Talk:Greater Serbia

Serious Problems

Vojislav Seselj, modern creator of "VELIKA SRBIJA" "GREAT SERBIA" explains the concept of this ideology in his trial which can be viewed on this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617# and as far as linguistics is concerned; the entire West have a common misconception as to the name of this ideology: Great Britain, in Serbian is "Velika Britanija", Great Serbia is "Velika Srbija". Using the term "Greater" is in effect propaganda implying EXPANSIVE/IMPERIALIST tendencies of the ideology. The ideology is based on informing Serbian populations of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Athiest religions that they are Serbs who under pressure through hundreds of years of Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian and Vatican influence have either forced or enticed them to convert religion, and then further capitalised upon that by either forcing/enticing them to identify themselves on the basis of their religion as different nationalities. Religion does not change nationality. That is the core, basic focus of the concept of "Velika Srbija". Watch that video and understand that Velika Srbija is NOT an expansive ideology, looking to "invade" or "ethnically cleanse" other nationalities but to nationaly ENLIGHTEN them and prove to those Serbs of different religions that foreigners made them falsely identify themselves. I'll be making more fixes but for the time being the name of this article and throught the article MUST be changed to Great Serbia, not "Greater" Serbia. Watch the video.

Milosevic, nationalist? What?

The Communist regime that took power in Yugoslavia in 1945, was most certainly, an anti-Serbian regime. Only one of Tito's leading Politbeurau was a Serb. Even in the aftermath of the Croatia Ustasa genocide upon the Serbs, they still had an overral majority in Bosnia and large parts of Croatia. In order to solve this issue of Serbia as a Federal Reuplic within the Federation having too much territory the Communists did a number of things. They invented these autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, to try and undermine Serbian vote in the Federal level. They invented false nationalities which had never existed before; Montinegrins and Macedonians. They did an unimaginable thing by declaring that all Serbs of Islamic faith were now Muslim by nationality. They pressured for the creation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. It doesn't take a genious to understand what their agenda was. Marginalise the Serbs from their position of dominance. Josip "Tito" Broz championed this ideology and the Communists (all of them), until the late 80s followed suite with his ideology. When Tudjman and Izetbegovic turned a political 180 degrees, Milosevic did not. He still followed the same politics and continued glorifying Tito. Milosevic did not aid the Krajina Serbs and he hit the Bosnian Serbs with sanctions and blockades during the war, he did all this to sway Western opinion in his favour and consolidate his own power by "making friends" abroad with anti-Serbian agendas. The aspects of the charges brought against him in the Hague about creating a Great Serbia were totally false, just like a large number of the Serbs sentenced in the Hague. Vojislav Seselj was THE ONLY advocate of a Great Serbia and the only politician who's political party openly supported this idea. He again; expalins it all during his own trial: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617# stating that only HE can be ever judged for a plan or idea surrounding a Greater Serbia as he was the only advocate of the ideology in modern times. Milosevic was not a nationalist, nor was he any kind of Great Serb or statesman. This part of the article is based on Western propaganda which condemned and deamonised Serbia unjustly during the 90s and the charges made by the NATO - US dominated Hague can hardly be used in any sense of the word "legitimate" for objective intellectual works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of the sourced text and your comments above fairly drip with POV. Step back and let editors without axes to grind do the editing here. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What sourced text? Where do you get your sources from? Find one concrete peace of evidence that clearly shows that Slobodan Milosevic actively supported a Great Serbia agenda. Had Milosevic not "died" in the Hague his trial would still be being dragged out today because there was no concrete evidence against him, not one speech, not one order? Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue at hand-the issue at hand is your writing and your methodology. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Australianhistorian, is that despite most of what you say may be trouth, for you to change it in the article, you must have some sources. FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais,Kintetsubuffalo I have sourced my edits, if you had actually read my previous posts you would have listened to Vojislav Seselj's detailed explanation of the Great Serbian ideology: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4117946890055070617#. I have sourced my argument against the error in translation that is "Greater Serbia" read my above posts. If Great Britain = Velika Britanija, Velika Srbija = Great Serbia. The use of the word "greater" is deamonising propaganda and is factually INCORRECT, and it cannot be used in this article. Great Serbia is NOT an expansive/imperialist ideology, the ideology is based on informing Serbian populations of Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Athiest religions that they are Serbs who under pressure through hundreds of years of Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian and Vatican influence have either forced or enticed them to convert religion, and then further capitalised upon that by either forcing/enticing them to identify themselves on the basis of their religion as different nationalities. Religion does not change nationality. That is Great Serbian ideology. The title and article must be changed.

Australianhistorian (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.101.149 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly, but I think that the problem is that English language (wrongly, or not) has adopted the term "Greater" for this case... I know, it´s never late to make things right, and if the mass uses something, doesn´t necessarily mean it´s that way right, but then, it would be better for you to gather all info on it that you can and propose a title change, here, on this talk page. If there is no agreement reached on the issue, you can allways ask for WP:DR (dispute resolution), or something like, but here things are more like a slow process... I would, in the meantime, propose to add the explication in the text, something like: Greater Serbia, literally meaning "Great Serbia" <:ref>,... I would support your point on this because I understand you, but see also User:Producer point in his answer in the previos section on this talk page... FkpCascais (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The English language has accepted this error in translation due to a number of factors. Not understanding the concept of Velika Srbija, OR simply recognising Serbian territories as Central Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, with a possible tolerance to Montenegro being part of Serbia, seeing Tito's administrative division of Yugoslavia the only logical boarders in the event of a fragmentation of the State. OR, an attempt to deamonise Serbs during the 90s by placing the same description of some aspirations of nationalist Serbs with the same description of Hitler's Greater Germany. All three of these combine with some merit to the incorrect translation of Velika Srbija. To Producer, those "reliable" sources are all written by non-Serbs. If you want to play this game of thinking they are truly objective, ok, I can't fight you anymore. However, the title in your argument should also be changed to Greater/Great and the article should have detailed explanation as to the divided nature and lack of concession over the English name of the ideology.

If the same people that deamonised the Serb's during the 90s, sanctioned them, bombed them, murdered them, tore up their country in, let's say, two pieces (Serbia/Kosovo and Metohija), call this century old ideology that means Great Serbia, and has no imperialist ambitions, the same name that they gave Hitler's Germany, and you think that is accurate, objective and correct, ok. That will not change the fundamentals of the ideology, that will not change its nature, that will not change informed peoples understanding of it, however, it will continue to be damaging propaganda towards Serbs, for every uninformed person that googles this website, scans the title and introduction, and then closes off the tab with an opinion that Serb's are comparable to Nazis.

Australianhistorian (talk)10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In English the term "greater" is used when discussing irredentist concepts. It is not limited to Serbia and is applied to other countries such as Bulgaria and Italy. In Serbo-Croatian the term "velika" is used for the same countries. It's not a mistranslation as you would like it to appear. Frankly your views on why "greater" was chosen is ridiculous and irrelevant. I'm reverting your edit relabeling "Greater Serbia" to "Greater/Great Serbia" as it is not the article name. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason it is applied to those nations such as Italy and Bulgaria is because their concepts of Great Italy/Bulgaria are founded on EXPANSIVE/IMPERIALIST ideas. They seek to expand into territories that are no populated by their own people, and classically ANNEX them. Velika Srbija, Greater Serbia, as explained by its only modern creator, Vojislav Seselj, is founded on the ideas of national enlightenement and the use of historical evidence to prove to Muslims by nationality, Catholic Serbs, and Macedonians that they are Serbs, who under hundreds of years of foriegn influence been either forced or enticed to acknowledge themselves as different nationalities on the basis of religion. There is a fundamental difference between the concept of Great Serbia and other nations GREATER aspects, that is irrefutable evidence here, and I will not rest until it has been corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianhistorian (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm no Greater Bulgaria is based on the idea that Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians. This is similar to the idea that as you put "Muslims by nationality, Catholic Serbs, and Macedonians [...] are Serbs". The only difference is "Greater Serbia" is more ambitious. Greater Italy wishes to include Italians living in nearby countries. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what Australianhistorian means, mostly, that the initial idea of "Velika Srbija" was around the liberation of the still occupied territories under Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. In that period, what really existed was a "Small Serbia" that had more than half of Serbs living in the surrounding Empires. So by that, the naming of "Velika Srbija" is really meant to be for the Kingdom that united with those territories would be creating what would be a "normal Serbia", but is called "Velika" mostly because it is bigger than all the principalities or kingdoms that Serbia had since its liberation from the Ottomans, that were big as was "Beogradski Pašaluk". I think that Australianhistorian is wanting to make the idea of liberation clear (in oposition to conquest), so it can be differenciated of other "greater" ideologies that, in many cases, created a big number of wars and victims.

But, on the other side, and something PRODUCER has been trying to point out, is that this article is about the "Greater Serbia" that was used in real irredentist way too, as in perspective of many other nationalities that didn´t felt the Serbian "liberation" in same way as Serbs were... But, we are entering here into territories that are extremely hard to sumarise, what for one is liberation, for the other is opresion. We have to keep both perspectives allways in mind here.

Resumingly, I think the name "Greater" has to stay because that is how it is used in English. What this article needs is more work on that historical perspective. I did my best in the "Historical perspective" section, but it could/should have more sections created, specially regarding different periods. That would possibly balance the article and solve this (more/less) irredentist question... FkpCascais (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old nonsense see-saw. Croatian nationalists constantly scream at the top of their voice that SFR Yugoslavia was "anti-Croatian", while Serbian nationalist claim it was "anti-Serbian". Most likely it was neither, but a state trying to balance the two as best as possible - hence the paradoxical accusations from both sides (!). The communists were afraid that Slovene and Croatian separatism might break the country apart, as the latter become averse to Serbian dominance (as was the case in the first Yugoslavia) - so they constitutionally limited the power and influence of the Serbian federal state. This however, brought about the resurgence of - Serbian nationalism in 1986/87. Slobodan Milošević, despite being an undoubted socialist himself, came to power in SR Serbia on a nationalist platform, creating a powerful national Serbian state that in turn brought about the "first-Yugoslavia syndrome" in the western republics - causing their secession.

If someone is trying to rename/delete the article, don't. It'd never pass. "Greater" is not only used everywhere on Wiki but is incomparably more common in Englsih usage in this case as well (WP:COMMONNAME). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, just a classic Croatian that tries to blame the 90s on the Serbs. "HA-HA-HA-HA". Yugoslavia was most definitely NOT a balanced state: In the aftermath of the Croatia Ustasa genocide upon the Serbs, they still had an overral majority in BiH and large parts of Croatia.

To solve the issue of Serbia as a Federal Republic within the Federation having too much territory the Communists invented these autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo/Metohija, to try and undermine Serbian vote in the Federal level. They invented false nationalities which had never existed before; Montinegrins and Macedonians. They declared all Serbs of Islamic faith were now Muslim by nationality. They pressured for the creation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Their agenda was clear: Marginalise the Serbs from their position of dominance.

If Milosevic came to power on a "nationalist" platform, what kind of platform did Tudjman and Izetbegovic come to power on? What were the Serbs in the Croatian Federal Republic reminded of Tudjman made the same Ustasa checkerboard, their coat of arms, that hung on the gates of the Jasenovac death camp? When he started writing books, minimising the Croatian Nazi genocide of Serbs during ww2? Direktor, Slovenia was not really a case that had much debate in it, over 90% of the population was Slovenian and they were the only constituent people in that Federal Republic. Macedonia the same, the only constituent people. Franjo Tudjman destroyed Yugoslavia, not Milosevic. He ILLEGALLY changed the status of the Serbs in Croatia from a constituent people to a minority, and subsequently declared independence. No historian, no politician, can argue, in any manner, that Franjo Tudjman and the Croatians started the conflict in Croatia and were the primary instigators of the break up of Yugoslavia. Why is it that Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces but Dalmatia and Krajina/Slavonia were not? Because Tito and the Communists wanted it that way. Stop spraying your sad propaganda here. SFR Yugoslavia was blatantly anti-Serbian and the Croats had much more fault than the Serbs in the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Serbs tried to prevent it from breaking apart, Croats worked on its fragmentation. End of story. Australianhistorian (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

No, they did not all declare themselves "Serbs of Islamic faith", the Serbs (and Croats) considered the Muslims their own; however the majority of Muslims themselves did not. On the note of constituency, your talking about how the Serbs lost their status as constituent people in Croatia (12 percent), yet deny the Muslims the same in Bosnia and Herzegovina (43 percent) and ignore that Kosovo effectively lost its autonomy in 1989 illegally through constitutional changes that passed without 2/3rds majority thanks to Milosevic's puppets. "Why is it that Kosovo and Vojvodina were autonomous provinces but Dalmatia and Krajina/Slavonia were not?" Better autonomy rather than republic, if anything Tito delayed the Yugoslav wars. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, just because they did not declare themselves "Serbs of Islamic faith" doesn't mean that is not what they were. They had a collective sense of themselves through their faith, but they weren't retarded and they new their origin. What the hell are you talking about, the Muslims in Bosnia had constituency before Tito declared them a nationality? Slobodan Milosevic did have 2/3 vote when he changed the status of Kosovo, but that is irrelevant in itself because those false boarders were setup by a Communist regime. Don't you give me your "if anything Tito delayed the Yugoslav wars" if he treated Serbs as equals and wasn't anti-Serb, then he would not have relocated Bosnian Serbs to Vojvodina after ww2, he would have left them in Bosnia where they had a majority AFTER the Croatian genocide against the Serbs, and taken people from Sumadija, he would not have invented autonomies which were absolutely unthinkable, principally on land that had been part of Serbia since the 7th century. And finally the Serbs DID NOT "LOSE" their constituency in Croatia, because the only way to lose their autonomy by law, is for them to decide it for themselves. Their constituency was taken from them illegally, and that is why the war in Croatia started. Australianhistorian (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić, četnički komandant je poslao izvješće Draži Mihajloviću, šefu vrhovne komande:

Istrjebljivanje muslimana s područja Pljevlje, Čajniče i Foče dovršeno je. Operacije su izvršene precizno prema izdanim naredbama i direktivama: onda je usledilo čišćenje: sva su muslimanska sela s tri navedena područja potpuno sažgana, tako da nema ni jedne neizgorele kuće. U vreme našeg operisanja tu je sve muslimansko pučanstvo uništeno, bez obzira na dob ili spol. Žrtve: oko 1200 muslimanskih branitelja i osam hiljada drugih žrtava, žena, staraca i dece. Među muslimanima moral je, dosledno potpuno opao.

Muslimani su delovali potpuno izgubljeni u teroru i panici što su je širili naši četnici.

Major Zaharija Ostojić izvještava Mihajlovića:

Juče završio akciju do Ustikoline i rebene Jahorine. Ustaše tučene dobro. Po dosadanjim podatcima oko 500 mrtvih i oko 1000 do 2000 muslimana poklanih. Sve trupe dobri borci, a još bolji pljačkaši izuzev Pavla. Pad Foče ima dobrog odjeka. Muslimani u masama beže u Sarajevo. Naredio sam povratak trupa kući, a ja sam od juče u Kalinoviku i rešavam ostala pitanja sa Ištvanom i Jevdjevićem. Sada su zadovoljni. 1002.

Bačović izvještava Mihajlovića:

Vratio sam se sa puta po Hercegovini. Četiri naša bataljona, oko 900 ljudi, krenuli su 30 avgusta preko Ljubuškog, Imotskog, Podgore i kod Makarske izbili na more. 17 ustaških sela spaljeno. 900 ustaša ubijeno. Nekoliko katoličkih sveštenika živih odrano. Prvi put nakon sloma poboli srpsku zastavu u more i klicali kralju i Draži Mihajloviću. Naši gubici minimalni.

(Ante Beljo; YU-GENOCID; str. 22; Hišak, Toronto 1990, Galerija 'Stećak' Klek/Zagreb, drugo izdanje) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.166.170 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Greater Serbia Chetniks 1941.gif Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Greater Serbia Chetniks 1941.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Greater Serbia claims early 93.png Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Greater Serbia claims early 93.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)