Talk:Greater Croatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sign

This "article" looks more like a very long, one-sided rant rather than a neutral POV encyclopedic article. Putting up a warning sign, as is customary. Frankman 01:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't just put an NPOV sign without discussing the elements which you consider to be POV. I'm removing the sign untill you explain which parts of the text, which is mostly facts and quotes, you consider to be POV. --serbiana - talk 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll start out by being perfectly honest with you, so as to save us much time and frustration. I am a descendant of croatians, and as such I have sympathy for the country and its people. According to your profile you were born in serbia-montenegro, and enjoy writing articles for the serbian-wikipedia, so you obviously must have sympathy for the serbian point of view.

The theme of this article is obviously contentious to say the least. It is also obvious that it is a counterpoint to the Greater Serbia article, which is also controversial, albeit more well-known. Straight up front I will confess that I *DO NOT* have in depth knowledge of the ideas or events expressed in this article. My main peeve is that it presents a very long, lop-sided account of events, stating speculation as fact without adequately referencing those speculations within the article. Also, the wording reeks of POV.

I would like to see the following:

  • That controversial statements within the article be linked to an external source.
  • That the wording be changed to a less "fanatical" tone. eg: "...on the basis of unimpeachable sources..."  ???

I will try to help with this in the following days

Peace. Frankman 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your honesty. Now, let me be honest with you. I'm half-Serbian, half-Croatian, but have decided to declare myself as Serbian, simply because I lived most of my life in Serbia ('till I moved to Canada), I don't speak Croatian, and I'm Christian Orthodox. I understand your simpathy for your people, and it's a good thing to have connections with your ancestors. I am aware of the controversy of the article and even though you haven't proved any lies, half-truths or incorrect facts in the article, I will agree on the NPOV tag. The text in the article is mostly from a certain book, and most of it is quotes of Croatian historians, politicians and writers. If you think the tone is "fanatical", I will read over the article again, and try to remove that tone. Or actually, we could work on this together. Facts are facts, you can't change them. But, you can't change the text that stands around the facts, and thats what makes a article POV. Therefore, I accept your plea to make the text more NPOV and hope we can work together to make this a neutral article with all the facts expressed in an encyclopaedic manner. Also, please don't erase parts of the article before discussing it, OK? All the best, --serbiana - talk 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I need referneces to specific quotes from Tudjman which make him a promoter of a "Greater Croatia". Do you have that?

I already know that there a good people and bad people on either side.

Like the guy in the movie Philadelphia said: "Explain it to me , like I was a 4 year old" .. What is Greater Croatia" Frankman 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) PEACE !!!!!

-) war is for idiots (mostly,... unlesss its for self-defence)
Here's something to read, while I'm looking for that quote you asked for. --serbiana - talk 06:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How can one have spent much of their life in Serbia and claim not to "speak" (understand) Croatian? Slovenian, Croatian, and Serbian are similar enough that these languages are mutually intelligible. Obviously "serbiana" - Boris Malagurski - is at the very least being disingenous, to put it politely. Personally, I don't believe that this individual should be permitted to contribute any articles about Croatia/Croatians etc., as their bias and dishonesty toward this subject is blatantly evident. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of facts and information, and should not be abused by propagandists with an agenda. - r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.183.154 (talk • contribs)

You are wrong! Slovenian is not similar to Serbian or Croatoan. Serbian and Croatian are one language=Serbocroatian, which is called Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian from political reasons. Slovenian is a totally different language and is as distinct from Serbocroatian as is Macedonian and Bulgarian; Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.127.107 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 February 2007

No, you are wrong, a language like "Serbocroatian" does not exist, it is an artifical term for a language made in the former yugoslavia so they all would speak one "language". Croatian and Serbian are not exacly the same as you can see here: Differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. Oh and by the way, i am Croatian and i can understand slovenian perfectly well. So much for slovenian being totally different than Croatian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvukk (talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 May 2007
There are 3 croatian dialects chakavian (Istria, Dalamtia), kajkavian (Zagorje - next to Slovenia! and Slovenian language is kajkavian too!) and stokavian (Slavonija, Lika, Dubrovnik) which is offical dialect in Croatia at present. Serbocroatian doesn't exist.
Genetically Slovenians are more similar to Croats; R1b+R1a+I1b= Slovenia 78%, Croatia 85%, Serbia and MonteNegro 56%, but Serbia without Montenegro even a smaller percentage since the most of I1b was found in Montenegro and a lot of E3b, J2 and K(?!) in Serbia.
R1a (Easteuropean or Slavic) haplo group distribution: Slovenia 37%, Croatia 34%, Serbia 16%
Serbian is stokavian dialect of Southslavic languages and is the most similar to Croatian stokavian. 83.131.128.160 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NO, YOU are wrong and spreading lies on this page! The only similar Croatians to Slovenians are the kajkavian Croatians from Zagorje, and you are probably one of them. Most of the Croatians-Dalmatians, Slavonians,Dubrovnik are STOKAVIAN, which makes them most similar to SERBS, who are STOKAVIANS as well. The truth will kill YOU and those like you, but ALL THE STOKAVIAN speaking south Slavs are ONE and SAME people, either you call them Serbs or Croats. That's the truth, which some morons try to hide and ignore, but not for long! Those artificial divisions on Serbs and Croats are becoming less and less accepted everywhere in the scientific world. And all that TRASH you wrote about some 'genetic' experiments is just a part of your propaganda, nothing else. Serbs and stokavian Croats, (who are 80% of all Croats) are same people! They have same mentality, same language, same phisical appearance etc. The orthodox of them are Serbs, and the Catholics of them are Croats! That's the truth and everyone normal knows it! Simple and understandable! And whatever bad you say to this, it will adress only to you and your level of intelligence! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 August 2007

I think we have already discussed in many other articles that speaking a particular language doesn't have ethnic (ie biological) significance. Examples: indo-european languages and the concept of an indo-european aryan race conquering europe, Hungarians speaking an 'asian' language, but are largely a european people, etc, etc. Similarly, one cannot say that the shtokovians were one 'tribe' that settled in serbia and most of croatia and serbia. Its just too simplistic and may lead to wrong conclusions. Fact of the matter is, it is almost impossible to untangle the ethnic millieu the western balkans back in 600s AD. in fact, they were all simply slavs, back then all spoke the same language ! whether they were in dalmatia or novgorod ! Serbs and croats were just one of the many slavic tribes that settled in the balkans. They subsequently emerged as particularly influential tribes that croatised and serbianised their neighbours to varying extents and at varying times. The idea of serbian and croatian people began centuries later, ie 10th century at the earliest. One just cannot deny the parrallels between serbs and croats. Even the names have same roots. You serb and croat nationalists destroyed Yugoslavia ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Greater Croatia is something I have heard here in Croatia only as a joke associated with the term Greater Serbia which is in official political usage in Serbia at the moment and in the past.
This article is just Serbian propaganda.
The map of Greater Croatia shown here is the map of Croatian kingdom from 10th century under the king Tomislav (crowned 925.)83.131.128.160 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving a dispute

I see that user Elephantus has changed the template to Totally disputed. I'd just like to point out that I have absolutely nothing against the template, but I'd like for that user to express what he considers to be problematic, so we can peacefully try to resolve the dispute before resorting to a revert war, like on other similar articles. Let's show that we can be civilized, even when it comes to controversial articles like this one. Peace. --serbiana - talk 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that the present text is an almost verbatim excerpt of the Vasilije Krestić's book "Through genocide to a greater Croatia", a silly propaganda piece which is completely unencyclopedic and takes much liberty with both its "facts" as well as its style. This is like creating an article on Zionism from excerpts of the Mein Kampf. Completely flawed. --Elephantus 10:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


If there are actual quotes, why would it be propaganda? Are you claiming that such an ideology doesn't exist? --serbiana - talk 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Badly written I'm neither Croatian nor Serb, I just came upon this article while reading about irredentism. I must say it's a very poor article. Lacking knowledge about the topic, I cannot express any view on how correct the content is. What I can say it that the article is badly written, unorganised, confusing and uses a language that is more in line with propaganda than encyclopedias. If there is any foundation for this article, I suggest that it is rewritten. As it is now, it fails to live up to the standard of Wikipedia articles.
Yes, I agree with you that article should be better. It is basically mostly a translation of the parts of quoted book, and it need a much more work. However, it is a start at least. PANONIAN (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Elephantus. This looks like a cut and paste job lifted from a bad propaganda piece. e.g: "(the croats are) Known for their religious bigotry"  ???? WTF !!!??? Plus,..nothing is cited! You can't just paste a whole chapter of a book and cite it as a reference! The whole thing should be removed or completely remade. Frankman 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You can remove the PARTS of the article that you consider wrong, but certainly not "the whole thing". Greater Croatian ideology based on the "Croatian state and historic right" is well known issue. PANONIAN (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as greater Croatia idelogy

You see the map of the greater Croatia. Croatia had this land in the begging of the settlement of the Croats during the 7th centuary. There are old Croatian maps that show that all this land was croatia. Such maps as during the rain of king Tomislav in the early 9th centuary. How can serbs deni that. --Marbus2 5 10:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point of the article: Croatian nationalists claim that lands that belonged to Croatia in history should be again part of Croatia according to the "Croatian state and historical right". The point is that all irredentist ideologies are based on some kind of "historical right", i.e. these ideologies just pick some part of the history in which lands in question belonged to one state and then claim that these lands should belong to that state today or in the future too (of course, these ideologies always ignore historical periods in which lands in question belonged to other states). Greater Croatian ideology is not different than any other irredentist ideology. We can even say that it is a typical one. PANONIAN (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
PANONIAN, I can not understand you. This are the Croatien regions. Your work in "Serbians region" is the same. -- The Bisantyn
No, it is not same. I worked on an historical article which listed political entities that were inhabited and ruled by Serbs during the history, but I do not claim that these lands should be again part of Serbia because they were part of Serbia in some part of the history. I also have nothing against that Croatian historians mention that Bosnia or Srem were part of Croatia in one historical period, but problem is when somebody claim that these lands should be again part of Croatia because they were part of Croatia in one SMALLby part of the history. That is what this article is about. The "Croatian state and historical right" concept have no intention to speak about history of Croatia, but to speak what lands should be part of Croatia in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not, we settled in these lands first as a country why cant they go back to croatia. Bosnia was croatia land form early 7 centuary to the mid 15 centuary then the invashion on croatia was made By the ottaman empire conquring the whole Croatia. Later on the centuary when the Austraian empire were closing in on the ottaman empire. The Austrains were just off the border of croatia when they asked the croatians to rebell against ottaman rule. White croatia, Pannoska croatia and a part of Red croatia rebeled successfully. while Bosnia and Red Croatians parts of today Hezegovina and Montenagro failed due to strong Ottaman preseance and the changing of Croatians religion in these regions. --Marbus2 5 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, you just proved the validity of this article. :) One more thing, here are your own words: "we settled in these lands". And tell me, where Croats lived before they settled in these lands? In Iran, right? So, if you want to respect "historical rights" you should go back to Iran because the only land that belong to Croats according to "historical right" is that one in Iran. In fact, if we respect "historical right" then all peoples who live in Balkans today should leave this region, because according to the "historical rights" the entire Balkans belong to the Pelazgians, an ancient nation that spoke a language similar to Basque. Not even Greeks and Albanians cannot say that they are natives on Balkans because they came here as a part of the Indo-European invasion. PANONIAN (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Its true we originated from Iran but didn't life itself orginated from the middle east. After all rumor had it during the Travel of the Croats to eroupe there were another two tribes with Croatia called Hirviti later forming the country Red Croatia and a Ragskan tribe were also with croatia. I dont know what that tribes name was but during the travel to eroupe Croatia stoped in the Great kingdom of Poland in 460 Bc and voulenteered to fight for the Kingdom of Poland. Then the polish Kingdom decided to give there new warriors a piece of land within the Kingdom. The piece in which the tribes recieved was from of todays Eastern Ukraine and the lower part of southern Poland and there was formed the first Croatian country "White Croatia". But many centuries later the tribes people of White Croatia decide to travel again to find there own piece of land where people didnt live in. So the three tribes talked about where should they go to find there land. The Hrvate and the Hirviti Sugested to go by ship and travel around europe to find an abainded piece of land. While the Ragskan tribe suggested to continue looking for land by foot. There was a disagreement by The Ragskan tribe against the Hrvate and Hirviti. So the Ragskan tribe decide to split and travel by foot to find there own piece of land. --Marbus2 5 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, why do Serbs edit pages about Croatia? :) I'm Croatian and to be honest, I've never heard of "Greater Croatian" ideology in that extent as you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.183.246 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 February 2007

You guys are fools - ie Marbus. Your understanding of origin theories is at a 7 year old level. Croatians didn;t come from Iran for f#@* sake. It is theorized by some historians that the name Hrvat, as the name Srb, are derived from an Iranian root. This is theorised to have been from Sarmatian tribes (which spoke Iranian language) from the pontic steppes, called Horoutos and Serboi, that moved into southern poland and mixed with the slavic peoples, assimilated into them, their iranian genes and language were lost becuase the slavs were more numerous. Some say that these iranian tribes were warriars that came to rule these slavs. They kept their names as Serbs and Croats, and apart from a few iranian words found in south slavic language, such as bog, is the only iranian aspect that was kept.

'Nebo' is also an Iranian word. I think that is already enough to believe that we are Iranians. That word didn't came to language by an accident... -- MR.CRO95 26 March 2008, 22:07 —Preceding comment was added at 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the historical rights of croats over Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro; one can equally say that they are serbian. Fact is these regions were at one time independent, then part of serbia, then later part of the croatian kingdoms. We all known that the medieval south slavic states wer volatile, fluctuating states. Just because Tomislav's kingdom included these areas, it doesn't meant that his subjects identified themselves as Croats, or Serbs for that matter. Refer to euroatlas, a website with maps of historic europe, it has an interesting way of presenting the situation. The serbs and croats were just two of many slavic tribes (that would have all spoken the same language back then) that inhavbited what is now yugoslavia. There 'core' territory was centred on modern day central serbia and croatia. They subsequently spread their influcen or rule onto neighbouring slavic tribes. This was only transient and different at different times. Hxseek 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Velika Hrvatska.PNG - totaly POV

I have never seen such a map map. Can user:Bormalagurski explain the source of that map?

See discussion on Image talk:Velika Hrvatska.PNG. --Ante Perkovic 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't one like it be somewhere in your living room?C-c-c-c 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lsv.org.yu/?menu=12&smenu=1 --serbiana - talk 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a picture on the above address. Is this some kind of naive bluff? Anyway, since, You didn't provide source, I must conclude that you did draw that picture.
This is a fine example od very cheap serbian propaganda. --Ante Perkovic 07:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This map is the closest to the map of Croatian kingdom in 10th century under the kings Tomislav and Krešimir. Maybe we have situations in the past that somebody (somebody means no political movement, no political crises or wars connected to the unexisting term "Greater Croatia"!??? - what is that?) was dreaming about that teritory under Croatian flag again, since that teritory was mainly populated with Croats after massive Slavic migrations in 7th century (White and Red Croatia as a Croatian kingdom, Croatian coat of arms has white and red fields - isn't it?) and that situation lasted til 15th century when Otoman expansion to the west produced some new migrations of Serbian refugees to the west. These Serbian refugees are today's Serbian minority in Croatia and today's cca 40% population of Bosnia. In the last quarter of 20th century these people were heavily instrumentalized by Serbian politicians and governments with the purpose of starting an agression on Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. "Greater Croatia" (?!) is Serbian expansionistic political propagandistic imaginary construction proposed to be a countertag to the existing term Greater Serbia which is still in usage among many Serbian politicians and publics. This is just another cheap Serbian trial of equalizing of the responsibility for the chrises they have started in Balkans. I mean "Greater Croatia" doesn't exist and have never existed, so there's no reason for this article to exist. This is really funny encyclopedia if anyone can write political pamflets like this. 83.131.149.30 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Threat

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

2,1 million people. --serbiana - talk 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I forgive you. Frankman 02:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Me? Are you accusing me of threatening you? Thats a serious offence, death threats are punishable by law, if you are accusing me you better contact me through your lawyer, because I, the accused, have the right to remain silent. --serbiana - talk 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C-c-c-c, please provide references

Could C-c-c-c please explain me what he meant by These ideas have stubbornly persisted from Ante Starčević, Eugen Kvaternik[citation needed], Mihovil Pavlinović[citation needed], Josip Frank[citation needed], Frane Supilo[citation needed], Stjepan Radić[citation needed] and Ante Pavelić to Franjo Tuđman.

I see no reference for claims that people marked with "[citation needed]" are somehow related to ideas of Greater Croatia. Of course, some people believes that every Croat "stubbornly persist" in idea od "Greater Croatia", but that's already explained in Croatophobia atrticel.

So, C-c-c-c-, could you please give valid references? And, please, do not remove [citation needed] signs before concluding this conversation. Please, read WP:CITE, just in case. --Ante Perkovic 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reboot.

This article is in need of heavy cleanup and NPOV-ing. I'm ready to do that, and have started with the opening paragraph. My intention is to make the article understandable to those not familiar with the topic, and to present all the relevant facts in a NPOV and fair way. I therefore ask all honest and well intentioned wikipedians to help me achieve this by providing reliable, verifiable sources (and no, a book by a greater serbian ideologue is not a reliable source) and keeping a cool head! Thank you, and I hope we can make this work. --Dr.Gonzo 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but we don't need your help. Regards, -- serbiana - talk 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, no offense, but I'll do it anyway, because you're getting nowhere as is. You can help me or not, but I expect you at least won't obstruct my efforts. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't count on it. I will obstruct any efforts to try to minimize the ideology as much as possible. If you take a look at the Greater Serbia article, you will see I have made no changes to the article, even though its heavily POV. And now suddenly everyone is interested in making Greater Croatia more NPOV. As far as the article is concenred, it's not perfect, but less POV than Greater Serbia. -- serbiana - talk 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly Boris, judging by your previous edits and frequent revert wars, I don't see you as a positive Wikipedian. For every good article you contributed you contaminated ten others with bias and hatred. This is not a good way of contributing. Here's some friendly advice - you need to chill out. The world is not out to get you. Take a wikibreak or something. Besides, you need to stop and reevaluate your positions concerning some key issues. You routinely accuse everyone else of being biased and trying to "distort the Truth" but you never consider that maybe you're biased yourself? Well anyway, who's stoping you from editing Greater Serbia article? Or do you consider this an "eye for an eye" situation? Because there is no such thing on Wikipedia. If you can support your edits with solid proof and quality citations, I doubt anyone will question your edits. On the other hand, if you frequently go on rants and insert factualy inaccurate and inflammatory statements without any backing you can be damned sure people will react.
And another thing. Your frequent use of sockpuppets and coordination of revert wars with your friends is not helping establish you as a serious contributor. Please, please, try and take a step back and think about what this is doing to your credibility. And for God sake, give others some credit will ya! There are some damn good and honest editors out there who are wasting valuable time engaging in sensless edit wars with you and your buddies.
Well... Don't think of this little rant of mine as a negative thing, I just want you to live up to your potential, because I'd hate to see a quality wikipedian (when you don't engage in topics related to Balkans ;) banned because he couldn't keep a cool head.
Anyways, back to the matter at hand - I WILL try to stay NPOV, and I WILL try to provide reliable sources for every key issue, and I welcome your input, but please let's do it the right way, without revert wars and unneccesary sidetracking. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was expecting you were going to attack me and not the article. Attempting to make me seem as a nuthead and an unreliable Wikipedian will only make things worse. I have never used any sockpuppets, what ever the Albanians are trying to "prove" is extremely see-through and I plan on exposing the ones that have accused me, but at the same time try to manipulate Wikipedia in ways you can't imagine. -- serbiana - talk 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You misinterpreted my response. I'm not attacking you, I'm "attacking" your methods. They are, in all relevant ways, anti-wikipedian. Besides, 2 separate userchecks have CONFIRMED that you used sockpuppets and you were subsequently blocked for it, so why deny it? Do you intend to continue doing it in the future? Because if you are, I must warn you that the end result will be the permanent block of your main user account. Oh, and also, if I were you, I wouldn't brag about trying to "manipulate" Wikipedia... --Dr.Gonzo 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The checkusers were false, and I had been accused of having sockpuppets, even though no solid proof was given. I cannot deny the truth, I am innocent. Also, Sandzak is in the map, how blind does a person have to be not to see it. Why did you remove the word Sandzak from the text? -- serbiana - talk 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe you'll read better next time, I didn't remove it, it's listed under Serbian territories. I changed the previous version because it was grammaticaly flawed, so please let's keep it like it is. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. -- serbiana - talk 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

My version is maybe grammaticaly less correct, but it is certainly more accurate regarding the content, so, try to correct my grammatical mistakes instead to revert next time, ok? Regarding the content, the article should mention lands outside Croatia claimed by Croatian irredentists, thus it is ridiculous to mention Croatia itself among these lands. Also, the "state and historical rights" are only a BASE for the Greater Croatian ideology since the ideology itself is a combination of "historical" and "ethnic" rights to land, therefore Bačka is claimed because of the ethnic Croatian population which live there and Sandžak is claimed because of the ethnic Bosniak population which live there (It is well known that Croatian nationalists claim that Bosniaks are actually Croats). Regarding the picture of Ante Pavelić, he was most prominent figure of Greater Croatian ideology, thus, if article already speak about him, why not to post his picture too? So, Dr.Gonzo, instead to have private discussion with Boris, try to discuss here the article content before your reverts for a change. Ok? PANONIAN (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OH-MY-GOD. We can't even agree on the opening section, how will we agree on the rest? I know, how about we cite sources huh? That would be nice.
1.) Croatia should be included in the lands mentioned since the article topic is GREATER CROATIA. If you re-read my version you'll see that that makes sense.
No, Croatia should not be mentioned at all here. The article speak about TERRITORIAL EXPANSION OF CROATIA. How the hell Croatia could to expand to its own territory???? PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well you see, that's the fundamental difference between your understanding of the subject and mine. "Croatian state and historical right" refers to all "croatian" lands, including Slavonia, Dalmatia and Croatia (in it's historical context). Therefore, to be 100% accurate but to keep things short i wrote "present day Croatia" which includes all these lands. Secondly, Croatia gained it's present form only after WW2, up until then for example Syrmium and Boka Kotorska were always a part of Croatia (i.e. Slavonia and Dalmatia). Is that clear enough? --Dr.Gonzo 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully understand what "Croatian state and historical right" refers to, but there is big difference between lands that belong to the present-day Croatia and lands outside of Croatia that are claimed by Croatian nationalists. You simply cannot mention these lands in the same content. If you mention present-day Croatia together with these areas outside Croatia that imply that these areas are "Croatian" as much as Croatia is. That is the whole point of this concept. This article speak about Croatian expansion to lands that are not Croatian, but are claimed as "Croatian" by the Croatian nationalists. This article is not about "Croatian state and historical right", but about Greater Croatian expansion, which is only based on these "rights", but which is not same thing. Secong thing, how can I talk with somebody who say that "Syrmium and Boka Kotorska were always a part of Croatia". Not only that this sentence is incorrect and ridiculous, but using the word "always" to describe any event in history is ignorant. The history is a constant change and nothing was "always" in our World. PANONIAN (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well then the difference between "Croatian state and historical right" and modern Croatian extremist nationalism needs to be adressed. One is a historical category, based on law and historical customs, and the other is a pseudo-fascist interpretation of the same concept. Secondly - up until 1918, and further, Boka was a part of the region of Dalmatia, with common administration. It's the same with Eastern Srijem which was a part of Slavonia administrative unit (and Croatian Military Frontier) for at least 500 years. These areas were "amputated" in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and later "compensated" for with Istria after WW2. These are historical facts and I can cite at least a dozen independant sources and provide at least 10 different maps to corroborate it. So please, don't put words in my mouth and treat me like a narrow-minded fool.
The fact is - to explain the Greater Croatian irredentist ideology in an encyclopaedic sense, one must explain where it stems from. "Croatian State and historical right" is that basis, and that's why it's perfectly reasonable to make the opening section about explaining this concept. I was going to elaborate further in the rest of the article, I just didn't have time to get to it yet, but you're obviously so paranoid that you can't give me the benefit of doubt and wait even a day before revert waring. --Dr.Gonzo 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But that "historical category" you mentioned was used as a pretext for Croatian territorial expansion as early as 18th century. The "laws and historical customs" you mentioned were the laws of the medieval lords which oppressed the people, and which never asked the people which lived in the mentioned territories whether they agree with such laws and customs or not. That were not laws of the people, but laws of the oppressors, and that is why we cannot defend such laws. Regarding your other claims, Boka was part of Dalmatia before 1918, but Dalmatia itself WAS NOT part of Croatia. Regarding eastern Srem, it certainly was not part of Slavonia for 500 years. In the Medieval times it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, In the Ottoman times it was Ottoman sanjak, in the Habsburg times it was part of the Slavonian Frontier (which was not part of Slavonia or Croatia), and since the 18th century, only its northern part was part of the Kingdom of Slavonia (of course, in the 19th century, it was part of Serbian Vojvodina). The point is that during the history so many countries ruled over Srem (from Roman Empire to Habsburg Monarchy), and nobody of them does not have right to say that only he was "rightfull owner" of the land and others were not. The fact that Srem was under Croatian rule in one part of the history does not mean that Croatia is or was "rightfull owner" of that land. The "Croatian state and historical right" concept claim that exactly Crotia is a "rightfull owner" of all mentioned lands and that is why such concept is extremistic. And I will consider you as a serious editor once you stop talking about lands that "always belonged to Croatia" or lands that were "amputated from Croatia". I am sorry that you do not understand how such statements sound ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What difference does it make if they were contracts of medieval origin? Croatian politics always viewed them as valid contracts because a political continuity existed since 1102 - 1918. One can't say the same for Serbia though because it was, at one point completely absorbed by the Ottoman Empire. Boka was indeed always a part of Dalmatia, and if you review my comments you'll see I never claimed anything else. It is however, also undeniable that Dalmatia was always a part of the "Trojedna kraljevina Hrvatska, Slavonija i Dalmacija" within Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia (united by personal union of the king). Srijem was indeed a part of Hungaran Slavonia for number of centuries, it was occupied by the Ottomans, but it is also a fact that since 1868 it was a part of kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia within the Austria-Hungary. This was abolished only in 1929 with the dictatorship of king Alexander.
The Military frontier was first established in 1553, before that all those lands were under direct control of the Croatian Ban, and they were infact returned under that control, per those contracts, in 1882. This demonstrates the political continuity I was talking about. Also, no personal attacks, please, I am a serious editor, and I do have a right to voice any opinion I like on these talk pages. The difference between you and me though, is that my opinions stay here. Besides, I'm not here to wage political battles, I'm here to present the facts in an accurate, neutral way, for the benefit of the readers. Facts are facts, opinions are something else. You can help me or not, but please, don't insult me and hamper any progress with endless bickering because it's really terribly de-motivating. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that "Croatian state and historical rights" were used with two purposes: 1. To liberate Croatia from foreign (Hungarian and Habsburg) rule and 2. To create an Greater Croatia. Although, I would agree that first purpose was positive one, the second one was extremistic. And, did I tell you not to use word "always" when you speak about historical events? If Boka "always" was part of Dalmatia then how it belonged to Serbia in the 13th century or to Byzantium Empire in the 11th century? Also, before 1918, Dalmatia was separate province, and was not part of Croatia-Slavonia, no matter that Croats claimed that it is Croatian on the basis of the "historical rights". The Military Frontier was also completelly separate Habsburg province no matter that both, Croats and Hungarians, claimed that the area "rightfully belong to them". But both, de facto and de jure, Military Frontier was separate and was not under either Croatian either Hungarian rule. Also, in the medieval ages, Srem was not part of Hungarian Slavonia, but part of proper Hungary. Another thing is that Croatia-Slavonia province was not abolished in 1929, but in 1918. PANONIAN (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, not ALWAYS, but in historical period relevant to this discussion, i.e. 15th-20th century. Until 1526, and for quite some time after that (at least until the establishment of the Military frontier) Croatia was infact refered to as "The unifed kindom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" and all those regions were under the control of Croatian bans. That all changed with the Ottoman invasions and Venetian buying of Dalmatia, but the ethnic composition stayed pretty much unchanged (except for the Military frontier, but there are very valid reasons for that). In any case, Croatian politics has always revolved around the struggle to break free from Austrian and Hungarian hegemony. As for Slavonia, you're right, it was a part of Hungary proper, but it was still called Slavonia ;). The military frontier is another issue altogether, it was undoubtably croatian territory organized into a system of fortifications and military supply bases, because the military situation demanded it. When the threat of Ottoman expansion had passed, it was reincorporated into kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, no questions asked, as per "Croatian state and historical right". In any case, Srijem was infact removed from Croatian control not by as a military consequence but a political one (Serbian hegemonism in Kingdom of Yugoslavia), since it was a part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (ie lands seceded from Austria-Hungary after WWI and joined, by their own democratic will, with Kingdom of Serbia). --Dr.Gonzo 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Gonzo, please do not mess with my posts. If I wrote 6 dots, then do not change it to 7 dots, ok? Second, regarding Slavonia, that question is little complicated. In medieval times Slavonia was a province (banovina) of the Kingdom of Hungary, but that province was not located where is Slavonia today. It was located in present-day western Croatia and included Zagreb. The present-day regions Slavonia and Syrmia were not part of that medieval province but were part of proper Hungary and were not called Slavonia but Syrmia. Regarding the Military Frontier, what you say was maybe correct when we speak about Croatian Military Frontier, but the area that we know as Slavonian Military Frontier was established in the 18th century and was not under Croatian control before 1882. Regarding Srem, the people of Srem decided in 1918 to seccede from what was then State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and to join Serbia (before the State of SCS joined Serbia as well). However, Srem was from the 15th century mainly populated by ethnic Serbs, and those Serbs saw this region as historical part of Vojvodina (to which it belonged in the 19th century). PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
S-o-r-r-y Mr. Grumpy, I just wanted it to have a more natural flow, I won't mess with your dots again ;) I'll have to ask you for a source for the claim that Zagreb was ever a part of province Slavonia. Btw, how is it right for Sr(ij)em to be annexed by Serbia on the basis of it being a "historical part of Vojvodina" but it's not right to stay within Croatia? Hmmm? --Dr.Gonzo 00:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You should start collecting maps, so you will find there many sources for many things. :) Here is one map for you (you can analyze it by yourself): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hungary18.gif Regarding Srem, it is part of Serbia on the basis that it had majority Serb population. I mentioned that it was part of Vojvodina only to show you how "historical rights" are selective and wrong category. Any country which ruled over Srem during history could to claim that it had "historical rights" to it. As I repeated so many times here on Wikipedia, only people which live in the land have right to claim that land on the basis that they live there (and it is only valid basis for any claims of this kind). PANONIAN (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen a map like this before... It's insane, northern Croatia as "Slavonia" and Dalmatia as "Croatia", that doesn't add up... As for your views on the "rights of residents", I really don't care either way, since my personal beliefs lean toward anarchism, and arguing about imaginary lines in space really makes no sense, or it makes perfect sense, since that's what the Statism is all about. In any case, I'm here to write a good article, not agree with the views presented in it. --Dr.Gonzo 23:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The map certainly is not insane, but very correct (I have more similar maps, but I do not have time to upload them for you, try to find them with google search instead). Medieval Croatia was indeed where is now Dalmatia and Slavonia was where is now Central Croatia. In the late medieval times, two provinces were joined into one single province named Croatia. Later, when Habsburgs conquered territory of present-day Slavonia from Ottomans they formed there new province named Slavonia. PANONIAN (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed a preface sentence a little, so I believe you will not have objections any more. PANONIAN (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It may require some tweaking but it's generally ok, so we can leave it for later. --Dr.Gonzo 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
2.) The "Croatian state and historical right" is not a fascist or extremist concept in itself, Ustashe interpretation is. So, please, save the Pavelic picture for the appropriate section of the article.
Yes, IT IS fascists and extremist concept. All similar concepts based on "historical rights" are fascist and extremist. The democratic concepts claim that every land belong only to its people (its living people), and the "historical rights" were something what Hitler used to create his "new Europe". The defending of the fascist concepts is not acceptable in the 21st century Europe. Regarding the picture of Pavelić, you can post it in any section of the article, but please do not delete it (as you done before). PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
NO IT ISN'T fascist because the concept existed long before fascism was even a possibility. It dates back to Pacta Conventa of 1102, the contract between Hungarian kings and Croatian nobles. It has been a basis for Croatian politics for almost a millenia. The fascist (Ustashe) interpretation IS fascist, however. --Dr.Gonzo 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not fascist, but it is certainly EXTREMIST. PANONIAN (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, so you change your "opinion" in a matter of seconds. Well no, "Croatian state and historical right" is neither fascist nor extremist, but it is irredentist and ultimately antiquated. There are those who deny this, and some of those are extremists, but to brand the whole concept as extremist is biased and malicious. --Dr.Gonzo 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not changed my opinion. I only agree that we should not use the word fascist for the time period when the fascism did not existed, but anyway these two ideologies are very similar. All concepts that want to impose something to people against their will are extremistic and close to fascism. PANONIAN (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, your opinion. Let's stick to the fact shall we? This is not your personal editorial. --Dr.Gonzo 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not "my" opinion, but the opinion of the entire democratic free World (the one that won WW2, you know...). PANONIAN (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It IS your opinion, and here's why - if I said Greater Serbian concept is fascist, or that the Chetnik movement is fascist you would probably deny it flat out. That's your OPINION. And nobody wan't to have someone elses opinions imposed on them. Let's state facts and they can talk for themselves. It's the same reason why you won't find a statement "Hitler was a very bad evil man" ih Hitler article. Facts speak for themselves, people don't need an interpreter. Infact, in the context of Wikipedia, imposing your own opinions is downright un-democratic. --Dr.Gonzo 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hehehe. Bad try, Gonzo, the one thing that you (or anybody else) cannot prove that I use are double standards. I fully agree that advocates of Greater Serbia and Chetniks are fascists too. However, I have to dissapoint you and to say that what you call facts is only your point of view. And if we have Hitler as example, no, we do not have to write that he was "a very bad evil man", but we certainly should not to write that he was "a great man". That is what I want to assure in this article - that article does not claim that advocates of Greater Croatia have right to claim what they claim. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A-ha! And you would be WRONG. Chetniks are infact NOT fascist but Serbian royalist and do not exhibit characteristic fascist ideology (although they are undoubtably extremist nationalist). So you see, that's why FACTS are important, and not opinions. You may want to "assure that article does not claim that advocates of Greater Croatia have right to claim what they claim" but, my friend, that is wrong. Everyone has the democratic right to claim whatever the hell they want to claim, and you need to provide facts to demonstrate why this may be wrong. But you WRITING "this is wrong" is POV and unacceptable. --Dr.Gonzo 00:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
At the beginning Chetniks were resistance movement, but later they fought together with Germans against partisans, so I am not wrong. Regarding democracy, it has its own limits too. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That makes them colaborationist and anti-communist, but not neccesarily fascist. Oh, and regarding democracy - yes, it has it's limits, but they depend on who you ask ;) --Dr.Gonzo 23:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3.) I have studied the topic extensively and I can't, for the life of me, find any mention of Backa or Sandzak being covered by "Croatian state and historical right". Croatian nationalists may claim Bosniaks as Croats, but that still doesn't mean that they claim all lands populated by Bosniaks as their own. Please cite your sources.
What I just explained to you? I explained that Greater Croatian concept is based on both, "historical" and "ETHNIC" rights. Try to read what I wrote, ok? I have here a nice map for you (I found the map on Croatian irredentist web site). So, you can see here that Greater Croatia idea claim both, Bačka and Sandžak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Croatia04.gif PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
A map from an extremist web site is NOT a valid source. Secondly, I have yet to see any Croatian or independant source that verifies your claims. The sources you provided are all post-1991 Serbian and can be considered inherently biased, especially since some of those authors are known Greater-Serbian ideologues. Therefore, I can't accept them as valid sources, since they go against Wikipedia rules and conventions. --Dr.Gonzo 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If this article speak about CROATIAN EXTREMISM, then a map from Croatian extremist site IS valid source. The map I showed to you is a Croatian source, so please do not play these games with me, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't "speak" about CROATIAN EXTREMISM, it "speaks" about Greater Croatia. It is a historical and political article and some of it's elements will be a look at Croatian Extremists, but the subject needs to be treated fairly, and it needs to be, above all, informative and non-partisan (and I don't mean Yugoslav partisan ;). May I remind you of the following Wikipedia policies:
  • Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).
  • Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).
  • Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on ersonal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR.
Also, I get a distinct feeling you're assuming bad faith on my part which is, I assure you, the farthest thing from the truth. I'm only interested in making this article encyclopaedic and fair, instead of a propaganda pamphlet it is now, as many other Wikipedians have commented on it's talk pages. --Dr.Gonzo 17:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
We will see what are your goals here. The sources I provided are relevant for the subject. I doubt that you will find many Croatian sources about this because Croatian sources much more like to write about Greater Serbia than about dirty underwear in their own house. PANONIAN (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, until "we do" please be a good Wikipedian and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Besides, there are plenty of Croatian sources highly critical of this concept, so please, no generalizations. --Dr.Gonzo 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The one who wrote "Assume good faith" rule certainly was not from former Yugoslavia. Regarding the users from Former Yugoslavia, I first assume bad faith, and if they prove that I am wrong, then I change my mind. My experience with users from former Yugoslavia so far does not allow me to assume good faith. PANONIAN (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he was from Uganda, or Tibet, or Kashmir, or Checenya? Doesn't matter. What matters is "everyone's innocent until proven guilty". If you accept that as a democratic principle, then you must accept this also, because without it there can be no compromise on anything. --Dr.Gonzo 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I will give you a chance to prove that you have good faith. That is best you can hope from me. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And I will try my darndest to justify that chance! On to the edits dear friends, ahoy! ;) --Dr.Gonzo 00:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So there, I won't change anything just yet, but i demand sources for your claims. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 02:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The map I provided is a good source about this as well as the books mentioned in the article. I will see to find few more sources. PANONIAN (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Just allow me to make a small observation at this stage: this map is interesting but it appears to miss one vital characteristic. As I've learned (not being from the Balkans), when the Croatian people first joined the Kingdom which would become the Yugoslav federation, there were two schools of thought for them to follow. 1 - the ideologies of Strossmayer which incorporated Croatians with other South Slavic peoples and the one which would prove more popular in the earlier days and one in which local borders didn't matter so long as the greater Slavic state took from the colonials the regions where they dwelled, because people within should otherwise be one; 2 - the other was the Starchevich ideology which later inspired the Croatian movements of WWII, The Croatian Spring and the Wars of the 90s on their part. Now the map is an example of how an enlarged Croatia might look. (Note, to me, right and wrong are of no relevance, in fact they don't exist, if Iranian Kurds want to claim Nebraska and Outher Mongolia, it's up to them, if they get them, congratulations...then one can rewrite history). My simple point is that Starchevich's plans for a Croatian state free of non-Croatian Slavs would not only have included the areas in pink but also Slovenia PLUS Slovene enclaves in Austria, Hungary and Italy, after all, if the claim that the Slavic ancestors of Croats and Serbs were already seperated prior to their arrival to their present land, in that they took different routes into the region and settled in different regions, then quite naturally one might assume that todays Slovenes are really another branch of Croats (if Croats are not Slovenes etc), again, I don't claim this is right or wrong, only logical. Celt 25 May 06

The only such claim would be a passing remark by Starcevic that Slovenes are infact "Alpine Croats", but I don't think he meant it in a literal sense, but as a part of a exaggerated rebuttal of Greater Serbian aspirations as laid out in "Načertanije" by Ilija Garašanin. In any case, if you source it, I will add it to the map, however, I plan to create a series of maps with for different interpretations of Greater Croatia concept --Dr.Gonzo 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
the highlighted areas from the map seem only to outline obvious Croatian population territories within Yugoslavia's old designated borders. Any plans to unite people declared as Croats in the 19th century will have also taken parts of southern and south-west Hungary too as it was unknown until 1920 exactly which area the Kingdom of Croats etc would get, and which part the reduced Hungary would get. In areas near to Lake Balaton, there is to this day confusion whether the people are Slovenes or Croats: they talk on a preserved dialect not affected by Serbo-Croatian measures, entirely in Ekavski, and Kajkavski, and they are all Catholics, a typical hard one. Ragusan 01.06.06

[edit] NPOV and Other Tags: What Happens Here

No doubt that this article deserves many POV-weasel-peacock tags, but in my opinion we should not concentrate our energy on this, but rather try to improve the article itself.

What happens here:

  • User:Bormalagurski (Serbiana) copied here a full text of long essay from http://www.suc.org/culture/library/genocide/k7.htm (May 4, 2006)
  • The text is copyrighted and it not clear to me, whether the 1997 copyright was lifted by the author, Vasilije Krestic.
  • In every case, we must try to rework the text as thoroughly as possible, not only because of copyright, but also because Krestic is one of the leading Serbian war ideologians: To let his words here unnoticed is IMHO like to allow Goebbels to write encyclopedia article about WW II.
  • I've tried (and will try) to remove the most blatant POV parts of the text and to rework the rest. But I am not well-versed in the Balkan history and I need help here.
  • There is already a lot of scholarly literature about this complex of question. It would be nice if somebody with access to the literature could help to rework and to source the article.

I hope that at least these questions should be answered:

  • Who discovered the term "Greater Croatia"?
  • Which Croatian political personalities and parties (if any) used it in their propaganda?
The concept of Croatian state rights over historical Croatian lands was used by the HSP (Croatian Party of Rights). During the Yugoslav wars, it supported a unitary and whole BiH, and evisaged a confederation between Croatia and BiH, subject to a referendum in both countries on the proposal.croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Which anti-Croatian forces used it to denounce Croats and how?
I don't think it is part of the platform of the modern day HSP b/c of the international recognition of BiH. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How important was and is this concept in the political life of the country? With which politicial parties was it connected at different stages of the Croatia's history?
  • Which were the proposed means to achieve the goal of Greater Croatia? Were they constitutional or not (must be divided by epoques and political parties).
  • Better describe (and source) the real ideal Greater Croatia how it was seen by Pavelic and by Tudjman, the two most controversial and most important political figures in this regard.
In his book Da nije bio Oluje (if it wasn't for operation Storm), diplomat for BiH and Croatia, Vito Rugas notes that Tudjman had no such plan as it was in the interests of Croatia to have Bosnia as a tampon zone. He also noted that partitioning BiH would result the kiss of death for the Croat regions under Serb occupation. The Croat community Herzeg-Bosnia was a necessary step in the absense of the govt of BiH protecting it's citizens form Serb aggression for a number of reasons including a)to form a bulkwark to protect the region of Dalmatia in Croatia; b) vehicle to ensure the cultural and political rights of Croats andas such a bargaining chip in international negotiations; & c) in the worst case scenario of Western govts recognising Serb gains and abandoning BiH, it would join Croatia proper. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Evidence provided at the ICTY by Croat left wing political opponents, Josip Manolic and Stipe Mesic claim that Tudjman was obsessed with concept of the Banovina of Croatia and fattening the unnatural croissant shape of Croatia. Peter Galbraith, ambassador to Croatia during the Yugoslav wars testified in the trial of "the Bosnian Croat 6", that Tudjman thought that Bosnia was an artificial state and reiterated the notion of Tudjman's interest in the historical precedent set by the Banovina of Croatia that existed in the first Yugoslavia. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Pavelic on the other hand was an extreme militant offshoot of the Party of Rights that supported the notion of national rights over historical Croat lands i.e. BiH. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there any sociological data about how the current Croatians (in Croatia/in BiH/abroad) think about this question?

So, experts, please HELP. --Ioannes Pragensis 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


"Pavelic on the other hand was an extreme militant offshoot of the Party of Rights..." This is not correct! Pavelic was not the member of the Party of Rights - he was a member of the Croatian Radical party which was the only fascists partner in Croatia in 1941. The leader of the Party of Rights S.Radic was killed in the parlament in Belgrade (by Serbian atentator - member of the Serbian Radical Party). After that and during period between 2 world wars Croatian christian-democratic parties (the Party of Rights was the strongest one) were heavily weakened. In the morning of 2nd World War the leaders of these peaceful parties lost all of their political influence on Croatian society, since they were not able to organise military resistance to Germany (of course - they were peaceful familiar people) so at that moment 2 unimportant parties take the flag - Croatian Communist Party (1st antifascist movement in ex-Yu) and really small and unknown Radical Party (Pavelic as a leader!). Like everywhere else in Europe Hitler was searching for political partners which could be instrumentalized for his purposes. In Croatia it was Radical Party and A.Pavelic. 83.131.149.30 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit

Removed

although they had never been a part of Croatia.

from

In their programme of 1893, the Rightists included Styria, Carinthia, Kranjska and the whole of Bosnia and Hercegovina.

because it is inaccurate. Most of modern day Bosnia, West of the river Vrbas was part of the medieval kingdom of Croatia. Under Kings Tomislav and Peter Kresimir IV, the boundaries included all of modern day BiH. Note that modern day Western Bosnia was known as Turkish Croatia up until the massive Vlach migrations in the 17th Century when it became known as Bosanska Krajina. croatian_quoll 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Croatia?

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

[edit] objection to bias

I object to the negative bias of the Serbian contributors to this article. This article is regularly edited by individuals that I cannot term as anything else but Serbian propagandists. Serbian contributors unfortunately should be restricted from contributing to articles about other nations and ethnicities in the Balkans as apparently they are unable to do so without bias and with respect to facts.

I will personally do my best to glance over this article whenever I have the time, and will edit with an eye to accuracy and neutrality.

- r.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.183.154 (talk • contribs)

Mister anonymous, please stop blanking parts of the article including references. Your opinion that "Serbian contributors should be restricted from contributing to articles about other nations and ethnicities in the Balkans" show much about you, about who you are and about why you are here, and therefore I doubt that any serious discussion with you is possible. PANONIAN (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


It is unfortunate that you persist in reposting parts of this article that cannot be verified by independent sources. If you are unable to contribute to an article without bias, you should in my opinion refrain from doing so, period. It is especially evident that as a nationalist Serb, you are unable to contribute this article without your contribution being coloured by your own nationalism and prejudices. I glanced over your user page and your positions on various subjects are confusing and contradictory (ex., you declare that you do not believe in borders, and then declare your support for borders).

Well, you first blanked references in the article and now you claim here that article cannot be verified (in the exact momment when you blanked those reference I knew that your next step would be to claim that article cannot be verified, so is any other comment needed?). Also, if you consider that any part of this article is biased, please say it here (It is not good that we have biased articles, of course). And regarding borders, I only support those borders that were drawn to protect Serbs from genocide and persecutions. PANONIAN (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate indeed that the Wikipedia editors seem uninformed about the facts regarding Balkan ethnicities and that they do not take action to ensure the neutrality and accuracy of these articles. When I have time in the future I will register an account here (so you will not be troubled by "anonymity" even though my IP is noted) and then I will do my best to ensure that articles such as these remain as neutral and accurate as possible. - r.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.183.154 (talk • contribs)

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


Please don't post your reply in the middle of my post, thank you. The so-called "references" that I edited were either irrelevant to the topic at hand and/or (untruthful) propagandist pieces. Furthermore, since this is English Wikipedia, shouldn't the articles you reference be available in English? Otherwise of what use are those so-called "references" to the English section of Wikipedia? Much of the article is inflamatory and if I were to quote all the sections I would be reposting much of the article... Your comment that you "only support those borders that were drawn to protect Serbs from genocide and persecutions" is telling - to translate for those unfamiliar with the framework of that remark, this means you support any borders that Serbian nationalists (arbitrarily) decide should be Serbia's borders (regardless of whether or not Serbs are present in that area in any meaningful numbers), and disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia's (unfortunate) neighbours. This makes you a supporter of ethnic cleansing, and all the horrors that come with it. Once again I charge that you in particular have demonstrated that you have no place contributing articles about other nations in the Balkans as you are patently unable to free yourself of your own particularly repulsive bigotry and bias. - r. 70.70.183.154 08:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This was just one long ad hominem attack. Please make or counter points. Personal attacks only reflect poorly on the strength of your own case.--estavisti 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

to: estavisti - I have already voiced my primary objections. Mention is made of alleged references and articles that simply cannot be independently verified. For instance, when I tried to search for any independent confirmation of the existence of an alleged article entitled "is the True Croatian Policy and Who Represents It?" the only other source that Google can find is that of the Serbian Unity Congress (not exactly an unbiased/neutral source), and even they do not link to the original article, only claim to quote the article in question. Thus these unverifiable "references" should be removed imo. Furthermore, references in English Wikipedia should be in English, otherwise of what use are they to English-speaking individuals who access this website? FWIW, I am no longer going to make edits without discussing them with other contributors to this article in the future. It is my hope that we can come to some sort of consensus on what should or shouldn't be acceptable in any article. - r 70.70.183.154 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

References can be easily verified - you can come to library in Serbia, and you can see that these references exist. What stopping you? There is simply no rule that references for English Wikipedia should be in English. They can be in any language if their content is translated here into English. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For mister 70.70.183.154: those borders that I support were defined by the International community (not by Serbs) and Serbs are majority in the territories encircled by these borders, so I really do not understand what you talk about? Regarding ethnic cleansing, I already said that I support these borders to PREVENT ETHNIC CLEANSING, not to support it. Regarding the references, this is English Wikipedia but it also accept references written in other languages, so I do not see why mentioned references would be "irrelevant". If the content of these references is translated here into English, then such references could be used (another question would be usage of non-translated non-English text from these references, but since everything is translated, I do not see what possibly could be a problem here). And yes, please refrain from personal insults, ok? If you say that somebody is "unable to free himself of his own particularly repulsive bigotry and bias", then you should prove such statement, not just to repeat it 1000 times like a parrot. PANONIAN (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Pannonian, the "international community" recognized borders that were effectively drawn by the bloodied hand of those who engaged in ethnic cleansing. Supporting these borders is, in my opinion, support for the act of ethnic cleansing. I apologise for my heated remarks earlier.

However, back to the article at hand. It is my concern that the references are not independently verifiable, nor accessible to the English speaking individuals accessing English Wikipedia. If the references were at the least available online to check that they actually existed (if even a library could independently verify that they held such a reference) that would in my opinion be satisfactory. Otherwise anyone could make a claim that such-and-such a reference existed when in fact it did not (I hope you see my point here).

- r 70.70.183.154 17:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, Pannonian, the "international community" recognized borders that were effectively drawn by the bloodied hand of those who engaged in ethnic cleansing"

I suppose that you refer here to internationally recognized borders of Croatia that were effectively drawn by the bloodied hand of those who engaged in ethnic cleansing of Serbs that lived there for centuries. So, according to you, we should not support borders of Croatia and should restore Republic of Serbian Krajina, right? Regarding references, define what you meant by "not independently verifiable". If you believe that these references do not exist, then by all means come to library in Serbia and you will see that they exist. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no "ethnic cleansing" of Serbs from Croatia. The Serbs in the so-called "Republic Krajina" were ordered to evacuate and their "army" retreated. Croats did not force the Serbs out of the region - which had itself been violently ethnically cleansed of its Croatian inhabitants by the Serb population earlier (a fact which you conveniently omit).

"define what you meant by "not independently verifiable"."

Gladly.

Any source should at the very least, be able to be confirmed to exist by an Internet search. If the source cannot be confirmed to exist, then it cannot be considered to be independently verifiable.

After all, you can claim that all sorts of books etc. exist in this imaginary "library of Serbia" you wrie about and make up whatever you feel like. There is no way to independently verify these sources and they should certainly not be included. -r 70.70.183.154 06:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself that the Serbian exodus from Krajina was a fairy-tale in which the national army did nothing but peacefully move in and the population just relocated willingly. They left just as "willingly" as the pre-1991 Croats from Krajina did, and just as willingly as the Kosovar Albanians left Kosovo before March 1999, just as willingly and free from violence and threat as Serbs continue to drop in number in Kosovo today. If I were to believe everything my own relations down in Macedonia told me about the 2001 Albanian crisis, I'd believe that from many Western Macedonian villages, Albanians left peacefully too, but I know for a fact contrary to what my own kith and kin have told me that Macedonian security forces did comit atrocities to wipe out some of the villages even though western media never even reported this. People do not leave just because power has switched, not at least in tens of thousands, not in straight colonies, not on trucks with as many belongings as can fit having left the rest behind, not with the old women reduced to tears, struggling to walk: my grandparents, God rest their souls, never left their homes through World War II, not when their village was under the Germans, nor the Bulgarians, and this despite dangers and local unrest, so what the Hell would have caused them to go in their final days if not evicted? Now look from the Croatian angle, many of those Serbs were active in holding Krajina for four years, I don't mean those who took up arms, I mean those who sponsored them, those who supported Serb Krajina from within, those whose name the Krajina-Serb authorities were representing. Without such sentiment, there could have been no would-be Serbian state inside Croatia's present borders in the first place. I am strictly neutral when it comes to "which land should belong to whom" but that does not mean that I deny when one comits atrocities. Evlekis 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That the Serbs were ordered to evacuate by their own leaders is not disputable: it is a matter of public record. JWDL Discussion Florence Hartmann: Possible Gotovina defence witness? -r.64.59.144.21 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The situation is the same all over: in all cases where people flee there is recommendation by their own leaders to do so ahead of an onslaught. Be that as it may, tens of thousands do not flee in the fashion that these Serbs did, and nobody would leave if there was no threat. If the national army simply said "we are taking over", then naturally there would have been civilian casualties because those civilians did themselves support the administration which controled the region for the last four years. And if you want to believe those sources, I'll find you thousands saying that the Armenian massacres never happened in the Ottoman period either. You can dispute and prove anything with plain internet documents. Evlekis 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathies and gentle entreaty to cite references

My sympathies and condolences for all who may have suffered in any of the wars in the Balkans. My hope is that, for the sake of all parties past and present, we can make this article a testimony to the truth, reflective and impartial. Let's try to see if we can start adding in citations to references to improve the scholarly nature of the work. --Petercorless 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Does anybody know- NAME OF GREAT CROATIA IS FROM TIME WHEN CROATIA WAS BEEN FROM VISLA TO BLACK SEA AND FROM TRANSILVANIA TO DALMATIA? THAT IS TIME BEFORE HUNGARIAN COME.


[edit] An Artical Made By Fiction

I would like to nominate for this artical to be deleted due to lack of evidence to support the term of Greater Croatia. --Marbus2 5 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

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

[edit] 20th Century

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

[edit] Image:Greater Croatia 01.png

I removed Image:Greater Croatia 01.png. I marked it with {[tl|fact}} 51 days ago, and noone reacted.

Tnis image is pure propaganda. Today, noone in Croatia calls for moving borders that far to the east. Some of the areas have never benn part of any fictional Greater Croatia. I don't understand who created this image and based on which sources. It would be nice if someone could make some image that isn't a propaganda. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I created it back when I was still trying to work with Boris Malagurski... In retrospect, it was a mistake and I fully support the removal of that image. I intended to revise it later, but never came around to it. Sorry for any trouble it may have caused. --Dr.Gonzo (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)