say it`s serbia proper and the end. we have to say that there are different terms ok? ChrisO maybe i don`t know your language as you do but imagine one thing-english is not official language in serbia !!!! THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SERBIAN AND ENGLISH AND IT`S NORMAL. So stop saying that it is disliked in serbia when people don`t use that term! I think I know better what is used in Serbia and what is not! OK? If I get an idea to call Scotland-English grass it doesn`t mean that people in UK are crazy and nationalists and sick if they don`t use it. They just never heard of such thing or it sounds funny in england or there is another term and OF COURSE that it is much better to use original term than the one made outside of country. Of course many people in USA and Australia don`t even know where is London and we are talking about region in one small country in southern Europe. They don`t even care but they will still argue like one woman from USA that was ready to bet that England is not in Europe....

BTW chriso serbia was originally "made" around kosovo and raska back in IX and X century not in 1912. SO I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT WE SAY HERE IN SERBIA WHEN SOMEONE IS TALKING YOU HOW TO DO SOMETHING BUT HE IS NOT INTO IT LIKE YOU ARE: "NEMOJ DA MI SOLIS PAMET" -DON`T PUT SALT IN MY MIND!!!!!

KOSOVO IS IN SERBIA FOR 1000 YEARS TWICE AS LONG THAN THE SPAIN THING ACCEPT IT PLEASE. SO KOSOVO IS NOT SERBIAN COLONY! OR MAYBE IT IS I MEAN WHEN SLAVIC PEOPLE CAME THERE PROBABLY SOME PEOPLE LIVED THERE 1000 YEARS AGO.

  • DON`T SAY NOW THAT I AM NATIONALIST BECAUSE YOU WILL MAKE FOOL OF YOURSELF(ENGLAND WAS NOT ON BRITISH ISLE SINCE 1948-WHAT WOULD I BE IF I WOULD SAY THAT)- JUST TAKE A LOOK IN SOME HISTORY BOOK IF YOU HAVE ONE :(
Thanks - I guess that settles the issue then! Mark Richards 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim to have any authority on this issue at all. After following this debate, however, it sounds to me as if the term "Serbia proper" is an English term that has no counterpart in Serbian. It also sounds as if "Serbia proper" is used (in English) to refer to a geographical region of Serbia that is not an administrative division by itself, much like the terms "Midwest" and "New England" are used in the United States. Please correct me if either of these are incorrect.

I don't understand why some people are so hostile to the inclusion of this term. I will accept that there is no equivalent Serbian term, and that the concept of "Serbia proper" is unknown in Serbia, but this is the English Wikipedia, after all, and the term "Serbia proper" is used in English. I can also understand why people from Kosovo or Vojvodina may be offended by the implication that their provinces are somehow inferior or non-Serbian. However, the Wikipedia should not make moral judgements on the terms it includes. Since "Serbia proper" is a term used in English, I feel it should at least be mentioned in the article. Of course, it should also be mentioned that this term has no Serbian counterpart and is sometimes considered offensive. —Bkell 18:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Jugoslovenska enciklopedija (Jugoslovenski leksikografski zavod, Zagreb, 1981) says (bold font by me):
Srbija /.../ Sastoji se od tri velike teritorijalno-polit. celine: tzv. uže Srbije' /.../, SAP Vojvodine /.../ i SAP Kosova /.../.
Now, this encyclopedia was published in Zagreb, but I'm sure that the geographers and linguists from all ex-YU were involved in its creation. Also I remember from my school days that teachers in Slovenia were refering to so called "proper Serbia" by ožja Srbija. Of course no offence was meant and it was still very clear that the Serbia has authority also on both its SAP's, but it was just a shortcut for the geographical part of SR Serbia that is neither SAP Kosovo nor SAP Vojvodina. Just my 2 paras, with no agenda. --Romanm 21:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful. I wonder if the English term "Serbia proper" might actually have come from Serbo-Croat during the Yugoslav era? How exactly is "uže" translated in this context? -- ChrisO 00:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Uže" is a genitive of adjective "uža", which can be translated to English as narrow or tight or similar. --Romanm 20:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That suggests that your usage is very similar to the English one. I've noted it in the article - thanks again. -- ChrisO 21:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How it comes to be Serbia Proper i do not know. If anything is Serbia proper then it is Vojvodina with all its sheer beauty. we are what serbia has to be proud of. There in Vojvodina, we hate nationism. I for one am glad to see Milosevic in the Hague, it is where he belongs. I am glady an anti-nationalist and i say that the Radical Party of Tomislav Nikolic should be forbidden and Nikolic should join Seselj in the Hague. In Vojvodina we are all democrats, that is our key political belief, democracy and that is how 40 nations live good together. we believe in democracy and anti-nationalism, and that is what makes us more forward than Belgrade the southern serbia and what you call "serbia proper" so called. They are all Turkish influenced in the head. All backward easterners. Arvatov 04.11.2005
Yes, in Vojvodina you are all democrats. Apparently, that is why elected Radical mayor of Novi Sad ;) Nikola 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Serbian uži is the comparative form of uzak 'narrow', so the most literal translation of uža Srbija into English would be inner Serbia (note the small letter in the adjective), which is indeed very close to Serbia proper, I think. Maybe the problem for the Serbian opponents of this term is rather the English adjective. If I look up proper in my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, I see that proper may mean things like 'right, correct, fitting, suitable' etc., which would surely be a bit offensive to those living in the 'wrong, incorrect, unfitting, unsuitable' parts of Serbia. But the adjective has this meaning only if it is put in front of the noun. If it is put after the noun it has another meaning: 'strictly so called', and the dictionary gives the example architecture proper 'excluding, for example, the question of water-supply, electric current, etc.'. So Serbia proper is that part of Serbia which is only called Serbia, excluding parts than can be called by other names like Vojvodina or Kosovo. In my opinion no-one can really take offense against this, or is there any other name for that part of Serbia? -- Buncic 15:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [a German, though with a Serbian grandfather]
If we follow this logic, term "Serbia proper" would be meaningless, as every part of Serbia could be called something else (Sumadija, Timocka Krajina...). Nikola 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I was not talking of any 'logic', I was just trying to explain how the word Serbia proper is meant. But do you have any more 'logical' name for 'that part of the Republic of Serbia that is neither Vojvodina nor Kosovo'? (It is not Central Serbia, as the most eastern and southern parts of Serbia, which do not belong to those two republics, are surely not central.) -- Buncic 17:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Central Serbia is name officially used in Serbia for this region. I do not see how this name could be illogical, since it is central region betwen Vojvodina and Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

UZA or CENTRALNA; CENTRAL OR PROPER

Just for the record if you type

Google search
Uza Srbija 1,500 results
Centralna Srbija 6,480 results
Central Serbia 1,260,000 results
Serbia proper 110,000 results

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I found these Google test results suspect from the beginning, but now I finally got around to checking them. The problem is that the upper searches didn't use quotes, so any pages which have all of the search words on them will be returned, not just those that use the expression. The other problem is that google can't find "uža" if you're searching for "uza". An additional problem is the declension in Serbian, but there's no reason to believe that one expression would appearn uncommonly frequently in nominative. The revised results are:

Google search
"centralna srbija" 961 hits [1]
"uza srbija" OR "uža srbija" 2,300 hits [2]
"central serbia" 14,300 hits [3]
"serbia proper" 20,300 hits [4]

Google is a very useful tool, you just have to learn how to use it. Zocky 12:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More about "Serbia proper"

moved to Talk: Serbia proper Pa pisite na srpskom da vas ceo svet razume. Srbija do Tokija.KImi Novi Sad

The motto

Is there any proof that "samo sloga Srbina spašava" is the national motto of Serbia? AFAIK, it's just a proverb. Zocky 21:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


This symbol Image:Ocisrj.jpg for "samo sloga Srbina spasava" is placed on both national coats of arms. I am not sure if it is written in constitution or not, but still it is widely used here.

That symbol is the Serbian national coat of arms which depicts a cross and four fire-irons ("ocila"), and are not cyrillic letters "C" (= "S). Four C's and "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" are a popular explanation of the coat of arms, but are just legends. There's no official motto of Serbia, AFAIK. Zocky 01:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

legends? nope. ocila asre standing for samo sloga srbina spasava. there are some people whoa are saying that it stands for shamo shljiva shljivu shljivi which is more than funny. Avala 12:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, some points:

  • The coat of arms is completely irelevant. The four ocila were originaly used in the Byzantine as stylized B's and stood for the imperial motto Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileusin ("King of kings, ruling over kings") in Greek. I have seen no reference to "Samo sloga srbina spašava" before 19th century, and the used of the coat of arms by SPC is much older. The reading of the symbol as four C's and its association with the slogan are relatively recent.
  • There is NO website (apart from Wikipedia) which mentions "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" as national motto of Serbia.
  • Article 5 of the consitution of Serbia expressly states that "The Republic of Serbia has a coat of arms, a flag, and a national anthem." No motto is mentioned.

Secondly, i'm removing the motto. Please provide some proof that "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" is the national motto of Serbia before putting it back in. Zocky 14:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OH OK! Please before removing it again - DELETE anthem and flag and everything from UK cause it is not official.

  • Article 5 of the consitution of Serbia expressly states that "The Republic of Serbia has a coat of arms, a flag, and a national anthem." No motto is mentioned.
    • Yes it is in description of coat of arms

Here we go again.

Firstly, the points:

  • Your first point is wrong: The current Law on the coat of arms mentions no motto and there is no motto on the current Serbian coat of arms and there's nothing to describe. If you don't agree, provide proof.
  • The UK example is wrong: The English legal system is fundamentally different, so "official" means different things. At least the flag is officially official. But even if it weren't: the English government officially uses both the flag and the coat of arms (which inculdes the motto), and the flag, the coat of arms and the motto are generally recognized to be those of United Kingdom. OTOH, the Serbian government does not use SSSS as a motto, it is not mentioned once on it websites or in any explanation of the coat of arms and no website claims it to be the national motto.
  • This is an encyclopaedia article, not a wishlist. Only provable facts are acceptable, especially in condensed information.
  • And finally, what's your point? Why would you want the article on Serbia to include a national motto if the country has none?

Secondly, i'm removing the motto. Please provide some proof that "Samo sloga Srbina spasava" is the national motto of Serbia before putting it back in. Zocky 16:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Under Turkish Rule

I thought I'd make a slight edit in just a couple of places on the article. I consider it better to write of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman-Austrian etc. wars. I know that the article is about a political power called 'Serbia' (and the area occupied by modern-day Republic of Serbia) which has reappeared for over a millennium but saying that the Balkan was under the Turks is unfair. To assume that Ottoman is another word for Turk is just wrong. The Ottomans were a ruling elite, just a class who like the Habsburgs, accepted people of all ethnicity and creed, but so long as they spoke the Turkish language (abandoning their own) and accepted Islam - yes they did originate as members of the Turkish nation. However, those to consider themselves Turks were viewed as inferior by the Ottomans - Turks did not support the Ottomans, nor see them as national crusaders. So much so that they too were allies with the Slavs, Greeks and Albanians who had the misfortune to be under a foreign rule. And indeed the modern Turkish state was created when Kemal Atatürk overturned the last remnants of the regime which had terrorised the Balkans for centuries. Some young Turks now choose to see the Ottoman Empire as a onced Turkish Empire because they are ignorant, never lived under it, and years later it looks like national pride. Ragusan 10 November 2005

7th-14th century

Medieval Serbia (7th - 14th century) After this initial blooming of the Serbian state, a period of stasis and retrogression followed. Marked by disintegration and crises it lasted until the end of 12th century. After a struggle for the throne with his brothers, Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Nemanjic dynasty, rose to power in 1170 and started renewing the Serbian state in the Raska region. Sometimes with the sponsorship of Byzantium, and sometimes opposing it, the veliki zupan (a title equivalent to the rank of prince) Stefan Nemanja expanded his state seizing territories east and south, and newly annexed the littoral and the Zeta region. Along with his governmental efforts, the veliki zupan dedicated much care to the construction of monasteries. His endowments include the Djurdjevi Stupovi Monastery and the Studenica Monastery in the Raska region, and the Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos.

Stefan Nemanja - St. Simeon

Stefan Nemanja was succeeded by his middle son Stefan, whilst his first-born Vukan was given the rule of the Zeta region (present-day Montenegro). Stefan Nemanja's youngest son Rastko became a monk and took the name of Sava, turning all his efforts to spreading religiousness among his people. Since the Curia already had ambitions to spread its influence to the Balkans as well, Stefan used these propitious circumstances to obtain his crown from the Pope thus becoming the first Serbian king in 1217. In Byzantium, his brother Sava managed to secure the autocephalous status for the Serbian Church and became the first Serbian archbishop in 1219. Thus the Serbs acquired both forms of independence: temporal and religious.

St. Sava The next generation of Serbian rulers - the sons of Stefan Prvovencani - Radoslav, Vladislav and Uros I, marked a period of stagnation of the state structure. All three kings were more or less dependent on some of the neighboring states - Byzantium, Bulgaria or Hungary. The ties with the Hungarians had a decisive role in the fact that Uros I was succeeded by his son Dragutin whose wife was a Hungarian princess. Later on, when Dragutin abdicated in favor of his younger brother Milutin, the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV gave him lands in northeastern Bosnia, the regions of Srem and Macva, and the city of Belgrade, whilst he managed to conquer and annex lands in northeastern Serbia. Thus, all these territories became part of the Serbian state for the first time.

King Dragutin Under the rule of Dragutin's younger brother - King Milutin, Serbia grew stronger in spite of the fact that occasionally it had to fight wars on three different fronts. King Milutin was an apt diplomat much inclined to the use of a customary medieval diplomatic expedients - dynastic marriages. He was married five times, with Hungarian, Bulgarian and Byzantine princesses. He is also famous for building churches, some of which are the brightest examples of Medieval Serbian architecture: the Gracanica Monastery in Kosovo, the Cathedral in Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos, the St. Archangel Church in Jerusalem etc. Because of his endowments, King Milutin has been proclaimed a saint, in spite of his tumultuous life. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Stefan, later dubbed Stefan Decanski. Spreading the kingdom to the east by winning the town of Nis and the surrounding counties, and to the south by acquiring territories on Macedonia, Stefan Decanski was worthy of his father and built the Visoki Decani Monastery in Metohija - the most monumental example of Serbian Medieval architecture - that earned him his byname.

14th-19th century

Having defeated the Serbian army in two crucial battles: on the banks of the river Marica in 1371 - where the forces of noblemen from Macedonia were defeated, and on Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Plain) in 1389, where the vassal troops commanded by Prince Lazar - the strongest regional ruler in Serbia at the time - suffered a catastrophic defeat. The Battle of Kosovo defined the fate of Serbia, because after it no force capable of standing up to the Turks existed. This was an unstable period marked by the rule of Prince Lazar's son - despot Stefan Lazarevic - a true European-style knight a military leader and even poet, and his cousin Djuradj Brankovic, who moved the state capital north - to the newly built fortified town of Smederevo. The Turks continued their conquest until they finally seized the entire Serbian territory in 1459 when Smederevo fell into their hands. Serbia was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for almost five centuries. The Turks persecuted the Serbian aristocracy, determined to physically exterminate the social elite. Since the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic theocratic state, Christian Serbs lived as virtual bond servants - abused, humiliated and exploited. Consequently they gradually abandoned the developed and urban centers where mining, crafts and trade was practiced and withdrew to hostile mountains living on cattle breeding and modest farming.

Devastated Monastery of St. Archangeles near Prizrena

European powers, and Austria in particular, fought many wars against Turkey, relying on the help of the Serbs that lived under Ottoman rule. During the Austrian-Turkish War (1593-1606) in 1594 the Serbs staged an uprising in Banat - the Pannonian part of Turkey, and the sultan retaliated by burning the remains of St. Sava - the most sacred thing for all Serbs honored even by Moslems of Serbian origin. Serbs created another center of resistance in Herzegovina but when peace was signed by Turkey and Austria they abandoned to Turkish vengeance. This sequence of events became usual in the centuries that followed.

Emigration of Serbs During the Great War (1683-1690) between Turkey and the Holy Alliance - created with the sponsorship of the Pope and including Austria, Poland and Venice - these three powers incited the Serbs to rebel against the Turkish authorities, and soon uprisings and guerrilla spread throughout the western Balkans: from Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast to the Danube basin and Ancient Serbia (Macedonia, Raska, Kosovo and Metohija). However, when the Austrians started to pull out of Serbia, they invited the Serbian people to come north with them to the Austrian territories. Having to choose between Turkish vengeance and living in a Christian state, Serbs massively abandoned their homesteads and headed north lead by their patriarch Arsenije Carnojevic. Many areas in southern Balkans were de-populated in the process, and the Turks used the opportunity to Islamize Raska, Kosovo and Metohija and to a certain extent Macedonia. A process whose effects are still visible today started.

Another important episode in Serbian history took place in 1716-1718, when the Serbian ethnic territories ranging from Dalmatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Belgrade and the Danube basin newly became the battleground for a new Austria-Turkish war launched by Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Serbs sided once again with Austria. After a peace treaty was signed in Pozarevac, Turkey lost all its possessions in the Danube basin, as well as northern Serbia and northern Bosnia, parts of Dalmatia and the Peloponnesus.

The last Austrian-Turkish war was the so called Dubica War (1788-1791), when the Austrians newly urged the Christians in Bosnia to rebel. No wars were fought afterwards until the 20th century that marked the fall of both mighty empires.


Modern Serbia

Serbian resistance to Ottoman domination, latent for many decades surfaced at the beginning of 19th century with the First and Second Serbian Uprising in 1804 and 1815. The Turkish Empire was already faced with a deep internal crisis without any hope of recuperating. This had a particularly hard effect on the Christian nations living under its rule. The Serbs launched not only a national revolution but a social one as well and gradually Serbia started to catch up with the European states with the introduction of the bourgeois society values. Resulting from the uprisings and subsequent wars against the Ottoman Empire, the independent Principality of Serbia was formed and granted international recognition in 1878.

This period was marked by the alternation of two dynasties descending from Djordje Petrovic - Karadjordje, leader of the First Serbian Uprising and Milos Obrenovic, leader of the Second Serbian Uprising. Further development of Serbia was characterized by general progress in economy, culture and arts, primarily due to a wise state policy of sending young people to European capitals to get an education. They all brought back a new spirit and a new system of values. One of the external manifestations of the transformation that the former Turkish province was going through was the proclamation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882.

King Petar I Karadjordjevic In the second half of 19th century Serbia was integrated into the constellation of European states and the first political parties were founded thus giving new momentum to political life. The coup d'etat in 1903, bringing Karadjordje's grandson to the throne with the title of King Petar I opened the way for parliamentary democracy in Serbia. Having received a European education, this liberal king translated "On Freedom" by John Stewart Mile and gave his country a democratic constitution. It initiated a period of parliamentary government and political freedom interrupted by the outbreak of the liberation wars. The Balkan wars 1912 - 1913, terminated the Turkish domination in the Balkans. Turkey was pushed back across the channel, and national Balkan states were created in the territories it withdrew from.

The assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Franc Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, served as a pretext for the Austrian attack on Serbia that marked the beginning of World War I. The Serbian Army bravely defended its country and won several major victories, but it was finally overpowered by the joint forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and had to withdraw from the national territory marching across the Albanian mountain ranges to the Adriatic Sea. Having recuperated on Corfu the Serbian Army returned to combat on the Thessalonike front together with other Entante forces comprising France, England, Russia, Italy and the United States. In world War I Serbia had 1.264.000 casualties - 28% of its population (4.529.000) which also represented 58% of its male population - a loss it never fully recuperated from. This enormous sacrifice was the contribution Serbia gave to the Allied victory and the remodeling of Europe and of the World after World War I.

Kingdom of Yugoslavia

1914-1918 With the end of World War I and the downfall of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire the conditions were met for proclaiming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians in December of 1918. The Yugoslav ideal had long been cultivated by the intellectual circles of the three nations that gave the name to the country, but the international constellation of political forces and interests did not permit its implementation until then. However, after the war, idealist intellectuals gave way to politicians and the most influential Croatian politicians opposed the new state right from the start.

The Croatian Peasants' Party (HSS) headed by Stjepan Radic, and then by Vlatko Macek slowly grew to become a massive party endorsing Croatian national interests. According to its leaders the Yugoslav state did not provide a satisfactory solution to the Croatian national question. They chose to conduct their political battle by systematically obstructing state institutions and making political coalitions to undermine the state unity, thus extorting certain concessions. Each political or economic issue was used as a pretext for raising the so-called "unsettled Croatian question".

Trying to match this challenge and prevent any further weakening of the country, King Aleksandar I banned national political parties in 1929, assumed executive power and renamed the country Yugoslavia. He hoped to curb separatist tendencies and mitigate nationalist passions. However the balance of power changed in international relations: in Italy and Germany Fascists and Nazis rose to power, and Stalin became the absolute ruler in the Soviet Union. None of these three states favored the policy pursued by Aleksandar I. In fact the first two wanted to revise the international treaties signed after World War I, and the Soviets were determined to regain their positions in Europe and pursue a more active international policy. Yugoslavia was an obstacle for these plans and King Aleksandar I was the pillar of the Yugoslav policy.

During an official visit to France in 1934, the king was assassinated in Marseilles by a member of VMRO - an extreme nationalist organization in Bulgaria that had plans to annex territories along the eastern and southern Yugoslav border - with the cooperation of the Ustashi - a Croatian fascist separatist organization. The international political scene in the late 30's was marked by growing intolerance between the principal figures, by the aggressive attitude of the totalitarian regimes and by the certainty that the order set up after World War I is was loosing its strongholds and its sponsors were loosing their strength. Supported and pressured by Fascist Italy and nazi Germany, Croatian leader Vlatko Macek and his party managed to extort the creation of the Croatian banovina (administrative province) in 1939. The agreement specified that Croatia were to remain part of Yugoslavia, but it was hurriedly building an independent political identity in international relations.


The IMORO was created in present-day Bulgaria in the Pirin region as the political wing of a proposed unified Slav Macedonian state which in turn was an ideology originating from Solun (Thessaloniki). The objective was not as much ethnic as geographical, atleast primarily. A succesful IMORO would have created a state marked by the traditional borders of the historical region of Macedonia, which today encompasses most of the FYROM, parts of Albania, most of Northern Greece, the Pirin mountain regions of Bulgaria AND pockets of Southern Serbia, namely the Preševo Valley and Southern and Eastern Kosovo. Ethnic Slavs would then compose the principle population of a nation state by reducing Albanians, Greeks, Turkic nations and non-Slavic nationals to ethnic minorities. I believe that the assassination of King Aleksandar I was committed by a Macedonian FROM the post-1929 Yugoslavia and not one from Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, the Blagoevgrad-based Slav Macedonians had enough problems with their own government in Sofia. They were nominally recognized, it had been the citizens of todays FYROM that had Serbian ethnicity imposed on them - not since the Kingdom of 1919, but before that, by 1913 at the latest when the final chunks of the Ottoman Empire were pushed back and the region as far south as Bitolj was incorporated into Serbia. Ragusan 10 November 2005

Flag change?

Copied from Talk:Flag of Serbia - suggest that both this and other article need updated with new flag as official... Comments? zoney ▓█▒ talk 18:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BBC reported that the flag had been changed to the version introduced in this article as "unofficial". Can anyone verify that everything is done and dusted and that the flag with coat of arms is official as of now? Note that the Serbian coat of arms article has been updated. Should we switch to using the "new" Serbian flag throughout Wikipedia? zoney ███ talk 19:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes it did change, though I wouldn't call this version "unofficial" but "popular". State institutions are obliged to have the flag with the CoA. Citizens and various organisations can (must?) hoist flag without CoA. I'll try to find exact text of the law. Nikola 14:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

constitutional language

The language name changed by anonymous is de jure correct, however, there's more to it...

  • The whole Constitution which the change is based on is relatively out of date, because it's from early 1990, meaning it's still the same Constitution that existed during the SFRY.
  • According to this separate constitutional law there's supposed to be a separate law on the use of the official language and its alphabets, too, which wouldn't change the name (it isn't marked as a constitutional law) but would probably enlighten on how the eastern variant is the only one used.
  • According to this constitutional draft by the 2004 government, the language is back to the now-common name.

--Joy [shallot] 22:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crown Prince

Should the article have something about Crown Prince Alexander II or the royal family? Jonathunder 20:59, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Formal name

The correct full formal name for 'Serbia and Montenegro' is the State Union of... I've amended the main page to reflect. The spelling of Metohija is incorrect in the side panel - there's no reason to use the archaic and rarely-used 'Metohia'. Plus, glancing through the article, there's some poorly drafted bit of 'Politics' in the 'History' section. Other than that, the whole page seems a bit thin for a country with so much, well, history. And no-one even mentions basketball! (JD)

history section

The history section really grew out of proportion. It should be merged into History of Serbia. --Joy [shallot] 23:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ice Cream?

Is Serbia known for it's Ice Cream? A good friend of mine claimed that their Ice Cream is world famous. Is this true? -- Doctor Willars (Click Me!)

Would you like a receipt? --Ninam 06:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? A receipt? But I didn't buy anything... Could you be meaning something else? -- Doctor Willars (Or Me!)

Peerhaps not proper word. Would you like to know how to prepare it, at home. --Ninam 04:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you must mean 'Recipe'. Receipts are small slips of paper generally given out at a store after a purchase, as a 'proof of purchase', similar to a 'Bill' or 'Invoice'. But certainly, I would really appreciate a recipe. How could I acquire such a Recipe? -- Doctor Willars (Even Me!) 02:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ? ?????? ?

Ethnicities

I just thought I would bring it to attention that the side bar shows the population of Serbia without Kosovo, and then directly beneath it is the ethnic groups in all of Serbia. This is very misleading people will think that this is the percentage of ethnicities in Serbia excluding Kosovo is like this and I think we should add a note in brackets that states those stats include Kosovo

If you believe they do not include Kosovo I can pull up government stats...


Djindjic

"After two years of struggle, trying to reform a destroyed country and fighting with people who were afraid of the changes that the new Prime Minister applied, Zoran Djindjic was assassinated in Belgrade on March 12, 2003 by the mafia."

This is propaganda, a theory, it has not at all been proven, there are theories that suggest that Russians set up the kill, that the Americans did, this is only one (although it is the most accepted) theory of many, and I believe it should be stated this way within the article, because if we leave it like this is it seems as if we are stating a proven fact which is not the case.

"Immediately after assassination, Government (Vlada) declared "war" on the mafia and reactionary forces, eventually destroying most of the mafia organization. Zoran Zivković led the Government until a new election was held in December 2003. After almost three months of negotiations, Vojislav Kostunica formed the new Government in March 2004. Three months later, Boris Tadić, successor of Zoran Djindjic as President of the Democratic Party, became the new President of Serbia."

Destroying the mafia? I almost brust into tears laughing when I saw this. Everyhing is still controlled by the mafia in Serbia, even the soccer league, a better way would be to say "eventually attempting to destory parts of the mafia" the reason I say parts is because the government itself is involved with the mafia so we obviously won't see that part of it go away while this government is still in power. Whoever wrote this part of the aricle is pro DSS but we are looking for NPOV, I wish the last paragraph was true but its far from that.

I agree! This is just riddiculous. It's already a big enough propaganda trying to set up Djindjic as a saint, no to mention his "assault on the mafia". The man was a criminal himself, I was personally affiliated to him!

Isn't it a wikipedia standard to avoid any form of personal affection towards a fact in an article?

Constitution from 1974

To explain to User:ProhibitOnions: It made power of central state less. Republics had their own central banks (but also federal bank), their own military organizations ("territorial defense"; but federal army was more important and a lot stronger; TO was the basis of armies of Bosniks, Croatians, Slovenians and Macedonians); but police was republic-based and republic polices was much stronger then federal (police was the other basis of future armies). However, Serbia was decentralized, too; with a lot of power moved to Kosovo and Vojvodina. Other republics wasn't. It should be described into article, too (but my English is not so good). It was even very strange for inhabitans of Inner Serbia. For example: 8 members of collective president of SFRY was: 6 from republics and 2 from regions from Serbia. But, one from serbia was not elected only by inhabitans of Inner Serbia, but from inhabitans of regions, too. So, it can be said that inhabitans of Kosovo and Vojvodina always voted twice. --Millosh 21:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I hope my edit helped make this clear. In a short version of the text, the constitution "increased regional autonomy"; if we have the chance to go into detail it should mention everything you've written here.

What we really should do is take out the history section and instead point to the History of Serbia article, as there's too much overlap between the two. At the same time, there are big gaps in it, including some of the most important times (such as post-WWII) and there was quite a bit of POV in the recent history (in part through omission of other viewpoints), which I hope I've fixed somewhat. --ProhibitOnions 11:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Maps

I think that article now looks ridiculous with 3 maps of Serbia from 9th-10th century. I let User:UCLA-Pasadena to post his propaganda maps at this moment to somehow stop him to delete recent changes in other parts of this article with his constant reverts, but the the maps should be deleted (at least one of 3). Second and third map are absolute the same, and we do not need two same maps in one single article. One of them shoud be deleted, but it is impossible to talk about this with User:UCLA-Pasadena. I tried to on another talk page, but he just deleted and changed my posts on that talk page. I ask other users what to do about this problem? User:PANONIAN

Some edites are reverted

  1. It is not so relevant for this article that Josip Broz was a Croat. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. I would like to see where is the data about population from September 2005. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. www.backabanat.com is not a government link. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. I am not sure that Serbia can be categorized as "former country" because it exists. However, if categorization is strict (i.e. if it is true that Russia didn't exist during Soviet Union; or if it is true that Lybia didn't exist during the Arab Union state) -- it can be true. But, I don't think that Serbia should be in the same category as Roman Empire or Sparta. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The history of Serbia Series!!!

The menu for the "series" and individual files are created. If someone summarizes the history section, the size of this page can drop into limits.--tommiks 02:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


It says that Vojvodina is one of Europe's most culturally diverse regions. 25 ethnic groups. Apart from Romanians, Hungarians, Gypsies and Jews, the rest of them are nothing more than Slavic denominations. There are Albanians but like many of the other Slavic denominations ie.Montenegrins and Macedonians, they are a smaller number as of course, Vojvodina is not a naturally tenable breeding ground for these people. For people who call themselves Serbs and Croats, it is, not least because to its south and west is where the two republics begin and the people are connected. Of course, if anyone wishes to argue that Slavs are a thousand and eighty-six nations with 14 million subnations then why not say that Vojvodina has more nations than people? Let's face it, Hungarians. Hungarians? To the average Slav they are no different, but Magyars can be divided aswell. In and around Novi Sad traditionally you have Erkels but in Vršac and into Romania you have Szeklers, further into Romania and into Molvova you have the Csángo Magyars, the list grows. The traditions from one community to another vary, as does the dialect, and the structuring of the world. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there are more nations, and by this I mean a larger number of races. After subdividing the nations and saying Macedonian Slavs and Serbs are different, Macedonia has over 90 declared names for nationalities, even though 20 of them have only ONE single member each. Crazy! Celtmist 26-10-05 ...oh don't get me wrong, I do love Vojvodina, and Serbia, and all of the former Yugoslavia.

In the interest of Wikipedia's clean-up policy, I thought it a good idea to tidy up a few bits and pieces but made no fundemental changes. I rephrased the paragraph on Nato and Kosovo (and N.A.T.O IS written 'Nato' - only the first letter capitalized!) -I did also edit the 'extremely diverse ethnic' nature of the two provinces Vojvodina and Serbia Proper. Firstly, nothing is 'extreme', that word is too strong to explain a basic variation with no difference from Alsace in France with the rest of France. And by attributing differences to the overlords of a century ago is playing too much into the hands of those against whom Serbian people fought to unite themselves! So I felt it more appropriate to explain ethnic differences in those who remained resident after the Empires were defeated, rather than say that Serbs are different on two sides of a no-longer existing threshhold. That would seem inappropriate one century on with attitudes everywhere having changed. It might be better to say that 'old influences from Non-Slavic' sources are different in regions which were once nationally divided, and this affects the nature of the place known as Serbia, but not the people. Ragusan 22 November 2005

Ragusan, your edits are OK, but, please, log in while you are editing. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

taxation

what is taxation in serbia ? both personal and for companies that want to employ folks ?

Looks alright to me

This article does not look like it needs to be cleaned up and looks normal. Except the fact that it looks like someone from Eur. put all the population (7.000.000) decimals in metric format as well as the same with the area, et al. But, aside from that, it looks okay. Эйрон Кинни 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted material

Here you go:


The roots of the Serbian state reach back to the first half of the 9th century. The Kingdom of Serbia was established in the 11th century, and in the 14th century it eventually became the Serbian Empire. The Empire fell to the Turks after the historic Serbian defeat at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. The Serbian states of Serbian Despotovina and Bosnia managed to survive for another seventy years until they too were annexed to the Ottoman Empire, whose rule would last for the next four centuries despite three Austrian occupations and numerous rebellions. The First Serbian Uprising of 1804-1813 and the Second Serbian Uprising of 1815 resulted in the establishment of the Serbian Principality, which was semi-independent from Turkey, and the formation of modern Serbia. In 1876 Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia declared war against Turkey and proclaimed their unification. However, the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 granted complete independence "only" to Serbia and Montenegro, leaving Bosnia and Raska to Austro-Hungary--which blocked their unification until the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, and WWI (1914-1918). After 1918, Serbia was a founding member of Yugoslavia in its various forms (the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).

No other country page attacks the reader like this, so no reason for the page on Serbia to do so. --estavisti 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

History material I removed from the main page

Someone had to do it. :) I'm aware the text I've replaced it with isn't perfect, but please use it as a base to work from. Here you have the removed material to use:



Serb lands in the 9th century, mostly according to De Administrando Imperio. According to this interpretation, the western border of Serbia was the river Vrbas
Serb lands in the 9th century, mostly according to De Administrando Imperio. According to this interpretation, the western border of Serbia was the river Vrbas
Image:Kpdai30.gif
Greek map of Serb lands in the 9th century, according to De administrando imperio. According to this interpretation, the western border of Serbia was the river Una

Main article: History of Serbia

See also The Serbia Series:

Serbia
Medieval Serbia
Ottoman Serbia
Modern Serbia
Kingdom of Yugoslavia
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Serbia and Montenegro

See also: List of Serbian monarchs, History of Yugoslavia, History of Serbia and Montenegro

Medieval Serbia, 7th – 14th century

Main article: History of Medieval Serbia

The Serbs entered their present territory early in the 7th century, settling in six distinct tribal delimitations:

The first recorded Serb princes were Vlastimir, Viseslav, Radoslav and Prosigoj. By that time, the country had entirely accepted Christianity. In Zeta, today's Montenegro, Mihailo was crowned by the Pope in 1077. At this time, Serbs were Catholics as well as Orthodox. King Mihailo also obtained from the Pope the title of Archbishop for the city of Bar. With this act, the Serbs managed to achieve religious independence. His son, Konstantin Bodin, claimed the throne in 1080, and ruled until his death in 1101. The rulers kept changing and the country accepted supreme protection from the Byzantine Empire rather than from the hostile Bulgaria. Serbia was freed from the Byzantine Empire a century later.

Serbs have not been united since the Middle Ages. The nation was split into several states, which were at times independent but at other times united. The names of those states were Duklja (Zeta), Zahumlje (today's Hercegovina, with the city Dubrovnik), Travunija (Trebinje, part of today's Bosnia and Croatia), Pagania (today's eastern Dalmatia with the Islands), Bosna (Bosnia) and Rascia (today's Sandžak). Eventualy Rascia emerged as the strongest and took the name Serbia instead. The first Serb-organized state emerged under Časlav Klonimirović in the mid-10th century in Rascia. The first half of the 11th century saw the rise of the Vojislavljević family in Zeta. Marked by disintegration and crises, it lasted until the end of 12th century. After a struggle for the throne with his brothers, Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Nemanjić dynasty, rose to power in 1166 and started renewing the Serbian state in the Raska region. Sometimes with the sponsorship of Byzantium, and sometimes opposing it, the veliki zupan (a title equivalent to the rank of prince) Stefan Nemanja expanded his state by seizing territories in the east and south, and newly annexed the littoral and the Zeta region. Along with his governmental efforts, the veliki zupan dedicated much care to the construction of monasteries. His endowments include the Djurdjevi Stupovi Monastery and the Studenica Monastery in the Raška region, and the Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos. The Nemanjići led Serbia to a golden age which produced a powerful state with its apogee under Tsar Stefan Dušan in the mid-14th century, before finally succumbing to the Ottoman Empire (with Zeta, the last bastion, finally falling in 1499).

Nemanjic's Serbia, 1150–1220, during the rules of Stefan Nemanja and Stefan Prvovenčani
Nemanjic's Serbia, 1150–1220, during the rules of Stefan Nemanja and Stefan Prvovenčani

Stefan Nemanja was succeeded by his middle son Stefan II, whilst his first-born, Vukan, was given the rule of the Zeta region (present-day Montenegro). Stefan Nemanja's youngest son Rastko became a monk and took the name of Sava, turning all his efforts to spreading Christianity among his people. Since the Curia already had ambitions to spread its influence to the Balkans as well, Stefan II (Prvovenčani) used these propitious circumstances to obtain his crown from the Pope, thus becoming the first Serbian king in 1217. Actually he was only the first Serbian King to came from Rascia, because the first Serbian king was King Mihailo (1077) from Zeta. In Byzantium, his brother Sava managed to secure the autocephalous status for the Serbian Church and became the first Serbian orthodox archbishop in 1219. Thus the Serbs acquired both forms of independence: temporal and religious.

The next generation of Serbian rulers - the sons of Stefan Prvovenčani - Radoslav, Vladislav and Uroš I, marked a period of stagnation of the state structure. All three kings were more or less dependent on some of the neighboring states - Byzantium, Bulgaria or Hungary. Hungary's ties played a decisive role in his son's Dragutin succession to the throne, on account of his son's marriage to a Hungarian princess. Later when Dragutin abdicated in favor of his younger brother Milutin (in 1282), the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV gave him lands in northeastern Bosnia, the region of Mačva, and the city of Belgrade, whilst he managed to conquer and annex lands in northeastern Serbia. Thus, some of these territories became part of the Serbian state for the first time. His new state was named Kingdom of Srem. In that time the name Srem was a designation for two territories: Upper Srem (present day Srem) and Lower Srem (present day Mačva). Kingdom of Srem under the rule of Stefan Dragutin was actually Lower Srem, but some historical sources mention that Stefan Dragutin also ruled over Upper Srem and Slavonia. After Dragutin died (in 1316), new ruler of the Kingdom of Srem became his son, king Vladislav II, which ruled this state until 1325.

Under the rule of Dragutin's younger brother — Milutin, Serbia grew stronger in spite of the fact that it had to occasionally fight wars on three different fronts. King Milutin was an apt diplomat much inclined to the use of customary medieval diplomatic expedients — dynastic marriages. He was married five times, with Hungarian, Bulgarian and Byzantine princesses. He is also famous for building churches, some of which are the brightest examples of medieval Serbian architecture: the Gracanica Monastery in Kosovo[5], the Cathedral in Hilandar Monastery on Mount Athos, the St Archangel Church in Jerusalem etc. Because of his endowments, King Milutin has been proclaimed a saint, in spite of his tumultuous life. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Stefan, later dubbed Stefan Dečanski. Spreading the kingdom to the east by conquering the town of Niš and the surrounding counties, and to the south by acquiring territories in Macedonia. Stefan Dečanski was worthy of his father and built the Visoki Decani Monastery in Metohija — the most monumental example of Serbian medieval architecture — that earned him his nickname.

Tsar Dušan's Serbia, circa 1350
Tsar Dušan's Serbia, circa 1350

Medieval Serbia enjoyed a high political, economic, and cultural reputation in Europe. It was one of the few states that did not practice the feudal order. Medieval Serbia reached its apex in the mid-14th century, during the rule of Tzar Stefan Dusan. This is the period of the Dusanov Zakonik (Dusan's Code, 1349), a juridical achievement very unique among the European states of the time. Tzar Dusan opened up new trade routes and strengthened the state's economy. Serbia flourished, featuring one of the most evolved countries and cultures in Europe. Some of Serbia's greatest Medieval arts were created during this period, most notably St. Sava's Nomocanon. Tzar Stefan Dusan doubled the size of his kingdom seizing territories to the south, southeast and east at the expense of Byzantium and conquered almost the entire of today's Greece without Peloponesia and the islands. After he conquered the city of Ser, he was crowned as the Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks by the first Serbian Patriarch in 1346. Before his sudden death, Stefan Dušan tried to organize a Crusade with the Pope against the threatening Turks. Unfortunately, he died in December 1355 at the age 47. Modern abduction of the emperor's body revealed that he was poisoned. He was succeeded by his son Uroš, called the Weak, a term that might also apply to the state of the kingdom slowly sliding into feudal anarchy. This was a period marked by the rise of a new threat: the Ottoman Turk sultanate which gradually spread from Asia to Europe conquering Byzantium first and then the remaining Balkans states.

Turkish conquest

Main article: History of Ottoman Serbia
Image:Kosovka devojka.jpg
Kosovka devojka (The Kosovo Maiden), a picture by Uroš Predić

Two of the most powerful Serbian barons in the Serbian Empire, the brothers Mrnjavcevic, gathered a great Army to fight and push back the Turks from Europe. They marched into Turkish territory in 1371 to attack the enemy but they were too confident in themselves. They built a camp overnight near the river Marica in today's Turkey, and started celebrating and getting drunk. During the night, a detachment of Turkish forces attacked the drunk Serbian knights and drove them back to the river. Most of the Serbs were either drowned or killed, thereby annihilating the Serbian army which was gathered from southern states. Having defeated the Serbian army in two crucial battles: on the banks of the river Marica in 1371 — where the forces of Serbian noblemen Mrnjavcevic from today's Macedonia were defeated, and on Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Field) in 1389, where the vassal troops commanded by Prince Lazar — the strongest regional ruler in Serbia at the time —killed Turkish Sultan Murat but suffered a defeat, due to the legendary "sudden departure" of Brankovic's Serbian troops. The Battle of Kosovo defined the fate of Serbia, because after it no force capable of standing up to the Turks existed. This was an instable period marked by the rule of Prince Lazar's son — despot Stefan Lazarević — a true European-style knight a military leader as well as a poet, and his cousin Đurađ Branković, who moved the capital north — to the newly built fortified town of Smederevo. The Turks continued their conquest until they finally seized the entire norhern Serbian territory in 1459 when Smederevo fell into their hands. Only free Serbian territories were parts of Bosnia and Zeta. But they lasted only until 1496. The present-day Serbian territory would be ruled by the Ottoman Empire for the next four centuries.

From the 14th century onward an increasing number of Serbs began migrating to the north to the region today known as Vojvodina, which was under the rule of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time. The Hungarian kings encouraged the immigration of Serbs to the kingdom, and hired many of them as soldiers and border guards. Therefore, the Serb population of this region highly increased. During the struggle between the Ottoman Empire and Hungary, this Serb population performed an attempt of the restoration of the Serbian state. In the battle of Mohač on August 29, 1526, Ottoman Turkey destroyed the army of Hungarian-Czech king Louis Jagellion, who was killed on the battlefield. After this battle Hungary ceased to be independent state and much of its former territory became part of the Ottoman Empire. Soon after the Battle of Mohač, leader of Serbian mercenaries in Hungary, Jovan Nenad established his rule in Bačka, northern Banat and a small part of Srem (These three regions are now parts of Vojvodina). He created an ephemeral independent state, with city Subotica as its capital. At the pitch of his power, Jovan Nenad crowned himself in Subotica for Serb emperor. Taking advantage of the extremely confused military and political situation, the Hungarian noblemen from the region joined forces against him and defeated the Serbian troops in the summer of 1527. Emperor Jovan Nenad was assassinated and his state collapsed.

European powers, and Austria in particular, fought many wars against the Ottoman Empire, relying on the help of the Serbs that lived under Ottoman rule. During the Austrian–Turkish War (1593–1606), in 1594, the Serbs staged an uprising in Banat — the Pannonian part of Turkey, and sultan Murad III retaliated by burning the remains of St Sava — the most sacred thing for all Serbs, honored even by Muslims of Serbian origin. Serbs created another center of resistance in Hercegovina but when peace was signed by Turkey and Austria they abandoned to Turkish vengeance. This sequence of events became usual in the centuries that followed.

Seoba Srbalja (The Moving of Serbs), a picture by Paja Jovanović
Seoba Srbalja (The Moving of Serbs), a picture by Paja Jovanović

During the Great War (1683–90) between Turkey and the Holy League — created with the sponsorship of the Pope and including Austria, Poland and Venice — these three powers incited the Serbs to rebel against the Turkish authorities and soon uprisings and guerrilla spread throughout the western Balkans: from Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast to the Danube basin and Old Serbia (Macedonia, Raška, Kosovo and Metohija). However, when the Austrians started to pull out of Serbia, they invited the Serbian people to come north with them to the Austrian territories. Having to choose between Ottoman reprisal and living in a Christian state, Serbs abandoned their homesteads and headed north lead by patriarch Arsenije Čarnojević.

Another important episode in Serbian history took place in 1716–18, when the Serbian ethnic territories ranging from Dalmatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Belgrade and the Danube basin newly became the battleground for a new Austria-Ottoman war launched by Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Serbs sided once again with Austria. After a peace treaty was signed in Požarevac, the Ottomans lost all its possessions in the Danube basin, as well as northern Serbia and northern Bosnia, parts of Dalmatia and the Peloponnesus.

The last Austrian-Ottoman war was the so called Dubica War (1788–91), when the Austrians newly urged the Christians in Bosnia to rebel. No wars were fought afterwards until the 20th century that marked the fall of both mighty empires.

Modern Serbia

Main article: History of Modern Serbia

Serbia gained its autonomy from the Ottoman Empire in two uprisings in 1804 and 1815, although Turkish troops continued to garrison the capital, Belgrade, until 1867. The Turkish Empire was already faced with a deep internal crisis without any hope of recuperating. This had a particularly hard effect on the Christian nations living under its rule. The Serbs launched not only a national revolution but a social one as well and gradually Serbia started to catch up with the European states with the introduction of the bourgeois society values. Resulting from the uprisings and subsequent wars against the Ottoman Empire, the independent Principality of Serbia was formed and granted international recognition in 1878. Serbia was a principality or kneževina (knjaževina), between 1817 and 1882, and a kingdom between 1882 and 1918, during which time the internal politics revolved largely around dynastic rivalry between the Obrenović and Karađorđević families.

This period was marked by the alternation of two dynasties descending from Đorđe Petrović — Karađorđe, leader of the First Serbian Uprising and Miloš Obrenović, leader of the Second Serbian Uprising. Further development of Serbia was characterized by general progress in economy, culture and arts, primarily due to a wise state policy of sending young people to European capitals to get an education. They all brought back a new spirit and a new system of values. One of the external manifestations of the transformation that the former Turkish province was going through was the proclamation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882.

Southern and Northern Serbia (Vojvodina) in 1849
Southern and Northern Serbia (Vojvodina) in 1849

During the Revolutions of 1848, the Serbs in the Austrian Empire proclaimed Serbian autonomous province known as Serbian Vojvodina. By a decision of the Austrian emperor, in November 1849, this province was trasformed into the Austrian crownland known as the Vojvodina of Serbia and Tamiš Banat (Dukedom of Serbia and Tamiš Banat). Against the will of the Serbs, the province was abolished in 1860, but the Serbs from the region gained another opportunity to achieve their political demands in 1918. Today, this region is known as Vojvodina.

In the second half of 19th century, Serbia was integrated into the constellation of European states and the first political parties were founded thus giving new momentum to political life. The coup d'état in 1903, bringing Karađorđe's grandson to the throne with the title of King Petar I opened the way for parliamentary democracy in Serbia. Having received a European education, this liberal king translated "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill and gave his country a democratic constitution. It initiated a period of parliamentary government and political freedom interrupted by the outbreak of the liberation wars. The Balkan wars 1912–13, terminated the Turkish domination in the Balkans. Turkey was pushed back towards the Bosporus, and national Balkan states were created in the territories it withdrew from.

Serbia in World War I

The June 28, 1914 assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, served as a pretext for the Austrian attack on Serbia that marked the beginning of World War I, despite Serbia's acceptance (on July 25) of nearly all of Austria-Hungary's demands. The Serbian Army bravely defended its country and won several major victories, but it was finally overpowered by the joint forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and had to withdraw from the national territory marching across the Albanian mountain ranges to the Adriatic Sea. On 16 August Serbia was promised by the Entente the territories of Srem, Bačka, Baranja, eastern Slavonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and eastern Dalmatia as a reward after the war. Having recuperated on Corfu the Serbian Army returned to combat on the Thessaloniki front together with other Entente forces comprising France, the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy and the United States. In World War I, Serbia had 1,264,000 casualties — 28% of its 4½m population, which also represented 58% of its male population — a loss from which it never fully recovered. This enormous sacrifice was the contribution Serbia gave to the Allied victory and the remodeling of Europe and of the World after World War I.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Main article: History of The Kingdom of Yugoslavia

A successful Allied offensive in September 1918 secured first Bulgaria's surrender and then the liberation of the occupied Serbian territories (November 1918). On November 25, the Assembly of Serbs, Bunjevci, and other nations of Vojvodina in Novi Sad voted to join the region to Serbia. Also, on November 29 the National Assembly of Montenegro voted for union with Serbia, and two days later an assembly of leaders of Austria–Hungary's southern Slav regions voted to join the new State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

With the end of World War I and the collapse of both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires the conditions were met for proclaiming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in December of 1918. The Yugoslav ideal had long been cultivated by the intellectual circles of the three nations that gave the name to the country, but the international constellation of political forces and interests did not permit its implementation until then. However, after the war, idealist intellectuals gave way to politicians, and the most influential Croatian politicians opposed the new state right from the start.

The Croatian Peasant Party (HSS) headed by Stjepan Radić, and then by Vlatko Maček slowly grew to become a massive party endorsing Croatian national interests. According to its leaders the Yugoslav state did not provide a satisfactory solution to the Croatian national question. They chose to conduct their political battle by systematically obstructing state institutions and making political coalitions to undermine the state unity, thus extorting certain concessions. Each political or economic issue was used as a pretext for raising the so-called "unsettled Croatian question".

Trying to match this challenge and prevent any further weakening of the country, King Alexander I banned national political parties in 1929, assumed executive power, and renamed the country Yugoslavia. He hoped to curb separatist tendencies and mitigate nationalist passions. However the balance of power changed in international relations: in Italy and Germany, Fascists and Nazis rose to power, and Stalin became the absolute ruler in the Soviet Union. None of these three states favored the policy pursued by Alexander I. The first two wanted to revise the international treaties signed after World War I, and the Soviets were determined to regain their positions in Europe and pursue a more active international policy. Yugoslavia was an obstacle for these plans, and King Aleksandar I was the pillar of the Yugoslav policy.

During an official visit to France in 1934, the king was assassinated in Marseille by a member of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization — an extreme nationalist organization in Bulgaria that had plans to annex territories along the eastern and southern Yugoslav border — with the cooperation of the Ustaše — a Croatian fascist separatist organization, although some Croatian and independent scholars do not believe Croatian cooperation was provided or even necessary. It is possible to believe this without being a fascist sympathizer or a Catholic apologist. The international political scene in the late 1930s was marked by growing intolerance between the principal figures, by the aggressive attitude of the totalitarian regimes, and by the certainty that the order set up after World War I was losing its strongholds and its sponsors were losing their strength. Supported and pressured by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Croatian leader Vlatko Maček and his party managed to extort the creation of the Croatian banovina (administrative province) in 1939. The agreement specified that Croatia was to remain part of Yugoslavia, but it was hurriedly building an independent political identity in international relations, much like the Irish Free State so far away to the west.

Serbia in World War II

Serbia and Banat, 1941-1944
Serbia and Banat, 1941-1944

At the beginning of the 1940s, Yugoslavia found itself surrounded by hostile countries. Except for Greece, all other neighboring countries had signed agreements with either Germany or Italy. Hitler was strongly pressuring Yugoslavia to join the Axis powers. The government was even prepared to reach a compromise with him, but the spirit in the country was completely different. Public demonstrations against Nazism prompted a brutal reaction. The Luftwaffe bombed Belgrade and other major cities and in April 1941, the Axis powers occupied Yugoslavia and disintegrated it. The western parts of the country together with Bosnia and Herzegovina were turned into a Nazi puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) and ruled by the Ustashe. Serbia was set up as another puppet state under Serbian army general Milan Nedić. The northern territories were annexed by Hungary, and eastern and southern territories to Bulgaria. Kosovo and Metohia were mostly annexed by Albania which was under the sponsorship of fascist Italy. Montenegro also lost territories to Albania and was then occupied by Italian troops. Slovenia was divided between Germany and Italy that also seized the islands in the Adriatic.

Following the Nazi example, the Independent State of Croatia established extermination camps and perpetrated an atrocious genocide killing of over at least 700,000 mainly Serbs, but also Jews and Gypsies, according to most independent studies of these atrocities; indeed some claim that 1,000,000 Serbs or more died in Croatian concentration camps by many means. The method of killing employed by authorities was to connect exhaust of trucks used to transport detainees to the cabin where they were loaded. This cabin had no fresh air supply, so the detainees would have died on the way to their burial site from carbon monoxide poisoning. This holocaust set the historical and political backdrop for the Yugoslav wars that broke out fifty years later in Croatia and Bosnia–Herzegovina and that accompanied the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991–92.

The ruthless attitude of the German occupation forces and the genocidal policy of the Croatian Ustaša regime, aimed at Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and anti-Ustaša Croats, created a strong anti-fascist resistance. Many Yugoslavs, mostly Serbs, stood up against the genocide and the Nazis. Many joined the Partisan forces created by the Communist Party (National Liberation Army headed by Josip Broz Tito) in the liberation and the revolutionary war against Nazis and all the others who were against communism. During this war, the Partisans killed many civilians who did not support their ideals. By the end of 1944, the Red Army liberated Serbia, and by May 1945, the remaining republics were meeting up with the Allied forces in Hungary, Austria and Italy. Yugoslavia was among the countries that had the greatest losses in the war: 1,700,000 (10.8% of the population) people were killed and national damages were estimated at 9.1 billion dollars according to the prices of that period.

Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Main article: History of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

While the war was still raging, in 1943, a revolutionary change of the social and state system was proclaimed with the abolition of monarchy in favor of the republic. Josip Broz Tito became the first president of the new — socialist — Yugoslavia. Once a predominantly agricultural country, Yugoslavia was transformed into a mid-range industrial country, and acquired an international political reputation by supporting the decolonization process and by assuming a leading role in the non-aligned movement. Socialist Yugoslavia was established as a federal state comprising six republics: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro and two autonomous regions within Serbia — Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija. The Serbs were both the most numerous and the most widely distributed of the Yugoslav peoples.

The 1974 constitution produced a significantly less centralized federation, increasing the autonomy of Yugoslavia's republics as well as the autonomous provinces of Serbia.

When Tito died in 1980, he was succeeded by a rotating presidency that led to a further weakening of ties between the republics. During the 1980s the republics pursued significantly different economic policies, with Slovenia and Croatia allowing significant market-based reforms, while Serbia kept to its existing program of state ownership. This, too, was a cause of tension between north and south, as Slovenia in particular experienced a period of strong growth.

The break-up of Yugoslavia

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up in 1991/1992 following the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Two remaining republics of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, formed in 1992 a new federation named Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (In 2003 this state was transformed into the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro).

Despite the civil wars in neighbouring Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the new country remained peaceful until 1998, when the clashes between Serbian security forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army began.

Between 1998 and 1999, continued reported clashes in Kosovo between Serbian/Yugoslav security forces and the K.L.A in most of the western media led to Nato aerial bombardment, which would last for 78 days. The attacks were stopped following an agreement, where-by Milošević agreed to remove all of his security forces including the military and the police, and have them replaced by a body of international police, in return for which, Kosovo would formally remain within the Yugoslav Federation (See: Kosovo War).

Slobodan Milošević remained in power after the Kosovo conflict. On October 5, 2000 after demonstrations and fighting with police, he was overthrown. The appointment of Vojislav Koštunica became legal when on the following morning, Milošević publicly aknowledged the uprising and thus conceded his presidency. Following parliamentary elections in January 2001, Zoran Đinđić became Prime Minister. Đinđić was assassinated in Belgrade on March 12, 2003 by assailants believed to be connected with organized crime. Immediately after the assassination, a state of emergency was declared under Nataša Mićić, acting Prime Minister for the Republic of Serbia.

In 2002 the Federal Parliament in Belgrade agreed to a more relaxed federation, which would see the national name change from Yugoslavia to the State Union of the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro. The transitional ceremony was inaugurated in Februay 2003. (for more, go to Serbia and Montenegro)



Hope that's enough --estavisti 13:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted parts

Estavisti, I know that you want to make shorter history version, but what you just done is simply not good. You just deleted almost everything, including the link to the main article History of Serbia, as well as the links to the history articles from "The Serbia Series". Also, some parts of the history, which you deleted from this article are not mentioned in any other article except this. I agree that history section could be shorter, but not in the manner in which you done this. We should first discuss here what to delete or move to other articles. PANONIAN (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok Estavisti, I just copy the entire history section to the History of Serbia article. You can now make a shorter article, but try to make it little longer than your first version and also include link to the main article History of Serbia and history articles from "The Serbia Series". PANONIAN (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, try not to delete 90% of the history section but more some 50-60%. You can try to delete parts which are too redundant, but some brief mention of various historical events should stay in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My intent was not to make the perfect history section, but to kick start the process. What I put up was simply translated from sr wiki. However, since the article has been changed back, we're back at square one. I suggest you take a look at France and Croatia to see what I consider to be the ideal length on the country page. --estavisti 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, since I moved the entire former history section to the History of Serbia article, I deleted this section from Serbia article and replaced it with your shorter version. I do not object to general idea of this, but I only objected to the manner how you done it (You simply deleted entire history section with no moving it to the "History of Serbia" article, and you also did not left a link to the "History of Serbia" article in Serbia article). Since the shorter history section is now here, I think that we should expand this a little, since it is too short. PANONIAN (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone had to take the bull by the horns. Dobro je da smo makar krenuli sa ovim.--estavisti 09:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the major problems with the the History section have been dealt with. If you don't have any objections, I think we should turn our attention to the Geography section. It would be best(IMO) to make a new section out of the part concerning administative divisions(again see France or Srbija on sr wiki). The Serbia page should be clear an concise, each section giving a relatively short summary of the History/Geography/etc and the Main articles should be for readers who want to read about something in more depth. Миалим, права је срамота да Србија има једну од најлошијих страна на Википедији, треба се то што брже средити. --estavisti 10:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it OK now? I moved part of the text to the Geography of Serbia and Subdivisions of Serbia articles. PANONIAN (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

DSS and DOS

I've edited the (otherwise also pretty thin) section on politics to amend the incorrect statement that DSS left DOS solely because of the arrest of Milosevic, which as the BBC testifies is incorrect [6]. (JD)

Bezbednosno Informativna Agencija -- help!

Would someone here be willing to come help out with the article about the BIA? It is a very tiny stub right now and could use some help.Katsam 06:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"National Carrier"

Is there any particular reason for mentioning the "national carrier" in the country info box? I couldn't find any other country with this mentioned, and thought I should delete that bit, but thought this should be asked here first... --HJV 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian name

"...before arrival to the Balkans, the Serbs have not left a mark anywhere"....????....who the hell wrote this??? What about Plinius Caecilius Secundus's "Serboi" in 1st century B.C. (Historia naturalis)??? What about Claudius Ptolomaius in Geographica, who mentions Serbs in 2nd century A.D.????(hinterland of Black Sea, Caucausus)??????? I demand this section to be rewritten, so ur suggesting that Serbs have never existed before "ariving" to the Balkans?????It's redicilous......NeroN BG=> [[7]]

Deletion of reference to Yugoslav wars from history section

Some Serb vandal keeps deleting any reference to the Yugoslav wars from the article. This is completely inappropriate, and will be reverted. Other contributors who notice Serbs are deleting the country's recent history again are kindly asked to assist in reverting.

During this time Serbia was ONLY REPUBLIC (The first level administrative division) not a sovereign country, and did not had army but ONLY POLICE, and could not possibly be involved in civil wars in Bosnia or Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 193.157.182.55

There is a user at IP 193.157.182.55 who vandalizes many articles and attempts to pass reverts of his vandalism as - a vandalism. His vandalisms include simple damage to correct spelling but also introduction of lies and unfounded facts to suit his or her own agenda. This can easily be seen from this user's list of edits.

To further point out why the information he is adding is vandalism I will include recognized references to the contrary.

  • "Serb irredentism" does not exist, officially or not. There are no official decisions made to this regard nor any such actions. Some individuals may have expressed their opinions but to a lesser extend than published books on Greater Croatia concept. 193.157.182.55 vandal or anyone else needs to, and will fail, to provide any information to the contrary before making such assertions and accusations.
  • Neither Serbia, nor Serbs, nor Slobodan Milošević caused the war. I addition to this, Serbia was largely not even the participant in it and to significant extent was even less involved than various other unofficial or official "helpers" in the war providing either weapons, funding or volunteer fighters. Slobodan Milošević, disliked by many Serbs and accused by Serbs of much wrongdoing has not actually been found guilty of anything. Franjo Tuđman, Alija Izetbegović and others were just as accused and in my POV, caused the war by eliminating basic human rights of significantly large number Serbs living in their area of influence. In any case, vandal from 193.157.182.55 fails to provide any references (and can not provide them).
  • Vandal mentions death of 200,000 people. That number is first and foremost not caused by Serbia or Serbs alone and is greatly overinflated as well. Actual and official findings can be found here.
  • Vandal has no knowledge of different calendars. Serbs do not have a special calendar. Serbian Orthodox Church uses standard Julian Calendar. Therefore his "New Year" edit making it "Serbian" is incorrect. It is either Orthodox (as Julian calendar is generaly only used by Orthodox churches) but it would be most correct to state that it is "Julian New Year" - neither Serbian nor Orthodox.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Neither Serbia nor Milošević caused the war"? You tell this to the Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, who seems, like the rest of the world, to have an other opinion. This is no place for Serb nationalist propaganda and historical revisionism!! Croatian historian 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course that Serbia did not caused wars in the neighbouring countries. As I said, Serbia did not had its own army to participate in any war. Serbia had only police, and the only war in which this police participated was Kosovo war. PANONIAN (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Post anything you want in talk pages. Do not rename or edit my posts as you did. 2. Criminal Tribunal is the body created to determine the guilt. Milošević, like Izetbegović and Tuđman were all accused but not proven of anything yet. The rest of the world is your private point of view. 3. My reverts are by no means Serbian propaganda. Propaganda requires an effort to actually publicize something, and I actually didn't do anything of sorts. What, on the other hand, you are doing is extremely clear. You are introducing your own imagined numbers not backed by any official body out there and, at the same time, claiming that the cause of it all was the party (Serbia) that had smallest involvment in the war (I am not talking here about Serbs outside Serbia, just like I am not talking about Croats outside Croatia). Wake up! 4. I have added no content of my own, nor I have introduced any unfounded or unbacked facts like 193.157.182.55 keeps doing. 5. As such I am not the one revising history. Your desires to present your own, personal, agenda on the article should be your own. They by no means constitute reality. 6. I am Serbian just like you appear to be Croatian. My relatives have suffered from Croats and Muslims just like yours have, probably, suffered from the rest as well. Do I like either? I certainly do not. But I do not use facts from either tainted source, including Serbian sources in this talk page. On the other hand, you don't even care to disclose the source of your imagination (is there one?)

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that the reference to Yugoslav War has been indeed omitted and I added it, but without introducing false information like 193.157.182.55 does. After all, that information belongs to the description of the war.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic points of view

I've beed accused of being a "Milosevic and Serbian nationalist". However:

  • I did not introduce *ANY* new content
  • I removed POV content that
    • is not backed by any reference whatsoever, let alone unbiased one
    • is simply false according to referenced unbiased sources (UN, one can argue that they are biased against Serbs and Serbia)
    • use of accusations as convictions
    • does not relate to Serbia at all
    • attempts to pass ones personal opinion as Serbia's official policy at any given time (without any proof)
  • I reverted the introduction of Kosovo bordering Serbia instead of Albania. While this, criminally and unfortunately may easily be the case in the future it is not the case yet.
  • I have noted the missed link to Yugoslav Wars and reworded it in the NPOV fashion. I could have easily given my POV which is that Serbia is the main victim of it all, but I did not.
  • I am not "revising" history. That cannot be done. It is what it was. I did not even attempt to introduce any new content as can be seen. I am stating that vandals of this page are either:
    • attempting to reinvent history (not the case, this is not new)
    • attempting to pass their own propaganda as truth (proven false by unbiased references)

I am glad that Wikipedia records history of the article. In a way I am also glad that vandals are doing what they are doing, for following reasons:

  • They are not introducing anything that hasn't already been passed to the world as their propaganda
  • Therefore, they actually achieve nothing they wish by doing so, but
  • They do clearly identify themselves and their ways.

The truth has been hidden from people for too long. Unfortunately, irreversible damage has been done. But the same truth is leaking out and slowly appearing everywhere, not only on Wikipedia. It is unstoppable. People actually now found time to look into what actually happened vs. what they were told happened - this refers to anyone and everyone, whether involved in the war or not.

I know I am still learning about it, from all sources, biased (for or against Serbia) and unbiased. They are all needed to form a complete picture, as the puzzle is not complete without all the pieces in it. Missing pieces are starting to fall into place...

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to address attempts to tie me to Milošević:

  • I opposed him, like most Serbs did (if you are interested in reasons, ask, do not attempt to imply them)
  • I demonstrated against him, like hundreds of thousands of other Serbs
  • I, as most Serbs do, accuse him for many things (abuse of power and would have lynched him if they got their hands on him)
  • I opposed his delivery to Hague because I believe that he should have been tried in Belgrade for crimes he comitted there
  • I still respect the fact that accused is not the same as convicted and that he should have been given fair treatment until proven guilty

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... Liars in disguise of their IP numbers keep vandalizing the article and call it "reverting the vandalism". LOL. I will notify administrators and leave it there. Meanwhile, interested readers must have the means to find out what the history really was for themselves, without believing in invented history of those vandals and check whether or not I have added or invented anything myself.

  • Check previous versions of this article and see the edits.
  • Check related articles on Wikipedia
  • Have a look at Alija Izetbegović's own book "Islamska Deklaracija" (translated as "Islamic Declaration" or "Islamic Manifesto")
  • Have a look at Handzars, recreted by Alija Izetbegovic
  • Go to UN sites or do a search for actual victim count. In fact, just look at Bosnian War article, for example. You'll find the same dispute there, but will also find references and numbers.
  • Do any search and try to find references to official or unofficial attempts at making Greater Serbia. Go to Belgrade and ask people what they think when you find nothing and try to get it out of them. You'll probably find an individual here-and-there, same as with Greater Croatia and... well... just read Alija Izetbegovic's book.
  • Do a search on Fikret Abdić and what happened with him at the beginning of the war.
  • Want a quick summary? Go to What really happened in Bosnia? - written by Francisco Gil-White of Historical and Investigative Research (definitely not Serbian). His point of view backed by numerous quotes and references.
  • Interested in what a Serb had to say? Watch The Avoidable War documentary. Ignore everything but what foreign officials are recorded to say.
  • Interested in Serbian point of view? Go to Serbian government and other sites.

I guarantee you will learn a lot, even if you skip last two.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 13:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I reported the vandalism and will leave it there. Sufficient references are provided to back my edits. There are absolutely no references that back up any content representing invented history added by anonymous, unregistered, users.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 13:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslav wars deleted once again

Once again the Yugoslav wars and any mention of Slobodan Milošević was removed from this article. If someone removed Joseph Stalin and the WWII from the Soviet Union article, that would be similar. I consider that removal and the "fascist" accusations by the User:PANONIAN not acceptable. We cannot allow that Serb nationalists who still dream of a Greater Serbia dictate this article. Croatian historian 12:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are fascist indeed, as one can see from this edit of yours

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ante_Paveli%C4%87&diff=44962956&oldid=44958441

So, if somebody called you a fascist, he was right, because you defend Croatian fascist leader Ante Pavelic.

No, I follow the principle of neutral point of view, which of course also applies to the article you are mentioning. Also in this article I follow the neutral point of view by including Serbia's recent history and revert attempts to ommit it. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Croatian historian 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You do not even remotely follow the NPOV principle. Read about it and familiarize yourself first before you make such false statements: NPOV. Specifically look at the following sections :

  • "Bias" (nationalism, political, religious, sensationalism and geographical all apply to you)
  • "A vital component: good research" - you do not include (or have) any reliable sources for the information you keep introducing.
  • "Characterizing opinions of people's work" it is your personal (I might add uninformed) opinion that you are adding to the article.

Otherwise, Yugoslav Wars should be mentioned in the article if they are not. Of course, the article "Yugoslav Wars" must be NPOV as well, which it is not.

And have all the fun you want before the whole thing is properly resolved. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For Croatian historian: your violation of 3rr was reported and you should expect that you will be banned soon. Second thing, please answer this question: did Serbia had its own army to participate with it in any war? Please do not say yes, because then you are not "h" of "historian". Serbia had only police, and the only war in which this police participated was Kosovo war. And even during this war it was not Milošević who was president of Serbia, but Milan Milutinović. PANONIAN (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The person who will be banned for persistent vandalism is probably you (The very best solution would IMHO be to block all access from Serbia).
Milošević staged the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, and for this reason he was also charged with war crimes related to these wars. It is irrelevant whether Serbia as a state participated with its own soldiers, as long as they supported ethnic Serb gangs and mass murderers in neighbouring countries. ---- Croatian historian 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is article about state of Serbia, so it is very relevant whether Serbia as a state participated with its own soldiers in any war. This is not article about Slobodan Milošević, but about Serbia. Try to understand that before your edits. Also, war crime tribunal never proved that Milošević was involved in wars in Bosnia and Croatia as a president of Serbia, but they only proved unconventional personal connections between Milošević and leaders of Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia. By the way, he was never convicted for anything. PANONIAN (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/r/Talk%7ESerbia_Archive_1_2d00.html"