Talk:Socialist Republic of Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Socialist Republic of Macedonia: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned


[edit] SRM and RoM

Macedonia was not the smallest federal unit:

  • macedonia 25,333 km²
  • slovenia 20,273 km²
  • montenegro 13,812 km²

check facts before you edit this page

Republic of Macedonia is a legal succesor of Socialist Republic of Macedonia, thats why we say SR Macedonia was the official name of Republic of Macedonia during SFRY.

Saying a "federal unit" is true, but its not good enough. its a wide term. it can mean just an admin region. SRM was far more than that. It was officialy a national state of the ethnic Macedonians, a constituent country/constituent nation similar to Scotland in the UK, Slovakia in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Ukrainian SSR in the USSR and so on. Some of the examples may be lousy but anyway, all of them are national countries of their respective ethnic groups. SRM was not just a historical/geographical/administrative territory (like SAP Kosovo, SAP Vojvodina). A Vojvodinian or Kosovian nations didnt exist in Yugoslavia, but Macedonian nation did. Then, I wonder why this sentence was replaced: SRM was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia whilst being a federal state in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Why we cannot claim continuity from SRM to RoM? RoM is a full succesor of SRM in every aspect (ethnic, territorial, linguistical etc.). Its the same country. RoM OFFICIALY claims continuity from ASNOM 1944, not from September 8, 1991 (SR Macedonia=Republic of Macedonia). The creation of the political state in 1944 is one thing, the act of secesion in 1991 is another thing. So, SRM was a state for around 45 years, which one day decided to become independent and to change its political system thus becoming RM. Its the same country. Its not like "some region or whatever one day decided to become a state", it was already a state prior 1991, but not completely independent Zorla 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zorla, Socialist Republic of Macedonia wasn't independent state, it didn't have sovereignty unlike the present Republic of Macedonia. Although there is obvious continuity between these two entities, SRM and RoM, they are of different levels, so this has to be stated clearly in the beginning of the article about SRM. The historical existence of SRM as one of Yugoslav "constituent states" can't be hyperinterpreted as "almost independent state", which tendency is seen in your editings.
Moreover, this is article about SRM, not about RoM, therefore formula such as "The Socialist Republic of Macedonia was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia whilst being a socialist republic and one of the 6 constituent national states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia..." creates ambiguity and confusion. The point is that the annotation of the article can't start with explanation about who is contemporary legal succesor of that historical entity. The focus has to be put on this historical entity in itself. Greetings, Wickedpedian 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


First of all, we need the Constitution of SRM. Second, I see you referenced a specific part of that professor's text, I checked the referenced part and I dont see how it contributes to your claims? please point me to some direct quotes. BTW i can be selective as you are and I can reference the Conclusion part only (SRM=RM) right? not nice. we should take the whole text into consideration. Third, Im not "hyperinterpretating" anything. why dont you read the Constitution which you provided yourself? Its says: Федеративна Народна Република Југославија је савезна народна држава републиканског облика, заједница равноправних народа, који су на основу права на самоопредељење, укључујући право на отцепљење, изразили своју вољу да живе заједно у федеративној држави. Федеративну Народну Републику Југославију сачињавају: Народна Република Србија, Народна Република Хрватска, Народна Република Словенија, Народна Република Босна и Херцеговина, Народна Република Македонија и Народна Република Црна Гора. <---what is this if not constitutive states, each one formed on its own (ASNOS, ZAVNOBIH, ASNOM etc.) that formed one union and (formally) had a certain degree of souveregnity (right of self-determination until secesion)? Whats wrong?

And again, federal unit is a wide term. You cannot put SR Macedonia or SR Slovenia in a same basket as lets say the States of Brazil or the US states which are more of a administrative/geographical/ historical/regional type (Brazil is a Federative state also but you cannot equate a Brazilian type of estado to SR Slovenia for example which has the Slovenian national-statehood connotation). Virginia is also a US "federal unit", but you cannot equate it to SRM. SRM has the ethnic Macedonian connotation to it beside all.

Explanation of my (reverted) edits:

  • The Socialist Republic of Macedonia(...)was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia[1]

POINT: RoM claims full continuity as a state from 1944 (independent or not independent doesnt matter). For states generaly you have the article state for independent states you have the article independent state.

POINT: the political system was socialist (communism is something else, an utopian classless society). it was not parliamentary democracy, absolute monarchism or theocracy, it was socialist republic. I think its useful to have this i dont know why u removed it.

  • And one of the 6 constituent national states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[2][3]. The state declared independence on September 8, 1991 and changed its name to Republic of Macedonia.

POINT: the constitution says the Yugoslav narodi (literaly: "peoples") had joined forces by free will to create a common federation. In the yugoslav terminology narodi=constitutive nations (SErbs, Croats, Macedonians etc), while narodnosti=ethnic minorities. Only the narodi could have national states (Republics), while the others were granted cultural authonomy (Albanians-SAP KOsovo, Hungarians, Slovaks, Ruthenians-SAP Vojvodina etc.)

I really dont see whats wrong. After all why dont you check Ukrainian SSR. It doesnt say just "federal unit" but an Ukrainian communist state (Ukrainian- the national component, socialism- the political system component). See also Republics of the Soviet Union. It says constituent republics of the Soviet Union. Why Macedonians are not allowed to refer to SRM as a constituent country of SFRY? Again double standards? Im afraid I smell tendency here Zorla 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of your blatant POV. According to its own constitution Yugoslavia (not SRM itself!) was independent sovereign state:
  • "Члан 1. Федеративна Народна Република Југославија је савезна народна држава републиканског облика, заједница равноправних народа, који су на основу права на самоопредељење, укључујући право на отцепљење, изразили своју вољу да живе заједно у федеративној држави."
The 6 constituent republics weren't independent sovereign states and the term "држава" (in English namely "state" or "country"!) wasn't used for them. They were called "republics":
  • " Члан 2. Федеративну Народну Републику Југославију сачињавају: Народна Република Србија, Народна Република Хрватска, Народна Република Словенија, Народна Република Босна и Херцеговина, Народна Република Македонија и Народна Република Црна Гора. Народна Република Србија има у свом саставу Аутономну покрајину Војводину и Аутономну косовско-метохијску област."
Source: Устав Федеративне Народне Републике Југославије (1946). The conclusion is that the word "republic" in this case didn't mean "independent sovereign state". Zorla, don't use ambiguous formulation and reverced order of explanation. SRM wasn't sovereign state but exactly federal unit of Yugoslavia and the fact of existence of present-day sovereign Republic of Macedonia as its legal successor has to be mentioned in the final of the annotation, not in the beginning. - Wickedpedian 09:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what is written in the articles about other former Yugoslav federal units.
  • Socialist Republic of Croatia: Socialist Republic of Croatia was the official name of Croatia as a federal unit in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It became part of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in 1944, then run by Josip Broz Tito's Communist Party of Yugoslavia.
  • Socialist Republic of Montenegro: Socialist Republic of Montenegro (Serbo-Croat: Socijalistička republika Crna Gora, Социјалистичка република Црна Гора) or SR Montenegro in short was the official name of Montenegro as a socialist state, a federal unit (constitutive republic) in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • Socialist Republic of Slovenia: The Socialist Republic of Slovenia was the official name of Slovenia as a federal unit in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from 1963 until Slovenia gained independence in 1991.
  • Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbo-Croat: Socijalistička Republika Bosna i Hercegovina/Социјалистичка Pепублика Босна и Херцеговина) was one of the six republics which composed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • Socialist Republic of Serbia: Socialist Republic of Serbia (Serbo-Croatian: Социјалистичка Република Србија, Socijalistička Republika Srbija) was one of the six republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Its capital was Belgrade.
Zorla, you must accept that logical pattern of explanation of Yugoslav state structure, used in all other cases, and the term "federal unit". Don't put Macedonian nationalist claims for imaginary pseudo-independence before 1991! - Wickedpedian 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment -- If you notice the histories of the various pages, they have all been created/expanded by the same few people, so they all (understandably) follow the same basic pattern. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best wording, the best format, the best summary, or the best anything else, just that it's easier to make articles about similar things also be similar, rather than to make each one different. I do, however, agree that consistency is a very useful goal, and to that end, I would suggest that whatever term is deemed the best/most accurate ("federal unit", "constituent state", or whatever else; I have no opinion) be used in all the articles.
And in the meantime, all this bickering and reverting back and forth is silly, and is pushing you both close to breaking WP:3RR, for little to no useful purpose. -Bbik★ 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, this quarrel is inappropriate. I think the better solution is to cite the exact terms from the Yugoslav Constitutions. In Устав Федеративне Народне Републике Југославије (1946) the term for federal units is "people's republic" (in the meaning of "constituent republic", but not "state", only the whole federal Yugoslavia is defined as "state" or "држава" in Serbo-Croatian), and in Устав Социјалистичке Федеративне Републике Југославије (1963) the term is "socialist republic" (different from "state" in the same meaning as in the Constitution from 1946). I'm afraifd that the Zorla's formula "constituent national states" is ambiguous and leads to confusion about the difference between "(sovereign) state" and "(constituent) people's/socialist republic" in this particular case. Greetings, Wickedpedian 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I think that the debate is appropriate, since Wickedpedian is obviously very confused or I may say tendencious in his or her interpretation of the ex-yu constitution. Im absolutely sure he or she has a personal problem with the Macedonian statehood, considering the fact that he or she is often involved in a blatant pov pushing specificaly in the Macedonian articles.
He or she says something like:

  • "republic, not a state". Well, Republic is a state that is not led by a hereditary monarch.
  • Then, Wickedpedian mentions a difference between "a (sovereign) state" and "(constituent) people's/socialist republic". Of course there is a difference between a souvereign and constituent, so what? That does not deny SRM's statehood. Dependent or independent, who cares, its a state. When you call an entity "republic" that means that is not a municipality, a district or a geographic or administrative region, but a state. France, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece are all republics, as Ukrainian SSR, SR Slovenia or Virginia are also republics- states.

And more: the terms socialist republic or people's republic both mean a state. A non-monarchical state with a socialist/communist political system. Dependent or independent, again, who cares. Let me remind you Wickedpedian that your motherland People's Republic of Bulgaria was also a people's republic but it was a souvereign state unlike lets say the Slovak Socialist Republic. The adjective "people's" or "socialist" does not imply that an entity is or is not independent, its just an information about the political system. But, it also an information that the particular entity is a state.
Speaking of the other ex-yu rep artcles, not all of them are sourced properly so you cant represent them as a sort of role-model. To make them good articles, the respective constitutions of each of the republics are needed, and more. And then dont forget one more important thing: the yugoslav constitution(s) both federal and for each republic went through several severe changes during the half century of sfry's existence, you cannot just quote what has been said in 1946(!) and consider your homework done. GreetingsU prolazu 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Yugoslavia was 'born' in 1943 on AVNOJ so you should check the wording in the documents from that period. Start of the document says: With the basis of the right of any nation on self-determination, including the right of secession from and unification with other nations ...we accept this decree... and quoting from the AVNOJ page (with a little additional translation from the document on that page): The resolutions of the second AVNOJ conference were: - to create a federal Yugoslavia, based on the right of self-determination, in which the Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, and Montenegrins and the peoples of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Hercegovina, were planned to live in constituent republics with equal rights.... It follows that all the republics of the ex-Yu were constituent states - they were considered independent - souvereign - states which united together in the federation and within that union they retained the right for secession, which was the legal instrument Slovenia used when seceding from Yugoslavia. This legal instrument remained in all of the subsequent constitusions of Yugoslavia. Secondly: all people Yugoslavia firstly had the citisenship of the apropriate republic, Slovene, Croatian, ..., and only then citizenship of Yugoslavia. That is why in Slovenia we have this problem of the erased, the people living in Slovenia which had citizenship of other republics (economic migration), who were after the secession required to apply for the Slovene citizenship or register as a foreign citizen, working in Slovenia. Some didn't do that and the then government made a mistake, erasing them from all state registries regarding social and other rights (pension plans, etc...), instead of changing their status to foreigner automatically. All this evidently shows that each republic, and of course also Macedonia was a souvereign state within federation. I don't think one can compare the republics of Yugoslavia (and Czechoslovakia and USSR) with the administrative units of for instance UK or USA. The most appropriate comparison would be the today EU, which is volontary union of independent states, where each has a legal right to seceed at any given moment. NikNovi (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)