I'm a law student and one interesting thing we learned when we had our history classes was that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't have a unified legal system. Only some aspects of criminal law were the same across the nation, but otherwise there were 6 distinct legal systems present. Firstly. Slovenia and Dalmatia wer eunder direct Austrian rule so they had a similar legal system. Secondly, the former Kingdom of Croatia-Slovenia had it's own laws. Some parts of yugoslavia on the northern borther were under dircet Hungarian rule (Međumurje, Prekomurje, Baranja, Bačka and Banat), so again had a diferent legal system. Bosnia was a condeminium between Austrian and Hungarian government and had it's own law system, including sharia courts which operated all the way throught the end of world war 2 and up untll communsit rule. And finally the former Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro had their own laws, for a final total of 6 different law systems. As I said, Criminal law was mostly made the same, but most private law (commercial law and customary law) was different, as was the court structure.
@@darkodjokic4432 I don't think there ever was a unification of much of the law across Yugoslavia. In fact, there were considerable differences even in SFRJ. I hear Serbs even today don't yet have a land registry, which I find baffling
@@sempersuffragium9951 true. the only real (and failed) attempt was during king aleksandar rule, when he oversee all of the laws in the country. But, by 1939 and with formation of Banovina Hrvatska, all hell will break loose. Constitution will be broke, National Assembly suspended, and we will have country within country a week before WWII. Knez Pavle was a really a piece of work!
Croat here and I have to say your video is the first one that really manages to describe the misgivings people had about Yugoslavia in a detailed manner, usually this interwar period is left just as a footnote when discussing the history of the region, or outright idealized by people who are ignorant and believe Yugoslavia was always a sunshines and rainbow state until "evil ethnic nationalism" caused it all to disintegrate overnight.
@@suleyman8696 too little foreign support for smaller ethnicities, besides the Austro-Hungarians saw all of them as the same people, which impacted how they were viewed internationally.
If you watched the video, you as a Croatian, should see that everything stated in it is untrue and misleading. I have noticed that videos of this nature produced by British creators contain the same inaccurate and false information, which makes me believe they do it intentionally.
I loved how you covered the subject. Youre the only channel I remember that went deeper into the politics of the 1st Yugoslavia. As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated, and in 10 min you did an excellent job of covering the inner politics of yugoslavia.
"As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated" That is incredibly true. The research and writing process for this video was mostly just me going down a series of rabbit holes!
@LookBackHistory hello I was gonna tell you I have an idea for a video 2 actually How does the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Or how does ISIS run their state ?
@@ВукВуксановић what you laughing at orthodox turk
Год назад+31
Mistake made at 4:16. Croats and Slovenes didn't live in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Croats lived in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Slovenes lived in the Duchies of Styria and Carniola (Austrian part of the Dual Monarchy). Great video however and good summary. You also skipped the Banates era of Yugoslavia. In 1929 Kingdom was divided into Banates (banovina).
Thanks! Originally I was going to discuss the Banates (I even made the maps!) but as the script progressed I decided to zero in on the early to mid nineteen twenties. As for 4:16 I think that's less a mistake and more a bit of ambiguity on my part. I intended it to be interpreted as, "Virually all Croats and Slovenes lived in: the Hungarian Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, some southern regions of Hungary, Austrian Dalmatia and Illyria and the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Which is true, but that colon is doing a lot more work than it should have to.
@@LookBackHistoryIllyria was abolished shortly after the Napoleonic wars. After that the area was reorganised back into Carniola, Carinthia and the Littoral which were also the areas where the majority of the Slovenes lived(+ Lower Styria and the Prekmurje region in Hungary)
@@LookBackHistory Just because you replied to my comment which while I was commenting I thought in my head "no way he responds" you are getting another subscriber (me)
You can write books about why Yugoslavia didn't work but it all comes down to one simple thing - there was never a Yugoslavian nation...nobody other than some people who were products of mixed marriages considered themselves Yugoslavs...
@@doudeau1988 one more generation? Many considered themselves Yugoslavs? Hardly. In 1981. cenzus after over 60 years of existence of Yugoslav state only 5.4% of people considered themselves as Yugoslavs. In 1971. that number was 1.3% and has in fact decreased compared with 1.7% in 1961. Highest % of those identifying as Yugoslavs in 1981. were from Croatia and Vojvodina, mostly from ethnically mixed regions and/or people of mixed ancestry. On the last pre-war cenzus of 1991. % of Yugoslavs dropped to 3%.
@@Harahvaiti They still would have considered themselves as Yugoslavs. It's like asking an Arab if they are Arab, many will say yes but many who technically aren't Arabs will also say yes. They are both broader terms that can be broken up into many parts. For the most part, even today (more so than even Ukrainian and Russian) the Yugoslav dialects can be mostly understood by each other. Nikola Tesla said: "... I am proud to be a Serbian (and Croat) and a Yugoslav. Our people cannot perish. Preserve the unity of all Yugoslavs - the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes." Most of their differences were merely religious and alphabetical. Both of these derive from the influence of and/or being controlled by foreign powers. The Bosnian-Serb Gavrilo Princip said he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Bosnian-Serb Emir Kusturica said he did not want a Bosnian state but a Yugoslav one. If you ask a non-nationalistic or a Yugoslav of mixed ethnic background they will admit fairly little distinction between many aspects, predominantly language. So this is only partially true.
@@IsaiahMartinez88 1) Gavrilo Princip was a GreaterSerbian terrorist backed by organization Black Hand from Serbia, there was nothing Yugoslav in that story 2) Emir Kusturica was born as Bosniak/ Bosnian Muslim Emir and then converted to Serb Orthodoxy for reasons of Serbian nationalism, not Yugoslav idea. His name is Nemanja now. 3) there are no Yugoslav dialects but South Slavic languages 4) as for Arab example, in this case Arab = South Slavic while Yugoslav = Soviet. How many people these days declare themselves as Soviet? Or Czechoslovakian? Choose one South Slavic identity and stick with it. I have more respect for Serbian nationalists than deluded characters which still ramble about _Yugoslav_ people
@@Harahvaiti 1. He literally said he was one. 2. He literally said he wanted a Yugoslav state but not a Bosnian one. 3. They are all dialects that used to be all one common language (except Bulgaria and North Macedonia which are not true Yugoslavs). Closer in language than the Ukrainian-Russian spilt which still shares 70% of all vocabulary. 4. Yugoslav means Southern Slav. USSR was a nation, not a wider ethnic group. Czechslovak is perfectly fine considering they are the same people with most of the language shared that was more shared but over time has split up more. South Slavs shouldn't have to choose one just because tribal, alphabetical, or religious barriers stand in the way.
The data used at 6:45 is incorrect. Noel Malcolm provides a much better outlook into the actual minorities of Yugoslavia. Serbian propaganda was in fact diminishing the number of muslims and what they considered non-serbs, to ultimately provide a sense of majority of serbs within Yugoslavia - the number albanians being a prime example of this skew of data.
The funny thing is, the official language of SHS was actually slovene-serbo-croatian. There is no such language and the slovenes weren't having any of it from the start
@@sempersuffragium9951 Pa tajli ste malo na pocetku, pa malo za vreme Tita. Niko vam ne spori da imate svoj jezik, identiet i kulturu. Samo se manite price da smo mi Srbi nesto krivi jer ste u Jugoslaviji imali sve pogotovo u drugoj.
yeah, it was oficially srpskohrvatskoslovenacki or drzavni jezik. But, what you fail to mention is that very same langauge was thought and called slovenian in both ljubljana and maribor province (later dravska b), with 90% of slovenian and 10% of serbocroatian material. If someone should be pissed, then it should be Croats, books in serbocroatian contained 40% cyrilic, 40% latin script (plus 20% slovenian material), but everthing was in ekavica.
as always a great vido looking back at history this was intresting and very joyfull and educational i hope the next vido is going to be about north africa but no matter what it is i will watch it
@@luizfilipe4226 No, you are wrong. They don't have the same history, culture, tradition & especially not genetics & language Especially Slovenes. I am Serb & I know what I'm talking about.
@tienshinhan2524 and historia might bê diferent, bit só os punjabi and tamil nandu, Bavaria and Prússia. India os mucho more diferent ethnically, yet they still United.
great video. Interesting that the croats fought intensively to not be under a centralized serbian majority state, yet were mostly passive under austria.
Somewhat misleading. Croatia already had its own parliament which meant significant legislative and judicial autonomy. In other words, it had pretty much everything it wanted and was concerned primarily with cultural issues e.g. language rights.
Austria gave us something in return, Serbs didn't. Not to mention Austria was and still is far superior to Serbia in every aspect, from culture to economy.
@@mgel7311 And they had everything, from own political fraction of KPJ to police and security agency under Tito from 1974 and yet they werent happy. So Serbs werent the problem.
@@mithrandil420 Nominally i agree, the '74 constitution was a step in the right direction. But let's not kid ourselves and assume that it was followed through completely. The economic meltdown coupled with increasing Serbian desire for hegemony were the main contending issues for Croatia as well as the other republics.
A united Yugoslavian Basketball team, would be a great thing to watch. Luka Dončić, Nikola Jokić, both Bogdan and Bojan Bogdanović, Boban Marjanović, Ivica Zubac, Dario Šarić, Vasilije Mićić, Aleksej Pokuševski, Tristan Vukčević, Nikola Vučević and Jusuf Nurkić...
6:46 its mind boggling how in the same territory just over in 100 years albanians would grow from 3.5% to 12% of the population if yugoslavia woukd reunite
Stjepan Radić said to his Croats brothers politicians:" Don't unite with Serbs,its like the geese going to the mist".And he was right.All evils in Croatia are (and were)coming from Serbia(1918-1995)🎉
You guys are The same fucking thing. Índia have far diferent ethnic situation than you guys and yet they still United to this day. Only difference you guys have is religion, which still stupid. Because one follow The pope and the other not, Thats It.
One correction: Croats did not speak Serbo-Croatian. Within Yugoslavia Croats spoke Croato-Serbian but even this was a political construct during Yugoslavia. The evidence you use for the term Serbo-Croatian is from a Yugoslav source. Try to find any source pre-1918 that Croats or Serbs spoke Serbo-Croatian. It doesn't exist. Croats speak Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian. Closely related and mostly mutually intelligible but different nonetheless. It took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian and it will take many more to forget.
In communist Yugoslavia days, Croats were speaking Serbo-Crat ( like Serbs ) just different dialects.True that "it took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian" just like it took many decades for Croats (after their independence) to invent Croat language by literally creating big number of words that have never existed before. No such thing as "Croato-Serbian" btw. . Croats today speak Croat.
I like how you have found your neiche as a history RUclipsr to often channels cover the same topics and all probably just use the same sources (mainly wiki being real)
Great video. Now I understand why the role of Croatia was what it was in ww2. All in all I think I'm not the only one for saying Yugoslavia was a mistake. The way it ended is extremely sad.
Perhaps not as an idea, but certainly in the execution of said idea. Forced centralisation and unification under oppression pretty much cemented resentment as inevitable. Perhaps it could've become something over time had it remained a federation at the start and gradually tried to smooth over the differences over the decades and had mostly equal repressentation rather than being Serb-dominated.
This doesn't even explain WW2. Only the invasion and occupation of Yugoslavie by the fascists and Nazis from Germany and Italy explains this. In the 30s the Ustashe were a fringe right wing group (roughly less 10% popular support). Even when they were installed they didn't gain popular support, this is why they didn't hold any elections to legitimize their rule. This makes it different from the likes of Germany, Austria and Italy were their regimes were an expression of the peoples' desires.
🇺🇦🇭🇷 Ethnic White Croats ( Bili Horvati) still live in Western Ukraine today. There is still located settlement of Stilsko, ancient capital city of pagan Croats ❤ Croatia is named after White Croats who came in the 7th century from ancient pagan White Great Croatia once located in Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, north-eastern Slovakia-Czechia and Hungary. When Hungarians conquered slavic Pannonia province in the 9th century, southern baptised Red Croatia separated from pagan White Croatia. Ukraine and Croatia together for years celebrate common ethnic heritage of ancient Croat people ❤🇭🇷🇺🇦
Cool video, just going to mention that Timok-Romanians were more back in the early 20th Centuries in the Timok Valley. They make the majority of the Timok region
I find Yugoslav's fate sad and not unavoidable. Apart from different religion Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats were pretty much the same thing. Romania had a similar situation after WW1 with Romanians from Old Kingdom, Transylvania and Bessarabia being under one state. These people were not part of the same country for centuries and there were differences but the feeling of "I am Romanian" seems to have been stronger than the feeling of "I am Transylvanian, Wallachian or Moldavian". Even after USSR tried to make a fictitious 'Moldavian =/= Romanian' ethnicity via the state, there are still Moldavians/Bessarabians in Moldova today looking for union because they consider themselves Romanians. In Yugoslavia, not only that didn't happen, but they fought each other. Romania after WW1 also had a strong local representation vs strong state authority issue. In fact Transylvanians told the Romanian (Old Kingdom) government that they would only accept a conditional union where Transylvania will be an autonomous region inside the Kingdom of Romania. But Hungary tried to use this as a pretext that the Transylvanians do not really want union with Romania at Trianon so the Transylvanians dropped this and went for an unconditional union. Bessarabia likewise wanted a conditional union originally as an autonomous state, only dropping it in favor of a conditional one, after Transylvanians dropped their own conditional union. But there was still a condition, an unofficial one, that Transylvanians and Bessarabians would have a say in the new constitution (which happened in 1922) which I guess fair and probably one of the things that kept the country together. The first years of the new kingdom were full of regionalism. With Transylvanian parties, Bessarabians parties, etc; it was only after a few years that the situation cooled off and regional parties disintegrated in favor of ideological ones like liberal and conservative. So I think Romania wasn't that far off from Yugoslavia (religion aside), but one is a success story while the other ended in failure.
@@igoralmeida9136 true, but I wanted to emphasize that, because it feels to me like the common narrative is that Yugoslavia's fall was just a matter of time, where I think it was just bad management and not something that had to happen sooner or later. I don't find it unrealistic to have an Yugoslavia that didn't break up after the end of communism, but I think the king made mistakes with the forced centralization (this didn't happen in Romania, there was centralization, which Transylvanians and Bessarabians didn't like, but this was fixed by them having a say in the constitution, a fair share in the government as opposed to underrepresented, and their culture "different from Old Kingdom" was not touched and instead cherished as also being Romanian). But the worst mistakes were made by the communists after Tito died.
a lot of the issues I think was the Serbs pushing for too much centralization too hard and too fast. The Croats and Slovenes wanted to be equal partners in the new state. Maybe with enough time a "Yugoslav" identity could've formed naturally, but forcing it didn't help
Idk, as a Romanian, I feel Romania is pretty special. Romanians had a very strong sense of unitary national identity as a result of them being the only Latin culture in the eastern half of Europe. Also, they tend to avoid violent means to solve their issues. Whereas Bosnia, for example, went through Islamisation. Though I don't know too much about the situation in Yugoslavia to be able to compare.
@@noahjohnson935 If you want to see how much centralization will be accepted by similar peoples see how much would you accept, for example when the serb government disowned chatolism they should have also disowned orthadoxy and see how their own people handle it.
I remember that there were even more ethnic groups in Yugoslavia, than is usually claimed. In Serbia are true Czech and Rusyn people. Idk, how did they get there and from where?
6:46 where the hell did u took this from? We Macedonians were not yet recognised as ethnicity and why is it macedonian or bulgar. We are south slavs called macedonians under the region not BULGARS a steppe turkic tribe that has 0 connection to us wtf
In Yugoslavia, there was no Yugoslav language (the official language was Serbo-Croatian), and on population censuses, we had Yugoslavs only in small percentages. So, the Yugoslavism never really took hold. The first Yugoslavia was Monarchist, the second was Socialist, and both collapsed in bloodshed. I think it is because roughly half of the country was under Austria-Hungary for centuries, and the other half under Ottoman Turkey also for centuries. These were different cultures, religions, mentalities. And religious differences were a big thing - there were three big religions - Orthodox, Catholic, and Islam... and the roles some vs. others had in WW 1 and WW 2, so there were a lot of factors at play.
Carniolan eagle. Main symbol of Slovenes for many centuries but it got less prevalent after ww2 due to its use by Slovene homeguard which was a group of nazi collaborators durring occupation
@@Ma_ksi i mean the actual national flag Slovenes used was a tricolor without coat of arms. Same as Russian flag but colours were taken from Carniolan coat of arms(eagle). The flag in this video is made up as far as i know because there were no official flags for different nations in Kingdom of Yugoslavia due to mentioned obsession with central authority.
you failed to say how Croatians and Serbs managed to make an agreement before the German invasion of Yugoslavia. Croats received autonomy within the framework of the Croatian Banovina.
This wasn't ever implemented. Also, right after the agreement wad made, the Croatian Paseant Party and the Serbian government had different interpretations of contents of the agreement. So this might have never been implemented, even if WW2 hadn't had happened.
In 1886 there were 220.000 romanians in Timoc region. In vest Banat in 1921 were 78.000 romanians(we claimed that there were 130.000).So in reality in Serbia alone there were at least 300.000 romanians. Where are they now?
Vlachs in Timok region, not romanians (even though official Romania for some reason considered them Romanians) are mostly serbianised. Only 20 000 or so call themselves vlachs, even though there are 5 times more of them (similar story with the gypsies and aromans, for example). On the other side, romanians in banat after 1921 exchange homes with serbs who stayed on the other side of rnew romanian-serbian border.
@@darkodjokic4432 no, no. Romanians in the "Serbian" Banat didnt migrated to Romania in large numbers. They were asimilated. In Romania we still have around 20-25.000 serbians out of a initial population of 50.000 people. Some Serbians were discriminated, deported during the Russian occupation of Romania.
@@dacicus090 I don't have the books with me right now, so I really have no idea how much people changed homes from both sides of borders during twenties and thirties, my guess is some 20-30 thousands. I could look up, if you want. But there was some movement of serbs from romania and hungary, and romanians and hungarinas from new state in those days. What i rmember form school is that during causeku's times, lot of serbs from banat were sent to danube delta region or just simply slaughtered. Was this true?
@@darkodjokic4432 It wasnt any genocide of serbs. During the Soviet occupation of Romania, because of soviet-yugoslav tensions and the hungarian revolution of 1956, soviet installed comunists of Romania deported serbians, germans, romanians, aromanians, croats, hungarians, banat bulgarians from the border regions of Banat, mostly to south-eastern Romania, in a steppe region. They considered them possible allies of Tito. Many of them died. It wasnt Ceausescu at that time. Most of the pro-soviet leaders were jews, hungarians, ukrainians, romanians and bulgarians(some of them from the Soviet Union itself). They deported up to 50.000 people by which, 5 to 7.000 have died.
The name "Yugoslavia" came into existence only after the Serbs murdered the Croatian leadership in 1928 in the parliament building in Belgrade and then established a Serbian dictatorship. Before 1928 the actual state was called the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".
Without ska or yugoslavia, many parts would have annexes by other bordering countries. Ofcourse the concept of yugoslavia was nationalistic, that is the only way to establish a nation as such.
What about Germany? They have so many different principalities with big differences in religion i.e. protestentantism and roman catholicism and very distant dialects. Yet Prussian chancelor Bismarck united them. Though after WWI Bavaria wanted to break from Germany.
I'm trying so hard to figure out what you're talking about. If you're saying Austro-Hungarian south Slavs (mostly Croats) were on the side of the Entante, that's just wrong on so many levels. They were but only when Central powers started losing the war. Up until 1917 most people supported the government in Vienna which has always been odd to me. I will never understand the Croatian love for being ruled by foreigners as long as they see themselves equal to them (even tho those same foreign leaders see them as inferior). One sided relationship covered with a fascade of fake and imaginary brotherhood, usually native people reject this type of imperialist propaganda but many Croats for some reason embrace it idk why 🤷♂️
@@TheEGrievous oh lmao i got that way wrong. Well I mean they chose to unite with Serbia. And Montenegrin Whites vastly outnumbered the Montenegrin Greens, so it's safe to say that majority of people of Montenegro wanted a state union with Serbia.
@@Reebarb Austria Hungary was not a German ruled state. It had a German-speaking aristocracy to be sure, but they treated all their lands as fundamentally equal. Though it can be said, that the German population had more political influence, all the nations (at least under Cislaithanien, the Hungarians were a bit more repressive) enjoyed a lot of freedom for their time, and the general development of the Empire was going towards federalisation (unlike the unitary Yugoslavia). Just to give you a few examples, just from the Slovenian perspective: We had the only living Grand Admiral, who wasn't a Habsburg in Austrian histroy be a Slovene, a Slovene was writing the new federal constitution for a new federal Empire (that never came to be, because of the Entante efforts to destroy the Empire), we had 3 out of 9 suoreme court judges of the Empire be Slovenes (who, after the breakup of the Empire came back to Slovenia)... so, I wouldn't describe that as "living under foreign rulers".
@@TheEGrievous montenegro was literally ruled by serbian dynasty and montenegro itself is a serbian state at the time, thats why it followed serbian politic
The best approach would be reason-centric federalism. Which is to say the purpose of the central government, the government in Belgrade is to deal with foreign threats and foreign diplomats. I have a multi-sector system of society with business and government being separate from each other, thereby trade is not managed by the government but by an assemblage of businesses of common and exclusive goods as well as financial institutions. Nevertheless, the government's job besides dealing with foreign entities and managing the military as well as police force was also to guarantee all public goods were accessible by all venues and individuals within the same state and to monitor and check the regional authority for their abuse, deviancy or ignorance in managing their own affairs and perform the same with municipal or local authorities. The state language would be Yugoslav which should be a shared mutual dialect built by combining Islamic-Bosnian, Catholic-Croatian, and Orthodox-Serbian concepts and terms as much as possible within the same language with a mutual regard for Latin, Arabic and Greece and/or Russian as the influential external factors that may further shape the language as needed to guarantee everyone is represented adequately and the nation truly is a composite union of the three Bosnians, Serbs and Croats as sharing a common identity among themselves. I would go further and insist that there should be three capitals instead of one as that would further guarantee their union. And I would also insist that Slovenia and North Macedonia, along with Kosovo and Vojvodina be autonomous provinces of the federation with Slovenia being left alone, North Macedonia being a pure pidgin creole of Serbian and Bulgarian in all aspects with local traditions being maintained, Kosovo should be a blend of Albanian and Serbian in all ways except religion with the same religious freedom granted to Bosnians being enjoyed by Albanians (as they are fellow Muslims) and Vojvodina being a blend of Hungarian and Serbian in all aspects except for religion as the same would apply to Croats which the Catholics in that region would enjoy. This would create the view of Yugoslavia consisting of seven tribes with three being the principle entities receiving the most attention and development. Efforts would be made to seek good relations with Turkey, France and Greece or Russia to guarantee cohesion and prevent tension between these available trading partners.
Most tragic mistake by Serbian King was to form kingdom of scs Serbia won WW1 so they could have done whatever they wanted, make great Serbia and be very powerful even before WW1 Serbia was great kingdom it's a shame because the Serbian King wanted to be same people... well we know what happened to Yugoslavia
Cool video, thank you for talking about Balkan history. One nitpick though: "Bosnian Muslim" is not an ethnicity. It's either "Bosniak" which is their endonym or "Muslim" when talking about the SFRJ era ethnicity.
Pan-Slavism didn't work, Pan-Germanism didn't work, Scandinavism didn't work, Yugoslavism didn't work. You can't just glue together different people, histories and faiths just because there's a linguistic connection.
I don't think we can be quite that assertive. Those are all definitely examples of failures to merge people together into nation states, but there are also plenty of examples of successes. Italy, France, and Spain pop into my mind as examples.
@@LookBackHistoryby iron and blood u can unify anyone. France specifically had to eradicate local languages to achieve its national unity. I don't think you can unify a young diverse country into a nation state while staying as a liberal democracy, not to say I oppose liberal democracy or even nation states.
Pan-Germanism didn't fail, Germany is still standing to this day, the only "failure" was not including Austria, something caused by losing 2 World wars.
@@LookBackHistory Apples and oranges, all of them still have particularist movements (Brittany, Corsica, Aragon, Catalonia, Basque country, Sicily etc.). Further more France united in middle ages, Spain in early modern period and Italy is only somewhat recent model. Majority of Italians thought themselves as such regardless of the polity they served prior to unification.
2:25 completly wrong. All of these people have the same language, with the diffrences being so minor, that they could only be called dialects of one language. I would even dare say that Croatian is closer to Serbian, more then American is to British
Serbocroatian language was never accepted by Serbs and neither by Croats. For Serbian imeprialistic politics Serbian is only Štokavian (West and East Štokavian), plus some Croatian literature in West Štokavian. For Croats Croatian is Kajkavian, Čakavian, and West Štokavian without Serbian East Štokavian, and Croatian have four literature types (Čakavian, Kajkavian, West Štokavian, and amalgam in zrinsko-frankopanski cultural cyrcle). For Croatian linguistics Serbian and Croatian are different lanugages based on these sociolingusitic criteria: 1. the speakers understand each other - true for the modern standards 2. language has the same name throughout history used by the authors in that language - false 3. the language is based on the same written corpus - false 4. language has the same cultural-communication community throughout history, and the awareness of speakers that they speak the same national language, an abbreviated- the same cultural-identity community - false 5. they are essentially standardized at the same place and in the same time - false.
You are confused. Those were dialects, not languages. Serbo-Croat was official language for huge majority of the people. Only Slovenians and Macedonians did not use that language officially. Croat language as we know it today, was created after the war.
Thie video titles "Yugoslavism", and starts narrating with 1918. Where did all these video creators find these false stories? The real "yugoslavism" started early 1800s, and this video has not even 1 word about its founders, who were croats.
Was a mistake to add Croatia & Slovenia into Yugoslavia and to have signed Concordat with the Vatican. Croatia and Slovenia have more in common with the Germans anyway...
serbs are more related to turks and arabs by culture an behaivour then to any european people...because they were ancestors of 500 years ottoman rulership. serbs may speak slavic (croatian), but that does not make them slavic at all...
@@KukuLele-mx8sq Serbs are among tallest nations on the world, in top 5 tallest nations, Turks and Croats are below us, and Bosnians and Montenegreens are also tall, Croats are mix of nations, that's why they are shorter, look today's Croats: Stier, Rainer, Gutvald, Knoll, Roys, Raus,Tot, Nemet,Čiz, Pastvečka, Hrenek, Totgergelli, and so... surenames and names are Serbian, Hungarian, German, Czech, Slovakian,Polish, Italian, lol, you are milk shake nation, hahahaha
@@KukuLele-mx8sqlet's see what newspapers Croatia's week said: 10 tallest counties: 1. The Netherlands - 183.78 cm 2. Montenegro - 183.21 cm 3. Denmark - 182.60 cm 4. Norway - 182.39 cm 5. Serbia - 181.99 cm 6. Germany - 181.00 cm 7. Croatia - 180.49 cm 8. The Czech Republic - 180.26 cm 9. Slovenia - 180.28 cm 9. Luxembourg - 179.90 cm
@@tone713 that does not make him any les wrong. There was never such thing as Yugoslav or South Slavic culture, never. Almost from day one, Slovenes and Croats were under influence of Western church (later Romancatholicism) and the culture that sprang from that circle while Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins belonged to Eastern church (later Orthodoxy) and that cultural circle. Add to that Islam which came in 15th century and shaped Bosniaks... and you have zero common cultural basis. As for language, even that is not right. Same as Danish and Norwegian are closely related but separate languages so are Croatian and Serbian. Yugoslavia lasted less than an average lifespan in USA or Europe. Before it, South Slavs lived quite or at least rather well next to each other. Yugoslavia was a mistake.
@@Harahvaiti I as a Croatian can understand 100% of Serbian,bosnian and Montenegrin and about 70% of Bulgarian and Slovenian.we all have mostly the same culture with some regional differences.finaly many people during after ww2 Yugoslavia considered themselves yugoslavian
@@tone713 Similar language does not make one and the same people otherwise Scandinavia would be one country same as Czechoslovakia would still exist. Also Bulgaria and Macedonia would be one people and country. As for culture - LMAO. What do Dalmatia and Istria have in common with Šumadija or Vranje? Drop the yugocrap.
And Stjepan Radic was shopt becaose he said how much your Serbia blood is worth so we can buy it ( implementing ww1 Serbian Casualties) and thats why he was shoot, dont speak auslander if you never read shit about yugoslavia and is proud abour your powerpoint presentation.
@@jtgd Civic nationalism could have only worked in a federalized system. Once Milosevic attempted to recreate a centralized state, nationalism became more ethnic again. Before the war - as shown in multiple surveys - the identification with Yugoslavia came first, Europe second and then local / national identification (e.g. identification with the 6 republics).
*At a meeting somewhere in Belgium* "They're all different kinds of Serbs, right?" "Yes old chap." "Alright, kingdom of the united serbs. I mean Slavs." And thus, the war crimes were solidified. It's interesting that today Bosnia, 'Kosovo' and Albania are all Muslim majority nations right next to one another. The reason for this was actually because they were once areas that had a really high quantity of Catholics, who were loyal to the pope rather than the Orthodox Patriarchate that the Ottomans had enslaved, so they couldn't control them. Rather than trying to indoctrinate them over time with the child soldier Janissaries, they instead forcefully converted and influenced an independent linguistic and cultural identity. So today, both Albanian and Bosniak have heavy Turkish influence and frequent loan words, moreso than any other language in the area, and over 400 years, it is no surprise that the peoples of these areas become increasingly more Islamic. When Skanderberg and the League of Lezhe revolted against the Ottomans, the lands of Albania were Catholic and Orthodox, Skanderberg himself being a devout Catholic, rampaged across the western countryside and was quite successful in staging his rebellion against the Ottomans. But nobody aided him and the rebellion didn't last long. Same can be said for Vlad Dracul of Wallachia, known as Vlad the Impaler for the 20,000 Ottomans he had placed on stakes. Had he had more support from the catholic world the balkans would have evolved with a very different cultural identity. Had something come from the Crimean War instead of Britain and France ganging up to oppose Russia and keep a weak Ottoman Empire in place, it is likely that the First and Second Balkan War would have happened in the 1870s rather than the early 1900s. History is a funny thing
@@account-369 ok...then give me the source or the proof. By that logic I can say Napoleon said "Give me 10000 Croats and I will conquer the world" without any proof of it being said, and then I can support my statement the same way you're supporting the previous one without any proof of it's existence being out there
@@account-369 first of all, there again is no proof of that statement, so your argument is invalid and proves my point lmao. Second of all why did you change the topic all of the sudden and why did you bring "post socialist countries" in this...they were not even mentioned. Third, Croatia was in personal union with Hungary, their statehood remained but in cooperation with another kingdom...research something and then talk
@@account-369 what the hell are you actually talking about...personal union is the combination of states under the same monarchy, well known to the world. It's not something "Croats came up with" lmao. Congo state had a personal union with the Belgium, Brazil had the personal union with Portugal, the United Kingdom is the personal union uniting Scotland, Wales...with the monarchy of England...you actually don't know what you're talking about. And how the hell do you combine Spain with USA when talking about personal union...USA never had a king and they didn't have any cooperative relationship with Spain...grab a book and educate yourself
@@account-369 you're crazy xd...I did my part and proved you wrong and yet you still ignore it and change the subject...just admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're wrong XD
@@fusionreactor7179 No they didn't. Croatia didn't exist prior to WW1 so Serbia couldn't invade Croatia and Croatian representatives from Austro Hungary wanted to joing Serbia and voted in favour of it. But somehow, let's imagine you are right, and Serbs did invade Croats. That explains and justifies in your opinion killing half a million of civilians and committing a largest mass murder ever recorded on Balkan territory? Than you truly are sick and despicable
View of Yugoslavia from the perspective of people who lived in the countries that colonised and exploted half of the world is always halarious, much different then the perspective of Yugoslavs and people from the countries of Non Aligned Movement.
That may be true, though I will point out that all of my sources (bar a general history text I use for most-every video) are by people from former Yugoslavia. You can check them out in the description.
Slovenes we’re basically an integral part of Austria and Venetia for centuries and Croatia was its own kingdom within Hungary before Yugoslavia. Just as today, Slovenia and Croatia are western oriented with EU, rather attached to Austria and Italy while the Serbs are too small to be a force but thinks it’s as dominant as Russia.
Yeah, i'm fascinated by it. Imagine not having a country for almost 1000 years, having your language, religion, culture and alphabet be changed and influenced by foreign powers. Losing all of your power you had for a short time and then handing it all to a foreign monarch with them promising that you'll be sovreign, which they were (on a piece of paper) having your "parliament" be influenced and changed by your ruling foreign monarch. This type of existance literally does nothing but make a people group depend on someone stronger and more powerful to protect them because they are incapable to do so themselves. Then when another people group that is more similar to you than any other foreign ruler you had in 1000 years offers to create a union with you, you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people. Result, those (now former) foreign leaders see that you'll be obediant and so they aid you basically making you their subject with an illusion of sovreignty yet again and you only have bitter hatred towards someone who is linguistically, culturally and genetically almost exactly the same as you are. Balkans are crazy man this is why the whole world laughs at them. Like they literally had something that worked, good economy, great healthcare, education etc. and then they just fell so down they're worse then before they even started, literally modern Yugoslav states. Except Slovenia and Croatia, their economy is like a little better in comparison to Serbia.
@@Reebarb here’s the thing: the Balkan countries are on the crossroads of the Roman/German, Russian and Turkic sphere of influence, plus the British waiting to strike in their Mediterranean possessions. It’s like a tectonic volcano line waiting to erupt every now and then. Now, looking at around 1900’s, if only one Empire had taken over and incorporated all of the Balkans, which would be best? Italy/Germany&Austria also retaking Constantinople and Anatolia and drive out the Muslims once and for all and allow the Balkan nations to coexist as autonomous European cultures and expand prosperity. Russia which might act similarly to Italo-German dominance in regards to culture, only difference is, there is no progress and poverty is high. Or Turkic dominance as seen for centuries, with forcing Christians to pay extra taxes and enslaving white girls to sell them within their Sultanate. Nobody cares about the bickering of Croats and Serbs or if the Banat and Transylvania is Hungarian or Romanian. These are pawns in the chessboard of history between Italo-German, MuslimTurkic or Russian sphere of influences. The West supporting independence for the Kosovo alone shows how hypocritical they are when they usually say diversity is a strength and borders should be open etc. The Drei-Kaiser Pakt between Russia, Germany, and Austria should have been holy and indestructible, securing Central and Eastern Europe and retaking Byzantine. Plus put Italy in charge of the Mediterranean. Britain and France didn’t want this. They see the Mediterranean as a gateway for their empires in Africa and Asia and not as a wall to not be crossed by non-Europeans. France and Britain and now America meddling in the Balkans always creates tumult because there is never a definite solution, and final decision who and how the Balkans are administered by the strongest local power’s sphere of influence. Russia/Germany/Turkey. Balkan is too small and weak to be independent and the British/French/Americans simply support Balkanization to keep meddling there with the illusion of independence within the EU-Nato network as client states without calling them client or satellite states. Resettling Anatolia with Greeks and Armenians under Italian protection in the Mediterranean and have German influence include all of the Danube plus a friendly brotherhood between Germany and Russia who might even rule the Balkans as a condominium like Bosnia was within the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Balkan countries must sacrifice their sovereignty which is simply an illusion perpetrated by the West and their Nato troops stationed there. The Balkans must be integrated into either German, Russian or Turkic rule with certain autonomy regarding culture etc. You pick your master.
@@Markus-n3s exactly. That's exactly what i'm saying, but usually what would happen in history is that these groups of people will realize they're stronger together as they have common enemies, especially if they're all as similar as Balkan people. But Balkan people just hate each other more and more. I mean lets be real when it existed communist Yugoslavia was diplomatically incredibly influential. Both the west and the east needed them. Was it simply a prodzct of their lucky circumstance? Yes. Was it beneficial for them anyways? YES. So you'd think they would be more than happy to stay together, build a strong and sovreign nation that can stand up to foreign oppressor. But nope, they just divide even more and more causing them to be in an even worse position then before they even started.
@@Reebarb This shows how little you actually know about the whole situation. "you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people" well actually serbs oppressed Croats from the beginning, maybe not serbs as people directly, but their king and his decisions. Croatian politicans were killed just for being agains centralism ( atentat u beogradu ). The personal union with hungary couldn't have been avoided and yet union with serbia was unavoidable too. Serbs started propaganda about the idea of "the greater serbia" which included Croatian territories and ofcourse being in the same country with those people who want you territory is not gonna end well
@@letecitoster3469 last time i checked the idea of "Greater Serbia" included mostly Serbian ethnic lands, a lot of Dalmatia and Slavonia was populated by Serbs. Up until 1995 ofc when, correct me if i'm wrong, Croats started a military operation that led to mass immigration of Serbs from those regions. Greatest Balkan civilizations, know nothing but to slaughter, murder and hate people who are genetically, linguistically and culturally the same as they are.
Let me correct you about something, during the kingdom of Yugoslavia Kosovo was Majorly Serb , albanians were a minority in that region. Other than that great video
It should be mentioned that Serbia lost 30% of its people in ww1 and as a victorious country liberated all parts of Yugoslavia and established new state. People accros the country were indeed thankfull, (regent) king was warmly welcomed in every city even in croatia but especially in dalmatia. Unification of balcan slavs was an idea/dream centuries old but it was all handled poorly by each side. National identities were strong and king Aleksandar coming from homogenous Serbia and Montenegro didnt have proper uderstanding for that nor did he saw danger and importance of that problem. I think that country had future, in the begining everyone wanted it, after ww2 everyone loved it, in the end and even now everyone hates it. Right country, greedy and shortsighted politicians.
Wonderful country............. The first ten years of Yugoslavia (1918-1928): Twenty-four political death sentences, 600 political murders, 30,000 political arrests, 3,000 political emigrants and countless masses of political expulsions. At the first meeting with members of the National Council, on November 12, 1918, Dušan Simović stated: Wikiquote »As a soldier, I can tell you this: Serbia, which in this war gave one and a half million victims for the liberation and unification of its brothers of the same blood across the Danube, Sava and Drina, cannot in any case allow a new state to be formed on its borders, which would take all its compatriots into its composition and that, after four years of suffering and the complete defeat of the enemy, it would remain in the background and leave all the fruits of the victories to another who dried up in the war on the enemy's side. Serbia - by the right of arms, and based on the contract with Hungary signed by Duke Mišić, as the plenipotentiary of the commander of the Allied armies on the Thessaloniki front; of General Franchet d'Esperey, the following territory belongs: Banat to the Horgoš-Subotica-Baja line; Baranja to the line Batasek-Pečuj-Barč and further along the river Drava to Osijek; Srijem and Slavonija to the railway line Osijek-Đakovo-Šamac; all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia up to Cape Planka. Outside that territory, you can decide as you wish: to go with Serbia or to form a separate state for yourself. But don't forget that Croatia provided 1/3 of its soldiers in World War I, at least according to the words of the Minister of the Army, Petar Pešić
I disliked the video because of a few things; 1. Pronunciation of names, Gavrilo Princip for example is one of the easier ones and you couldn't take the time to even learn that one. Really showcased the actual amount of work you put into this. 2. You failed to mention that Yugoslavism was born out of Croatian inteligencia. Ljudevit Gaj in the 1830's started floating the idea that Serbs and Croats were one people and should unite as one people. You presented the whole thing as an idea by the Serbian government or people. 3. You again failed to mention the Corfu declaration which was an important document in the formation of SCS (or SHS in serbian) and later Yugoslavia. 4. The assasination of Stjepan Radic wasn't acted out because Serbs were displeased with the HSS but because for a good amount of years Croatian delegates in Belgrade did nothing but obstruct the work of the parliment and insult their fellow representatives. Stjepan Radic started goading and insulting Punisa Racic before he shot him by asking him "How much is your Serbian blood worth? How much does your so called Kajmakčalan cost?" in regards to the amount of Serbs who died in WWI fighting against Austria-Hungary and in Kajmakcalan when they died in the thousands to liberate Serbia in the Solonica front. Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable. Rather shameful honestly.
Funilly enough I dont care about LBHs pronounciation. He has a very partichular way of speaking which to me registers as unchangable, so even if he where to butcher my language I couldnt really care unlike if other youtubers did it. "Really showcased the actual amount of work you put into this." You do realize studying political history and studying linguistics are 2 totally different things right? "The assasination of Stjepan Radic wasn't acted out because Serbs were displeased with the HSS but because for a good amount of years Croatian delegates in Belgrade did nothing but obstruct the work of the parliment and insult their fellow representatives." So yes the serbs where displeased. "Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable." Not a chance. "Rather shameful honestly." is your comment.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 "Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable." Not a chance. But I highlighted everything this dude missed in presenting the subject. Its poorly researched and biased video. It conforms to your bias so you like it, now I know not to watch anything else this dude makes :) simple
What? What you're saying is pure anti-croatian, serbian propaganda. You can't just blame Stjepan Radic for everything and not even include Punisa's sentence "Heads are going to roll here and until someone kills Stjepan Radić there can be no peace". Punisa even wrote books that included pure anti-Croat ideas and idea of slaughtering and murdering Croats so this was pretty biased. Also, assassination in Belgrade was pure serbian fault.
@@letecitoster3469 did Puniša say that first or did Radić goad him and insult him first? You ignore the fact that the ideas of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism were introduced by Croatians first and then immediately upon the creation of SHS they started boycotting and undermining the country and prosecuting Serbs. But being honest is too much to ask of a Croatian I guess.
On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language. To be clear, Serbs and Croats are different ethnic groups, but their dialects are mutually intelligble and differences between the two aren't great enough to justify considering them different languages in an academic sense. Specifically modern standard Serbian and Croatian (as well as Montenegrin and Bosnian) are both based on a dialect from eastern Herzegovinia. If you're interested in learning more, I recommend this book: www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvrf8bft.7
@@LookBackHistory well i speak both soo... If you soke them you would know that though they are similar in word pronounciation they differ greatly in sentence building... We understeand each other but to say its same language is insult to both and propaganda. In croatia linguists who say its the same language are on agenda, not considering historical and lingual stuff. Ist just like saying ukrainian and russian are same or czech and slovak.
@@LookBackHistory "On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language." Really? Which linguists? The Serbian linguists who consider it all to just be a Serbian language? Or the former Yugoslav linguists who did so as part of state narrative? Or maybe Western or Eastern linguists who made their worldview on the topic based on the works of those same Yugoslav/Serbian linguists without (in most cases) not even speaking these languages ?!? What you are talking about and what I'm talking about could, just a few decades before, get me killed or at best imprisoned for countless years and get you a very nice salary and state benefits (now imagine if you are a linguist, which one would you chose :)). It is true that the Serbian and Croatian languages were brought together in their standardized forms in the late 19th century and that only intensified after the formation of Yugoslavia, but to just lump it all together as a general historical and linguistic rule is ludicrous. We no longer say there is such thing as Czecho-Slovak language, even though there was just a few decades prior. People and languages change, and yes, language is primarily a political construct. It is therefore insulting when someone denies the fact that these are in fact different languages brought closer together during the past 200 years or so, but have been differentiating in the past 30 years to the point of considering them separate languages. Also, what does Banac's book have to do with anything? I mean, it's a good book, but Banac was by no means a linguist, and while his book is a very good read on the subject of Yugoslav unification and early political activity in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it's also full of politically correct Yugoslav undertones (which he put in since the book came out in the 80s and Yugoslavia was still standing). He would later tone down this rather soft sentiment and, when given the opportunity to speak his mind, would be much more critical of many of its aspects.
@@glaonrielelsinoth7243Croatian and Serbian language are not singular example of two languages based on the same dialectal basis. Hindi and Urdu, Danish and Norwegian, Bulgarian and Macedonian... but for reasons that have more to do with politics and ideology than linguistics the fake _SerboCroatian_ language is being kept "alive". Just today I was in a bookshop in Croatia and books in Serbian are kept with other literature in foreign languages.
@@Harahvaiti I agree, but as I've said I find the Czechoslovak language case very interesting since it shows how one mixed language can be at times considered one and then later for that single language to be considered a socio political construct. However, if someone even mentions that Serbo-Croatian is just the same thing, then that someone (usually Croat) comes off as some backwater Balkan nationalist who denies proven "scientific (sic!) facts". The past 200 years saw books being printed into the world looking at this subject (as well as those of history and politics) with pro-Yugoslav or Yugoslav-apologetic views in 95% of cases. Unfortunately, modern Croatia has (as far as I know) done little to remedy this. Very few books on this subject are translated into major languages, let alone present on the internet bookstores, and God forbid audiobooks. This has left historians, linguists, political scientists and lawyers with very little material to work with and to look at these subjects from a different point of view. Therefore, I don't wish to be too harsh on Look Back History who has done an overall very good video on the subject without the usual Yugonostalgic babbling.
I'm a law student and one interesting thing we learned when we had our history classes was that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't have a unified legal system. Only some aspects of criminal law were the same across the nation, but otherwise there were 6 distinct legal systems present.
Firstly. Slovenia and Dalmatia wer eunder direct Austrian rule so they had a similar legal system. Secondly, the former Kingdom of Croatia-Slovenia had it's own laws. Some parts of yugoslavia on the northern borther were under dircet Hungarian rule (Međumurje, Prekomurje, Baranja, Bačka and Banat), so again had a diferent legal system. Bosnia was a condeminium between Austrian and Hungarian government and had it's own law system, including sharia courts which operated all the way throught the end of world war 2 and up untll communsit rule. And finally the former Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro had their own laws, for a final total of 6 different law systems.
As I said, Criminal law was mostly made the same, but most private law (commercial law and customary law) was different, as was the court structure.
Yeah, so it had 5 supreme courts. That was something
You might enjoy this article:
www.researchgate.net/publication/339395938_Drafting_the_constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Serbs_Croats_and_Slovenes_1920
Kingdom of SHS did not have it. It was finally unified during King Aleksandar's personal rule. Same for the schools, taxes etc...
@@darkodjokic4432 I don't think there ever was a unification of much of the law across Yugoslavia. In fact, there were considerable differences even in SFRJ. I hear Serbs even today don't yet have a land registry, which I find baffling
@@sempersuffragium9951 true. the only real (and failed) attempt was during king aleksandar rule, when he oversee all of the laws in the country. But, by 1939 and with formation of Banovina Hrvatska, all hell will break loose. Constitution will be broke, National Assembly suspended, and we will have country within country a week before WWII. Knez Pavle was a really a piece of work!
A wise man once said: "History isn't a tool to make arguments because history is complicated"
Who?
I literally cannot find the source of that quote anywhere
@@ChanceKearns i paraphrased it (yeah it technically doesn't count and i got it from a yt channel called zwee on his most recent video)
@@EdbertWeisly damn aight, thanks for explaining
History is simply his story if you don't know someone trust worthy to verify.
Croat here and I have to say your video is the first one that really manages to describe the misgivings people had about Yugoslavia in a detailed manner, usually this interwar period is left just as a footnote when discussing the history of the region, or outright idealized by people who are ignorant and believe Yugoslavia was always a sunshines and rainbow state until "evil ethnic nationalism" caused it all to disintegrate overnight.
exactly! as if macedonian, croatian and bosnian nationalism didn’t exist pre-1990
@@mindoffischI know they existed but why didn’t they form a state instead of making a union ?
@@suleyman8696 too little foreign support for smaller ethnicities, besides the Austro-Hungarians saw all of them as the same people, which impacted how they were viewed internationally.
@@suleyman8696 there was some resistance but they were put down
If you watched the video, you as a Croatian, should see that everything stated in it is untrue and misleading. I have noticed that videos of this nature produced by British creators contain the same inaccurate and false information, which makes me believe they do it intentionally.
I loved how you covered the subject. Youre the only channel I remember that went deeper into the politics of the 1st Yugoslavia. As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated, and in 10 min you did an excellent job of covering the inner politics of yugoslavia.
"As anything in the balkans the deeper you look it gets more complicated"
That is incredibly true. The research and writing process for this video was mostly just me going down a series of rabbit holes!
@LookBackHistory hello
I was gonna tell you I have an idea for a video
2 actually
How does the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Or how does ISIS run their state ?
How do you know or believe that this video talks the truth? It contains no references or bibliography
@@Ba-Swe What part?
Look who's back
Haha 😂
Croats had their own parliament since medieval times, not since 1868....the oldest parliament records are from the 13th century.
😂
Amazing. Only if they had their own country it would've been even better. But they didn't, for almost 1000 years...
@@Reebarb Still, we had parliament
@@Reebarb we had our own country, under personal union
@@ВукВуксановић what you laughing at orthodox turk
Mistake made at 4:16. Croats and Slovenes didn't live in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Croats lived in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Slovenes lived in the Duchies of Styria and Carniola (Austrian part of the Dual Monarchy).
Great video however and good summary. You also skipped the Banates era of Yugoslavia. In 1929 Kingdom was divided into Banates (banovina).
Thanks!
Originally I was going to discuss the Banates (I even made the maps!) but as the script progressed I decided to zero in on the early to mid nineteen twenties.
As for 4:16 I think that's less a mistake and more a bit of ambiguity on my part. I intended it to be interpreted as,
"Virually all Croats and Slovenes lived in: the Hungarian Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, some southern regions of Hungary, Austrian Dalmatia and Illyria and the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Which is true, but that colon is doing a lot more work than it should have to.
@@LookBackHistoryIllyria was abolished shortly after the Napoleonic wars. After that the area was reorganised back into Carniola, Carinthia and the Littoral which were also the areas where the majority of the Slovenes lived(+ Lower Styria and the Prekmurje region in Hungary)
Very good video 👍🟦⬜🟥
2:07 Small Correction the flag of the State of SLovenes, Croats and Serbs was red white blue not blue white red.
You're right, my bad!
@@LookBackHistory Just because you replied to my comment which while I was commenting I thought in my head "no way he responds" you are getting another subscriber (me)
Same colors of the serbian flag I see they kept the same colors from the kingdom I love serbian history and yugoslav history too
@@protohass They used the pan-Slavic flag for Yugoslavia
You can write books about why Yugoslavia didn't work but it all comes down to one simple thing - there was never a Yugoslavian nation...nobody other than some people who were products of mixed marriages considered themselves Yugoslavs...
One more generation and there would have been. In fact many already considered themselves Yugoslavs
@@doudeau1988 one more generation? Many considered themselves Yugoslavs?
Hardly. In 1981. cenzus after over 60 years of existence of Yugoslav state only 5.4% of people considered themselves as Yugoslavs. In 1971. that number was 1.3% and has in fact decreased compared with 1.7% in 1961. Highest % of those identifying as Yugoslavs in 1981. were from Croatia and Vojvodina, mostly from ethnically mixed regions and/or people of mixed ancestry. On the last pre-war cenzus of 1991. % of Yugoslavs dropped to 3%.
@@Harahvaiti They still would have considered themselves as Yugoslavs. It's like asking an Arab if they are Arab, many will say yes but many who technically aren't Arabs will also say yes. They are both broader terms that can be broken up into many parts. For the most part, even today (more so than even Ukrainian and Russian) the Yugoslav dialects can be mostly understood by each other. Nikola Tesla said: "... I am proud to be a Serbian (and Croat) and a Yugoslav. Our people cannot perish. Preserve the unity of all Yugoslavs - the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes." Most of their differences were merely religious and alphabetical. Both of these derive from the influence of and/or being controlled by foreign powers. The Bosnian-Serb Gavrilo Princip said he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Bosnian-Serb Emir Kusturica said he did not want a Bosnian state but a Yugoslav one. If you ask a non-nationalistic or a Yugoslav of mixed ethnic background they will admit fairly little distinction between many aspects, predominantly language. So this is only partially true.
@@IsaiahMartinez88 1) Gavrilo Princip was a GreaterSerbian terrorist backed by organization Black Hand from Serbia, there was nothing Yugoslav in that story
2) Emir Kusturica was born as Bosniak/ Bosnian Muslim Emir and then converted to Serb Orthodoxy for reasons of Serbian nationalism, not Yugoslav idea. His name is Nemanja now.
3) there are no Yugoslav dialects but South Slavic languages
4) as for Arab example, in this case Arab = South Slavic while Yugoslav = Soviet. How many people these days declare themselves as Soviet? Or Czechoslovakian? Choose one South Slavic identity and stick with it. I have more respect for Serbian nationalists than deluded characters which still ramble about _Yugoslav_ people
@@Harahvaiti 1. He literally said he was one. 2. He literally said he wanted a Yugoslav state but not a Bosnian one. 3. They are all dialects that used to be all one common language (except Bulgaria and North Macedonia which are not true Yugoslavs). Closer in language than the Ukrainian-Russian spilt which still shares 70% of all vocabulary. 4. Yugoslav means Southern Slav. USSR was a nation, not a wider ethnic group. Czechslovak is perfectly fine considering they are the same people with most of the language shared that was more shared but over time has split up more. South Slavs shouldn't have to choose one just because tribal, alphabetical, or religious barriers stand in the way.
Great video, love all the maps!
Would love to see a video on the Goryani movement of the 50s in Communist Bulgaria.
I'm not familiar with that, I'll have to look into it.
I love these types of video's from you
hey there
Look out for more!
The data used at 6:45 is incorrect. Noel Malcolm provides a much better outlook into the actual minorities of Yugoslavia. Serbian propaganda was in fact diminishing the number of muslims and what they considered non-serbs, to ultimately provide a sense of majority of serbs within Yugoslavia - the number albanians being a prime example of this skew of data.
The funny thing is, the official language of SHS was actually slovene-serbo-croatian. There is no such language and the slovenes weren't having any of it from the start
Da Janez, videlo se od pocetka da ne zelite s nama, dobro je da ste konacno priznali.
@@mithrandil420 Nikol nismo tega tajil. Juga ni delala ne 1919, ne 1991. Imamo svoj jezik, svojo državo. Vašga nočemo, svojga ne damo
@@sempersuffragium9951 Pa tajli ste malo na pocetku, pa malo za vreme Tita. Niko vam ne spori da imate svoj jezik, identiet i kulturu. Samo se manite price da smo mi Srbi nesto krivi jer ste u Jugoslaviji imali sve pogotovo u drugoj.
@@mithrandil420 Ja, če te za eno žal besedo odpeljejo na goli otok verjamem da je marsikdo mal glumu. Pa komunajzrji seveda, oni itak
yeah, it was oficially srpskohrvatskoslovenacki or drzavni jezik. But, what you fail to mention is that very same langauge was thought and called slovenian in both ljubljana and maribor province (later dravska b), with 90% of slovenian and 10% of serbocroatian material. If someone should be pissed, then it should be Croats, books in serbocroatian contained 40% cyrilic, 40% latin script (plus 20% slovenian material), but everthing was in ekavica.
Love your videos
Thanks!
This is very quality video, you did your research well.
Glad you think so! If you haven't already seen, my sources are linked in the description.
@@LookBackHistory I agree! it's a shame you didn't mention the cvetkovic-macek agreement and the establishment of the Croatian banovina!
as always a great vido looking back at history
this was intresting and very joyfull and educational
i hope the next vido is going to be about north africa but no matter what it is i will watch it
serbs, croats and slovenes are not different "only" by religion & language (but also, history, genetics, culture, tradition...)
Bullshit, complete utter bullshit. Only religion is diferent. Thats ALL.
@@luizfilipe4226 No, you are wrong. They don't have the same history, culture, tradition & especially not genetics & language Especially Slovenes. I am Serb & I know what I'm talking about.
@tienshinhan2524 genética is pretty much mixed at that point
@tienshinhan2524 cultura is pretty much The same, Slovenia might bê diferent, cause they like to lick germânic boot.
@tienshinhan2524 and historia might bê diferent, bit só os punjabi and tamil nandu, Bavaria and Prússia. India os mucho more diferent ethnically, yet they still United.
Beautiful video. Really appreciate your work!
You still have that as your pfp🤔
@@YMVZ1 yes. i should change it, right?
@@NorthPoleSun Up to you but did that dude get canceled, I can't quiet remember?
The maps are 100% wrong.
@@NorthPoleSun Update he deleted his channel due to posting child porn, so yea everyone who made him their pfp looks pretty cringe now..
great video. Interesting that the croats fought intensively to not be under a centralized serbian majority state, yet were mostly passive under austria.
Somewhat misleading. Croatia already had its own parliament which meant significant legislative and judicial autonomy. In other words, it had pretty much everything it wanted and was concerned primarily with cultural issues e.g. language rights.
Austria gave us something in return, Serbs didn't. Not to mention Austria was and still is far superior to Serbia in every aspect, from culture to economy.
@@mgel7311 And they had everything, from own political fraction of KPJ to police and security agency under Tito from 1974 and yet they werent happy. So Serbs werent the problem.
It's because the austrian rule was not opressive
@@mithrandil420 Nominally i agree, the '74 constitution was a step in the right direction. But let's not kid ourselves and assume that it was followed through completely. The economic meltdown coupled with increasing Serbian desire for hegemony were the main contending issues for Croatia as well as the other republics.
A united Yugoslavian Basketball team, would be a great thing to watch. Luka Dončić, Nikola Jokić, both Bogdan and Bojan Bogdanović, Boban Marjanović, Ivica Zubac, Dario Šarić, Vasilije Mićić, Aleksej Pokuševski, Tristan Vukčević, Nikola Vučević and Jusuf Nurkić...
Don't forget Hezonja, Musa, Tepic...
@@Janez-h1e those too, and many more.... Squad has 12 players, so I chose those first. Theoretically Avdija and Osman could also play.
6:46 its mind boggling how in the same territory just over in 100 years albanians would grow from 3.5% to 12% of the population if yugoslavia woukd reunite
Stjepan Radić said to his Croats brothers politicians:" Don't unite with Serbs,its like the geese going to the mist".And he was right.All evils in Croatia are (and were)coming from Serbia(1918-1995)🎉
It was an attempt to unify a horse and a donkey as a single being.
javio se dalmatinski kenjac u borbi za svoju čistu rasu😂
Not true. Serbia and Montenegro were already and only independant countries. The rest were slaves to imperial kingdoms, who got freed by Serbs.
Da nisu bili Srbi, Dalmatinci bi danas bili Italijani.
You guys are The same fucking thing. Índia have far diferent ethnic situation than you guys and yet they still United to this day. Only difference you guys have is religion, which still stupid. Because one follow The pope and the other not, Thats It.
Glad your back. Please tell me you are going to do a video on the break up of Yugoslavia as well(it gets really dark)
Possibly!
One correction: Croats did not speak Serbo-Croatian. Within Yugoslavia Croats spoke Croato-Serbian but even this was a political construct during Yugoslavia. The evidence you use for the term Serbo-Croatian is from a Yugoslav source. Try to find any source pre-1918 that Croats or Serbs spoke Serbo-Croatian. It doesn't exist. Croats speak Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian. Closely related and mostly mutually intelligible but different nonetheless. It took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian and it will take many more to forget.
In communist Yugoslavia days, Croats were speaking Serbo-Crat ( like Serbs ) just different dialects.True that "it took many decades to invent Serbo-Croatian" just like it took many decades for Croats (after their independence) to invent Croat language by literally creating big number of words that have never existed before. No such thing as "Croato-Serbian" btw. . Croats today speak Croat.
Thanks. Was looking for a video that covered it’s creation
I like how you have found your neiche as a history RUclipsr to often channels cover the same topics and all probably just use the same sources (mainly wiki being real)
6:54 they were Like this because They all spoke Serbo Croatian ( Besides Makedonia where they spoke Bulgarian)
Hey, could you pls do a video on how the United Kingdom works? Or about the Troubes of Northern Ireland pls?
Great video. Now I understand why the role of Croatia was what it was in ww2.
All in all I think I'm not the only one for saying Yugoslavia was a mistake. The way it ended is extremely sad.
Perhaps not as an idea, but certainly in the execution of said idea. Forced centralisation and unification under oppression pretty much cemented resentment as inevitable. Perhaps it could've become something over time had it remained a federation at the start and gradually tried to smooth over the differences over the decades and had mostly equal repressentation rather than being Serb-dominated.
This doesn't even explain WW2. Only the invasion and occupation of Yugoslavie by the fascists and Nazis from Germany and Italy explains this. In the 30s the Ustashe were a fringe right wing group (roughly less 10% popular support). Even when they were installed they didn't gain popular support, this is why they didn't hold any elections to legitimize their rule. This makes it different from the likes of Germany, Austria and Italy were their regimes were an expression of the peoples' desires.
🇺🇦🇭🇷 Ethnic White Croats ( Bili Horvati) still live in Western Ukraine today. There is still located settlement of Stilsko, ancient capital city of pagan Croats ❤
Croatia is named after White Croats who came in the 7th century from ancient pagan White Great Croatia once located in Ukraine, south-eastern Poland, north-eastern Slovakia-Czechia and Hungary.
When Hungarians conquered slavic Pannonia province in the 9th century, southern baptised Red Croatia separated from pagan White Croatia.
Ukraine and Croatia together for years celebrate common ethnic heritage of ancient Croat people ❤🇭🇷🇺🇦
Cool video, just going to mention that Timok-Romanians were more back in the early 20th Centuries in the Timok Valley. They make the majority of the Timok region
9:53 the eagle tail looks like teeth
I find Yugoslav's fate sad and not unavoidable. Apart from different religion Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats were pretty much the same thing. Romania had a similar situation after WW1 with Romanians from Old Kingdom, Transylvania and Bessarabia being under one state. These people were not part of the same country for centuries and there were differences but the feeling of "I am Romanian" seems to have been stronger than the feeling of "I am Transylvanian, Wallachian or Moldavian". Even after USSR tried to make a fictitious 'Moldavian =/= Romanian' ethnicity via the state, there are still Moldavians/Bessarabians in Moldova today looking for union because they consider themselves Romanians. In Yugoslavia, not only that didn't happen, but they fought each other.
Romania after WW1 also had a strong local representation vs strong state authority issue. In fact Transylvanians told the Romanian (Old Kingdom) government that they would only accept a conditional union where Transylvania will be an autonomous region inside the Kingdom of Romania. But Hungary tried to use this as a pretext that the Transylvanians do not really want union with Romania at Trianon so the Transylvanians dropped this and went for an unconditional union. Bessarabia likewise wanted a conditional union originally as an autonomous state, only dropping it in favor of a conditional one, after Transylvanians dropped their own conditional union. But there was still a condition, an unofficial one, that Transylvanians and Bessarabians would have a say in the new constitution (which happened in 1922) which I guess fair and probably one of the things that kept the country together. The first years of the new kingdom were full of regionalism. With Transylvanian parties, Bessarabians parties, etc; it was only after a few years that the situation cooled off and regional parties disintegrated in favor of ideological ones like liberal and conservative. So I think Romania wasn't that far off from Yugoslavia (religion aside), but one is a success story while the other ended in failure.
"not unavoidable" coud be replaced with "avoidable", don't use double negatives
@@igoralmeida9136 true, but I wanted to emphasize that, because it feels to me like the common narrative is that Yugoslavia's fall was just a matter of time, where I think it was just bad management and not something that had to happen sooner or later. I don't find it unrealistic to have an Yugoslavia that didn't break up after the end of communism, but I think the king made mistakes with the forced centralization (this didn't happen in Romania, there was centralization, which Transylvanians and Bessarabians didn't like, but this was fixed by them having a say in the constitution, a fair share in the government as opposed to underrepresented, and their culture "different from Old Kingdom" was not touched and instead cherished as also being Romanian). But the worst mistakes were made by the communists after Tito died.
a lot of the issues I think was the Serbs pushing for too much centralization too hard and too fast.
The Croats and Slovenes wanted to be equal partners in the new state. Maybe with enough time a "Yugoslav" identity could've formed naturally, but forcing it didn't help
Idk, as a Romanian, I feel Romania is pretty special. Romanians had a very strong sense of unitary national identity as a result of them being the only Latin culture in the eastern half of Europe. Also, they tend to avoid violent means to solve their issues. Whereas Bosnia, for example, went through Islamisation. Though I don't know too much about the situation in Yugoslavia to be able to compare.
@@noahjohnson935 If you want to see how much centralization will be accepted by similar peoples see how much would you accept, for example when the serb government disowned chatolism they should have also disowned orthadoxy and see how their own people handle it.
interesting, i never knew anything about the early history of yugoslavia
No, there's tons of focus on its collapse (which is certainly interesting) but not so much on this period.
@@LookBackHistory yes
I remember that there were even more ethnic groups in Yugoslavia, than is usually claimed. In Serbia are true Czech and Rusyn people. Idk, how did they get there and from where?
6:46 where the hell did u took this from? We Macedonians were not yet recognised as ethnicity and why is it macedonian or bulgar. We are south slavs called macedonians under the region not BULGARS a steppe turkic tribe that has 0 connection to us wtf
With blood and tears of innocent people
In Yugoslavia, there was no Yugoslav language (the official language was Serbo-Croatian), and on population censuses, we had Yugoslavs only in small percentages. So, the Yugoslavism never really took hold. The first Yugoslavia was Monarchist, the second was Socialist, and both collapsed in bloodshed. I think it is because roughly half of the country was under Austria-Hungary for centuries, and the other half under Ottoman Turkey also for centuries. These were different cultures, religions, mentalities. And religious differences were a big thing - there were three big religions - Orthodox, Catholic, and Islam... and the roles some vs. others had in WW 1 and WW 2, so there were a lot of factors at play.
0:50 What is that Slovenian flag?????
Carniolan eagle. Main symbol of Slovenes for many centuries but it got less prevalent after ww2 due to its use by Slovene homeguard which was a group of nazi collaborators durring occupation
@@alpineanubis Iirc it was not the main symbol but it was a popular one. Tho why didn't they use the tricolor?
@@Ma_ksi i mean the actual national flag Slovenes used was a tricolor without coat of arms. Same as Russian flag but colours were taken from Carniolan coat of arms(eagle). The flag in this video is made up as far as i know because there were no official flags for different nations in Kingdom of Yugoslavia due to mentioned obsession with central authority.
Alexander I was shot by bulgarian IMRO revolutionary Vlado Chernozemski for oppresing bulgarians in Macedonia.
Hvala Geroi Bulgarian Zorro R.I.P Vado
There were no bulgayrians in Macedonia.
There aren't any bulgarians here, u will find more in serbia
you failed to say how Croatians and Serbs managed to make an agreement before the German invasion of Yugoslavia. Croats received autonomy within the framework of the Croatian Banovina.
This wasn't ever implemented. Also, right after the agreement wad made, the Croatian Paseant Party and the Serbian government had different interpretations of contents of the agreement. So this might have never been implemented, even if WW2 hadn't had happened.
The Macedonian and the language in bulgaria have 13 letters difference. 😇
"Serbo-Croatian" / "Croato-Serbian" is even not so much "close relative" to Slovene language that people mistakenly think ti is.
Anyone else notice that this guy is copying the cadence and tone of that bald guy from Geographics (and a dozen or more other major channels)?
great vid keep it up!! ❤
to see HIDDEN comments as well, sort by time - Newest first.
In 1886 there were 220.000 romanians in Timoc region. In vest Banat in 1921 were 78.000 romanians(we claimed that there were 130.000).So in reality in Serbia alone there were at least 300.000 romanians. Where are they now?
Vlachs in Timok region, not romanians (even though official Romania for some reason considered them Romanians) are mostly serbianised. Only 20 000 or so call themselves vlachs, even though there are 5 times more of them (similar story with the gypsies and aromans, for example). On the other side, romanians in banat after 1921 exchange homes with serbs who stayed on the other side of rnew romanian-serbian border.
@@darkodjokic4432 no, no. Romanians in the "Serbian" Banat didnt migrated to Romania in large numbers. They were asimilated. In Romania we still have around 20-25.000 serbians out of a initial population of 50.000 people. Some Serbians were discriminated, deported during the Russian occupation of Romania.
@@dacicus090 I don't have the books with me right now, so I really have no idea how much people changed homes from both sides of borders during twenties and thirties, my guess is some 20-30 thousands. I could look up, if you want. But there was some movement of serbs from romania and hungary, and romanians and hungarinas from new state in those days. What i rmember form school is that during causeku's times, lot of serbs from banat were sent to danube delta region or just simply slaughtered. Was this true?
@@darkodjokic4432 It wasnt any genocide of serbs. During the Soviet occupation of Romania, because of soviet-yugoslav tensions and the hungarian revolution of 1956, soviet installed comunists of Romania deported serbians, germans, romanians, aromanians, croats, hungarians, banat bulgarians from the border regions of Banat, mostly to south-eastern Romania, in a steppe region. They considered them possible allies of Tito. Many of them died. It wasnt Ceausescu at that time. Most of the pro-soviet leaders were jews, hungarians, ukrainians, romanians and bulgarians(some of them from the Soviet Union itself). They deported up to 50.000 people by which, 5 to 7.000 have died.
The name "Yugoslavia" came into existence only after the Serbs murdered the Croatian leadership in 1928 in the parliament building in Belgrade and then established a Serbian dictatorship. Before 1928 the actual state was called the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".
You've earned a subscription. I love your content!
0:03= WRONG MAP ! MISSING THE CIRCA 1700 YRS OLD OF HUNGARIAN TERRITORY PARTS ! Etc...
I missed you
This one definitely took a while but I'm hoping to be back to a regular schedule now!
Kingdom of SKS or later Yugoslavia was a nice disguise for Greater Serbia, which was the the very first proposal for this fledgling country's name.
Without ska or yugoslavia, many parts would have annexes by other bordering countries. Ofcourse the concept of yugoslavia was nationalistic, that is the only way to establish a nation as such.
Croats under Hungary had their parliament since 1102.
What about Germany? They have so many different principalities with big differences in religion i.e. protestentantism and roman catholicism and very distant dialects. Yet Prussian chancelor Bismarck united them. Though after WWI Bavaria wanted to break from Germany.
contentious European countries with complicated international dynamics. It is a region full of discord and interactions between countries
Imagine being on the winning side of a world war and then being annexed by your neighbour.
I'm trying so hard to figure out what you're talking about. If you're saying Austro-Hungarian south Slavs (mostly Croats) were on the side of the Entante, that's just wrong on so many levels. They were but only when Central powers started losing the war. Up until 1917 most people supported the government in Vienna which has always been odd to me. I will never understand the Croatian love for being ruled by foreigners as long as they see themselves equal to them (even tho those same foreign leaders see them as inferior). One sided relationship covered with a fascade of fake and imaginary brotherhood, usually native people reject this type of imperialist propaganda but many Croats for some reason embrace it idk why 🤷♂️
@@Reebarb Umm no, I was talking about montenegro getting annexed into serbia.
@@TheEGrievous oh lmao i got that way wrong. Well I mean they chose to unite with Serbia. And Montenegrin Whites vastly outnumbered the Montenegrin Greens, so it's safe to say that majority of people of Montenegro wanted a state union with Serbia.
@@Reebarb Austria Hungary was not a German ruled state. It had a German-speaking aristocracy to be sure, but they treated all their lands as fundamentally equal. Though it can be said, that the German population had more political influence, all the nations (at least under Cislaithanien, the Hungarians were a bit more repressive) enjoyed a lot of freedom for their time, and the general development of the Empire was going towards federalisation (unlike the unitary Yugoslavia). Just to give you a few examples, just from the Slovenian perspective: We had the only living Grand Admiral, who wasn't a Habsburg in Austrian histroy be a Slovene, a Slovene was writing the new federal constitution for a new federal Empire (that never came to be, because of the Entante efforts to destroy the Empire), we had 3 out of 9 suoreme court judges of the Empire be Slovenes (who, after the breakup of the Empire came back to Slovenia)... so, I wouldn't describe that as "living under foreign rulers".
@@TheEGrievous montenegro was literally ruled by serbian dynasty and montenegro itself is a serbian state at the time, thats why it followed serbian politic
my head hurts and i forgot most of what i watched
Lore of What Was Yugoslavism? | The Messy Birth of the South-Slavic State momentum 100
Can't wait until you cover the Belize Guatemala border dispute, eventually you'll run oit of European/middle eastern topice and have to cover it 🙃
The best approach would be reason-centric federalism. Which is to say the purpose of the central government, the government in Belgrade is to deal with foreign threats and foreign diplomats. I have a multi-sector system of society with business and government being separate from each other, thereby trade is not managed by the government but by an assemblage of businesses of common and exclusive goods as well as financial institutions. Nevertheless, the government's job besides dealing with foreign entities and managing the military as well as police force was also to guarantee all public goods were accessible by all venues and individuals within the same state and to monitor and check the regional authority for their abuse, deviancy or ignorance in managing their own affairs and perform the same with municipal or local authorities.
The state language would be Yugoslav which should be a shared mutual dialect built by combining Islamic-Bosnian, Catholic-Croatian, and Orthodox-Serbian concepts and terms as much as possible within the same language with a mutual regard for Latin, Arabic and Greece and/or Russian as the influential external factors that may further shape the language as needed to guarantee everyone is represented adequately and the nation truly is a composite union of the three Bosnians, Serbs and Croats as sharing a common identity among themselves.
I would go further and insist that there should be three capitals instead of one as that would further guarantee their union. And I would also insist that Slovenia and North Macedonia, along with Kosovo and Vojvodina be autonomous provinces of the federation with Slovenia being left alone, North Macedonia being a pure pidgin creole of Serbian and Bulgarian in all aspects with local traditions being maintained, Kosovo should be a blend of Albanian and Serbian in all ways except religion with the same religious freedom granted to Bosnians being enjoyed by Albanians (as they are fellow Muslims) and Vojvodina being a blend of Hungarian and Serbian in all aspects except for religion as the same would apply to Croats which the Catholics in that region would enjoy. This would create the view of Yugoslavia consisting of seven tribes with three being the principle entities receiving the most attention and development. Efforts would be made to seek good relations with Turkey, France and Greece or Russia to guarantee cohesion and prevent tension between these available trading partners.
God, thank you that you can and will make all of our enemies live in peace with us in Jesus name. Amen 🙏
11:23= Very good video , but no cookies , missing the constant fight between the 3 mayor of them , and the suffer the all minornities ! Etc...
Most tragic mistake by Serbian King was to form kingdom of scs Serbia won WW1 so they could have done whatever they wanted, make great Serbia and be very powerful even before WW1 Serbia was great kingdom it's a shame because the Serbian King wanted to be same people... well we know what happened to Yugoslavia
Cool video, thank you for talking about Balkan history. One nitpick though: "Bosnian Muslim" is not an ethnicity. It's either "Bosniak" which is their endonym or "Muslim" when talking about the SFRJ era ethnicity.
As Serbs would call it today: "our biggest mistake in the last century".
Am I the only one who thinks Macedonia looks like Yugoslavia's testes? Lol
Pan-Slavism didn't work, Pan-Germanism didn't work, Scandinavism didn't work, Yugoslavism didn't work. You can't just glue together different people, histories and faiths just because there's a linguistic connection.
I don't think we can be quite that assertive.
Those are all definitely examples of failures to merge people together into nation states, but there are also plenty of examples of successes. Italy, France, and Spain pop into my mind as examples.
@@LookBackHistoryby iron and blood u can unify anyone. France specifically had to eradicate local languages to achieve its national unity. I don't think you can unify a young diverse country into a nation state while staying as a liberal democracy, not to say I oppose liberal democracy or even nation states.
@@williamthebonquerer9181 I think I agree with you. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just pointing out counter-examples.
Pan-Germanism didn't fail, Germany is still standing to this day, the only "failure" was not including Austria, something caused by losing 2 World wars.
@@LookBackHistory Apples and oranges, all of them still have particularist movements (Brittany, Corsica, Aragon, Catalonia, Basque country, Sicily etc.). Further more France united in middle ages, Spain in early modern period and Italy is only somewhat recent model. Majority of Italians thought themselves as such regardless of the polity they served prior to unification.
2:25 completly wrong. All of these people have the same language, with the diffrences being so minor, that they could only be called dialects of one language. I would even dare say that Croatian is closer to Serbian, more then American is to British
Serbocroatian language was never accepted by Serbs and neither by Croats. For Serbian imeprialistic politics Serbian is only Štokavian (West and East Štokavian), plus some Croatian literature in West Štokavian.
For Croats Croatian is Kajkavian, Čakavian, and West Štokavian without Serbian East Štokavian, and Croatian have four literature types (Čakavian, Kajkavian, West Štokavian, and amalgam in zrinsko-frankopanski cultural cyrcle).
For Croatian linguistics Serbian and Croatian are different lanugages based on these sociolingusitic criteria:
1. the speakers understand each other - true for the modern standards
2. language has the same name throughout history used by the authors in that language - false
3. the language is based on the same written corpus - false
4. language has the same cultural-communication community throughout history, and the awareness of speakers that they speak the same national language, an abbreviated- the same cultural-identity community - false
5. they are essentially standardized at the same place and in the same time - false.
@@account-369 ?
You are confused. Those were dialects, not languages. Serbo-Croat was official language for huge majority of the people. Only Slovenians and Macedonians did not use that language officially. Croat language as we know it today, was created after the war.
Thie video titles "Yugoslavism", and starts narrating with 1918. Where did all these video creators find these false stories? The real "yugoslavism" started early 1800s, and this video has not even 1 word about its founders, who were croats.
Was a mistake to add Croatia & Slovenia into Yugoslavia and to have signed Concordat with the Vatican. Croatia and Slovenia have more in common with the Germans anyway...
What? Ok orthodox turk
serbs are more related to turks and arabs by culture an behaivour then to any european people...because they were ancestors of 500 years ottoman rulership.
serbs may speak slavic (croatian), but that does not make them slavic at all...
@@KukuLele-mx8sq they are orthodox turks or better said mix of orthodox croats and turks
@@KukuLele-mx8sq Serbs are among tallest nations on the world, in top 5 tallest nations, Turks and Croats are below us, and Bosnians and Montenegreens are also tall, Croats are mix of nations, that's why they are shorter, look today's Croats: Stier, Rainer, Gutvald, Knoll, Roys, Raus,Tot, Nemet,Čiz, Pastvečka, Hrenek, Totgergelli, and so... surenames and names are Serbian, Hungarian, German, Czech, Slovakian,Polish, Italian, lol, you are milk shake nation, hahahaha
@@KukuLele-mx8sqlet's see what newspapers Croatia's week said:
10 tallest counties:
1. The Netherlands - 183.78 cm
2. Montenegro - 183.21 cm
3. Denmark - 182.60 cm
4. Norway - 182.39 cm
5. Serbia - 181.99 cm
6. Germany - 181.00 cm
7. Croatia - 180.49 cm
8. The Czech Republic - 180.26 cm
9. Slovenia - 180.28 cm
9. Luxembourg - 179.90 cm
I'm going to Serbia. I can't wait. Thank you for this history
KorošeC. Not Korošek. It's a C, so it makes a 'ts' sound.
Why would you group Macedonians and Bulgars? There was never a Bulgar minority in Yugoslavia anyways??
Disrespectful to a whole national identity...
half of ex-yu countries are not in "western balkans"
Well we are one people divided by politics and influences of surrounding empires through centuries
Nonsense. Croats, Serbs and Bulgars came to Southeastern Europe as different peoples 1500 years ago.
@@Harahvaitiwhat he was referring to was culture and language
@@tone713 that does not make him any les wrong. There was never such thing as Yugoslav or South Slavic culture, never. Almost from day one, Slovenes and Croats were under influence of Western church (later Romancatholicism) and the culture that sprang from that circle while Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins belonged to Eastern church (later Orthodoxy) and that cultural circle. Add to that Islam which came in 15th century and shaped Bosniaks... and you have zero common cultural basis.
As for language, even that is not right. Same as Danish and Norwegian are closely related but separate languages so are Croatian and Serbian.
Yugoslavia lasted less than an average lifespan in USA or Europe. Before it, South Slavs lived quite or at least rather well next to each other. Yugoslavia was a mistake.
@@Harahvaiti I as a Croatian can understand 100% of Serbian,bosnian and Montenegrin and about 70% of Bulgarian and Slovenian.we all have mostly the same culture with some regional differences.finaly many people during after ww2 Yugoslavia considered themselves yugoslavian
@@tone713 Similar language does not make one and the same people otherwise Scandinavia would be one country same as Czechoslovakia would still exist. Also Bulgaria and Macedonia would be one people and country. As for culture - LMAO. What do Dalmatia and Istria have in common with Šumadija or Vranje?
Drop the yugocrap.
And Stjepan Radic was shopt becaose he said how much your Serbia blood is worth so we can buy it ( implementing ww1 Serbian Casualties) and thats why he was shoot, dont speak auslander if you never read shit about yugoslavia and is proud abour your powerpoint presentation.
some of us still think that we could have stayed together and prospered..
Maybe, if there was a national effort to support civic nationalism, not an ethnic one
@@jtgd Civic nationalism could have only worked in a federalized system. Once Milosevic attempted to recreate a centralized state, nationalism became more ethnic again. Before the war - as shown in multiple surveys - the identification with Yugoslavia came first, Europe second and then local / national identification (e.g. identification with the 6 republics).
LETS GOOO
The worst maps ever, the population % is the worst you ever did, as I studied every map of population of YUgoslavia, you made your own.
You forgot to mention the chrismas uprising in Montenegro
@LookBackHistory
Difference between serbo-croatin is the same like anglo-australian language :)
Australian is anglo
@@AdistuffRBX So is serbo-croatian one language
@@martinjakovetic8347 Australian is English with a thick accent and a few slang words, so your saying Serbian and Croatian is the same
@@AdistuffRBX more the same then your australian english
@@martinjakovetic8347 oh I see
*At a meeting somewhere in Belgium* "They're all different kinds of Serbs, right?" "Yes old chap." "Alright, kingdom of the united serbs. I mean Slavs." And thus, the war crimes were solidified.
It's interesting that today Bosnia, 'Kosovo' and Albania are all Muslim majority nations right next to one another. The reason for this was actually because they were once areas that had a really high quantity of Catholics, who were loyal to the pope rather than the Orthodox Patriarchate that the Ottomans had enslaved, so they couldn't control them. Rather than trying to indoctrinate them over time with the child soldier Janissaries, they instead forcefully converted and influenced an independent linguistic and cultural identity. So today, both Albanian and Bosniak have heavy Turkish influence and frequent loan words, moreso than any other language in the area, and over 400 years, it is no surprise that the peoples of these areas become increasingly more Islamic. When Skanderberg and the League of Lezhe revolted against the Ottomans, the lands of Albania were Catholic and Orthodox, Skanderberg himself being a devout Catholic, rampaged across the western countryside and was quite successful in staging his rebellion against the Ottomans. But nobody aided him and the rebellion didn't last long. Same can be said for Vlad Dracul of Wallachia, known as Vlad the Impaler for the 20,000 Ottomans he had placed on stakes. Had he had more support from the catholic world the balkans would have evolved with a very different cultural identity. Had something come from the Crimean War instead of Britain and France ganging up to oppose Russia and keep a weak Ottoman Empire in place, it is likely that the First and Second Balkan War would have happened in the 1870s rather than the early 1900s. History is a funny thing
No one said "They're all different kinds of Serbs, right?"
@@account-369 ok...then give me the source or the proof. By that logic I can say Napoleon said "Give me 10000 Croats and I will conquer the world" without any proof of it being said, and then I can support my statement the same way you're supporting the previous one without any proof of it's existence being out there
@@account-369 first of all, there again is no proof of that statement, so your argument is invalid and proves my point lmao. Second of all why did you change the topic all of the sudden and why did you bring "post socialist countries" in this...they were not even mentioned. Third, Croatia was in personal union with Hungary, their statehood remained but in cooperation with another kingdom...research something and then talk
@@account-369 what the hell are you actually talking about...personal union is the combination of states under the same monarchy, well known to the world. It's not something "Croats came up with" lmao. Congo state had a personal union with the Belgium, Brazil had the personal union with Portugal, the United Kingdom is the personal union uniting Scotland, Wales...with the monarchy of England...you actually don't know what you're talking about. And how the hell do you combine Spain with USA when talking about personal union...USA never had a king and they didn't have any cooperative relationship with Spain...grab a book and educate yourself
@@account-369 you're crazy xd...I did my part and proved you wrong and yet you still ignore it and change the subject...just admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're wrong XD
Serbs wanted to liquadate other ethnic groups but keep their own, that is why it failed
Why did croats commit genocide of the Serbs in WW2?
@@locybapsi174 because serbs literally invaded and occupied Croatia for 20 years
@@fusionreactor7179 No they didn't. Croatia didn't exist prior to WW1 so Serbia couldn't invade Croatia and Croatian representatives from Austro Hungary wanted to joing Serbia and voted in favour of it.
But somehow, let's imagine you are right, and Serbs did invade Croats. That explains and justifies in your opinion killing half a million of civilians and committing a largest mass murder ever recorded on Balkan territory? Than you truly are sick and despicable
So... Yugoslavia was just a woke version of Austria
View of Yugoslavia from the perspective of people who lived in the countries that colonised and exploted half of the world is always halarious, much different then the perspective of Yugoslavs and people from the countries of Non Aligned Movement.
That may be true, though I will point out that all of my sources (bar a general history text I use for most-every video) are by people from former Yugoslavia. You can check them out in the description.
Why do people think that attacking the person instead of the argument is a valid tactic? It just shows a lack of willingness to engage with the topic.
Slovenes we’re basically an integral part of Austria and Venetia for centuries and Croatia was its own kingdom within Hungary before Yugoslavia. Just as today, Slovenia and Croatia are western oriented with EU, rather attached to Austria and Italy while the Serbs are too small to be a force but thinks it’s as dominant as Russia.
Yeah, i'm fascinated by it. Imagine not having a country for almost 1000 years, having your language, religion, culture and alphabet be changed and influenced by foreign powers. Losing all of your power you had for a short time and then handing it all to a foreign monarch with them promising that you'll be sovreign, which they were (on a piece of paper) having your "parliament" be influenced and changed by your ruling foreign monarch. This type of existance literally does nothing but make a people group depend on someone stronger and more powerful to protect them because they are incapable to do so themselves. Then when another people group that is more similar to you than any other foreign ruler you had in 1000 years offers to create a union with you, you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people. Result, those (now former) foreign leaders see that you'll be obediant and so they aid you basically making you their subject with an illusion of sovreignty yet again and you only have bitter hatred towards someone who is linguistically, culturally and genetically almost exactly the same as you are.
Balkans are crazy man this is why the whole world laughs at them. Like they literally had something that worked, good economy, great healthcare, education etc. and then they just fell so down they're worse then before they even started, literally modern Yugoslav states. Except Slovenia and Croatia, their economy is like a little better in comparison to Serbia.
@@Reebarb here’s the thing: the Balkan countries are on the crossroads of the Roman/German, Russian and Turkic sphere of influence, plus the British waiting to strike in their Mediterranean possessions. It’s like a tectonic volcano line waiting to erupt every now and then. Now, looking at around 1900’s, if only one Empire had taken over and incorporated all of the Balkans, which would be best? Italy/Germany&Austria also retaking Constantinople and Anatolia and drive out the Muslims once and for all and allow the Balkan nations to coexist as autonomous European cultures and expand prosperity. Russia which might act similarly to Italo-German dominance in regards to culture, only difference is, there is no progress and poverty is high. Or Turkic dominance as seen for centuries, with forcing Christians to pay extra taxes and enslaving white girls to sell them within their Sultanate.
Nobody cares about the bickering of Croats and Serbs or if the Banat and Transylvania is Hungarian or Romanian. These are pawns in the chessboard of history between Italo-German, MuslimTurkic or Russian sphere of influences. The West supporting independence for the Kosovo alone shows how hypocritical they are when they usually say diversity is a strength and borders should be open etc. The Drei-Kaiser Pakt between Russia, Germany, and Austria should have been holy and indestructible, securing Central and Eastern Europe and retaking Byzantine. Plus put Italy in charge of the Mediterranean. Britain and France didn’t want this. They see the Mediterranean as a gateway for their empires in Africa and Asia and not as a wall to not be crossed by non-Europeans. France and Britain and now America meddling in the Balkans always creates tumult because there is never a definite solution, and final decision who and how the Balkans are administered by the strongest local power’s sphere of influence. Russia/Germany/Turkey. Balkan is too small and weak to be independent and the British/French/Americans simply support Balkanization to keep meddling there with the illusion of independence within the EU-Nato network as client states without calling them client or satellite states. Resettling Anatolia with Greeks and Armenians under Italian protection in the Mediterranean and have German influence include all of the Danube plus a friendly brotherhood between Germany and Russia who might even rule the Balkans as a condominium like Bosnia was within the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Balkan countries must sacrifice their sovereignty which is simply an illusion perpetrated by the West and their Nato troops stationed there. The Balkans must be integrated into either German, Russian or Turkic rule with certain autonomy regarding culture etc. You pick your master.
@@Markus-n3s exactly. That's exactly what i'm saying, but usually what would happen in history is that these groups of people will realize they're stronger together as they have common enemies, especially if they're all as similar as Balkan people. But Balkan people just hate each other more and more. I mean lets be real when it existed communist Yugoslavia was diplomatically incredibly influential. Both the west and the east needed them. Was it simply a prodzct of their lucky circumstance? Yes. Was it beneficial for them anyways? YES. So you'd think they would be more than happy to stay together, build a strong and sovreign nation that can stand up to foreign oppressor. But nope, they just divide even more and more causing them to be in an even worse position then before they even started.
@@Reebarb This shows how little you actually know about the whole situation. "you reject and despise them for decades leading to wars that killed thousands of innocent people" well actually serbs oppressed Croats from the beginning, maybe not serbs as people directly, but their king and his decisions. Croatian politicans were killed just for being agains centralism ( atentat u beogradu ). The personal union with hungary couldn't have been avoided and yet union with serbia was unavoidable too. Serbs started propaganda about the idea of "the greater serbia" which included Croatian territories and ofcourse being in the same country with those people who want you territory is not gonna end well
@@letecitoster3469 last time i checked the idea of "Greater Serbia" included mostly Serbian ethnic lands, a lot of Dalmatia and Slavonia was populated by Serbs. Up until 1995 ofc when, correct me if i'm wrong, Croats started a military operation that led to mass immigration of Serbs from those regions.
Greatest Balkan civilizations, know nothing but to slaughter, murder and hate people who are genetically, linguistically and culturally the same as they are.
Let me correct you about something, during the kingdom of Yugoslavia Kosovo was Majorly Serb , albanians were a minority in that region. Other than that great video
no, it was not. 45/55% for albanians, but we were gaining.
You are missing Bosnia
Anglosaxon and Germans provoked war conflicts and separation of Yugoslavia
Yeah
Im french and I find this complicated imagine explaining this to an american
Wars aside, I think it’s a shame a successful federal Yugoslavia wasn’t achieved. Yugoslavia could have been another major European power.
It should be mentioned that Serbia lost 30% of its people in ww1 and as a victorious country liberated all parts of Yugoslavia and established new state. People accros the country were indeed thankfull, (regent) king was warmly welcomed in every city even in croatia but especially in dalmatia. Unification of balcan slavs was an idea/dream centuries old but it was all handled poorly by each side. National identities were strong and king Aleksandar coming from homogenous Serbia and Montenegro didnt have proper uderstanding for that nor did he saw danger and importance of that problem. I think that country had future, in the begining everyone wanted it, after ww2 everyone loved it, in the end and even now everyone hates it. Right country, greedy and shortsighted politicians.
Wonderful country.............
The first ten years of Yugoslavia (1918-1928): Twenty-four political death sentences, 600
political murders, 30,000 political arrests, 3,000 political emigrants and countless masses of political expulsions.
At the first meeting with members of the National Council, on November 12, 1918, Dušan Simović stated:
Wikiquote »As a soldier, I can tell you this: Serbia, which in this war gave one and a half million victims for the liberation and unification of its brothers of the same blood across the Danube, Sava and Drina, cannot in any case allow a new state to be formed on its borders, which would take all its compatriots into its composition and that, after four years of suffering and the complete defeat of the enemy, it would remain in the background and leave all the fruits of the victories to another who dried up in the war on the enemy's side. Serbia - by the right of arms, and based on the contract with Hungary signed by Duke Mišić, as the plenipotentiary of the commander of the Allied armies on the Thessaloniki front; of General Franchet d'Esperey, the following territory belongs: Banat to the Horgoš-Subotica-Baja line; Baranja to the line Batasek-Pečuj-Barč and further along the river Drava to Osijek; Srijem and Slavonija to the railway line Osijek-Đakovo-Šamac; all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia up to Cape Planka. Outside that territory, you can decide as you wish: to go with Serbia or to form a separate state for yourself.
But don't forget that Croatia provided 1/3 of its soldiers in World War I, at least according to the words of the Minister of the Army, Petar Pešić
Slavic people came from Russia in Europe
I disliked the video because of a few things;
1. Pronunciation of names, Gavrilo Princip for example is one of the easier ones and you couldn't take the time to even learn that one. Really showcased the actual amount of work you put into this.
2. You failed to mention that Yugoslavism was born out of Croatian inteligencia. Ljudevit Gaj in the 1830's started floating the idea that Serbs and Croats were one people and should unite as one people. You presented the whole thing as an idea by the Serbian government or people.
3. You again failed to mention the Corfu declaration which was an important document in the formation of SCS (or SHS in serbian) and later Yugoslavia.
4. The assasination of Stjepan Radic wasn't acted out because Serbs were displeased with the HSS but because for a good amount of years Croatian delegates in Belgrade did nothing but obstruct the work of the parliment and insult their fellow representatives. Stjepan Radic started goading and insulting Punisa Racic before he shot him by asking him "How much is your Serbian blood worth? How much does your so called Kajmakčalan cost?" in regards to the amount of Serbs who died in WWI fighting against Austria-Hungary and in Kajmakcalan when they died in the thousands to liberate Serbia in the Solonica front.
Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable. Rather shameful honestly.
Funilly enough I dont care about LBHs pronounciation. He has a very partichular way of speaking which to me registers as unchangable, so even if he where to butcher my language I couldnt really care unlike if other youtubers did it.
"Really showcased the actual amount of work you put into this." You do realize studying political history and studying linguistics are 2 totally different things right?
"The assasination of Stjepan Radic wasn't acted out because Serbs were displeased with the HSS but because for a good amount of years Croatian delegates in Belgrade did nothing but obstruct the work of the parliment and insult their fellow representatives." So yes the serbs where displeased.
"Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable." Not a chance.
"Rather shameful honestly." is your comment.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 "Your entire video is done through a Croatian propaganda lense and only showcasing facts that they deem favourable." Not a chance.
But I highlighted everything this dude missed in presenting the subject. Its poorly researched and biased video. It conforms to your bias so you like it, now I know not to watch anything else this dude makes :) simple
What? What you're saying is pure anti-croatian, serbian propaganda. You can't just blame Stjepan Radic for everything and not even include Punisa's sentence "Heads are going to roll here and until someone kills Stjepan Radić there can be no peace". Punisa even wrote books that included pure anti-Croat ideas and idea of slaughtering and murdering Croats so this was pretty biased. Also, assassination in Belgrade was pure serbian fault.
@@mradicevic Hahahahaha
@@letecitoster3469 did Puniša say that first or did Radić goad him and insult him first? You ignore the fact that the ideas of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavism were introduced by Croatians first and then immediately upon the creation of SHS they started boycotting and undermining the country and prosecuting Serbs. But being honest is too much to ask of a Croatian I guess.
Not Serbian sided. Serbs were majority even in AH leftovers.
Croats spoke croatian. There isnt serbocroatian... Its just made up
On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language.
To be clear, Serbs and Croats are different ethnic groups, but their dialects are mutually intelligble and differences between the two aren't great enough to justify considering them different languages in an academic sense. Specifically modern standard Serbian and Croatian (as well as Montenegrin and Bosnian) are both based on a dialect from eastern Herzegovinia.
If you're interested in learning more, I recommend this book:
www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvrf8bft.7
@@LookBackHistory well i speak both soo... If you soke them you would know that though they are similar in word pronounciation they differ greatly in sentence building... We understeand each other but to say its same language is insult to both and propaganda. In croatia linguists who say its the same language are on agenda, not considering historical and lingual stuff. Ist just like saying ukrainian and russian are same or czech and slovak.
@@LookBackHistory "On the contrary, most linguists consider them to be one language." Really? Which linguists? The Serbian linguists who consider it all to just be a Serbian language? Or the former Yugoslav linguists who did so as part of state narrative? Or maybe Western or Eastern linguists who made their worldview on the topic based on the works of those same Yugoslav/Serbian linguists without (in most cases) not even speaking these languages ?!?
What you are talking about and what I'm talking about could, just a few decades before, get me killed or at best imprisoned for countless years and get you a very nice salary and state benefits (now imagine if you are a linguist, which one would you chose :)). It is true that the Serbian and Croatian languages were brought together in their standardized forms in the late 19th century and that only intensified after the formation of Yugoslavia, but to just lump it all together as a general historical and linguistic rule is ludicrous. We no longer say there is such thing as Czecho-Slovak language, even though there was just a few decades prior. People and languages change, and yes, language is primarily a political construct. It is therefore insulting when someone denies the fact that these are in fact different languages brought closer together during the past 200 years or so, but have been differentiating in the past 30 years to the point of considering them separate languages.
Also, what does Banac's book have to do with anything? I mean, it's a good book, but Banac was by no means a linguist, and while his book is a very good read on the subject of Yugoslav unification and early political activity in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it's also full of politically correct Yugoslav undertones (which he put in since the book came out in the 80s and Yugoslavia was still standing). He would later tone down this rather soft sentiment and, when given the opportunity to speak his mind, would be much more critical of many of its aspects.
@@glaonrielelsinoth7243Croatian and Serbian language are not singular example of two languages based on the same dialectal basis. Hindi and Urdu, Danish and Norwegian, Bulgarian and Macedonian... but for reasons that have more to do with politics and ideology than linguistics the fake _SerboCroatian_ language is being kept "alive". Just today I was in a bookshop in Croatia and books in Serbian are kept with other literature in foreign languages.
@@Harahvaiti I agree, but as I've said I find the Czechoslovak language case very interesting since it shows how one mixed language can be at times considered one and then later for that single language to be considered a socio political construct. However, if someone even mentions that Serbo-Croatian is just the same thing, then that someone (usually Croat) comes off as some backwater Balkan nationalist who denies proven "scientific (sic!) facts".
The past 200 years saw books being printed into the world looking at this subject (as well as those of history and politics) with pro-Yugoslav or Yugoslav-apologetic views in 95% of cases. Unfortunately, modern Croatia has (as far as I know) done little to remedy this. Very few books on this subject are translated into major languages, let alone present on the internet bookstores, and God forbid audiobooks. This has left historians, linguists, political scientists and lawyers with very little material to work with and to look at these subjects from a different point of view. Therefore, I don't wish to be too harsh on Look Back History who has done an overall very good video on the subject without the usual Yugonostalgic babbling.