I am glad to have found this site. I am one of the minority of Americans who have travelled broadly, and who have studied the history of Central and Eastern Europe as well as having visited Yugoslavia as it neared its final days, mostly Dubrovnik, Split and the Dalmatian coast. These videos are full of current and historic detail, and should have a wider audience. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
The video is full of muslim/Bosniak propaganda; "forgets" to mention that Croat Defense Council defended Mostar and not some group of Muslim policemen, calls the old bridge strategically irrelevant despite being proven to be military target, "forgets" to mention that Croatia donated part of money for reconstruction, talks about Croats running concentration camps while showing a photo of serb concentration camp and "forgets" that Serbs and muslims had them, ignores the fact that Croats didn't cooperate with Serbs any more than muslims did etc
@@northernstar4811 in 1950 the borders were closed, as protection of the new system. To understand that you have to look at what liberties egsisted all around, two years after India stopped being a colony of GB. Speaking of freedoms and human rights and democracies. Many Western Europeans emigrated to USA Australia etc. for economical or political reasons. More than Yugoslavs "swimming to freedom". Later, Yugoslav passport could take you almost anywhere in the world, left and right. Made friends with everybody. People emigrated not for more freedom, but for more money. Uneducated and highly educated. Many of them as gastarbaiters. Wanted a largest house in the village, or own butique, or small business, went to earn where the pay was better. Nothing more. Was the country "good" or "the best possible" you can measure in many ways. When you compare it with previous states and now with these new states replacing SFR Yugoslavia, even counting for the rise of standard of living in whole after second war Europe, that country beat all of them. In: Growth, education, emancipation, feminism, industry, agriculture, culture and art, health, right to work, childcare, birth rate, longetivity of population. It was the society that reached the most. Not to mention that it was a period of 55 years of peace, longest in recent history of the regio. Yes, you didn't have a broad political freedoms, you could work only in the borders of communist ideas. You could not argue that capitalism is good. So you had to bring nationalism to bring it down. On the other hand, before it was destroyed, in Socialist Yugoslavia, you had freedom from personal debt and exploitation of your work buy renters and owners of capital. You had a right to work, and in the early seventies, from 35 children in my class only one mother didn't work. All childcare was free. Even summer and winter vacations were organised and free for all children. You had free education till age of 27 years, and would get scholarships if needed. Just to name some. And that all built on the ground of totally backward kingdom of Yugoslavia. Remind you of number of unliterate people in 1945, google it yourself. Something that lot of today's democracies don't have Yugoslavia tried out. Just look at the culture and art of that country. Numbers of published and sold books. And look at them now. It's to cry. I am sick of badmouthing Yugoslavia, and it is always someone who never lived there, never ever have been there. Telling me how it was for me living in SFR Yugoslavia. It was a good country for it's people, and it could develop further, if it was let to exsist. It was maybe they he best thing people of that region ever be able to create.
@@LOUNGELIQ SFR Yugoslavia was not a part of any of two blocks. Why people who don't know anything about the subject have the need to comment and give their uninformed and bias opinions?
Thank you for presenting this in a comprehensive, comprehendible manner. Having frequently visited Mostar and Trebinje, and in my professional capacity as a mental health professional, the best way to describe BiH is that the scars remain raw and deep. Most people would never have had access to “mass counselling” meaning that the only “option” was to zip up your traumas, bury them as deep as possible, and get on with your life. Sadly, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out because on average there is a war in the Balkans every 50 years. The memories are also passed on inter-generationally so the only hope for BiH is to tie them in to the EU treaties and NATO.
Are you normal? You would like to throw Bosnia into the NATO and EU tomb!? I assume you're aware that there's Bosnian Serb Republic and that 99% of the Bosnian Serbs are fundamentally against your NATO and EU organizations because they view the Americans and their western European buddies as enemies? Such an attempt is what would inevitably lead to the new war!
@@TheWedabest I can't believe what this creature is saying!? I'm not sure what the appropriate punishment would be for those who praise America & its NATO puppies??
Thank you for trying to cover this to the best of your abilities. Most outsiders are unaware that the criminal and fascist leaders of Croatia and Serbia met and planned together the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks. Regarding the war, it is important that we do not decontextualize crimes and events. There is no equivalency between individual instances of war crimes and systematic crimes against humanity. The "all sides did it" discourse is revisionism. There's a huge difference between crimes committed by individuals and crimes that are systemically planned. Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat separatist forces committed systemically planned war crimes, this is a fact. The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not commit any systemically planned crimes. For decades now, there has been a trend and tendancy to lump everything together, which is exactly what war criminals and their supporters have been doing for years, even decades, trying to relativize everything until it loses its true context and hence meaning.
what you talking about? bosniaks were with us in ww2, you become bosnianks not even 70 years ago, you are just traitors of croats and mix of serbians people
Sure, and why Bosnia invite and allow islamists, mudjahedins and other religion terrorist groups to help Army of BiH to deffend and create independent nation of Bosna (i Hercegovina) with crimes against Croats and Serbs? This is stain of (modern) Bosnian/Bosniak indentity that you will never erase it.
Rationalizing any crime is indeed bad. But crime is crime, be it organized or not. I remember a saying from a Bosniak guy from Quora: "Deaths for the Bosnian War are shown in statistics as mere numbers; the numbers do remain on paper, but behind every number, there is a person."
Thank you so much for a very accurate insight into Bosnian war. Nowadays they try to dehumanize Bosniaks and this is our biggest struggle. I lived outside for 9 years, but now I'm back here - Bosnia won't fall
Good initiative. A still overlooked historical subject. The sad thing is that if all peoples and "tribes" demand their lands back when it was the largest in history, we need to have a globe that is 4 times larger, so negotiation is the only way out. "If there is hunger and hardship, it is due to fraud. Thanks👍
@@GeoPerspective Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country of hatred, wars and divisions. Country of different naratives about history. Bosnian Muslim kid will be learned in the school that Bosnia never been Serbian. Bosnian Croat kid will learn in school that Bosnia was Croatian land and Serbs that Bosnia was Serbian land... The last war was in 1992-95. but for the last 28 years there has been a political war between Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and "Bosniaks". Every day there is war in medias. 90% of population of Bosnia( Serbs,"Bosniaks" , Croats) feeling that is much more safe for them to be in any town in Italy,Germany,Poland , USA etc. than in towns of other ethnic group in Bosnia. In Bosnia there is 3 worlds, invisible and visible borders. In 1993., Bosnian Muslims changed their name from Muslims ( Bosnian Muslims) to Bosniaks. Why? They want the world to think that they are natives of Bosnia and that Serbs and Croats came to his country (Serbs from Serbia and Croats from Croatia). Of course that is not true. First mention of Bosnia is from 10th century. In that document of Byzantian Empire wrote: " Bosnia is part of Serbia". Since 1377. Bosnia was Kingdom. Title of King of Bosnia was: " Stephan Tvrtko I Kotromanic - king of Serbs, Bosnia, Primorje( area by Adriatic sea) and West Teritories( West of Bosnia)". But they will said and they will lying that king Tvrtko was not Serb. Tvrtko fought with other Serbs against Turks and Islamic faith. This days they put monument of Tvrtko in Sarajevo, but thay didn't put his title " king of Serbs..." or cross on his coat of arms. 1463-1878. Ottoman ocuppation of Bosnia. Islam came in Bosnia. Rulers of Bosnia in that time : Bosnian Muslims ( they called himself "Turks " like Turks from Anatolia). Victimes: Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. In that Ottoman period of Bosnia, Bosnian Muslim can kill or beat any Serb( Orthodox Christian) or Croat ( Chatolic Christian). Serbs or Croats don't have any right in that period. 1875-78. Serbian upprising against Turks ( one of many). But this time Turks were kicked out from Bosnia and his rule will be changed by AustroHungary( chatolic empire). 1878-1918. AustroHungary ruling with Bosnia. 1914-18. World War One: Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats attacking and killing Bosnian Serbs. There was concentration camp for Serbs in Doboj. 1918. Serbian army liberated Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Serbs created Kingdom of Serbs,Croats and Slovenes. 1941-45 World War Two Again Bosnia Croats and Bosnian Muslims killing Serbs( genocide against Serbs,Jews,Romani people in WW2; Serbs killed in Bosnia and Croatia by Croatian State and Bosnian Muslim nazis ). 1992. Again, Croats and Bosnian Muslims together attacking Serbs 1993-94. Bosnian Muslims are in war against Bosnian Croats 1994. Peace agreement between Bosnian Muslims and Croats and they are again together against Bosnian Serbs. That is reason why in one country ( Bosnia) with 3 ethnic groups(Serbs,Croats, Bosnian Muslims(so called Bosniaks)) there is two entities: -Republika Srpska( Serb Republic) - Federation of B&H( Muslim and Croat federation) But even that Federation is divided between Croatian and Bosnian Muslim areas( cantons). Bosnia don't have one president. There is 3 memebers of presidency: Serb,Bosnian Muslim,Croat. But Bosnian Muslims cheated Croats and they voted even for them who will be Croatian memeber. Bosnian Muslims choosed Croat which was member of Bosnian Muslim Army in 1990s. How is that possible ? There is about 1,5 mil.Bosnian Muslims in Federation of B&H and about 300 K Croats. Census 1961.: Serbs 43% Bosnian Muslims 26% Croats 22% There was only one census since 1991. That was Census 2013. but there was cheats. Bosnian Muslims said that they are 50,1 % of population (2013.). They cheated. They counted Bosnian Muslims which now living in EU,Germany,Austria, Swiss etc. In reality : They are now about 45%, Serbs about 35% , Croats about 10% etc. Bosnian Muslims are converted Serbs and Croats in time of Turkish Empire in Bosnia (1463-1878.) but they will say that is not true. Historians know that is true.
@@KraljStefan-ey3bowhy don't the yugoslav muslims, roman catholics (croats) and orthodox christians (serbs) don't just ethnically identify as one? For example yugoslavs? I mean, like you said, there are literally the same ethnic group, just 3 different religions? When Germany was created, it created germans (deutsch - roughly meaning, people of a nation, folks of one nation) and the word yugoslav means south slavic, so south slavic people, people of one nation. In the past, there were also bavarians, prussians, etc. and somehow they all managed to agree to all be called deutsch.
Bosnia was a principality befor 822. According to serbian prof.dr. tibor zivkovic and croatian historians d'r neven budak, vjekosav klaic ,marko vego etc. So yes very old
Another superficial approach to a historical landscape that was, after the Ottoman conquest in the 15th C, never a country, never a people and never a nation. As yet, it sorta "exists" only as an US-EU colony & will continue to "exist" in that way. By the way- Croatian forces expelled 80,000 Muslims and Muslim forces expelled 170,000 Croats; Muslim Army killed ca. 400 Croatian civilians and prisoners, while Croatian Army in B & H (HVO) killed ca. 250 Muslims. Ever heard of Muslim atrocities in Trusina, Doljani, Buhine kuće, Grabovica, Križančevo selo,..? Of course not, because of Western media's pro-Muslim narrative which still distorts the truth.
Who started defeating the Serbs? Another lie of Sarajevo's Great Muslim propaganda. Only the Croatian army did it without it. The Bosnian Muslims would not have done anything because they had no army apart from numbers. Neither did the Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were few and could only fill the ranks of the Croatian army. When Bill told Franjo to stand near Banja Luka, the danger of falling ended there for her because only the Croats could enter it by themselves. The Bosnian Muslims could never even defend themselves against the Serbs, let alone take something from them without the help of others. You can lie to others, but most of all you are creating a false history for yourself. Did the Americans stop you? If it weren't for the help of the West, even the biggest fool knows that the Serbs would have destroyed you and you would have ceased to exist as a people. Instead of being grateful to them for your survival, you spit on them for not giving you a hand instead of a finger. But well, nothing strange for Crypto-Islamists who support Islamic terrorism, eg Hamas.
Against Serbs not Serbia. Serbia was not part of that story after 1991. It was war between Bosnian Muslims(Bosniaks), Orthodox Christians(Serbs from Bosnia) and Catholics(Croats)
First and foremost, really rude and ungrateful. If you didn't have the West, and especially America, you would have disappeared as a nation. Both at the beginning and at the end of the war. And secondly, you started winning? Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because you are surrounded by other nations on all sides. It is a pure lie that you started winning. That was done by the Croatian army, so when it started you just limped along. Nowhere were you able to do anything big on your own. Us Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina there isn't much, so we weren't capable of anything big on our own. Whereas with you, it was about incompetence. First, the political leadership, which entered the war totally unprepared and in fact handed its people over to the Serbs. And second, when it saw that it was losing territory to the Serbs, it tried to compensate for it on us Croats. And it only unintelligently dragged us and you into an additional war, because in the end, for the most part, everyone kept their majority territory. And there are far more of you and you had a far bigger army. Which was full of your officers who fought for The pro-Serbian JNA in Croatia. That's where the conflict between us began because you were full of Serbian agents and Udbas. That's how much America prevented you from liberating Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the Croatian army withdrew before Banja Luka, all danger to it ended. Would you have entered it yourself? in a hundred years. Before the Serbs would have plowed through Sarajevo and at the end of the war and entered it whole, than you in Banjaluka. Because you were full of the 5th column. You tell funny children's stories. You are lying to yourself.
thats not completely true, plenty of Paramilitary and even official special police units from Serbian state fought in Bosnia, to name a few, beli orlovi, niski specialci, legija, arkanova garda, uzicki korpus@@mmr1137
Sadly having served as a peacekeeper in the British Armed Forces, I still see some of the horrors of Vitez and Srebrenica. I thought I had seen everything in my service😊 until I went to Bosnia.
2:41 an annoying mistake, every youtuber makes, when covering this topic. First of all, there is a distinction between Bosniaks and Bosnians. Second one is that neither the croatian flag nor the flag of Serbia has any legal value within the country. They are officially considered as flags from neighbouring countries. Therefore it is somewhat insulting to put them behind two of our members of presidency. Besides, Republika Srpska (one of the entities in BiH) has it's own flag. So you could have used that one behind Milorad Dodik. And last, but not least. If Komsic (the left dude in that frame) would see, that you've put a Croatian flag behind him, he would laugh at you. He is more Bosnian, than that dude in the middle. It's complex, I know
@@mottom2657 My wife does wrong, tries to dominate & can manipulate but I would never think of walking out but try to make the changes within the marriage instead !
Ironically, ICTY declared that Mostar bridge was a legitimate target since it was used to move troops and supplies across the Neretva river. You also forgot to mention the Washington agreement in 1994 by which the Bosniak Croat alliance was re established. There is much more to it than mentioned in the video no matter who you ask.
@@mariomijic7110 Ironically because of the tone of the video which claims, if I recall, that it was blown up because of cultural racism, anti islamic sentiment and stuff. Whole video is rather one sided and under researched.
It's so funny that in Serbian songs at the time they boasted about eradicating and raping Bosniaks, and then their defenders try to say "why are people so one-sided???"
@@aqsilewsinYou re missing the point, last thing I want to defend are serbian war crimes or genocide. I'm saying that author leaves out the fact that Bosniaks and Croats were allies in 3 out of 4 years of the war and finished it as allies. Also, he concentrates on a Mostar bridge which was declared as a legitimate war target by ICTY, which I guess suprised me. And the argument that whole war hinged on a "deal" of Mlosevic and Tuđman is shakey if not plain wrong since again, Croats and Serbs were bitter enemies even if some local deals existed (which they did). Whole video plays into current(!) Bosniak propaganda which claims that everybody was against BiH except Bosniaks and that Bosnia was "betrayed". Even if some elements are true, it's much too simple and one sided conclusion. The narrative in which Croatia is equally demonised along with Serbia is rather recent, dating from late 00s and many Bosniak politicians including war MFA Silajdzic spoke against it.
Roman Catholic King Matthias Corvinus (1443 to 1490 AD) set up the "Banovina of Jajce" the last Christian free area of Roman Catholic Bosnia after the Ottoman Turks invaded Bosnia in 1463 AD. The last Roman Catholic Bosnian town to fall to the Ottoman Turks was the town of Jajce in 1527 AD. Herzegovina is named after the German word "Herzog" meaning a Duke. So Herzegovina can be translated as "the land of the Duke".
"The reason why this happened is often attributed to the Karađorđevo meeting where Milošević andTuđman met...." I think they met in March 1991. Later that same year the Serbs attacked Croatia and caused $38 billion worth of damage to Croatia and thousands of deaths. I doubt any agreement was ever made with this level of destruction for Croatia i.e: the complete destruction and occupation of the Croatian town of Vukovar in 1991. No written agreement has ever been produced and if a verbal agreement was made it never held up due to the bitter and brutal fighting between Serbs and Croats that broke out after the meeting was held.
I tried to make sure it doesn’t come across as stating a fact. This video has a significant amount of speculation to have an interesting spin on the story.
@@GeoPerspective I understand. Sadly for the region as a whole there is a habit of various politicians passing off speculation, myths, conspiracy theories and outright fabrications as facts. The motivation for this are various but usually its designed for political purposes and in some cases to incite racial or religious hatreds. To counter this you have to apply common sense or try to find documents or other evidence to see if the claims are true or just made up nonsense. If there isn`t any evidence then well....
@@GeoPerspective dont worry the Profile northern Star is croatian nationalist we already know them from other youtube Videos about the same subject.. poor guy poor nationalist ideology
@@anteveic327 you expect the historian teachers to believe that croat and serb leaders met in secret before war only for coffee and cake? Or did they make a Party? Of course they talked about how to act in bosnia hercegovinia everybody knows it? Are you just playing naive or are you 8 years old?
If Serbs wanted a greater Serbia and Croats a greater Croatia, as the video claims, why is it that in Dayton the Serbs are given half (49%) of B&H as a self governing republic but the Croats lose this option, and their self proclaimed republic is terminated? Instead, the Croats are pushed into the so called Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? To become the but of bosnian muslim majoritys' ultra-nationalist islamist chicanery?!
Because Zagreb and Belgrade didn’t achieve their plans. No one expected the Bosniaks to organize and fight back causing the Dayton as the final result.
@@baklava6138 No, because mostly Croats had defeated Serbs in Bosnia, reducing them to 45% of the B & H territory. Then, in Dayton, Tuđman gave Mrkonjić and Šipovo for peace, so that Sarajevo is now completely Muslim, while Croats got only a small part in Odžak. Muslims did not give Serbs a square centimeter. Why were Serbs, then at 45%, "awarded" with 49%- one should better ask UK-US "coalition".
@@urvanhroboatos8044 to say croats defeated the Serbs in Bosnia is absurd. One could argue that Croatia got their independence off of Bosnia’s back as most serb resources were tied up in Bosnia. The war in Bosnia was much more chaotic and brutal than Croatia. Also serbs lost 3 times more soldiers in Bosnia than Croatia and we all know most of those casualties were caused by the Bosnian army not croatian separatists or regular ceoatian army from Croatia.
Croats in BH war defeated both Serbs and Muslims. Croatian forces controlled ca. 30% of BH territory of B& H and Muslim forces could not have survived without Croatia. As far as who was the best, one can see official figures: during the war, HVO, the army of Bosnian Croats, was the most effective. In Croat-Serbian war in BH, it was, re military casualties (dead): HVO (local Croat army) killed 7500 Serbian soldiers, while local Serb army killed 2600 Croatian soldiers; Muslim Army killed 3000 HVO soldiers, while HVO killed 6000 Muslim soldiers; Muslim army killed ca. 13,300 Serbian soldiers, while Serb army killed ca. 24.000 Muslim soldiers.@@baklava6138
@@baklava6138 No one achieved their plans. Bosniaks wanted a unitary Bosnia that was independent. Instead they got a third-rate international protectorate where they constantly beg foreign powers to fights their own political battles and less than half of territory where they have any degree of control.
I am Bosnian, my father in law was in a concentration camp held by Croats in Herzegovina region. I will never forget or forgive for what Serbs and Croats have done to my people and to my country. I can tolerate and live in peace, but we, the Bosnians, will forever be on the vigil against both of them, as they have showed their true face and their intentions in the 1990s. As long as there is a fragment of this hatred present, I will not trust their governments or their military leaders. They have shown over and over again in the past 30 years that not only they haven't apologized for the aggression, but are actively undermining any meaningful progress of our country. They are denying war crimes, celebrating their war criminals that were brought to justice by INTERNATIONAL courts, even with all the facts in the world they are still spreading propaganda and trying to present Bosnia as some kind of "nonexisting state" and Bosniaks as "nonexisting people"... All in all, thanks for the video, this topic is important and shouldn't be ignored.
Just that you know you were the ones who first betrayed the alliance with croatia they about killed 1.200 croatian civillians, expelled 150.000 croats and burned over 100 catholic churces in bosnia and northern herzegovina and first attacked croats in prozor-rama and konjic while the croatians were fighting for them, I'm over it and I dont wanna discuss but that's just another point of view, I hope you will take that into consideration and maybe start to see that not only croatia was the problem but you too, I'm not denying that croatia did terrible things, but you have to get out of this perspective.
@@dko1860 Hahaha, I have no link with the Balkans, but even I know the agreement between Serbs and Turdjman existed since before the war even started. Learn real history, even if it goes against what you think are your people. Personally I think all of you people who point fingers should go on mars and declare war on each other, that way only the smart ones are left in the Balkans.
@@haider5044 like he stated at the end its just speculation and if there was an agreement why did they go to war and why did croatia support bosnia.I would say there could have been an agreement, but then tudman wouldnt be a honored person from croatia because he is the president which lead croatia out of war and croatia gained their land but if it thete actually was an agreement that they would fight first against croatia that croatia could betray bosnia then he would go from a hero to one of the worst persons from croatia, I dont see any other explanation. It seems unlikely to me but believe what you want idc just remember that facts are always better than speculations
Bosnian army was created in and of Croatia. While 500 000 bosniaks lived as refugees in Croatia and was housed,fed and got medical care all for free,bosniaks massakered Croats in central Bosnia. Bosniaks got weapons and manpower (jihadist) from the port of Split. Without Croatia there would not be a Bosnia and the Croats always supported a free Bosnia and Herzegovina, and instead of being thankfull to Croatia for helping Bosniaks some people like this RUclipsr that nows nothing except of propaganda that compares us to the Serbian army that wanted to create grater Serbia. By the way I am Croat on my fathers side and Serbian on my mothers side but as a Christian I always follow the truth no matter what. Croatian army saved Bosnia 4 times and when the Serbian forces had surrounded Bihac and the city was about to fall it was the Croatian army that saved the Muslim dominated city from the same General(Ratko Mladic) that was responsible for the Srebrenica genocide. Tudman and Milosevic had meetings and it’s normal for leaders to meet even if there is a conflict, does Trump and America agree with Kim jong something and North Korea just because they had a meeting. And by the way the man that you called Croatian president in Bosnia was elected by Muslims which is a breach in the Dayton agreement . Do the Bosnian people have no shame it’s sad to see how they oppress the Croatian minority . Bosnia and Hercegovina belongs to Serbs Croats and Muslims but the main branch of Sarajevo politicians want to dominate Bosnia like the Milosevic government before them. Croatia and Serbia couldn’t agree to anything so to think that Tudman and Milosevic had some evil plan to devide Bosnia between them is shameful muslim propaganda for the rest of the world to think that Muslims were only victims in this war. Izetbegovic was a coward , when the Serbian army occupied Croatia he said puplicly that bosniaks had no dog in this fight. And by the way Muslims attacked Croats in Bosnia because they were weaker then the Serbs. Btw Croatia also helped creating UCK in Kosovo but the Albanian people have honor and they are not liars like the bosniaks. I’m tired of hearing this constant lies and attacks from ungrateful bosniaks it makes me sad!
Tudjman and Milosevic most likely agreed on the partition, and the war between Serbs and Croats came about because of the Krajina Serbs. Milosevic did not count on this factor and until the end of the war in Croatia, he had a constant conflict with Serbs from Croatia. This is supported by the fact that the so-called RSK was under sanctions imposed by Serbia.
You are right bosnians and croatians should be close Allies and btw the situation and relationship between serbia bosnia and croatia should be normlized and better in all ways because it isnt the people who make troubles but the politics. Thats the way out of this all .. and yes croats did help bosnian refugees but croatia had lot Support from the world because of this Action and it wasnt really selfless act and for earlier Generations it was somehow clear now new Generations seem to forget that
"prijatelju", prvo je HDZ i Rimo-katolicka crkva ulozila enormne napore da raspiri netrpeljivost muslimana u YU protiv Srba i Crnogoraca i tako muslimanima zatvore SVE puteve osim preko Hrvatske,I onda su muslimane primali i ronili krokodilske suze nad njihovom sudbinom a sve masuci sahovnicom na pola BiH.Arapi salju milione ili milijarde pomoci hrvatskoj vladi da se brinu za muslimanske izbjeglige a ani ih hrane ribljim konzervama pola dolara po konzervi a od ogromnih arapskih para kupuju oruzje po cijelom svijetu.Muslimanskim snagama oporezivaju 30% svaku posiljku u lukama a HVO ( hrvasko vijece OBMANE ) dodatno oporezuje 30% svaku posiljku za AR BIH.
The war between Croats and Bosniaks erupted due to the inability of Alija Izetbegović+Co in challenging Serb forces. As a result the Bosniak-dominated Armija BiH (ArBiH) turned on their Croat allies in order to consolidate their hold on the remaining territories not under Serb occupation. ArBiH forces outnumbered Croat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina 16:1, and ArBiH forces turned on Croat forces first in the city of Travnik in central Bosnia whilst Croat soldiers were on the frontline awaiting for ArBiH troops to relieve them in the trenches. This forced Croat soldiers to surrender directly to the Serb positions outside the city and creating a mass exodus of Croats from the area. Meanwhile the Republic of Croatia was hosting tens of thousands of Bosniak refugees in Dalmatia. The narrative of a pact between Croats and Serbs in the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not correlate with the facts and timeline of events in the war.
@@zlaktutz6190 That isnt correct, 100 000 dead is a number of total Serbian, Croat and Bosniak casulties. Even if it is 100 000 deaths for you, can you imagine losing insted 1 300 000 out of 1 900 000 hm?
I mean, Mostar didnt suffer the most. I think that would be Sarajevo, because of its 1000+ days under encirclement and Serbia was focusing on it the most, since the fall of Bosnian capital basically means their surrender.
They butchered BiH, some people say that Posavina (north BiH) was taken by the Croat forces, but after the deal was made they received a call to evaluate and leave it to the Serbs. It all political chess, with real people that die..
Stupid conspiracy theory. Serbs were overwhelmingly militarily superior, so that most of Posavina simply couldn't remain under Croatian control. It is similar with Serbs on the receiving side in Glamoč, Grahovo, Mrkonjić, Šipovo... 1995 - they were weaker.
@@osmaks1518 They were militarily superior to solve one crucial battle in their favor; they dominated the battlefield until the late 1993, but were unable to completely occupy B & H, mainly thanks to HVO and HV; only after the late 1993- early 1994 have Croatian forces been steadily growing in all aspects & then succeeded to defeat Serbs both in Croatia and B & H. Amateur conspiracy theories are something only fools take seriously.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 you just proved my point. If they were superior they would finish it by 92 or 93, they surely wanted to.. I was in BiH in the middle of it, for the whole war just like my extended family and friends. I know what I know and what happened out of first hand experience, so don't talk to me like I'm some idiot foreigner that watched it on tv! And go look up the definition of the word "superior"..
@@osmaks1518 Are you that thick? They were superior at tactical level, but not superior enough at strategic level. Read works by Davor Marijan, Ante Nazor, Domazet Lošo (on war) and other serious historians. As for "I was there" means nothing. Petar Stipetić was there and due to his incompetence we lost more land than we could have otherwise. I don't have time to argue with fools.
A lie. The nations divided the country when they realized that the communists' story about brotherhood and unity was a lie. Vukovar confirmed that lie.
Kinda untrue. Bosnians of Orthodox religious beliefs have been planning the war for a long time before it began. Serbians already had basically Full Control of Yugoslavia and couldn't bare losing to Bosnians of Islam religious beliefs (Since Bosnians of Orthodox religious beliefs think they're Serbian, but they're obviosly not. No wonder no one dares to do an Ancestry test. They're afraid they're gonna be wrong.).
The 2nd part is about the Karađorđevo myth. It is true that meetings between Tuđman and Milošević did occur (as did meetings with Bosnian Muslim leadership with both leaders); it is true that B & H was discussed. And- nothing real came out of it. he combined aggression of Serbia+ Montenegro + JNA/YPA (Yugoslav People's Army) + Serbs in Croatia escalated after those meeting & this completely voids all conspiracy theories. Milošević was armed to the teeth (he had JNA under his control); he tried to chop Croatia along 5 strategic lines to force it to completely surrender (and failed); Tuđman did not possess any military power at that time & it is ridiculous to even think that he would be in the position to divide B & H, when was not able to control his own country, due to the combined Serbia- JNA aggression. Why would be Milošević so inexplicably generous? Next months showed a strong escalation of war in Croatia, often fought from the territory of B & H (with Bosnian Muslim officers, not just Serbs, eagerly participating in it), and the war in Croatia came to a temporary halt, Serbs retaining the control of over 25- 30% of Croatia. How could than Croatian side "divide" B & H, when it was, until 1995, unable to impose sovereignty on its own territory? This myth originated & was propagated for two purposes: a) Bosnian Muslim side, as their excuse for creating false equivalence between Croats and Serbs & to somehow justify their passivity and inadequacy, resulting in mass bloodshed and their high civilian casualties in the Bosnian war, because they absurdly believed JNA and the "international community" - which both betrayed them b) members of the "international community", who were both embarrassed & shamed they didn't stop the war in Croatia- and later, B & H (international outcry, especially from Muslim countries, added to the hysteria), so they promoted this ludicrous conspiracy theory to cover their own "historical sins" & by creating a false equivalence between the role of Croatia and Serbia, give Serbs, which still possessed many sympathies from the West, a sort of "relief" for not being the sole culprit for the disaster.
It's nice to see at last what was muttered on the fringe websites being finally acknowledged for the implosion of Yugoslavia being money, wealthy Slovenia slightly less wealthy Croatia were the first to leave. Also the danger of fence sitting and playing both sides once that fence collapses so do you. In a book written by a former Wehrmacht officer (with what seemed rather nazi sentiments) in the 1970s about various European armies it mentioned that fissure on financial issues and the resentment caused by the capital drain to the poorer south along with religious differences and the military being dominated by Serbs risking open conflict upon Tito death so it was sort of expected and possibly planned. With such candid statements were made in the 1970s it shows that the Milosovic and Serbs messed up narrative so popular in the 1990s doesn't add up as much as it's supposed to
@@Warsie it was a book about European armies, I can't remember the title it was in a bookshop about 20 years ago and mindful of the recent wars it was very telling because at the time the storyline was about Tito and communism as in he died in 1980 and it continued peacefully for another TEN years other communist countries ceased to have a communist government without descending into war . I'll try and find out for you what the book was that gave the game away 🫡
One moment....there was never before nation called "Bosniaks" before 1995 . There is religious group of muslim worshipshers in Yugoslavia who are genetically 100% the same as Croats and Serbs. The West armed so called "Bosniaks" and promised them independent state in order to have more smaller puppet states and not two stronger. Same thing with Montenegro and Kosovo. Pattern is obvious and plan is more than 100 years old - same as Tzar Russia. Install communists on power , make artificial borders without any sense and than from all those smaller territories make a new nations , puppet states like Ukraine or Bosnia or Kosovo. Simple and clean , benefiting only to capitalist West.
Genetically 100% the same? Where do you find all these mumbo-jumbo? And I'm sure there is no proof to back your big claim. Even among Croats themselves, there are strong regional differences, and in many cases you can see for yourself effortlessly. But somehow, CrOaTs and SeRbS are 100% same people.
@@nolifegaming6930well in this video it is said that croats and serbs made agreement against bosniaks, but fact is that croats and serbs fought each other for 4 and a half years
@@petarmilanovic3073 They have made an agreement in 1993 to split Bosnia where Croat forces were no longer fighting with Bosniaks but couldn't break the resistance of Bosniaks. The deal was that Croatians take the rest of Bosnian territories in center and Serbs to take the rest from north but couldn't finish the job. Bosniaks and Croats were fighting together until 93 and then with the Washington agreement once again together in 94. If they could break the resistance of Bosniaks in 93 Bosnia wouldn't exist today.
@@nolifegaming6930 so you re saying that in time when serbs were holding 70% of bosnia and herzegovina and 30% of croatia while having 4th biggest army in europe at that moment, they made deal that serbs will retreat from whole croatia and 20% of occupied bosnian and herzegovinian territory? You re so funny 🤣
@@nolifegaming6930 and not even mention that bosniaks killed 1.200 croatian civillians, expelled 150.000 croats and burned over 100 catholic churces in bosnia and northern herzegovina and first attacked croats in prozor-rama and konjic
18:52 Why Croats supplied Bosnian Army due the entire time of the war? Even Bosnian leaders admit that. If Croatia wanted to take control of Bosnian parts, they wouldn't supplied them with weapons. Bosnian started the fight because they couldn't defeat Bosnian Serb so they shifted focus on Croatian populated regions of Central Bosnia and northern Herzegovina. That happened in time when Serbs controlled all of eastern and northern Bosnia so Serbs stayed and dig in so Bosniaks used that time to attack Croats.
When this war happened, I was a teenager in the 1990s. And my Prime Minister then, Tun Mahathir decided to open our door to Bosnia Refugees... Then, as sudden as they arrive, they all left, after the end of the war, as Majority of them went back to their homeland to rebuild their nation... I am not very familiar with the i -depth history of this war, but I do remember reading Bosnians massacred by Serbs... like a whole village of them... That was news we get in the newspaper in the 1990s.. And then, I also remember that it was the Clinton Adminstration that successfully brokered a peace deal that eventually ended the war...
Eu sou contra as guerras e sou contra os governos que as provocam!a guerra da Jugoslávia nunca deveria ter acontecido e o povo de lá sofreu muito!a união faz a força! Viva Jugoslávia
Yugoslavia is an artificial creation created after the First World War as a means of expanding the Serbs into non-Serb territories. Before that, that concept never existed, let alone a state. And it will never exist again. The war was not fought in Yugoslavia, but the Serbs attacked Slovenia and Croatia respectively. , Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. In the end, NATO attacked Serbia.
Unfortunately those IMF loans that Yugoslavia received came with certain overy conditions such as, liberalization of the economy, privatization of national industry, floating the exchange rate and opening up the Yugoslav markets. Covert conditions were national referendums for independent Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia. The Serb leadership resorted to ethnic mobilization and scapegoating ethnic minorities once the IMF and US state department started putting on the pressure. Same way that Ukrainian post Orange revolution, Maidan Ukrainian leaders started singling out Russian speakers for the countries woes. All the nations corruption and oligarchy was blamed on pro-Russian Ukrainians and the Kremlin. Even as Nuland was cherry picking the post Maidan government of Ukraine, the western Ukrainians were blaming Pro-Russians and Moscow. Even as US senators cheered on the chaos, the Maidan leaders blamed Putin and pro-Russian Eastern Ukraine for the chaos.
The Baltic states actively discriminated against their Russian populations and its all perfectly acceptable in the EU. Whether a country is condemned for war crimes or not largely depends on who that country's backers are. This is the lesson for country's who find themselves in the same dilemma as Serbia.
Axis powers and Nazi Collaborators won in the end. Japan, Germany, France and Italy are part of G7. Their economies are flourishing. The US sided with the fascists in Croatia and Ukraine. Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, Russia, Ethiopia, China, India, Senegal, the Philippines and most countries who fought back and paid heavy prices during WW2 have nothing to show for it.
In 1992 Croatia wanted to create an alliance with BiH but Alija Izetbegovic was against this because he thought it would provoke the Serbs. Bad decision
I don't think so, if he ded tgat they would overpower the Serbs in RS and RSK and Yugoslav army at this point dominated by Serbs could crush them swiftly, this way they boilded the frog so to speak until Croatia got enough of arms to wipe RSK off the map curiously without Yugoslav army's reaction. At this point RS lost potection of their fanks and had to negotiate.
This is a beautiful country that I had the opportunity to visit in 2009. I had done a lot of research into the region, as I have been fascinated by the many important historical events that occurred here that shaped the modern world. I went with my Serbian partner (who had never traveled outside of his region in Serbia) and was surprised by the amount of disinformation, prejudices, and genuine apprehension of traveling to parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were not majority Serbian to which he was told by others in Serbia were “red zones” not to be visited. We spent two weeks visiting Sarajevo, Mostar, Neum, and Banja Luka some of which were supposed “red zones” for Serbian, we had a fantastic time meeting such warm people without any issues despite his obvious Serbian accent and sampling the local specialties which have many similarities to Serbian cuisine. I tried “Boza” a thick, fermented drink that had a very strong yeasty flavor…. one sip was enough and very MEMORABLE 🤣. ⚠️controversial⚠️ The overall regional language is Serbo-Croatian which my Serbian partner was surprised to just be a slight variation in accent with some differences in vocabulary (using the Latin alphabet). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian My background is in anthropology, I was born in Europe, raised in the USA with the benefits of having grown up speaking several languages with opportunities to learn from different cultures in the USA and around the world. 🌍🌏🌎We share more in common than the unique differences. Treat everyone with respect,be open to being wrong, embrace change, learn and continue to grow. The long, complex history of varying cultural identities current today within the present-day borders of “Bosnia AND Herzegovina 🇧🇦” dates back to the 6th century BCE with the migrations of various South Slavic groups through the Ottoman invasions and centuries of occupation, followed by near constant conflicts of interests among the majority Bosniak (mostly Sunni Muslim, but this is only part of their identity). Serbs (mostly Serbian Orthodox), and Croatians (mostly Roman Catholic), in addition to smaller minorities. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina This article has an excellent detailed history and complexity of what it means to be “Bosniak” including several extensive population genetics current current as of 2019. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks
@@mariocerin4105 🤔Is the language spoken in Canada, USA, Jamaica, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc still English??? Then you understand that variations in grammar, spelling (Latin or Cyrillic for Serbo-Croatian + Montenegrin and Bosnian), word meaning, accent, etc STILL forms part of the ⚠️mutually intelligible⚠️ language✅
@@mariocerin4105 🤔🤔🤔 Is the language spoken in Canada, USA, Jamaica, Ireland, UK, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, , etc still English??? Then you understand that variations in grammar, spelling (Latin or Cyrillic for Serbo-Croatian + Montenegrin and Bosnian), word meaning, accent, etc STILL form part of the ⚠️mutually intelligible⚠️ language✅
There is no Serbo-Croatian language. It is an artificial creation, like Yugoslavia, for which it was created. There are only Croatian or Serbian languages, just as there are no Serbo-Croats, but Serbs or Croats. Now, how similar one or the other language is is another matter.
hm actually Bosnian Catholics who call themselves Croats while Fojnica Monks call themselves Bosniak Catholics which they existed in mediavle times and Orthodox Bosnians are Serbs how because they took Serbian nationality because of Orthodox faith not of nation they just kept calling themselves Serbs and Bosnian Catholics Croats. Some Orthodox Bosnians they don't like term Serb to be called like that same with Catholics to be called Croats.
Paul I Šubić of Bribir (Croatian: Pavao I. Šubić Bribirski, Hungarian: bribiri I. Subics Pál; c. 1245 - 1 May 1312) was Ban of Croatia between 1275 and 1312, and Lord of Bosnia from 1299 AD. After Paul Died his son Mladen II took over Bosnia. Mladen II Šubić of Bribir (Croatian: Mladen II Šubić Bribirski, Hungarian: bribiri Subics Mladen; c.1270 - c.1341), a Croatian leader and member of the Šubić noble family, was a Ban of Croatia and Lord of all of Bosnia from 1312 AD.
You are wrong right from the begining-Internal borders formed in 1946 where actually not drawn based on historical and ethnic lines…that was exactly what caused problems in the 1990s. Second-Bosnians are not just muslim, but also Croats and Serbs. You refer to muslim army as Bosnian?! So it was Bosnian Croats, Serbs and Muslims fighting each other, not “Bosnias” vs Serbs and Croats.
@@NS-mz8gq Serbs always see themselves as Serbs first, the attachment to Bosnia is a secondary thing; to them, Bosnian is a regional term while Serb is the ethnic identity. Croats see Bosnia as a part of Croatia that existed since the old times until the Hungarian conquest and Ban Kulin's rule. Also to the Croats, Bosnian is a regional identity, not ethnic. This is a main reason why Bosnia's Serbs and Croats would prefer their neighboring homelands. But for Muslim Bosniaks, Bosnian/Bosniak is the only ethnic identity they can cling to.
@@mottom2657 the only time that they lived in peace was during the socialist Yugoslavia and the fact that they all have the same DNA only religion causes them to fight which is stupidity beyond ridiculous.
The meeting did happend do some more research the Serbs and Croats fought in Croatia over Serb Areas in Croatia but on Bosnia they had an agreement that Serbs and Croats did not have to fight in Bosnia because their goals for borders were clearly defined that Croatia would get the Banovina territory of Bosnia which is the Hercegovina part and that the Serbs would go to Neretva there was also a meeting in Graz between Mate Boban (Bosnian Croat) leader and Radovan Karadzic (Bosnian Serb) leader which was captured on Video it’s called the Graz Agreement they were brought together by Milosevic and Tudzman to iron out the details on where to exactly split Bosnia up and this is coming from a Bosnian Serb btw also look up the Rajic case that concluded that Croatia was directly involved in the war in Bosnia there was a similar case claiming that Serbia was responsible for the Genocide in Srebrenica, Bosnia but was found not directly responsible but found it guilty of inaction
I think the narrator danced around the edges of some of the really controversial aspects of the war. I'd prefer brave narrations of history and should have included the points you raised. The Serbs and Croats fighting each other in Croatia while avoiding fighting each other in B&H coupled with the leadership of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs meeting each other is enough proof they had a pact. The narrator states the fact that the pact existed in video title but chickened out a bit in the video itself
This mf forgets Croats and Serbs started clapping each other first when Bosnia went to shit, your narrative ignores entire region of Bosnian Posavina, where Croats and Bosniaks got expelled together and managed to salvage whatever was left in two pockets.
@@hydrolifetech7911 "Croats and Serbs avoided fighting each other in B&H" 🤣🤣🤣🤣 What planet do you live on? Croats organized Croat Defense Council precisely to defend themselves against Serbs!
@@hydrolifetech7911 To say that Serbs and Croats did not fight i B&H is a lie. Why somebody would lie on that count probably has a reason, a selfish reason.
1) Mostar is "one of the top touristic destinations in Balkans"? Can you provide evidence? Or you will claim the 150th most visited city fits your description? 2) 1:00 to 1:10 Your data is exactly backed by what scholar? Wikipedia? 3) 19:00 Yugoslavia was formed in 1918 after Kingdom of Serbia won Austro-Hungary and begin liberating the lands such as Bosnia, Vojvodina, Syrmia, Slavonia, Dalmatia and Slovenia which wanted to join Serbia and form a united kingdom under Serbian Karadjordjevic dinasty and defended by the Serbian Army. The only thing that happened in 1946 is that Tito, the communist leader, ignored the king and his government and proclaimed a communist country, betraying this way the west as well. Tito made new internal borders not based by any "historical" borders, but just new borders that made the republics "more equal" at expense of Serbia, but, since Serbs were the majority in the Partisans and Serbs lived anyway all together in one same country, they didnt bothered so much, althought they receved a status of "constituent nation" in Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro, besides Serbia obviously, which would guarantee them by the Constitution that the republic could not do anything unilaterally unless all constituent nations werent in accordance. So, when newly proclaimed president of Croatia proclaimed independence, he couldnt have done it without the accordance of the Serbs of Croatia, which were also the constituent people of Croatia and didnt agreed at all with separation, furthermore, making almost a third of population of Croatia and concentrated in regions which were part of Military Province of Austro-Hungary, and not of Croatia which was much minor and just a province of Hungary before 1918. Serbs of Croatia also formed the vast majority of the resistance forces in Croatia, thus beside having a centuries long presence in those lands, even fought for their liberation while Croats receved German SS troops with food and flowers. Germans in WWII created a puppet state of Croatia which exterminated hundreds of thousands of Serbs in a policy of "one third of Serbs slaughtered, one third expelled, and one third converted". The brutality was even recorded by German diaries and documents as more brutal that they have ever seen (and we are talking about NAZIS describing it). After the war, when Tito made his move and fooled the king, he made Croatia the major Nazi country to be freed of all war reparations despite having been the most brutal one, and the 90% of reparations should have gone to Serbs. You feel good now? You can check it all, every word I said. 4) 6:00 At time it was the major official funeral with the biggest number of state officials ever, you should know and say that in your video. 5) 9:00 Tudjman was elected in Croatia while Milosevic was elected in Serbia, both in 1990. So, all you said before as Milosevic being the starter of nationalism goes down the drain since Tudjman was the nationalist and secessionist, while Milosevic was the one fighting to keep Yugoslavia altogether, as you later recognise, because you cannot escape it, just use the Croatian propaganda of how "Big Serbia" and not "independent Croatia taking lands which were not theirs" was to blame for the conflict. Also, ENTIRE Yugoslavia, Serbs specially, wanted in 1990 to join the European community. The only desagreement was NATO, because Serbia wanted to keep its policy of neutrality, while Croats and Slovenes were eager to join NATO as they knew about the internal secret US memorandum from 1984 talking about how all help to Yugoslavia should be cut and redirected to secessionist movements trying to destroy Yugoslavia.
I agree with most. But minor corrections. It was Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier under Austrian rule ( Austria and Hunfary disgrace Croatia with taking Military frontier under their direct rule, but at least deffence was succcessful 4/5 of Croatia (incl. Slavonia, Rijeks and Dalmatia, excl. Istra) was occupied with killing, robbing kidnapping by Ottoman invasion. First days Croats were positive avout NDH, but after few days dissapointed because Italian occupation continue with targeting minorities in concentration camps. Tito didn't freed Croatia of war repatriations brcause Croatia wasn't independent or at least terrirorial united and political equal as Serbia, Germany or Italy (long) enough. If Croatia pay repatriations it would lead to fall of Croatian indentity as province, nation, everything and Serbs would expand their nation across Croatia because there would not be enough people to deffend it as entity. So greater Serbia would suceed because a lot Croats would immigrate from Croatia to West, Americas, Oceania, etc. leaving a olace for Serbs to imhsbitate. Repstriation which Croatia payd by territories such are Hercegovina, Turopolje and Unska Krajina was returned to Bosna (see Banate of Croatia, Kotromanić Bosna, Ottoman Bosna and others). Repatriations needed to be paid by Itaians, Germans who cause all of trouble or Serbs because they didn't take Yugoslavia as country seriously but just as territorial bank for future Serbian expansion. Also Croatia wasn't have any help from West as Ukraine now. So they try to keep Yugoslavia existence representing seccesionst movements as a threat which NATO they put embargo on weapons and ammunituons (at least against Croatia). Croatia needed to go buying a weapons from Albanians.
8:48 This is the myth: They didn't agree on anything. The events that followed confirmed this - 30% of Croatia was ethnically cleansed, and Croats in large part of Bosnia as well. If they had agreed, nothing could have stopped Serbs and Croats from dividing Bosnia. In the end, it was Great Serbia versus everybody else.
I don’t think you understand how hard serbs tried to take sarajevo, tuzla, zenica, bihac but never expected such a strong resistance. Don’t forget the serbs lost 20,000 soldiers in bosnia mainly fighting the bosniaks and only 7,000 soldiers in croatia. Also, croats needed bosniaks to keep serbs from connecting territories in Krajina and bosniaks needed croats to smuggle weapons in. It was a mutual benefit.
We, OldBosnians, see our land as Serbia. We sufferen Muslim invaders from 15th c, and later from 1941-1991 nazi Croats ustaše and later communists exterminated Serbs in Bosnia further from 44% to 33%. Then they organized Referendum in 92. and claimed that exterminated Serbs are minority. But before that, native Serbs had Plebiscit in 91. where democracy decided that Serbian Bosnia stays in union with other Serbian lands. According that people will, Bosnia is today part of Serbian union, and only dicrator-lovers recognize Bosnia as separate state.
Western part to Croatia with all Croatians relocated there. Muslim state in the middle with enough resources and land to survive on its own and the eastern part gets added to Serbia. Three parts all made homogeneous so nobody starts a fight.
The internal borders of SFRY were neither historical or ethnic. That's the reason for the entire war, duh. The JNA wasn't mostly Serbian, most conscripts participanting in the war in Slovenia were non-Serbs. No, Milosevic never wanted to create greater Serbia. He barely even supported Bosnian Serbs, he accepted EVERY SINGLE ONE peace agreement for Bosnia, regardless of the content. Even those which didn't propose a Serbian autonomy.
Serbs saying same, Bosnia is Serbia, Croats saying what are u saying…then u start to kill peacefull ppl of Bosnia, but bosnian ppl are hero’s we cant be defeated!!!!
@@bezzenick If you look at a regional map its very obvious from the strange looking borders Bosnia and Herzegovina were central parts of Croatia in the past and not Serbia. The muslim community in Bosnia are a result of the Ottoman Turkish invasion of the region.
it is indeed, I wanted to give this video another chance without an “experimental” intro and with a better title. Especially since it was a huge effort.
A rather one-sided and shallow point of view. This is Mickey Mouse history. There is very little truth in this show and I do not recommend watching it.
Serbia invaded Croatia in 1991 and there was brutal, bitter fighting between Croats and Serbs in that year. The Bosnian muslim leadership wanted to stay out of it and didn't help Croatia even though the Serbs were using Bosnian territory to attack Croatia. The following year in 1992 the Serbs turned on the Bosnian muslims who had taken no steps to defend themselves.
And that's why my Tata told me is to never trust Serbs. My family is ethnic Croats who are from Livno, Serbia wants nothing more than to get rid of us.
@@Oregon123 No, Serb irrendentism and refusal to accept, live with and respect non-Serbs is what broke Yugoslavia. NATO didn't even intervene until 1995.
I just cannot watch the whole video because you will not teach me anything new that I already know. Also you might know the history by readings all the books, but you can never know as someone who is from there, who was there during the war, experienced it, unfortunately, and knows the history as well. "They tried to bury us, they didn’t know we were seeds."
This plot to erase Bosnia and the Bosnian ethnicity began in 1800-1860, depending on which of the points you count as the start (their first ideologues to mention Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, or when they got leaders elected with those attitudes, when they wrote down their scheme, or when they started implementing policies for it, or when made the pact etc.). Not only the ideological foundations of this attitude of theirs to jointly attack and erase Bosnia, but they both sent propagandistic agents into Bosnia, through their churches, to convince the christians in Bosnia that they're not Bosniaks. While they admit in their dictionaries at the time that "Bosnian = Bosniak" and that there's no distinction between these two terms and that Bosnian is an ethnicity whose members are muslims, catholics or orthodox (today's Bosniaks are the muslim Bosniaks, and the "Bosnian Croats" are the catholic Bosniaks, and the Bosnian Vlachs who are ethnically Romanian but naturalized into calling themselves orthodox Bosniaks by the 18th century, whereas the Serbs are migrants who came with the Ottoman expansion), by 1860 they started forcing the meme that "there's a difference between Bosnians and Bosniaks" and that "Bosnians are not the Bosnians of medieval Bosnia" and that "there is no Bosnian language nor ethnicity, there are only muslim Croats or muslim Serbs". They continued this policy both in the kingdom of Yugoslavia and in communist Yugoslavia, where the institutions denied that the Bosnian ethnicity exists, and instead tried to use discriminatory practices like forbidding muslim Bosnians from having a job unless they join the communist party and renounce Islam, and things like only having Serb, Croat, Slovene, Macedonian, Albanian in census polls to try to force them all that way to disperse among all the other peoples. The Yugoslav historians were mainly Serbs, and they worked hard to hide many historical sources and falsify their own history, which is where a lot of blatant lies like the claims that Tvrtko and Mehmed Sokolovic were Serbs, comes from. The Serbs were the main culprits, they persecuted Bulgarians and Albanians before turning to persecute Bosnians, and many Serbs today are surprised to find when they do a DNA test that their ancestors come from surrounding countries. This forced integration of other peoples happened in the mid-19th century, which led to a lot of later hostilities like the Bulgarian hatred of Serbs in WW1, and the Albanian Golgotha in the same war. The Croats and Slovenes realized very early on in their pact with the Serbs that they had made a mistake, which is why they tried to secede for a long time without success like for example in the Velebit Uprising, and it culminated in assassinations, the most famous of which was that of Alexander I who was the king of Serbia first and then of Yugoslavia. (assassinated by a Bulgarian man, who was working with the Croatian Ustase who later controlled the NDH in WW2) There's a ton to mention, but in short: The project to erase Bosnia and the Bosnian people is 200 years in the making, and although the Croat side is relenting, the Serb side is as bloodthirsty, hostile, genocidal, expansionist and antagonistic as ever, so much so that people say that only the shooting stopped but the war is still ongoing. America is starting to feel a similar situation between Republicans and Democrats and the internal strife getting worse - Bosnia has been living in that type of hostility for 30 years now, thanks to the democratic straitjacket which is the Dayton Agreement, which demands that the Serbs will at all times have a veto in everything Bosnia's government decides, and they are hellbent on using that to stagnate the country to death, because they haven't given up.
@@TheSouth-j7f You don't know history (nor English) then. Bosnians were literally etched into the Hagia Sophia as a separate ethnic group a thousand years ago.
@@tzimisce1753 A thousand years ago Bosnia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia (925 to 1102 AD). If you know European history then you would know the "Great Schism" happened in Europe in 1054 AD. The Christian church was divided into two churches the Roman Catholic church and the Byzantine Orthodox church, the religious border was the River Drina which happened to be the old West/East Roman Empire internal border.
@@tzimisce1753 Bosnia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia from 925 to 1102 AD so fully Roman Catholic. After 1102 Croatia (including Bosnia) was in an union with the Kingdom of Hungary (another Catholic Kingdom). In 1154 AD "Ban" ( viceroy) Boric ( an ethnic Croat) was installed by the Hungarians as the first Ban of Bosnia. Paul I Šubić of Bribir ( Ban of Croatia) becomes Lord of Bosnia from 1299 AD. After Paul dies his son Mladen II Šubić of Bribir (Ban of Croatia) becomes Lord of all of Bosnia in 1312 AD. The biggest feudal land owner in Bosnia was Croat Grand Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić (ca. 1350-1416 AD). He founded Jajce castle now in Central Bosnia. So Bosnia was mainly Roman Catholic during these centuries as per the Great Schism before the invasion of the Ottoman Turks.
@@TheSouth-j7f Bosnia was conquered by Croatia 925-931, 968-972, 977-999. Croatia never held Bosnia outside of those years. Hungary gave Croatia northwestern Bosnia in the 13th century after the Mongol invasion. The schism has nothing to do with it. And Bosnia was not Roman Catholic until the very end when it was converted by force to Catholicism. Other than that, it wasn't a Christian country, the majority belonged to a religion which denied the trinity and the godhood of Jesus, rejected the cross, icons, baptism etc., though there was a Catholic minority who called themselves Bosniaks up until the 1860's. Boric was not an ethnic Croat, his family was from Slavonia where the Bijelo Brdo culture was. The Subic family attacked Bosnia when Stjepan II was ascending to the throne, and the Bosnians fought them, eliminated one, and the other succeeded later, but would also be defeated later with the help of Hungary and Slavonia. Hrvoje Vukcic was not an ethnic Croat. He had a grandmother who was from Dubrovnik. Other than that, his entire family tree is from Bosnia and has been there since Kulin Ban.
Bosne je bilo i biće! Bosnia is for Bosnians. There is no such thing as a Bosnian Serb or a Bosnian Croat, they are called Chetniks and Ustase and they belong in Serbia and Croatia. There will be no greater Serbia and greater Croatia. Neko je krv svoju lio da bi ja Bosanac bio! SLAVA BOSNI! 🇧🇦⚜️
Who is rattling your cage? For education purposes of all youtubers , Bosnians are artificial nation based only of their worshiping of muslim faith. In dominantly Christian Europe ,Muslims in Bosnia have frustration from early ages because they betrayed their old religion and adopted religion of Turk invaders of Europe. It is OK, they have right of that but denial of their true roots is producing "hate speach" as seen in comment above. Bosnia is their as it is Croatian or Serbian. DEAL WITH IT. No one is hating you.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Where are you obtaining your information from? The Catholic Encyclopedia? Your reply is an example of why RUclips should make users solve an algebraic problem before posting a comment or reply, it would at least serve as an obstacle to the stupidity in the comments section.
@@Hamze_i_Gazije I don't waste my time on fools. A people that did not know their name until 1993 absolutely is not the one to school anyone on history. Current Bosniaks are a combination of Islamized Croats, Serbs, Vlachs, Macedonians, Albanians, Hungarians...as well as Turkish and Arabic settlers. Except their vernacular language, they don't have virtually anything in common with the pre-Ottoman identity & culture, from tombstones to monasteries and books.
Srbija mora (nekako) naplatiti Bosni oslobađanje Bosne od Osmanlija, Austro-Ugarske, Nijemaca, Talijana, pa čak i NDH, s obzirom na poginule Srbe, makar to bilo u teritorijima. A Hrvatska mora (nekako) naplatiti Bosni borbu za unutarnjo-političku i identitetsko-teritorijalnu jednakost u Kraljevini SHS (Habsburškoj Monarhiji, Ugarskoj Kraljevini i Mletačkoj R. također) za koju se Bosna slabo zalagala za razliku od Hrvatske kojoj je trebala 21 godina do formiranja Banovine Hrvatske čime je potrošila svoje financije, imovinu, emocije i psihu, kao i činjenica da Hrvatska nikad nakon 11. st. nije napala Bosnu već je Bosna napadala Hrvarsku kad joj je bilo najteže i surađivala s Ugarskom Kraljevinom (Kotromanići) i Osmanskim Carstvom (Bihać) kako bi se domogli još malo hrvatskog teritorija.
You've only mentioned a top of the iceberg. What about Srebrenica and 8000+ children and men brutally murdered in front of EUFOR eyes?? And yet you are saying that you think religion most likely is not the cause of the conflict-well think again and read what "genocide" is. As a bosnian I really appreciate your video but it is incomplete story and you didn't even discussed major points.
Thanks for watching, I know what you are saying but I feel there are a lot of videos covering those disasters and I don’t like dwelling on the horror. I also wanted a unique spin for this video not an overview.
@@GeoPerspective Understandable from your side but my only concern is that your video is not showing exactly what happened to audience outside Bosnia. Though, you cannot control how people will understand your video so I got your point as well.
Vast majority were military aged men. Bosniaks forces had been hiding behind Eufor "peacekeepers" in the safe enclaves and then raiding Serb villages. Not saying the killings were right, but they need to be put in context.
As long people insist on 8.000 killed in Srebrenica (yes, that much but in whole war, including Serbs, Bosnakians and others) in just two days, there won't be any peace. Serbs claim 500 military men, some foreign investigators say 1.500 maximum, and others go with narative like 5.000, but later they switched to 8.000. Beause, 5.000 was too obvious, since some documents/claims leaked where Alija need to sacrifice atleast 5.000 people to make NATO bomb Serbs and bring Milosevic to negotation table.
@@N0Di90iskreno brate mislim da je bolje da ovakvi videi ne idu toliko u dubinu sa detaljima. Vjerovatno bi mu RUclips kompletno obrisao kanal kad bi čovjek ispričao sve bez cenzurisanja. Svako ko je imalo istraživao "istoriju, historiju i povijest" Bosne i Hercegovine zna da za svako pitanje ima nekoliko odgovora ali u jednoj činjenici se svi slažu mnogi ljudi su propatili groznu sudbinu. Najžalostnije od svega je činjenica da ratovi nisu bili najveće zlo što se desilo, teritorija BiH je bila pod ropstvom više manje 1000 godina. A vjeruj mi ne želiš da znaš detalje tih dešavanja, život bi ti se zgadio.
Quite poorly researched topic, but I don't blame you. Life is too short to get into all the intricacies of the wars in Yugoslavia. Was a bit puzzled by the use of the term "Bosnian nation". You are probably applying the American definition of the term that is used to denote a country i.e. citizenship. There is no such thing as Bosnian ethnic identity, though. Everybody who has been to Bosnia can see that the country is inexorably going towards its colapse. Ethnic divisions are greater than they have ever bee since the war. It was a mistake to insist on preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina as a country, in the first place. the 21st century is the century of nation states. All multinational countries have collapsed. Why should Bosnia be an exception? Imagine forcing Latvians and Russians to live in a joint state?
I can imagine a multinational state. I lived in one. If something happened once, it can happen again. It is possible. I don't see how a national state is better than a multinational one. In that view, a one race state is better than a multiracial state. If a state is not nationalistic and not rasistic, if people are not nationalistic and rasistic, what's wrong with multinational multiracial state?
Vojvodina in northern Serbia has Serbs, Croats, Romanians, and Hungarians with a smattering of Slovaks and Germans...they seem to be doing just fine. The issue with Bosnia was really the rise of the Islamicized identity plus the Croats thinking that independence was going to get them something that was never going to happen. With rising practice of Islam, the Bosniaks only isolated themselves culturally from neighboring Slavs and other Europeans, while Croatia is now under the thumb of Brussels, which is more domineering in many ways than Belgrade was. And 25% of Latvia's population is still ethnically Russian...Latvia is trying to assimilate them to an extent, but the Russians use certain EU laws to campaign for their language rights, etc.
I agree with your arguments. Bosniak politicians say that everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs to a single Bosnian nation and speak the Bosnian language, so according to their view of the situation people in Čapljina are Bosnians and speak Bosnian and when you drive a few kilometers from Čapljina cross the border with Croatia all of a sudden they are Croats and speak Croatian, even though they speak completely the same and have the same tradiotions as people in Čapljina. Or for example Zvornik in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mali Zvornik in Serbia, only a river between them and according to Bosniak politicians you cross a bridge and somewhere on the middle of the river a mirraculous change occurs and the language changes and the culture and nationality changes. All of this is absurd. Croats in Croatia and Bosnia and Hezegovina are the same people, as are Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is why Yugoslavia was the best solution for Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, because their whole peoples lived in Yugoslavia and they were not divided with ridiculous borders. Bosnia and Hezegovina on its own can not replace Yugoslavia, Bosniak politicians would like to create a separate nation, instead of pursuing cultural unity with Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. The existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina only creates tensions between Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks and it would be better if everyone would sit down at a table and with the help of pressure from great powers agree to divide it peacefully or bring back Yugoslavia
@@IvanIvanović-m8fBosnia has existed as a state since at least the 9th century, if we were talking about some newly existing state such as Slovenia, then I would understand you. Good luck trying to split a nation that’s been existing for over 1000 years.
First at all: Thank you for the video, always good to learn about history!🤗To keep it simple: From my view all started with #Tito´s death, when tensions begin to heated up and finally exploded with #Milosevic!🤔Now 30yrs later, there´s a certain stability and people rather talk to one another than fight each other, it seems there is hope that they join the #EU and unite with the rest of us!☺
Former Yugoslav Republics now have no problem with a French, German etc dominated European Union 😀. As the smaller countries Slovens and Croatians have fizzled INTO NATO/EU oblivion. No one knows where Bosnia is on the map.
No wonder the Germans, Ottomans and Italians dominated Slavs. It only makes sense that if Slavic Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians can't get along then the Anglo-Saxons and Germans should rule Europe.
Holland is not a country, Netherlands is. I think that explains it, it's just a nickname man it's not that important. By the way Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a state it's a country.
Please explain how was Yugoslavia in the late 80s(or ever) known as "Greater Serbia"? Does the fact that the Serbs(and Montenegrins) who made 40% of the Yugoslav population made them guilty for that very fact? What in particular do you mind about the Milosevic's 1989 speech? I'm a Serb and I'll always proudly celebrate every Serb holiday! It's not my fault that you have nothing to be proud of and mental complexes torment you as a result!
@@arman98334 The Serb Autonomous Oblasts were declared in case Bosnia becomes independent from Yugoslavia which would be unconstitutional as it would be against the political will of the Bosnian Serbs. Again, this is not Greater Serbia but the implementation of political will of the Bosnian Serbs. Prijedor, Foča and Sanski Most had Serb majority while Brčko and Srebrenica were taken in battle.
@@arman98334 The constitution, as is the case for most federal states, also required that in every entity(Yugoslav republic) all constitutional nations had to agree in order to effectively enact secession! The Bosnian Serbs decided to protect their own existence in case the above-mentioned constitutional requirement be neglected as it already happened in Croatia! If you don't respect the rules, don't expect from the others to follow them!
@@Jeftelwill20 It was a nation just as Sparta and Athens were a nation. The first king of Bosnia identified as a Serb and a member of a royal Nemanjić family, and wanted to unite Bosnia and Serbia as one nation.
@@serboslav1389 hahahah the king(s) of Bosnia worked on expanding Bosnia, even took a good chunk of western Serbia and incorporated it into Bosnia. They must teach Serbs a different history than what they teach the world 😂
@@Jeftelwill20 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tvrtko_I_of_Bosnia "The idea of restoring the Serbian Empire nevertheless persisted. George discussed it in one of his charters, but the Serbian regional lords were not considered suitable. They had only recently risen to prominence and lacked illustrious family backgrounds and formal titles to their lands; they were mere "lords". Tvrtko not only controlled a significant portion of Serbia but was a member of the dynasty which had ruled as bans of Bosnia from time immemorial and - most importantly - could boast descent from the Nemanjić dynasty. A genealogy published in Tvrtko's newly conquered Serbian lands emphasized his Nemanjić ancestry, derived from his paternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of King Dragutin.[25] A Serbian logothete named Blagoje,[25] having found refuge at Tvrtko's court, attributed to Tvrtko the right to a "double crown": one for Bosnia, which his family had ruled since its foundation, and the other for the Serbian lands of his Nemanjić ancestors, who had "left the earthly realm for the heavenly kingdom". Arguing that Serbia had been "left without its pastor", Tvrtko set out to be crowned as its king." You should read more.
I am Turkish, and Bosnia has always appeared more than a country, it is our second home alongside Azerbaijan. The Bosniaks maybe Slavs, but their affinity with us made them more Turk than actually we are. We already know that Serbia and Croatia have sought to terrorise Bosniaks. And for three years, relentless bombing and genocidal campaigns by the Croats and Serbs resulted in the deaths of many innocent Bosniaks. The Srebrenica massacre was the last drop of it. Unfortunately Serbia and Croatia have never been held responsible for war crimes.
Bosnian muslims and nazi croats convertits colaborated with germans together against serbians and comitted genocid and almost erased serbians from bosnia. Serbs was big majoriti there and in sarajevo
What Croatia? The one in Hungary? Show me a Croatia not Croats a Croatia...I can also claim we Bosnian ownd most of the Croat coast and atleast build 3 city's in Montenegro like do you realy think that no one know actual history ...and please stop the shi. Whit we where all cristans so all Croats u realy don't know what ppl felt like in 12 century europ bosnia croata ...+ didn't Rome do crusades on BiH do Croatia and Hungary not feel great about trying to force shit on us ...
@@MrDeicide1 Nuremberg made a few mistakes, but it was generally fair, considering the circumstances. The Hague court resembles more to the Stalin's 1930s show trials, in this case a legal travesty orchestrated by US-UK axis to subdue & manipulate - legally, historically, economically, militarily, ... B & H "protectorate" in order to prevent its natural disintegration & retain, motivated by various reasons (Islamic world connections, globalist ideology, anti-national "postmodern" world-view,..), their role of the crisis moderator in that colonial possession. Since the US pays 70% of that "court", it is no wonder that zealous prosecutor Louise Arbour, who wanted to indict US for bombing Serbia in 1999, was very quickly "dissuaded".
@@urvanhroboatos8044 "Anti-national" ( I presume you meant anti-nationalistic) Court "created by the U.S." ? The same U.S. which turned the entire Eastern Europe into a string of CIA constructed banana republics, Just like Latin America, and the same U.S. that installs clero-fascist mafia regimes all over the Planet? Hey man, bang your head against the wall, till you get it. Monstrous war crimes were committed. Both intervention, and the Court were provoked by proven Genocide. The World forced NATO to act. As it's Every country's Obligation to act to prevent genocide, under UN Charter. You don't Have to play for the other team. You could just keep your mouth shut. What did patriarch Pavle say ? "Let's be people, even though we're Serbs". Things went too far. Even for the American corporate freaks, who like to see fascist shitholes everywhere, because that's easiest for them to exploit... You Serbs hold the distinction, and the shame of Being the ones who took it too far.
Have you even seen a map of grater serbia It is impossible for Croatia and Serbia to have split Bosnia if that map was achived Whatever talks happend in 1991 didn't matter when all out war started
@tarik6990 Serbia relentlessly attacked Vukovar for 2 full months not to mention seizure of all of so called "SAO Krajina" territory There was no way in hell that Croatia Crotia under attack on Dubrovnik front Nearly split in 2 (nearly bc Zadar never fell) streched on every front could somehow with serbian agressor to split Bosnia after all of that Also no its not Croats trying to split Bosnia today We are actively trying to get you Neanderthals into EU while serbs under Dodik are kicking and screaming about it every step of the way
Islamic state in heart of Europe will never be.. too all muslims, now called "bosniaks", remember your ancestors, they were called "Miloš, Jovan, Ranko".. not " Mustafa, Muhamed i Kenan"..
This is strongly influenced by Bosniak politic views. Many of peoples counted as Bosniaks don't feel that Bosniak mentality or they can't call themselves as Bosniaks - they usually feel Bosnians (big difference) or Herzegovians. Those same Bosniaks are trying to erase Croats from existence, although Croats were here as soon as first Slavic people settled here. It is a fake national emancipation, all in interest of making an Izetbegović dynasty.
Nowhere not in Single Village in bosnia bosniaks pushed any croats away it was only Serbian controlled teritory Where croats Where threatened..in other parts of bosnia the croats always lived in Peace and freedom and all you say is totaly Propaganda you watched to spread hate
@@on1452 How about these towns: Kakanj: 1991. Croat population 16556 or 29,6%; 2013. 2973 or 7,9% Zenica: 1991. Croat population 22511 or 15,4%; 2013. 8279 or 7,5% Konjic: 1991. Croat population 11513 or 26%; 2013. 1553 or 6,2% Jablanica: 1991. Croat population 2291 or 18,1%; 2013. 726 or 7,2% Bugojno: 1991. Croat population 16031 or 34,2%; 2013. 5767 or 18,3% Vareš: 1991. Croat population 9016 or 40,6%; 2013. 2820 or 31,7%
@@IvanIvanović-m8f i am Not bosnian or Population expert all i can tell you is bosnia and even croatia is rapifly shrinking in Population and whole balkan probably you cant conclude from less people that there moved away that simply didnt happen why are you trying to manipulate the facts.. But even your "statistics" shows me how sick this nationalism is .. to See the whole catastrophy your countries are facing look how.many croatians are leaving croatia those days..there isnt any threat... and as long as you dont work together at the end i am thinking all people will leave no matter who..and i am almost thinking somewhere else all different groups of you will sit at the same night club far away from your origins
@@on1452 Well I showed you these statistics to refute your statement that there was no ethnic cleansing commited by the Bosniac army and Bosniac politicians. I would like to see some facts from your point of view. If you did not hear about these towns and if you are not familiar with the censuses in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1991. and 2013. then I really doubt your conclusions, because you need some sources to claim something about the Bosnian war. I am not claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing in areas controled by Croat forces. All three sides commited ethnic cleansing against the other too. Why are you mentioning only Bosnia and Croatia. All Eastern European countries have a declining population. Before 1990. it was expected that the population in Eastern Europe would rise, but since the collapse of communism the population has been declining. And these countries are only partly responsible for that decline. Countries like Germany have raised their yearly limits for accepting foreign workers. They are taking are workers away and they give us state loans in exchange and make profits. That is not enough for Germany and other countries, so they sent their private banks to rob our ordinary citizens. They are taking workers from Eastern Europe not because they want to make life better to these workers, but because they are underpaying many jobs in Germany and they want to continue that, rather than raising salaries. Foreign workers are the only ones who are accepting to work for such a low amount of money. And then these "highly moral" European politicians lectures us about democracy and human rights, while at the same time they are making deals with autocratic countries around the world. And they pretend as if they have nothing to do with colonialism and other evils, while at the same time they are having informal colonies.
Paradoxically. A low-resolution argument without any weight, where Slovenia and Croatia did not depend on the independence of Bosnia. The only difference is that NATO would have reacted much earlier, in the early nineties, not in 1999, in that case against Serbia and Bosnia, i.e. Serbs and Muslims.
@@user-xj3ve7wt8k innocent...? they Herceg-Bosna were the only one who were found guilty for genocide in the Hag. Because there was a conspirisy whit Tudjam to completely eliminate Muslims from Mostar. Evern Ratko Mladić was not found guilty of that. Their are tapes on witch Tudjam is planning genocide agents the Serbs. Where ever Croats went genocide followed.
Why didn't you mentioned that Croatian general Praljak, was the person who gave the command to destroy the old bridge of Mostar. Croatian army used an old soviet tank to aim and hit the bridge. But the most important thing. Croatian general Praljak committed suicide in the court in front of his judges who gave him a live sentence as penalty. Immediately he drunk out from a small bottle a poison, by saying that he fought for his country and people and doesn't accept the live sentence cuz he was innocent. International Court for former yugoslavian war crimes.
1. He was sentenced to 20 years, not life in prison 2. The court concluded that old bridge was military target, not war crime. Praljak wasn't sentenced for destroying the bridge.
Your comment reads to mean that Praljak killed himself because he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Sentence was 20 years, which means only another one and half years or so in prison since he had already spent about 13 years in pre trial internment (ICTY prisoners usually served about two thirds of the given sentence for good behaviour). That means that he didn't kill himself because of the formal 20 years sentence but because the verdict was unjust. Remember Jan Hus? He didn't set himself on fire because of hard times he had under the communist dictatorship but as a protest against injustice - same Slobodan Praljak.
@@mariocerin4105 ma nema veze na koliko je osuđen. Nego je činjenica da je za hvo napao bivše saveznike muslimane i dao zapovjed da se gađa tenkom stari mostarski most. Glupost. I svejedno kolika mu je kazna bila izrečena. Stvarno je glup da se utrovao u sudnici. Ako je mogao biti u istražnom zatvoru toliko dugo, onda je ostatak kazne isto mogao sebi priuštiti. I opet bi ga hrvatski hercegovci slavili kao junaka. Jest, ja sam pogrešno napisao dužinu kazne, ali ovo drugo smatram glupost od njega. Ako se borio za stvar koju je smatrao potrebnom, onda jebiga.... mogao se ubiti već 1993. Umjesto da radi teatarske igre u sudu. A šta je mislio? Da će ga sud osloboditi. Njemu je trebalo biti na pameti da je za hrvate on heroj, pa bio u zatvoru ili na slobodi. A sloboda ga je čekala, jer 20 godina totalne kazne se uvijek odbije sa vremenom koji je proveo u pritvoru. Tako da mu je ostalo još mnogo manje od 18 godina. Možda se bojao da će umrijeti u zatvoru kao Milošević.
You talk about bosnijaks who are they ? Such a people has never existed, your own "historians" say that your ancestors were bogomils and they were not a etnic group but members of the bogomil gnostic Church. So what happens when a Macedonian (the church was founded there) coverts to another religion does that person become a new etnic group or does that person become a Macedonian muslim for example?! Bosnia has never before in history been a nation so calling a Yugoslav republik a nation is rewriting history.
There were no Bogomils, this is a fiction. There was Bosnian Church, perfectly orthodox, but generally local & "self-managed". In 1450, before the Ottoman conquest, Catholics were ca. 80-85% (all bans and kings of old Bosnia), ca. 10% Bosnian Church adherents and 10% Eastern Orthodox.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Catholic yes, croat no. Identity was fluid back then and Bosnia prior to the Ottomans had pillars of statehood such as territory, alphabet (bosancica), royalty, money, etc.
@@baklava6138 Catholic and Croat both. The most important cultural artifacts from medieval Bosnia are written in Croatia (Hrvoje's Missal, Hval Miscellany); after Ottoman invasion, most Catholic Bosnians who moved to Croatia explicitly said their language was Croatian (Frano Glavinić, Ivan Tomko Mrnavić, Juraj Dragišić,...). It is true that this was a pre- national period, but for most of Catholics regional identities interweaved with ethnic, and no Bosnian or Dalmatian person of note would deny they were also Croats. This is visible also in Bosnia proper, when in the 17th C authors like Juraj Radojević Gizdelin and Augustin Vlastelinović from Sarajevo affirm their Croatian identity, as well as Bosnian Muslim authors called their identity Croatian (Ottoman historian Mustafa Aali, numerous references from the 17th C Ottoman traveler Evliya Celebi who finds Muslim Croats- he was explicit - in Bosnia, occupied Slavonia and Montenegro). The point that Bosnian Franciscans retained their proud consciousness as Bosnians doesn't alter the fact- they were the only true Bosnians in their eyes, while Muslims and Orthodox were not.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Ivan Jukic and Antun Knezevic would beg to differ. Both catholics who claimed themselves to be Bosniaks. Croatia has always tried to steal Bosnian history and do so to this day. Even taking Bosnian scripts and showing them in the Dubrovnik museum is pathetic. What you steal can never be yours. Bošnjani was a term for most people in Bosnia the concept of croat and serb in Bosnia is a recent invention due to the rise of nation states and “nationalities” as we know them today.
If you want objestive opinion, you should ask both sides. You obviusly only took one side as a truth here. That is not a way make historical truth, this is a way to make propaganda. And you did it, either purposefully or accidnetaly.
It was Milosevic who divided Yugoslavia, as a united country, Milosevic could not start a war. The Yugoslav People's Army had different ethnicities when it was a united country, it was important get rid of different ethnicity so that only Serbs remained in the army. Slovenia and Croatia and others tried to unite the country, but Milosevic has other plans. Serbian Generals went to Moscow to get support, the Russians could then support Serbia they have their own problems homeland but they promised when get rid of Gorbachev can Serbia start a war. Milosevic may have been a nationalist maybe not, the masterbrain was Dobrica Cosic is considered the father of modern Serbian nationalism. Dobrica Cosic meet Radovan Karadzic back in 1967 both had an interest in Serbian history. How and why this war started is very complicated, you could write a whole book about it. Today's war is not like in the old days, In the old days, you would meet in a field and see who would be the winner and the loser. War today is very dirty
Our mission/goal was to first and foremost preserve historic Bosnian territory against the Greater nationalist politics of neighboring nations and we succeeded, how is that wrong when solid part of especially other 2 ethnicities within Bosnia also fought for that cause, Bosniaks were only factor that didnt have open "Greater Bosnia" Politics or politics of force resettling other 2 ethnicities and this is what gave great morale that the cause is Just unlike of the Serb side for ex. where they wanted to create ethnically pure Serbian land across whole Bosnia.
There are no such thing as "Bosniaks" - I grew up in Yugoslavia so I know. In Bosnia we had Serbs, Croats and Turks (or Muslims). When local Turks opted for independents of Bosnia was that I first time heard the word "Bosniaks". Previously Croatia and Slovenia started the civil war by declaring independents. Bosnia was next by Turks (38% of population) starting the next phase of civil war. The reason why the most of the weapons was inherited by Serbian soldiers was because the Croats, Slovenian and Turks simply abolished the barracks and walked away. Serbs were the first minority expelled from the Mostar municipality; Croats and Turks then continued fighting. And RELIGION was the primary reason for dissolution of Yugoslavia as the borders depict not only political but also religious dividing line!
Under the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Constitution, two autonomous regions were cut out of the Republic of Serbia by the non-ethnically Serbian Communist elite (primarily Slovenian) giving those regions quasi-republic status with veto power over the administration of Serbia in Belgrade but not reciprocating the same veto power in Belgrade over the administration of said autonomous regions... pretty much ensured gridlock in Serbia which the same Slovenian elite then brushed off as a state issue and not of federal concern even though they wrote the constitution... but somehow you are trying to propagate the propagandist lie that the Serbs did or were trying to or could even come to dominate the old SFR Yugoslavia from such a divided, convoluted and constitutionally compromised position... rubbish More importantly, just to demonstrate that the likes of the Croatians and Bosniaks were not discriminated against but rather benefited under the Yugoslav constitution as compared to us Serbs, the constitutional reforms that gave Vojvodina and Kosovo autonomy were not replicated in Bosnia and Croatia where there were large, long standing Serbian populations (which did though enjoy constitutional safeguards --> ie. recognised as constituent peoples of said republics and thus, a fundamental component and not simply a minority that cannot be outvoted on fundamental issues by the more numerous other nationalities)... this is important because when the Republic of Croatia looked to secede from Yugoslavia, the Croatian government simply terminated the constituent status of the Croatian Serbs which their constituent status was supposed to ensure could not happen leading to the war in Croatia... As for Bosnia, by its own revised constitution, the Serbs of Bosnia were recognised as one of Bosnia's three constituent nations and ANY FUNDAMENTAL issue as to Bosnia needed the agreement of all three nations to be enacted but when it came to the referendum you mentioned, the Bosniak leader, Alija Izetbegović, pushed it threw without the agreement or participation of Bosnia's Serbs claiming he would sacrifice peace for Bosnia's sovereignty... Then when a peace agreement had been reached between the three nations of Bosnia - ie. Serbs, Bosnian Muslims (that's what they were called then), and Croats - under the auspices of the European Community (ie. Cutiliero Plan) which allowed for an independent and sovereign but decentralized Bosnian state, Izetbegović then met with the US ambassador, Zimmerman, and following said meeting withdrew his agreement for the peace plan and voila --> a dirty, destructive civil war And you mentioned nothing of the above... Why I wonder? Not letting the truth get in the way of smearing two peoples that literally spent centuries fighting for their freedom in Bosnia from that Ottoman heritage you spoke of As for Bosnian statehood, that is also a complicated issue... Clearly, Bosnia was its own state in mediaeval times but that was smashed by the Ottomans in the 15th Century much like the rest of the Balkans and was under Ottoman domination (although Bosniaks seemed to like it) until the late 19th Century when the decay of the Ottoman Empire, numerous revolts (primarily Christian) against the Ottomans, and independence movements elsewhere in the Balkans (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro) saw Austria-Hungary step in and assume administration of Bosnia in 1878(?) and simply unilaterally annex the territory in 1908... After the end of WWI, an unofficial state emerged incorporating the previously held Austria-Hungarian territories of the subsequent republics of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina called the 'State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs' which later merged with the Kingdom of Serbia (incorporating Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Macedonia) to create Yugoslavia --> no reference to Bosnia... In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, no demarcation of Bosnia even though a Banovina of Croatia was created between WWI and WWII... During WWI to the Western powers offered for Bosnia to be annexed by Serbia after the war... When there were negotiations in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to resolve inter-ethnic disputes, an agreed to but not implement agreement would have seen Yugoslavia reorganised into 3 separate regions within Yugoslavia, those regions were Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia... Again, no Bosnia The modern day conception of the Bosnian state stems from the Communist anti-fascist resistance in Bosnia in WWII and a declaration by said resistance that the Serbs (since we were the largest ethnic group in Bosnia at the time), Muslims and Croats were for the FIRST TIME acting as the tailors of their own destinies in Bosnia... the problem of course is that they were not the only group acting in Bosnia at the time... Moreover, if they were acting of their own accord for the very first time, why should those decisions (eg. joining Yugoslavia, within said boundaries) and those borders be inviolable? For example, many Virginians at the outset of the American civil war were loyal to Virginia before the Federal United States and so, seceded but those that wanted to remain with the Union did and hence, the new state of West Virginia You really need to rid yourself of this belief that people unlike you are simpler than you and thus, you can simply sweep in with a 20 minute video explaining away centuries of complex history, politics, religion, identity etc. with a 'bad Serbs, okay Croats, poor Bosniaks' explanation
I am glad to have found this site. I am one of the minority of Americans who have travelled broadly, and who have studied the history of Central and Eastern Europe as well as having visited Yugoslavia as it neared its final days, mostly Dubrovnik, Split and the Dalmatian coast. These videos are full of current and historic detail, and should have a wider audience. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
The video is full of muslim/Bosniak propaganda; "forgets" to mention that Croat Defense Council defended Mostar and not some group of Muslim policemen, calls the old bridge strategically irrelevant despite being proven to be military target, "forgets" to mention that Croatia donated part of money for reconstruction, talks about Croats running concentration camps while showing a photo of serb concentration camp and "forgets" that Serbs and muslims had them, ignores the fact that Croats didn't cooperate with Serbs any more than muslims did etc
Between 1950 and 1980 Yugoslavia was the best country in the world! According to my father anyway.
Yugoslav gold medalists escaped to Italy in 1950 by rowing across the Adriatic. The country was so great they rowed across the Adriatic sea to escape.
that’s what they say anyway
@@northernstar4811 in 1950 the borders were closed, as protection of the new system. To understand that you have to look at what liberties egsisted all around, two years after India stopped being a colony of GB. Speaking of freedoms and human rights and democracies.
Many Western Europeans emigrated to USA Australia etc. for economical or political reasons. More than Yugoslavs "swimming to freedom".
Later, Yugoslav passport could take you almost anywhere in the world, left and right. Made friends with everybody. People emigrated not for more freedom, but for more money. Uneducated and highly educated. Many of them as gastarbaiters. Wanted a largest house in the village, or own butique, or small business, went to earn where the pay was better. Nothing more.
Was the country "good" or "the best possible" you can measure in many ways.
When you compare it with previous states and now with these new states replacing SFR Yugoslavia, even counting for the rise of standard of living in whole after second war Europe, that country beat all of them. In:
Growth, education, emancipation, feminism, industry, agriculture, culture and art, health, right to work, childcare, birth rate, longetivity of population. It was the society that reached the most. Not to mention that it was a period of 55 years of peace, longest in recent history of the regio.
Yes, you didn't have a broad political freedoms, you could work only in the borders of communist ideas. You could not argue that capitalism is good. So you had to bring nationalism to bring it down.
On the other hand, before it was destroyed, in Socialist Yugoslavia, you had freedom from personal debt and exploitation of your work buy renters and owners of capital. You had a right to work, and in the early seventies, from 35 children in my class only one mother didn't work. All childcare was free. Even summer and winter vacations were organised and free for all children.
You had free education till age of 27 years, and would get scholarships if needed. Just to name some.
And that all built on the ground of totally backward kingdom of Yugoslavia. Remind you of number of unliterate people in 1945, google it yourself.
Something that lot of today's democracies don't have Yugoslavia tried out.
Just look at the culture and art of that country. Numbers of published and sold books.
And look at them now. It's to cry.
I am sick of badmouthing Yugoslavia, and it is always someone who never lived there, never ever have been there. Telling me how it was for me living in SFR Yugoslavia.
It was a good country for it's people, and it could develop further, if it was let to exsist.
It was maybe they he best thing people of that region ever be able to create.
The best in the communist bloc, but that's not a standard to brag about.
@@LOUNGELIQ SFR Yugoslavia was not a part of any of two blocks.
Why people who don't know anything about the subject have the need to comment and give their uninformed and bias opinions?
Thank you for presenting this in a comprehensive, comprehendible manner. Having frequently visited Mostar and Trebinje, and in my professional capacity as a mental health professional, the best way to describe BiH is that the scars remain raw and deep. Most people would never have had access to “mass counselling” meaning that the only “option” was to zip up your traumas, bury them as deep as possible, and get on with your life. Sadly, it is only a matter of time before another war breaks out because on average there is a war in the Balkans every 50 years. The memories are also passed on inter-generationally so the only hope for BiH is to tie them in to the EU treaties and NATO.
thanks for watching
Are you normal? You would like to throw Bosnia into the NATO and EU tomb!? I assume you're aware that there's Bosnian Serb Republic and that 99% of the Bosnian Serbs are fundamentally against your NATO and EU organizations because they view the Americans and their western European buddies as enemies?
Such an attempt is what would inevitably lead to the new war!
Joining the eu and nato won't solve anything!
@@TheWedabest
I can't believe what this creature is saying!? I'm not sure what the appropriate punishment would be for those who praise America & its NATO puppies??
@@matovicmmilan do you have any suggestions?
Thank you for trying to cover this to the best of your abilities. Most outsiders are unaware that the criminal and fascist leaders of Croatia and Serbia met and planned together the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks.
Regarding the war, it is important that we do not decontextualize crimes and events. There is no equivalency between individual instances of war crimes and systematic crimes against humanity. The "all sides did it" discourse is revisionism. There's a huge difference between crimes committed by individuals and crimes that are systemically planned.
Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat separatist forces committed systemically planned war crimes, this is a fact. The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not commit any systemically planned crimes. For decades now, there has been a trend and tendancy to lump everything together, which is exactly what war criminals and their supporters have been doing for years, even decades, trying to relativize everything until it loses its true context and hence meaning.
what you talking about? bosniaks were with us in ww2, you become bosnianks not even 70 years ago, you are just traitors of croats and mix of serbians people
Sure, and why Bosnia invite and allow islamists, mudjahedins and other religion terrorist groups to help Army of BiH to deffend and create independent nation of Bosna (i Hercegovina) with crimes against Croats and Serbs? This is stain of (modern) Bosnian/Bosniak indentity that you will never erase it.
Rationalizing any crime is indeed bad. But crime is crime, be it organized or not. I remember a saying from a Bosniak guy from Quora: "Deaths for the Bosnian War are shown in statistics as mere numbers; the numbers do remain on paper, but behind every number, there is a person."
@@mottom2657 A crime is indeed a crime but to most Serbs and Croats, only crimes committed against their own ethnic group matter.
You mean the Croat Zulfikarpasic and Milosevic?
Here's a advice for anyone who wants to make a video about BiH history. BiH has 3 types of history: "istorija", "historija" i "povijest".
And International war crimes tribunal has only ONE
There's also facts established by the international court for war crimes in the Hague. That's where the objective truth is located.
I don't quite know much of the Balkans language, but I assume it's between the Bosnians, Serbians, and Croats point of view of history
@@SiPakRubah exactly
@@SiPakRubah Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats. Otherwise, a correct assessment of the situation.
Just discovered your channel from an old Reddit comment you replied to. I love your work! Great videos!
Thank you so much for a very accurate insight into Bosnian war. Nowadays they try to dehumanize Bosniaks and this is our biggest struggle. I lived outside for 9 years, but now I'm back here - Bosnia won't fall
Koja je tvoja definicija Bošnjaka? ozbiljno pitam. Je li bosanskim muslimanom ili Bosancem bez obzira na vjeru (ja sam ateista)
@@ib368 Bosnjak je etnija,Bosanac nacionalnost - nebitno koje vjere
Good initiative. A still overlooked historical subject. The sad thing is that if all peoples and "tribes" demand their lands back when it was the largest in history, we need to have a globe that is 4 times larger, so negotiation is the only way out. "If there is hunger and hardship, it is due to fraud. Thanks👍
thanks for watching :)
@@GeoPerspective
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country of hatred, wars and divisions.
Country of different naratives about history.
Bosnian Muslim kid will be learned in the school that Bosnia never been Serbian. Bosnian Croat kid will learn in school that Bosnia was Croatian land and Serbs that Bosnia was Serbian land...
The last war was in 1992-95.
but for the last 28 years there has been a political war between Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and "Bosniaks".
Every day there is war in medias.
90% of population of Bosnia( Serbs,"Bosniaks" , Croats) feeling that is much more safe for them to be in any town in Italy,Germany,Poland ,
USA etc. than in towns of other ethnic group in Bosnia.
In Bosnia there is 3 worlds, invisible and visible borders.
In 1993., Bosnian Muslims changed their name from Muslims ( Bosnian Muslims) to Bosniaks.
Why? They want the world to think that they are natives of Bosnia and that Serbs and Croats came to his country (Serbs from Serbia and Croats from Croatia).
Of course that is not true.
First mention of Bosnia is from 10th century.
In that document of Byzantian Empire wrote:
" Bosnia is part of Serbia".
Since 1377. Bosnia was Kingdom.
Title of King of Bosnia was:
" Stephan Tvrtko I Kotromanic - king of Serbs, Bosnia, Primorje( area by Adriatic sea) and West Teritories( West of Bosnia)". But they will said and they will lying that king Tvrtko was not Serb. Tvrtko fought with other Serbs against Turks and Islamic faith.
This days they put monument of Tvrtko in Sarajevo, but thay didn't put his title " king of Serbs..." or cross on his coat of arms.
1463-1878. Ottoman ocuppation of Bosnia. Islam came in Bosnia.
Rulers of Bosnia in that time : Bosnian Muslims
( they called himself
"Turks " like Turks from Anatolia).
Victimes: Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.
In that Ottoman period of Bosnia, Bosnian Muslim can kill or beat any Serb( Orthodox Christian) or Croat ( Chatolic Christian). Serbs or Croats don't have any right in that period.
1875-78.
Serbian upprising against Turks ( one of many). But this time Turks were kicked out from Bosnia and his rule will be changed by AustroHungary( chatolic empire).
1878-1918.
AustroHungary ruling with Bosnia.
1914-18. World War One:
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats attacking and killing Bosnian Serbs. There was concentration camp for Serbs in Doboj.
1918. Serbian army liberated Bosnia and Yugoslavia.
Serbs created Kingdom of Serbs,Croats and Slovenes.
1941-45 World War Two
Again Bosnia Croats and Bosnian Muslims killing Serbs( genocide against Serbs,Jews,Romani people in WW2; Serbs killed in Bosnia and Croatia by Croatian State and Bosnian Muslim nazis ).
1992.
Again, Croats and Bosnian Muslims together attacking Serbs
1993-94. Bosnian Muslims are in war against Bosnian Croats
1994. Peace agreement between Bosnian Muslims and Croats and they are again together against Bosnian Serbs.
That is reason why in
one country ( Bosnia) with 3 ethnic groups(Serbs,Croats,
Bosnian Muslims(so called Bosniaks)) there is two entities:
-Republika Srpska( Serb Republic)
- Federation of B&H( Muslim and Croat federation)
But even that Federation is divided between Croatian and Bosnian Muslim areas( cantons).
Bosnia don't have one president.
There is 3 memebers of presidency:
Serb,Bosnian Muslim,Croat.
But Bosnian Muslims cheated Croats and they voted even for them who will be Croatian memeber. Bosnian Muslims choosed Croat which was member of Bosnian Muslim Army in 1990s.
How is that possible ?
There is about 1,5 mil.Bosnian Muslims in Federation of B&H and about 300 K Croats.
Census 1961.:
Serbs 43%
Bosnian Muslims 26%
Croats 22%
There was only one census since 1991.
That was Census 2013.
but there was cheats.
Bosnian Muslims said that they are 50,1 % of population (2013.).
They cheated.
They counted Bosnian Muslims which now living in EU,Germany,Austria,
Swiss etc.
In reality :
They are now about 45%, Serbs about 35% ,
Croats about 10% etc.
Bosnian Muslims are converted Serbs and Croats in time of Turkish Empire in Bosnia (1463-1878.) but they will say that is not true.
Historians know that is true.
@@KraljStefan-ey3bowhy don't the yugoslav muslims, roman catholics (croats) and orthodox christians (serbs) don't just ethnically identify as one? For example yugoslavs? I mean, like you said, there are literally the same ethnic group, just 3 different religions? When Germany was created, it created germans (deutsch - roughly meaning, people of a nation, folks of one nation) and the word yugoslav means south slavic, so south slavic people, people of one nation. In the past, there were also bavarians, prussians, etc. and somehow they all managed to agree to all be called deutsch.
Whats even more sad is that Bosnia is much older as a state than Croatia or Serbia going back 2000 years.
What are you talking about 2000 years ago Bosnia was called "Roman Dalmatia".
😂What a ignorant propaganda!
Not true
Bosnia was a principality befor 822. According to serbian prof.dr. tibor zivkovic and croatian historians d'r neven budak, vjekosav klaic ,marko vego etc. So yes very old
Another superficial approach to a historical landscape that was, after the Ottoman conquest in the 15th C, never a country, never a people and never a nation. As yet, it sorta "exists" only as an US-EU colony & will continue to "exist" in that way. By the way- Croatian forces expelled 80,000 Muslims and Muslim forces expelled 170,000 Croats; Muslim Army killed ca. 400 Croatian civilians and prisoners, while Croatian Army in B & H (HVO) killed ca. 250 Muslims. Ever heard of Muslim atrocities in Trusina, Doljani, Buhine kuće, Grabovica, Križančevo selo,..? Of course not, because of Western media's pro-Muslim narrative which still distorts the truth.
America came when we started winning against Serbia, almost everyone says that in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Who started defeating the Serbs? Another lie of Sarajevo's Great Muslim propaganda. Only the Croatian army did it without it. The Bosnian Muslims would not have done anything because they had no army apart from numbers. Neither did the Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were few and could only fill the ranks of the Croatian army. When Bill told Franjo to stand near Banja Luka, the danger of falling ended there for her because only the Croats could enter it by themselves. The Bosnian Muslims could never even defend themselves against the Serbs, let alone take something from them without the help of others. You can lie to others, but most of all you are creating a false history for yourself. Did the Americans stop you? If it weren't for the help of the West, even the biggest fool knows that the Serbs would have destroyed you and you would have ceased to exist as a people. Instead of being grateful to them for your survival, you spit on them for not giving you a hand instead of a finger. But well, nothing strange for Crypto-Islamists who support Islamic terrorism, eg Hamas.
Against Serbs not Serbia. Serbia was not part of that story after 1991. It was war between Bosnian Muslims(Bosniaks), Orthodox Christians(Serbs from Bosnia) and Catholics(Croats)
First and foremost, really rude and ungrateful. If you didn't have the West, and especially America, you would have disappeared as a nation. Both at the beginning and at the end of the war. And secondly, you started winning? Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because you are surrounded by other nations on all sides. It is a pure lie that you started winning. That was done by the Croatian army, so when it started you just limped along. Nowhere were you able to do anything big on your own. Us Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina there isn't much, so we weren't capable of anything big on our own. Whereas with you, it was about incompetence. First, the political leadership, which entered the war totally unprepared and in fact handed its people over to the Serbs. And second, when it saw that it was losing territory to the Serbs, it tried to compensate for it on us Croats. And it only unintelligently dragged us and you into an additional war, because in the end, for the most part, everyone kept their majority territory. And there are far more of you and you had a far bigger army. Which was full of your officers who fought for The pro-Serbian JNA in Croatia. That's where the conflict between us began because you were full of Serbian agents and Udbas. That's how much America prevented you from liberating Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the Croatian army withdrew before Banja Luka, all danger to it ended. Would you have entered it yourself? in a hundred years. Before the Serbs would have plowed through Sarajevo and at the end of the war and entered it whole, than you in Banjaluka. Because you were full of the 5th column. You tell funny children's stories. You are lying to yourself.
@@mmr1137 It was aggression of Serbia,Croatia and Monte Negro against Bosnia and Bosniaks as a leading people in Bosnia
thats not completely true, plenty of Paramilitary and even official special police units from Serbian state fought in Bosnia, to name a few, beli orlovi, niski specialci, legija, arkanova garda, uzicki korpus@@mmr1137
Sadly having served as a peacekeeper in the British Armed Forces, I still see some of the horrors of Vitez and Srebrenica. I thought I had seen everything in my service😊 until I went to Bosnia.
What were you doing?
British guys did very well to protect Goražde. not sure how they operated in vitez
@adokce they weren't in gorazde to protect it! Also ukrainians were there, too.
Our governments are controlled by satan, Eblees. Better save yourself from the hellfire and do not serve them.
@@TheWedabest they helped protect civillians from serbs
2:41 an annoying mistake, every youtuber makes, when covering this topic. First of all, there is a distinction between Bosniaks and Bosnians. Second one is that neither the croatian flag nor the flag of Serbia has any legal value within the country. They are officially considered as flags from neighbouring countries. Therefore it is somewhat insulting to put them behind two of our members of presidency. Besides, Republika Srpska (one of the entities in BiH) has it's own flag. So you could have used that one behind Milorad Dodik. And last, but not least. If Komsic (the left dude in that frame) would see, that you've put a Croatian flag behind him, he would laugh at you. He is more Bosnian, than that dude in the middle. It's complex, I know
Well, he is not a "Bosnian". He is a Croatian traitor, despised by all Croats.
If you had all wanted to remain Yugoslav then problem solved !
@@MegaTRUTH007 I remained one, that's why I am considered a minority
@@MegaTRUTH007 Wasn't that easy. Do you really think Slovenia and Croatia would stay in a Yugoslavia strongly dominated by Milošević and his cronies?
@@mottom2657 My wife does wrong, tries to dominate & can manipulate but I would never think of walking out but try to make the changes within the marriage instead !
Ironically, ICTY declared that Mostar bridge was a legitimate target since it was used to move troops and supplies across the Neretva river. You also forgot to mention the Washington agreement in 1994 by which the Bosniak Croat alliance was re established. There is much more to it than mentioned in the video no matter who you ask.
@@mariomijic7110 Ironically because of the tone of the video which claims, if I recall, that it was blown up because of cultural racism, anti islamic sentiment and stuff. Whole video is rather one sided and under researched.
It's so funny that in Serbian songs at the time they boasted about eradicating and raping Bosniaks, and then their defenders try to say "why are people so one-sided???"
@@aqsilewsinYou re missing the point, last thing I want to defend are serbian war crimes or genocide. I'm saying that author leaves out the fact that Bosniaks and Croats were allies in 3 out of 4 years of the war and finished it as allies. Also, he concentrates on a Mostar bridge which was declared as a legitimate war target by ICTY, which I guess suprised me. And the argument that whole war hinged on a "deal" of Mlosevic and Tuđman is shakey if not plain wrong since again, Croats and Serbs were bitter enemies even if some local deals existed (which they did). Whole video plays into current(!) Bosniak propaganda which claims that everybody was against BiH except Bosniaks and that Bosnia was "betrayed". Even if some elements are true, it's much too simple and one sided conclusion. The narrative in which Croatia is equally demonised along with Serbia is rather recent, dating from late 00s and many Bosniak politicians including war MFA Silajdzic spoke against it.
@@massafelipe8063 It's a farce.
Subscribed. Cheers from sunny Florida.
thanks for watching :)
I think that only Slovenia and Macedonia,now with North in front!, escaped the Yugoslavia Wars relatively unscathed.
Slovenia fought a ten day "war". North macedonia fought a under a year war.
Roman Catholic King Matthias Corvinus (1443 to 1490 AD) set up the "Banovina of Jajce" the last Christian free area of Roman Catholic Bosnia after the Ottoman Turks invaded Bosnia in 1463 AD.
The last Roman Catholic Bosnian town to fall to the Ottoman Turks was the town of Jajce in 1527 AD.
Herzegovina is named after the German word "Herzog" meaning a Duke. So Herzegovina can be translated as "the land of the Duke".
Roman Catholics are roaming free in Bosnia still today.
@@yeahright4659 The Roman Catholics though are no longer the majority anymore in their own country.
We will never forget what happened to our brothers Bosnian people
If y are nato muslim then they are your brothers
The Bosnian nation is invented, made by Serbs who accepted Islam
@@misterioznicoveculjak6461
Is that excuse to murder them
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 i only say that is not real nation. most people think differently because they are primitive
@Nay Sayer oo sta sha aaaa
"The reason why this happened is often attributed to the Karađorđevo meeting where Milošević andTuđman met...."
I think they met in March 1991. Later that same year the Serbs attacked Croatia and caused $38 billion worth of damage to Croatia and thousands of deaths.
I doubt any agreement was ever made with this level of destruction for Croatia i.e: the complete destruction and occupation of the Croatian town of Vukovar in 1991.
No written agreement has ever been produced and if a verbal agreement was made it never held up due to the bitter and brutal fighting between Serbs and Croats that broke out after the meeting was held.
I tried to make sure it doesn’t come across as stating a fact. This video has a significant amount of speculation to have an interesting spin on the story.
@@GeoPerspective I understand. Sadly for the region as a whole there is a habit of various politicians passing off speculation, myths, conspiracy theories and outright fabrications as facts.
The motivation for this are various but usually its designed for political purposes and in some cases to incite racial or religious hatreds.
To counter this you have to apply common sense or try to find documents or other evidence to see if the claims are true or just made up nonsense.
If there isn`t any evidence then well....
@@GeoPerspective dont worry the Profile northern Star is croatian nationalist we already know them from other youtube Videos about the same subject.. poor guy poor nationalist ideology
@@on1452 So, GeoPerspectice shouldn't find evidences about what he is speaking because you didn't like some comment of a guy who says he should?
@@anteveic327 you expect the historian teachers to believe that croat and serb leaders met in secret before war only for coffee and cake? Or did they make a Party? Of course they talked about how to act in bosnia hercegovinia everybody knows it? Are you just playing naive or are you 8 years old?
Excellent Documentation
If Serbs wanted a greater Serbia and Croats a greater Croatia, as the video claims, why is it that in Dayton the Serbs are given half (49%) of B&H as a self governing republic but the Croats lose this option, and their self proclaimed republic is terminated? Instead, the Croats are pushed into the so called Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? To become the but of bosnian muslim majoritys' ultra-nationalist islamist chicanery?!
Because Zagreb and Belgrade didn’t achieve their plans. No one expected the Bosniaks to organize and fight back causing the Dayton as the final result.
@@baklava6138 No, because mostly Croats had defeated Serbs in Bosnia, reducing them to 45% of the B & H territory. Then, in Dayton, Tuđman gave Mrkonjić and Šipovo for peace, so that Sarajevo is now completely Muslim, while Croats got only a small part in Odžak. Muslims did not give Serbs a square centimeter. Why were Serbs, then at 45%, "awarded" with 49%- one should better ask UK-US "coalition".
@@urvanhroboatos8044 to say croats defeated the Serbs in Bosnia is absurd. One could argue that Croatia got their independence off of Bosnia’s back as most serb resources were tied up in Bosnia. The war in Bosnia was much more chaotic and brutal than Croatia. Also serbs lost 3 times more soldiers in Bosnia than Croatia and we all know most of those casualties were caused by the Bosnian army not croatian separatists or regular ceoatian army from Croatia.
Croats in BH war defeated both Serbs and Muslims. Croatian forces controlled ca. 30% of BH territory of B& H and Muslim forces could not have survived without Croatia. As far as who was the best, one can see official figures: during the war, HVO, the army of Bosnian Croats, was the most effective. In Croat-Serbian war in BH, it was, re military casualties (dead): HVO (local Croat army) killed 7500 Serbian soldiers, while local Serb army killed 2600 Croatian soldiers; Muslim Army killed 3000 HVO soldiers, while HVO killed 6000 Muslim soldiers; Muslim army killed ca. 13,300 Serbian soldiers, while Serb army killed ca. 24.000 Muslim soldiers.@@baklava6138
@@baklava6138 No one achieved their plans. Bosniaks wanted a unitary Bosnia that was independent. Instead they got a third-rate international protectorate where they constantly beg foreign powers to fights their own political battles and less than half of territory where they have any degree of control.
I am Bosnian, my father in law was in a concentration camp held by Croats in Herzegovina region. I will never forget or forgive for what Serbs and Croats have done to my people and to my country. I can tolerate and live in peace, but we, the Bosnians, will forever be on the vigil against both of them, as they have showed their true face and their intentions in the 1990s. As long as there is a fragment of this hatred present, I will not trust their governments or their military leaders. They have shown over and over again in the past 30 years that not only they haven't apologized for the aggression, but are actively undermining any meaningful progress of our country. They are denying war crimes, celebrating their war criminals that were brought to justice by INTERNATIONAL courts, even with all the facts in the world they are still spreading propaganda and trying to present Bosnia as some kind of "nonexisting state" and Bosniaks as "nonexisting people"...
All in all, thanks for the video, this topic is important and shouldn't be ignored.
Absolutely, Croatia is getting whitewashed and it's a travesty. I hope peace prevails, but for that revisionism and nationalism need to die.
Just that you know you were the ones who first betrayed the alliance with croatia they about killed 1.200 croatian civillians, expelled 150.000 croats and burned over 100 catholic churces in bosnia and northern herzegovina and first attacked croats in prozor-rama and konjic while the croatians were fighting for them, I'm over it and I dont wanna discuss but that's just another point of view, I hope you will take that into consideration and maybe start to see that not only croatia was the problem but you too, I'm not denying that croatia did terrible things, but you have to get out of this perspective.
@@dko1860 Hahaha, I have no link with the Balkans, but even I know the agreement between Serbs and Turdjman existed since before the war even started. Learn real history, even if it goes against what you think are your people. Personally I think all of you people who point fingers should go on mars and declare war on each other, that way only the smart ones are left in the Balkans.
@@haider5044 like he stated at the end its just speculation and if there was an agreement why did they go to war and why did croatia support bosnia.I would say there could have been an agreement, but then tudman wouldnt be a honored person from croatia because he is the president which lead croatia out of war and croatia gained their land but if it thete actually was an agreement that they would fight first against croatia that croatia could betray bosnia then he would go from a hero to one of the worst persons from croatia, I dont see any other explanation. It seems unlikely to me but believe what you want idc just remember that facts are always better than speculations
@@haider5044 and I didnt even wanted to point finger I just wanted to show him another pov and this are facts
At 2:41 there’s small mistake you made;
Yo7 showed the old members of the presidency, three new ones have been chosen in autumn last year
Great video.
Bosnian army was created in and of Croatia. While 500 000 bosniaks lived as refugees in Croatia and was housed,fed and got medical care all for free,bosniaks massakered Croats in central Bosnia. Bosniaks got weapons and manpower (jihadist) from the port of Split. Without Croatia there would not be a Bosnia and the Croats always supported a free Bosnia and Herzegovina, and instead of being thankfull to Croatia for helping Bosniaks some people like this RUclipsr that nows nothing except of propaganda that compares us to the Serbian army that wanted to create grater Serbia. By the way I am Croat on my fathers side and Serbian on my mothers side but as a Christian I always follow the truth no matter what. Croatian army saved Bosnia 4 times and when the Serbian forces had surrounded Bihac and the city was about to fall it was the Croatian army that saved the Muslim dominated city from the same General(Ratko Mladic) that was responsible for the Srebrenica genocide. Tudman and Milosevic had meetings and it’s normal for leaders to meet even if there is a conflict, does Trump and America agree with Kim jong something and North Korea just because they had a meeting. And by the way the man that you called Croatian president in Bosnia was elected by Muslims which is a breach in the Dayton agreement . Do the Bosnian people have no shame it’s sad to see how they oppress the Croatian minority . Bosnia and Hercegovina belongs to Serbs Croats and Muslims but the main branch of Sarajevo politicians want to dominate Bosnia like the Milosevic government before them. Croatia and Serbia couldn’t agree to anything so to think that Tudman and Milosevic had some evil plan to devide Bosnia between them is shameful muslim propaganda for the rest of the world to think that Muslims were only victims in this war. Izetbegovic was a coward , when the Serbian army occupied Croatia he said puplicly that bosniaks had no dog in this fight. And by the way Muslims attacked Croats in Bosnia because they were weaker then the Serbs. Btw Croatia also helped creating UCK in Kosovo but the Albanian people have honor and they are not liars like the bosniaks. I’m tired of hearing this constant lies and attacks from ungrateful bosniaks it makes me sad!
Well said
Tudjman and Milosevic most likely agreed on the partition, and the war between Serbs and Croats came about because of the Krajina Serbs. Milosevic did not count on this factor and until the end of the war in Croatia, he had a constant conflict with Serbs from Croatia. This is supported by the fact that the so-called RSK was under sanctions imposed by Serbia.
You are right bosnians and croatians should be close Allies and btw the situation and relationship between serbia bosnia and croatia should be normlized and better in all ways because it isnt the people who make troubles but the politics. Thats the way out of this all .. and yes croats did help bosnian refugees but croatia had lot Support from the world because of this Action and it wasnt really selfless act and for earlier Generations it was somehow clear now new Generations seem to forget that
"prijatelju", prvo je HDZ i Rimo-katolicka crkva ulozila enormne napore da raspiri netrpeljivost muslimana u YU protiv Srba i Crnogoraca i tako muslimanima zatvore SVE puteve osim preko Hrvatske,I onda su muslimane primali i ronili krokodilske suze nad njihovom sudbinom a sve masuci sahovnicom na pola BiH.Arapi salju milione ili milijarde pomoci hrvatskoj vladi da se brinu za muslimanske izbjeglige a ani ih hrane ribljim konzervama pola dolara po konzervi a od ogromnih arapskih para kupuju oruzje po cijelom svijetu.Muslimanskim snagama oporezivaju 30% svaku posiljku u lukama a HVO ( hrvasko vijece OBMANE ) dodatno oporezuje 30% svaku posiljku za AR BIH.
@@on1452 ''...but croatia had lot Support from the world...''. What help? You must be joking.
The war between Croats and Bosniaks erupted due to the inability of Alija Izetbegović+Co in challenging Serb forces. As a result the Bosniak-dominated Armija BiH (ArBiH) turned on their Croat allies in order to consolidate their hold on the remaining territories not under Serb occupation. ArBiH forces outnumbered Croat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina 16:1, and ArBiH forces turned on Croat forces first in the city of Travnik in central Bosnia whilst Croat soldiers were on the frontline awaiting for ArBiH troops to relieve them in the trenches. This forced Croat soldiers to surrender directly to the Serb positions outside the city and creating a mass exodus of Croats from the area. Meanwhile the Republic of Croatia was hosting tens of thousands of Bosniak refugees in Dalmatia. The narrative of a pact between Croats and Serbs in the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not correlate with the facts and timeline of events in the war.
Nearly erased? From 1 900 000 Bosniaks in 1991, there has been around 60 000 Bosniaks casulties? You call that nearly erased?
Western Propaganda as usual.
@@zlaktutz6190 100.000 deas Bosniaks, Serbs & Croats*
Over 500.000 dispelled Serbs from Sarajevo and overall Bosnia & Croatia.
@@zlaktutz6190 That isnt correct, 100 000 dead is a number of total Serbian, Croat and Bosniak casulties. Even if it is 100 000 deaths for you, can you imagine losing insted 1 300 000 out of 1 900 000 hm?
@@arman98334 Sure Buddy.
I mean, Mostar didnt suffer the most. I think that would be Sarajevo, because of its 1000+ days under encirclement and Serbia was focusing on it the most, since the fall of Bosnian capital basically means their surrender.
They butchered BiH, some people say that Posavina (north BiH) was taken by the Croat forces, but after the deal was made they received a call to evaluate and leave it to the Serbs.
It all political chess, with real people that die..
Stupid conspiracy theory. Serbs were overwhelmingly militarily superior, so that most of Posavina simply couldn't remain under Croatian control. It is similar with Serbs on the receiving side in Glamoč, Grahovo, Mrkonjić, Šipovo... 1995 - they were weaker.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 if they were so overwhelmingly militarily superior the war wouldn't last for 4 years!
Use your head, than speak..
@@osmaks1518 They were militarily superior to solve one crucial battle in their favor; they dominated the battlefield until the late 1993, but were unable to completely occupy B & H, mainly thanks to HVO and HV; only after the late 1993- early 1994 have Croatian forces been steadily growing in all aspects & then succeeded to defeat Serbs both in Croatia and B & H. Amateur conspiracy theories are something only fools take seriously.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 you just proved my point. If they were superior they would finish it by 92 or 93, they surely wanted to..
I was in BiH in the middle of it, for the whole war just like my extended family and friends.
I know what I know and what happened out of first hand experience, so don't talk to me like I'm some idiot foreigner that watched it on tv!
And go look up the definition of the word "superior"..
@@osmaks1518 Are you that thick? They were superior at tactical level, but not superior enough at strategic level. Read works by Davor Marijan, Ante Nazor, Domazet Lošo (on war) and other serious historians. As for "I was there" means nothing. Petar Stipetić was there and due to his incompetence we lost more land than we could have otherwise. I don't have time to argue with fools.
I'm sorry but I can't help but think of Lucky Charms cereal commercials when listening to this guy.
link?
@@GeoPerspective ruclips.net/video/E-OYybJUR_I/видео.html
Politicians divided Yugoslavia. Loved the video!
A lie. The nations divided the country when they realized that the communists' story about brotherhood and unity was a lie. Vukovar confirmed that lie.
Kinda untrue. Bosnians of Orthodox religious beliefs have been planning the war for a long time before it began. Serbians already had basically Full Control of Yugoslavia and couldn't bare losing to Bosnians of Islam religious beliefs (Since Bosnians of Orthodox religious beliefs think they're Serbian, but they're obviosly not. No wonder no one dares to do an Ancestry test. They're afraid they're gonna be wrong.).
The 2nd part is about the Karađorđevo myth. It is true that meetings between Tuđman and Milošević did occur (as did meetings with Bosnian Muslim leadership with both leaders); it is true that B & H was discussed. And- nothing real came out of it. he combined aggression of Serbia+ Montenegro + JNA/YPA (Yugoslav People's Army) + Serbs in Croatia escalated after those meeting & this completely voids all conspiracy theories. Milošević was armed to the teeth (he had JNA under his control); he tried to chop Croatia along 5 strategic lines to force it to completely surrender (and failed); Tuđman did not possess any military power at that time & it is ridiculous to even think that he would be in the position to divide B & H, when was not able to control his own country, due to the combined Serbia- JNA aggression. Why would be Milošević so inexplicably generous? Next months showed a strong escalation of war in Croatia, often fought from the territory of B & H (with Bosnian Muslim officers, not just Serbs, eagerly participating in it), and the war in Croatia came to a temporary halt, Serbs retaining the control of over 25- 30% of Croatia. How could than Croatian side "divide" B & H, when it was, until 1995, unable to impose sovereignty on its own territory? This myth originated & was propagated for two purposes: a) Bosnian Muslim side, as their excuse for creating false equivalence between Croats and Serbs & to somehow justify their passivity and inadequacy, resulting in mass bloodshed and their high civilian casualties in the Bosnian war, because they absurdly believed JNA and the "international community" - which both betrayed them b) members of the "international community", who were both embarrassed & shamed they didn't stop the war in Croatia- and later, B & H (international outcry, especially from Muslim countries, added to the hysteria), so they promoted this ludicrous conspiracy theory to cover their own "historical sins" & by creating a false equivalence between the role of Croatia and Serbia, give Serbs, which still possessed many sympathies from the West, a sort of "relief" for not being the sole culprit for the disaster.
Veoma povrsno !
It's nice to see at last what was muttered on the fringe websites being finally acknowledged for the implosion of Yugoslavia being money, wealthy Slovenia slightly less wealthy Croatia were the first to leave. Also the danger of fence sitting and playing both sides once that fence collapses so do you. In a book written by a former Wehrmacht officer (with what seemed rather nazi sentiments) in the 1970s about various European armies it mentioned that fissure on financial issues and the resentment caused by the capital drain to the poorer south along with religious differences and the military being dominated by Serbs risking open conflict upon Tito death so it was sort of expected and possibly planned. With such candid statements were made in the 1970s it shows that the Milosovic and Serbs messed up narrative so popular in the 1990s doesn't add up as much as it's supposed to
Oh can you show me the title of the book?
@@Warsie it was a book about European armies, I can't remember the title it was in a bookshop about 20 years ago and mindful of the recent wars it was very telling because at the time the storyline was about Tito and communism as in he died in 1980 and it continued peacefully for another TEN years other communist countries ceased to have a communist government without descending into war . I'll try and find out for you what the book was that gave the game away 🫡
One moment....there was never before nation called "Bosniaks" before 1995 .
There is religious group of muslim worshipshers in Yugoslavia who are genetically 100% the same as Croats and Serbs. The West armed so called "Bosniaks" and promised them independent state in order to have more smaller puppet states and not two stronger. Same thing with Montenegro and Kosovo.
Pattern is obvious and plan is more than 100 years old - same as Tzar Russia. Install communists on power , make artificial borders without any sense and than from all those smaller territories make a new nations , puppet states like Ukraine or Bosnia or Kosovo.
Simple and clean , benefiting only to capitalist West.
No, Bosniaks are, re. genotype, somewhere between Croats and Serbs, especially regarding E and I haplotypes.
Genetically 100% the same? Where do you find all these mumbo-jumbo? And I'm sure there is no proof to back your big claim. Even among Croats themselves, there are strong regional differences, and in many cases you can see for yourself effortlessly. But somehow, CrOaTs and SeRbS are 100% same people.
@@mottom2657 “Croats” and “Serbs” in Bosnia are the same people; Croats in Croatia and Serbians in Serbia are different. Got it? 😊
@@ib368yes I got it. Your typical propaganda
If there was an agreement, why was Croatia smashed so badly? Seems like the worst kind of agreement in history, or something else went on
How do you mean smashed?
Croatians won the war against Serbs in Croatia?
@@nolifegaming6930well in this video it is said that croats and serbs made agreement against bosniaks, but fact is that croats and serbs fought each other for 4 and a half years
@@petarmilanovic3073
They have made an agreement in 1993 to split Bosnia where Croat forces were no longer fighting with Bosniaks but couldn't break the resistance of Bosniaks. The deal was that Croatians take the rest of Bosnian territories in center and Serbs to take the rest from north but couldn't finish the job. Bosniaks and Croats were fighting together until 93 and then with the Washington agreement once again together in 94.
If they could break the resistance of Bosniaks in 93 Bosnia wouldn't exist today.
@@nolifegaming6930 so you re saying that in time when serbs were holding 70% of bosnia and herzegovina and 30% of croatia while having 4th biggest army in europe at that moment, they made deal that serbs will retreat from whole croatia and 20% of occupied bosnian and herzegovinian territory? You re so funny 🤣
@@nolifegaming6930 and not even mention that bosniaks killed 1.200 croatian civillians, expelled 150.000 croats and burned over 100 catholic churces in bosnia and northern herzegovina and first attacked croats in prozor-rama and konjic
18:52 Why Croats supplied Bosnian Army due the entire time of the war? Even Bosnian leaders admit that. If Croatia wanted to take control of Bosnian parts, they wouldn't supplied them with weapons. Bosnian started the fight because they couldn't defeat Bosnian Serb so they shifted focus on Croatian populated regions of Central Bosnia and northern Herzegovina. That happened in time when Serbs controlled all of eastern and northern Bosnia so Serbs stayed and dig in so Bosniaks used that time to attack Croats.
When this war happened, I was a teenager in the 1990s. And my Prime Minister then, Tun Mahathir decided to open our door to Bosnia Refugees... Then, as sudden as they arrive, they all left, after the end of the war, as Majority of them went back to their homeland to rebuild their nation... I am not very familiar with the i -depth history of this war, but I do remember reading Bosnians massacred by Serbs... like a whole village of them... That was news we get in the newspaper in the 1990s.. And then, I also remember that it was the Clinton Adminstration that successfully brokered a peace deal that eventually ended the war...
Bravo...👏👏👏
Eu sou contra as guerras e sou contra os governos que as provocam!a guerra da Jugoslávia nunca deveria ter acontecido e o povo de lá sofreu muito!a união faz a força!
Viva Jugoslávia
Yugoslavia is an artificial creation created after the First World War as a means of expanding the Serbs into non-Serb territories. Before that, that concept never existed, let alone a state. And it will never exist again. The war was not fought in Yugoslavia, but the Serbs attacked Slovenia and Croatia respectively. , Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. In the end, NATO attacked Serbia.
Unfortunately those IMF loans that Yugoslavia received came with certain overy conditions such as, liberalization of the economy, privatization of national industry, floating the exchange rate and opening up the Yugoslav markets.
Covert conditions were national referendums for independent Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia.
The Serb leadership resorted to ethnic mobilization and scapegoating ethnic minorities once the IMF and US state department started putting on the pressure. Same way that Ukrainian post Orange revolution, Maidan Ukrainian leaders started singling out Russian speakers for the countries woes. All the nations corruption and oligarchy was blamed on pro-Russian Ukrainians and the Kremlin.
Even as Nuland was cherry picking the post Maidan government of Ukraine, the western Ukrainians were blaming Pro-Russians and Moscow.
Even as US senators cheered on the chaos, the Maidan leaders blamed Putin and pro-Russian Eastern Ukraine for the chaos.
The Baltic states actively discriminated against their Russian populations and its all perfectly acceptable in the EU.
Whether a country is condemned for war crimes or not largely depends on who that country's backers are.
This is the lesson for country's who find themselves in the same dilemma as Serbia.
Axis powers and Nazi Collaborators won in the end. Japan, Germany, France and Italy are part of G7. Their economies are flourishing.
The US sided with the fascists in Croatia and Ukraine.
Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, Russia, Ethiopia, China, India, Senegal, the Philippines and most countries who fought back and paid heavy prices during WW2 have nothing to show for it.
In 1992 Croatia wanted to create an alliance with BiH but Alija Izetbegovic was against this because he thought it would provoke the Serbs. Bad decision
Nato and klinton made that alliance by force and hitler did that without force
I don't think so, if he ded tgat they would overpower the Serbs in RS and RSK and Yugoslav army at this point dominated by Serbs could crush them swiftly, this way they boilded the frog so to speak until Croatia got enough of arms to wipe RSK off the map curiously without Yugoslav army's reaction.
At this point RS lost potection of their fanks and had to negotiate.
Nah, he rejected it bc he wanted bosnian independence
This is a beautiful country that I had the opportunity to visit in 2009.
I had done a lot of research into the region, as I have been fascinated by the many important historical events that occurred here that shaped the modern world.
I went with my Serbian partner (who had never traveled outside of his region in Serbia) and was surprised by the amount of disinformation, prejudices, and genuine apprehension of traveling to parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that were not majority Serbian to which he was told by others in Serbia were “red zones” not to be visited.
We spent two weeks visiting Sarajevo, Mostar, Neum, and Banja Luka some of which were supposed “red zones” for Serbian, we had a fantastic time meeting such warm people without any issues despite his obvious Serbian accent and sampling the local specialties which have many similarities to Serbian cuisine. I tried “Boza” a thick, fermented drink that had a very strong yeasty flavor…. one sip was enough and very MEMORABLE 🤣.
⚠️controversial⚠️
The overall regional language is Serbo-Croatian which my Serbian partner was surprised to just be a slight variation in accent with some differences in vocabulary (using the Latin alphabet).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian
My background is in anthropology, I was born in Europe, raised in the USA with the benefits of having grown up speaking several languages with opportunities to learn from different cultures in the USA and around the world.
🌍🌏🌎We share more in common than the unique differences.
Treat everyone with respect,be open to being wrong, embrace change, learn and continue to grow.
The long, complex history of varying cultural identities current today within the present-day borders of “Bosnia AND Herzegovina 🇧🇦” dates back to the 6th century BCE with the migrations of various South Slavic groups through the Ottoman invasions and centuries of occupation, followed by near constant conflicts of interests among the majority Bosniak (mostly Sunni Muslim, but this is only part of their identity). Serbs (mostly Serbian Orthodox), and Croatians (mostly Roman Catholic), in addition to smaller minorities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
This article has an excellent detailed history and complexity of what it means to be “Bosniak” including several extensive population genetics current current as of 2019.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks
Serbo-Croatian iz not a language. Wikipedia is wrong. Ask Serbs or Croats.
@@mariocerin4105 🤔Is the language spoken in Canada, USA, Jamaica, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc still English???
Then you understand that variations in grammar, spelling (Latin or Cyrillic for Serbo-Croatian + Montenegrin and Bosnian), word meaning, accent, etc STILL forms part of the ⚠️mutually intelligible⚠️ language✅
@@mariocerin4105 🤔🤔🤔 Is the language spoken in Canada, USA, Jamaica, Ireland, UK, South Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, , etc still English???
Then you understand that variations in grammar, spelling (Latin or Cyrillic for Serbo-Croatian + Montenegrin and Bosnian), word meaning, accent, etc STILL form part of the ⚠️mutually intelligible⚠️ language✅
There is no Serbo-Croatian language. It is an artificial creation, like Yugoslavia, for which it was created. There are only Croatian or Serbian languages, just as there are no Serbo-Croats, but Serbs or Croats. Now, how similar one or the other language is is another matter.
hm actually Bosnian Catholics who call themselves Croats while Fojnica Monks call themselves Bosniak Catholics which they existed in mediavle times and Orthodox Bosnians are Serbs how because they took Serbian nationality because of Orthodox faith not of nation they just kept calling themselves Serbs and Bosnian Catholics Croats. Some Orthodox Bosnians they don't like term Serb to be called like that same with Catholics to be called Croats.
Paul I Šubić of Bribir (Croatian: Pavao I. Šubić Bribirski, Hungarian: bribiri I. Subics Pál; c. 1245 - 1 May 1312) was Ban of Croatia between 1275 and 1312, and Lord of Bosnia from 1299 AD.
After Paul Died his son Mladen II took over Bosnia.
Mladen II Šubić of Bribir (Croatian: Mladen II Šubić Bribirski, Hungarian: bribiri Subics Mladen; c.1270 - c.1341), a Croatian leader and member of the Šubić noble family, was a Ban of Croatia and Lord of all of Bosnia from 1312 AD.
You are wrong right from the begining-Internal borders formed in 1946 where actually not drawn based on historical and ethnic lines…that was exactly what caused problems in the 1990s. Second-Bosnians are not just muslim, but also Croats and Serbs. You refer to muslim army as Bosnian?! So it was Bosnian Croats, Serbs and Muslims fighting each other, not “Bosnias” vs Serbs and Croats.
They will NEVER undestend
The difference is that the Orthodox Bosnians and Catholic Bosnians didn’t fight for their own state,they fought for neighbouring states
The present border of BiH is 99% historical... it existed from the Ottoman times.
@@NS-mz8gq Serbs always see themselves as Serbs first, the attachment to Bosnia is a secondary thing; to them, Bosnian is a regional term while Serb is the ethnic identity. Croats see Bosnia as a part of Croatia that existed since the old times until the Hungarian conquest and Ban Kulin's rule. Also to the Croats, Bosnian is a regional identity, not ethnic. This is a main reason why Bosnia's Serbs and Croats would prefer their neighboring homelands. But for Muslim Bosniaks, Bosnian/Bosniak is the only ethnic identity they can cling to.
@@mottom2657 the only time that they lived in peace was during the socialist Yugoslavia and the fact that they all have the same DNA only religion causes them to fight which is stupidity beyond ridiculous.
The meeting did happend do some more research the Serbs and Croats fought in Croatia over Serb Areas in Croatia but on Bosnia they had an agreement that Serbs and Croats did not have to fight in Bosnia because their goals for borders were clearly defined that Croatia would get the Banovina territory of Bosnia which is the Hercegovina part and that the Serbs would go to Neretva there was also a meeting in Graz between Mate Boban (Bosnian Croat) leader and Radovan Karadzic (Bosnian Serb) leader which was captured on Video it’s called the Graz Agreement they were brought together by Milosevic and Tudzman to iron out the details on where to exactly split Bosnia up and this is coming from a Bosnian Serb btw also look up the Rajic case that concluded that Croatia was directly involved in the war in Bosnia there was a similar case claiming that Serbia was responsible for the Genocide in Srebrenica, Bosnia but was found not directly responsible but found it guilty of inaction
I think the narrator danced around the edges of some of the really controversial aspects of the war. I'd prefer brave narrations of history and should have included the points you raised. The Serbs and Croats fighting each other in Croatia while avoiding fighting each other in B&H coupled with the leadership of Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs meeting each other is enough proof they had a pact. The narrator states the fact that the pact existed in video title but chickened out a bit in the video itself
This mf forgets Croats and Serbs started clapping each other first when Bosnia went to shit, your narrative ignores entire region of Bosnian Posavina, where Croats and Bosniaks got expelled together and managed to salvage whatever was left in two pockets.
@@hydrolifetech7911 "Croats and Serbs avoided fighting each other in B&H" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What planet do you live on? Croats organized Croat Defense Council precisely to defend themselves against Serbs!
@@hydrolifetech7911 To say that Serbs and Croats did not fight i B&H is a lie. Why somebody would lie on that count probably has a reason, a selfish reason.
1) Mostar is "one of the top touristic destinations in Balkans"? Can you provide evidence? Or you will claim the 150th most visited city fits your description? 2) 1:00 to 1:10 Your data is exactly backed by what scholar? Wikipedia? 3) 19:00 Yugoslavia was formed in 1918 after Kingdom of Serbia won Austro-Hungary and begin liberating the lands such as Bosnia, Vojvodina, Syrmia, Slavonia, Dalmatia and Slovenia which wanted to join Serbia and form a united kingdom under Serbian Karadjordjevic dinasty and defended by the Serbian Army. The only thing that happened in 1946 is that Tito, the communist leader, ignored the king and his government and proclaimed a communist country, betraying this way the west as well. Tito made new internal borders not based by any "historical" borders, but just new borders that made the republics "more equal" at expense of Serbia, but, since Serbs were the majority in the Partisans and Serbs lived anyway all together in one same country, they didnt bothered so much, althought they receved a status of "constituent nation" in Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro, besides Serbia obviously, which would guarantee them by the Constitution that the republic could not do anything unilaterally unless all constituent nations werent in accordance. So, when newly proclaimed president of Croatia proclaimed independence, he couldnt have done it without the accordance of the Serbs of Croatia, which were also the constituent people of Croatia and didnt agreed at all with separation, furthermore, making almost a third of population of Croatia and concentrated in regions which were part of Military Province of Austro-Hungary, and not of Croatia which was much minor and just a province of Hungary before 1918. Serbs of Croatia also formed the vast majority of the resistance forces in Croatia, thus beside having a centuries long presence in those lands, even fought for their liberation while Croats receved German SS troops with food and flowers. Germans in WWII created a puppet state of Croatia which exterminated hundreds of thousands of Serbs in a policy of "one third of Serbs slaughtered, one third expelled, and one third converted". The brutality was even recorded by German diaries and documents as more brutal that they have ever seen (and we are talking about NAZIS describing it). After the war, when Tito made his move and fooled the king, he made Croatia the major Nazi country to be freed of all war reparations despite having been the most brutal one, and the 90% of reparations should have gone to Serbs. You feel good now? You can check it all, every word I said. 4) 6:00 At time it was the major official funeral with the biggest number of state officials ever, you should know and say that in your video. 5) 9:00 Tudjman was elected in Croatia while Milosevic was elected in Serbia, both in 1990. So, all you said before as Milosevic being the starter of nationalism goes down the drain since Tudjman was the nationalist and secessionist, while Milosevic was the one fighting to keep Yugoslavia altogether, as you later recognise, because you cannot escape it, just use the Croatian propaganda of how "Big Serbia" and not "independent Croatia taking lands which were not theirs" was to blame for the conflict. Also, ENTIRE Yugoslavia, Serbs specially, wanted in 1990 to join the European community. The only desagreement was NATO, because Serbia wanted to keep its policy of neutrality, while Croats and Slovenes were eager to join NATO as they knew about the internal secret US memorandum from 1984 talking about how all help to Yugoslavia should be cut and redirected to secessionist movements trying to destroy Yugoslavia.
I agree with most. But minor corrections.
It was Croatian and Slavonian Military Frontier under Austrian rule (
Austria and Hunfary disgrace Croatia with taking Military frontier under their direct rule, but at least deffence was succcessful 4/5 of Croatia (incl. Slavonia, Rijeks and Dalmatia, excl. Istra) was occupied with killing, robbing kidnapping by Ottoman invasion.
First days Croats were positive avout NDH, but after few days dissapointed because Italian occupation continue with targeting minorities in concentration camps.
Tito didn't freed Croatia of war repatriations brcause Croatia wasn't independent or at least terrirorial united and political equal as Serbia, Germany or Italy (long) enough. If Croatia pay repatriations it would lead to fall of Croatian indentity as province, nation, everything and Serbs would expand their nation across Croatia because there would not be enough people to deffend it as entity. So greater Serbia would suceed because a lot Croats would immigrate from Croatia to West, Americas, Oceania, etc. leaving a olace for Serbs to imhsbitate.
Repstriation which Croatia payd by territories such are Hercegovina, Turopolje and Unska Krajina was returned to Bosna (see Banate of Croatia, Kotromanić Bosna, Ottoman Bosna and others). Repatriations needed to be paid by Itaians, Germans who cause all of trouble or Serbs because they didn't take Yugoslavia as country seriously but just as territorial bank for future Serbian expansion.
Also Croatia wasn't have any help from West as Ukraine now. So they try to keep Yugoslavia existence representing seccesionst movements as a threat which NATO they put embargo on weapons and ammunituons (at least against Croatia). Croatia needed to go buying a weapons from Albanians.
Why Germany don't disintegrate?
8:48 This is the myth: They didn't agree on anything. The events that followed confirmed this - 30% of Croatia was ethnically cleansed, and Croats in large part of Bosnia as well. If they had agreed, nothing could have stopped Serbs and Croats from dividing Bosnia. In the end, it was Great Serbia versus everybody else.
I don’t think you understand how hard serbs tried to take sarajevo, tuzla, zenica, bihac but never expected such a strong resistance. Don’t forget the serbs lost 20,000 soldiers in bosnia mainly fighting the bosniaks and only 7,000 soldiers in croatia. Also, croats needed bosniaks to keep serbs from connecting territories in Krajina and bosniaks needed croats to smuggle weapons in. It was a mutual benefit.
@@baklava6138 ruclips.net/video/dSIKmEZ4tyQ/видео.html
We, OldBosnians, see our land as Serbia. We sufferen Muslim invaders from 15th c, and later from 1941-1991 nazi Croats ustaše and later communists exterminated Serbs in Bosnia further from 44% to 33%. Then they organized Referendum in 92. and claimed that exterminated Serbs are minority. But before that, native Serbs had Plebiscit in 91. where democracy decided that Serbian Bosnia stays in union with other Serbian lands. According that people will, Bosnia is today part of Serbian union, and only dicrator-lovers recognize Bosnia as separate state.
Western part to Croatia with all Croatians relocated there.
Muslim state in the middle with enough resources and land to survive on its own and the eastern part gets added to Serbia.
Three parts all made homogeneous so nobody starts a fight.
Nah, remember the serbs and croats tried for 4 years but…
The internal borders of SFRY were neither historical or ethnic. That's the reason for the entire war, duh.
The JNA wasn't mostly Serbian, most conscripts participanting in the war in Slovenia were non-Serbs.
No, Milosevic never wanted to create greater Serbia.
He barely even supported Bosnian Serbs, he accepted EVERY SINGLE ONE peace agreement for Bosnia, regardless of the content. Even those which didn't propose a Serbian autonomy.
When you look at a regional map it's obvious from the strange borders that Bosnia and Herzegovina used to be Central Croatia in the past.
Serbs saying same, Bosnia is Serbia, Croats saying what are u saying…then u start to kill peacefull ppl of Bosnia, but bosnian ppl are hero’s we cant be defeated!!!!
@@bezzenick If you look at a regional map its very obvious from the strange looking borders Bosnia and Herzegovina were central parts of Croatia in the past and not Serbia.
The muslim community in Bosnia are a result of the Ottoman Turkish invasion of the region.
@@TheSouth-j7f bosnianhistorycom.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/bosniankingdommapmuhamedfilipovic.png?w=1024
wait, is this a reupload?
it is indeed, I wanted to give this video another chance without an “experimental” intro and with a better title. Especially since it was a huge effort.
A rather one-sided and shallow point of view. This is Mickey Mouse history. There is very little truth in this show and I do not recommend watching it.
Then don't watch it, your heroes are in prison anyways.
Serbia invaded Croatia in 1991 and there was brutal, bitter fighting between Croats and Serbs in that year. The Bosnian muslim leadership wanted to stay out of it and didn't help Croatia even though the Serbs were using Bosnian territory to attack Croatia.
The following year in 1992 the Serbs turned on the Bosnian muslims who had taken no steps to defend themselves.
And that's why my Tata told me is to never trust Serbs. My family is ethnic Croats who are from Livno, Serbia wants nothing more than to get rid of us.
Bosnia never was. The headline is a oxymoron.
It's an independent country for 30+ years now, much to your dismay.
@@tarik6990 it's illegally occupied Yugoslavia.
@@Oregon123 Illegally occupied by who exactly? Turks left over 120 years ago, Austro-Hungary collapsed and Yugoslavia no longer exists.
@tarik6990 NATO's illegal war against it broke it up. Two illegal occupations by nato into Yugoslavia.
@@Oregon123 No, Serb irrendentism and refusal to accept, live with and respect non-Serbs is what broke Yugoslavia. NATO didn't even intervene until 1995.
I just cannot watch the whole video because you will not teach me anything new that I already know. Also you might know the history by readings all the books, but you can never know as someone who is from there, who was there during the war, experienced it, unfortunately, and knows the history as well. "They tried to bury us, they didn’t know we were seeds."
This plot to erase Bosnia and the Bosnian ethnicity began in 1800-1860, depending on which of the points you count as the start (their first ideologues to mention Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, or when they got leaders elected with those attitudes, when they wrote down their scheme, or when they started implementing policies for it, or when made the pact etc.). Not only the ideological foundations of this attitude of theirs to jointly attack and erase Bosnia, but they both sent propagandistic agents into Bosnia, through their churches, to convince the christians in Bosnia that they're not Bosniaks. While they admit in their dictionaries at the time that "Bosnian = Bosniak" and that there's no distinction between these two terms and that Bosnian is an ethnicity whose members are muslims, catholics or orthodox (today's Bosniaks are the muslim Bosniaks, and the "Bosnian Croats" are the catholic Bosniaks, and the Bosnian Vlachs who are ethnically Romanian but naturalized into calling themselves orthodox Bosniaks by the 18th century, whereas the Serbs are migrants who came with the Ottoman expansion), by 1860 they started forcing the meme that "there's a difference between Bosnians and Bosniaks" and that "Bosnians are not the Bosnians of medieval Bosnia" and that "there is no Bosnian language nor ethnicity, there are only muslim Croats or muslim Serbs". They continued this policy both in the kingdom of Yugoslavia and in communist Yugoslavia, where the institutions denied that the Bosnian ethnicity exists, and instead tried to use discriminatory practices like forbidding muslim Bosnians from having a job unless they join the communist party and renounce Islam, and things like only having Serb, Croat, Slovene, Macedonian, Albanian in census polls to try to force them all that way to disperse among all the other peoples. The Yugoslav historians were mainly Serbs, and they worked hard to hide many historical sources and falsify their own history, which is where a lot of blatant lies like the claims that Tvrtko and Mehmed Sokolovic were Serbs, comes from.
The Serbs were the main culprits, they persecuted Bulgarians and Albanians before turning to persecute Bosnians, and many Serbs today are surprised to find when they do a DNA test that their ancestors come from surrounding countries. This forced integration of other peoples happened in the mid-19th century, which led to a lot of later hostilities like the Bulgarian hatred of Serbs in WW1, and the Albanian Golgotha in the same war. The Croats and Slovenes realized very early on in their pact with the Serbs that they had made a mistake, which is why they tried to secede for a long time without success like for example in the Velebit Uprising, and it culminated in assassinations, the most famous of which was that of Alexander I who was the king of Serbia first and then of Yugoslavia. (assassinated by a Bulgarian man, who was working with the Croatian Ustase who later controlled the NDH in WW2)
There's a ton to mention, but in short: The project to erase Bosnia and the Bosnian people is 200 years in the making, and although the Croat side is relenting, the Serb side is as bloodthirsty, hostile, genocidal, expansionist and antagonistic as ever, so much so that people say that only the shooting stopped but the war is still ongoing. America is starting to feel a similar situation between Republicans and Democrats and the internal strife getting worse - Bosnia has been living in that type of hostility for 30 years now, thanks to the democratic straitjacket which is the Dayton Agreement, which demands that the Serbs will at all times have a veto in everything Bosnia's government decides, and they are hellbent on using that to stagnate the country to death, because they haven't given up.
Bosnia was named after the Bosna River and has never been an ethnic group.
@@TheSouth-j7f You don't know history (nor English) then. Bosnians were literally etched into the Hagia Sophia as a separate ethnic group a thousand years ago.
@@tzimisce1753 A thousand years ago Bosnia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia (925 to 1102 AD).
If you know European history then you would know the "Great Schism" happened in Europe in 1054 AD. The Christian church was divided into two churches the Roman Catholic church and the Byzantine Orthodox church, the religious border was the River Drina which happened to be the old West/East Roman Empire internal border.
@@tzimisce1753 Bosnia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia from 925 to 1102 AD so fully Roman Catholic.
After 1102 Croatia (including Bosnia) was in an union with the Kingdom of Hungary (another Catholic Kingdom).
In 1154 AD "Ban" ( viceroy) Boric ( an ethnic Croat) was installed by the Hungarians as the first Ban of Bosnia.
Paul I Šubić of Bribir ( Ban of Croatia) becomes Lord of Bosnia from 1299 AD. After Paul dies his son Mladen II Šubić of Bribir (Ban of Croatia) becomes Lord of all of Bosnia in 1312 AD.
The biggest feudal land owner in Bosnia was Croat Grand Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić (ca. 1350-1416 AD). He founded Jajce castle now in Central Bosnia.
So Bosnia was mainly Roman Catholic during these centuries as per the Great Schism before the invasion of the Ottoman Turks.
@@TheSouth-j7f Bosnia was conquered by Croatia 925-931, 968-972, 977-999. Croatia never held Bosnia outside of those years. Hungary gave Croatia northwestern Bosnia in the 13th century after the Mongol invasion.
The schism has nothing to do with it. And Bosnia was not Roman Catholic until the very end when it was converted by force to Catholicism. Other than that, it wasn't a Christian country, the majority belonged to a religion which denied the trinity and the godhood of Jesus, rejected the cross, icons, baptism etc., though there was a Catholic minority who called themselves Bosniaks up until the 1860's.
Boric was not an ethnic Croat, his family was from Slavonia where the Bijelo Brdo culture was.
The Subic family attacked Bosnia when Stjepan II was ascending to the throne, and the Bosnians fought them, eliminated one, and the other succeeded later, but would also be defeated later with the help of Hungary and Slavonia.
Hrvoje Vukcic was not an ethnic Croat. He had a grandmother who was from Dubrovnik. Other than that, his entire family tree is from Bosnia and has been there since Kulin Ban.
Bosne je bilo i biće! Bosnia is for Bosnians. There is no such thing as a Bosnian Serb or a Bosnian Croat, they are called Chetniks and Ustase and they belong in Serbia and Croatia. There will be no greater Serbia and greater Croatia. Neko je krv svoju lio da bi ja Bosanac bio! SLAVA BOSNI! 🇧🇦⚜️
Who is rattling your cage?
For education purposes of all youtubers , Bosnians are artificial nation based only of their worshiping of muslim faith. In dominantly Christian Europe ,Muslims in Bosnia have frustration from early ages because they betrayed their old religion and adopted religion of Turk invaders of Europe. It is OK, they have right of that but denial of their true roots is producing "hate speach" as seen in comment above. Bosnia is their as it is Croatian or Serbian. DEAL WITH IT. No one is hating you.
You are denying Croatdom and Serbdom, while Muslims in B & H until 1993 didn't even know what was their national name? Truly weird.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Where are you obtaining your information from? The Catholic Encyclopedia? Your reply is an example of why RUclips should make users solve an algebraic problem before posting a comment or reply, it would at least serve as an obstacle to the stupidity in the comments section.
@@Hamze_i_Gazije I don't waste my time on fools. A people that did not know their name until 1993 absolutely is not the one to school anyone on history. Current Bosniaks are a combination of Islamized Croats, Serbs, Vlachs, Macedonians, Albanians, Hungarians...as well as Turkish and Arabic settlers. Except their vernacular language, they don't have virtually anything in common with the pre-Ottoman identity & culture, from tombstones to monasteries and books.
Srbija mora (nekako) naplatiti Bosni oslobađanje Bosne od Osmanlija, Austro-Ugarske, Nijemaca, Talijana, pa čak i NDH, s obzirom na poginule Srbe, makar to bilo u teritorijima. A Hrvatska mora (nekako) naplatiti Bosni borbu za unutarnjo-političku i identitetsko-teritorijalnu jednakost u Kraljevini SHS (Habsburškoj Monarhiji, Ugarskoj Kraljevini i Mletačkoj R. također) za koju se Bosna slabo zalagala za razliku od Hrvatske kojoj je trebala 21 godina do formiranja Banovine Hrvatske čime je potrošila svoje financije, imovinu, emocije i psihu, kao i činjenica da Hrvatska nikad nakon 11. st. nije napala Bosnu već je Bosna napadala Hrvarsku kad joj je bilo najteže i surađivala s Ugarskom Kraljevinom (Kotromanići) i Osmanskim Carstvom (Bihać) kako bi se domogli još malo hrvatskog teritorija.
1. There is no such thing as bosniaks. They are all either croats or serbs.
2. Bosnia is no nation its a serb region, Hercegovina is the croat region.
Your nationalist propaganda won't fly here, your heroes are in prison.
You've only mentioned a top of the iceberg. What about Srebrenica and 8000+ children and men brutally murdered in front of EUFOR eyes?? And yet you are saying that you think religion most likely is not the cause of the conflict-well think again and read what "genocide" is. As a bosnian I really appreciate your video but it is incomplete story and you didn't even discussed major points.
Thanks for watching, I know what you are saying but I feel there are a lot of videos covering those disasters and I don’t like dwelling on the horror. I also wanted a unique spin for this video not an overview.
@@GeoPerspective Understandable from your side but my only concern is that your video is not showing exactly what happened to audience outside Bosnia. Though, you cannot control how people will understand your video so I got your point as well.
Vast majority were military aged men. Bosniaks forces had been hiding behind Eufor "peacekeepers" in the safe enclaves and then raiding Serb villages. Not saying the killings were right, but they need to be put in context.
As long people insist on 8.000 killed in Srebrenica (yes, that much but in whole war, including Serbs, Bosnakians and others) in just two days, there won't be any peace. Serbs claim 500 military men, some foreign investigators say 1.500 maximum, and others go with narative like 5.000, but later they switched to 8.000. Beause, 5.000 was too obvious, since some documents/claims leaked where Alija need to sacrifice atleast 5.000 people to make NATO bomb Serbs and bring Milosevic to negotation table.
@@N0Di90iskreno brate mislim da je bolje da ovakvi videi ne idu toliko u dubinu sa detaljima. Vjerovatno bi mu RUclips kompletno obrisao kanal kad bi čovjek ispričao sve bez cenzurisanja. Svako ko je imalo istraživao "istoriju, historiju i povijest" Bosne i Hercegovine zna da za svako pitanje ima nekoliko odgovora ali u jednoj činjenici se svi slažu mnogi ljudi su propatili groznu sudbinu. Najžalostnije od svega je činjenica da ratovi nisu bili najveće zlo što se desilo, teritorija BiH je bila pod ropstvom više manje 1000 godina. A vjeruj mi ne želiš da znaš detalje tih dešavanja, život bi ti se zgadio.
Milosovic was a monster.
Like Bill Clinton
Izetbegovic and Tudjman were worse monsters
@@shazalakazoo7957 not really good and bad on both sides
serb is monster .
Quite poorly researched topic, but I don't blame you. Life is too short to get into all the intricacies of the wars in Yugoslavia. Was a bit puzzled by the use of the term "Bosnian nation". You are probably applying the American definition of the term that is used to denote a country i.e. citizenship. There is no such thing as Bosnian ethnic identity, though. Everybody who has been to Bosnia can see that the country is inexorably going towards its colapse. Ethnic divisions are greater than they have ever bee since the war. It was a mistake to insist on preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina as a country, in the first place. the 21st century is the century of nation states. All multinational countries have collapsed. Why should Bosnia be an exception? Imagine forcing Latvians and Russians to live in a joint state?
One fourth of Latvian population are Russians. Somehow they get along.
I can imagine a multinational state. I lived in one. If something happened once, it can happen again. It is possible.
I don't see how a national state is better than a multinational one. In that view, a one race state is better than a multiracial state.
If a state is not nationalistic and not rasistic, if people are not nationalistic and rasistic, what's wrong with multinational multiracial state?
Vojvodina in northern Serbia has Serbs, Croats, Romanians, and Hungarians with a smattering of Slovaks and Germans...they seem to be doing just fine. The issue with Bosnia was really the rise of the Islamicized identity plus the Croats thinking that independence was going to get them something that was never going to happen. With rising practice of Islam, the Bosniaks only isolated themselves culturally from neighboring Slavs and other Europeans, while Croatia is now under the thumb of Brussels, which is more domineering in many ways than Belgrade was. And 25% of Latvia's population is still ethnically Russian...Latvia is trying to assimilate them to an extent, but the Russians use certain EU laws to campaign for their language rights, etc.
I agree with your arguments. Bosniak politicians say that everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs to a single Bosnian nation and speak the Bosnian language, so according to their view of the situation people in Čapljina are Bosnians and speak Bosnian and when you drive a few kilometers from Čapljina cross the border with Croatia all of a sudden they are Croats and speak Croatian, even though they speak completely the same and have the same tradiotions as people in Čapljina. Or for example Zvornik in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mali Zvornik in Serbia, only a river between them and according to Bosniak politicians you cross a bridge and somewhere on the middle of the river a mirraculous change occurs and the language changes and the culture and nationality changes. All of this is absurd. Croats in Croatia and Bosnia and Hezegovina are the same people, as are Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is why Yugoslavia was the best solution for Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, because their whole peoples lived in Yugoslavia and they were not divided with ridiculous borders. Bosnia and Hezegovina on its own can not replace Yugoslavia, Bosniak politicians would like to create a separate nation, instead of pursuing cultural unity with Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. The existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina only creates tensions between Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks and it would be better if everyone would sit down at a table and with the help of pressure from great powers agree to divide it peacefully or bring back Yugoslavia
@@IvanIvanović-m8fBosnia has existed as a state since at least the 9th century, if we were talking about some newly existing state such as Slovenia, then I would understand you. Good luck trying to split a nation that’s been existing for over 1000 years.
First at all: Thank you for the video, always good to learn about history!🤗To keep it simple: From my view all started with #Tito´s death, when tensions begin to heated up and finally exploded with #Milosevic!🤔Now 30yrs later, there´s a certain stability and people rather talk to one another than fight each other, it seems there is hope that they join the #EU and unite with the rest of us!☺
Croatia is in EU - 10 years now
Former Yugoslav Republics now have no problem with a French, German etc dominated European Union 😀.
As the smaller countries Slovens and Croatians have fizzled INTO NATO/EU oblivion. No one knows where Bosnia is on the map.
No wonder the Germans, Ottomans and Italians dominated Slavs. It only makes sense that if Slavic Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox Christians can't get along then the Anglo-Saxons and Germans should rule Europe.
☪️🇧🇦💚
Bosnia is not state!! Bosnia and Hercegovina is!!
Holland is not a country, Netherlands is.
I think that explains it, it's just a nickname man it's not that important. By the way Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a state it's a country.
According to the Serbs all humanity is from a single tribe called serbucum sapines and our origin language is indo-serbian
Please explain how was Yugoslavia in the late 80s(or ever) known as "Greater Serbia"? Does the fact that the Serbs(and Montenegrins) who made 40% of the Yugoslav population made them guilty for that very fact?
What in particular do you mind about the Milosevic's 1989 speech? I'm a Serb and I'll always proudly celebrate every Serb holiday! It's not my fault that you have nothing to be proud of and mental complexes torment you as a result!
@@arman98334
The Serb Autonomous Oblasts were declared in case Bosnia becomes independent from Yugoslavia which would be unconstitutional as it would be against the political will of the Bosnian Serbs. Again, this is not Greater Serbia but the implementation of political will of the Bosnian Serbs.
Prijedor, Foča and Sanski Most had Serb majority while Brčko and Srebrenica were taken in battle.
@@arman98334
The constitution, as is the case for most federal states, also required that in every entity(Yugoslav republic) all constitutional nations had to agree in order to effectively enact secession!
The Bosnian Serbs decided to protect their own existence in case the above-mentioned constitutional requirement be neglected as it already happened in Croatia! If you don't respect the rules, don't expect from the others to follow them!
They were never a nation to begin with period.
Yeah actually they were, since the 9th century. Since the end of the 11th independently more or less, before the Turks came.
🤡
@@Jeftelwill20 It was a nation just as Sparta and Athens were a nation. The first king of Bosnia identified as a Serb and a member of a royal Nemanjić family, and wanted to unite Bosnia and Serbia as one nation.
@@serboslav1389 hahahah the king(s) of Bosnia worked on expanding Bosnia, even took a good chunk of western Serbia and incorporated it into Bosnia. They must teach Serbs a different history than what they teach the world 😂
@@Jeftelwill20 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tvrtko_I_of_Bosnia
"The idea of restoring the Serbian Empire nevertheless persisted. George discussed it in one of his charters, but the Serbian regional lords were not considered suitable. They had only recently risen to prominence and lacked illustrious family backgrounds and formal titles to their lands; they were mere "lords". Tvrtko not only controlled a significant portion of Serbia but was a member of the dynasty which had ruled as bans of Bosnia from time immemorial and - most importantly - could boast descent from the Nemanjić dynasty. A genealogy published in Tvrtko's newly conquered Serbian lands emphasized his Nemanjić ancestry, derived from his paternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of King Dragutin.[25] A Serbian logothete named Blagoje,[25] having found refuge at Tvrtko's court, attributed to Tvrtko the right to a "double crown": one for Bosnia, which his family had ruled since its foundation, and the other for the Serbian lands of his Nemanjić ancestors, who had "left the earthly realm for the heavenly kingdom". Arguing that Serbia had been "left without its pastor", Tvrtko set out to be crowned as its king." You should read more.
You have to drop this topic that is NOT why the fighting happened.
I Just ran into this channel accidentaly. Does anyone know, whether this guy (author of the channel) is russian or not?
He's Latvian
Well that explains it
I am Turkish, and Bosnia has always appeared more than a country, it is our second home alongside Azerbaijan. The Bosniaks maybe Slavs, but their affinity with us made them more Turk than actually we are.
We already know that Serbia and Croatia have sought to terrorise Bosniaks. And for three years, relentless bombing and genocidal campaigns by the Croats and Serbs resulted in the deaths of many innocent Bosniaks. The Srebrenica massacre was the last drop of it. Unfortunately Serbia and Croatia have never been held responsible for war crimes.
Nah bro, we not your second home. Ex muslim here.
Bosnian muslims and nazi croats convertits colaborated with germans together against serbians and comitted genocid and almost erased serbians from bosnia. Serbs was big majoriti there and in sarajevo
That is not what they wan to remember
When you look at a map of the region it becomes obvious to see that Bosnia and Herzegovina was actually Central Croatia.
What Croatia? The one in Hungary? Show me a Croatia not Croats a Croatia...I can also claim we Bosnian ownd most of the Croat coast and atleast build 3 city's in Montenegro like do you realy think that no one know actual history ...and please stop the shi. Whit we where all cristans so all Croats u realy don't know what ppl felt like in 12 century europ bosnia croata ...+ didn't Rome do crusades on BiH do Croatia and Hungary not feel great about trying to force shit on us ...
🤡
There is Not 3 "points of view"
There is One valid view of reality -- the more than 2000 years in sentences at the International War Crimes Tribunal
This is a worthless kangaroo court.
@@urvanhroboatos8044
Sure, just like Nuernberg
@@MrDeicide1 Nuremberg made a few mistakes, but it was generally fair, considering the circumstances. The Hague court resembles more to the Stalin's 1930s
show trials, in this case a legal travesty orchestrated by US-UK axis to subdue & manipulate - legally, historically, economically, militarily, ... B & H "protectorate" in order to prevent its natural disintegration & retain, motivated by various reasons (Islamic world connections, globalist ideology, anti-national "postmodern" world-view,..), their role of the crisis moderator in that colonial possession. Since the US pays 70% of that "court", it is no wonder that zealous prosecutor Louise Arbour, who wanted to indict US for bombing Serbia in 1999, was very quickly "dissuaded".
@@urvanhroboatos8044
"Anti-national" ( I presume you meant anti-nationalistic) Court "created by the U.S." ?
The same U.S. which turned the entire Eastern Europe into a string of CIA constructed banana republics,
Just like Latin America, and the same U.S. that installs clero-fascist mafia regimes all over the Planet?
Hey man, bang your head against the wall, till you get it.
Monstrous war crimes were committed.
Both intervention, and the Court were provoked by proven Genocide.
The World forced NATO to act. As it's Every country's Obligation to act to prevent genocide, under UN Charter.
You don't Have to play for the other team. You could just keep your mouth shut.
What did patriarch Pavle say ? "Let's be people, even though we're Serbs".
Things went too far. Even for the American corporate freaks, who like to see fascist shitholes everywhere, because that's easiest for them to exploit...
You Serbs hold the distinction, and the shame of Being the ones who took it too far.
Have you even seen a map of grater serbia
It is impossible for Croatia and Serbia to have split Bosnia if that map was achived
Whatever talks happend in 1991 didn't matter when all out war started
Just because it was (allegedly) impossible did not stop them from trying and they are STILL trying today in 2024.
@tarik6990 Serbia relentlessly attacked Vukovar for 2 full months not to mention seizure of all of so called "SAO Krajina" territory
There was no way in hell that Croatia Crotia under attack on Dubrovnik front
Nearly split in 2 (nearly bc Zadar never fell) streched on every front could somehow with serbian agressor to split Bosnia after all of that
Also no its not Croats trying to split Bosnia today We are actively trying to get you Neanderthals into EU while serbs under Dodik are kicking and screaming about it every step of the way
when films about vilnus, riga and tallin?
There is a lot of proof for the plot of Tudjman and Milosevic. You have to do a better research.
Islamic state in heart of Europe will never be.. too all muslims, now called "bosniaks", remember your ancestors, they were called "Miloš, Jovan, Ranko".. not " Mustafa, Muhamed i Kenan"..
Ovo je tak, bravo👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
This is strongly influenced by Bosniak politic views. Many of peoples counted as Bosniaks don't feel that Bosniak mentality or they can't call themselves as Bosniaks - they usually feel Bosnians (big difference) or Herzegovians. Those same Bosniaks are trying to erase Croats from existence, although Croats were here as soon as first Slavic people settled here. It is a fake national emancipation, all in interest of making an Izetbegović dynasty.
yes, this video is just one point of view
Nowhere not in Single Village in bosnia bosniaks pushed any croats away it was only Serbian controlled teritory Where croats Where threatened..in other parts of bosnia the croats always lived in Peace and freedom and all you say is totaly Propaganda you watched to spread hate
@@on1452 How about these towns:
Kakanj: 1991. Croat population 16556 or 29,6%; 2013. 2973 or 7,9%
Zenica: 1991. Croat population 22511 or 15,4%; 2013. 8279 or 7,5%
Konjic: 1991. Croat population 11513 or 26%; 2013. 1553 or 6,2%
Jablanica: 1991. Croat population 2291 or 18,1%; 2013. 726 or 7,2%
Bugojno: 1991. Croat population 16031 or 34,2%; 2013. 5767 or 18,3%
Vareš: 1991. Croat population 9016 or 40,6%; 2013. 2820 or 31,7%
@@IvanIvanović-m8f i am Not bosnian or Population expert all i can tell you is bosnia and even croatia is rapifly shrinking in Population and whole balkan probably you cant conclude from less people that there moved away that simply didnt happen why are you trying to manipulate the facts.. But even your "statistics" shows me how sick this nationalism is .. to See the whole catastrophy your countries are facing look how.many croatians are leaving croatia those days..there isnt any threat... and as long as you dont work together at the end i am thinking all people will leave no matter who..and i am almost thinking somewhere else all different groups of you will sit at the same night club far away from your origins
@@on1452 Well I showed you these statistics to refute your statement that there was no ethnic cleansing commited by the Bosniac army and Bosniac politicians. I would like to see some facts from your point of view. If you did not hear about these towns and if you are not familiar with the censuses in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1991. and 2013. then I really doubt your conclusions, because you need some sources to claim something about the Bosnian war. I am not claiming that there was no ethnic cleansing in areas controled by Croat forces. All three sides commited ethnic cleansing against the other too. Why are you mentioning only Bosnia and Croatia. All Eastern European countries have a declining population. Before 1990. it was expected that the population in Eastern Europe would rise, but since the collapse of communism the population has been declining. And these countries are only partly responsible for that decline. Countries like Germany have raised their yearly limits for accepting foreign workers. They are taking are workers away and they give us state loans in exchange and make profits. That is not enough for Germany and other countries, so they sent their private banks to rob our ordinary citizens. They are taking workers from Eastern Europe not because they want to make life better to these workers, but because they are underpaying many jobs in Germany and they want to continue that, rather than raising salaries. Foreign workers are the only ones who are accepting to work for such a low amount of money. And then these "highly moral" European politicians lectures us about democracy and human rights, while at the same time they are making deals with autocratic countries around the world. And they pretend as if they have nothing to do with colonialism and other evils, while at the same time they are having informal colonies.
I suppose you really think you know something about the matter you are talking about. So no comment, it would be to no avail.
Such a bad and biased video, why is the like to dislike ratio so good ?
Thank you Croatia for saving Bosnia. 🥰
@@arman98334 I don't understand, could you please explain what you mean ?
Paradoxically. A low-resolution argument without any weight, where Slovenia and Croatia did not depend on the independence of Bosnia. The only difference is that NATO would have reacted much earlier, in the early nineties, not in 1999, in that case against Serbia and Bosnia, i.e. Serbs and Muslims.
Why did the Croat Praljak drink poison in the Hag?
To die with Honor. Judging innocent people is beneath honor.
@@user-xj3ve7wt8k innocent...? they Herceg-Bosna were the only one who were found guilty for genocide in the Hag. Because there was a conspirisy whit Tudjam to completely eliminate Muslims from Mostar. Evern Ratko Mladić was not found guilty of that. Their are tapes on witch Tudjam is planning genocide agents the Serbs. Where ever Croats went genocide followed.
Why didn't you mentioned that Croatian general Praljak, was the person who gave the command to destroy the old bridge of Mostar. Croatian army used an old soviet tank to aim and hit the bridge. But the most important thing. Croatian general Praljak committed suicide in the court in front of his judges who gave him a live sentence as penalty. Immediately he drunk out from a small bottle a poison, by saying that he fought for his country and people and doesn't accept the live sentence cuz he was innocent. International Court for former yugoslavian war crimes.
1. He was sentenced to 20 years, not life in prison
2. The court concluded that old bridge was military target, not war crime. Praljak wasn't sentenced for destroying the bridge.
@Ante sorry, I forgot about details
Your comment reads to mean that Praljak killed himself because he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Sentence was 20 years, which means only another one and half years or so in prison since he had already spent about 13 years in pre trial internment (ICTY prisoners usually served about two thirds of the given sentence for good behaviour). That means that he didn't kill himself because of the formal 20 years sentence but because the verdict was unjust. Remember Jan Hus? He didn't set himself on fire because of hard times he had under the communist dictatorship but as a protest against injustice - same Slobodan Praljak.
@@mariocerin4105 ma nema veze na koliko je osuđen. Nego je činjenica da je za hvo napao bivše saveznike muslimane i dao zapovjed da se gađa tenkom stari mostarski most.
Glupost.
I svejedno kolika mu je kazna bila izrečena. Stvarno je glup da se utrovao u sudnici.
Ako je mogao biti u istražnom zatvoru toliko dugo, onda je ostatak kazne isto mogao sebi priuštiti. I opet bi ga hrvatski hercegovci slavili kao junaka.
Jest, ja sam pogrešno napisao dužinu kazne, ali ovo drugo smatram glupost od njega. Ako se borio za stvar koju je smatrao potrebnom, onda jebiga.... mogao se ubiti već 1993. Umjesto da radi teatarske igre u sudu.
A šta je mislio? Da će ga sud osloboditi. Njemu je trebalo biti na pameti da je za hrvate on heroj, pa bio u zatvoru ili na slobodi. A sloboda ga je čekala, jer 20 godina totalne kazne se uvijek odbije sa vremenom koji je proveo u pritvoru. Tako da mu je ostalo još mnogo manje od 18 godina. Možda se bojao da će umrijeti u zatvoru kao Milošević.
Praljak was a hero of antique stature.
West pushed war on Serbs,planty of evidence about that.Bosniaks are invented nation,like many on Balkan
You talk about bosnijaks who are they ? Such a people has never existed, your own "historians" say that your ancestors were bogomils and they were not a etnic group but members of the bogomil gnostic Church.
So what happens when a Macedonian (the church was founded there) coverts to another religion does that person become a new etnic group or does that person become a Macedonian muslim for example?!
Bosnia has never before in history been a nation so calling a Yugoslav republik a nation is rewriting history.
This is genocidal talk. Bosniaks have been around for over 1000 years but were suppressed in communist dictatorship
There were no Bogomils, this is a fiction. There was Bosnian Church, perfectly orthodox, but generally local & "self-managed". In 1450, before the Ottoman conquest, Catholics were ca. 80-85% (all bans and kings of old Bosnia), ca. 10% Bosnian Church adherents and 10% Eastern Orthodox.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Catholic yes, croat no. Identity was fluid back then and Bosnia prior to the Ottomans had pillars of statehood such as territory, alphabet (bosancica), royalty, money, etc.
@@baklava6138 Catholic and Croat both. The most important cultural artifacts from medieval Bosnia are written in Croatia (Hrvoje's Missal, Hval Miscellany); after Ottoman invasion, most Catholic Bosnians who moved to Croatia explicitly said their language was Croatian (Frano Glavinić, Ivan Tomko Mrnavić, Juraj Dragišić,...). It is true that this was a pre- national period, but for most of Catholics regional identities interweaved with ethnic, and no Bosnian or Dalmatian person of note would deny they were also Croats. This is visible also in Bosnia proper, when in the 17th C authors like Juraj Radojević Gizdelin and Augustin Vlastelinović from Sarajevo affirm their Croatian identity, as well as Bosnian Muslim authors called their identity Croatian (Ottoman historian Mustafa Aali, numerous references from the 17th C Ottoman traveler Evliya Celebi who finds Muslim Croats- he was explicit - in Bosnia, occupied Slavonia and Montenegro). The point that Bosnian Franciscans retained their proud consciousness as Bosnians doesn't alter the fact- they were the only true Bosnians in their eyes, while Muslims and Orthodox were not.
@@urvanhroboatos8044 Ivan Jukic and Antun Knezevic would beg to differ. Both catholics who claimed themselves to be Bosniaks.
Croatia has always tried to steal Bosnian history and do so to this day. Even taking Bosnian scripts and showing them in the Dubrovnik museum is pathetic. What you steal can never be yours. Bošnjani was a term for most people in Bosnia the concept of croat and serb in Bosnia is a recent invention due to the rise of nation states and “nationalities” as we know them today.
I remember this actually during the war...100% true, even to this day they are STILL trying to do this...
im bosnian and i will never forget what serbs and croats did to us.
You mean Bosniak ?
And will you forget how many civilians your mujahideens killed?
Yeah, we Croats saved your ungrateful @sses.
If you want objestive opinion, you should ask both sides. You obviusly only took one side as a truth here.
That is not a way make historical truth, this is a way to make propaganda. And you did it, either purposefully or accidnetaly.
Who are you?
It was Milosevic who divided Yugoslavia, as a united country, Milosevic could not start a war. The Yugoslav People's Army had different ethnicities when it was a united country, it was important get rid of different ethnicity so that only Serbs remained in the army. Slovenia and Croatia and others tried to unite the country, but Milosevic has other plans. Serbian Generals went to Moscow to get support, the Russians could then support Serbia they have their own problems homeland but they promised when get rid of Gorbachev can Serbia start a war. Milosevic may have been a nationalist maybe not, the masterbrain was Dobrica Cosic is considered the father of modern Serbian nationalism. Dobrica Cosic meet Radovan Karadzic back in 1967 both had an interest in Serbian history. How and why this war started is very complicated, you could write a whole book about it. Today's war is not like in the old days, In the old days, you would meet in a field and see who would be the winner and the loser. War today is very dirty
Why dont you talk about what happened to the 20 percent ethnic serb population of Mostar? Oh ya i forgot why, because you are biased
Everyone else was in the wrong except the Bosniaks and innocent civilians are only in Bosnia. Sure bro, sure just keep talking lies to yourself.
🤡
Our mission/goal was to first and foremost preserve historic Bosnian territory against the Greater nationalist politics of neighboring nations and we succeeded, how is that wrong when solid part of especially other 2 ethnicities within Bosnia also fought for that cause, Bosniaks were only factor that didnt have open "Greater Bosnia" Politics or politics of force resettling other 2 ethnicities and this is what gave great morale that the cause is Just unlike of the Serb side for ex. where they wanted to create ethnically pure Serbian land across whole Bosnia.
There are no such thing as "Bosniaks" - I grew up in Yugoslavia so I know. In Bosnia we had Serbs, Croats and Turks (or Muslims). When local Turks opted for independents of Bosnia was that I first time heard the word "Bosniaks". Previously Croatia and Slovenia started the civil war by declaring independents. Bosnia was next by Turks (38% of population) starting the next phase of civil war. The reason why the most of the weapons was inherited by Serbian soldiers was because the Croats, Slovenian and Turks simply abolished the barracks and walked away. Serbs were the first minority expelled from the Mostar municipality; Croats and Turks then continued fighting. And RELIGION was the primary reason for dissolution of Yugoslavia as the borders depict not only political but also religious dividing line!
Under the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Constitution, two autonomous regions were cut out of the Republic of Serbia by the non-ethnically Serbian Communist elite (primarily Slovenian) giving those regions quasi-republic status with veto power over the administration of Serbia in Belgrade but not reciprocating the same veto power in Belgrade over the administration of said autonomous regions... pretty much ensured gridlock in Serbia which the same Slovenian elite then brushed off as a state issue and not of federal concern even though they wrote the constitution... but somehow you are trying to propagate the propagandist lie that the Serbs did or were trying to or could even come to dominate the old SFR Yugoslavia from such a divided, convoluted and constitutionally compromised position... rubbish
More importantly, just to demonstrate that the likes of the Croatians and Bosniaks were not discriminated against but rather benefited under the Yugoslav constitution as compared to us Serbs, the constitutional reforms that gave Vojvodina and Kosovo autonomy were not replicated in Bosnia and Croatia where there were large, long standing Serbian populations (which did though enjoy constitutional safeguards --> ie. recognised as constituent peoples of said republics and thus, a fundamental component and not simply a minority that cannot be outvoted on fundamental issues by the more numerous other nationalities)... this is important because when the Republic of Croatia looked to secede from Yugoslavia, the Croatian government simply terminated the constituent status of the Croatian Serbs which their constituent status was supposed to ensure could not happen leading to the war in Croatia... As for Bosnia, by its own revised constitution, the Serbs of Bosnia were recognised as one of Bosnia's three constituent nations and ANY FUNDAMENTAL issue as to Bosnia needed the agreement of all three nations to be enacted but when it came to the referendum you mentioned, the Bosniak leader, Alija Izetbegović, pushed it threw without the agreement or participation of Bosnia's Serbs claiming he would sacrifice peace for Bosnia's sovereignty... Then when a peace agreement had been reached between the three nations of Bosnia - ie. Serbs, Bosnian Muslims (that's what they were called then), and Croats - under the auspices of the European Community (ie. Cutiliero Plan) which allowed for an independent and sovereign but decentralized Bosnian state, Izetbegović then met with the US ambassador, Zimmerman, and following said meeting withdrew his agreement for the peace plan and voila --> a dirty, destructive civil war
And you mentioned nothing of the above... Why I wonder? Not letting the truth get in the way of smearing two peoples that literally spent centuries fighting for their freedom in Bosnia from that Ottoman heritage you spoke of
As for Bosnian statehood, that is also a complicated issue... Clearly, Bosnia was its own state in mediaeval times but that was smashed by the Ottomans in the 15th Century much like the rest of the Balkans and was under Ottoman domination (although Bosniaks seemed to like it) until the late 19th Century when the decay of the Ottoman Empire, numerous revolts (primarily Christian) against the Ottomans, and independence movements elsewhere in the Balkans (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro) saw Austria-Hungary step in and assume administration of Bosnia in 1878(?) and simply unilaterally annex the territory in 1908... After the end of WWI, an unofficial state emerged incorporating the previously held Austria-Hungarian territories of the subsequent republics of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina called the 'State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs' which later merged with the Kingdom of Serbia (incorporating Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Macedonia) to create Yugoslavia --> no reference to Bosnia... In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, no demarcation of Bosnia even though a Banovina of Croatia was created between WWI and WWII... During WWI to the Western powers offered for Bosnia to be annexed by Serbia after the war... When there were negotiations in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to resolve inter-ethnic disputes, an agreed to but not implement agreement would have seen Yugoslavia reorganised into 3 separate regions within Yugoslavia, those regions were Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia... Again, no Bosnia
The modern day conception of the Bosnian state stems from the Communist anti-fascist resistance in Bosnia in WWII and a declaration by said resistance that the Serbs (since we were the largest ethnic group in Bosnia at the time), Muslims and Croats were for the FIRST TIME acting as the tailors of their own destinies in Bosnia... the problem of course is that they were not the only group acting in Bosnia at the time... Moreover, if they were acting of their own accord for the very first time, why should those decisions (eg. joining Yugoslavia, within said boundaries) and those borders be inviolable? For example, many Virginians at the outset of the American civil war were loyal to Virginia before the Federal United States and so, seceded but those that wanted to remain with the Union did and hence, the new state of West Virginia
You really need to rid yourself of this belief that people unlike you are simpler than you and thus, you can simply sweep in with a 20 minute video explaining away centuries of complex history, politics, religion, identity etc. with a 'bad Serbs, okay Croats, poor Bosniaks' explanation
This video is very biased
Greece is not really part of the Balkans. It's more of a Mediterranean country and the Balkans seperate Greece from the countries north of it.
😊
Biased representation...