Talk:Greater Serbia

POV and lack of references

This article's lack of references and obvious POV in some places makes it not suitable for Wikipedia standards. I suggest a complete and proper rewrite instead of that patchwork approach: a Croatian opinion here, a Serb answer there... Maybe that is the way how discussions on the Balkans work, but this is not acceptable for Wikipedia.--80.219.119.16 10:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mir Harven's comments

This is a good page, but it needs additional material. Looks I'll have to brush up my GS collection.Mir Harven 15:09, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What have you got?  :-) -- ChrisO 15:18, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ugh....geopolitical fantasies galore. Some pics would be useful, too. Also, a more nuanced approach. Oh, well...next week.Mir Harven 23:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Geez...you've done a great job I havent noticed. So, just minor clarifications. Nice, nice. As I see it, the only significant part would be addition on the transmutation of GS into Yugoslav integralist ideology (post 1920s).Mir Harven 23:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Secession verbiage

Nikola Smolenski wrote: It is however not clear why, in light of this, creation of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina which took in large numbers of other ethnic groups against their will, has not been videly criticised; quite to the contrary.

It hasn't because those were not creations (which I've corrected already), and because the secessions were supported by the majority of the population in each of the republics. --Shallot 21:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone remind me what the name is of that treaty that fixed Europe's borders after WW2? AFAIK, the argument has always been that existing republics have a right to secede but not areas within republics. That's why the international community has consistently resisted Kosovo's independence, as it's not an existing republic (and nor for that matter is Republika Srpska - same argument applies). -- ChrisO 00:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, the NATIONS had right to secede, not the republics. Note that Albanians were not a nation, but a minority. Everyone is against Kosovo's independence because it would set a precedent for independences of other provinces around the world. Serbian states in Bosnia and Croatia were declared before Bosnia and Croatia were internationally recognised. Nikola 08:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, it's 2008 and you were wrong. It's hard, but it can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the Yugoslav Constitution of 1974 is the key, I believe that that one opened the secession option for the republics. --Shallot 00:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not available online. Nikola 08:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This was embedded in the 1st Yugoslav post-WW2 constitution (somewhere areound 1950) and further explicitly clarified and expanded in the 1974 constitution. The essence is the following: the Yugoslav republics are the constituent elements of Yugoslav federation, and sovereignity "stems" from the free will (ahem...) of republics, and NOT from: a) any Yugoslav people b) any province c) Federation as such. In short, sovereignity hadnt, from the outset, (in the first years only "paragraphically") belonged to anything or anyone but republics. The Federation's "sovereignity" was, even in the 1950s, (at least declaratively), a "derivative" one.Mir Harven 00:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Multi-ethnic nature of Yugoslav republics

ChrisO wrote: Indeed, Serbia was and remains the most multi-ethnic of all the Yugoslav republics - 35% of its population are non-Serb

First off, Bosnia is/was much more multi-ethnic than that. Secondly, if you exclude the autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo), there's much more homogeneity. They weren't autonomous provinces for no reason, after all... not to imply that there weren't any other reasons to make them autonomous, but their ethnic composition was certainly one of the factors. --Shallot 00:55, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the difference between Bosnia and Serbia was/is one of the size of absolute majorities. I don't think any ethnic group had an absolute majority (50%+) of the population in Bosnia. Serbs do have an absolute majority in the whole of the Republic of Serbia, but it's a relatively small one (effectively only a 2:1 majority). I think I'm right in saying that this is the smallest absolute majority in any of the FY states, save possibly Macedonia? -- ChrisO 10:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Bosnia's three major nations were 44:33:17 in percentages in 1991, but that fits my definition of being multi-ethnic :) IIRC, Macedonia had a similar percentage of non-Macedonians, yeah, and it didn't have autonomous provinces. Anyway, I'm trying to say that this is not a particularly convincing argument for the theoretical tolerant nature of Greater Serbia and doesn't really deserve mention, at least not any more than such facts about the other republics deserve mention, and I don't think they really do. --Shallot 14:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to the latest census (data from the Serbian statistical office), minorities are max. 35% of Vojvodina's population, and max. 10.5% of Central Serbia's population. The largest minority in Serbia proper are the Bosniaks which are pretty much concentrated in the Sandžak region where they are in the majority in three muncipalities. So, only some truly multi-ethnic counties of Vojvodina could be the proof of that concept, and even that is rather flaky given the events that started fifteen years ago and which, sadly, continue even to this day... --Shallot 01:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I take your point, though in the article I was referring to the Republic of Serbia as a whole, not Serbia minus the autonomous provinces (which I agree is much more homogeneous. -- ChrisO 10:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But-Sernian province Vojvodina is also much more homogenous. There were (one could consult censa) ca. 40-45% Serbs ib Vojvodina 1961, and 65% in 2002. Quite a leap, huh ? The only part of Serbia Serbs "etnically lost" is Kosovo-and this only due to NATO intervention. Otherwise they would have cleansed Albanians from the major (and maybe all) part of the Kosovo province. "Ethnically mixed Serbia" is just a myth, considering the history. They're now more homogenous than ever.Mir Harven 10:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all at the most recent census 51% of Vojvodina's population. The rest are either minoprities, Yugoslavs, or half-serbs (mixed with other minorities).

In regards to Kosovo there were between 2000 to a maximum of 10 000 people died in Kosovo in the war, and at maximum 70% were Albanian. If you include deaths in Kosovo since Nato's arrivel it would be more like 50-50. It was not ethnic cleansing as their were over 1.8 million Albanians to 0.2 million Serbs and non-Serbs, and at its height the Serb forces had 40 000 troops, police and paramilitaries (the Albanians had equal numbers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.93.27 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unrepresentative leadership, minority treatment, generic nationalism

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Ustase were not tiny and unrepresentative; What was wrong with treatment of minorities?; this is not a page on Serbian nationalism

First of all, yes, the Ustase were most certainly a tiny and unrepresentative minority, because Pavelic and his 300 men were installed by the Axis.

Yes, 300 men ruled entire Croatia... Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, three hundred were installed by the Axis. Then they were joined by all the collaborators, and coerced some more even. Nothing really odd there... --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Even after the war, the wildest estimates of expulsed people from .hr don't go over 10% of the population and it's known that the large majority of those were expulsed merely for being in the Domobrani and not actual Ustase.

By the same logic, every ruling party in history ever is a tiny and unrepresentative minority. Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that's not the point, the point is that the sentence we're talking about is talking about the Ustase coming to power. When they were coming to power, they simply must have been smaller than they were at the "peak" of their reign. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, asking what is wrong with treatment of minorities is just ludicrous. Serbia has had mass protests from Albanians in Kosovo about the abuse to the point of starting guerilla warfare.

There was nothing wrong with treatment of Albanians. Albanians want to separate from Serbia, protested because of that, started guerilla warfare because of that. Why was there no mistreatment of Albanians outside Kosovo? Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's your position, not theirs or, largely, the rest of the world's. I distinctly remember Serbian propaganda that vilified them for separatism, but never with any substance. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's the truth; not only did many Albanians want a seperate and independent "Kosova", but also "Greater Albania". So what if many of them who do want "Greater Albania" don't wanna admit it openly to everyone in the West? They're not naive and they are smart, though not always honest. And so what if a lot of the world doesn't accept that position. There was a lot of anti-Serbian propaganda back then, and there still is today. And whenever the Serbian media reported on this kind of irridentism, it was always with substance.

Shallot, you lie.

Alan. --84.67.18.2 12:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Magyars, Croats and others in Vojvodina are also dissatisfied (they're not even represented in the state parliament, not even pro forma), and the Croats are expecially well treated what with all the cemetery destruction, threats and eventually emigrations.

They aren't now, but they were then, Milosevic's head of the customs was a Hungarian for example, so this certainly doesn't stand. Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, right, everything must have been peachy just because some person or group didn't object to him. Remember Riza Sapundžiju? --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the Hungarians were treated so badly then why did more then 90% respond to their conscription in the Milosevic era, and why did the 300 000 - 450 000 Hungarians in Vojvodina have more rights then the 600 000 of Slovakia and 2 million of Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.93.27 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Similar holds for the Croats of the Montenegrin littoral, the emigrants maintain a list of over 300 Croatian families fleeing just the Tivat area due to harassment before, during and after the Yugoslav wars.

And that is related to the concept of Greater Serbia? Has nothing to do with Serbs being ethnically cleansed from Croatia? Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all, two wrongs don't make a right, and secondly, this started much before what you mention, and in fact quite some time before the Yugoslav wars. We can call it supremacism, hegemony, or whatever, but they who objected to it generally called it by the name of the concept described in this article. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you would be right, then there would be mistreatment of all minorities, not just the selected few. But this isn't the case. Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Err, I'm not necessarily claiming all of them were mistreated, I just know several notable examples. And even so, mistreating "just a few" of them doesn't clear their record at all. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thirdly, of course this page is about Serbian nationalism?!

It is just about a part of it. If it is about Serbian nationalism, why not renaming it "Serbian nationalism"? Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We're having a communication glitch here, that sentence was only responding to one of your terse notes in the commit log... it's about a part of it, yes, I hope. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But even if I guess what you were trying to say, I maintain that linking to "Greater Croatia" just because this is "Greater Serbia" makes no sense, because such a name is simply not used with regards to Croatian nationalism, except of course when someone conjectures an analogous term to this and similar ones.

So, it is used. Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In an inconsequential manner. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's really pointless to consider a "greater" Croatia when they barely just managed to get a Croatia at all.

Who are they? Ustashas? Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're just trolling me here, huh? I was simply not speaking in first person... --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Linking to an inexistent page on such a term from here, esp. coupled with the other similar ones, is nothing more than a pretty transparent instance of handwaving.

Handwaving? Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second definition of handwaving in the Jargon File. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Linking to the generic term such as what I used is perfectly proper given the several references to it from the contents of the article itself. --Shallot 02:09, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It might be proper, but in article on Serbian nationalism. Nikola 08:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but this one would have to link to the NDH I guess, that's the closest match. --Shallot 11:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sketch

User:Igor wrote removing image first of all, made up and looks hand drawn on PhotoShop, sorry ChrisO

It's a concept, a plan. Duh. --Shallot 13:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Serbs in the Habsburg monarchy etc

This page literally reeks of badness and rubbish-on Serbian part. For instance,nonsense about purported Serbian "organization" within Habsburg Empire (when compared to Prague Charles University, Croatian Uni. in Zagreb, panslavic movement initiated by Czechs and Slovaks (Kollar, Palacky, Safarik, Zach,..) with no Serb involved)- all this requires serious editing. As it is now- much valuable material tainted by Greater Serbian claptrap. Mir Harven 18:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please simply elaborate those facts instead of ranting about it... --Shallot 20:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chronological sections vs. Igor's origins section

Nikola, I said "what the hell?", but then clearly explained that I was reducing duplication (rather apparent one, because Igor's text was already integrated by myself earlier and then you pasted it again in separately), and split up into three chronological sections. I'm going to try to make some sense of the page after the latest round of back-and-forth by you and Mir Harven, but it's getting really tiring to have to work with stubborn and revert-trigger-happy people like you guys. --Shallot 20:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, you can't just say "what the hell" and then delete half of the article. You have integrated Igor's text in a way which reflects your POV and reduced duplication in a way which reflects your POV. You have completely removed information about evolution of the term which is not the same as evolution of the concept. Nikola 22:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes and you did a great job explaining why these things are different and why my commit is wrong. Pfft. To claim that the term is a concoction of some unnamed Austrian/Hungarian intellectuals when there are numerous explicitly named Serbian sources saying otherwise is shaky logic at best. To take such a claim as universal truth is nothing less than stupid. --Shallot 00:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You made no commit, only a deletion. Which are those "numerous Serbian sources" which claim the same? Nikola 22:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the ones already quoted in the article, the statements by Ilija Garašanin or the ones in the book among the external links? Heck, just the single 1844 quote is sufficient -- that's before 1849, which is when Austrian authorities cracked down on the national revolutions. --Shallot 00:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand now what this is all about. The term in Serbian is, of course, not a "concoction of some unnamed Austrian/Hungarian intellectuals", and I don't think that the article says so. However, its pejorative application and view of it as something negative is. Nikola 15:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but Igor's definition of the "origins" makes it sound like it was the Austrians who both made up the term and gave it an imperialist meaning, which is plain wrong. They neither made up the term nor were they the primary authors of its imperialist meaning, where "imperialism" is defined both as "a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries" (true at least at that time) and as "any instance of aggressive extension of authority" (true most of the time), as WordNet puts it. --Shallot 16:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
"Serbian government official Ilija Garašanin in his work "Načertanije" (1844) ... describes the lands on the Balkans ... as Velika Srbija, which could be translated from Serbian language as "Big Serbia", "Large Serbia" or "Great Serbia". ... In English language, however, the concept is referred to as "Greater Serbia", suggesting that it is an expansionistic goal. The term was coined by Austro-Hungarian intellectuals...who thought that Pan-Slavism posed a serious threat to the existence of their Empire."

Obviously, it is obvious that the article states that the term has Serbian origins, and was intentionally mistranslated by A-H intelectuals.

That's just one way of looking at it (characteristic to Igor, I'm afraid...). When one says "velika Srbija" in Croatian, there's no mistranslation involved, and yet it's still an expansionistic term obvious to anyone who ever read a history book that talked about expansionism. To think that the evil Austrians just pulled the whole idea out of their collective asses would be... naive, to say the least. --Shallot 12:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other point is described in the rest of the article. Nikola 11:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And that definition of imperialism certainly doesn't apply here. Notice that foreign countries just happened to be empires. Nikola 06:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How does imperialism preclude expansion towards empires? I don't think it does. --Shallot 12:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is then every liberation movement in history is imperialism. That is, of course, patent nonsense. Nikola 11:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This wasn't just "liberation", this is liberation under explicit guidance from a non-local entity, and that reductio ad infinitum doesn't apply in this case. --Shallot 16:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
How is Serbia non-local entity to the Balkans? Even if it is, why wouldn't it apply? Nikola 22:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges. The entity "Serbia" exists in the area of the Ottoman Belgrade pashaluk. It does not exist in the area that became the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Hence, it is not a local entity to the area of the State of SHS. --Shallot 10:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems that we have different definition of local as well... Nikola 22:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To add definition of empire from empire article: "large, multi-ethnic state which maintains its political structure by coercion." Greater Serbia would by definition be a single-ethnic state! Nikola 22:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh, but you committed changes yourself that said that it's possible for it to be multi-ethnic... In any case, our imperialism article implies empire, but the meaning of "imperialism" in neither Merriam-Webster, nor Webster 1913, nor WordNet is so narrow. --Shallot 10:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not as multi-ethinc as an empire.

M-W says: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"; now, Serbia might have been extended but Serbian nation surely wouldn't be. Nikola 22:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. Exactly. This is about the expansion of Serbia. D'oh! I'm not sure what we're arguing about any more, and that pretty good indicator of sophistry... --Shallot 19:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And any comparison of me with Mir Harven I understand as a personal insult. Nikola 22:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Take it as you will. You all are alike because of the constant unexplained reverting or swapping of content with an abysmal inability to comprehend that this is not the best route to take when editing an article. Right now I'm taking a break from editing several articles because I'm fed up with having to constantly clean up after partisan edits, and this one is nearing the same threshold (again). --Shallot 00:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop insulting me. We are nothing alike, and you know it the best. There are numerous occasions where you and me were discussing about something and agreed on neutral approach, or me and someone else, or you and someone else, but I've never seen a fruitful discussion with MH. As I said befor, I refuse to work on something which is 10% fact and 90% propaganda. The fact that you are not reverting his edits is not to your credit. Nikola 22:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We often discuss things and come to a compromise, that's true, but it's also true that people have a tendency to ignore Mir Harven's attempts at discussion because he rants, and especially his article commits also because they resemble the rants. It is a logical fallacy to assume that his edits are completely wrong (worthy of blunt reversions) simply because his style is emotional (to say the least). Not all of his edits are 90% propaganda, and this is fairly obvious from reading the last revert diff which includes about as much collateral damage as ranting. In this particular instance I am not particularly anxious to get involved in any more editing since it was my good-faith contribution that triggered the current slow edit war (D'oh!). Reversions are probably the worst way to encourage involvement. :| --Shallot 00:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, no. I don't assume that his edits are completely wrong. For example, he might be right when he says that the term is in fact invented by Jefto Dedijer. However, he has no credibility and offers no incentive for veryfiying his edits. I don't have the slightest intention to go around and clean up after him while he inserts his rants whenever he pleases. Nikola 15:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Irredentism

Nikola Smolenski wrote: This has nothing to do with irredentism, as most of the teritorries were never a part of Serbia, nor anyone claims that they were

That's a pretty dishonest remark given that there are numerous claims right here in the history of the page History of Bosnia and Herzegovina about how Bosnia was once a Serbian land and whatnot. Let's not pretend that irredentism is something limited to the Italians, that would be very silly... --Shallot 21:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Bosnia was a Serbian land it was not, nor anyone claims that it was, a part of Serbia. But even if someone claims that it was a part of Serbia, the idea doesn't propose merging it with Serbia because of that, but because it is inhabited by Serbs. And even if that would not be the case, there are other teritorries which were never a part of Serbia, nor anyone claims that they were, nor anyone claims that they were Serbian lands, but are part of this idea. Such as Vojvodina, for example. On the other hands, there are teritorries which were undisputably a part of Serbia, most of Greece for example, but noone has ever proposed them to be included in Serbia again. This simply is not an irredentist idea. Nikola 22:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not all parts of Bosnia were Serbian, but close to about 55-60% was at one point in medieval times. Plus Saint Sava would of been given an area that now comprises of parts of Bosnia by his dad (if he hadn't become a saint).

There habe been proposals for re-creating the "Empire of Serbs and Greeks". This proposal would have the two have a join-monarchy, and include all the lands of Greater Serbia and Greater Greece combined. Second if Macedonia is considered a Greek land by Greeks, and if Serbs were to take it over those Greek would consider it an invasion of Greek domains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.93.27 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before the Ottoman Empire conquered the Balkans, Bosnia was its own nation, it was made up of a mainly Serbian culture, but the Bosnian Church integrated both Orthodox and Catholic concepts. I myself am from Bosnia, and it is distinct from Serbia, Serbians, Croats, Bosniaks, Yugoslavs, are all one and same. The irony though about a Greater Serbia, is the fact that Bosnia was the one that would take provinces such as Banat away from Serbia, Serbia never gained any territories from Bosnia during medieval ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.216.181 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You apparently have a definition of irredentism that's from an alternate universe. I suggest you look it up. --Shallot 00:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, last time when I looked that article, it didn't mention anything about common ethnicity [1]. Given that that is inserted by an anon, I'm not sure that it is true. Nikola 22:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I posted that link but also checked that WordNet dictionary says the same (the doctrine that irredenta should be controlled by the country to which they are ethnically or historically related). I checked Merriam-Webster now and it also says the same (a political principle or policy directed toward the incorporation of irredentas within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related political unit). --Shallot 00:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then, OK. Nikola 15:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

irredentism: The claim by a government or political movement to a territory lying outside its country's present boundaries. From the Italian irredenta, or “unredeemed,” it derives from a nationalist Italian political movement of the 1870s that sought to annex certain predominately Italian-speaking parts of Austria. Irredentist claims are typically made on the basis of the ethnicity, language, or culture of the occupants of the disputed territory, or with reference to the state's geographical dimensions at some earlier point in history. It is common where borders were recently shifted or imposed and where populations are mixed. from "irredentism" Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of New Mexico. 19 May 2005 - Nobs 15:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Lenience towards the Austrian stance

Mir Harven, I don't think it's right to take Austria's side so unilaterally when it comes to their opposition to the Greater Serbian idea. Other nations, including our own, also wanted to secede from it on reasonably similar grounds, this wasn't something particularly out of the ordinary. Igor has tried to eliminate the notion that the Serbs used the term and instead expound on how it was a big stink raised by the Austrians, but that's no reason to go about making the Austrians look like innocent little imperialists here :) --Shallot 21:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On misconceptions in former GS article

OK, let's clear a few false statements that have dominated earlier versions of this article and have obscured the issue.

1. the claim that Serbs in Austria-Hungary were «advanced» in comparison to other Slavic speaking peoples is blatant nonsense. In fact, many of the privileges (not achievements) that they were allowed to have came from useful propaganda originating in Croatian writer and historian Pavao Ritter-Vitezovic's book on Serbian history (the first modern attempt to write Serbian history). Serbian writer and ecclesiastical figure, Jovan Rajic, translated this book into Serbian-Slavic and, also, used argument from it to defend and achieve a sort of autonomy for Serbs in Austria- which he succeeded. Other Slavic peopeles possessed much more liberty, cultural institutions et all: Poles, Croats and Czechs universities etc. As for «Matica srpska» (nontranslatable- «Matrix» is ludicrous; essentially, it was/is a cultural society for advancement and preservation of national/ethnic culture), it is true is was founde earlier than other such insitutions. But- this is due to the fact that Austria treated Serbian efforts as relatively harmless and even promoted them (especially after the collapse of the first Serbian uprising in 1804.), since Turkey's decay was inevitable, and Austria was the closest power to capitalize on that. Reading previous versions one gets the impression that Habsburg empire was bent on destruction or suppression of Serbs in the 19th century. The truth is exactly the opposite. Austrian authorities promulgated Serbian interests in the major part of the 19th century, and even the project of Serbian standard language was set into motion by Habsburg bureaucracy embodied in powerful censor, Slovene Jernej Kopitar. Until the coup in 1903 (?. Maybe it was 1904., when Obrenovic dynasty had been eradicated), Serbia was Austrian ally and frequently a fief (especially economically). That is, from 1830s to 1903. Only *after* that period have the seeds of Greater Serbian schemes began the subject of Austrian oppression. Of course- Habsburg empire knew of various «greater» schemes (Garasanin's, for instance), but was aware that they are destined to remain geopolitical fantasies until something really changes. And it changed- polarization at the end of the century, axis France-Russia, Russian patronage over Serbia, growing German-Austrian «bloc» as opposed to the future Entente (France, Britain, Russia)- all this catapulted Greater Serbia ideology into the orbit of much greater importance than it could have got in different geopolitical situations.

2. back to «advanced national culture». Virtually all Slavic nations in A-H empire (except Ruthenians, Sorbs and Slovaks) have had universities in their national languages- Poles, Czechs, Croats. But not Serbs. As for «Maticas» («Bees»), it is significant that Czech and Croatian institutions of the same name were suppressed by Austrian authorities and their foundation postponed by 2 or 3 decades. In the case of Croatian «Matica» (as is the case with academy), political pressures were applied to halt it- it was even prohibited, as was the use of Illyrian name, which was the name of Croatian national revival- Illyrian movement.
Putting Greater Serbia concept into context of pan-Slavism is completely out of touch with reality. The leaders and founders of pan-Slavic movement at the beginning of the 19th century were exclusively Slovaks and Czechs (Jan Kollar, Pavel Safarik, Vaclav Hanka,..). Although a few Poles showed some sympathy, they soon strongly repudiated it because they saw, rightly, that it aims at creation of pan-Russian state and extension of Czarism. Pan-Slavism had quickly mutated into a tool for Russian Orthodox czarist oppression and geopolitical plan for expansion further westward. As for Serbs- they did not play any role in formulating pan-Slavic fantasies, but misused naive forays of benign foreigners (Czech Franjo Zach, Pole Adam Czartoryski) for their own brand of provincial imperialism. As is well known, Greater Serbia concept rested firmly on lies and distortions: linguistic and cultural (Vuk Karadzic) and historical, ethnic and geopolitical (Ilija Garasanin). It «proclaimed» Serbdom of Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians, Bulgars,.. and also aimed at incorporation of lands that were neither ethnically nor historically a part of Serbia. And this is a definition of expansionist imperialism, very similar to German efforts in Silesia and Lorraine, Russian in Turkestan, ..

3. also, there are a few statements that are good illustrations of Serbian mindset:

-the claim that Dubrovnik is a «Serb town» was «opposed by Croatian nationalists». I beg your pardon ? It is opposed by virtually all population of Dubrovnik, by Croatian legal authorities and by international community as represented in the UN. What the heck are these statements doing here ? They belong to the lunatic asylum of deranged Serbian propaganda.

Dubrovnik isn't a Serb town nowadays but at one time it was. In 1890 the Serb Party controlled the town politically (elected). And 2nd of all certain political documents show that at time there were more Serbs then Croats. Now a days the only argument for having Dubrovnik as part of Montenegro (with in a greater serbia)would be that it as an enclave of croatia and if it were to be surrounded by Serbs indefinenetly its end would come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.93.27 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-the claim that Austrian diplomacy coined the term. Nonsense. It was coined by Serbian intellectuals, and Jefto Dedijer in particular. The only true contention is that Habsburg empire began oppression of Serbian members of Croatian-Serbian coalition in the 20th century (the so called. «High treason process» in Zagreb). But- it did not have anything to do with Greater Serbia, but with Croatian and Serbian ideology of Yugoslavism that took roots in early 1900s (say, from 1903. to 1914.). No Croatian member of this coalition (Supilo, Trumbic,..) had had, even in his wildest imagination, any wish to take part in Greater Serbia plan as delineated in Garasanin's plan. Also, Serbian members of colation, like Pribicevic (who later played a controversial role until his death in late 1930s), did not entertain Greater Serbian concepts, but currentyl popular (and later discarded) «theory» that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes constituted three «tribes» of a single, «Yugoslav nation» (no Macedonians or Bosniaks were included in the concept). So, Austrian persecution was aimed at protagonists of Yugoslav unitary nationalism (which later mutated into the front for Serbian supremacy- 1920s, 1930s,..)- and not at the protagonists of Greater Serbia, which were placed almost exclusively in the Serbian government before WW1.

-as for quasi-fascist nature of contemporary Greater Serbia program- it is self-evident (except, maybe, for partisans of serbdom). Inherently, the wish of members of one ethnicity to live in a single state is not anything bad. BUT- as history has shown in past 100 or so years, it leads only to wars of aggression (Nazi Germany nad Sudetenland, Fascist Italy and Dalmatia and Montenegro). Considering that French live in a few countries (France, Belgium, Switzerland), Germans also (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands,..), Russians even more (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhastan, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Uzbekistan,...)- do deniers of Fascist nature of the military aggression that naturally follows the wish «to live in one country» propose that Russians should attack Moldova or Ukraine and secede those parts that have Russian ethnic majority ? Or, for that matter, that Kosovo, a province of Serbia with overwhelming Albanian ethnic majority (90% +), should be incoporated into Greater Albania ?
Ponder on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir Harven (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

I have just read Nacertanije, and it doesn't mention "Velika Srbija" anywhere. Given that this is central point of the article... Nikola 22:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find the exact phrase anywhere, either. The closest there is, is:

"Srbija mora nastojavati da od zdanija turske države samo kamen po kamen ocepljuje i prima kako bi od ovog dobrog materijala na starom i dobrom temelju starog carstva srbskog, opet veliku novu srbsku državu sagraditi i podignuti mogla."

(veliku novu srbsku državu = great new Serbian state)

Even so, the rest is rather correct. Including the explicit antagonism towards the Austrians, now that I look at it. --Shallot 19:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean, the rest of the document, or the rest of the article? From this on, I notice major inaccuriacies in the article. The document doesn't mention some spreading of Serbia into Austria (the closest that comes to it is establishing friendly relations with Serbs of Vojvodina), it talks only about Turkey. If the Nacertanije is not a predecessor of the modern goal of Greater Serbia, then all statement like "The Greater Serbian concept was an offshoot of the Pan-Slavist movement" are bogus. I think that the article will need a major rewrite. Nikola 12:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uhh, did you actually read it? I skimmed the version on Project Rastko (the sheer irony...) and easily found:

Austrija dakle mora pod svima opstojateljstvima biti neprestano neprijatelj srbske države; sporazumjenije dakle i sloga sa Austrijom jeste za Srbiju politička nemogućnost; jer bi ona sama sebi uže na vrat bacila.

It doesn't take a wizard to understand this.

Also, the pan-Slavist theme is seen from the consideration of the Croatian lands inhabited by people not exactly Serbs, but close enough to be worthy of "uniting". --Shallot 12:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what is ironic in skimming a text on Project Rastko, and I don't see how the above translates to spreading of Serbia into Austria. See Batakovic's reasessment; Garasanin simply didn't tought that this was possible. As for other points, Croatia is mentioned in the document exactly twice: "For the purpose of knowing what should we do, [...] we should know the state of Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia" and "In order to turn people of Catholic faith from Austria to Serbia, [...] we should print [books] [...] In this way Dalmatia and Croatia would get works which cannot be printed in Austria, and that would be followed by tighter joining of this lands with Serbia and Bosnia". Considering this, Nacertanije sounds more like predecessor to Yugoslavian then Greater Serbian idea. Nikola 04:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's fine to interpret it all as very benign and kind, in fact a real wonder of philanthropy if you look at it closely. Had it not been for the actions of the same Serbian government regarding actual territorial expansion in the Balkan Wars, and towards the aforementioned lands in the first Yugoslavia they ruled. If you can't see any sort of meaningful connection between these things after examining the whole scope, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. --Shallot 11:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even if what you say would be completely true, it would mean that Nacertanije is not a predecessor to a Greater Serbian goal. Which is what the dispute is about. Nikola 06:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Old falsities

Looks like nothing has cjanges. OK, just a brief, reduced tally:

• the claim that Dubrovnik is a «Serb town» was «opposed by Croatian nationalists». I beg your pardon ? It is opposed by virtually all population of Dubrovnik, by Croatian legal authorities and by international community as represented in the UN. What the heck are these statements doing here ? They belong to the lunatic asylum of deranged Serbian propaganda.

• the intention to prove that "Greater Serbia" was a conglomerate concept of "Anti-Serb" conspiracy, born in Austria-Hungary, but reborn in Communist Komintern. Nope. This concept is indigenously Serbian geopolitical plan- as can be see by many transcripts from Slobodan Milošević trial

• claims about imaginary Serbian "good position" in KUK Monarchy when compared to other Slavic speaking nations like Czechs, Croats or Poles. This has been shown to be an illusion long since, as any serious historian knows.

• the name was mentioned for the 1sz time in writings of Serbian socialist S. Marković in 1872. A s for Garašanin's plan- it is evidently a plan for building a sort of Serbian empire on the ruins of the collapsing Ottoman one. Nothing bad per se, but it is the cornerstone of Serbian ideology ever since, even when historical processes had made it obsolete

• no mention of the Blacj Hand and their true nature in the former text

• no mention of ORJUNA and "marriage" between Greater Serbia concept and that of unitary Yugoslavism, culminating in king Alexander's dictatorship

• completely twisted presentation of the events in 1980s-1990s.

This article does not depict the development and the nature of GS concept. More, it consciously falsifies it, and I cannot say that any scholastic nitpicking over Garašanin (especially having in mind Black Hand, ORJUNA, Chetniks, Moljević, Memorandum SANU etc.- the entire procession from Vuk Karadzic to Radovan Karadzic) makes any difference. Mir Harven 13:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moljevic

Nikola Smolenski wrote: Moljevic is historically unimportant person, his ideas had no influence in Serbian politics, and so his blueprint, which this is not anyway, should not be used to illustrate the article

I've long stayed away from this particular argument, believing that there may be merit to it. However, then I stumbled upon this press release from the Serbian Helsinki Committee which makes explicit mention of Moljević's work with regard to this ideology. --Joy [shallot] 17:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, it also seems to have been raised by the ICTY prosecutors in relation to Serbian policy in Bosnia - see http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/040908IT.htm . -- ChrisO 12:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice company indeed.

I have said, and I will say again: Moljevic is historically unimportant person. He apparently published no work with his ideas, noone published it afterwards, nor is there anything published today. There are no analysis of him or his work today, there are no books about him, noone even created a web page about him, there is no mention of him what-so-ever. In contrast of many Chetnik Vojvodas to whose "ideologue" he supposedly was. That he is mentioned by HRW and ICTY show how weak their arguments are and not how influential Moljevic is. Nikola 23:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greater-serbia.png

I might be joining this discussion a little bit late but what the hell. My first reaction to this talk page was of surprise, because I expected Wikipedia editors to be slightly high brow. Instead theres still ethnic bickering even in an intellectual forum. I found this picture when trying to find information on the Greater Serbia idea.

Greater Serbia

I'll just leave it there for discussion on whether or not it should be put into the actual article, and if anyone wants to make a better copy you can use these borders. --Hurricane Angel 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How many Greater Serbian concepts?

Greater Serbia is a term that IMO combines two very different concepts.
One is a kind of degenerate Yugoslavism. That is Serbians who wanted South Slav unity but failed to realize that any future unified state could not be a little Serbia writ large but (for it to work) needed to give equal weight the aspirations of other Balkan peoples.
The second is a degenerate Serb nationalism. That is Serbians who wanted to base their state on a purely Serb identity and refused to give others groups an equal right to do so. The aim of uniting all Serbs in a Serbian state by definition meant that Serbia would take large swathes of territory where Serbs were merely a significant minority.
And sometimes those who are accused of Greater Serbianism are just well meaning folk who didn't fully take into account the views of non Serbs and indeed sometimes it was a term of abuse used against people who held consistent positions which others disagreed with.
This article takes a lot of time to map out a degree of continuity that I don't believe exists.

Yet a third strand is that the target of Markovich was not so much Serbian nationalism than the parasitical clique that he believed ran Serbia. Pribichevich's change from Yugoslav centralist to federalist was motivated IMO to a disgust at the level of corruption in the Kingdom of Yugoslvia.

The second problem is that putting its efforts into proving that Greater Serbia has it's origins way back in the 19th century it doesn't focus on the way that in the late 80's the Serbian elite took up positions that were completely indefensible. There are good reasons why the is a presumption in favor of existing borders. But even were that not to be so there is no way that anyone can come up with a consistent justification for Knin, Muslim majority Sandjak and Albanian Kosovo being part of a Serb state.
This page IMO is too harsh on Vuk but pulls its punches against Milossevich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejvid (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vuk Karadžić is linguistic pan-Serbism

Looks like some participants try to wash Vuk Karadžić clean of GS ideological lunacies. To no avail: those conversant with Croatian may see the Croatian affiliation of štokavian native speakers on Cro wiki page, with quotations galore: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rekli_su_o_hrvatskom_jeziku Mir Harven 13:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? Some people going way back called their language Croatia - not even Vuk would have disputed that.

Vuk's project failed, that's a historical fact but to say it was doomed to failure is POV and needs to be labeled as such. - Dejvid 15:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry ? Am I writing in plain English ? Are the following facts disputable:

• Some three hundred years before Vuk Karadžić (1500 +) there has been in existence shtokavian vernacular literature (liturgical, imaginative (poetry, drama, epic, ..), philological (dictionaries, grammars),..)).

• the authors of this shtokavian literature identified language they had written is mainly as "Slovin" and "Illyrian", as well as Croatian (beside regional designations like Bosnian or Slavonian). The authors include Zlatarić, Vetranović, Vidali, Grabovac, Stulli, Mikalja, Kašić, Nalješković, Babić, ..

• they never expressed the idea that the language they wrote in was "Serbian"- in any meaning of the word

• Vuk Karadžić's insisted that shtokavian dialect and literature were Serbian- and not Croatian. He was a pan-Serbian nationalist (he cautiously avoided to mention the self-professed national affiliation of shtokavian writers), and his linguistic pan-Serbism is, very visibly, a bungle of distortions, outright lies and cultural theft. Thanx to the immaturity of his Croatian contemporaries (mainly Illyrian fantasists) the malignity of his project had begun to draw attention only in post 1850/60s.

• some of his "exploits" are shown here (in Croatian):http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik3.html

• I think it's more than enough. One need not be a "Croatian nationalist" to see through the malignity and charlatanism of the entire Karadžić's linguistic-political project. Mir Harven 19:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also-in his own words (actually, this is a link at the bottom of the article): http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/karadzic.htm Mir Harven 20:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll read your references but in the meantime please answer my question. What about what I wrote as the opinion of Croat nationalists is ludicrous?Dejvid 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous is the claim that it is the opinion of "Croat nationalists". Or, more succinctly & drastically- the contention that Adolf Hitler was a pan-German expansionist & racist is not restricted to "anti-German" circles. It's just a simple rational claim. To describe Karadžić as the pan-Serbian ideologue who falsified languages history etc. is not just a "Croat nationalist" trademark, but a rather trivial observation. Mir Harven 09:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were claiming that what I wrote was a parody of nationalist claims. As your objection is simply that I've downgraded that POV from the status of objective truth then I'm reverting.

Vuk Karadžić's view was that only the linguistic facts on the ground counted and he didn't give a fig for littery traditions. He spent his whole life trying to persuade the Serbs to junk theirs so he was consistent in that. The article that you cited by Vuk I realize I have already read. Nothing in it justifies the extreme view you hold of Vuk. I have read in an account of his life that sometimes he overstated his case and had to back track but that is normal in such polemics. If you were able to cite me an example where Vuk not merely tried to persuade catholic sstokavian speakers that they should see themselves as Serbs but had advocated force to include them in a pan sstokavian state then he would deserve condemnation for that.

And that is the real crunch. Greater Serbianism deserves condemnation becasue it advocated force and indeed terror on a truly Hilter like level. The blame for that lies with Milossevich, Arkan and their supporters not with Vuk. Dejvid 10:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be counted among advocates of an ideology one need not try to "persuade" anyone to accept their views. H.S. Chamberlain is an anti-Semitic & pan-German ideologue although he didn't advocate force or "persuade" anyone about his ideas. So is Gobineau. And, so is, in his chosen "field", Vuk Karadžić. Your claims are simply a travesty of logic & distortion of historical facts. Therefore, reverted without much ado. Mir Harven 12:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying Vuk Karadžić was racist? Are you saying that anyone who tries to pesuade someone that they should adopt a different national outlook from the one they already hold is a racist? To me that's just free speech. Or do you regard national identity as something that is primordial and unchangeble?Dejvid 13:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you need a basic course in logic.EOD. Mir Harven 19:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is but we seem to have a full scale revert war on our hands. We really should be looking at some form of dispute resolution.

As I understand it, the dispute is that you say that your contention that Vuk's project was misconceived and doomed to failure is a fact on the level with the earth being spherical. You give evidence which to my mind is open to different interpretations. One of the links which is to a Croat nationalist site which includes a very strong attack on Maretić for his continued support of Vuk as late as 1931 when, what what with Alexander's imposition of a royal dictatorship, Croat disillusion with Yugoslavia was high. Maybe Maretić was by then out of touch but this is from your link and if a leading Croat academic continued to be a Vuk supporter so late then is does not support your contention that Vuk's project was doomed to failure. My point being is that your evidence is open to various interpretations.

Anyway, do you have a suggestion as to where we go from here?Dejvid 20:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is not anything to discuss. All's been said & there's no an impasse of any kind. Karadžić's national project was a pan-Serbian expansion (and he falsified languages history in order to support his ludicrous claims). As for Maretić-his work in language stylization is still, in some respects, valuable, but his nihilism re Croatian language history is long since dismissed. But, all his faults taken into account, Maretić was never a proponent of linguistic pan-Serbianism or Greater Serbian ideology. He just pretended that Vuk's central ideological paradigm was not the pan-Serbianism. This may be regarded as Maretić's character flaw, but not anything even remotely smacking of a Greater Serbian ideology Karadžić invented & promoted. So, to conclude:

1. Karadžić's main linguistic-political ideology was a pan-Serbian (Greater Serbian)- and not Yugoslav unitarian phantasm.

2. that phantasm was doomed from the beginning. But- the article on Greater Serbian ideology need not analyze whys and hows of Yugoslav ideology. Vuk Karadžić was the inventor of pan-Serbianism, and not Yugoslav unitarism. Therefore, his role in the article on Greater Serbia is not debatable at all. Mir Harven 14:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make about Maretić is that the evidence YOU presented is open to more than one interpretation. For you the interpretation you have must be the only one. On the internet opinions come over much stronger than face to face and I may be getting a false impression of you but you don't seem to be aware that there exist points of view diffent from your own.

Have I said that Vuk Karadžić was an advocate of Yugoslav unitarism? So why focus on that? You haven't even begun to say why you think Karadžić's view was misconceived, let alone that this is so obvious that it should be presented as a fact. I have no problem with the opinion being included but it should be clear that it is an opinion. It speaks volumes that you are now cutting the Judah quote. You seem determine to throw all guilt onto Vuk - as if those bombarding Dubrovnik were merely misled by Karadžić's ideas rather than using a spurious pretext to justify a plundering expedition.

You say we have no impasse. I really wonder what you would believe to be an impasse.Dejvid 13:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pull yourself together. You haven't stated anything rational that would cast any doubt whatsoever re the status of Vuk Karadžić as the progenitor of pan-Serbian nationalism. Virtually everything you wrote is just a smokescreen. I'll repeat:

1. This article is about the ideology of Greater Serbia and pan-Serbian chauvinism

2. The first and most influential ideologue of pan-Serbian chauvinism, based on falsified languages history and ideologically distorted ethnic attribution of shtokavian dialect native speakers was Vuk Karadžić.

Period. Mir Harven 19:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vuk Karadžić's aim was to build a national consciousness round the sstokavian dialect – that is not at issue. I have left untouched your wording. What is at issue is your assessment of that aim. You have stated that such an aim was “misconceived and doomed to failure”. I don't object to that bit being in but merely want that to be labeled as a point of view. You on the other hand say that it is so obvious that it has the status of objective proof. That is a contention that you need to prove not I. Maretić clearly does not share your view of Vuk Karadžić. You say that Maretić pretended to believe that Vuk Karadžić believed in something quite different from what he did. You don't bother to support that contention. You have posted three quite extensive links but have not tried explain why their contents supports your case. You give a link to a Croat nationalist site and it is indeed hostile to Vuk Karadžić but that Croat nationalists are hostile to him is not at issue. The translation of Serbs all and everywhere which you give (much shorter, may I say, than the version I have already read) supports your view that he was arguing for a national identity based narrowly on sstokavians. In that article however Vuk clearly states that Catholic sstokavians did not in his time accept the description of Serb. He does express an opinion that in the future they will probably (po svoj prilici) come to call themselves Serb. Well he was wrong but failing to predict the future does not make someone a liar.

I may be misunderstanding some of the points you are making and for that reason I have asked for clarification. My questions were not rhetorical but you seem to have assumed so by answering “I'd say you need a basic course in logic.EOD.”

Like I said you seem so convinced that you are right that no defense of your POV is needed. I am at a loss for an alternative explanation.Dejvid 11:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is fundamentally false. Vuk Karadžić's aim was not «to build a national consciousness round the sstokavian dialect», but to build pan-Serbian national ideology which misintepreted and lied about the history and status of shtokavian dialect. Need I repeat ? The central Karadžić's aim was Serbdom, and not some bizarre nameless štokavian unity. Concerning the statement that this was «doomed to failure»-this is completely marginal and can be rephrased. What is not marginal is that pan-Serbian ideology which misappropriated shtokavian dialect was very visibly a plan for Serbian chauvinist expansion- which is the issue of this article. The rest of your response (on Maretić etc.) only reaffirms what I've already said: you either need a course in logic, or have a very selective reading habits. Vuk Karadžić did not change his ideology about serbdom of shtokavian dialect- and this was not just his personal opinion, but a conscious falsification of languages history (he knew about Croatian ethnic affiliation of štokavian writers in 3 centuries preceding him; the fact that he pretended to be deaf and blind re this fact is just a testimony of his Serbian nationalism- the attitude which very «ellegantly» ignores facts that stand in its way). Karadžić was defeated in polemic with Croatian philologist Bogoslav Šulek and other prominent Croatian men of letters and, since he was exposed as lacking in argument, grudgingly acknowledged that Catholic štokavian Croats «can» identify with Croathood (very generously ! He should have been also generous to acknowledge that Othodox štokavian speakers could identify with Croatdom. Yet- this somehow eluded this poor neutral pan-štokavian wannabe ideologue. So- one can be a Croat, but others must be Serbs. Very »scientific» and «democratic», indeed !) If you didn't get the point about Maretić (as is shown from your confused answer); or if you harp on Croat nationalist attitudes (very pro-Serbian & pro-Yugoslav)- you're probably beyond reach in any rational discussion. So, I can conclude with just a few links that will put to rest this unnecessary waste of time & probably expand the portion on Karadžić's malign influence in the body of this article. As it is now, it's pretty whitewashed.

• the history of Croatian-http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/croatian_language.html

• the very proof of Karadžić's pan-Serbian «dialects ideology», dominant in Serbian philological circles in 1990s and 2000s-both in radical and «middle-of-the-road» forms, in Serbian-http://host.sezampro.yu/jezikdanas/8-98/8-98_1.htm, http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/ppiper-slavistika_c.html

• on history of the Croatian and Vuk, as well as his followers-in Croatian: http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik.html Mir Harven 11:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You seem much more conciliatory in this post and seem open to a compromise - we'll see. You accuse me of being selective in my reading. Well yes, but so are all human beings. If you believe you are not then you are kidding yourself. Everyone selects what is important according to their world view.

Back to Karadžić. It was you who posted a link to Srbi svi i svuda and I'm sorry but it still reads like "building a national consciousness round the sstokavian dialect". Would you explain what you think makes the difference between serbdom and štokavian unity and this time please don't answer with a link because it is specifically your stance on this that I want to find out. Dejvid 23:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is meaningless. Whether «Dejvid»'s contentions stem from deficiency in logic or are just a masquerade for Greater Serbian ramblings- it doesn't matter. For anyone interested, they can read this exchange and judge for themselves. From now on, all similar alterations will be just reverted or/and additional stuff on Karadžić's role in GS ideology added. Mir Harven 08:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked a question. Instead of answering it you accuse me of a deficiency of logic. Seems that we are back to the edit war. PityDejvid 11:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vuk

Mir, I read once that Vuk was the first to turn the heads of the Serbian religious elite, awash in Serbo-Slavonic, toward the West and the Croatian body of literature. --VKokielov 20:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True. Just-he interpreted this in a rather one-sided manner. Mir Harven 13:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for third opinion placed

A request has been placed, hopefully in a neutral way. see Wikipedia:Third_opinion - Dejvid 14:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mir. I presume when you wrote "opinion of some obscure bywatchers is irrelevant" in justifing one of your reverts you were refering to Andrew Baruch Wachtel. Wachtel is profesor of Slavic Languages and Litratures at Northwestern University so can I take it that when you say that something is irrelevant you really mean simply that it is an opinion you disagree with.Dejvid 14:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article as there seems to be a revert war going on, but with no discussion on the talk page. Please discuss your issues here instead of reverting. I'll unprotect in a day or so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vuk Karadžić dispute

What this dispute is about is whether one point of view should have the status of absolute truth. You claim, Mir, (on SlimVirgin's page) that I have "avoided to discuss the tricky questions". I have not been trying to claim that Karadžić was correct in the thesis he advocated in Serbs all and everywhere but simply that his thesis does not have the malicious intentions that you think it has. I accept that there are many who share your view but by the same token there are many who do not. The Illyrians did not think he was an advocate of Greater Serbianism nor did Maretić. You claim that Maretić "just pretended that Vuk's central ideological paradigm was not the pan-Serbianism". Sorry, but, just maybe, Maretić understood Vuk better than you.

And there are things that don't fit with this idea of Vuk being Greater a Serbian idealogue such as his signature on the Vienna linguistic agreement, the fact that, in 1848 rather than advocating Serbian majority areas joining serbia he seems to have been a supporter of Austro-Slavism, and more than that his constant attempts to build up good relations between South Slavs.

The charge that Vuk is a father of Greater Serbianism is a very serious one given that it is associated with the only post WW2 conviction for genoicide. To supress the counterviews on Vuk that question that is not compatible with neutral point of view.Dejvid 13:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Since this issue is raised for the umpteenth time, I've got not much to add- just to reiterate and extend previous arguments. So let's see this old stuff again:

What this dispute is about is whether one point of view should have the status of absolute truth. You claim, Mir, (on SlimVirgin's page) that I have "avoided to discuss the tricky questions". I have not been trying to claim that Karadžic was correct in the thesis he advocated in Serbs all and everywhere but simply that his thesis does not have the malicious intentions that you think it has. I accept that there are many who share your view but by the same token there are many who do not. The Illyrians did not think he was an advocate of Greater Serbianism nor did Maretic. You claim that Maretic "just pretended that Vuk's central ideological paradigm was not the pan-Serbianism". Sorry, but, just maybe, Maretic understood Vuk better than you.

• No, you're just selling your own version that's got nothing with reality. As far as I recall, you stated that:

• a) Karadžić wanted to unite all štokavian speakers- but, curiously enough, omitted that he tried to do this under Serbian name.

• b) also, you avoided to mention that a significant part (say, cca. 50%) of štokavian writers from 1500s to 1800s identified their name as Croatian, and virtually all as Slovin or Illyrian (and these terms were, in štokavian dictionaries like Mikalja's (1649) and Stulli (1810) explicitely identified as equal in meaning and content to the term Croat. Also- they never mentioned Serbian name as the name of their ethnic or national identity. And- you very visibly tried to marginalize and gloss over these facts. Amusing, eh ? If this is just a historical OT, why fleeing from it panically ?

• Again, I must stress that the above mentioned line of argumentation is seriously erroneous.

• 1. to be the founder of a malign and devastating ideology-one need not be a malign person, nor possess the broad geopolitical vision and practical means to attain it. Jean Gobineau is, by common consensus, the founder of moder anti-Semitism and theories on «Aryan supremacy». Gobineau did not advocate any military or expansionist adventures, was fuzzy about the details of a theory etc. Just- he lied about world culture and its founders (Semites went bad in his picture of history); he was a mixture of ignorance and bombastic statements on culture and race that did not find any support save in racist circles- and all his ideological followers were, one way or anathor- racists.

• 2. Vuk Karadžić's case is similar to Gobineau's. Just like Gobineau, he tried to «elect» (albeit on a much smaller scale, understandably) Serbian people as the dominant force in central area in what is still called the Balkans. Again- Vuk, just like Gobineau, lied, falsified, ignored and misinterpreted the documents and facts that stood in the way of his wished-for glory for future Serbdom. He was not involved in any violent actions (he couldn't have been, considering his temperament and health problems). But- this is the case almost exact like Gobineau's: a person construcs an ideological blueprint, and all those people who went to follow this ideological blueprint end up as vociferous proponents of this ideology (racism; Greater Serbianism) and, not infrequently, criminal executioners. Only those conversant with this ideology who eventually dismissed it, like Serbian philologist Đuro Daničić, remain free from taint. Those who adhered to it (Serbian linguists Aleksandar Belić, Pavle Ivić (d. 1999.), the majority of the most influential contemporary Serbian linguists including Miloš Kovačević, Slobodan Remetić, Branislav Brborić, Predrag Piper, Vera Bojić, Drago Ćupić,..)- all are both propenents of Vuk's idea of linguistic pan-Serbianism and Greater Serbia expansionist policy in recent wars. In short: Gobineau is rightfully described as the founder of modern anti-Semitism; Vuk Karadžić also rightfully as the founder of moder pan-Serbian/Greater-Serbian ideology.

• As for parts of Illyrians who contacted Vuk or signed documents with him- it has already been said that they are good examples of political naivete and opportunistic behavior that had lead to-nowhere. Many crucial «Illyrian» men of letters (Kukuljević, Gaj and his son etc.) ended up pro-Hungarian opportunists, bitterly disappointed about their youthful ideals. As for Maretić- he was a member of pro-Hungarian party that had more than 20 years oppressed Croatian society due to manipulations and restrictions of electoral system, causing 500,000- 1,000,000 Croats to emigrate in the late 19th century. So- which are the credentials of these Croats who just didn't see through the layer of Vuk's manipulations ? Other, in many respects more important Croatian public figures dismissed Vuk as a Serbian chauvinist long since: Bogoslav Šulek, the foremost 19th century Croatian philologist, Ante Starčević, «the father of the nation», Eugen Kvaternik, Ante Kovačić (the author of the best Croatian 19th century novel, «U registraturi»), writers like A.G.Matoš and Gjalski, politicians, writers and ethnologists like Frano Supilo, Antun and Stjepan Radić (let's just look on their careers up to 1918.), etc., etc. Your «Illyrian» (Gaj, Kukuljević) and «Vukovian» (Maretić) examples are insignificant.

And there are things that don't fit with this idea of Vuk being Greater a Serbian idealogue such as his signature on the Vienna linguistic agreement, the fact that, in 1848 rather than advocating Serbian majority areas joining serbia he seems to have been a supporter of Austro-Slavism, and more than that his constant attempts to build up good relations between South Slavs.

These facts confirm only that he knew that any radical action at that time was doomed to failure.

• Step 1. Vuk Karadžić publishes his text «Serbs all and everywhere»-the central public document of pan-Serbian ideology

• Step 2. Vuk Karadžić signs a document in Vienna, 1850. The title of the document shows its practical purpose- it was an initiative of Austrian bureaucracy to «build» one language for South-Slavs (Slovenes exempted). The title is «One people should have one literature». Nice. Deluded and pathetic, but- nice. Which people ? Croatian signatories later withdrew their signatures, and the most important of them, Ivan Mažuranić, in 1861., after the mess in Croatian parliament over the name of the national language, unilateraly decides that the name should be «Croatian language»: he simply recanted for Vienna agreement blunders.

• Step 3. 1852. «Belgrade paper» continues attack on Croats and their language along Karadžić's lines. Karadžić silent.

• Step 4. 1852. Strong reaction from Ante Starčević in Zagreb's «People's paper», wherein he vehemently refutes «Belgarde paper's» contentions. Karadžić silent.

• Step 5. «Belgrade paper» attacks Gaj (they confused identity and though the author was Gaj) by reiterating all of Karadžić's claims: that štokavians are Serbs and that Croats «adopted Serbian language». Karadžić silent again.

• Step 6. 1853., «People's paper», number 221. Starčević reveals his identity, ridicules «Belgrade paper's» claims by cultural-historical analysis, and adds, mockingly, that he is a native štokavian speaker who can see in Karadžić's contentions only falsity and distortion. Also, he chides his «Illyrian» compatriots for being blind and paralyzed before such obvious distortions and geo-political machinations. Karadžić silent again.

• Step 7. 1852. Gaj recants in the «People's paper», in a rather sleazy manner, bans Starčević from the editorial board and forbids him to publish in the paper (which subsequently vanishes from the scene). Karadžić silent again.

• Step 8. 1852., November 18th, Mirko Bogović, Illyrian writer, wrote in «Neven» an appeal to Serbian and Croatian writers trying to persuade them to find a middle ground

• Step 9. 1853, the 2. issue of «Serbian yearly» publishes a fierce attack on Ante Starčević, Croats and Croatian langauge. In more than 50 pages, the author Jovan Subotić, tries to prove, reasonig completely along Karadžić's lines, that: Dalmatian and Slavonian Croats are, essentially, Serbs; that all štokavian written literature is Serbian; that Croats are only remnants of Čakavian Croats; that Starčević is a Serb- never mind what he thinks of it. Karadžić is silent again.

• Step 10. 1856. Croatian-Slovak philologist Bogoslav Šulek has published in the Zagreb paper «Neven» a 30 pages rebuttal of all Karadžić's ethnic-dialectal ideological points. Vuk Karadžić has carefully studied the issue, but declined to respond.

• Step 11. 1858. Karadžić-Kluhn questionary: Karadžić had employed an obscure Slovene bureaucrat Vincent Kluhn to determine how Croats in northwestern parts (Istria, parts of Lika and maritime regions,..) call their laanguage. The questionary further enrages Croatian public who see it as a double dealing behind their back.

• Step 12. 1861., June the 1st. Karadžić's final pronouncement on languages. He repeates his pan-Serbian ethnic dialectology from «Serbs all and everywhere», ignores Šulek's claims (didn't try to argue because it was hopeless) and «mercifully» lets Croatian štokavian speakers to identify themselves as Croats should they wish, while insisting that Orthodox štokavians will not abandon Serbian name (how he did he know ? Some experiments ?).

• Step 13. 1863. «Poeople's paper» indignantly refuses Karadžić's claims (the author is a philologist Josip Miškatović). The author contends that Illyrian fantasy was a sort of Croatian self-defense, but, when confronted with Serbian nationalist claims as promulagated by Vuk Karadžić and his followers, who speak on Dalmatia and Slavonia as «Serbian lands» to be united with the duchy of Serbia- all masques and illusions have fallen. Karadžić is silent again-until May the 20th

• Step 14. 1863., May the 20th Karadžić has mentioned in the «Pozor» that he was writing «on the Serbs generally (von den Serben ueberhaupt)». He did not mention his dialects-ethnic distribution that has caused so much fuss, and did not comment on Serbian nationalist claims that had been appearing in Serbian press for more than 15 years- «ideologically» appropriating Croatian lands in Slavonia, Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. This was his final verdict- and this is unabashedly the Greater-Serbian one.

The charge that Vuk is a father of Greater Serbianism is a very serious one given that it is associated with the only post WW2 conviction for genoicide. To supress the counterviews on Vuk that question that is not compatible with neutral point of view

• The above statement is glaringly false. The user «Dejvid» tried (in vain, I'd say) not to give the alternative perspective on Karadžić's behavior and intentions- but to erase and marginalize Croatian national affiliation of štokavian speakers some 300 years before Vuk Karadžić. These facts immediately reveal Vuk's ideology for what it really is: a pan-Serbianism. So, user «David» is guilty of incessant efforts to suppress the evidence that on a dialectal-language level the entire Karadžić's ideology is both easily refutable and shown for what it really is: a pan-Serbian expansionist blueprint. Mir Harven 10:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

First a question. It isn't clear to me what connection you see with what we are debating and the row between Ante Starčević and the Belgrade paper and why you think it significant that Vuk stayed silent. I'm not questioning that there is a connection I'm just not clear as to what you see to be the connection.

Anyway, lets go back to the beginning. What provoked the first revert was when I put in “According to Croat Nationalist discourse this project was both ill-conceived and doomed from the outset because štokavian Catholics had already irrevocably committed themselves <to> a Croatian national affiliation.” (There was one typo- a missing “to”.) First off, its the sort of thing that really should have gone on the talk page not in the article. It was really saying “Are you really saying that??” When you reverted you said in effect no: “no "Croat nationalists" claim anything as ludicrous as implied in Dejvid's phrasing)”. But when I asked on the talk page what was ludicrous you then claimed that it was not just Croat nationalists who believed that “It's just a simple rational claim.”. (If I have misunderstood here please explain what you did mean.) That's an untenable position and in any case from comments you made on the Croatian page for Ivo Andrić I'm pretty sure that your first reaction was your real opinion. If individuals can change national affiliation then, at least in theory, so can larger groups. And if that's so what's so sinister about Vuk proposing a different way of defining nationality?

I have to say, though, I was surprised that you were able to cite so many Serbs who in the conditions of 1990 still advocated Vuk's definition of a štokavian nationality. In 1990 it was possible merely to glance at the census returns to see that it was a non starter and anyone who thought Croats were going to start calling themselves Serb because they said “što” needed a reality check. However that people such as them who were so out of touch with reality got caught up in the Greater Serbian project of the time does not surprise me.

But the wars were not, in the main, justified by Vuk's concept. As you know, the fundamental justification was “All serbs must live in one state” and by Serbs was meant Serbian orthodox adherents or people descended from such, and of course that meant even areas where Serbs were just a significant minority. Though this meant the violation of the borders of several republics, when a similar principle would work against Serbia then suddenly the border of Serbia became sacrosanct. Only in one case was Vuk's principle invoked and that was Dubrovnik. Far from it being me who is trying to suppress that case it is you who has been trying to keep it out.

But if trying to advocate a štokavian nationality in 1990 was sign of being out of touch with reality it does not follow that it was equally so in the first half of the 19th century. You accuse me of suppressing that a significant proportion of writers pre Vuk had identified themselves as Croat. This is from my version “while not always defining themselves as Croat, never described themselves as Serb”, The emphasis is very different from your version but at end of the day the meaning is the same. The difference between us is between half full and half empty. Whatever - national identity was still in a state of flux. And reliable information about the national identity of the ordinary folk did not exist. In those circumstances do you think that for Vuk to ask štokavian croats how they called their language was “double dealing behind their back”.

And yes, to call that language Serbian wasn't very bright if he wanted to win Croats over. You are rather cynical about his reason for doing that. His reason being was his assessment that Serbs “will never give up their name”. But at the time his language reforms in Serbia were far from accepted. There is indeed a good case to say that really Vuk had got Serbs to adopt the Croat language. Anyone who tries to act as bridge as did Vuk has the dilemma that if they move too fast for their own community and they will be rejected by their own. Dejvid 15:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you guys talking. I've unprotected the page again, so please play nice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your inability to comprehend arguments. And- this is not a continuation of anything: you just got nothing to say re the topic of the article, save the dilapidated Greater Serbian stuff. This is a page for rational arguments, pro and con type, not a confessional of endless circular whining on whos and whys. I don't intend to blabber indefinitely on GS triflings you're trying to sell.

• Ivo Andrić was a national renegade. No- if some individuals had changed their national affiliation, in the atmosphere of persecution and murders orchestrated by Serbian state authorities (1920s-1940s)- they are traitors. Groups just don't do this. This is a clear case of «exception that confirms the rule».

• your phrasing of the whole affair is completely unacceptable. In essence, you promote Vuk Karadžić's outmoded linguistic pan-Serbianism. Your sentence, referring to Croatian štokavian writers «..while not always defining themselves as Croat..» is a good example: from the clearly positive statement (they did, in the majority of cases, identify themselves as Croats), one gets a fuzzy whitewashed..what ? Nothing, really. Not the fact that Croatian name was, along with Slovin and Illyrian, dominant among Croatian men of letters during three centuries preceding Vuk Karadžić. Just some wishy-washy nothing.

• whatever the motives, you didn't address the central objections:

a) Vuk Karadžić was the central ideologue of linguistic pan-Serbianism

b) this linguistic pan-Serbianism was one of the 2-3 (Orthodox Chruch etc.) main weapons in the arsenal of the project named Greater Serbian expansion

c) Karadžić consciously lied and distorted languages history in order to expand the boundaries of Serbdom- at the expense of Croatdom

d) the followers of this ideology were, without exception, proponents of the Serbian aggression and expansion at the expense of Croats and Bosniaks- for more than 100 ys.

Your objections were all satisfactorily answered.

1. «Illyrian» partial infatuation with Vuk Karadžić

2. the thesis that since he hadn't advocated violent methods he can't be counted among founders (or the founder) of an expansionist & vicious ideology

3. that he actually didn't lie, falsify and distort the history and, languages history in particular, with a very mundane- Greater Serbian expansionist ideology reasons

There is nothing, completely nothing (information, question, problem) new in the text you wrote above. From what you presented- there is absolutely nothing with you to discuss about the subject of this article. And- feel free to change the article. But, if you do it in your blatant pro-Serbian way, the article will be protected from your vandalism forays. Be sure about that.Mir Harven 10:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Mir, can I repeat my question:
It isn't clear to me what connection you see with what we are debating and the row between Ante Starčević and the Belgrade paper and why you think it significant that Vuk stayed silent. I'm not questioning that there is a connection I'm just not clear as to what you see to be the connection. Dejvid 15:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't get it by now- you never will. I have no need nor time to explain the obvious. The page, as it is now, is a bit wishy-washy (nonsense about some nonentity Wachtel-a person absolutely irrelevant to the article in case (as far as I'm concerned, he may be a member of Academie Francaise- his claims are, from what I gather, just a blabber)- but, it's tolerable & will be expanded to add a further GS material. Mir Harven 11:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You might think it wishy-washy. I'd say it still needs a lot of work until it is balanced. It certainly is very poorly sourced. I've had a good long read of Wikipedia:No original research. You might think about doing the same. Dejvid 16:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, I would particually like sources for this:
"Although Karadžić's main follower, the linguist Đuro Daničić, dismissed his teacher's ideology as a nonsense not supportable by evidence nor sustainable when exposed in a rational debate, the vast majority of Serbian philologists and linguists continued to reiterate Kadaržić's dogmas with regard to the imagined Serbian ethnic affiliation of štokavian speakers- and, significantly, played a prominent part in recent Serbian aggression on Croatia in 1991."
That Daničić did not agree with Vuk's contention I don't really doubt but I do doubt that he went as far to call it "nonsense". Further a contention like " Kadaržić's dogmas ... played a prominent part in recent Serbian aggression on Croatia in 1991." needs a source or else it violates Wikipedia:No original research. Dejvid 17:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of removal by user:Andries

I removed the following sentences that are unreferenced unattributed POVs that I believe are untrue because it is not unique ot fascists. It is also a trait of nationalist movements.

It must be stressed that "the wish to live in a unified state" has been, in practice, the goal of only and exclusively Fascist and proto-Fascist ideologies and movements (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Serbian "Black Hand", Croatian "Ustashe", Albanian "Balli Kombatar",..). Having in mind that Germans, Russians or French live dispersed in many countries, and that this poses no problem for these nations- the virulent nature of Greater Serbian concept becomes all too visible.

Andries 16:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't get involved in editing or discussing this article in case I have to protect it again, but I'd like to say that the edit above that Andries removed is an example of the kind of material that shouldn't be in WP. It counts as argument or commentary, and it violates Wikipedia:No original research and arguably also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, our two core editorial policies. The term "the wish to live in a unified state" is in quotation marks but with no citation. No part of the paragraph is attributed. The editors in dispute on this page might want to read the policies cited above, as well as Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, bearing in mind that the most important point is that everything in Wikipedia must have been published somewhere else already, including argument, and that any editor is allowed to ask that an edit be sourced to an authoritative source, which in the case of this article, would be academic textbooks, papers from peer-reviewed journals, or reputable newspapers. If you could stick to these policies, and allow each side to be represented (so long as it can be sourced), the dispute might sort itself out. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If all contributors adhere to official guidelines then at least the article will improve a lot, though it is possible that there will still be a dispute about the neutrality even if official policy has been followed. Andries 19:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the removal of the part that is, incidentally- true. The operationalized policy of national unification based on the paranoid idea that all the members of a nation must live in one, national state is an expression of extremist chauvinism (you may use the word Fascism- (be they black or red), but it doesn't matter). It is undisputable that this was the driving force behind "unification" of Sudeten Germans with the Germany, the inistence of French in Algeria or Portuguese in Mocambique (maybe in future Mexicans in Caligornia and Texas ?) to live in one national state with the bulk of their ethnic kin. In short: irredentism is a viable option only in the climate of left/right extremism and terror. But- the description of GS is rather fair, temporarily, and it will be, I guess, changed in a few passages (Stevan Moljević's role is unduly neglected). Mir Harven 11:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Maps

I'd far rather we had the Stevan Moljević map. That has a name and it is clear what we are talking about. Dejvid 16:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Greater Serbia Maps published on the Web in the 1990's by Serbian nationalists have disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.37.221 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

during the final disolution of Yugoslavia

I've tried to source as much as possible of what I've done on this section. I'm at a loss as to your objection to this bit. There were some bits that I never got round to including that may have distorted the argument but even as it stands it is hardly pro-Milossevich nor pro-Memorandum.

Bennett, incidently was a journalist who covered the crisis in 1991 and, at the time of writing his book, was a lecturer at School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London. For all I know, probably still is. Dejvid 22:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Mir, in this case, unlike concerning Vuk, we do not have a disageement.
What you wrote "But- to no avail, since main theses embedded in "Memorandum" texture were not intended to convince, but to inflame." I think is totally true.
But it is not NPOV. Find someone who says the same thing and quote them and I will have no objection. Why can't you let the facts speak for themselves. Academic writers overwhelmingly give highly critical analyzes of Serbian policy during the Yugoslav dissolution. The only writers in English who take a pro Serbian line, that I know of, hav no academic standing. Just let the page reflect that. I have nothing against including your stuff in this section alonside mine so long as you re do it to be NPOVDejvid 21:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

A few conceptual problems with the article

I just read the article, and there are a few inconsistencies that come to mind. There is a map of Greater Serbia, claiming to be Greater Serbia outline in late 1980s. The map is also explained in the text as The imagined borders of such Serbia were including most of today's Croatia (everything eastwards of the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line), all of today's Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, today's Kosovo, north of today's Albania and the present-day Republic of Macedonia as Velika Srbija, which could be translated from Serbian language as "Big Serbia", "Large Serbia" or "Great Serbia".

These statements are very definitive in their language, so I would like to know the following:

• 1) Who is the actual original author of this map - who exactly imagined these borders (in the late 1980s?)?

If I recall correctly it is pretty similar to that claimed by the Radicals. I suspect it is a combination of all the claims made by various extremists ... and, yes, it needs to be sourcedDejvid 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If the source of this map is the program of the Serbian Radical Party - an extremists party that was, by the way, an opposition party throughout the 1990’s in Serbia, its leader Vojislav Seselj even in jail a few times in 1993/4 on political grounds – then you need to put that in the article. If the source are others (which others?), you need to name them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.83.181 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• 2) What is the exact relationship between the presented map and the actual text of the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences?

None: The Memorandum was written at a time when it was not permitted to write what you really thought. Hence people normally read between the lines. This is virtually certain to be what the authors desired but yes reading between the lines has its dangersDejvid 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Read between the lines?!?! "Read between the lines" is - at best - a speculation. Reading between the lines is not good enough for an encyclopaedic entry such as Wikipedia. You either have to prove the factual link or remove the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.83.181 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• 3) What is the relationship between the presented map and the final dissolution of Yugoslavia - who, where and when presented the Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag line as a Serbian war aim (please provide sources).

Milossevich (IMO) is unlikely to have seriously aimed at the full extent of the map shown but something like that would have been the inspiration behind the militias who were directly responsible for many of the attrocities. Dejvid 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Inspiration (?) is one thing (again, rather speculative), but there is no indication in the article that the map is an inspiration (again, to whom exactly?) - the map, as it stands now, looks like a factual war aim of the Serbs/Serbians in the wars of the 1990's. This would imply that one could easily prove (for example) that the war aim of the Bosnian Serbs was to control 100% of Bosnia-Herzegovina (with accordance to the general war aim as shown on the map), and this is clearly not so - and documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.83.181 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

As the argumentation stands now, the article is full of holes. Lets see if there is more substance behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.83.181 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the page is the end result of several edit wars which have petered out into the stalemate that you see.Dejvid 22:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

First, it should be clear that I wasn't trying to defend the article as it stands. The biggest fault is that it implies that Greater Serbianism is a coherent ideology rather than a blanket term for a lot of people barely on speaking terms. A few points tho. Vojislav Seselj was by no means in opposition thruout the 1990s. Milossevich was often in alliance with him and just as often dumped him - as is Milossevich's wont. There is no claim (at least I don't think there is) that the memorandum claimed the borders in the map or any specific borders for Serbia. As for the map itself, I myself am unhappy with it. Feel free to stick around and do some editing but it would be a good idea to become a registered user as this has been and is a very controversal page.Dejvid 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I still think that the article contains too many generalizations, and too little factual accuracies (including real factual links between its component parts). For example, I still see no proof that the map in the article is anything more than a program of the Serbian Radical Party – a party close to Milosevic at times during 1990’s, but still an opposition party that was certainly not in charge of Serbia’s military/police force, let alone outside of Serbia. When one reads the article as it stands now, the general impression is that the Yugoslav Serbs tried (during the Yugoslav wars of 1991-1995) to extend the borders of the Republic of Serbia (?) in accordance with the lines presented on the map in the article. This is not only misleading, but also factually impossible to prove in the light of what we know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.83.181 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One-word name of Republic of Srpska

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

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

(Srpski jezički priručnik, Beograd 2004)

some info here: http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/bbrboric-jezik/bbrboric-jezik5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.73.130 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction, in both German and English, they still use the word Srpska, and not Serbland... I never heard Serbland before. I watch many different european news channels, including Euronews, Deutsche Welle, Al-Jazeera Egnland.

en: The Republic Srpska de: Republik Srpska 64.228.216.181 (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Srpska - noun and adjective

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

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

Stevo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.73.130 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Greater Serbia claims on Albania

Not only Chetniks held claims on northern Albania. Pre-WWI Serbian kingdom wanted Durres as well, even though it had never belonged to Serbia or had a significant Serbian population. This does not mean that Serbian borders should not change. Additions may be considered, as well as ceding of some lands.--Pjetër Bogdani III 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually ALL of present day Albania was a part of Serbia, during Tsar Dusan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.154 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The map you posted there is the one drawn by Chetniks. So, what is the problem? PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Serbian pacifism

What's the slogan of the Serbian Pacifist Movement?
Serbia to the Pacific! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.137.71.74 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's a good one.

...Sadly, it's also true. 76.18.140.105 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for anti-Serb jokes. Please keep it out of Wikipedia.--80.219.119.16 09:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbia land stolen from other countries

Serbs have gained a huge amount of land after the first world war which is still is under there control such as Vojvodina. west side of this land was croatia from River tisa to the river Dunab while the east side was Hungarian. kosovo another stolen piece of land was Albanian. --Marbus2 5 10:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous. Serbs were majority in Vojvodina in last 500 years and every land belong to its people, not to any country. Parts of Vojvodina only were ruled by Hungary and Croatia in parts of the history, but in other parts of the history they also were ruled by many other countries, such is Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, etc. Why would Croatia or Hungary have more "historical right" to rule over Vojvodina than Turkey? The entire "historical right" concept is ridiculous because the one who impose such "rights" usually base these "rights" on historical period in which his own country was largest and ignore other historical periods when his own coutry was small or did not even existed. Where were Croatia and Hungary 2000 years ago? Nowhere, of course... PANONIAN (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that "every land belong to its people, not to any country" -- which is why Serbain claims to, say, Kosovo, are so weak. Profnjm 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why Serbain claims to, say, (independent) Republic of Srpska, are so strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.183.7 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You just prooved my point, first of all the only the reason Serbs have been a majority in Vojvodina is because the Ottaman empire killed and forced people of Croats and Hungarians to run away from these areas by burning peoples villages and there houses and after they conqured the piece of land they needed someplace for their slaves to live. After all shouldn't you be thanking the Ottamans, because thats the only reason you have so much people in Vojvodina.
It increased even more when the Serbs decided to take a piece of Croatians Vojvodina after the second world war and i know for a fact that Croats were the majiority in its Vojvodina because my grandparents owned land in Vojvodina, my uncle had a owned a house and lived in Vojvodina but after world war two was kicked out by Serbs because they thought the Croatians Vojvodina should be theres and populated the area by bringing Serbs from proper Serbia. So how can you say that you were there for 500 years as a majority. what becaused you kicked out people from there homes over the years with help of your Turkish masters so you can say your a majority. Thats the problem with Serbs they have double standards, they say one thing for someone esle but another for themselves. So do you have any right on Vojvodina the awnser is no. Your countriy tryed to use that same tatic in the Serbian-Croatian 1990's war in the Croatian region of Krajna. Killing Croatians and forcing Croatians out of their homes in order to bring your people from Serbia to Krajna to make your population higher in Krajna so you could claim the region as yours, what did they call it "Ethnic cleansing" i think it was. An example right there of double standrads. In the end it was the serbs running away in their tanks from croatia back to Serbia at the end of the war. --Marbus2 5 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you fascists never shut up do you? C-c-c-c 05:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speak for your self. --Marbus2 5 09:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I'm not fascist, and my country never had a fascist government rule it either. :)))))) C-c-c-c 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really?

Eh, I almost forgot about this discussion here. First of all, there was no many Croats in Vojvodina before the first half of the 20th century. That Slavs which lived in Vojvodina were ethnic Šokci, but no Croats. They were Croatized in the 20th century (as well as those in Slavonia). As example, I can tell you data about population of Vojvodina in the 1849-1860 period: there were 321,110 Serbs, 62,936 Bunjevci and Šokci, and only 2,860 Croats. Regarding the Ottomans, the historical decision of Serbs to make alliance with Ottomans instead to fight against them was indeed positive for the development of the Serbian people in Vojvodina region. Also, I did not heard that something named "Croatian Vojvodina" ever existed in history. You can check the census data (from all censuses in history) and you will see that Croats were never majority in Vojvodina. It is not me who say that Serbs were majority in Vojvodina in last 500 years, but all censuses performed during this period (including Ottoman defters, Habsburg censuses, and Yugoslav censuses). Maybe you should also say something about the crimes that Croatian fascists commited against Serb civilians in Vojvodina in WW2, to mention killed Serb civilians and burned Serbian villages. Also, was it Croatian state that ethnically cleansed 300,000 Serbs from Krajina? I think it was. PANONIAN (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The NDH cannot be considered a pure-Croatian state, since it hadn’t control of its own territory (divided between Italian and German forces), hadn’t a elected leader (Ante Pavelic, as the same way as Milan Nedic, was a Axis quisling) and in fact the NDH persecuted everyone that the Axis and the Usatsha saw as enemies, including Croatian anti-fascists (yes, Milosevic apologizers, they exist!) and Croatian partisans.

Croatia ≠ Ustasha.

Bunjevci and Šokci were not Croatized in the 20th century simply because of the fact that thay ARE Croats all the time! Ask them... How can they be Croatized if there were no Croats at all? Zemun was Croatian city mostly populated with Croats during many centuries until 20th century... 89.172.68.155 11:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater Serbia Ideals is to Domniate Eroupe

If it wasn't for the Croatian independance, Sloveian independance and the Bosnain war God knows how far the Serbs and the Communist Croatians would have gone to make Yugoslavia extend to all the way through europe until the whole Europe was under Yugoslavia. --Marbus2 5 10:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's about the least intelligent comment I've ever read. --Mihovil 00:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, where did you read this, I have lived in Srbija all my life & never heard. Man, where did you read this, I have lived in Srbija all my life & never heard. You know Great Britain is Velika Britanija & Great Srbija - Velika Srbija, why Greater - Tosic100 07:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

People, calm down.

This kind of stuff is why I stay far away from southeastern europe.... You may Norway and Sweden look like lovers. We are all one human race, so stop fighting among people who are barely different. Zazaban 02:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are right but how would you act if your first neighbour has expansionistic ideas which include a half of your country and it is continually happening over 100 years til now including this moment.

Radical T. Nikolić is new president of Serbian parlament

In his interview given to Media Servis (09.05.2007.) he said "I am chetnik and in the case of war I would be chetnik again... " and "...I dream about Greater Serbia..." and a lot of crap in the same manner. Hey man this is the present time in SEE. I should be taking a care of my flowers but I can't because there is something sad on my TV again and it's coming from the east. Half of Serbia is sick. The other democratic half needs a help from Europe. 83.131.128.160 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let him without sin cast the first stone.--Hadžija 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong translation!

The real translation for idea is GREAT SERBIA, not Greater. For this mistake translators who intentionaly lied are now being judged in Hague... Someone please change the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.173.96 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is "Great Serbia", translation of "Velika Srbija". "Greater Serbia" would be "Veća Srbija". --Michael Angelkovich (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I get reactions, a friend of mine informed me that actually in English terminology "great" and "greater" here would mean the same. Here I found something which implies it as well. Now, before I revert myself, I would draw attention on Greater Albania, which I will use as a model here. --Michael Angelkovich (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No! The right translation would be "Great Serbia", as it is - "Velika Srbija". Not greater - "Veca Serbia"! Would it be the same for "Big Serbia" or "Bigger Serbia", or "Small Serbia" and "Smaller Serbia". As for the English terminology, so there will be no wrong understandings of this term: Serbia is not trying to get BIGGER or GREATER by taking over other peoples territories, Serbia is trying to be AS IT SHOULD BE - and that would be "GREAT SERBIA". But that would mean bigger (or greater) that Serbia IS NOW of course, but not greater than it should by history, by the law, by the justice, and by the God... Serbia is "Great" by DEFAULT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.231.244 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought first (about the translation), especially after these bad translations on Vojislav Seselj's tribunal. Yet, see this here. So far I got, they simply don't have other expression for "Velika" in this context. And even if "Greater" doesn't mean "velika" literally it would be the best approximation they have and its translation (my free interpretation) would be "šira Srbija", as an idea or ideology. Mihajlo ^{_[ talk _]} 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes you are right. But I thought it would be better, in this case, to be translated different. There should not be any bigger problems if the article is good, and the term is well explained. I haven't red the whole text yet. What do you think, is it good??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.231.244 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a Mastodon

It's simply enormous, confusing, dull and hard to read and comprehend. Horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.226.144 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Role in the final dissolution of Yugoslavia paragraph removal by pisciotta11

The following paragraph should be deleted because it is not factual and misleading.

"Even so, no commentator or opponent has satisfactoraly attempted to explain why the unrecognised Republic of Serbian Krajina remained an entity outside the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with no interference from the Milošević administration regarding the short-lived republic's infrastructure, including currency, the education system and all other aspects of sovereignty."

First RSK president Milan Babić has stated that that Krajina policy was "driven" from Belgrade via the Serbian secret police. His replacement, Goran Hadžić, was a more pliant figure who was reported to have boasted that he was merely "a messenger for Slobodan Milošević". In other words, the statement that the Milošević administration 'did not interfere' with RSK is totally false. RSK was a product of the Milošević administration.

"Neither did any critic explain how the governing SPS did not object to the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, unrecognised to Serbian nationalists as non-Serbian and a territory in which Serbs did compose a small part of the population."

Serb intentions at the time of Macedonia's declaration of independence were not so clear-cut as this author presumes. In fact, Danko Maleski, Macedonia's foreign minister at the time, told a Washington, D.C. audience on Aug. 12, 1992 that his country had been warned by the European Community of a possible invasion. Further proof that Serbia's intentions leaned toward invasion are that the United Nations dispatched the "UN Preventive Deployment Force," (UNPREDEP) to Macedonia in 1993 specifically to prevent war in Bosnia-Hercegovina from spilling over into Macedonia.

"Also absent are the verses which explain why a party who advocated Greater Serbia would go into federation with a sister republic (Montenegro), another integral part of Serbian nationalist territory, only to accept it as a separate federal unit; and even after a change in policy from Montenegro's own governing party - originally fraternal to the SPS - allowed the region to function almost independently; in 1996, the Serbian currency had been rejected as the Deutsch Mark became the unofficial currency, and still the SPS confined itself to within its federal borders, even after Milošević took the highest office when he became the federation's president the following year."

"Verses" may be lacking because the matter at hand isn't poetry. As for the logic of the paragraph, consider this sentence: "even after a change in policy...[that]...allowed the region to function almost independently(emphasis added)."

--Pisciotta11 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS DELETED?

Added:

From greaterserbia.blogspot.com:

Earliest documentation of the ethno-tribal structure of the Western Balkans as described in historical documents pertaining to the Dark & Middle Ages attempting to prove that all people who today identify as Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins including most people who today identify as Croats and Albanians are ancestral Serbs

=

WHY WAS THIS DELETED? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THIS IS A LEGITIMATE REFERENCE AND I'D LIKE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT'S BEING DELETED

Per Wikipedia policy on self-published sources - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. Alæxis_¿question? 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article

Please note - this article is about an ideology only, in which we can add examples of measures which were taken to achieve the potential status quo. We can also touch on things that might have leaned towards the idea but this is not a "Let's list every Serb atrocity in history" article, there are various other articles for that: Yugoslav Wars, Srebrenica massacre, Balkan Wars, etc. Evlekis (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Off course not, but if numerous international reports connecting implementation of Greater Serbian ideology with ethnic cleansing, then this should be mentioned.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mladifilozof doesn´t show to be capable of editing any Serbia-related articles having a NPOV. He was warned and he shows no improvement. His edits are extremelly anti-Serb, I can freely call him an extremist. He should be mature enough to understand the various POV in such a complex articles such as the historic ones. Same way I could try to add sources how: "Great Serbian ideology" was excellent and lead to a liberation of territories thet were under opresive Empires, and together with other nations lead to the creation of many peoples dream that was Yugoslavia. See? That I can say that would be ridiculous to edit having in mind only one POV, as I did in my sentence, that is wy I consider Mladifilozof edits, just ridiculous. FkpCascais (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We must attempt to negotiate with all established users. To answer Mladifilozof, that's fine (your remark). Then they need to be appropriately incorporated into the relevant sections; standing alone, they mean very little. Unfortunately Mladifilozof, it is a paradox that even though WP dictates No original research, it is impossible to make this whole project (Wikipedia itself) function without applying occasional OR. We often need to be intellectually creative particularly when linking known subjects or events. It is like the silly phrase Never say "never", whoever declared this advice of wisdom broke the rule he was promoting in the process of the aphorism. OR on WP is another phenomenon on which we can not observe a "never" policy. If we do, we'd have the half the number of articles we have and radically reduce those that remain. This page is a good example, Greater Serbia is an ideology. Precisely what is and what is not performed with the intention of creating Greater Serbia is entirely the publication of people indulging in OR. I do raise my hands on this issue and admit that I am a guilty party. You can try to argue "ah, but we use sources such as news reports and statements by politicians, etc." but unless they can prove their suspicions, it remains circumstantial. Of course, it is all right to use those sources to corroborate that Ali Baba, Albania's Minister for Masturbation or someone else believes that "Serbia keeps its capital in Belgrade as part of a plot to one day create Greater Serbia" for reasons X,Y and Z - if that is what he happens to say and it can be proven! But you cannot use his humps and suspicions to state that this is what is actually happening! But the fact is that WP is full of this practice from end to end. Now if the "joint enterprise" had promulgated to the world outside that "Greater Serbia is our goal", then there would be no problem with many of the edits. But they didn't. They went about doing things another way and stated another list of reasons for their measures and this led the apologists for their rival belligerents to cry "Greater Serbia" on various other suspicions. Now right or wrong, you will find that sympathisers of Serbs will constantly uproot the remarks against them by publishing their responses. Nobody denies the ideology, and sources support this. But linking certain events to this ideology is an extremely shady venture. But they do anyway and that is why we have editor conflict. Now when someone publishes a 19th century map of a proposed Great Serbian Kingdom and we see that this incorporates more recently populated Serbian areas in the north, traditionally settled Serbian areas in the centre, east and west, and areas once controlled by former Serbian empires in the south, what am I to assume? How else do we explain the ideas behind the goal? If you want other areas of OR across WP, look at the various articles on political parties who adopt one ideology (which is labelled de jure) but where others have added a separate ideology de facto. Who is anybody to do this? Only a party can dictate its ideologies. The whole left wing right wing malarkey is nothing more than an abstract concept artificially devised by self-proclaimed expert commentators. So OR must be used in some parts if only to clarify matters. There is another way around it: take out "minimun of one of three reasons" and just explain that these areas are of interest to Serb nationalists and this feat links that region with Serb interest, etc. and the rest falls into place (leaving readers to make up their own minds). Evlekis (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Mladifilozof main goal is to demonstrate "Serbian occupation" of Kosovo, and how Kosovo did nort belonged to Serbia. He is willing to edit way beyond, just to add sentencies or maps where is shown that Kosovo is not Serbian, and that Albanians suffered greatly. Then, when warned, he adds one or two sentences where he "acts" as "Serbian neutral" then, allways, without exception, returns to the same. All his edits go around that purpose (Kosovar-Albanian cause). FkpCascais (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair though FkpCascais, Mladifilozof has not worked on that content over the past three days and has not engaged in edit wars in scenarios where his contributions were altered; and he does communicate, politely responding to all civilised messaging. I believe that we can all reach a mutual idea for presentation using the talk pages. Evlekis (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, FkpCascais, be polite and Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have my views, like any other human, but we are not here to discuss it. Thank you Evlekis for your explanation. We will make this article better and more informative.--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt. And I am comenting your edits, mladifilozof. And, Evlekis, please respect the order of the comments. You put your comment in between. I´ll give him the benefit of doubt (again). But, I will express my opinion whenever I feel it needs, despite hurting some other editors. Mladifilozof has been higly desrespectfull, and is not going to be his recent edits that are going to convince me that easily. FkpCascais (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wy do you, Mladifilozof, find me not polite? FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And Evlekis, don´t get fooled, he discusses now because more people get involved. You should see him before. He also stoped because he was one step from being blocked, so he has been more carefull, and "comunicative" because some admins did understood what was in his mind, and recomended him that. He also reported you without any discussion. That´s certainly "very polite". Even calling you (he called me too) vandals. Please, I know very well who are we dealing here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can be sure I wouldn´t say all this if he was some "inocent" or well "good intentioned contibuting" editor. FkpCascais (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read his "new" version, and I can´t see even one sentence introduced by Mladifilozof where you don´t feel his deep hateriot towards Serbia and it´s people. FkpCascais (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When someone insulting me, or deleting my work without prior discussion, off course I will report him. But when someone wanted to talk, then I am happy to talk.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

We have a confusing situation. I put back the following paragraph, but User:FkpCascais put it out:

• The primary aim of uniting all Serbs and Serbian lands in one state in its radical form is interpreted as including areas where Serbs are merely a significant minority, as well as where there has been no continuous Serbian presence down the centuries. Each region is included for a minimum of one of three reasons: firstly, the land may occupy a region where the Serbs originally settled upon arrival in the Balkans (e.g. Raška or Montenegro); secondly, the land may once have been controlled by the medieval Serbian states (e.g. Kosovo or Macedonia); and thirdly, the land is where numerous Serbs later may later have settled (e.g. present-day Vojvodina or Eastern Slavonia).

--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And where are the sources supporting it? Alæxis_¿question? 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are "merely insignificant". I hope others intervene. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais, please reference your contribs. You did a lot of revisions to this article, without a single source.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical perspective

This paragraph is needed, but it is too long. Maybe it should contain only historical perspective before Načertanije (1844). The rest to be merged into separate paragraphs for each period. Something can be put into article introduction also, now it is too short.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s.this talk page needs archiving.--Mladifilozof (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see it good this way because gives the direct relation of the ideology and it´s supporters with the historical events, from the older, until the most recent ones. It´s a Historical perspective of the ideology, not the Serbian history. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Presentation

Once again, we are all getting carried away with the purpose of this article. There are countless articles whose purpose is to list Serbian activity throughout the last century and a half but this article really needs to stand to represent the ideology, only referring to real-life events when there is a clear link between the incident and the ideology (the article's subject). For anybody to try attaching just about every Serbian activity in recent history to one of the goals of its most extreme wing is not only inviting ridicule but is indulging in WP:OR on a magnitude greater than any witnessed.

We first need to establish some of the facts about 19th century Serbia.

1817 was not the year that Serbia achieved its independence, but the year it formed its principality. It followed a period of two major revolutions (plus one interphase) dating back to 1803. The Porte did not fully recognise this entity until 1830 (after negotiating with Serbian authorities during the two years prior to this). The principality in turn only encompassed the Palashuk of Smederevo (Belgrade included). Only in the years following 1830 did it gradually expand southward, it did not go into Bosnia, nor Hungary which was then to the north of Belgrade.

Austria-Hungary was only formed in 1867 and any reference to the AH-empire for a time before this is wholly erroneous.

1867 is when Serbia finally expelled all Ottoman personnel from its entity. Two years later, its own constitution defined it as independent.

1878 was the year that Serbia, Montenegro and Romania all achieved independence in the eyes of the outside world, Ottomans included. This was ratified at the Treaty of Berlin and all resulting from the Russo-Turkish war which had begun the previous year.

To state that the idea of Greater Serbia goes back to 1844 is somewhat unfounded given that the Serb nation had begun to work on independence from 1803 (when the first revolution began). The nation must have had some vague idea as to what it wanted. If anything, the 1844 document outlined the boundry. Even so, if it were secret then it has never officially been admitted and everything we write about Greater Serbia might be 100% circumstantial because others may use cover-up tactics to deny the case.

We need to be extra-cautious how we define the events of the 1990s, especially where Milošević is concerned. Perhaps linking Greater Serbia with Šešelj may be more appropriate but those who attributed the actions of Milošević to Greater Serbia (eg. the media) clearly have no idea as to what the Greater Serbian state is. Milošević in reality was not even qualified to manage a Greater Serbia. His actual misadventure (to use OR myself now) was endeavouring to be the centre of a sphere of influence which encompassed certain Serbian ideological lands though it was not necessary that an organisation had to be Serb to fit into this enterprise; this is something wholly incompatible with the mindset of Greater Serbia supporters. I'll tell you this much, if I were a Greater Serb supporter, I'd personally have tried to assassinate Milošević - just like Tito, what he was doing wasn't taking me where I wanted to be!!!!! But I'm not, so it is irrelevant. Meanwhile, all this talk of "first they do this, then they do that, and next thing...the border opens, Hello Greater Serbia"? Wrong. That is unfounded; it originates from nothing more than the voices in the heads of certain journalists and international politicians. A good example is Nagorno-Karabagh, that started life when the Soviet Union was dissolving and it declared itself independent from Azerbaijan in 1988 (when the USSR was formed). As an enclave of ethnic Armenians, the cries from Azeris and apologists for Armenia's opponents were crying the same old Armenian nationalist state formation nonsense. Sure enough, Yerevan has a hand in the activities of Nagorno, but does this make it all one Greater state? No it doesn't. And now 22 years later, Azerbaijan having no hope of seeing NATO change its nappies like certain other nations and nobody to support and sponsor an Operation Storm style "retaking" of Azeri territory, I'd say Nagorno is in a healthy state. So why hasn't it "opened up" to join Armenia? This is one of dozens of examples. OR is a beautiful thing but it gets you nowhere when you try to use it in the official language of sanction.

Furthermore, Greater Serbia is not based on "expansion". Once again, it is an ideology - you either have it, or you don't. I do not believe that if this goal was achieved, Velika Srbija would be the official name. The point is we cannot mix fact with idea. In 1844, Serbia had no international recognition. What is there to expand? Nothing. Who would honestly suggest breaking away from rulers in gradual stages if the opportunity came to go independent together all at once!

I hope this helps with the article's outlook. Evlekis (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis, I´m just seing more of the same. And the de-contextualised citation (from Patrijarh Pavle!) are outragious. He just doesn´t know to edit an encyclopedic article. If I stood for the "Greater Serbia" apologists view, and writte as he does, we will have two completely different articles, and that is just not possible. I do have a strange power to perfectly understand the words of any side and the reasons for them. Understanding the use of propaganda is way too easy for me. I condemn any kind of hateriot, and my aim in life is way bigger than just to have a "nice" reputation here, the fight agains blindness is way more important for me. If Serbs were black, Mladifilozof would be named the racist of the year, because that is exactly the tendency of his edits. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wy not including the Serbian Empire map? Has way more to do with the subject than the Pricipate of Serbia one. Both? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And Evlekis, being the plan secret, doesn´t necessarily mean that didn´t had followers. From the ones that new it (politicians, secret societies...), until the others that sub-contiently desired it (people). It really was a exagerated plan made from the result of the wish that already existed within the population (some part, at least) and it was before the plan was even created.

OK, I will follow your advice and give the benefit of doubt to the editor, but I want to see much more correct sentencies and less acusational tone. It really wasn´t the ideology, but real people (persons, not Serbs in general) that did some atrocities. This article is not the only problematic, and I didn´t wanted to loose time here with this. I´m not a editing policeman, neither a Serbian nationalist, and I may wrongly give the impression of such by demanding a NPOV edits and involving here and in other Serbia-related articles edited by the editor in question here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I also want to see an end to another propagandistic tecnique that is used by Mladifilozor (his edits), that consists represent the same fact in different ways as the needs of the direction of his propaganda desires. Exemple: When he wants to talk about the Albanian massacres comited by Serbs, he uses a map where a "big" Kingdom of Serbia is showed, where contains Northern half of Albania, as well; but when only wants to point the size of Serbian Kingdom, he allways adores to use the minimalistic Serbia map... That is just propaganda, and the most basic one, not even elaborated (althou he does know to be more "elaborated" also). Fighting the Greater Serbia propaganda with even more propaganda just isn´t the solution. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite logical. When we are talking about Greater Serbia then we use a greater Serbian map, but when we are talking about regular Serbia then we use regular maps.--Mladifilozof (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FkpCascais was not talking about which maps we use here, that was the subject for Talk:Kingdom of Serbia. He is annoyed because this article at present lists Serbian atrocities in wars all too well-known. He is also right. The article is about an ideology and about any practical real-world scenarios which are related to the mindset. As such, one can mention the wars in which the Serbian nation found itself (provided there is a clear link to GS) but there really is no need to stress the individual incidents (Prizren grandmothers massacre or Trebinje petrol station bombing of Serbs whose paternal great-aunties were half-Muslim and other CGSM). Those chapters do not belong here. Mention the wars, yes, but the alleged "war crimes", no! Evlekis (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or we can add to the stupidity: 17th November 1993, Serb army led by Jovan Jovanović crossed into Makarska and opened fire on town mental institution reception waiting room killing 67 ethnic Croatian non-Serbs in Phase 16 of plan to create Greater Serbia. Or maybe, 3rd January 2001, Serb Chetniks led by Mirko Mirković and Boško Bošković raid Preševo's second largest dental surgery and spray bullets into family of 39 ethnic Albanian non-Serbs as part of bid to attach Preševo Valley into Velika Srbija, etc.

These were jokes, but that is the sort of thing we would be doing if we overstress this article. Evlekis (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

Mention the wars, yes, but the alleged "war crimes", no!

If UN report and many other reports directly connects a Greater Serbia project and war crimes of ethnic cleansing, then it is necessarily to mention it in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don´t opose, if there is connection, it can be included, the problem is: What "Greater Serbia" project? The country wasn´t even called Serbia, back then! FkpCascais (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The war crimes were all for the purpose of inventing Greater Serbia. Can I recommend we merge this article with Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as it is known that that country was really a de facto "Greater Serbia" in disguise, everyone knows that Serbia was the dominant partner, it had invaded Kosova from days of former Yugoslavia and Montenegro was forced into it under durress: fearing the ethnic cleansing and genocide Serbs were comitting in places like Racak and Srebrenicca. Once Milosevic went, Montenegro left the federation. FR Yugoslavia was a de facto Greater Serbia. End. Merge? Votes please.

• Support. For reasons listed above and in the name of democracy and concensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Human Rights Believer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Invalid Blocked user, Balkan related articles banned. -Tadija (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

War crimes

I see Greater Croatia, Greater Serbia and Greater Albania articles. BUT. WHERE IS Greater Montenegro!?!? Those evil people always wanted all of the Balkans for themselves, pulling the strings of Croats, Serbs and Albanians behind the scenes, making them fight each other. Fucking Montenegrins. :/ 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

images

Serbian aspirations before the wars 1912-1918.

File:Balkan aspirations 1914.jpg

Balkan aspirations before the wars 1912-1918.

Someone repeatedly changing first image with another. First image shows Serbian aspirations before the wars 1912-1918 and it is directly connected with the subject of the article. This is article about Greater Serbia and its territorial aspirations.

Second image shows aspirations of Balkan states before the wars 1912-1918 and it is only indirectly connected with the subject of the article. This is not article on Greater Bulgaria or Greater Greece. Focus of this article is on Greater Serbia. This image is more proper for Balkan Wars article. It could also be used in this article, but as a second image, not to replace the first one.--Mladifilozof (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the article we have more than enough "Greater Serbian" map aspirations. This exeple is good so it can be showed also the aspirations of other neighburing states as well, even if some, like Albania, Croatia or Hungary, are missing. I hope your point is not to show just Serbs as irredentist, or, is it? FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And what´s the point of the "Serbia without Kosovo" map? That´s the current Serbia (yes, I´m not living in dreams...) map, so what it has to do with the subject? Are you acusing the current governament (pos-Milosevic) of persuing the "Greater Serbia" plan? (???) Or, this is just you show-off? FkpCascais (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, first image is of great importance for the article on Greater Serbia. You can put second image also, but do not replace an existing one. Image of Serbia without Kosovo is good ilustration for "Failure of the Greater Serbian project" but it is not of great importance for the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First image is highly innacurate, it only makes sence in a Balkan sphere. FkpCascais (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Second image places things more in context I think. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Vuk K

I think what the linguist is talking about here is an attempt to define what is "Serb". He uses the only tool he has, language, to do it and does a fine job nevertheless. The people in the areas he mentions can definitively be called Serb. He never called for a unification of all Serbs in one state, so I don't know why he is included in this article. He never asked for the growth of the Serbian realm, but for the reunification of it culturally. He never suggests increasing Serbian borders beyond areas populated by Serbs (into Croatia, Albania, Macedonia or Bulgaria etc). I don't really see how culturally uniting people who speak the same language as being related to Greater Serbia... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course he didn´t, but this article has so many issues wrong... I only menaged to compose the initial "Historical perspective" part. Everything alse is edited by Mladifilozof, and he is clearly making edits that include in the article all kind of non-related material. FkpCascais (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all right, so long as you do good edits and see they aren't reverted without reason, eventually the article will shine. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Title Change

I do not know how to change the title, but this must also be done. Australianhistorian

Wiki policy is to use the most common name among reliable sources. The translation of Veca/Velika to Greater/Great does not play a role in the article name. See Google Scholar: [2] [3] and Google Books: [4] [5] However as "Great Serbia" is a significant alternative name it should be included in the lead section. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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